Lords Sitting of 1 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Administering of Poison; Attorneys, Solicitors, Proctors, and Certificated Conveyancers.
THE ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (No. 2) BILL.
  ATTORNEYS, SOLICITORS, PROCTORS, AND CERTIFICATED CONVEYANCERS BILL.

    BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
    LORD CHELMSFORD, having presented Petitions from the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and John Turner, against the Attorneys and Solicitors Bill, said, the presentation of these two petitions was a fitting introduction to the Bill which he was now about to lay upon the table, and to which he hoped their Lordships would give a first reading. It was not his intention to explain its provisions, but only the circumstances under which he thought it proper that it should be introduced. In the course of last year the Incorporated Law Society prepared a bill which was substantially the same as the one he had now the honour to present. The Society was composed of the most eminent solicitors, and from its members gentlemen were selected by the Judges to assist the Masters in the examination of candidates for admission to the roll. It would appear to be most peculiarly their office to propose any amendment of the law affecting the important body to which they belonged. The Bill which they prepared was sent to the different law societies, to many eminent solicitors, and to the learned Judges of the Courts, and it received the sanction of them all. It was also submitted to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, then Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and not only did it meet with his entire approbation, but his noble and learned Friend introduced it in their Lordships' House. It passed through its different stages, and went down to the House of Commons, but, owing to some objection by the Board of Inland Revenue—which was, however, now entirely removed—the Session came to an end before the Bill had received the Royal Assent. It was intended to propose the same Bill in the present Session; but some delay was necessary to arrange with the Board of Inland Revenue to simplify the machinery for collecting the duty on

    2045
    certificates. Pending that delay an hon. and learned Member of the other House introduced the Bill to which the petitions referred. It consisted—not of 28, as did the other Bill—but of 13 clauses, 11 of which were selected from the Bill of the Incorporated Law Society, which was sent down to the Commons last Session. The two new clauses were, in his opinion, extremely objectionable. The period of the articles of clerkship was five years, and a person could not be admitted as an attorney unless he had served those five years; but it was proposed in the Bill of the Society to admit gentlemen who had taken degrees at the Universities after a service of three, under articles of five years,—of course subject to the usual examination. One of the new clauses in the Bill petitioned against, proposed to give to persons who had served as clerks for ten years, no matter in what subordinate capacity, the same privilege which was proposed to he given to gentlemen who had taken degrees at the Universities. The other clause was even more objectionable. It was proposed that if the three years' service expired between any of the terms, the person should be entitled to be admitted at the previous term; so that, supposing the three years' service expired on the 31st of October, he would be entitled to be admitted early in the previous June, or after a service of only two years and seven months. He suggested that the second reading of the Bill from the Commons should be deferred until their Lordships' opinion had been ascertained on this Bill, and if that were not acceded to by the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill, he should move as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the first reading of the Bill proposed by the Incorporated Law Society—"a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Attorneys, Solicitors, Proctors, and Certificated Conveyancers."
    THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to express approval of the Bill.
    Bill presented, and read 1a.

ANNEXATION TO SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that the last time he asked for the production of papers relating to the annexation of Savoy, the Government was not disposed to give any further information upon it. Since that time it appeared that a change
  2046
  had come over them. He hoped it was because a better understanding existed between the Governments of France and England. He wished therefore to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when they might expect that the papers upon the subject of Savoy would be laid upon the table of that and the other House of Parliament?
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the papers had been moved for in the other House of Parliament, and would, he expected, be laid before both Houses on that day week.

ACCIDENTS IN THE STREETS.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving an Address for certain returns as to the number of persons killed, or injured by being run over by carriages in the metropolis, referred to the provisions of the Lord Chancellor's Bill for the Consolidation of the Criminal Laws of England and Ireland with regard to accidents on railways, and expressed his surprise that the man who altered a point or put a stone upon a railway for the purpose of causing an accident should not be punished as severely as the man who took away life by any other means. A great number of persons had been killed by accidents in the streets of the metropolis, and any one must see the reckless manner in which one-horse vehicles were driven by irresponsible persons. He wanted to know why all those persons should not be made amenable for furious and wanton driving, as well as the drivers of public carriages. These accidents must be wanton; they could not be accidental, because any person with eyes in his head must see a person who was crossing the street. The Act of Parliament making these persons liable for injury to life or limb proceeded upon the old assumption that the wantonness of the injury was to be proved by the friends and relatives of the person killed or wounded. The onus probandi, however, ought, he contended, to lie upon the person who committed the injury, because primâ facie no person could plead a justification for deliberately killing a fellow creature. He moved for a Return of all Cases which have come to the Cognizance of the Metropolitan Police, whereby, since the 1st of January, 1858, up to the present time, any Person has been run over and killed by any Carriage within the District and the Superin-

  2047
  tendence of the said Force. The like Return as to every Person maimed or otherwise injured by the same Means. Similar Returns from the City of London, and certified by the Police Authorities within the same.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there did not seem to be any objection to the returns asked for by the noble Marquess, and he had no doubt they would yield very useful information. He hoped, however, that the noble Marquess would excuse him from entering into a lengthened explanation of the Bills to which he had referred, which were measures certainly of great importance, but which had been already read a second time by their Lordships, and had been referred to a Select Committee, where every suggestion relative to their improvement would receive its due weight.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.