HC Deb 20 February 1931 vol 248 cc1703-24

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir D. HERBERT

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House will remember that four weeks ago, on 23rd January, the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), and considerable reference was then made to this Bill which I now have the honour to move. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University and myself have the same object in view, and, therefore, we have agreed, as it appeared to meet with the approval of this House when his Bill was being discussed, that both these Bills should be referred to the same Select Committee, in order that the best Bill might be produced to achieve the objects which both of us desire to attain.

The immediate reason of these Bills is that, during the last few years, considerable publicity has been given, and considerable attention called, to a number of cases in which, owing to the financial failure of and defalcations by members of the solicitors' profession, a number of persons have suffered considerable hardship. It is quite unnecessary for me to attempt to defend the profession to which I have the honour to belong. Members on all sides of the House were good enough, four weeks ago, to speak in sufficiently complimentary terms of the profession as a whole to make it quite unnecessary for any members of the profession to attempt any defence in this House against aspersions which do not exist in any responsible quarters. But where you have a profession consisting of some 15,000 persons, many of whom, I venture to say, would never have been members of that profession if the profession itself could control entry to it, where you have a profession of that number of which, subject to certain examinations, it is easy for a man to become a member, it must be inevitable that there should be a certain number of what one may describe as black sheep. As a result of the publicity which was given to these cases, a number of questions were asked in this House. It was quite obvious that public opinion was aroused, that there was a feeling that this matter of defalcation on the part of solicitors ought to be gone into, and that there should be at least some inquiry that would lead to Parliament doing something to mitigate the evil.

I ought, perhaps, to give in very few words what happened within the profession when this agitation, as I may call it, first arose. The Council of the Law Society took up the matter immediately, and—to use the language of the present day—explored every avenue they could think of, to see how this matter could be dealt with. The Council of the Law Society came to certain conclusions, and were prepared to promote a Bill accordingly, but they felt—and, I think, felt rightly—that a Bill of the kind, put forward by leading members of the profession, ought to have the whole of the profession at the back of it, including the country solicitors. The country solicitors, of course, are in many respects somewhat different from London solicitors. They work under different circumstances, and very often have a very different class of practice. As a result of those differences, a difficulty arose in that some of the provincial law societies could not see their way to agree to the proposals which were put forward mainly at the instance of London lawyers, and that led us, to some extent, to a deadlock.

Here, perhaps, it is only fair that I should pay a tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, who was at that time a member of the Council of the Law Society, and who took the courageous course of saying, that unless the profession could get together and agree on some particular method of dealing with this matter, then he would go forward on his own account and promote a Bill of his own. That, as I say, courageous action on my hon. Friend's part had, I think, a very useful result, because it contributed not a little to the fact that, after further discussion, the Law Society were able to get the approval of the provincial law societies as well to certain proposals. The result is that I am now able to say that this Bill, which I ask the House to read a Second time to-day, is put forward with the strongest approval, not only of the Law Society, which contains some 10,000 out of a total of 15,000 practising solicitors of the country, but with the approval of the provincial law societies as well.

Having said that, perhaps I may claim this for the profession, that when, as has happened now, this kind of criticism of the profession arises, the profession is prepared to do what it can to meet the criticism, and to try to reform abuses within the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, having evolved his scheme and got it set out in a Bill, a Second Reading has been given to the Bill on the understanding, or with the general approval of the House, which I mentioned before, that that Bill and this one should go to the same Committee. I want only to say with regard to my hon. Friend's Bill, that it sets out certain machinery with regard to the keeping of clients' accounts. He knows, and will be one of the first to admit, the very great difficulties there are in making quite certain that any set of rules of that kind will be entirely satisfactory, and that there will not be found difficulties in the working of them.

The Bill which I am now proposing does not contain any definite provisions as to the keeping of separate banking accounts for the purposes of clients' money. What it does contain is a provision that the Law Society will, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, make rules from time to time for the professional conduct and discipline of solicitors. Then it goes on to provide that these rules shall be enforceable by fines and disciplinary measures. It is the admitted intention of the Law Society, if a Clause in that form be passed into law, to make rules to some such effect as is contained in the Bill of my hon. Friend. Having discussed this matter over and over again, both with those who sympathise with us and those who are opposed to us, we feel that a satisfactory set of rules with regard to the keeping of separate accounts can only ultimately he arrived at by what one might almost describe as a process of trial and error. In other words, it is too much to expect that the first set of rules prepared will be found to be in every respect satisfactory. We therefore think that it is better in a case of this kind, where obviously these rules must be made by specialists who understand them and the working of them—in other words, by members of the profession—that power should be given to the Law Society to make them, and, of course, power to alter them from time to time. Therefore, the object which my hon. Friend aims at in his Bill would be attained—there is no enmity between us over this—by the working of Clause 3 of the Bill which I am now proposing.

3.0 p.m.

I promised just now to make a little more clear what is the Law Society to which we are asked to give power to make these rules with the consent of the Master of the Rolls. I ask the House particularly to note the provision of the Bill that these rules can only be made by the Society, not by the Council of the Society. We are not asking that they shall be made by a despotic body of what may be called leading members of the profession. We are asking that they shall be made by the Society as a whole. That means, that if the Bill be carried, the rules will have to he approved by a majority of the whole members of the profession. It is obvious in a case of this kind that the rules will be drafted in the first place by the Council, which is the executive body of the Society, but there is no need for any members of the profession generally to have any fear that the government and management of the affairs of the profession will be anything but thoroughly democratic, and that any one member of the profession will not have as good a right as any other to have his voice heard in a matter of the kind. The rules so made by the Society will require the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls. That is in accordance with the whole history of legislation in regard to the profession. The Master of the Rolls is regarded as the particular judge whose business is to see that members of the profession generally act in accordance with the regulations by which they are governed and the duties that are expected of them. Therefore, it is clear that, while these rules must be made with the assent of the profession as a whole, they cannot be made in any way to the detriment of those for whom the profession acts, or to the detriment of the people in the country as a whole, because their interests will be protected by that eminent judge of the High Court, the Master of the Rolls.

Mr. EDE

Is every solicitor a member of the Law Society?

Sir D. HERBERT

I am just coming to that point. It is a perfectly proper question to ask. What I said was that, if this Bill were carried, the Society would include every member of the profession.

Mr. WESTWOOD

It would be compulsory trade unionism then. That is a good idea.

Sir D. HERBERT

The hon. Member is perfectly justified from the point of view of party matters, to attempt a little party gibe, but I am certain that my hon. Friends upon the other side of the House—if I may call them so on this occasion for the purpose of this Bill—are all anxious to see something done to meet the difficulties which this Bill is intended to meet. Therefore, though the question of compulsory trade unionism would be out of order in a discussion on this Bill, I will say a word on that point so far as it is necessary, and germane to the subject, when I come to that Clause dealing with it. Clause 3, with which I have dealt so far, disposes for present purposes of my hon. Friend's Bill.

The other provisions of my Bill deal with matters which are not dealt with by the other Bill. Clause 2 provides that the profession shall set apart certain moneys and establish a fund for charitable purposes to relieve hard cases where persons have suffered from the misdeeds of a member of the profession. The vast majority of cases of those who have suffered from the defalcations of solicitors, in the last few years have been cases in which the sufferers were poor persons. The amounts involved have not been very large, but the loss, suffering and hardship to those who have lost these comparatively small sums has been very great indeed. We do not think that it is fair or is to be expected that the profession as a whole should take upon its shoulders the making good of all loss caused by the misdeeds of any member of the profession. No trade in the country would agree to that; for instance, there would be a great outcry if it were suggested that the honest grocers should be required to pay the debts of a dishonest grocer who went bankrupt. We realise, however, that as a profession which has privileges it is our duty to try to work for the benefit of our clients. It is incumbent upon us morally, though not legally, to do something, for the honour of the profession, to help those hard cases of which I have spoken, such as that of a working man of mature years who has saved £100 or £200 and loses the whole of it through the misdeeds of a solicitor. Therefore, we ask for powers to establish a fund of this kind, to be at the disposal of the Council of the Law Society for the purpose of making such grants as may be deemed necessary or desirable to relieve persons who may suffer hardships as a result of the defaults of any solicitor. After any such sum has been so set aside, it shall not be lawful to use it for any other purpose.

The first Clause proposes to define that every member of the profession shall, of necessity, be a member of the Law Society. As I have said just now, we ask Parliament for power to make rules to regulate the conduct of members of the profession, to maintain discipline among them, and to see that they so manage their affairs that there is less chance of causing loss to their clients. If there are to be rules of that kind to govern the entire profession, it is only in accordance with business principles as well as with democratic ideas that every member of the profession should have an equal voice in deciding what those rules are, so far as they are decided by the profession. There is scarcely an organised profession in the country which has not powers of regulating and disciplining its members, in order to ensure that the public may know they are employing properly qualified persons who are under some sort of supervision. During recent years dentists, architects, surveyors and auctioneers have come to this House asking for similar legislation for their professions, and within limits it is essential for the protection of the public that they should have certain powers. I do not think there is a single profession which is organised, and where qualified members of the profession belong to a particular institution or an incorporated body, where membership of that body is not necessary to enable him to carry on his profession. Therefore we are only asking that something should be done in this case which has been done in other professions, but which is not at present applicable to the solicitors profession, because in their case solicitors from the earliest days have been governed by various Acts of Parliament. For these reasons, we ask that every person who wishes to join the profession must become a member of the Law Society. This condition will not impose upon those who join any obligation, hindrance, or restriction except those which are necessary in the interests of honesty, and it is necessary for the success of relations between the profession, the courts, and the public that there should be such regulations.

Mr. CARTER

Clause 1, Sub-section (3) provides that Section 16 of the Solicitors Act, 1828, shall apply to every solicitor who applies for a certificate to practise without having paid the annual subscription for the current year, or any fine which shall have been imposed upon him by the committee hereinafter mentioned. Does that mean that if he objects to pay the fine imposed upon him he cannot practise?

Sir D. HERBERT

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Those fines could only be levied in accordance with rules which will have been approved, and which are considered to be necessary for the enforcement of this Act. The only discipline which the Discipline Committee of the Law Society now exercises over the members of the profession is that of suspending a member from practice or striking him off the Roll, and that is only adopted in serious cases of what one may call criminal offences. We want to make rules ensuring that a solicitor shall keep proper accounts, and, as it would be rather harsh to suspend a man from his practice for small offences, we want the power to levy a fine instead of taking such a stringent measure as striking him off the roll, or suspending him.

Mr. CARTER

He may still be a conscientious objector to something done by the society, and he is, therefore, penalised because he has a conscience.

Mr. WESTWOOD

Can any solicitor have a conscience?

Mr. PALMER

No.

Sir D. HERBERT

Let me put it in this way. It is not desirable that the solicitor's profession should contain members who are conscientious objectors to keeping proper accounts, or conscientious objectors to taking proper care of their clients' money. That is the whole point. With regard to Sub-section (3), to which the hon. Member referred, I may, perhaps, just mention one thing in passing. The whole of the restrictions relating to the carrying on of the solicitor's profession are rather complicated, and do not really arise on this Bill; but it is, perhaps, necessary to explain that, in addition to getting qualified and getting placed on the roll as a solicitor, a solicitor has to obtain an annual certificate every year to allow him to practise. It is that annual certificate which is referred to here, and that is one of the methods of keeping a certain check upon a man's honesty and his suitability to be a solicitor; because, if he becomes bankrupt, or is guilty of some offence which makes him an improper person to practise as a solicitor, his certificate to practise can, in proper circumstances, be withheld, subject always to an appeal to the courts. In every case here the courts always have the last word. Neither the council nor the statutory committee nor the society as a whole can do anything with regard to their members, or inflict any punishment upon them, without the court, whose officers the solicitors are, having the last say in the matter.

I have only one other point to deal with, and that is in connection with compulsory membership of the society. As I have said, the total number of members of the profession at the present time is some 15,000, of whom 10,000 are members of the society, the subscription being, I think I am right in saying, two guineas for members in London and one guinea for members in the country. Incidentally, may I say that it is a trifle for a solicitor to have to pay that annual sum, compared with what he has to pay to the Government as a general tax, for which neither he nor the profession gets any benefit whatsoever. The annual certificate for which he has to pay every year—

Mr. CARTER

It is very hard on the poor man, who is just entering the profession, to make him pay this guinea a year.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Five pounds.

Sir D. HERBERT

No; part of that he has to pay already. That is fixed by the State, and is not for the society at all. Membership of the society is only a matter of a guinea for country members or two guineas for those in London.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I see that you want to take power to make it more at any time you like after you have got this Bill through.

Sir D. HERBERT

Is that so? I do not think it is. The hon. Member will, perhaps, tell me.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 contains these words: On production of the admission signed by the Master of the Rolls and on payment to the Society of a fee not exceeding five pounds and also of such annual subscription or proportion thereof as may from time to time be fixed by the Council in accordance with the byelaws of the Society.

Sir D. HERBERT

That five pounds is the fee which the society, under the provisions of Acts of Parliament, has to raise for the State and for certain purposes when these certificates are granted every year, and it is in accordance with those by-laws that they have to do it under Acts of Parliament; but I do not think that there is any case here of any right or power—I am sure there is not—for the council to increase the guinea or two guineas which is necessary for membership of the society. Incidentally, it is, of course, quite certain that that could not be done without the consent of the members as a whole The great point that I want to bring out with regard to the increase of membership that will result is that, by getting this increased number of members, the society will, we hope, be put to no appreciable extra expense, but will have an additional income of, perhaps, £5,000 a year. That will enable them to set aside every year a sum to form the fund to which I have already referred, which is to be kept as a relief fund.

Mr. BUCHANAN

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the society will have an additional income of £5,000 a year. Does that mean that, at a guinea or £1 per head, there are 5,000 solicitors who are not in the society?

Sir D. HERBERT

Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Then it is intended to coerce 5,000 into the society?

Sir D. HERBERT

If the hon. Member had been here during the earlier part of my speech, he would have known that these questions have already been disposed of. In the first place, the necessity from the individual solicitor's point of view of every member of the profession being a member of the society is that he should have a voice in the framing of these rules. With regard to the £5,000, I have stated that it is the case that the total number of practising solicitors is approximately 15,000 of whom approximately 10,000 are members now and, if they all have to become members, that will give us another £5,000. As he has to pay £5 a year to the State, and certain other fees as well, the addition of £1 is small for the purposes of this charitable fund for the benefit of poor persons who may suffer compared with what he has to pay to the general revenues of the country.

The profession is a peculiar one in this sense, that it is the only one which has numerous and complicated restrictions imposed upon it by a number of Acts of Parliament, and it is the only profession the members of which are made specially officers of the Courts, as a result of which they must have in every case a qualified duty only to their client, qualified by a duty at the same time to the Court. That is a duty that is necessary if we are to maintain any sense of honour and honesty in dealings between man and man where lawyers have to be brought in to assist in the work. Under these conditions, the discipline of members of the society is obviously not only difficult but is of immense importance and interest to the people of the country as a whole. In the circumstances, the Law Society has come to the conclusion that a Bill of this kind ought to be dealt with by a Select Committee before which any individuals or any organised body of persons who have special reason for putting evidence forward in regard to what ought to be done should have an opportunity of being heard. I hope, therefore, that, in pursuance of the course the House took a month ago, it will give this Bill a Second Reading with the feeling that the profession is doing the very best it can to preserve its honour, its reputation and its usefulness to those whom it serves, and that having given the Bill a Second Reading, it will agree to send it to a Select Committee, together with the Bill of my hon. Friend, so that it can be considered and the best scheme can be hammered out for dealing with the object we both desire to attain.

Sir J. WITHERS

I support the Bill for the purpose of sending it to a Joint Select Committee, but I think it is my duty to point out the difference between it and the Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading, which I brought in a month ago. They both deal with the scandal of solicitors' defalcations. There are two main ways of dealing with it—prevention and cure. My Bill was definitely directed to prevent it. That is to say, it advocated solicitors being compelled to keep proper books of account, to keep their clients' money in a separate banking account and always to have in hand sufficient money to meet their clients' balances, and that that fact should be proved either by a certificate of an auditor, or, if the Committee would allow it, by the declaration of the solicitor himself. The Bill is not definitely committed either to prevention or to cure. Cure can be effected by making the profession pay up the whole of the defalcations which the members of the profession have committed. That is the principle which is the alternative, in my view, to the idea of prevention.

I will take the different points which arise on this Bill and give the House my criticism upon them, not for the purpose of asking the House to reject the Bill, but to enable it to see the points upon which the two Bills differ, and upon which, I hope, the Joint Select Committee will decide. First of all, the Bill provides for compulsory membership of the Law Society. I do not see any objection whatever to compulsory membership, but membership of a society in itself does not really carry the matter any further. The question is what you do with the members when you get them; what discipline you impose upon them. Therefore, as far as I can see, compulsory membership of the society may be quite innocuous by itself, and not lead us very much further. Secondly, it is proposed to put aside the subscriptions of the additional members, some 5,000 guineas per annum, as a relief fund for hard cases. My view is that all cases of defalcations by solicitors are hard cases. I think that, if a man steals £20 from a widow and it is her all, it is a very hard case; if he steals £200 from a widow and it is her all, it is a very hard case; if he steals £20,000 from a man and it is his all, it is a very hard case; and if he steals £100,000 from a man and it is his all, it is a very hard case. I see no reason, personally, why one should be provided for and not the other. I should like very much to see all defalcations of solicitors provided for, if the question of cure is going to be gone into. My criticism of this proposal is that the relief fund will only provide a very small percentage, very much less than 10 per cent., of the average amount of defalcations of solicitors taken over a term of years. If you are going to cure, you had better cure altogether.

I come to the question of rules for professional conduct and discipline. Power is vested, for democratic reasons which my hon. Friend has stated in the whole body of 15,000 solicitors. I have always found that three or four solicitors find it very difficult to agree on any positive proposal, but, if you are going to try and get 15,000 solicitors to agree on any positive proposal, I will tell the House that it is an absolute impossibility.

Sir D. HERBERT

It is not being suggested that it is necessary to have unanimity. This body, like every other body, presumably, will be governed by means of a majority vote.

Sir J. WITHERS

That is quite correct, but I think it will always be found that there will be a majority against any positive proposal. All members of the Society are very anxious to do the right thing. I am perfectly satisfied about that, but they have not been able to agree upon any concrete proposal. I do not think that they will be able to agree. For 25 years they have been talking this matter over. All sorts of proposals have been put forward, but nothing has been done. Everybody is extremely critical and wants a perfect Bill, and the result is that there is always a majority against any particular thing being done. We can judge that particularly from what recently happened. When this Bill was first brought in by the Council of the Law Society, very properly, it was drawn in the following way: The Society with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls may make and from time to time alter, revoke and amend rules for the professional conduct and discipline of solicitors, and, with the like concurrence, shall make and from time to time alter, revoke and amend rules for carrrying into effect the above mentioned purposes. Then it went on to stipulate two special things that had to be done: (a) "as to the opening and, keeping of banking accounts into which a solicitor shall pay the money of his clients and as to the conditions under which such accounts shall be operated"; That was a positive proposal. It proceeded: (b) "as to the keeping by a solicitor of accounts containing such particulars and information as to moneys received, held or paid for or on account of clients as may be prescribed by such rules. What happened when this came before the general meeting of the Law Society? It was so much criticised that, finally, a vote was passed cutting out every operative proposal of that Bill. The result is, that it has come before this House to-day in its emasculated condition. I want the House clearly to understand that it is not because the profession do not want to do the right thing—they do want to do the right thing—but they are so keen about it that they cannot agree what to do. In these circumstances it is essential that Parliament should lay down exactly the principles which it wishes to be adopted. The principles in my Bill may be right or they may be wrong, but whatever principles have to be carried out they will have to be set out very clearly. Then it will have to be delegated to some body, either the Law Society or a committee of the Law Society, such as the Discipline Committee, to make rules for carrying out those principles. Unless Parliament does that, we shall be here 25 years hence—I do not suppose that I shall be here, but somebody else will be here—talking about this thing, exactly in the same way, and nothing whatever will be done. I know full well that my hon. Friend is actuated by the very best feelings and the very best aid, and I know that the society is similarly actuated, but we differ in principle, and it is for that reason that we ask this House to send these two Bills to a Joint Select Committee, so that that Committee can take the two Bills, see what is best in both of them and turn them into a positive Statute, which will have to be carried out.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

The House has had evidence of the peculiar features of the legal fraternity. There are certain things that they will undertake to do for you, but in no case whatever will they accept responsibility. You ask them, for instance, for their opinion upon a knotty legal point. You even go to the extent of getting one of the most celebrated barristers and paying him a very heavy fee, and he will give you his opinion, but you will be told that he is not responsible for that opinion, if you act upon it and it leads to your losing a large sum of money.

Sir D. HERBERT

May I remind the hon. Member that this Bill does not deal with barristers.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE

I know, but it is the same when you consult a solicitor. He will do his best for you, but my point is that he will not accept responsibility and that it is always the client who has to shoulder the responsibility. Lawyers will not accept responsibility for risks run by their clients. They will encourage their clients to take risks—

Mr. REMER

May I ask the hon. Member whether he is prepared to accept responsibility for all the misdeeds of the present Government?

Mr. MUGGERIDGE

We are not talking about the misdeeds of the present Government but of the misdeeds of lawyers. If you go with your deeds which you do not wish to keep in your own house and, instead of giving them to the bank, who would do it much better, you entrust your lawyer with them he will take them and give you every assurance that they are all right in his possession, but he will not take any final responsibility. That is a point which strikes me always about the law, and if I wanted a proof of it this Bill is a sufficient proof in itself. It reveals that in the legal profession there is this weakness, that now and again there is a defaulting member who betrays his trust and more unfortunately betrays his client, who generally has to pay the penalty. The profession will not accept responsibility for such a member, and this Bill merely makes the situation more presentable to the public but does not do anything in the way of accepting responsibility.

What are they proposing? They are proposing to set up a fund, but they are very careful not to call it an assurance fund. It is simply a fund. What are they going to do with it? As one may expect from lawyers the words in the Bill are very carefully chosen. They are not going to make good what the client of a defaulting lawyer has lost, they are going to give him or her, relief; it is a charitable affair. My lawyer disappears with all my worldly wealth and chattels, and they are going to take into account the fact that I am an old man but at the same time will give me credit for being rather foolish in trusting a lawyer and in placing my goods and chattels in his custody. They will take all that into account, and as they are very sorry for me, as I am not able to earn a living in my old age, they will make me a contribution out of their fund. "Let us see how many people we have dependent upon the fund. Yes, we can spare, say, £2 per week." That is obviously the position visualised by this Bill.

I object to relief. A man who has had his property stolen wants restitution not relief, and I want to know whether the legal fraternity, collectively, are going to accept responsibility for all their members for the honour of their profession, whether they are going to accept full responsibility and give back to a too trusting client the full extent of the loss he has incurred through his misplaced trust. Or are they going to tell the world at large, "We will continue not to accept responsibility. We will give you advice. If you act upon it and lose money, well, you may carry the baby. If you entrust us with your money we will take care of it, but if any of our profession should fail in the trust, it is you who must bear the consequences. We are very sorry, and may come along and deal out to you some doles week by week, or a lump sum out of the £5,000 in order to make some sort of allowance to you." But that is all.

They do not use the word "assurance." I think they ought to do so. I suppose the number of ships lost at sea every year exceeds the number of members of the law who are lost in the bankruptcy court. What does the shipowner do? He insures and recovers this amount. Let the legal profession insure against those "ships" that go on the rocks. That is all I ask. But they will not take the risk. The other people do take the risk. [Interruption.] The legal profession does not like the layman's point of view, and I am putting the layman's point of view. Over and over again from both sides of the House we have heard the legal gentlemen. I am now putting the plain layman's point of view, and I say that that point of view is as worthy of consideration as the point of view of the legal profession. Suppose that they do not do that. I ask them what they ask us about our Unemployment Insurance Fund—is it actuarially sound? I ask the lawyers whether this is actuarially sound before I entrust my goods and chattels to any individual lawyer. What steps are they taking to find out? If from the Government Benches we had brought forward this Bill the first question the lawyers would have asked would have been. "Who is your actuary?"

Has it been stated that the thing is sound? No. Why? Because all the way through they really are very careful to decline to accept responsibility. The hon. Member who preceded me let the cat out of the bag. What I had thought he proved was the fact by lifting up the curtain. They cannot agree amongst themselves and they are afraid to accept any responsibility in the matter. Take another matter. I suppose that all of us feel very strongly the tragedy or injustice of the third party in a street accident, when he loses his goods or is injured and then finds that there is no means of recovery because the man who ran over him is a man of straw. That ought to be applied to accidents—I call them accidents for politeness—in a lawyer's office. If a lawyer's office comes to grief, and I happen to have been the man who left my goods there, at least my wife would consider herself the third party if I lost my possessions. Yet she has no recourse against the lawyer at all under this Bill, nor have I. The lawyers may send round their gentleman, who is possibly taken over from the Charity Organisation Society, to inquire into the matter, and when he has reported that Mrs. Muggeridge is the wife of a very respectable person and is entitled to some solatium for the loss by the accident which has occurred in a street where the lawyers are found, that is all I shall get out of it or she will get out of it.

The principle is wrong. There ought to be, for these too trusting people who go to lawyers, some means of obtaining security. They ought to have safeguards and if I am told that safeguards are impossible I have a very definite reply. If the legal gentlemen present do not mind me taking them into my confidence, I may say that I have been consulted now and again by people who have had little bits of money left to them, and the very last thing I suggest to them is that they should put it with the lawyers. I have always said to them "If you cannot take care of these deeds and things yourself, give them to the Public Trustee." The Public Trustee ought to be the compulsory custodian of all deeds left on trust by private individuals. That is the only security that can be given to people of property. I feel that this speech is on my part a generous gesture because it is scarcely my métier to speak on behalf of people of property. I find that most people are unconcerned about this question because they have nothing to leave but there are some people, especially women who may be left with small properties and all they can do is to go to the legal gentleman. I think that is very unfortunate.

It is not that I doubt the legal gentlemen individually. It is only collectively that I doubt them, because they will not stand by each member of their own profession. I suppose they think that in the legal world, as in the mechanical world, the chain is as strong as its weakest link. I suppose they know in their heart of hearts, though they would not say so here, that there are weak links in the legal chain and they are making some effort to strengthen those links, but I hope they will not go to work in this way. My opinion is that in the case of property, where the person concerned cannot be the sole custodian, the proper thing to do is to put the matter in the hands of the Public Trustee and that lawyers holding deeds of value should be bound to lodge them with the Public Trustee. The same thing applies to shares in companies. Over and over again we have instances of the way in which shares can be dealt with. These documents which are the bases of any possible transactions ought to be in safe custody and, failing the Bank of England, I suggest the Public Trustee. There is no lawyer's office in the land which I would trust with the custody of these things, because lawyers unfortunately are subject to the ups and downs of other people, and to temptation.

It is true that they seldom pay out money of their own. They receive money but they do not pay out. They are not like the manufacturer who has to put his own capital into his business. You can start a lawyer's office and the only capital you need is that which is represented by your own brains, an office-boy, a plate on the door, and a little back office where you can, in privacy, receive possible clients. You can start in business as a lawyer without any capital at all, and they go through business without any capital to a large extent; and they are the last people in the world who ought to be trusted with other people's capital. As individuals, they are as good as the rest of us, but because they are in that position, and because they may now and again incur obligations which their own estate, even if it is sold up, is incapable of meeting, I think they are not the proper people to tell simple souls—they are mostly simple souls who come about these matters—to go to with their little bits of property or the administration of their wills and all that sort of thing. The proper thing is to go to the Public Trustee, or, failing that, the legal profession should give security to the world at large by agreeing that every document of value, without which a buying or selling transaction cannot take place, shall be lodged with the Public Trustee. Only then will you get, in accordance with the principles in which we believe on this side, that absolute security which the collective power of the nation alone supplies.

Mr. EDE

I beg to second the Amendment.

One had the pleasing spectacle a few minutes ago of seeing the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) eulogising the profession to which he belongs and then the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), himself a member of the same profession, providing the complete answer to it. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, in which he showed how the profession itself was declining to shoulder the real responsibility in the matter, made the most damning case possible against the Bill. The hon. Member for Watford was very careful, in referring to this fund, to refer to it every time as a charitable fund, and it is quite obvious that, as far as he is concerned, persons who lose their money through the defalcations of their solicitors will have no claim against their solicitors at all.

It seems to me that by this Bill the solicitor's profession is going to secure very great advantages that might make it consider whether it is not worth while accepting greater responsibility in exchange. They are going to be able to compel every person who wants to practise as a solicitor to be a member of their society before he can even so practise. That, in itself, gives them an amount of control over these people that ought to be paid back to the public by the acceptance of this responsibility. I gather that the hon. Member for Cambridge University is himself in favour of a greater measure of responsibility being accepted by the profession as a whole. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Watford pleading for a compulsory membership of the trade union, and the arguments that he advanced in favour of it are arguments that I am sure will be well remembered on this side when certain other matters are before this Assembly. He certainly made out a very good case that every professional calling should be able to decide as to the people who are to carry on the calling, and to control them once they are inside it. He draws the line simply at moral and financial responsibility.

I cannot help thinking that if this Bill becomes law, or a Bill in anything like this form, it will mean that people will be very much misled as to the safety of their property and deeds if they are left to the solicitors. I cannot help thinking that those simple souls who seem to confide in my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge), and therefore apparently prove their simplicity all the more, once they hear there is a fund, will think they have some greater measure of protection than they have now. It is quite plain that, as far as the hon. Member for Watford is concerned, he would not be prepared to tell any client of his who came to him that the fund gave a security at all. It is quite obvious that it is only when inquiries have been made by the Law Society that the person will know whether he is entitled to receive some compensation for the loss sustained, and it will be ex gratia.

Then we come to the other points in the original Bill as read out by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. All of them made it incumbent, apparently, upon the Law Society to frame rules that would give a great amount of detailed assurance to those clients, but their compulsory nature has been wiped out in this Bill. In submitting these proposals for a body of 15,000 people, whose whole training is against agreement, who, if they reached agreement at too early a stage, would lose their living altogether, it is not likely that they will ever promote a set of positive rules which can be applied to the profession, and I believe these people will not feel that they have any real security whatsoever. I was not at all satisfied with the answer which the hon. Member for Watford gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) with regard to the question of the subscription. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 proposes to put a new Section 11 into the Solicitors Act, 1888, which provides On production of the admission signed by the Master of the Rolls and on payment to the Society of a fee not exceeding five pounds and also of such annual subscription or proportion thereof as may from time to time be fixed by the Council. I gather that the hon. Member for Watford said that that was a sum fixed by the State, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals was not referring to the £5, but to the annual subscription. As I read the amended Section, it might be any sum that is fixed from time to time by the majority of members of the society. We have had, during the past few years, a series of Bills presented to this House in which various callings have tried to erect themselves into professions controlling the entrance to their profession, and while I desire to see in every profession a governing body which shall maintain a standard of professional honour, I am very suspicious that some of these Measures are promoted with a view to excluding the small man from getting his footing into these professions, through gradually raising the subscriptions for membership of the body which is to control the profession once it is established.

This Bill represents one side of the solicitors' view of this matter. The Bill of the hon. Member for Cambridge University represents another view, and I am bound to say that, having read them both, and having taken the precaution to consult a solicitor on them, I was advised that both of them would be quite ineffective to control the solicitor who was determined to be dishonest, and that with regard to the solicitor who, against all his natural propensities, was determined to be honest, it would impose such heavy charges upon him that it might make him even feel whether a virtue ought not to have something other than itself for its reward. I hope, therefore, that before this House assents to either of these Bills, the profession itself will strive to find out which particular horse it wants to back, so that we may feel that when we put our money on the horse it will at least have the backing of both the breeder and the trainer.

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 23rd February.