HC Deb 06 March 1837 vol 36 cc1362-4

On the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of this Bill being read,

Mr. Pease

inquired, whether the judgements of the County Palatine Courts of Durham and Lancaster would, under this Bill, have equal weight with those of the superior Courts of Westminster Hall?

Lord Stanley

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give his particular attention to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Durham. It was desirable that this Bill, which professed to be a remedial measure, should not inflict injustice. This it certainly would do if it destroyed the efficacy of the judgments of the Courts in question. The inhabitants within their jurisdiction would have to submit either to the expense of proceedings in Westminster Hall, or to a total denial of justice. The practice of those Courts had been assimilated by Act of Parliament with that of Westminster Hall, but this would go to neutralise that provision of the Legislature.

The Attorney-General

feared that un- less there were a general registry of judgments (and no one could desire that improvement more than he did) it would be most inconvenient to allow the judgments of those Courts to have full for e and effect. The result would be, that no property could be transferred without searching for judgments in the Palatine Courts of Durham and Lancaster, as well as in the Common Law Courts of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Wason

observed, that the difficulty might be obviated, by confining the judgments to property in the two counties of Lancaster and Durham.

Report considered. Some clauses were added, and ordered to be printed. The Report to be further considered.