rose, pursuant to notice, to make his motion respecting the Palace Court. He stated its origin and the jurisdiction allotted to it under Charles 1 and Charles 2. Its extent was twelve miles round London. Its judges were the lord steward of the houshold, the knight marshal, the steward of the court, and some others. The lord steward had no salary. The knight marshal had a composition in lieu of fees, and the steward of the court a salary arising from fees. In 1811, Mr. Burton Morrice was appointed steward, with this salary, amounting to a sum between 3 and 400l. a year. Soon after his appointment, he consulted the prothonotary, (Mr. Crutchley,) about the method of raising his own fees. Mr. Crutchley dissuaded him from any such attempt. No other person was consulted; and in November, to his great surprise, Mr. Morrice put into his hand a rule, purporting that it was expedient, on account of the depreciated value of money, to charge higher fees, and it accordingly directed an increase of the counsellor's fees, raising the five shilling fee to half-a-guinea, and the half-guinea to a guinea. It directed the payment of 1s. on each writ to the officer of the court, and extended the 3s. 6d. fee of the attornies to 6s. 8d. Though these additions might appear small, yet they were highly objectionable, inasmuch as it was illegal for any judge to alter and increase his own fees. The method of doing it, in this case, was no less derogatory to the character of a judge. He had not consulted with the steward of the houshold, nor the knight marshal, his brother judges, on the subject; but advised with the attornies, whom he was appointed to controul, and instituted an enquiry with them, for the purpose of ascertaining how far the consumption of law might be increased. By this proceeding, he held out a temptation to these officers of the court not to oppose the illegality of his conduct; and the consequence was, that they all, except the prothonotary, returned him thanks for his generosity in the disposal of money not his own. There were six attornies, and four counsel in that court, who must be employed in every issue: and thus, though the fees were small, yet their gains would be great; and in a small action for 4l. or 5l. the increase of costs would be very great. Persons who might be able to pay 12l. might not be able to pay the additional 4l. which would be required by this new impost, and might thus be forced to remain in prison. This surely was a regulation not to be tolerated. The prothonotary remonstrated on the subject, and wrote a letter to the judge, in which, perhaps, with some sar- castic expressions, he asked him how he proposed that the newly created fees should be collected, and who was to be appointed to collect this new revenue. The judge wrote an answer, charging Mr. Crutchley with disgraceful ignorance, and expressing the highest indignation at what he called his insolence. He stated, that it was the duty of the prothonotary to make the collection, and that if he did not do it, he should be forced; adding, that unless submission was made, the proposed allowance should be withdrawn, and Mr. Crutchley should perform the directions of the rule without fee. The prothonotary then wrote to the knight marshal (sir James Bland Burgess) inclosing this letter; and the knight marshal wrote to Mr. Burton Morrice. The consequence was, that Mr. Burton Morrice promulgated a new rule, in which he animadverted on the conduct of the knight marshal, for his interference in the business of a court where he never attended to perform his duty: (and this, too, ought to be enquired into,) but agreed to suspend the former rule in part, till some legal discussion should take place. The prothonotary, however, as might perhaps be expected, was no longer an officer of the court, being accused of several petty charges, which were collected together in a body against him, and styled crimes and misdemeanours. The charges were partly frivolous; such as accusing him of erasing a record, when in fact, he had only made an alteration, for the purpose of correctness; and partly such as the judge should have hesitated to punish another for committing, being guilty of the same in a greater degree; namely, taking a larger than the legal fee on a writ. The knight marshal rescinded, the next sitting day, the obnoxious rule, and very properly took the first opportunity of removing what was so prejudicial to the suitors of that court. Not-withstanding this revocation of the rule, the assessor of lord Aylesford, sir James Bland Burgess, and Mr. Burton Morrice, made a rule against Mr. Crutchley. The assessor had not sufficient knowledge of all the facts to enable him to form a proper opinion, the knight marshal expressed himself strongly in favour of Mr. Crutchley, and thus it happened that the person whose vote was to turn the scale against the prothonotary, was Mr. B. Morrice, who became judge of his own cause. The judgment also was given with an extraordinary degree of precipitation. The court usually sat on Friday, but on that occasion it was proposed to adjourn from Friday only to the Tuesday following. The knight marshal objected, and asked the reason of this unusual proceeding? He was answered, that lord Aylesford would go out of office on Tuesday. The knight marshal still objecting, it was answered, they would proceed to judgment immediately, and in consequence sentence of suspension was drawn up with great hurry against Mr. Crutchley. The hon. and learned gentleman submitted to the House, whether the conduct of the judge was justifiable, supposing it to proceed either from ignorance or corrupt motives; and whether it was fitting that poor suitors should be oppressed by the additional fees imposed upon them. He concluded, by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to enquire into the conduct of Burton Morrice, esq., Steward, and one of the Judges of the Palace Court."

seconded the motion, declaring that, in his opinion, if there ever was a case which called for the interference of parliament, this was the case.

thought when the superior officers of a court of justice were so much at variance as they seemed to have been in the present instance, it was the province of the House to interfere. The officers of the Palace court had already been before the privy council.

strongly vindicated the conduct of Mr. Burton Morrice. Charges of a grave nature ought to be as gravely answered, and he denied the charges as explicitly as they could be made. The charges alluded to against Mr. Crutchley, the prothonotary of the Palace court, had been preferred six months before Mr. Morrice became the judge of that court. If there was one man in the profession incapable of a mean or dishonourable thing, in his idea, it was Mr. Burton Morrice, against whom the present complaint would not have been exhibited that day, had he consented to the restoration of Mr. Crutchley to his situation—a thing which he could not do, consistently with his duty to the public.

bore testimony to a similar effect, contending, that it was not fair to Mr. Morrice that such a question should be gone into at this period of the session.

resisted the appointment of a committee, bearing his testimony to the honourable character of Mr. Morrice. He thought that the matter was rather un- fairly brought forward at that late period of the session, when a full enquiry could not be accomplished. If the hon. member would withdraw his motion now, and propose it at a future period, he was certain that Mr. Morrice would court enquiry.

having been a contemporary at the bar with Mr. Morrice, thought it his duty to express the high respect he entertained for his character. He was in favour of enquiry, but not at that late period.

had never heard of the case before, but was convinced that no parliamentary ground had been laid for investigation. It was the duty of the House to protect the administration of justice, but it was not to interfere in trifling cases, where no corruption or malversation had been shewn. In his lordship's opinion the whole case originated in inadvertence.

warmly opposed the motion.

supported the motion, and thought that those who opposed enquiry were not friends to the learned judge, against whose conduct it was brought forward. No one had denied that irregularities did exist, and these must go on for several months. There was only the opinion of the attorney-general in favour of the proceedings of the learned judge, and there were three against it. Mr. serjeant Best, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. serjeant Shephard, had given their opinions that it was illegal. Five or seven days would be sufficient for the investigation, and he thought the House ought instantly to grant the enquiry.

resisted the enquiry, because he thought no sufficient ground was laid for it; and if the matter stood over till next sessions no one could be injured by it.

replied shortly, and the gallery was cleared, for a division, but they did not divide. The motion was then negatived.