Lords Sitting of 30 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bill. Received the Royal assent:—Registration and Marriages; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Recorder's Courts; Shire Halls; Pillory Punishment Abolition; Royal Military Canal; Public Works (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Dublin Police; Commissioners of Bankrupts (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Sugar Duties; Lands and Buildings Conveyance.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from the Guardians of the Chesterton Union, Cambridge, complaining of the evils which arose from the occupiers of small cottages being assessed to the Poor 's-rates; and praying that the Landlords may be subject to this impost rather than the Tenants.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from a great number of places, against Church-rates.

PUBLIC MONUMENTS.
Lord Broughamheld in his hand a petition, most numerously and respectfully signed, in which the petitioners stated that the frequent contemplation of works of art, ready access to objects of literary interest, and of natural history, together with facilities for obtaining information on all matters connected with literature, science, and the fine arts, tended in the highest degree to elevate the character of a nation, and to improve the morals of all classes. The petitioners begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact, that the apprehensions entertained of injury to the contents of the National Gallery and the British Museum, from the recently increased facilities of access, had proved unfounded. The petitioners prayed that enlarged facilities should be granted to the public in visiting St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, the Tower, and the Gallery in Trafalgar-square. The noble and learned Lord presented a petition from the Literary and Scientific Institution of Poplar to the same effect.
Lord Hathertoncould not allow the petition to pass without saying a few words upon the subject, which he was glad had at last been taken up. The people of this country had always, as regarded the public institutions and works of art, been in a disadvantageous position when compared with other countries. It was a disgrace to Government and Parliament, that such disadvantages should exist—tending, as the admission to all the institutions would do, to promote refinement. Had any bad results or any inconvenience whatever arisen from the admission of the public to the British Museum? When first it had been proposed to give the public free admission to the British Museum, it was feared that the collections contained therein might suffer injury. The same was said when it was proposed to admit

1711
the public to St. James's Park. But all these apprehensions had proved unfounded, and the people had conducted themselves in the most unexceptionable manner when admitted to those places. He recollected that in 1824, he had taken a part in erecting a monument to one of the most distinguished men this country had produced, the late Mr. Watt. The monument erected to his memory was executed in his best style by Sir Francis Chantry, and when it was proposed that it should be placed in Westminster Abbey, where it would be shut up from the view of the public, he recollected that some dissatisfaction was excited, and that the amount of the subscriptions was lessened by that circumstance. He thought that free admission should be given to St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, a part of the Tower, the National Gallery, and other institutions. Such institutions should be shown for two days in the week gratuitously, and that on other days a charge might be made for admission.

COMMON LAW COURTS.
Lord Denman Lord Denman, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was to abolish certain offices in the common law courts. It was stated by Sir Robert Peel, when moving for the Commission out of which the Bill rose, that one great object of it should be to lay a ground for future legal forms, and for that purpose it would be necessary to abolish certain sinecure offices, for those offices would be found great obstacles to the projected reforms. The Commissioners, after some time spent in inquiry, sent a communication to the Treasury, stating that it would be advisable that nineteen offices should be abolished in the King's Bench, and twenty-one in the Common Pleas; that the expense of compensating the former would be about 31,000 l., and of the latter about 11,000 l. They also recommended a more simple mode of doing the business of the courts. The plan was brought under the consideration of the judges, and it was their opinion that there should be five masters for each of the courts, that all the others should be abolished, and the parties compensated on the principle of the former Bill. A bill embodying this plan had been introduced by his learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Goulburn). It had been stated that the three chief judges of the courts would not consent to abolishing
1712
so much of their patronage, unless five masters were appointed to each court. That was a most unfounded statement, and he could assure their Lordships that there had not been, as far as he was concerned, (and he was sure he could say the same for his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and for his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,) that there had been no consultations or bargainings on the subject. He was not even acquainted with the Bill until after it had been brought into the other House by his learned Friend Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, who was kind enough to submit it to his consideration. The object of the Bill was, as he had already stated, to abolish a great number of offices in the courts, and in their place to substitute five masters with 1,200 l. a-year in each court. Another object would be a saving of the money of the suitors, and a more uniform system of taxation in all the courts. The noble Lord concluded by mentioning the names of the gentlemen whom he bad appointed; and then moved that the bill be read a second time.
Lord Ellenborough: The grounds on which the noble and learned Lord had offered the Bill to their Lordships were, that it would be an improvement in the system of business in the courts, and would effect a considerable saving of money to the suitors; but he submitted that these objects could not be gained by the Bill as it now stood. The only real benefit which he saw likely to result from the Bill would be that of an uniformity in the system of the taxation of costs in all the courts. As to the abolition of offices that had been provided for by the bill of 1825, which declared that a certain number of sinecure offices should be abolished on the expiration of the lives of the present occupants. Again, under the Act of the 3rd Geo. 4th, the judges had the power of fixing the fines to be received by the officers of their respective courts, and according to that Act there was no reason whatever why they should not make such reductions as they considered necessary. It was, therefore, merely a pretence to bring forward such a magnificent preamble as was prefixed to this Bill, as the same objects might be effected by acts which were already in existence.
Lord Wynfordremarked, that many

1713
duties formerly discharged by officers appointed for that purpose had ceased. For instance, all real actions had been abolished, and the duties of the officers in the Court of Common Pleas who were engaged in attending to the proceedings connected therewith had ceased with them. The principal merit of this Bill appeared to consist in establishing one uniform system of taxation in all the three courts, and this was in itself a sufficient recommendation.
Lord Langdalesaid, that with reference to the objection which had been made elsewhere, that the Bill went to appoint five principal officers, whereas the Commissioners in their Report only recommended four, it seemed to him much more desirable that a court should have too many officers than too few, in order to avoid delay. The principal difficulty, which he found in the Bill, was in the clauses relating to compensation. He must say, that it appeared to him to be unjust to impose the expense of such compensation on the persons who were hereafter to become suitors. Compensation was to be made out of the fee fund, provided that fund was sufficient, thereby throwing the whole burthen and the whole expense on the suitors. In his opinion, the fees ought to be reduced to such a point as would be sufficient to pay the general expenses of the court, and the compensation should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Abingerwas favourable to this Bill, as it tended to assimilate the practice of the courts; but he did not approve of that part of it which disappropriated the officers from the courts to which they belonged. They would not know where to take their seats. The Master of the King's Bench would be dancing attendance in the Court of Exchequer, and the Master of the Exchequer would be sitting in the Common Pleas. In short there would be a perpetual maze of confusion. He objected to any attempt to make the officers common to all the courts, although he had no objection for officers of one court to revise the taxation of another.
Bill read a second time.