SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, &c., BILL (Hansard, 15 February 1949)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this is a small and, I believe, non-contentious Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move. It is not a Bill which ushers in a new epoch. It is rather, on the other hand, a Bill which closes an epoch. In the year 1785, some ten years after the American Declaration of Independence, this country was in financial difficulties, and the gloomy prophets of those days vied with others who have been equally gloomy on several occasions since. It was a time when William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister, and it was decided to raise a special levy on the lawyers or some of them—they were a most deserving class of the community, who were singled out for very harsh treatment in those days. The treatment was extended to solicitors, special pleaders, draftsmen in equity, conveyancers and notaries. Your Lordships all know what solicitors are, but you may not know what special pleaders, draftsmen in equity or conveyancers were. They were gentlemen who practised, in the phrase of the day, "under the Bar." They obtained licences from the various Inns of Court, and they flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the nineteenth century they rather fell into disuse because, owing to the reforms of the law and the sweet simplicity which was then introduced, their services were no longer required.
Your Lordships will notice that barristers were never included in this special impost. Perhaps if they had been, the impost would have been repealed many years ago! The duty was originally £5 in the year 1785. Until 1947 it was £9 in London and Edinburgh, and £6 in the other parts of the country, and every solicitor had to pay it on taking out his practising certificate. Special pleaders, draftsmen in equity and conveyancers, had to pay the same, but there are now no special pleaders, draftsmen in equity or conveyancers left, so they will not trouble us any further. In 1947 it was considered wrong that this special impost should continue to prevail, and, in consequence, in the Finance Act of that year, the special impost was 821 reduced to a small fraction of what it had been—shillings instead of pounds. The reason that it was not abolished altogether was that abolition of the duty would have involved something which is not proper to a Money Bill, and if the Finance Act of 1947 had contained this provision it would not have been solely a Money Bill. Consequently, it was thought better to bring it in as a separate piece of legislation.
Up to the present time, I have said nothing about notaries. Notaries are a most ancient institution, one of the few institutions which, together with that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, date back to a period before the Norman Conquest. There are few institutions which go back farther in history than notaries. They started, it may interest your Lordships to know, from the word notae, the shorthand notes current in Rome in Cicero's day. The Notarii were the shorthand writers of those days in Rome. Up till the Reformation they were appointed by the Pope, they being always concerned largely with ecclesiastical matters. They are now appointed by the Court of Faculties, and that Court sits under the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have found an ancient Statute which gives an appeal to the Lord Chancellor from the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to institute a notary and gives the Lord Chancellor power to fine the Archbishop whatever he thinks proper. I shall be sorry to see any such law abolished!
There are 523 notaries, of whom all save 23 are solicitors. What do notaries do? They perform notarial functions. Those functions are very important ones in the laws of some foreign countries. In nearly all the Latin countries a certificate signed by a notary proves itself, and one is not called upon to give any other evidence beyond the certificate with the notary's signature. In various commercial matters they perform their work. It is proposed to exempt solicitors from this special impost because, by the Solicitors Act, 1941, there was imposed upon them the obligation to pay a year to a compensation fund which the Law Society might have at their disposal to allow the payment of compensation to clients who had been defrauded by solicitors, and also an obligation to have their accounts audited by properly qualified auditors. 822 That being so, we think it unnecessary that this special impost should continue any longer.
Practising certificates, however, will continue. In the case of solicitors, they will be obtained as before from the Law Society. In the case of notaries, there will be an alteration. Previously, notaries have obtained them from the Inland Revenue Department on paying the duty, but as the Inland Revenue will now receive no duty, they will lose all interest in the matter. The Bill provides that the Court of Faculties will issue the necessary practising certificates for notaries. The Bill extends to Scotland. In Scotland, ever since 1897, notaries have had to be solicitors, and there are no notaries left in Scotland who are not solicitors. In regard to the proviso dealing with Scotland, the object is simply to preserve the position until the passing of the Legal Aid Bill, which makes a special provision for the registration of solicitors in Scotland. This Bill meets with the approval of the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Court of Faculties, who all urge your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, the noble Lords on these Benches take no exception at all to this Bill. It is rather extraordinary to hear from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that in the days after the American War of Independence our country could get out of its financial difficulties by putting a small impost on solicitors and notaries public. I wish our financial difficulties were of that dimension to-day. It is clear that nobody wants this small tax imposed on notaries public. I think the noble and learned Viscount was not quite right about the case of barristers. As I remember, we had to pay a considerable stamp fee when called to the Bar. It is true that we did not have to pay a fee each year, but the initial payment was a much larger one than that of a solicitor. I do not think barristers were completely exempt, as the noble and learned Viscount seemed to suggest. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount has given them a good hint that by a little endeavour on their part, stamp duty 823 might be lessened and gradually annulled. This Bill has the complete backing of all the professional associations, and we on these Benches will do everything we can to facilitate its becoming law as soon as possible.

THE MARQUESS OF READING
My Lords, as we listened to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I am sure we all must have appreciated the full use to which he has put the short time he was absent from the Woolsack. His classical researches seem to have been varied and somewhat esoteric. However, we accept freely all the statements which he made, except one. I am not prepared to accept the statement that special pleading has entirely vanished. Even in this House I have heard dissertations which might be thought to partake of that character. With that one reservation, we desire to support the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the cordial support which you have given to this important measure. I did not say that special pleading had come to an end: I said that special pleaders had come to an end—but their work lives after them!