The Law Practitioners’ Bill.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 64, 8 November 1887, Page 3

The Law Practitioners’ Bill.

Tn career of the above measure will be watched with interest by many in this district—not because there is anything new in it, bat because it seems to have a better chance of passing now than it ever had. Our Wellington correspondent appears convinced that the Bill has not got much chance, assuming that the Lords will make use of their right of veto if they are required to decideThe following is a brief report of the debate on the measure Sir George Grey, moving the second reading of bis Law Practitioners’ Bill, adducing all his previous arguments in favour of the measure. Dr Fitchett opposed the Bill on the grounds that it was liberal to the verge of profligacy, and dispensed with the attainment by embryo lawyers of what it is known as “ general knowledge.” Mr W. P. Beeves supportecf'the second reading of the Bill, as did also Mr Taiwhanga, the latter on the ground that if he had some years ago the facilities afforded by this Bill he would have been able to conduct his own legal bn, ness and would not have lost £l6OO by Mr Forwood. Mr Menteath opposed the Bill in the interests of the pubic and to protect them against the raising of a horde of needy practitioners. Mr Hutchison snf p rted the measure, demine that the ptofession would not suffer thereby. Mr T ipu, supported the Bill, believing it would lead to cheap law. Mr W. D. Stewart, as he has consistently done for the three year , d the me ,- sure, nominally in the interests , f the public. Sir George Grey replied, and the econd leading on division was agreed tr by 57 to 15