COMMONS AMENDMENT TO LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 22 December 1925)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I wise now to move that this House does not insist on one Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, butt agrees to the Amendment which the Commons have inserted in lieu thereof. This is an Amendment which was a matter of considerable interest to your Lordships. It raises the question as to whether solicitors should have the right of audience for the purposes of this Bill before the Court of Quarter Sessions in the cases of appeal under this Bill. As the Bill stood when it reached us from another place this provision was inserted, namely:— On an appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions under this Act any party to the appeal shall be heard either in person or by counsel or solicitor. It was urged by my noble and learned friend Lord Carson and by others, that 1722 that was a very great change to carry out incidentally in a Bill of this kind. It really raises the very important question of the position of the Bar at an important court like the Court of Quarter Sessions. But it was argued that we ought to amend the Bill, and the argument prevailed upon your Lordships—with a certain difference of opinion in His Majesty's Government on the subject—who struck out the words from the Bill. In that form it went back to the House of Commons.

The House of Commons have now inserted what I may most sincerely call a real compromise. It was urged on behalf of those in your Lordships' House who wished to keep the solicitors in, of whom I was one, that in the case of poor appellants it was very hard that they should be compelled to employ a barrister, who is more expensive than a solicitor, and that, especially in regard to this Bill, which might involve considerable hardship to individuals, it was only fair that they should have access to cheaper advisers. We urged, therefore, that the words should be retained. Now the Commons suggest an Amendment which seems almost exactly to cover the ground. So far as the poor appellants are concerned, they propose that solicitors should have the right of audience, but that, as regards rich appellants, the generally hitherto received rule shall be maintained.

This is the form in which they have carried out their intention: On the hearing of an appeal by a Committee of Quarter Sessions under this section any party to the appeal may, if the rateable value of the hereditament to which the appeal relates as appearing in the Valuation List does not exceed one hundred pounds, appear by solicitor instead of in person or by counsel. So it is only in a case where the hereditament is valued at £100 or less that the right of audience by a solicitor has, for the first time in these cases, been conceded.

That appears to be a perfecly fair compromise and to cover the main part of the case which was put forward on the side to which I belong as well as on the side to which my noble friend upon the Woolsack belongs. I have great pleasure, therefore, in moving that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment but, in lieu thereof, agree with the Amendment made 1723 by the Commons in its place. That Amendment reads as follows:— On the hearing of an appeal by a Committee of Quarter Sessions under this section any party to the appeal may, if the rateable value of the hereditament to which the appeal relates as appearing in the Valuation List does not exceed one hundred pounds, appear by solicitor instead of in person or by counsel.