Star.
London, England, 1827-03-15 00:00:00

DOCTORS' COMMONS.

Mr. HUME, in pursuance of the nstice he had given,
moved for Copies of the By-I I s and Regulations for
the admission of Proctors at Doctors' Commons. The
subject, he said, was one of the greatest public interest.
Everybody knew the heavy tax imposed on private
estates, on their transmission in consequence of death.
These by-laws and regulations had a direct .tendency
to aggravate the evil of the tax, by swelling the amount
of charges. It was enacted by one of the clauses of an
Act passed in the year 181 S, that no person should act
as a Prcctor unless regularly admitted, under a penalty
of 801. Th • effect of this law had been to establish a
complete monopoly. The regulations under which the
Courts of Doctors' Commons had thought proper to
exercise the power conferred upon them by the Act, had
limited the number of practitioners to 110 or 120. .01
these the first 25 only were called Proctors, and the
other Procurators. No person could be additted-rto
practise unless be had served octet kship of 4ereo years
to one of the 25; and this was a hardrhip..ap tlsree.or
four years would just as well suffice to leati Rll shot
was necessary. But what he chiefly complainid of was,
that those Proctors exacted on taking a clerk, a premium
of 10001. When the duty of 1201. to the King Was
added to this, there was a sum of 11201. which must
be paid down at once, to introduce a vuth to thispro-
fession. -Besides this, applicants were often obliged to'
wait till vacancies occurred in the offices of these 25
privileged p. rums. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving for a copy of the By-laws and Regulations for
the admission of Proctors at Doctors' Commons, tole
ther with the dates of the risme.
Dr. PHILLIMORE said, the Hon. Member was is
an error with respect to the Act alluded to. The regu-
lations for the admission of Proctors were always the
same as new.

HUME said that he had fallen into no mistake
upon the subject. Before this clause had been iatro.
duced, persons who had acted as clerks, though Rot re.
gularly articled, might do the business of Proctors, and
it was then done upon much cheaper terms.
The motion was agreed to.
HACKNEY COACHES AND CABRIOLSTS.

Mr. HUYIE, in pursuance of notice, then rose to move
for a re urn of the number of hackney coach and ca-
briolet licences granted to the present period. The
Hon. Member complained of the monopoly which was
practised under the present system of granting licences,
which he contended were reserved for the favourites of
the hackney coach commissioners, to the complete ex-
clusion of industrious and deserving men. An instance,
he said, was known of one person, a wine merchant,
who was the owner of eighteen or twenty cabriolets,
each of which he was in the habit of letting out for 245.
or 255. a day, giving him an enormous profit, which
might be much more beneficially divided between a
number of poor men. The gloss sum collected last
yeas by the commissioners of hackney coaches amount•
ed to 69.0001. and the expense of collecting the reve-
nue was 12,000/. per annum. In the year 1797, a
Committee was Appointed to take into consideration the
state of this department. end they reported that
the whole of the duty .cf collecting the revenue, and

granting licences, might be transferred, with advantage,
en the Stamp-office, a measure which the report recom-
mended. Why that recommendation was not followed

he (Mr. Hume) did not know, but he conceived it would
be a rely west improvement of the present system of
granting licei.ct!s, if that duty were transferred to the
Police M•igilrates, who would have a judicial controul
over the parties apvlying for licences, and who would
he less likely to be influenced by feelings of partiality.
He wished that the Right lion. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was in his place to suggest this proposal to
him, which he was convinced would be attended with
4 considerable saving. He meant to move, at a future
period, for a Committee to consider the propriety of
abolishiwg the hackney-coach office altogether.
Mr. MABEILLY concurred in the view which his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) Lad taken of the subject eta
,'braced by his motion. He regretted that the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer was not present, as he was con-,
winced that a saving of at least lo.oog. a. year would,
be the effect of acceding to the nr)tinn of his Hun.
Write:rd.—The motion was then agreed to.