Lords Sitting of 8 March 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Distraining for Rates; Petty Sessions.
3a Commons Inclosure; Buckingham Summer Assizes.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Clergy and Others, of the County of Meath, and several other Places in Ireland, against the Rate in Aid Bill.—From Guardians of the Letterkenny Union (Ireland), against the Rate in Aid Bill, and in favour of Emigration.—From Members of the Grand Protestant Association of Loyal Orangemen, and Others of Rawenstall, and other Places in Ireland, against the Endowment of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.—From Members of the above Association, and Others, for the Abolition of the general Rule adopted by the Government respecting the Grants in Aid of Public Education.—From Burnley, for certain Alterations in the Law relating to Beer Licences.—From Whalley, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—From Whitstable, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—From the Parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, for the Repeal of the Law of Settlement.

THE PALACE COURT.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to order to be laid before the House a copy of the patent of Charles II., establishing the Palace Court. It would be in their Lordships' recollection, that, near the close of last Session, he moved for certain returns connected with that court. Those returns were now on the table, but he regretted to find that they were not so satisfactory as they ought to be. He had moved for a return showing the amount of costs in each case; but the returns furnished by the officer of the court only stated that the amount of costs averaged from 4l. 15 s. to 6l. Now, although this might be a fair average of the general amount, he believed that it by no means fully represented the maximum of costs paid by suitors in the Palace Court. The subject was a very important one, when it was considered that since the passing of the Small Debts Act, the number of cases in this court had increased from about 450 a year, to 1,149. There were four counsel and six attorneys who practised in this court, and who paid a considerable sum for the exclusive privilege. He thought the system of selling the right of practice to counsel and solicitors

383
was highly objectionable, and that a court of such a nature was a grievance and source of extortion which ought to be abolished; but where vested interests had to be dealt with, the Legislature must not wholly put out of view the question of compensation. As he was anxious that the House should possess the fullest information on this subject, he now moved for a copy of the patent establishing the court.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the subject was a very important one, and he was glad that it had attracted the attention of his noble Friend. He, however, thought it would be better to amend the constitution, without altogether destroying this ancient court.
Motion agreed to.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES BILL
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE moved the Third Reading of the Buckinghamshire Summer Assizes Bill.
The DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that he had been entrusted by the inhabitants of the town of Buckingham with a petition against this Bill. They believed that the change would not be for the benefit of the county. At Buckingham there was an excellent town-hall, and the best accommodation for the Judges, and, therefore, they conceived that it would be unfair, in consequence of a mere whim of the magistrates, to remove the assizes from their town.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdefended the Bill on the ground that Aylesbury was a more desirable situation for the assizes than Buckingham.
Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned.