presented a Petition from several masters and journeymen mechanics, artificers, and handycraftsmen, setting forth,

"That by an Act passed in the 5th of Elizabeth, intituled, 'An Act containing divers orders for artificers, labourers, servants of husbandry, and apprentices, certain enactments are made for the purpose of securing to the artificers and mechanics of the realm of England and Wales the trades and businesses to which they have been regularly brought up and served apprenticeships of seven years; and that, by the 31st section of the said Act, it is enacted, that, after the 1st of May then next coming, it should not be lawful to any person or persons other than such as then did lawfully use or exercise any art, mystery, or manual occupation, to set up, occupy, use, or exercise any craft, mystery, or occupation, then used or occupied within the realm of England or Wales, except he should have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an apprentice in manner and form abovesaid, nor to set any person on work in such mystery, art, or occupation, being not a workman at that day, except he should have been apprentice as is aforesaid, or else having served as an apprentice as is aforesaid, should or would become a journeyman, or be hired by the year, upon pain that every person willingly offending or doing the contrary should forfeit and lose for every default 40s. for every month; and that the petitioners conceive that the superiority of the mechanics, tradesmen, artificers, and manufacturers of this country over every other, has arisen in a great measure from the wise provisions of the legislature in establishing the said regulations, and thereby guaranteeing to them the exclusive exercise of the trade, mystery, or occupation, they have been regularly brought up to; and that, of late years, many unskilful persons, who have never served any apprenticeship, have set up divers handycraft and other occupations as masters, and many masters have employed unskilful workmen in their several businesses, who have never been brought up or served seven years in the same, and other masters have taken persons as apprentices for short terms of three or four years, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, and to the great injury of the petitioners as well as the public; and that several of the petitioners, with a view to the redress of these grievances, have caused prosecutions to be instituted and actions to be brought against divers persons for infringing the said statute, but as the said statute does not give costs to the prosecutor, and no greater penalty can be recovered than for every default 40s. for every month, a moiety whereof, by the said statute, goes to the crown, and the expence of trying a cause upon the said statute is usually from 40 to 60l., the petitioners have suffered in a much greater degree by the heavy expences of carrying on such suits, than the defendants, by being convicted in such suits, and paying the penalties imposed by the said statute, besides which the prosecutor is liable to pay costs to the defendant if he does not obtain a verdict; and that, since the passing of the said statute, many new trades not then in use have arisen and many trades therein enumerated have branched out into several divisions, which, at the time of the passing of the said Act, were comprized in one trade; and that the petitioners conceive it to be expedient, that such trades should have the benefit of the provisions of the said statute, as well as the trades enumerated therein; and that the said statute appears to the petitioners to be in other respects inadequate and inefficient, and requires amendment and extension; and praying, that leave may be given to bring in a Bill to explain and amend, and render more effectual for the purposes aforesaid the said statute, or in such manner and under such regulations as to the House shall seem meet."

Ordered to lie on the table.

presented a Petition from the parishioners of Berrynarbor, in the county of Devon, agreed to at a vestry held the 11th of April 1813, setting forth,

"That the petitioners reside in a parish 250 miles west of the metropolis, having little intercourse with the rest of England; and that they have received by the post a printed paper for their signature, purporting to be a Petition to the House against certain claims preferred to the government by his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and more particularly, that they may be admitted to sit in the House; and that the petitioners, having been bred up in the farming line, although they deem themselves very good judges of sheep and oxen, do not think they are perfectly competent to give an opinion how far it may be expedient to exclude persons from a seat in the House who are too conscientious to take an oath which militates against their religious persuasions for the purpose of obtaining it, and they therefore believe it to be more advisable to leave the determination of the said claims to the discretion of the House, and more particularly since they have not only been informed the pretensions of the Catholics have for the last twenty years occupied the attention of the first statesmen of these realms, but that they have likewise lately undergone a discussion in the House for three successive nights, which terminated in a resolution to go into a committee upon their said claims; and that the petitioners have been informed that, if the said claims are conceded, it will be in the power of the crown to constitute the Pretender commander in chief, and the Pope archbishop of Canterbury; but that the petitioners, having the fullest reliance upon the wisdom of the House, are persuaded it will at no time consent to so dangerous an experiment; and that the petitioners therefore humbly hope that the House will take no steps which may tend to the introduction of the Pope nor of the Pretender, but that, in every other respect, it will do what to it in its wisdom may seem proper."

The reading of this Petition excited much merriment. It was ordered to lie on the table, on the motion of Mr. Tierney, who observed, that it afforded another illustration of the mode by which it was attempted to procure petitions against the claims of the Catholics.

moved the second reading of the Bill for erecting a new Theatre for Dramatic Entertainments within the Metropolis. His lordship spoke at some length upon the subject, but from the low tone of voice in which his observations were delivered, we were wholly unable to collect their import in the gallery.

observed, that his noble friend had come forward for the third time in the cause of the third theatre. He wholly differed from him, however, in most of his positions. His noble friend seemed to suppose that the successful re-erection of Drury-lane theatre had removed the only objection to the building of a third theatre. Now the reverse was the fact. He (Mr. W.) reminded the House of the manner in which the first application for the erection of a third theatre had been made; it had been made to the crown, by the crown it had been referred to a committee of the privy council, and after a patient investigation of the subject, that committee had solemnly decided that no authority should be given by the crown to any persons to build such a theatre. The parties interested, driven from that course of proceeding, then applied to parliament. When the subject was first brought before that House, he and other gentlemen had been called on to endeavour to unravel that perplexed skein which seemed to be tangled beyond the possibility of recovery. He had then said in the House, that he thought it a hard case if a Bill were agreed to which must clap an extinguisher upon the hope of future prosperity to Drury-lane theatre. In fact, so entirely was the re-erection of Drury-lane out of the contemplation of the friends of the third theatre (as it was called, though it would have been the second), that they actually evinced a disposition to treat for the site of old Drury. If they had been successful in their application, and their theatre had become, what it must then have become, a second theatre, those gentlemen would soon have acquired theatrical knowledge enough to resist any application that might have been made for permission to erect a third theatre—a project pregnant with nothing but ruin to all. parties. For his part he considered himself as wholly disinterested on the subject, having only a 500l. share in Drury lane; but he was satisfied that if the Bill before the House were to pass, the interest of those who had been associated with him in the re-erection of that building would be materially deteriorated, and the metropolis would gain nothing by the measure. His noble friend had talked of monopoly, as if it were so strict that the public had the benefit of only two theatres, Drury-lane and Covent-garden. How many of the hon. gentlemen who heard him would be surprised; and the right hon. the Speaker (whose important avocations allowed him but little leisure for theatrical amusements) would be surprised to learn, that that very night there were no less than seven theatres open to receive them, if they chose to honour them with their presence. At four of these theatres regular dramas were performed. At one Richard the Third; at another Douglas; at a third the Honey Moon and that in an admirable not a degraded manner; and at Covent Garden an excellent new comedy which he understood had been brought out for the first time last night. Besides these, there were three minor theatres, at which dramatic entertainments of various descriptions were to be performed. Such was the number of theatres, that no one theatre was full above one night out of seven; and they were never all full at the same time. He had as much objection to meretricious spectacle as his noble friend; but the fact was, that when there was no such spectacle to be represented, the theatres were empty. His noble friend talked of not being able to put up with the present state of the stage, and of the necessity of bringing forward great actors. Now, for his part, he was an advocate for the performers of the present day. He was persuaded that there were individuals in the tragic, comic, and every other department of the drama, whom Garrick, were he living, would be proud to select, and to associate with himself. He could not, therefore, agree with his noble friend that the stage was in a degraded state; but even if it were so, that degradation had not grown out of a monopoly, since monopoly was much more strict in the time of the immortal Garrick. His noble friend had talked of the necessity of finding and bringing forward great actors. Where were they to be found? Was this new theatre to be their nursery, their school, and afterwards their arena? The well known fact was, that in all times our great actors and actresses had been brought up provincial theatres. In Great Britain alone (exclusive of Ireland) there were no less than 174 provincial theatres (in-dependently of barns, &c. which were the resort of low strolling companies,) forming a great nursery of actors and actresses. How many of our best performers had we not obtained from Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Bath, Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, and a number of other regular theatres? all established by act of parliament; and most of them conducted in a manner highly creditable to the drama itself, as well as to the individuals concerned. Mrs. Siddons, Mrs. Jordan, Mr. Kemble, Mr. Young, and all the other great performers of the present day, had been derived from such sources as those which he had described, and were not trained on the London boards. Unquestionably it was competent to parliament to pass such a Bill as that before the House; but before they did so, he thought the law officers of the crown would stand up and advise them not to trench on the prerogative of the crown, by interfering with the exact jurisdiction to which the prerogative of the crown extended; and the more especially after the circumstance of an application for a license having been made to the crown, and on solemn deliberation refused. Nor did he think that those hon. members who on a former occasion had compassionated the state of Drury-lane theatre, at that time, in ruins, would now interfere in the earliest moments of its renovated existence to deteriorate the property, not of those alone who for the first time were subscribers to the concern, but of the old claimants, who had so liberally conceded the extent of their demands, in order that the theatre might be rebuilt. In the course of his noble friend's observations, he had glanced at what he had termed misplaced economy in the administration of the affairs of Drury-lane theatre. If, by the expression, his noble friend meant to say, that there had been any improper parsimony, any unjustifiable attempt to bate down the value of meritorious performers, any disposition to withhold from the Theatre money which ought to be expended in purposes of dignity, of ornament, and even of compassion, he denied its applicability; and on the part of those who were associated with him in the concern, and whose accounts would soon be submitted to the public, defied any man to lay his finger on an instance of misplaced economy; their uniform object had been to do justice to the proprietors, to the performers, and to the public. Without liberality, that justice could not be exhibited; without proper economy, there could be no liberality at all. He wished to ask his noble friend, where he thought a third theatre could be built, how it could be built, and when it could be built? He should also like to know, whence the audiences were to be obtained to fill it, in addition to all the other theatres of the metropolis? such audiences too, as would enable the proprietors to outdo the other theatres, and to obtain the best performers (and excellent ones, he repeated, these unquestionably were) in every walk of the histrionic profession. In order to illustrate the probability of success which a third theatre would enjoy, he begged leave to mention a circumstance he had witnessed within the last three months. One evening in February last, parliament (then sitting) adjourned at an early hour. On that evening there was performed at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, a favourite Opera, Enrico IV. in which were exhibited some of the greatest musical talents in the country; Mrs. Jordan played at Covent-garden; at Drury-lane a legitimate and well acted opera was represented, in which the principal part was sustained by Mr. Braham, who had long been acknowledged to be the first English singer on the stage. It was a fine and favourable night; he visited the several theatres in succession; the Opera was exceedingly thin—Covent-garden a little better—and Drury-lane still a little better; but in no one of them was there an audience sufficient even to pay the expences. And yet that was in the very cream of the season, and when none of the minor theatres were open, to divert from the others a portion of the public attention. It appeared therefore, that the play-going part of the population of the metropolis had by no means increased, and that no necessity existed for their further accommodation.—The next point to be considered was, the part of the town in which the projected new theatre should be erected. There was no room in that part which the congregation of theatres—Drury-lane—Co-vent Garden—the Sans Pareil—the Olympic, miscalled Little Drury-lane—the Lyceum, &c. seemed to declare to be inhabited by the description of people most likely to visit theatres; and in which a new theatre might derive some benefit even from the overflow of its competitors. By some it was said, that the new theatre ought to be built up in Mary-le-bonne, by others in Leicester-square (a proposition which he conceived the inhabitants of that square would not be disposed very cordially to receive.) Some talked of pulling down a market for its erection, others of converting an existing stately public edifice into a third theatre. It appeared therefore, that no definitive determination had been come to on this subject; and yet it was a consideration of the greatest importance to the interest of the new concern. If the third theatre were built in Mary-le-bonne, there it would be met by the Pantheon—if it were built in Tottenham-court-road, there it would be met by the Regency, if it were built in the East, there it would be met by the Royalty Theatre. In every direction it would find a population already more than adequately provided with theatrical amusements.—The noble lord had said much of the size of the existing theatres. Numbers of opulent individuals had subscribed a large sum for the erection of a new theatre, and it seemed it was to be on a small scale. His noble friend quarrelled with Covent-garden and Drury-lane on this score. Of Drury-lane he (Mr. W.) would say that every body, at least a great majority of the public had declared, much to the credit of that eminent architect by whom it had been built, Mr. B. Wyatt, of whose great talents no praise could be extravagant, that all who were present could distinctly see the performance on the stage. He had read in a certain journal, the criticisms of which were not usually favourable to Drury-lane (for all the daily papers had their theatrical prejudices and partialities), a confession, that the lowest whisper could be heard in Drury-lane from the stage to the furthest corner of the house. If the public therefore possessed a theatre from every part of which they could see, and in every part of which they could hear, what more was required? And how could parliament be assured, as no definite plan had been submitted to them, that if those gentlemen obtained permission to build, they might not erect a theatre still larger than those which at present existed, as soon as they began to feel that they should not be able to gratify the public taste by the engagement of excellent performers, and at the same time pay the interest of their capital if they persisted in building the little snug commodious thing which they affected at present to have in contemplation? It did not appear to him that there was any predilection on the part of the public for small theatres. Some time ago, precisely the same company, under precisely the same circumstances, played precisely the same pieces in immediate succession at the Little Theatre and at the Great Theatre in the Haymarket. While they performed at the Little Theatre, where every movement of the muscles and every emotion of the soul were visible, and every under-tone was audible from all parts of the house, their representations were thinly attended. But the moment they crossed the way to the Great Theatre, that large house was crowded beyond all anticipation. A good deal had once been said about introducing quadrupeds on the theatre. Although they had been now discharged, yet it should be remembered, that at the same time, and at the same theatre, Shakespeare's best plays were inimitably per- formed; and whatever might be said of spectacles, and devices of this sort to fill a house, yet he must also say that the filling of the houses was necessary, in order to afford liberal salaries to the first rate performers, and that therefore an attractive spectacle gave the means of encouraging good actors. He would not allow that the stage was in a degraded state; and if the House thought that there was now sufficient accommodation for the play-going part of the inhabitants of the metropolis, he thought that they would not readily adopt a Bill which would most materially affect the interests of hundreds and thousands of persons connected with the present establishments. He hoped the House would not allow the Bill to be read a second time, but if they did, he must present petitions against it, in which the petitioners prayed to be heard by counsel against the Bill. He should also then move for those documents which had been before the privy council on this subject.

made a few observations in reply, in a low tone of voice.

in answer said, that if any man could point out to him where excellence was to be obtained for money, he would venture to say, that no ill-judged parsimony would prevent the trustees for Drury-lane from obtaining it.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, but the House did not divide, in consequence of lord Ossulston having (as we understand) consented that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.