§ On the Motion of Mr. Stanley, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas Bill.
593§ On the Question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
§ Mr. Jervis moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering both the principle and provisions of the measure. A Bill proposing so important an alteration on a subject not generally understood by the House required previous consideration in a Committee, and it was distinctly understood, when the Bill was read a second time, that the House was not pledged to the principle. It was true, the Bill was founded on the Report of the Commissioners for the county palatine of Lancaster, but that Report was made before the recent alterations and improvements in the practice of the superior Courts at Westminster. Had those improvements then taken place, it was highly probable that the Commissioners would not have come to the conclusion they did; and it was to be observed, that an hon. and learned Member, who was one of the Commissioners, was not present to-night to defend his views. A Select Committee would examine these Commissioners. The process in the Palatine Court was much more expensive, and much more objectionable, than the practice in the superior Courts. It might perhaps be said, that the object of the Bill was to place the practice of the Court upon the same footing as that of the Superior Courts. But his objection was, that no competent machinery existed, nor could any be created, without involving the country in great expense for compensation, to which he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object. He thought that they should totally abolish the jurisdiction of the Palatine Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that the intention of the hon. and learned member for Chester seemed to be to destroy not the Bill alone, but the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster. There was this broad distinction between those Courts of Counties Palatine which had been abolished, and those which had been retained, that the latter were presided over by the Judges of the land, while the former were not. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be, to draw the practice out of the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster, in order to put it into the hands of the attornies 594 of the Courts of Westminster. It was extraordinary that, although they had no interest in the Bill, all the attornies and solicitors of the different towns of Lancashire had petitioned in its favour. The Report of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, directly negatived all the statements of the hon. and learned member for Chester. That Report stated, among other matters, that the expense of the actions tried in the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster was one-third less than the expense of actions tried in the Courts of Westminster Hall. It stated, also, that the administration of justice, in the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster had been highly satisfactory to his Majesty's subjects in that part of the kingdom; and it recommended, not that those Courts should be abolished, but that their practice should be more closely assimilated to the practice of the Courts of Westminster. That was the object, and the whole object, of the Bill under consideration. All the clauses of this Bill were taken from Acts which had been passed for the improvements of the Courts at Westminster. He called upon the House, therefore, not to be deterred from the adoption of a measure which would be highly advantageous to the people of the county of Lancaster, by any clamour raised by the attornies of Westminster, from whom alone the opposition to the Bill proceeded.
§ Mr. Pollockdid not think, that the course which had been adopted by his hon. and learned friend was a fair mode of dealing with the measure. The objections of his hon. and learned friend were applicable to some of the clauses of this Bill, and not to its principle. He trusted, that the House would not consent to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee. Such a proceeding was unnecessary; for they already knew, from experience in the Courts of Westminster, the advantages which it was now sought by the Bill to communicate to the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster.
§ The Amendment was negatived. The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
§ The four first Clauses having been agreed to,
§ Mr. Jervisproposed, that the 5th clause, which authorized process of outlawry to 595 issue from the Palatine jurisdiction, be omitted. That clause would have this oppressive effect, that, if a man resided for a week in Lancashire, and then went to reside in the next county, process could not issue there from the Palatine Court, which, not finding him within its jurisdiction, would outlaw him. This would throw an enormous expense upon him without any fault of his.
§ Mr. Pollocksaid, that, unless the clause was retained, the Court would have no means of enforcing its judgments. With the superintendence exercised by the Courts in matters of this kind, there was no fear of a man going uselessly to the expense of outlawry.
§ The Committee divided on the question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill: Ayes 43; Noes 14—Majority 29.
§ The Clauses, to the 16th, were agreed to.
§ The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.