accumulating the functions of the commis-had heard in the course of this day, that sioners before they could begin to act. These persons would be engaged in an inquiry, which God knew would prove wide enough to occupy them for some months, and they were to report at the end of six months, and yet the House were told that the whole plan fell to the ground, because two other subjects of inquiry were not to be connected with that investigation on which the commissioners were immediately to proceed. No inconvenience could arise from that part of the inquiry being deferred for six months, and not the smallest object could be gained by carrying the present motion. Unless some practical benefit could be immediately secured by adopting it, the House ought to pause before they took a course unusual in legislation, by which they would in fact make a large stride towards taking the whole government of the constitution into their own hands; for what substantial difference would there be between doing this and threatening on every occasion to call on the Crown to do by itself what they had applied to the Lords to sanction in vain? If this were the new theory of reform-if this were the point at which the friends of reform aimed -if it were wished to enable that House to legislate for the country alone, let the doctrine be fairly avowed at once, in order that it might fairly be met. If the motion were agreed to, it would in substance go to affirm, that whereas the House of Lords had presumptuously exercised the right they possessed (and which for centuries they had exercised), and had dared, not to throw out (which they had a right to do), but to postpone the consideration of certain parts of a measure which had passed the House of Commons, they (the House of Commons) were determined to show the Lords that they could go by a short step to the throne, and, as the holders of the public purse, reduce the Crown to the dilemma of setting itself at variance with one House or the other. It was to avoid this course, which could do no good, but which might produce a contest with the other House, that he opposed the present motion, and he avowed himself equally opposed to another, of a similar character, which he understood to be in contemplation, and which was to be brought forward, not by the hon. and learned gentleman himself, but by an hon. and learned friend of his on the opposite side of the House He the present motion was only intended to extend the powers of the existing commissioners. The motion, however, he showed to be so framed, as, in fact, to call for the appointment of a distinct commission, in no way connected with that to be appointed under the bill. He compared the preamble to the bill received from the Lords, with that of the bill as sent from the Commons, and contended that they had a right to exercise on any bill sent up to them from the Commons, not their wisdom (he would not say that for fear of giving offence) but their discretion, in the same way as that House had an undoubted right to exercise theirs on any measure that might be received from the Lords. If, then, in such a case as the present, that House should go to the Crown to do, by its interference, what it had attempted to do with the concurrence of the Lords, but without success, why might not the same thing be done on other occasions? In a case not more urgent in point of time than the present, he would take leave to say, to act such a part would be as mean and as paltry, as in the end it would turn out to be mischievous and improvident. Where, if this were done on an occasion not more urgent-as to time he meantfor it was necessary that he should guard against being supposed to undervalue the importance of the measure in view-if this were done, where, he asked, was the line to be drawn? What security would be given that this should not often be done, from the popular feeling of the moment? And if ever the House were to separate itself from the other by such overbearing acts of legislation, a time might soon arrive when the hon. and learned gentleman himself would see abundant reason to wish that no such precedent had been established. The clauses now thrown out might be taken into consideration with more advantage six months hence, when the first report of the commissioners should be before the House. If the present motion were carried, it was to be followed up by another address to the Crown, for an inquiry into all abuses connected with charitable institutions. Were it possible for time to be saved by carrying these addresses, he had no hesitation in saying, under all the circumstances, he should still think it his duty to oppose them; but besides being liable to the constitutional objections which he had urged against them, they were still farther objectionable, as they would be perfectly nugatory. Plenty of work was already carved out for the new commissioners, and the inquiry would not be hastened a single moment by such addresses being carried. Supposing the hon. and learned gentleman to intend that a new commission should be appointed. Mr. Brougham said, he did not wish for a new commission. He wished the powers of the commissioners to be extended. Mr. Canning, in candour to the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman, had afforded it the only shelter that could save it from the blame of being useless, and proceeded to show, that if it were not intended to appoint three sets of commissioners to pursue the three concurrent objects, no time could be saved by the adoption of that line of conduct which had the recommendation of the hon. and learned gentleman. He did not deny the right of the hon. and learned gentleman to have taken such a course at first, but he thought his conduct had been wise and prudent, preferring, as he had done, to give the proposition the clothing and the sanction of a law. Having done this he could not now carry up an address to the Crown, calling on it to do what he had attempted to compass with the sanction of all the three branches of the legislature, without establishing a precedent of dan ger. It was on this ground that he objected to the motion, and not because he was against the proposed inquiry. To the mode in which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed to effect his object, he had thought it his duty to attend before, but, after the experience of this night, he should watch any measure that he might originate with increased jealousy. While he said this, he wished to bar the charge of being unfriendly to the object which the hon. and learned gentleman had in view. Of this he hoped he should stand acquitted, in the eyes of the House and of the world. "I am not," said the right hon. gentleman in conclusion, " hostile to the inquiry, but I oppose the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, because I think that the blind and headlong zeal with which he pursues a favourite object, has suggested to him a course opposed to the established practice of the House, and which, if adopted, would go near to overturn the fixed barriers of the constitution." Mr. Brougham replied. He said that the bill had been so changed in the Lords, that he could scarcely recognise his own offspring. He at first wished to move to negative the Lords amendments, in which he could have succeeded; but he distrusted his own judgment, and though the bill was mutilated, still, as it contained something good, he had resolved to adopt it. The bill could not have been introduced sooner. The long space which the right hon. gentleman had mentioned, as being occupied with deliberating upon it, principally consisted of the adjournment during the Easter holidays. He had tried, auring those holidays, with the assistance of a learned friend of the chancery bar, to make it as perfect as possible. They took for their model, the bill for appointing the naval commission of inquiry, which had been unnaturally renounced by some of its parents, because it had been too effective in producing the famous 10th Report. That 10th Report, and that bill, were as satisfactory as any of the earl St. Vincent's naval victories, brilliant as those victories had been, and they had been made the model of the present measure. He denied that he had been actuated by any wish to create a difference between the two Houses. His conduct had been throughout most conciliatory, and he had even taken the pains to communicate with noble lords in another place, in order to learn what were their wishes upon the subject. He argued, that what he proposed would not set the two Houses at variance, but would be much more conciliatory than if in the next session he persisted in renewing a measure which in this session the Lords had rejected by their amendments. A delay of six months was of the greatest consequence in an inquiry of this kind; and when, in the next session, he should propose a bill, the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, if he forgot his argument of this evening, which was not impossible, might fairly urge that he was endeavouring to produce a rupture between the two branches of the legislature. After referring to the Reversion bill, which was rejected by the Lords, and upon which the House had afterwards voted an Address to the Crown, as a precedent in his favour, he concluded by reading an extract from the report of the committee on this subject, as a warrant for the motion with which he had troubled the House. The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided: Mr. Brougham next moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased so instruct any commissioners who may be appointed under a bill, intituled, An act for appointing Commissioners to inquire of the Charities in England and Wales, and of the Edu'cation of the Poor,' to inquire into the Abuses of Charities not connected with Education ;"-whereupon the previous question, "That the question be now put," was moved, and negatived. Mr. Brougham then said, that before he moved that the House do concur in the amendments of the Lords, he wished to ⚫ give notice, that early in the next session he should move for leave to bring in a bill to appoint, if possible, the same commissioners to inquire into all abuses of charities by which the property of the poor had been dilapidated and plundered by those who met with the sanction of some, the fellow-feeling of others, and the protection of many as was obvious from the vote of that night. That vote would, no doubt, give great satisfaction to persons high in the state, and to many members of both Houses who were unwilling that these abuses should be investigated. He put it to the candour of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) if, after what had passed, should the Lords' amendment be negatived, he would not support an address to the throne that the great object might be attained. Mr. Canning spoke to order. There was no question before the House, though the hon. and learned gentleman, in order te introduce his invectives, had led some members to imagine that he would have concluded with a motion. He apprehended that the hon. and learned gentleman had no right to dictate either to the House or to any honourable member what course he ought to pursue. Mr. Ward complained of the slander cast on the House by the hon. and learned gentleman in his expression respecting the decision which the House had just come to a slander, too, uttered in a speech which the hon. and learned gentleman had no right to make, as there was no question before the House. Several members here rose to order, there being no question before the House. Mr. Brougham denied that he had entertained any wish to dictate to, or to slander the House. It was quite absurd to suppose that such had been his intention. He would not allow any gentleman of the Ordnance, or of the board of Trade, to debar him from the ordinary courtesy of putting a question [order.] Mr. Lambton moved that the House do adjourn. He said he made the motion to give his hon. and learned friend a right to speak. Mr. Robinson observed, that, as he had been referred to as one of the board of Trade, he wished to state, that he had interrupted the hon. and learned gentleman merely to induce him to restrain himself half a minute, while his noble friend moved the concurrence in the Lords amendments, as it did not appear that such a motion was likely to come from the other side of the House. He would not be put down by the hon. and learned gentleman at any time, and certainly not on the present occasion. Mr. Brougham replied, that when he was interrupted he was only about to put a question, an ordinary courtesy allowed to all members. Before he proceeded he desired to know what an hon. gentleman opposite meant by asserting that he had slandered and defamed him. He was anxious to give his much injured reputation all the healing balm in his power. Mr. Ward insisted that the hon. and learned member had only pursued his usual course of running riot against those by whom he had been opposed and defeated. He was one of those who voted in the majority against the hon. and learned gentleman's proposition, and the hon. and learned gentleman had more than insinuated that the object of that majority was, to screen the guilty-such statements were defamatory and slanderous. A desultory conversation ensued as to the question of form, and who should move that the Lords amendments be read. Mr. Brougham having said that though he would vote for the reading of the amendments, he would rather the motion should come from some other quarter. After a few words from Mr. Robinson, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Bathurst, the motion for an adjournment was withdrawn, and on the motion of lord Castlereagh, the Lords amendments to the bill were read and agreed to. PANTHEON THEATRE-PETITION OF MR. CUNDY.] Sir Francis Burdett rose, to submit a motion to the House respecting the petition of Mr. Cundy, the proprietor of the Pantheon Theatre, which had been presented on a former day. His object was, the appointment of a committee to inquire into the allegations contained in that petition, and he conceived that no time ought to be lost. The petitioner having obtained a licence from the lord chamberlain to commence performances at the Pantheon Theatre, had laid out a very large sum in putting the theatre into such a state as to make it fit for the reception of the company. The whole was conducted by Mr. Cundy in such a manner as to give great satisfaction to those who attended the performances. In the midst, however, of his prosperous career, an injunction was issued by the lord chamberlain to discontinue these theatrical representations. Mr. Cundy had expended between 50 and 60,000l., and without any reason being assigned the injunction was issued. Mr. Cundy had been harassed by criminal informations, and had been totally ruined, arrested, and cast into gaol, where he remained for three or four years, and at last was liberated under the Insolvent act, and all this without any reason but the caprice of the lord chamberlain, by whom the injunction was issued, which reduced this gentleman in an instant to beggary. Notwithstanding the lateness of the session, he thought this matter might be inquired into before the prorogation. One day he conceived would be sufficient to conclude the business, and he apprehended that no objection could be made to the inquiry. He had no difficulty in declaring that this was a most cruel, harsh, unjust, and im(VOL. XXXVIII.) proper exercise of the power of the lord chamberlain. He concluded with moving, "That the Petition of Nicholas Wilcox Cundy be referred to a committee, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their Observations thereupon to the House." Lord Yarmouth was anxious to say a few words upon this subject, as his name had been made use of in the correspondence between the parties, and it had been imputed to him that he had used his influence with the Prince Regent to have the whole concern of the theatre broken up. Mr. Cundy did ask him to show a plan to the Prince Regent, and in consequence of what his Royal Highness had intimated, he (lord Y.) had certainly advised Mr. Cundy not to pursue the plan. A temporary licence was, however, granted by lord John Thynne, the then lord chamberlain, and a correspondence passed between the parties on the subject. This licence was not granted for the representation of Italian operas. Such operas, however, were performed, and it was not until after the second performance that the injunction was issued. There was another reason which might have operated upon the mind of the lord Chamberlain, namely, that the theatre was actually not in a fit state for the reception of the public; but this consideration did not form a part of the avowed objection to the continuance of the representations. The licence granted was merely temporary, and Mr. Cundy acted with his eyes open, being fully aware of the objection made to the representations. Mr. John Calvert read extracts from the correspondence which passed between the parties to prove that the injunction was not unwarrantably issued. Mr. Bathurst said that the present case had been inquired into before the privy council, and had been found very complicated. He conceived that the lord chamberlain was not bound to continue the licence any longer than he thought proper. It was impossible to consider the question in the present session. General Thornton expressed his regret that dramatic performances were prevented at the Pantheon, as it was a theatre so peculiarly neat and commodious in every respect. If a second opera were allowed at this theatre, he apprehended that so much would not have been heard about high prices and inadequate amuse(4 L) ment at the King's Theatre, because the natural effect of rivalship would be to cure those evils. Mr. P. Moore observed, that there was already so much rivalship among the theatres, that there was reason to fear the effect would be to rival each other into ruin. As he believed the statements in the petition to be unfounded, he hoped the hon. baronet would withdraw his motion. Sir F. Burdett observed, in reply, that until the errors in the statement of Mr. Cundy were pointed out, he should believe them to be true. He was not at all surprised that the hon. member who had just spoken, connected as he was with a concern of a much larger extent, should be peculiarly anxious to put down any measure which he thought might be injurious to his interests. This might be an advantageous system to pursue for the hon. member, but he very much doubted whether it was equally advantageous for the public. The hon. baronet then remarked upon the superior convenience of the Pantheon, for dramatic exhibition, compared with those theatres which the overstrained avarice of a monopolizing spirit had extended to such a size, as to render it impossible for the greater part of the audience to enjoy the performance. For, unless to those who were placed in particular situations contiguous to the stage, it was impossible distinctly to see the face or to hear the voice of the performer. Hence the performers themselves were obliged to overact their parts; so that the whole became a sort of overstrained pantomime. But this was never likely to be the case at the Pantheon, seeing that it was of such a commodious size and so conveniently constructed. From this consideration, as well as from the situation in which the Pantheon was placed, in the middle of a considerable population, he thought that, putting Mr. Cundy entirely out of the question, it ought to be opened for dramatic representations. But seeing the House was so thin, he would reserve the discussion of this question for a fuller attendance. The hon. baronet concluded with moving for leave to withdraw his motion; which was agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 5. PETITION OF D. CORREA.] Holland presented a petition from Don Diego Correa, a captain in the Spanish service, stating certain injuries he had sustained in consequence of what had passed between the British and Spanish governments relative to his case, and praying for relief. The petition was m substance the same as that presented to the Commons on Monday last by lord Morpeth. Lord Holland, in moving that it be laid on the table, adverted to the ancient policy of Great Britain in protecting foreigners, and encouraging them to seek refuge in this country against oppression. This policy he was now sorry to see completely abandoned. In support of his opinion respecting the practice and feelings of former times, he quoted the preamble of an act of parliament for the encouragement of refugees, which had been drawn up by the great lord Somers. The preamble stated, that whereas many Protestants in France might wish, on account of our free constitution, to settle in this country, it was right to induce them to do so.-The petition was laid on the table. COTTON FACTORIES.] Lord Kenyon, on bringing up the report of the committee on the Cotton Manufactories bill, professed an unwillingness at that late period of the session to press the bill any farther. It had been the opinion of their lordships, that some farther evidence was desirable, and to receive such evidence with due allowance for deliberation, could not be comprehended in the remaining narrow limits of the present session. The Earl of Lauderdale congratulated the noble lord and the committee on their having at length perceived what he had long ago considered and declared as the true and inevitable state of the case. The evidence already presented to the House against the bill, was to an extent far beyond his own calculation. So far from the condition and discipline of the factories in Manchester and other places being justly chargeable with unwholesomeness, or the conductors of them with cruelty, it was on proof that the parents of children who were weak in their frame and constitution, were peculiarly solicitous for their admission into those factories. Lord Kenyon did not think it necessary to account for any apparent change of sentiments that the noble lord might think he had discovered in his conduct, Lord but he would state to the House, that he |