before such quorum thereof as aforesaid, who are hereby authorised and empowered to administer the same; or in any of the courts herein before mentioned; then and in every such case it shall be lawful for the said commissioners, in Great Britain or Ireland respectively, or for such quorum thereof as aforesaid, in the exercise of their judgment and discretion, to admit and receive such certificate, accompanied with such oath, in lieu and stead of the full and perfect copy of the bull, dispensation, or other instrument hereby required.

(B. 7.) And it is hereby further enacted, That any such person or persons, as aforesaid, in Great Britain or Ireland respectively, who shall at any time after the passing of this Act, receive any such bull, dispensation, or other instrument as aforesaid, and who shall duly deliver or cause to be delivered, a full and perfect copy thereof as hereinbefore directed, or who shall deliver or cause to be delivered such certificate of the receipt thereof, accompanied by such oath as is hereinbefore prescribed, and whose said certificate and oath shall be admitted and received by the said commissioners in Great Britain or Ireland respectively, or by such quorum thereof as aforesaid, in lieu and stead of such perfect copy as aforesaid, shall be free and exempt from all pains and penalties whatsoever, to which he or they would, upon conviction, be liable by any laws now existing in Great Britain or Ire land respectively, against the receiving and publishing bulls, dispensations, or other instruments from the See of Rome, or from any authority or pretended authority under the said See: but that any such person or persons so receiving such bull, dispensation, or other instrument as aforesaid, and not so duly delivering or causing to be delivered, as aforesaid, either such full and perfect copy thereof, or such certificate of the receipt thereof, accompanied by such oath as is herein before prescribed, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor; and shall, in lieu of all pains and penalties whatsoever, to which he or they would be liable, by any laws now existing in Great Britain or Ireland respectively, against the receiving and publishing, bulls, dispensations, or other instruments from the See of Rome, or from any authority or pretended authority under the said See, be liable to be sent out of the kingdom, in the manner as hereinbefore directed.

C.

And be it further enacted, That the com missioners first herein before appointed, for Great Britain, and Ireland respectively, shall meet and appoint their respective se. cretaries, and give notice of such appointments to one of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state in Great Britain, and to the chief secretary of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, respectively within after the passing of this Act; and that all and singular the enactments and provi sions of this Act (other than those which relate to the appointment of the said first named commissioners in Great Britain and Ireland respectively) shall take effect, and be of full force and validity, immediately from and after the time at which the said first named commissioners, in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, shall have so met, and so made and notified the appointments of their respective secretaries as aforesaid.

In the Clause of the Bill, which excepts from the number of offices generally opened to the Roman Catholics, the office of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or First Commissioner of the Great Seal of Great Britain, and that of Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland; it will be proposed to add, to these exceptions, that of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or First Commissioner of the Great Seal in Ireland; and that of Commander in Chief in Great Britain.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, May 12.

MANCHESTER JUSTICES' BILL.] A con versation took place on the Manchester Justices' Bill, upon which lord Stanley, col. Cawthorne, Mr. Wilbraham Bootle, sir Robert Heron, and other members, made some observations.

Sir Samuel Romilly 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.

Mr. Bathurst 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 gentle. men 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 assist ance 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.

ELECTION BILLS.] Mr. Williams 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.、

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.

PALACE COURT-PROCEEDINGS RESPECT. ING MR. CRUTCHLEY.] Mr. Brand, 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.

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.

Sir F. Flood 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.

Mr. Wrottesley said, that on a former occasión, when this subject had been dis cussed, 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.

Mr. Wynn 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 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 considered by a committee.

Mr. Stephen 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.

Mr. Preston 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.

Mr. Lockhart 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 jurisdic tion 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