Star.
London, England, 1813-05-13 00:00:00

Mr. B
Ct utchley,

received fr
Court. I

his ownfiat,

amount

8500 of
Petitioner,

plying lot
ved a letter
lent, that

the Judge ,
law authorit
Crutchley.
and ailed.

been sus]

pended e,
he had it .ray Vint,
upon the whole, that he had shewn Parliamentary
ground, both for an inquiry into the conduct of the
Judge, and that of the Petitioner. He therefore mo-
ved for a Select Committee to examine the matter of
the Petition.

Mr. RAINE argued with great warmth, that Mr.
Burton Morris was as irreproachable and unass.iilab'e
a character as any man In the kingdom ; and that he
was eagerly anxious that his conduct should be en-
quired into. The petition now presented was full of slan.
der : it charged the Judge with extortion, and with
the corrupting his confidential Clerk. But this was
merely an ex-parte statement. There was no parlia-
mentary ground for the present motion. Mr.Crutch-
ley, if injured, had another remedy, by scire fame
or action at law. Mr. Morris was justified in what
he had done by the example of no Icss men than
Lord Holt, Lord Chief Baron Hale, and Lord
Hardwick. 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 be
was himself to be benefited, at the same time he had
acted with perfect justice and honour.
Sir F. FLOOD said, the Petition contained ;
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 busine,s should be properly investigated be-
fore a Committee.
Mr. W ROTTESLEY said, that on a former oc.
casion, when this subject bad been discussed, he had
opposed the Committee; but his reason for doing sc
was, that from the late period of the Session, and the
Hon. and Learned Judge against whom the Petitios
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 cer-
tain 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.
Mr. C. WYNNE said, he really could not say
whether the Court of King's Bench could legally take
cognizance of this matter under a scire facial. If it
could not, the House, being in such case the dernier
' resort to which the subject could appeal, ought to in.
terfere, from the jealous eye with which it should al-
ways view the proceedings of Courts of Justice, where
they were charged with acting contrary to the esta•
Wished law of the land. He should therefore vote
for the Committee.
Mr. BRAND 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 consi-
dered by a Committee.
Mr. STEPHEN said, he had listened attentively
to all that had been urged on both sides of the sub-
ject ; and from what he had heard (for he was a per-
fect stranger to both the petitioner and the party corn.
plained ot) 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 inqukies 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.
Mr. PRESTON said it was well known, that fee,
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 ctn.
tom. It this had been done in the present case, s:
alledged in the petition, and the petitioner had
suspended for resisting it, it did not appear to :1;1;
that the petitioner could obtain redress from any ot:.,
quarter than from that House; and he was there!L rt
in favour of the Committee.
Mr. LOCKHART said, he did not know h w t!'e
law could in this case give effectual relief, for thou;:l
it might afford it to the individual, it could not .t
it to the public at large, who were to be burdened bY
those additional fees. This Judge had, at the tine
he made this increase in the fees of the Court, •ir'd
still has, a jurisdiction over a million of people ;—s°
that a dispute between him and his officers bore 11°
comparison with that of the constable of the iitght,
and the watchmen of a parish, as had been observe,'
by an Honourable and Learned Gentleman.
isle. MILNES said a few words in favour of 'll°
Committee,.--A division took place-is-For the (-°
mittee 16—Against it '2,
There not being 40 Members present, the Houseo
9f course, adjourned, and the motion was lost.

'to be objectionable. Gentlemen, he observed, were not aware,
that by permitting it to a law they were establishing a precedent,
which would be acted on in other places as well as in that whir! •
it seemed solely to affect. He recollected a former ppapositiou
made fore establishment of a paid Magistrate which had failed,
but wouot in all probability have done so if there had beet.
any precedent to go upon. Sir Vicar)? Gibbs had proposed that
there should be a paid Magistrate at Plymouth Dt. In the
point of view in which he had shewn the Bill rothe House, there-
fore. he hoped they would consider it with all the attention which
a subject of such importance deserved.
Mr. BATHURST having then made tome observations it
support of the Bill, a division took place, when there appeared,
For the second reading
Against it
Majority - - - .....24
PALACZ COURT.
' Mr. BRAND presented a Petition from Mr
Crutchley, complaining of treatment which he li:4
received from Burton Morris, Esq. the Judge of Gilt
Court. It stated, that this Judge having chosen, by
'his ownfiat, to raise the fees of that Court to the
amount £2OOO owfh
ije2chMwas tao-ygeoarinatdodhitlsonoa,Al.nopnoctklieet,Polinbltilc;
L Petitioner, (who is a Prothonotary of that Court) ar.
• plying for information about those new fees, he recM.
. ved a letter from the Judge, in language so very vin.
• lent, that he did not wish to state it. The order of
the Judge had been considered illegal by several high
law authorities, and was afterwards rescinded. Mr.
Crutchley, in consequence of some remonstrances,
I and alledged misconduct in the extortion of fees, had
- been suspended from his office, and continued so sus.
s
pended ever since; though he was ready to shew that
I: he had in no way misbehaved himself. He thought,