SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 March 1889)

§ *LORD BRAMWELL

I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is intituled "An Act to Consolidate the Law relating to Arbitrations." I need not trouble your Lordships at any great length about it. It was prepared, at the suggestion of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, by a very competent draftsman. It cannot require any very lengthy argument to commend it to your Lordships—at any rate, upon the Second Reading—because, two or three years ago, the same Bill was read by this House a second time and passed through Committee. There is one word I would like to say. My noble Friend on the Woolsack has himself got an Arbitration Bill, but that is a Bill to consolidate and codify the statutory enactments with respect to arbitration. With that Bill I have not the smallest fault to find; indeed, I think it is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. The Lord Chancellor has said that my Bill is a more ambitious one. Perhaps it is in this sense: that, whereas the Bill of my noble Friend is good so far as it goes, and is acceptable on the principle that "half a loaf is better than no bread," this Bill of mine is a whole loaf, and it seeks to codify and consolidate all the statutory and other law affecting arbitrations into one measure. At any rate, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. If my noble Friend should desire that it should not proceed beyond that stage, I shall not press it; but perhaps my noble Friend may consider that it would be desirable that this Bill should be considered in Committee in conjunction with his own Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I explained to your Lordships in moving the Second Reading of the measure which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships' House the other day, my Bill is intended to codify the whole law of arbitration, and the only difficulty I have in at once adopting the noble Lord's suggestion that the Bill should be considered in Committee with mine, in order that we should get what he describes as the whole loaf, is that undoubtedly there are matters in this Bill which would give rise to controversy. My noble Friend has—with great ability I quite admit—sought to reconcile the statute law and the law as it rests on judicial decisions. In so doing it was impossible that he should have escaped matters which would give rise to controversy, and there are one or two respects in which I am bound to say I should not myself be disposed to agree with the Bill as drawn. In fact, I doubt very much whether it would be possible at the present time to pass a large measure completely consolidating the law as to arbitrations. I believe the aim should be to embody in a codifying Act in complete form the various enactments that are upon the Statute Book, and then consider what would be desirable in the way of amendment. I need hardly say that I have no objection whatever to the Second Reading and Commitment of this Bill. I am only desirous that my noble Friend should not tack his measure on to mine, with a view to obtaining what may be a common favourable discussion.