HOUSE OF LORDS

TUESDAY, JUNE 30.

Mr. Palmer's Per-Centage Bill, was, on the motion of Earl Fitzwilliam, read a first time. The Bill was ordered to be printed; and on the motion of Lord Redesdale, the Report of the Committee of the Lords, and the Report of the Committee of the Commons, communicated to the Lords relative to Mr. Palmer's claims, were ordered to be printed.

The Marquis of Lansdowne postponed his motion relative to the Island of Jersey till Friday.

PROVINCIAL DISTURBANCES.

The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for a Ballot for a Committee on the Prince Regent's Message.

The Clerks proceeded to receive in glasses the lists presented by the Lords present.

On the motion of the Earl of Liverpool a Committee was appointed to cast up the ballots, consisting of the Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Aboyne, the Earl of Clancarty, Lord Viscount Grimston, Lord Walsingham, and other Lords.

After a short interval the Committee returned, and Lord Walsingham reported the names of the Lords chosen on the Secret Committee on the Prince Regent's Message, as follows:-The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Harrowby, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl Graham (Duke of Montrose), the Earl of Liverpool, the Earl of Powis, the Earl of Ross, Earl Grey, Lord Viscount Sidmouth, Lord Grenville,

and Lord Redesdale.

The Committee were ordered to meet to-morrow at twelve o'clock; five to be a quorum.

Lord Viscount Sidmouth laid upon the table, by com mand of his royal highness the Prince Regent, another sealed bag of papers relative to the subject referred to in the Prince Regent's Message, which were ordered to be referred to the above Committee.

Adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, JUNE 30.

PALACE COURT.

Mr. Lockhart rose, pursuant to notice, to make his motion respecting the Palace-court. He stated its origin and the jurisdiction allotted to it under Charles I. and II. Its extent was twelve miles round London. Its Judges were the Lord Steward of the Household, the KnightMarshal, the Steward of the Court, and some others. The Lord Steward had no salary. The Kaight-Marshal had a composition in lieu of fees, and the Steward of the Court a salary arising from fees. In 1811, Mr. Burton Morris was appointed Steward, with this salary, amounting to a sum between 300%, and 400l. a year. Soon after bis 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, the Judge (Mr. Morris) 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 Counsellors' fees, raising the 5s. fee to half-a-guinea, and the half-guinea to a guinea. It directedthe payment of 1s. on each writ to the oflicer 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 Household, nor the Knight-Marshal, his brother Judges, on the subject; but advised with the attornies, whom he was appointed to controul, and institutes an inquiry 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 disposition of money not his own. There were six Attornies, and four

:

[COM: 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 41. or 5l. the increase of costs would be very great. Persons who might be able to pay 127. might not be able to pay the additional 41. which would be required by the 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 sarcastic expression, 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, be 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 KnightMarshal (Sir James Bland Burgess), inclosing this letter; and the Knight-Marshal wrote to Mr. Burton Morris. The consequence was, that Mr. B. Morris 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, said Mr. Lockhart, ought to be inquired 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 great 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. Notwithstanding this revocation of the rule, the assessor of Lord

Aylesford, Sir James Bland Burgess, and Mr. B. Morris, 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 (Sir J. B. Burgess) expressed himself strongly in favour of Mr. Crutchley, and thus it happened that the person whose vote was to him the scale againt the Prothonotary, was Mr. B. Morris, who became Judge of his own cause. The judgment also was given with an extraordinary degree of precipitation. The Court usually sits 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, 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. Mr. Lockhart 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 for a Committee to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Burton Morris, Judge of the Palace Court.

Mr. C. Adams seconded the motion.

› Sir C. Burrell said, that when the superior Officers of such a Court had differences and quarrels amongst themselves, particularly on the subject of fees, he thought the House should interfere for the benefit of the suitors.

The Speaker said, he observed there was a Report at the bar ready to be brought up, and it would be proper to adjourn the debate for a quarter of an hour, in order to receive it.-Adjourned for a quarter of an hour.

SECRET COMMITTEE.

Mr. Dent accordingly appeared at the bar, with a Report which he was ordered to bring up, and which, on being read, appeared to be the Report of the Scrutineers appointed to examine upon what 21 Members of the House the nomination to be of the Secret Committee had devolved. The Report was read, containing the following 21 names: The Right Hon. George Canning, W. Wilberforce, Esq. Lord Castlereagh, Honourable H. Lascelles, Honourable

W. Lambe, Samuel Whitbread, Esq. the Master of the Rolls, D. Davenport, Esq. J. Blackburne, Esq. the elder, W. W. Bootle, Esq. Right Honourable C. Yorke, Lord G. L. Gower, Lord Milton, Right Honourable C. Long, Henry Goulbourn, Esq. J. Stuart Wortley, Esq. Lord Newark, Honourable Paget, Right Hon. G. Tierney, H. Leicester, Esq. and T. Babbington, Esq.

Mr. Whitbread said this list contained the identical names that he had seen handed about this morning. The present was therefore neither more nor less than the Treasury List, as all Committees balloted for in this manner were uniformly found to be.

Lord Castlereagh submitted that no objection could be made to any of the names on the list now read. It was then agreed that any five of the Committee should be a quorum, that the papers presented by order of the Prince Regent should be referred to them, with power to examine the matters therein contained, and to report to the House.

Certain other papers laid before the House by Lord Castlereagh were also referred to the said Committee, and it was ordered that they should have power to call for persons, papers, and records, and should have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

DEBATE RESUMED.

Mr. Raine objected to the motion, because no Parliamentary ground had been laid on inquiry. The whole of the proceedings had been countenanced by the opinion of the late Attorney-General, Sir Vicary Gibbs, and also by the Lord Steward, Lord Aylesford; and though the learned Judge, against whom the motion was made, would court inquiry next session, yet being obliged to go his circuit, and therefore not able to attend the Committee, he hoped the hon. and learned gentleman would withdraw his motion.

Mr. Hume supported the motion, and, thought those who opposed the inquiry 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 Shepherd, had given their opinion that it was illegal. Five or seven days