was against the principle of the Bill, inasmuch as it went to introduce stipendiary magistrates in the place of that respectable class of magistrates, who in this county discharged the functions of magistracy gratuitously. It had been said, that it was not the custom in the duchy of Lancaster to appoint any man in trade a magistrate, and that there were but few wealthy men in Manchester not engaged in trade. If there was nothing but this custom which could be ad- vanced in favour of the measure, he thought that it would be better to break through it, and introduce into the commission some of the respectable gentlemen engaged in trade and manufactures.

said, that the reason of the rule was, that as a great part of the business of the magistrates in Manchester consisted in settling the disputes of masters and their workmen, a magistrate who was himself concerned in manufacture, might be suspected by some persons of having a bias one way, and of not being so impartial as could be wished. He had no objection, however, to introduce into the commission of the peace for Manchester, wealthy and respectable persons engaged in trade, but not in manufactures. He had already made the offer if any such gentlemen would pledge themselves to be acting magistrates. The business, however, of the sessions at Manchester was very heavy, and the few country gentlemen in the neighbourhood who were magistrates, refused to act unless some more assistance was procured for them. Although he highly approved of the principle of preferring the services of independent gentlemen acting gratuitously to paid magistrates, yet there were some cases in which it could not be adopted. He conceived the case of Manchester to be an exception, and that the present Bill was necessary.

The House then divided: For the Bill, 47: Against it, 23: Majority, 24.

Wynn presented a Bill for amending and rendering more effectual the laws for the trials of controverted elections, and returns of members to serve in parliament; also, a Bill for the more regular conveyance of writs for the election of members to serve in parliament; and the same were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

rose with a desire to put a question to the hon. member, whose motion for the consideration of the report from the Committee on the Leather Tax, stood originally for this night: seeing now that the motion was altered for Tuesday, the 18th of May, his lordship wished to be informed, if it was the hon. member's intention to bring forward his motion certainly, on that night

expressed his obligation to his noble friend, for the opportunity he thus gave him of declaring to the House his full intention to bring the subject forward on Tuesday, the 18th of May. He stated it to have been his anxious desire to have discussed this important question on this night, but the Catholic question having twice interfered with his design of bringing his motion forward, he had now fixed upon Tuesday next, when his notice would take precedence of all orders.

in pursuance of his notice, rose to submit a motion to the House on the Petition of a gentleman of the name of Crutchley, formerly prothonotary of the Palace Court. He entered at length into a detail of the various complaints of Mr. Crutchley against Mr. Burton Morris, the judge of the court, the abstract of which was, that the latter gentleman, on receiving his appointment from lord Aylesford, the lord steward, on the 25th of February, 1811, raised the fees of the court, which had not been regulated since the patent of its constitution was granted by Charles the first. By this innovation, Mr. Morris gained about 500l. per annum; and in the whole the encrease of emolument to the various officers was about 2,000l. This alteration of the fundamental regulations of the court, however, did not please Mr. Crutchley, the prothonotary, who objected to exact the new demands, and the animosity between the judge and this officer was augmented by a previous dispute respecting some fees received by Mr. Crutchley after the appointment of Mr. Morris, but previous to the administration of the oaths. A variety of hostile proceedings followed;—the Lord Steward and the knight marshal, sir James Bland Burgess, met upon the subject, and the termination was the dismissal of Mr. Crutchley from his office. Under these circumstances, his Petition, after a series of charges of extortion against the judge, prayed that an enquiry might be instituted before a select committee, that the true state of the case might be ascertained, and relief afforded. Mr Brand therefore moved for the appointment of such committee.

argued with great warmth, that Mr. Burton Morris was as irreproachable and unassailable a character as any man in the kingdom: and that he was eagerly anxious that his conduct should be enquired into. The Petition now pre- sented was stuffed full of slander: it charged the judge with extortion, and with corrupting his confidential clerk. But this was merely an ex parte statement. There was no parliamentary ground for the present motion. Mr. Crutchley, if injured, had another remedy, by scire facias or action at law. Mr. Morris was justified in what he had done by the example of no less men than lord Holt, lord chief baron Hale, and lord Hardwicke. Though he would readily allow that it would have been more delicate and discreet in him not to have altered the fees of his court where he was himself to be benefited, at the same time he insisted that he had acted with perfect justice and honour.

said, the Petition contained a heavy charge against a judge of the land: he did not believe that it was true; still as it was admitted by the hon. advocate, that he had acted with some imprudence, it would be better that the matter should go before a committee, that all might be cleared. In his own opinion, a judge could not alter the fees of his court, without an act of parliament. He had no doubt, however, that the learned judge had acted merely from error, and not from any desire of gain: still, in a matter of this importance, it was fit that the business should be properly investigated before a committee.

said, that on a former occasion, when this subject had been discussed, he had opposed the committee; but his reason for doing so was, that from the late period of the session, and the hon. and learned judge against whom the petition was presented being about to set off immediately on his circuit, it would have been impossible at that time for any investigation to have taken place. Now, however, the case was otherwise, and as he was certain the hon. and learned judge was desirous that every part of his conduct on the occasion complained of should be fully examined into, he would vote for the committee.

said, he really could not say whether the court of King's-bench could legally take cognizance of this matter under a scire facias: if it could not, the House, being in such cases the dernier resort to which the subject could appeal, ought to interfere, from the jealous eye with which it should always view the proceedings of courts of justice, where they were charged with acting contrary to the the established Jaw of the land. He should therefore vote for the committee.

said, notwithstanding the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Raine.) that the judge could not create fees, yet there were many cases in which it had been determined, that the judge might limit fees, though he could not create them; as such, he thought sufficient parliamentary grounds had been laid, for the Petition being considered by a committee.

said, he had listened attentively to all that had been urged on both sides of the subject; and from what he had heard (for he was a perfect stranger to both the petitioner and the party complained of) he thought no ground had been laid for a committee. It was his opinion, that for their own convenience, and the dignity of the House, they should not lose their time in inquiries into the petty disputes between a court and its officers: they might as well be desired to interfere between the constable of the night and the watchmen of a parish.

said it was well known, that fees to be taken in a court of law could not legally be fixed and levied on the subject by any other power than an act of parliament, or long established custom. If this had been done in the present case, as alleged in the Petition, and the petitioner had been suspended for resisting it, it did not appear to him that the petitioner could obtain redress from any other quarter than from that House, and he was, therefore, in favour of the committee.

said, he did not know how the law could in this case give effectual relief, for though it might afford it to the individual, it could not grant it to the public at large, who were to be burdened by those additional fees. This judge had, at the time he made this increase in the fees of the court, and still has, a jurisdiction over a million of people; so that a dispute between him and his officers bore no comparison with that of the constable of the night, and the watchmen of a parish, as had been observed by an hon. and learned gentleman. It was not on account of any thing that had passed previous to this rule, that this officer had been suspended. This he averred on his own knowledge. The true question was, whether he had been suspended on account of resisting those fees as illegal. Immediately after this resistance, new accusations were made, but not old ones. These new charges were brought against him very suddenly, without allowing him time to defend himself; and on two of these he was suspended.

said a few words in favour of the committee.

A division took place: For the Committee 16; Against it 2. There not being forty members present, the House adjourned, and the motion was consequently lost.