The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-18 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

On the motion of Mr. ROEBUCK leave of absence was
granted to Sir F. Smith, on the ground of domestic afflic-
tion.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. BLACK moved an address for copy of the terms of
the arrangement under which the Queen's printer now
prints acts of Parliament for the public; specifying the
size of the different editions supplied to Government, the
number of copies of each edition supplied, and the price
per copy per sheet ; also the price per sheet at which each
such edition is now sold to the public, and amount of re-
duction, if any, as compared with the prices charged pre
vious to the expiration of the patent of the Queen's printer.
—Ordered.
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS, &c., BILL.
Mr. COLLIER, in moving the. second reading of this
bill, said that the principle of the measure had been affirmed
last session. For some time the question-of the payment
of the election expenses of voters had been a vexed ques-
tion. An Act of Parliament had been passed by which
an agent was entitled to pay for the conveyance of
voters, provided the money for that purpose was not
given to
,the voters. For instance, the money for a rail-
way ticket could not be forwarded to the Voter hithielf, but
might be sent to a friend. That state of things was a gross
absurdity, and should not be permitted to exist any longer,
and it was disgraceful to think that a misdemeanour on the
part of an agent should rest upon so nice a distinction as
the difference between paying a voter for the expense he
might incur in travelling, and paying for that ex-
pense to another party. Reverting to first prin-
ciples, he considered the practice that prevailed
in regard to the payment of voters' expenses was unjustifi-
able, and he contended that such payments should be done
away with altogether. The best teat of the fitness of a
party for the electoral privilege was his desire to use it, and
if he did not take seine trouble he was not qualified for the
trust reposed in him. The fact was, that the member
should be the representative of the earnestness and in-
telligence, and not the apathy of a constituency. (Hear,
hear. He contended that if a voter was to be paid
for his expenses in exercising a public right, that pay-
ment should be made by the nation and not by an
individual. He believed the effect of the present system
would be to throw the representation of many counties into
the hands of manufacturing millionnaires, and he referred
to the "Wakefield commission to show that the system of
paying expenses was a cloak to all sorts of bribery. He
proposed by his bill to multiply the number of polling places,
and he concluded by stating that the exercise of the fran-
chise should be the priVilege of the voter and not the busi-
ness of the candidate.
Mr. NEWDEGATE considered that the effect of the
bill would be to disfranchise a number of non-resident
voters, and moved that it be read a second time this day
six months.
Sir G. C. LEWIS deprecated any further discussion on
this bill as a waste of time until aftrr the report of the
committee on the corrupt practices at elections, which had
taken evidence on the subject of this measure.
Mr. HENLEY approved the suggestion of the right
hon. baronet.

Mr. NEWDEGATE—On the condition that that
sug-
gestion would be acted on he would withdraw his amend-
ment.

After some further discussion, in which Messrs. Mellor,
Lewis, riffith, Sir E. Colebroke, Mr. Smith, Lord H. Vane,
Mr. arrow, Sir C. Douglas, and Sir G. B. Pechell took
part,
Mr. COLLIER reminded the house that this bill was
read a second time last session, but he was quite ready to
accede to a suggestion that had been thrown out, and to
consent that the bill should be read a second time, and then
referred to a select committee. He had no objection to the
other suggestion, namely, that the debate be adjourned.
(Cries of " No," " Divide.")
The house then divided on the question that the debate
be adjourned.
The numbers were—

For the adjournment. 94
Against

Majority l3
The debate was then. adjourned until. this day month.
ATTORNEYS, SOLICITORS, PROCTORS, AND

CERTIFICATED CONVEYANCERS' BILL

Mr. MURRAY moved the second reading of this bill,
which came from the Lords, and explained the objects of
the measure. It was proposed by the bill to increase the
respectability and education of the members of the legal
profession by admitting to it gentlemen who were members
of the universities of England and Ireland, after serving
for three instead of four years, as was the present practice.
It was also proposed to enable barristers to become solicitors
after a service of two years, if they desired to enter on that
branch of the profession ; and that managing clerks who
had served for ten years, honestly and faithfully, should be
admitted on serving three years under articles.
Mr. KNIGHT strongly objected to different parts of the
bill, amongst others to the clause proposint, to repeal the
act disqualifying attorneys and solicitors froma acting as
justices of peace. He thought that when the members of
the profcssim practised they ought not to occupy a magis-
terial position. He also opposed the obtuse which proposed
to take money. out of the public purse to be placed at the
disposal of an incorporated law society in Chancery. He
concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time
this day six months.
Mr. J. LOCKE complained that the bill which he intro-
duced had been mutilated in the Upper House of Lords,
and that Lord Chelmsford arrested the progress of that
bill, and then brought forward the present one containing
many of the same provisions. Ho had great respect for
attorneys and solicitors, having been acquainted with them
for several years, but he objected to their being made magi-
strates. .Ne sutor ultra crepidaat was the principle which
he considered that body should adopt, and he thought that
the provision proposed in the clause, by which attorneys or
solicitors were not to practise in the county of which
they wore justices of the peace, would be evaded.
For instance, they might get legal friends to act
for them in such counties, and throw, as in the
case of licensing, all the weight of their magisterial influence
into the scale on behalf of their clients. I approved of the
educational clauses in the bill, but these clauses had already
passed the house, and was waitint, for a second reading in
the House of Lords. He also objected to the term " manag-
ing clerk," which he proposed should be struck out of the
bill if it went to a second reading.
Mr. E. JAMES said that the bill proposed to tax the
attorneys and solicitors to the extent of £5,000 a year, which
money was to be placed at the disposal of the society in
Chancery-lane, sitting as an irresponsible Parliament. lie
did not censure that society. It had been the means to
some extent of expurgating the profession, but they had
done nothing in reference to the recent defalcations in
the profession, and they were not called on to pro-
secute great delinquents. There were other very ob-
jectionable clauses, and one of these, conferring on solicitors
certain powers over their clients, was objected to even by
solicitors themselves. On these grounds he was opposed to

the bill in its present form. -
Mr. M. SMITH defended the Incorporated Law Society,
who, he stated, had prosecuted some of the members of
their own profession much to their credit. Through their
exertions several dishonest solicitors had been struck off

the rolls, and but for that society such would not have been
the case, as no ono seemed to take any interest in such
matters. The bill was prepared by that society, which he
thought, from their exertions, were entitled to confidence
and respect. He maintained that the bill, with the excep-
tion of those clauses relating to the power of lien conferred
on solicitors, which was a matter of detail, and repealing
the disqualifications of solicitors for the office of justice,
which ought to be struck out, was a good measure. It
would have the effect of improving the respectability and
status of the profession, in which the public were deeply
concerned.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, from his own experience, considered
that the charges of solicitors were already high enough
without the Legislature being called on to .pass a measure
extending protection to that body, which was totally un-
necessary.
Mr. A. MILLS considered that all the objections raised
to the bill related to matters which could be discussed in
committee. He admitted that some of the clauses were
open to just opposition, but these might be struck out or
modified, and the bill, if only for the educational clause it
contained, ought to be read a second time.
After some remarks by Mr. LOWE, who stated that
he would vote against tho second reading of the bill.
Mr. BOVILL contended that the bill was entitled to the
support of the house, as its object was to elevate the cha•
rector of those who wore engaged in the legal profession.
Some of the clauses were not suggested by the Incorporated
Law Society, and he assured the house that the bill should
be modified in committee, and he trusted on its general
principles it would now be read a second time. He be-
lieved that it would be conferring a great boon on the pub-
lie if the society in question were provided with adequate
funds to enable them to have a register, and to adept other
naeans to protect the public against fraudulent or unquali-
fied legal practitioners. With regard to the provision re-
lative to attorneys and solicitors being appointed justices of
peace, he knew many places in which such appointments
would be most desirable. The fact was that it was a mere
question with regard to the power they would confer on the
Lord Chancellor, who certainly ought to be supposed to
have discrimination enough to make a selection in cases
where the appointment of a solicitor to the magistracy
would be beneficial.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered that there
was a good deal of what was excellent in the bill, but there
were provisions to which he was not reconciled, but he
would vote for the second reading.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the bill, chiefly on the ground
that it proposed to place £5,000 a year in the hands of an
irresponsible body.
Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT considered that, as a
matter of constitutional proceeding, they ought to reject
the present bill, and adhere to that which they had previ-
ously sent to the Upper House.
Mr. DENMAN supported the second reading, and
thought, in dealing with the bill, they should not stand on
any punctilio.
Mr. HENLEY supported the second reading of the bill,
but considered that it should be modified in committee.
This was a matter that did not affect' the legal classes only,
for the public were generally interested in the character
and qualifications of attorneys and solicitors, who were
mixed up so intimately in their transactions.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading .... 191
Against it 29
.1 Majority —162
'A The TI was accordingly read a second time.

JEWS'

ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. T. 131liCOMBE moved the second reading of this
hill.
Mr, NEWDEGATA strongly opposed the Jai awl he

considered it would be extremely impolitic to press forward
a measure that was calculated to bring the house into con
filet with the Upper House. By a resolution of this house,
members of the Jewish persuasion could be admitted to the
house, and he did not see what more was required. He
considered that the bill was a most arbitrary measure, and
sought to restrict the freedom which the house at present
'posseised of rescinding one of its own resolutions. The
only object which the hon. member could effect by- this bill
was merely to remove an act from the statute book, which
involved what he considered the principle of religious
liberty, and such an object would be the means of bringing
them into a collision that could not fail to be most injurious.
He concluded by moving that the !bill be lead a second
time this day cix months.
Mr. CONINGHAM supported the bill.
Mr. DUNCOMBE denied that he was 13.ropos-
ing this bill in violation of any agreement between
the two houses, for it was absurd and unconstitu-
tional to assert that an act passed two years ago
in another Parliament was binding on the house, or that it
could not be repealed in any succeeding Parliament. They
ought to get rid of the roundabout mode they now adopted
with reference to the admission of Jews into the house, for,
although it had not yet produced inconvenience it. Might do
so, and the house was placing itself in an undignified posi-
tion. The constituencies who had been appealed to by
Jewish candidates had expressed their opinion by return-
ing them. By the present system, his hon. ftiond the mein -
ber for Reading, through the regulations of the house,
would not have been able to vote on the question of the
address to her Majesty in reply to the Royal Speech. He
called on them to remove the last blot on their Christian,
character, and to "do unto others as they would be done
by." (Hear; hear.)
Mr. KNIGHTLY was strongly opposed to the state of
the law in regard to the admission of Jews into that house,
but at the same time he thought it would not- be
advisable to re open the question, as _they had
no security that there was any. alteration in
the feelings of the Upper House in reference to tlie subject.
Mr. HENLEY also opposed the bill on the same
ground.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading -
Against
Majority --12
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at 20 minutes past 5 o'clock.