I desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, that I have been charged in the Glasgow Central Police Court with breaking a police by-law by lecturing in the public street and thereby causing an obstruction. I have been remanded and ordered to appear at that court on Monday, 8th May. Therefore, I desire to know if I am compelled to obey the order of the court, or if my duties as a Member of Parliament give me the right to refuse to attend the court during the period that Parliament is in Session.

The hon. Member gave me notice of his question yesterday, and I have had an opportunity of considering the matter. On the question addressed to me I have to rule in this way: That the privilege of Parliament conferring immunity from arrest and trial does not extend to any offence of the nature of a breach of the peace or otherwise affecting public order, which is cognisable in the criminal courts. I have, therefore, to inform the hon. Member that he cannot claim the privilege of Parliament in the event of his refusal to appear in obedience to the order of the Court.

I desire, arising out of that Ruling, to ask for your guidance. I have read Erskine May's book on this matter of the law regarding felony, treason or breach of the peace, and J would respectfully point out to you that this case is simply a breach of an ordinary local police regulation for regulating traffic, and therefore not a criminal charge in any shape or form. I would ask you if that does not materially affect your decision, that it is not a criminal charge.

No. I am advised that whether it is a breach of the Common Law or whether it is a breach of a by-law makes no difference. If the hon. Member will look at pages 120–121 of the 13th edition of Erskine May, he will find that in cases quoted there there is an expression that immunity is construed as excluding any offence against public order, as for example causing an obstruction to traffic—which is the offence charged in the present case—and it would apply to statutory offences of tore kind as well as offences at Common Law.

The reason why my hon. Friend has raised this matter is because it seems to us of first-class importance in these times. We have seen how Parliaments in other countries have been rendered far from the intention of the electors by the arrest or wholesale arrest of members who were entitled to sit in those Houses. The essence of this case is that it is the Ring versus McGovern. I put it to you that the whole history of this House makes it a House of the common people, and that privilege arises historically, so that Members elected to carry out the will of the people should not be prevented from carrying out that will by the action of the Monarch or anyone acting on his behalf. I ask you, Sir, if this ancient right of immunity, which extended to Members at the most important constitutional periods in the history of this House, has now vanished entirely, so that it is possible for the Government of the day, or an authority acting for them, to arrest large numbers of the Members of this House on a trivial pretext and so prevent them from doing the ditties for which they were elected.

I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to give an expression of opinion as to what is right or what is wrong. All I have to do is to interpret what is the law of the land and to gain guidance from the section in Erskine May which gives a detailed account of occurrences of this kind over a very long period of years, and I cannot but be guided by that section. I have only to consider the present case. When a case is brought to my notice my duty is to consider the particulars of that case. I cannot go into other cases which might arise. When they do arise I shall be only too pleased to give my Ruling upon them.

I thank you for your Ruling in this matter. I wanted it more as a guidance for the future. I want to explain that I had no intention, even if your decision had been that I should not obey the court, of absenting myself from the court, because I gave my word in the court that I would be present, and my word will be kept in all circumstances.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The purpose of the Clause is to preserve certain existing statutory rights of action, and its object will be made plain to the House if I give an illustration. The Customs authorities have certain rights of action which they exercise through Customs' officials without employing solicitors. There are also certain rights vested by Statute in factory inspectors including rights of appearance in court. The purpose of the Clause is to preserve the existing law as defined by Statute in these respects.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I know it is a dangerous thing for an English Member to intervene in proceedings on a Scottish Bill, but this Bill may, to a material extent, affect people who live in England because people who live in England from time to time employ Scottish solicitors. Therefore, though the Bill deals only with the position of Scottish solicitors, nevertheless it is of concern to the whole of the United Kingdom. Some two or three years ago an Act was passed to amend and consolidate the law in regard to solicitors in England. That Act made no provision for dealing with the question of safeguarding the moneys of clients in the hands of solicitors. A great many people have felt for a long time that it is desirable to have some protection in this respect, not merely of the client, but also of the solicitor.

My interest in this aspect of the question was first aroused when I was a Member of Parliament for Reading, by the fact that in 12 months three men who had formerly been honoured and honourable members of the solicitors' profession there, received long periods of penal servitude because they had, practically, mixed their own money with that of their clients. At least that was how it began, but a time came when these men were in difficulties; they had been using their own money and their clients' money indiscriminately—originally, I have no doubt, without the slightest desire to defraud—and when the time of difficulty came they could riot replace money which they had used. They were ultimately charged, I think, with embezzlement, though I am not a legal expert, and I do not know whether that was the exact charge or not. At any rate, these three men of position, one of whom certainly was of great distinction in the public life of the town, suffered as I have described. I have long felt that in some way or other we ought to deal with this problem. This year, the English solicitors, having got the law governing them consolidated and amended, brought forward a further Bill which, next Friday, we hope will pass through its Report and Third Reading stages. That Bill proposes that the moneys of clients shall be dealt with substantially in the way in which I am now proposing that Scottish solicitors should deal with the money of their clients. I have, in fact, lifted this provision from the English Bill, with the necessary modifications to enable it to fit into a Scottish enactment.

My own view is that this provision does not go far enough, and that the only satisfactory solution of the problem is for the profession to establish some form of fidelity guarantee fund to which every solicitor would be compelled to contribute, on a basis bearing some relation to the maximum amount of clients' money in his hands during any period. Out of such a fund sums would be available to compensate those who may be involved in financial loss through defalcations by solicitors. At present the law is satisfied if the solicitor involved in the defalcation is sent to prison, but the poor clients lose their money. In the three cases to which I have referred, a large number of those whom I then represented in Parliament were involved in grave financial losses. When the English Bill was in Committee I gave notice of an Amendment proposing the establishment of a fidelity guarantee fund, but that Amendment was ruled to be outside the Title of the Bill, and therefore out of Order. It would be improper to attempt to introduce into this Bill something which it was not possible to introduce in the English Bill. It seems desirable that whatever system is adopted it should be uniform as between the northern and the southern parts of Great Britain.

The provision of the proposed New Clause and of the New Clauses which follow it on the Paper and are part of the same scheme, is that the General Council, which in Scotland corresponds to the Council of the Law Society in England, shall have power, with the concurrence of the Lord President—whose functions are similar to those of the Master of the Rolls in England—to make rules as to the way in which solicitors keep the accounts of the moneys of clients at the banks, to give general instructions as to the way in which accounts are to be kept and to take whatever action may be necessary to ensure that the rules are complied with. With regard to penalty, I have not followed the wording of the English Bill, because this Scottish Bill has a Clause dealing with professional misconduct which provides penalties ranging from fines to being struck off the Rolls. Therefore, I merely put in Sub-section (2), which would enable the professional misconduct provision of this Bill to apply. In the case of the English Bill the proposals are obligatory. The words of the English Bill are:

"The Council of the Law Society, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, shall make rules."

The new Clause that I am now moving reads:

"The General Council, with the concurrence of the Lord President, may make rules."

I make it permissive deliberately, because my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill told me that he could not say whether those in Scotland would be willing to accept this proposal. I must apologise to him that I gave him so few days' notice of my proposal to put forward these new Clauses, and I wanted to give my Clause a better chance, in that if it is passed, the General Council will not be compelled to act on it; on the other hand, if it is passed and, after full consideration, they decide that my proposal will be at least a step in advance, they will be free to adopt it. If I had included the word "shall," I might have expected greater resistance to the proposal than I now expect.

There will be those who say that this proposal is not satisfactory and will not be effective, and I have some measure of sympathy with them, because I have already indicated that I would go much further. There will be those who will contend that, from a practical point of view, it will not be very workable, on the ground that there are in country districts solicitors dealing with a large number of people of small means, handling very small sums of money, and that the attempt to introduce rigid rules with regard to these small sums of money which do not raise the danger that I contemplate would make the practice of these gentlemen very difficult. But I have not attempted to prescribe the system. I am merely attempting to give the General Council power to make rules, and they, with their experience of the circumstances of Scottish solicitors with small rural practices, or town practices, dealing with small sums, will, I have not the least doubt, be able to draft rules in a way that will be workable.

If it is contended that such a scheme is not workable, all that I can say is that their professional brethren in England have come to the view that such a scheme is workable, and they have devoted a good deal of time and thought to this problem. Obviously, our friends in Scotland have not yet had that opportunity, but I hope they will take my assurance that, judging from declarations made to me by leading solicitors in this country, those responsible for the conduct of solicitors here are of the opinion that the scheme which I-am now proposing is workable; and, as they have gone into it, naturally I wish to accept their judgment on the matter. I hope the House will give serious consideration to this Clause. There is a grave evil which excites grave disquiet from time to time. If that grave evil can be removed, it will be of enormous advantage to the solicitors' profession, because it will mean that every client will have greater confidence in solicitors than is now the case, and anything which increases confidence in the long run is beneficial to the business, whether it be that of a trade or a profession.

I beg to second the Motion.

I appreciate, of course, the motive which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has in moving this Clause, but I must advise the House that it should not be accepted, and I hope the hon. Member, in the circumstances, may not press the matter further. I am not in a position to dispute what he says, that some provision of this kind may be necessary in England. That is a matter regarding which I know nothing, but I accept his word that the position in England requires some kind of statutory control such as is contemplated in this Clause. But, so far as Scotland is concerned, I do not think any purpose whatever would be gained by the General Council, with the concurrence of the Lord President, prescribing rules as to how solicitors are to keep their accounts. The solicitors of Scotland know how to keep their accounts, and no advantage is to result from stereotyping the business method to be followed.

The main argument which the hon. Member has put forward is this: He suggested that rules of this kind would form some kind of safeguard against misappropriation of clients' money. If that were so, I would support a Clause of this kind, but I do not think it would form any safeguard at all. Misappropriation, or what, to use the technical term, we call embezzlement, is never a thoughtless offence; it is a deliberate offence. It is carried out with malice aforethought, to use an English expression, deliberately and in pursuance of an intention to misappropriate money; and merely to put money into an account in the name of a client, instead of the name of the law agent, will not furnish any safeguard at all. After all, the best safeguard in this matter is the honour and integrity of the legal profession. While in Scotland you do get, no doubt, the isolated case of a law agent who departs from the recognised standards of honour and integrity, just as—the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will agree—you get in every profession and in every walk of life people who depart from the proper and normal standards of conduct, I see no reason why the whole profession should be subjected to rules and regulations that would be ineffective to secure any desirable purpose.

Accordingly, I suggest to the House that this Clause should not be accepted. There was one observation which the hon. Member made with which I entirely agree. If you are to have statutory safeguards against misappropriation of money, the only real safeguard that you can have is some form of fidelity bond or guarantee, and if a proposal of that kind had been put forward, I certainly would be prepared to give it consideration. I do not think you will accomplish anything at all by hampering the profession by rules and regulations. What is wrong to-day in most professions is that there are far too many rules and regulations, and, for my part, I am not in favour of adding to the number. Accordingly, I hope the hon. Member may see his way not to press his new Clause.

In view of the Lord Advocate's statement, I ask leave to withdraw my Clause, especially in view of the expression of opinion which he has given that if something is done, it ought to be of a different nature; and I hope in due course the profession in Scotland will contemplate some measure of that kind.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, to leave out from the word "resides" to the word "and", in line 4.

This Clause deals with the prosecution of offences under the Act, and the effect of this Amendment would be to take out of the Act the power to prosecute which the Act contemplated should reside in the Discipline Committee, or in a society under the Act, or in any solicitor or notary public. We have taken the view that the power of prosecution should reside solely in the Public Prosecutor. We are taking the words "by the Procurator-Fiscal" also out of the Clause, the reason being that the Procurator- Fiscal has the inherent power of representing the Crown to prosecute, and it is not necessary to confer any statutory power upon him.

I would iike to ask the exact significance of this Amendment. As I understand the Lord Advocate's explanation, it is simply to cut out the Procurator-Fiscal as a prosecuting agent in cases of solicitors being guilty of offences.

We are not merely taking out of the Clause the words "the Procurator-Fiscal," but the words that follow—

"or by the Discipline Committee, or by any society, or by any solicitor or notary public, in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908."

What we are really doing is to prevent the Discipline Committee having the right of prosecution or any individual society having that right. The reason why we are taking out the Procurator-Fiscal is that he already has the power to prosecute, and it is not necessary to have him in the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 8, to leave out from the word "month," to the end of the Sub-section.

This Amendment will limit the penalty for offences to a fine not exceeding £50, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month. The words which I am proposing to omit provide for heavier penalties for second or subsequent convictions, and we are making this concession to a general desire for clemency.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, any offence under this Act may be prosecuted at any time within the period of two years next after the commission of the offence or the period of six months next after the first discovery thereof by the prosecutor, whichever period is the shorter."

The Sub-section which I am moving to leave out provides that the fines imposed under the Bill should go to the coffers of the Discipline Committee. We are taking this Sub-section out because we think they ought to go to the Treasury. In the new Sub-section we are re-enacting Section 60 of the Finance Act, 1921. That Section is being repealed in the Schedule, and we are enacting it in the Bill.

I appreciate that there is an objection to the proceeds of fines going to the body which has imposed the fines, but, on the other hand, no alternative is put in the Bill for a source of revenue out of which the Discipline Committee can carry on its functions. I understand that in England there is 'a grant from the Treasury to the corresponding bodies, and I shall have no objection to the deletion of this Sub-section if the Lord Advocate can assure us that the question of a corresponding grant in Scotland will receive favourable consideration. I do not know whether that question has been taken up with the Treasury, but I see some objections to striking out this Sub-section without some assurance that the question of an alternative source of revenue is being considered by the Lord Advocate in conjunction with the Treasury.

It is quite impossible to give any undertaking in regard to a grant. The General Council will have no difficulty in finding necessary funds, but it is quite wrong that fines for what are public offences should go to the coffers of any society instead of to the public purse.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 12, at the end, to add the words:

11 & 12 Geo. V. c. 32.

Finance Act,1921

Section 60.

This is a purely formal Amendment.

This may be a formal Amendment, but there is a doubt about it in my mind. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain what Section 60 of the Finance Act, 1921 does, because I do not see why I should have to come here on a. Friday and accept an Amendment of this kind. Until I am assured that there is some real authority for repealing it, I do not see why I should, accept it. This Amendment, which has suddenly been sprung on us, is an instance of the perpetual legislation by reference, and I dislike it. I realise that this a technical question of Scottish law about which I am ignorant, but I should like to have some explanation.

The explanation is perfectly simple. If the hon. Member had looked up Section 60 of the Finance Act, 1921, he would have been able to discover it for himself.

It is not a Member's job to be always looking up Acts. It is the job of the Law Officers to explain them to Parliament.

I am willing to give my hon. Friend an explanation, but it appears to me that it would not have been asking too much of the hon. Member to look up the Finance Act, 1921. The position is simple. Section 60 deals with the recovery of penalties under Section 44 of the Stamp Act, 1891, which deals with the penalties that can be imposed upon unqualified persons preparing legal instruments. That Section is repealed, as far as Scotland is concerned, by this Bill, its provisions being reenacted in Clause 39. That being so, it is necessary to repeal the Section 60 referred to in the Amendment, as the recovery of penalties is provided for in this Bill by the provision relating to the prosecution of offences.

I beg to move, in page 1, after the word "Solicitors," to insert the words "and Notaries Public".

The reason for this Amendment, as one has to be careful to explain to English Members, is that certain parts of Clauses were added to the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will no doubt want to know what they were. In Clause 17 it is stated,

"No person shall be admitted as a. notary public in Scotland until he shall have been admitted and enrolled as a solicitor."

As we are re-enacting terms of the Act of 1896, which applies to notaries public, it was felt that the words "and Notaries Public" should be inserted after "Solicitors" so that the Title shall correctly describe what is in the Bill.

The hon. Member spoke about "Clauses," but has referred only to this one Clause. May I ask him what the other Clauses are?

The one to which I referred dealt with notaries public. The other Clauses which have been amended are perfectly well described by the words,

"Consolidate and amend the law relating to solicitors in Scotland."

I beg to second the Amendment.

Before we pass away from this Amendment, I would like to point out that although a good many Bills come before us in the course of a year, it is very rarely that we are asked to amend the Title of a Bill. We have very strict rules against that sort of thing. Here we have an addition of words to cover notaries public, and I would like to havesome little explanation on the matter, because otherwise the House may not understand it. A pul3lic notary is what I might describe, not having particular knowledge of the subject, as another form of Scottish lawyer, or a gentleman who is legally trained for the administration of the law in one way or another. What I would like to know, if there is any responsible person here in charge of this Bill who is entitled to speak again, is why those words were left out in the first place? It looks as though public notaries had been rather slighted. What has happened in the meanwhile?

When a section of individuals is left out of a Bill as it is introduced in its original form, and is then inserted afterwards, it usually means that much pressure has been brought to bear upon Members of Parliament. I am sure that no Scottish public notaries would try to put pressure on to me, but they might try to bring pressure to bear on Scottish Members, and I would like to have some assurance that these gentlemen are getting into the Bill in a proper and legitimate way. I am sure that our two excellent Scottish Law Officers would see that these gentlemen did not get into the Bill otherwise than in a legitimate way, but it is not fair that the House should be asked to make this remarkable change—well, I will not go so far as to say it is remarkable, but quite interesting change—I am trying to make a very dull subject interesting—without some explanation. Has this been the subject of one of those peculiar bargains which sometimes take place? Can it by any chance be that my hon. Friend who is the leader of a small group here is a public notary and has insisted on having his name put in; or is it the case that some Socialist above the Gangway is a public notary, or has a relative who might be a public notary, and wants to be put in? I do want to know these things. [Interruption.] I can assure the hon. Member that I have no relative who is a public notary either in England or Scotland, so far as I know. When we are inserting a new group of persons into a Bill, a big group and an important group, we ought to have a further explanation beyond that which has been given to us so far.

The main part of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was devoted to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). Why the hon. Member for Torquay should form the main part of a speech made in moving an Amendment on a Scottish Bill I cannot understand—unless the hon. Member thought the hon. Member for Torquay had some sort of obscure influence in these matters. I do not know, and I want some of my hon. and learned Friends who have knowledge of these matters to explain, what a public notary is before we insert this Amendment. Sometimes people describe themselves as "public notaries" and at other times as "notaries public." Why should they not be inserted in the Bill as "public notaries"? That is a point I have never been able fully to grasp. Will someone explain why they are described as "notaries public" in the Amendment and are called "public notaries" at other times? I do not intend to vote against the Amendment, unless someone causes me to do so, but I would like an explanation on these two or three points, and I feel sure that if it could be given, it would relieve the anxiety that is felt not only by myself—I have had the courage to get up and explain that I do not know—but also by some of my hon. Friends who are in the same state as I am and would like the explanation, but have not had the courage to get up to ask for it. I am sacrificing myself to them.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where, in the Bill, the words "public notaries" come in?

I have never said they did. All I want to know is why the hon. Member calls them "notaries public" when I have heard the expression "public notaries." I want to know the difference, and why he should have put his Amendment in that way?

I never used the words "public notary."

No, I do not say the hon. Member did, but I have heard it put in that way, and I am sure many other people have. That is my point, and I am happy that it has been grasped.

Notaries public were in the Bill from the very start, but as the Bill proceeded it was discovered that there were two notaries public who are not solicitors—all the others are solicitors—and accordingly it was necessary to make the title of the Bill a little more comprehensive. There is nothing sinister in the proposal to add the words "notaries public" to the Bill. In Scotland we call them "notaries public." If the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) prefers to call them "public notaries," I can assure him that he does not commit any offence either against the civil law or the criminal law. It is really a matter of individual taste.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be wrong if I were to put it in my own way rather than in the way in which it is put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or whether it really does not matter which way it is put?

I do not think that anyone can possibly object to the hon. Member saying "public notaries" instead of "notaries public". As I say, it is a matter of individual taste. We prefer the correct way, and not the way that is preferred by the hon. Member for Torquay.

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accuse me of not wanting to do this thing in the right way, but I want to be sure What is the right way. There have been so many slips in the Scottish Office that I thought I had better be certain.

I wish to offer one or two observations on the Third Reading. I notice hon. Members looking at the Clock; I am fully aware of the great governing consideration of Scottish Members.

What?

I do not see that it affects Torquay, which has a Riviera express of its own. I am well aware that this Bill is going to receive a Third Reading, and my opposition remains as strong and fundamental to it as the opposition that I expressed in the early proceedings, during the Committee stage. I think that this is an attempt to place into the hands of the solicitors' profession in Scotland more power, not merely over its own affairs but over entrance into the profession and over the general legal procedure of Scotland, than any profession performing public duties is entitled to have. Every profession, seeing the power that is held in the hands of one or two professional groups, in particular the General Medical Council, has in recent years and quite wrongly, come to this House—architects, chartered accountants, dentists, and every group of people who, by any stretch of their imagination, can call themselves a profession—demanding a Statute to give them a standing to act in a way that ought only to be in the hands of publicly-controlled bodies. My opposition to this Bill is based on that principle. I do not believe in this syndicalist way of controlling public affairs of leaving the workers in the trade or profession complete power over the operations of their trade or profession.

To-day we have a Scottish day, or a bit of a Scottish day. We are passing two Bills, the False Oaths (Scotland) Bill and the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill. I ask hon. Members from Scotland to consider this: We were returned here in 1931 by a Scotland that was in very serious difficulties and is in serious difficulties now. We are faced with our principal industries deteriorating very seriously and with a diminishing population. The Census figures that are coming in from week to week just now show that Highland counties are being depopulated and people are being driven off the land; yet all we Scottish Members of Parliament, and so far as private Members, have to show as the year's work for dealing with the troubles of Scotland is the Bill that we have just passed and the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill. What a contribution from this House towards solving the problems of Scotland—a False Oaths Act and a Bill to make the legal profession in Scotland a more lucrative industry for those who are engaged in it than it has been up to now!

I offer my most direct opposition to this learned profession in Scotland coming here, at a time when Scottish difficulties are what they are, and using the time of Parliament, not to improve the condition of Scotland, but to improve their own professional powers and their own money-earning power. It is a disgrace to the solicitors of Scotland that they should be asking for this, and to Scottish Members of Parliament that they should be acceding to it. It is disgraceful that the British House of Commons should be spending its time on things of this description when the urgent needs of the people are so great.

I hope that the House will not be persuaded by the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) into refusing to give this Bill a Third Reading. I do not believe that the hon. Member really wishes that this Bill should not be proceeded with, and I think that he Would be quite content with expressing his views on this occasion and complaining that nothing more has been done for Scotland by the Government.

I am surprised at the hon. Member for taking up the Bill at all.

In the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Bridgeton made a statement that he thought that my interests were so narrow—

Quite the contrary. The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. What I said is quite the contrary of what he is saying. I said that the hon. Member's interests were so wide that he should not have undertaken a stupid thing like this.

He said that this was much too brilliant a Bill for a person like me. Let me quote what he said:

"this Bill was not evolved out of his own inner consciousness. I have known him for a number of years in this House; I know what his interests are, and I do him the justice to believe that, left to the freedom of his own will, the Bill which he would have introduced would have been put forward on behalf of some other social interest than that contained in this Bill."

I took exception to that statement and I said that I was interested in all sections of the community and, therefore, in all the sections of this Bill. The hon. Member's reply was:

"There is nothing human that does not interest the hon. Member, I know, but can he include solicitors? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on. Scottish Bills), 6th April, 1933, cols. 24–5.]

I am always interested in things which are extra-human as well. I hope that the House will not refuse to give this Third Reading. It is extraordinary, when a profession asks for power to conduct its affairs in a better manner that a person like the hon. Member for Bridgeton should object. This is a Bill to enable the solicitors' profession to regulate their affairs in the best manner, in the interests of the general public. I do not think it is quite fair to suggest that this Bill has been put forward in order to give more money and more power to the solicitors. It is their desire to improve professional tone, and to have the power of dealing with cases of professional misconduct.

Therefore, I sincerely hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. It received a Second Reading without a division and went up to Committee. I am sorry that certain hon. Members who were interested in the Bill were not members of the Scottish Standing Committee. They represent English constituencies, and they have asked me certain questions. I would call attention to the two main alterations made in the Bill. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the question of solicitors who were not members of legal societies in Scotland. The General Council mentioned in the Bill is composed of members elected by various legal societies in Scotland. It was pointed out that there were certain solicitors who were not members of any of the legal societies mentioned in Schedule 2 of the Bill, and that therefore they would be compelled to join the existing legal societies. The Standing Committee added another unit to the Second Schedule, to include solicitors who were not members of legal societies in Scotland, and they will be able to appoint and elect their own members to the General Council. Therefore, all solicitors in Scotland will have some say in the formation of the General Council.

The other main alteration was in Clause 39. There were minor alterations for drafting purposes. With these exceptions the Bill is exactly the same as that which was given a Second Reading. I would thank all Members of the House who have taken an interest in the Bill for the help that they have given me, and the criticisms that they have made. Everyone will admit that it is a better Bill than that which went to the Standing Committee. The Bill is something for which the solicitors of Scotland have been asking for years, and there is no one more deeply grateful than they for the provisions of the Bill. I feel that the passing of the Bill is really worth the time that has been devoted to it.

I very much regret having heard my hon. Friend who has just sat down have words of controversy on such a Bill as this. On Friday afternoons if we can carry on these things without heat and feeling it helps enormously. Personally I regret that anyone so mild in appearance and so charming an individual as my hon. Friend, should have gone out of his way to attack the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I hope that on future occasions we shall not have our Fridays blemished in this way. The hon. Member said something about qualified solicitors of Scotland committing certain offences. If I had said a thing like that I should have been told I was insulting the Scottish people. The real object of the Bill is not the purification of the Scottish law. I can assure hon. Members that the standard of Scottish lawyers is as high as it is possible to attain in this human world. The real object of the Bill is not that. I have been in this House some while, as some people may have realised, and during that time I have found two or three very good rules. One is that when all Scotsmen stick together there are some curious things going on. As has been pointed out this Bill creates an extreme form of trade union. After all the lawyers are a trade union which is a model for all the bad trade unions in the world. They try simply to squeeze out all forms of competition. Scottish lawyers are a very close corporation, and I gather that under this Bill they will make that corporation closer and closer.

I see that one hon. Member on the Government front bench shakes his head, and the other smiles. The one who shakes his head looks rather like the criminal in the box who has been caught out, and the other like the judge who is preparing his sentence. This Bill has been through the Scottish Standing Committee. I always imagined that the Scottish were a practical people. I think so still. But some things occasionally are apt to disillusion one in this rather sad world. Clause 17, a new and very long clause, if I understand it aright, has been inserted for two individuals.

The whole of the Clause is not new, but only the first few lines and the last, and they are taken out of another Act.

Of course I accept that explanation. A large portion of this Clause has been inserted to allow two notaries public to be included in the Bill. I should have thought that a matter of that kind could have been dealt with long before the Bill came to the House of Commons—that, with all the knowledge of the legal profession and with all the learned names at, the back of the Bill, the original Bill could have been so drafted that there would have been no need for any Amendment of that kind. It shows to many of us, who have been in the habit of thinking that if only lawyers drafted a Bill everything would be all right, that we are not, as a House of Commons, so dependent on our legal colleagues—a horrible word, but used in high circles—and that they are not always quite as good as they might be.

Then there is a Clause which absolutely beats my understanding altogether. That is Clause 46, which reads as follows:

"A solicitor shall not be entitled to borrow a process depending before any supreme court sitting in Edinburgh unless he has a place of business in Edinburgh."

How in the world do you borrow a process? That is obviously a. Scottish term which I could not be expected to understand, but, I should like it to be explained to me in due course before we go on. The Clause says that you may not borrow a process if you have a place of business in, say, Inverness, but not in Edinburgh. Why is Edinburgh chosen I After all, it is only a. secondary city as compared with Glasgow. It is certainly much more beautiful in some ways, but it is not, cannot, and never is likely to be, in the eyes of anyone sitting in this House, as important and as intellectual as Glasgow. I would ask why the lawyers. wish to narrow people down so that, if they have a place of business in Edinburgh they can borrow a process, while, if they have not a place of business in Edinburgh, apparently they cannot do so. This is quite an unnecessary handicap on the labour market of Glasgow, cutting them out of the chance of getting into this business of borrowing a process. It is not right that we in the House of Commons should limit people in such a. way as practically to compel them to live in Edinburgh. Although Edinburgh may have many advantages, I do not think it is right to say that a lawyer who may have lived for many years in his own city and become eminent there should have to denationalise himself. as it were, and become an inhabitant of Edinburgh.

I am perfectly prepared to give this Bill its chance in order to see that everything shall be done as it should be done to maintain the very high standard of legal knowledge in Scotland, but I do not like to see put into a Bill this particular provision, which seems to me to be beyond my understanding, compelling a person to give up his residence in Glasgow, and the benefits and amenities of that place, in order to live in Edinburgh. To take an illustration, that would render it impossible for us to benefit nearly as often as we do from the extraordinarily wide outlook of the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I will not say anything more on that point, except that I am sorry that the Bill has been defaced by this Clause.

I am induced to rise by some remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). His interventions on this Bill appear to be due not so much to interest as to inquisitiveness on his part. I am not going to satisfy that inquisitiveness, because it is obvious that my hon. Friend has merely taken the Bill wherever it happened to fall open, and, reading on, has not had to read very far before he has come across some phrase which he did not understand and upon which he has then made a speech. I think it would be disrespectful to the House if I took up its time in answering criticisms which have arisen in that way.

I assure my hon. Friend that nothing is further from the truth than that. I have read a great deal of the Bill, and have spent a large amount of time in listening to Scottish lawyers, but they should have imparted to me the capacity to understand these Bills. My hon. Friend's remarks are not really quite fair. I have done what I think no Englishman has done—on a Friday morning I have got a Scottish Bill amended.

I agree that my hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated for his temerity and success in that matter. I rather regretted some remarks which he made at the beginning of his speech about the profession generally. I am certain that we who know my hon. Friend in this House recognise that he was not serious in making those remarks; we are accustomed to remarks of that kind from him; but those outside who may see those remarks reported in the papers may not realise that they were not intended to be serious.

With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I do not think he was very fair, if I may say so, in one respect. He blamed Scot- tish private Members for bringing forward Measures of this character at a time of national emergency. He, who has been so long in the House, must be perfectly aware of what is obvious even to a newcomer like myself, namely, that a private Member who draws a place in the Ballot is at once confronted with this difficulty, that, if he adopts a Measure of primary importance, or one which arouses acute controversy, he has no chance whatever of getting that Measure passed into law. Obviously, therefore, the only thing he can do, if he wants to do some good with his luck in the Ballot, is to adopt a Measure of secondary importance, which is not going to arouse acute controversy.

This, undoubtedly, is a Measure of somewhat secondary importance, but it is of great importance, not only to the profession, but to the country at large. After all, the legal profession serves an extremely important function, as I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton would be the first to acknowledge, and it is of the greatest importance that its affairs should be conducted in such a way that the public will have confidence in it and in its work. It is with that object that this Bill has been introduced. it deals with a number of topics which have been very carefully considered, first by the framers of the Bill, secondly, by all the legal societies in Scotland, and, thirdly, by the Scottish Grand Committee, instructed by information supplied to them from all sorts of sources, professional and otherwise; and, at the end of that long and detailed examination, the Bill comes up here substantially unchallenged on any detail.

I know that the hon. Member for Bridgeton dislikes the Bill in principle, and I was rather interested to hear why, because, if I understood him aright, he dislikes it because there is no outside control of what he calls the professional trade union. If that is really his attitude, it throws a very interesting light on some other points. DÒes he really say that a trade union ought to be controlled by some public body outside and independent of the trade union? If that is what he means, it will have very interesting repercussions in other departments of politics and industry. If it is not what he means, I fail to understand the force of his criticism. The details of administration under the Bill are not controlled by the solicitors themselves in the last resort. There is an appeal from the committee in every matter that is material to the court in the last resort, entrants have their interests protected by a right of appeal to the court, procedure is liable to be adjusted in the last resort, and who is there better than the solicitors for the preparation and passing of these measures in the first instance? If the hon. Member was going to make these criticisms, he might have suggested, either now or at an earlier stage, what alternative method of control appealed to him as being useful. I am sure that, if he had put forward those suggestions in a concrete shape, they would have received very careful consideration. We have considered every suggestion that has been put forward, and we have adopted a great many. Nothing is perfect, but the Bill as it now stands is as good a Bill as could be produced, it will do a great deal of good both directly and indirectly, and I ask the House to disregard the criticisms that have been offered against it, and to give it a Third Reading without further opposition.

There is a measure of responsibility attaching to English Members if they allow the Third Reading to go through, and there is one point in the Bill which leaves us still completely mystified. On page 20 there is a side heading, "Borrowing process." That, to me, is meaningless, and I hope it will be explained. It is a little difficult to give assent to a technical Bill without much ampler explanation. It also calls for explanation why a solicitor who is entitled to borrow process must of necessity have a place of business in Edinburgh. Surely the profession can trust its Members who have places of business in other cities, and this is not a Measure for confining business solely to those who have offices in that ancient and venerable city.

I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. Member's question. By a "process" we just mean the pleadings in an action and any documentary evidence that may be put in. Together they form a process. The reason why a process can only be borrowed by someone having a place of business in Edinburgh, is that it is undesirable that official documents of that kind should go out of the custody of the Court.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that this does not mean that one Scot cannot borrow money from another unless he happens to be an inhabitant of Edinburgh?

I think that I am the only Scottish practising solicitor who is a, Member of the House, and I should like to express our gratitude to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) for having introduced the Bill and to the House for the patient way in which it has given consideration to it. It has been brought forward by the solicitors' profession with the object of improving their relations with the public, and not with any ulterior motive of benefiting the profession or making it more lucrative, as my hon. Friend and old school chum the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said. We have found difficulty in dealing with solicitors who have been inclined to deviate from the straight and narrow path. The Bill will give the solicitors themselves the power to control the profession, and I feel sure that it will be for the benefit of the profession and also of the public.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It has been my unhappy lot to receive a large number of letters from all sections of the country which show that this Bill deals with a very acute social evil. It seeks to give effect to a recommendation 20 years ago of a, Royal Commission which successive Governments have disregarded, with the result that there is an accumulation of terrible cases which must be unknown in the House, and which in intensity and seriousness is incredible unless the circumstances are brought directly to one's attention. This is a moment for which many people outside the House have been waiting. The Bill has been supported for the last 20 years by countless branches of the Labour women's organisation again and again—it is not open to any Labour representative to question such facts—and this reform has also been adopted by many associations of Liberal women and by their own national organisation. I want to make only two comments on the Bill. It does not impose any pressure on any person who does not desire to amend his unhappy condition of having an insane spouse. Secondly, the court has to be satisfied beyond a peradventure that the particular person involved in the petition has been incurably and continuously insane for a period of five years.

I understand that the only opposition to the Bill is based upon religious grounds, and I suggest that that should be left for discussion in Committee, where it can be more conveniently canvassed that it can be here. I make that suggestion for two reasons. I cannot on my conscience see how the cause of religion is to be advanced by suggestions here that any form of religion requires a continuance of this unhappy condition. I want, finally, to make the following appeal to my hon. Friends. Out of their mercy and humanity, I ask them to allow the Bill to go upstairs where all their objections can be canvassed and everything done to safeguard, as far as it is necessary, the great interests which they represent, and for which I have the greatest possible respect. I do not share their objections, but I appreciate them. I have had the advantage of talking to Prelates of the Church, and I say that this is a matter which ought to be carefully canvassed, and I ask my hon. Friends to-day to assist me by allowing a Second Reading of the Bill so that it can go upstairs where that process can be carried out in better circumstances than on the Floor of the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now", and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

Hon. Members, young and old, must be convinced of the sincerity arid humanity of the Mover of the Bill. We have listened to his pitiable plea that we should withdraw opposition to the Bill on the Floor of the House, but it is based on an assumption, I think, that he and those acting with him have a monopoly of the feelings of pity or of compassion. Nor is my opposition to the Bill confined within the ambit of his suggestion. My objection is social and is part of my British citizenship, and it is also religious. The suggestion that the religious objection to the Bill should be conveyed to the colder and remote area of a Committee room may indeed be the measure of the importance which my hon. and learned Friend attaches to the religious objection, but to me, for that objection is sincerely held, it should be faced in the House of. Commons and not behind the closed doors of one of its Committee rooms. It is a Private Members' Bill, and one must note the courage if not the audacity of a Private Member who would alter the matrimonial law of the British people. That he should ventilate his wishes is wholly right and proper, but that he should think that the objection should not be discussed and dealt with here seems to be, not out of order, but an improper suggestion. The Bill is the very first paragraph says:

"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual,"

The "Lords Spiritual" gives us an atmosphere in which one might approach the consideration of the Bile. for the Lords Spiritual of England call up to mind such names as that very ill-tempered prelate St. Thomas of Canterbury—what that Lord Spiritual might have thought of the learned Recorder I hesitate to say—St. Wilfred of York, St. Hugh of Lincoln, Prior Houghton of the Charterhouse and St. Anselm, the Benedictine Abbot, whose monastery is just across the Square: what he would have said would have been kind and merciful but, I think, disheartening. The atmosphere from the preamble of this Bill is not an atmosphere which should be relegated to the remote fastnesses of the Committee Room. It is a divorce Bill, and it is open to Members of the House to suggest that we have had quite enough divorce in this country already. The proposition, to my mind, is a most Bolshevist one. Members on the Opposition benches are often accused of Bolshevist proclivities, but never in their most exalted moments have they been thought guilty of suggesting that one of the greatest boons you can give to working class women and working class men is a. greater escape from the bonds of marriage, which they honour in a most distinguished and eminent way. The bond of marriage is not purely a legal one, unless we have gone far from the very old Roman and traditional conception of status. A marriage is far more than a contract; it implies a status as inescapable as fatherhood or sonship. I question very much whether a Motion or a Bill moved in this House necessarily abolishes the status in those who have acquired it.

It is distasteful to me that an hon. Member so full of human pity and so generally sympathetic to suffering should move a Bill, which, in my very humble and personal opinion, may add to the quantum of human misery. I suggest that all those who are insane are by no means insensitive. We know that in the asylums there are many persons who are properly certified as unfit for release, and yet they are conscious of what is going on in the world around them, and if the fact that they are certified as incurably insane may lead to the husband or wife, whom they still love, taking to themselves another partner, it adds a very grievous hurt to their present sufferings. Those who are insane are not insane as a rule through any fault of their own. It is an infliction which comes like other diseases. I understand the arguments which are often put for dissolving contracts through breaches of contract, but a husband or wife afflicted with incurable insanity has broken no contract. They are sufferers from misfortune. Traditionally in this country one takes one's partner,

"for better or worse, richer or poorer, till death do us part."

Those who practice in the Divorce Court may have lowered the ideals of the marriage contract, and, although, if they were entering into the marriage contract, they could properly say to their partner, "Let us enter into this contract with our eyes open; it is a contract under the old traditional name of marriage but shows you and me that it may be terminated on such and such conditions whether you are responsible or not. "Nevertheless, the majority of our young people who enter marriage enter it with the old traditional concept of a life bond. And such is the fervour with which they approach the marriage state that I do not think that even a warning by the learned Recorder that certain events may dissolve the bond would remove from their young minds the idea that they were entering into an ancient and a life-honoured bond. One has to think of the many effects of the Bill. Its alleviation of immediate disttess may give rise to much lasting unhappiness. The children have a right to be considered in this matter. They have not chosen to come into the world, and, although their father may desire another partner to share his sorrows or his joys, it seems to me that for a court to be given the power to dissolve the union and the children not to have a right to say that they wish the union to be maintained, for they are an essential part of the union, is to shut one's eyes to the fundamental cause of the stability of this English State. For all our laws and all our customs in this country are based upon the assumption that the family is a unit. We have not yet reached the Russian state in which every person is considered as an isolated economic unit. We look upon the family as one, and he who hurts one in a family hurts the whole family. The children will receive lifelong harm if they go through life deprived of their rightful parentage through the act of this House.

Much of the efficient practice of the Bill will depend upon medical certification. It is distressful to me that my profession should be called in to add to those who, being unhappily married once, wish to enter upon that state afresh. Our work will, I hope, be divorced from this responsibility. We are told by the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Bill that the law courts will function with their traditional carefulness. But it is common knowledge, and no reproach to the many eminent and learned lawyers in this House, that practice in the Divorce Court is not above suspicion. I look with some distress on the possibility that the weaker members.of our profession may be tempted to give certificates in the same way as those who keep hotels and boarding-houses are asked to furnish evidence for a divorce court. There is an atmosphere about the Divorce Courts which in itself condemns the process. Unpleasant as is a doctor's life, there will be an added unpleasantness if we may be tempted—I do not say that we shall fall, but we may be tempted—by managing clerks "just to consider this case a little more carefully," and perhaps to weigh down the scales against the suffering person unable to speak well for himself.

There is another aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the House, and that is that one of the most beneficent advances in our care of lunatics in this country has been the ease with which, in remission of their illness, they are allowed to return to their own homes. That provision will, however, come to a dead end if this Bill goes through. We know the weakness of human nature, and we know that divorce is often not contemplated until a new partner is already upon the horizon. If a wife has been in an asylum and the husband has already an inkling to turn elsewhere to comfort himself, then that wife will not be invited to his home in the periods when she might properly go there. In other words, our asylum population, already too large, will be permanently increased, because by not withdrawing patients they may be kept in for the five years. That will hinder their recovery and make the probability of their certification even stronger.

Moreover, not all asylums are public asylums; many are private asylums where, at very high fees, lunatics are detained under certification under the best and most comfortable conditions. If, then you be the proprietor of a private asylum, depending upon your clients for your livelihood, you will be tempted to retain your patients beyond the allotted span if, by so doing, the five years can be completed. By being kept there in that atmosphere of insanity, those who were curable may slip further down the slope into the group of the incurables. Although the Law Courts function with singular skill, I would remind the House that the language of specialists in mental disease is indeed an esoteric language. I will not inflict the terms of the alienist upon the House, but it seems to me that even experienced lawyers and experienced judges will have the utmost difficulty in coming to right decisions—they can always come to some decision—if they are to be weighed down by the heavy and almost incomprehensible nomenclature of the alienist. A man needs an immersion in the special work of mental disease before he can be at home with its ever-changing terminology. The certificate which in black and white looks most formidable may, when analysed by an expert, prove to deal with very simple subjects. One knows that in the Divorce Courts opposition is often weak, and I conceive that under this Bill this evil will not be mitigated but great and grievous injustice will be done to the very weakest of our citizens, whose undefended state should make a strong appeal to the pity and compassion of this House. In Clause I we are told that:

"The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is hereby amended as follows:—"

That is no doubt most proper drafting, but to me as a layman it is chloroform. I am anaesthetised by having to concentrate my remarks within that title. I am not trained in the law; I am neither a lawyer nor a canonist, and what that means is Greek to me. It doubtless represents an Act, and a tradition—

If the hon. Member will allow me to explain: The Section quoted ets out the grounds on which a petition for divorce can be put in. What this Bill does is to add an additional ground as recommended by the Commission.