brought up the Report of the Committee on Public Breweries. In laying this report on the table, he called the attention of the House to the complaints made by the public on this subject, which were chiefly the high price of porter, the inferior quality, the mixture of deleterious ingredients in the article, the monopoly by eleven great brewers, and the licensing system. As to the price, the committee, after a full examination, were of opinion, that the prices were neither unfair, nor unreasonable, or the profit more than the brewer was entitled to, according to the price of the fair ingredients he had to use. The committee gave no opinion on the in- terest obtained by advances to publicans on leases of particular houses, and its effect on the price. As to the intermixture of deleterious ingredients, they had entered into the fullest examination, by a reference to the minutes of the Excise board, and other competent authorities. They felt the importance of this branch of the inquiry, and were happy to state, that not a single instance was to be found of the use of any such ingredients in any of the eleven great breweries. In one instance (and this was a solitary exception) the late Mr. Thomas Meux had been prosecuted for using the salt of tartar in one particular case; it was however alleged at the time, that this was not a deleterious ingredient. The inquiry of the committee had gone back for six or seven years, and it was gratifying to find, that the eleven great breweries stood exonerated from the use of any other ingredient in the composition of their porter than malt and hops, and the mixtures allowed by law. When the committee made this important statement, they felt it right to add, that though the great brewers already alluded to, stood completely exonerated on this important point, yet it had appeared before the committee, that some deleterious ingredients had been used by some of the small brewers, and also that they had been purchased by some publicans, and mixed up with their porter for the retail trade, though wholly unknown to the brewer, whose manufacture was thus deteriorated after it was delivered from his house. Indeed, in some instances it had been found, that the publican had been furnished with a book of instructions, to guide him in the intermixture of the ingredients with which he wished to adulterate his porter. The committee had also looked into the nature of the licensing system, as connected with the trade of the victualler, and found in it many abuses, which it was yet difficult to remedy without trenching upon the validity and security of a system of private property, which had long been suffered to exist, owing perhaps, to the inattention of the legislature. They had found, that from the system of a large number of houses being in certain places under the control of one man, some evils existed, not indeed so much (if at all) in the metropolis, as in the country parts, where the evil was so much felt, that it became necessary in one place to collect together the principal noblemen and gentlemen of the neighbourhood, to vote for the licence of a free house, which would sell a different quality of porter from that previously vended in the neighbourhood.—Though the committee could not recommend any interference with the principle of property which had grown up under this system, yet they ventured to recommend a prospective measure, and it was, that the magistrates should have a discretionary power to refuse a licence, when hereafter one should be called for, to such house as might fall into the brewer's hands by any arrangement with the holder, to vend exclusively any particular article. The committee were fully of opinion, that so far from the large brewers having, as was supposed, done a public injury, by reason of what was called the monopoly of their trade; they had, on the contrary, done a public benefit, by the superior article it was ascertained they were enabled to furnish, from the better arrangements which their large and extensive capitals necessarily commanded. It was right to state, that four of the principal brewers had voluntarily come forward to the committee, and tendered in the amplest and clearest manner the whole particulars relative to the management of the trade, and the ingredients they used in their manufacture. The committee strongly pointed out the necessity of rigorously enforcing the penalties against persons found adulterating their porter.

expressed his approbation of the report, and the pleasure he felt at the full and complete removal which it must effect, of the prejudice that had gone abroad in the public mind on the subject of the large breweries. The report must completely remove such an imputation from the eleven great breweries of the metropolis. It was now, clearly and satisfactorily made out, that these large establishments manufactured nothing but the genuine article. The effect of this most satisfactory explanation would be, he trusted, that the great mass of the people would adhere to the good old English beverage of porter, now that they clearly found where it was properly manufactured, and relinquish as much as possible the consumption of gin, which he believed to be a liquor most injurious to the health of the consumer. The public prejudice as to great brewers and their practices, was now ascertained to have been utterly void of foundation.

, having been a member of the committee, felt it right to bear his testimony to the total removal of the imputation which public feeling assigned to the eleven principal brewers. He repeated the statement, that they used no other than legal and proper expedients in their porter, though it was ascertained that compositions of a different description had been sold to some of the lesser brewers and to publicans, together with books of instructions for the use of the compound, but in no instance with the knowledge of the large brewers. It was desirable that, in cases of conviction, the penalties should be heavy, and not remitted, since adulteration, by means of deleterious ingredients, was a crime against the health and morals of the public. There had certainly been much unjust odium thrown out against the brewers.

expressed his full conviction that the idle rumour against the principal brewers was totally destitute of foundation. On the subject of licensing, he fully agreed with the committee, that it contained gross abuses: indeed, so convinced was he of this, that early next Session he meant to bring under the consideration of parliament the whole practice as it now prevailed, with a view to the enactment of a more salutary system.

observed, that he had all along expected this result from the inquiries of the committee. He was sorry to say, that a cry of monopoly had been actively and invidiously set up. Unquestionably the brewing trade in London was confined to a few persons; but this was because it required the employment of large capitals. Yet the fact was, that they who had the greatest capital and sale, served the public with the best beverage. On the subject of the infliction of penalties, he thought the excise should invariably exact the largest penalty the law allowed where any deleterious ingredient had been used in human food. As from the arbitrary nature of the Excise laws, a large discretion must occasionally be exercised by the board, he thought this subject was one in which no quarter should be given; and farther, that the names of all persons so convicted should be posted up and published in their several districts.

said, that the House and the public were greatly indebted to the labours of the committee. Their report contained a mass of useful information. He thought that Mr. Barber Beau- mont had done good in calling for this inquiry; his motives were laudable, though he had certainly been mistaken in some points of his information.

The Report was then laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The following is a copy thereof:

rose to make his promised motion for a copy of depositions taken before the coroner in the island of Nevis, who sat on the body of a negro, named Congo Jack. In bringing forward this subject, he felt it necessary to state that he did not call the attention of the House to it alone on the extraordinary barbarity which the particular case developed, for that, glaring as it was, appeared much less important than the light it threw on the mode of administering criminal justice in the West India islands, where the protection of slaves was at stake. It was, therefore, to the gross administration of justice in these colonies that he meant particularly to call the attention of the House; and for this purpose it became necessary for him to call for farther information from the colonial authorities. The facts of the particular case which had occurred were simply these:—A rev. Mr. Rawlins had the management of an estate in St. Christopher's belonging to a Mr. Hutchinson; a slave had ran away from it on the Tuesday, was taken and brought back on the Wednesday, flogged in the severest manner on Thursday, and chained with another slave who had committed some offence, and dragged to work with the rest of the men on Friday morning; he was still chained to the other slave, and when brought to his work he was incapable of doing any thing, and complained of severe pain, hunger, and sickness—he tried to lie down in this state, but was severely flogged by the sticks of one or two drivers. The consequence of this brutal treatment was, that the wretched being died in the course of Friday actually chained to his fellow slave. He was buried privately on the same day, and no coroner's inquest was at the moment called, though his body was covered with marks of violence. Some intimation of this cruelty had been given to the magistrates, and a coroner was then ordered to sit on the body, which was dug up for examination. The present object of his motion was, for the depositions of the coroner, which, strange to say, had not been transmitted to this country. But it appeared from the evidence given on the subsequent trial, that at the coroner's inquest, Dr. O'Mealey deposed, that he attended at Hutchinson's estate on the 9th September, between twelve and one, o'clock, accompanied by two other doctors; that he had examined the deceased, who was then taken out of his grave, and found several marks on the body; one on his right eye, one on his right jaw, one on the right arm, one on the right breast, one on the right side of the belly, and some on his thighs; there might have been others, but those described were the most remarkable. Two of his teeth were recently broken. He did not dissect the body to examine the stomach; the contusions must have been severe: the body was in a state of putrefaction, and he could not ascertain the precise cause of the deceased's death. With all this evidence of violence upon the body, the House would be shocked and astonished to hear that the verdict of the coroner's jury was—"Died by the visitation of God!" One of the drivers had been afterwards tried for the murder, and several slaves were examined on the trial, among the rest the man to whom the deceased had been chained, and he on that occasion swore that Mr. Rawlins, the manager, was not present when the last severe punishment had been inflicted. In this case, if such were the fact, the manager was exonerated; but if done in his presence, as afterwards appeared, he alone was responsible, and the driver, of course, free, as acting under the orders of his master. On the subsequent trial of the rev. Mr. Rawlins, it was not only proved that he was present, but that he actually took a part, so far as aiding and abetting, in the execution of the punishment. The jury, however, found him guilty of manslaughter only, though his crime, if the evidence be true, was an atrocious murder. The sentence was also a mitigated one for manslaughter; for it was only a fine of 200l. and three months imprisonment. It is a law of the island of Nevis, that when any slave died, if he had not been attended by a physician, a coroner should immediately be summoned to inquire into the cause of his death. The House would see the value set on the lives of these unfortunate people, when such a verdict as that given before a coroner, was, after some delay obtained in this case. The verdict of the jury was a no less extraordinary one. If they believed the evidence, they had only one verdict to find: if they did not, they had only one duty to perform by acquitting the prisoner. In finding him guilty of the crime of manslaughter, according to the facts of the case, they either did Mr. Rawlins the grossest injustice, or they compromised their own solemn and imperative obligation. Lord Bathurst makes this appropriate remark in his dispatch to governor Probyn, requiring the minutes of the trial—"If this statement be true, or in any way approaching to truth, Mr. Rawlins could not have been guilty of manslaughter; it must have been murder or an acquittal." It was worth attention, that in the first dispatch of governor Probyn to earl Bathurst, dated St. Kitt's, October 17, 1817, communicating the occurrence of the death of the slave, is this passage—"I have also thought it proper to give your lordship the result of the trial, lest any incorrect account might be taken to England." Here in the beginning it was apparent that some ulterior inquiry might possibly be made into this transaction. Lord Bathurst, in acknowledging this communication to the governor, and calling for farther particulars, very justly observed—"Your dispatch seems not to consider the transaction in so very serious a light as it must be considered if the accounts which have been by private channels given of it are true." In answer to this requisition from his lordship, governor Probyn, in his dispatch of the 21st of last March, enters for the first time into particulars, but without giving the evidence before the coroner. The evidence on the trial, however, detailed a most horrible mass of cruelty. He would now ask the gentlemen who charged others with issuing injurious and exaggerated statements on the subject of West India matters, with what face could they repeat such a charge after this scene of cruelty had been exposed to the public eye? They had now authentic facts, and not vague rumours, to inform themselves on such practices; and he trusted the House would pursue the inquiry in the manner justice demanded. He concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Depositions taken before the Coroner's Inquest which sat upon the body of a Slave belonging to Hutchinson's Estate, in the Island of St. Christopher, of the name of Congo Jack."

said, that he would be the last man in the House to defend the exercise of cruelty; but he could not help complaining, that the hon. and learned gentleman had taken an opportunity of drawing conclusions as to the general administration of justice in the West India islands, merely from the single circumstance of a particular fact, and one on which he confessed he had not all the information which the case required. He (Mr. M.) from looking over these papers, could see no ground whatever for supposing that governor Probyn had not conducted himself in the most honourable manner, and shown a readiness to transmit every information which was necessary on the occasion. As to the mode of inflicting punishment for runaway slaves in the West Indies, it must necessarily, for the sake of example, be done in a summary manner, and sometimes intrusted to drivers, who might perhaps exceed proper bounds. The punishment must be executed as it generally was in the army and navy. The hon. and learned gentleman had arraigned the correctness of the proceeding; but he had treated some of the facts in an exaggerated manner, while he had certainly confined himself in others to those points which necessarily required proper attention and consideration. The hon. gentleman here referred to parts of the evidence, where it was stated that the punishment of the slave did not last longer than two or three minutes, and that he was neither tied down, nor heard to cry, nor observed as if labouring under the heavy pain alluded to. It was also proved that the marks on the body could not have been inflicted by a whip, the weapon with which punishments were always inflicted. The driver, it appeared, had certainly exceeded his order; and the manager was, by the subsequent trial, held responsible for the act. The jury could not, he thought, have found a verdict of murder; under the circumstances of the case; that was a crime where malice aforethought must appear, and here there was no such feeling, nor any motive for its indulgence. When the hon. and learned gentleman talked lightly of three months imprisonment, he should recollect in what climate this punishment was to be inflicted; and he could assure him, that in the West Indies it was one of great severity. He was free to admit, that there was enough in the case to entitle it to inquiry, and he could certainly have no objection to the motion, though he saw no reason whatever for casting the reflections that had been made on the practice of the colonial judicature.

, on the part of the colonial office, could only say, that the utmost alacrity had been shown to obtain every information relative to this case with the least possible delay.

begged leave to read a letter which he had received from a friend of the first respectability at Nevis respecting this transaction, for the purpose of showing that the circumstance had excited the most marked disapprobation on the spot. The writer stated that not a moment had been lost in making inquiry into the cause of the death of the slave, and that if the charge could have been properly brought home to Mr. Rawlins there was no doubt his execution would have immediately followed a capital conviction. He farther stated, that even the brothers-in-law of Mr. Rawlins had, since the affair, ceased to speak to him, and that representations had been sent home to the bishop of London for the purpose of having him deprived of his gown. As to the cart-whip, it might be used in the smaller islands, but he never heard of it in Jamaica.

said, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last always displayed a praiseworthy feeling upon this subject, which was much to his honour. As to the cartwhip, the expression was not theirs. It was commonly used in all the accounts of severity received from the West Indies. It was in fact and in effect a cartwhip. He could produce one of these instruments, which had been actually in use, and which, if exhibited, could not fail to move the feelings of the House in the highest degree. An hon. gentleman complained of the manner in which these matters were brought before the public, and said that they should be confined to the colonial office. In that case very little would be known about them. It was generally in consequence of accounts received by private individuals, that they were brought forward at all. The manner in which this transaction at Nevis, had been stated in communications to the colonial office was not calculated to attract any particular notice. The circumstances in all their aggravation were only heard of from private sources. Were it not for information obtained in this way, the grossest barbarities might be committed without any notice being taken of them. He could prove that there were persons in possession of facts connected with the West Indies, which it was a criminal for- bearance to suppress—facts which if disclosed would make some persons hide their heads, who now held them very high, the Rawlinses and the Hugginses, one of whom had been a captain-general, and the other a leading member of the representative assembly.

asked, what would be thought if a transaction of similar atrocity had taken place in this country, and the person whose duty it was to represent the case to government, should omit the main features of the transaction. In all cases of this nature, it was one misfortune that our West India possessions were so removed; and another that none but a white could give evidence in a court of justice. What would be the state of things in this country if none but a man of live hundred a year were capable of being a witness? And yet that was precisely the case in the West India islands. He and his friends, who were anxious to ameliorate the condition of the black population in the West Indies, had perhaps been somewhat remiss in divulging facts that had come to their knowledge. He had himself had a private letter of the same tenour with what had been read by the hon. gentleman opposite. But the statement made by the governor was, that he had heard with much un-easiness of what had taken place; and yet he, at the same time, had omitted the most important features in the transaction, namely, the appearance of the body, and the verdict of the coroner—that the man had died "by the visitation of God." These facts would have been unknown, but for communications through a private channel; and still farther information was required. Had it not been for the demand of farther information, in consequence of the accounts through a private channel, on the part of lord Bathurst, no notice would have been taken of the most important parts of the case. He conjured the House to draw a moral conclusion from what had taken place.—That if they intended justice to be administered with purity and impartiality in the West Indies, they would not discourage the transmission of information through private channels, as it was a most effectual means of bringing criminals to justice. The governor, in his statement, ought to have said more; for he spoke only of a report, though the whole of the facts were generally known. Where evidence was so difficult to be obtained, the ear should be open to the complaints of abuse of authority. The governors and the judges in the West India islands should be rendered independent of the colonial legislatures, if the House meant that the administration of justice should be pure; as it was difficult for governors or judges to maintain their independence in places where a single family possessed an uncontrollable ascendancy upon the same authority from which the other parts of the transaction had been learned, he had understood that Mr. Rawlins had not been in custody before the trial, and, that while subsequently he had been in custody, pursuant to the sentence, he had received many visits and many marks of attention. Let the House keep in their memory the case of this poor victim, and lend a willing ear to inquiry. The negroes had been acknowledged to be fellow-creatures, and should a governor make an erroneous or defective statement respecting the death of a negro, it undoubtedly called for inquiry.

, in reply, observed that the case had not been prematurely brought forward. He had made a full statement of all the circumstances attending the case, excepting the depositions taken before the coroner, and with respect to that part of the case, he admitted that farther information was necessary. He would not go into all the details of the horrid transaction from a wish to spare the feelings of the House; though the language of an hon. member (Mr. Marryat) almost provoked him to do so. But he would simply ask, had not Rawlins been restored to his former situation? Had not the jury that sat upon the inquest decided, that the man had died by the visitation of God, the case would probably have excited but very little notice. The poor man had called for water, and that had been stated to be the cause of his death. He had not thrown out any reflections against the inhabitants of the West Indies generally, but had, upon a former occasion, made a distinction between the larger and the smaller islands, and had repelled the injustice of applying his observations indiscriminately to the whole.

The motion was then agreed to.

said, that since he had given notice of a motion to call the attention of the House to the abuses in the administration of charitable donations, certain material changes had taken place elsewhere in the bill respecting the Education of the Poor, restoring in a limited degree its original vigour and efficiency; and so far reviving its powers as to induce him to forego that opposition with which it was his determination to meet it, had not the recent alteration taken place. When he last alluded to the bill in that House, the measure had been rendered a mere nullity; its essence had been wholly changed, and if it had come down again without its recent alterations, it would have been deprived of every portion of its energy and usefulness. It would have been exhibited as a powerless instrument, not only without one of those original provisions, by which the commissioners were to be enabled to execute the duties it imposed on them, but with provisions actually prohibiting them from carrying the original determination of that House into effect. He then regarded the bill, under its transmutation, as a mere mockery instead of a measure calculated to promote those objects which the framers of the bill, and the House which adopted it, had in view, and to have acquiesced in its agreement, would have made that House parties to the frustration of its own intention. He was happy, however, to be then enabled to say, that some of those amendments, (using the expression in a parliamentary sense) had been omitted in the final stage of the bill. The measure had so far regained a portion of its pristine efficacy and vigour; and though it was yet remote from that wholesome state in which it went from that House, it still contained sufficient of what was good in it as to induce him when he considered the late period of the session, and more particularly when he recollected the powers which the House of Commons yet possessed, to accept it, and to recommend it to the adoption of the House. It was, however, essential to explain the nature of the changes which were made.

The first to which he should advert was the limitation of the commissioners to one description of charities, namely, those connected with education. On what ground this limitation was enacted, he felt himself entirely at a loss to determine. It had been generally granted, indeed nothing was more manifest to the committee of that House, that abuses prevailed, not alone in the charities connected with edu- cation, but in all other public charities, of what description so ever. If commissioners were to be sent round the country for the purpose of inquiring into the application of the funds of the charities for education—if they were enabled to call for the attendance of witnesses—if they could demand the production of documents, and prosecute inquiries into abuses as to education, it seemed to him very natural that they should also avail themselves of the opportunity of inquiring into other abuses admitted by all to prevail, although existing in charities not connected with education. Those superior persons, however, who sat in the upper regions of legislation, and who, from their elevated height, were better qualified to take a more comprehensive view of human affairs, thought otherwise and struck out that part of the bill. What! though the very steps these commissioners were to adopt in their investigation of abuses as to education, might lead to a just suspicion of similar abuses in other charities—though the scene for such respective inquiries was the same—though the same witnesses might be examined as to the application of the funds of respective charities—were they to be precluded by a positive provision of law from extending their research? Yes! The House must not expect those abuses to be examined. The mouth of any witness about to afford evidence of such abuses must be stopped, in virtue of the bill as it was now returned to that House. What! though the commissioners had before them the very witnesses who were called to afford information as to the charities of education, and who were capable of explaining the nature and extent of gross abuses in other charities—though they could demand documents, which proved that trustees of education funds had broke their trusts and were also trustees of other charities, and therefore just objects of suspicion, the very same deed which furnished evidence of the one containing also very often evidence of the other, nevertheless those superior intelligences who had, elsewhere, sat in judgment on the bill, thought that they should not be authorized to inquire into any abuses but those connected with education; and as, from their high authority, in that period of the session there was no appeal, he must be satisfied to take the measure as it was left. In like manner a practical change had taken place in the powers of the commissioners, as they were originally directed by the bill to an investigation of the state of the education of the poor generally. However solicitous to obtain every information on that point, the committee of that House were, to an extent, precluded from doing so by many circumstances, over which they could not have control. A commission throughout the country was enabled to avail itself of all local means of information—it would have supplied the deficiency which the committee felt—it would have obtained the necessary knowledge with no addition of expense. Was it not a duty then to direct their exertions to such a desirable object? Oh no! Superior minds forbad it. "You must," said they, "do no such thing. You must confine your inquiry to one class of abuses. You must not presume to ask one question beyond the confines of charitable education." To that decision the House must bow—some, no doubt, from respect to the character, of those distinguished persons—some from a sufficient knowledge of their motives in the restriction—he himself must do it from necessity. When he saw that the consequence was nothing more than this—that a second commission, and then (for it must come to that) a third commission must be appointed (for, of course, as those great personages would not choose to embrace all the objects at once, a third commission must be issued), when all the objects of those commissions might be accomplished by the first, he could not sufficiently express his surprise at this determination, though he felt the necessity of submitting to it. This extraordinary conduct, this narrow, and illiberal, and imperfect view of the measure, reminded him of the old fable of a man, who being (to speak in legal terms) seized in fee of two cats, one of a larger size than the other, and being solicitous to make a communication between them on his premises, ordered that a large hole should be made in one place, and a small hole in another; and, certainly, the two cats passed through the two holes very conveniently, although they might have passed through one hole with much less trouble and expense to the owner.

There was also another change in the measure which he exceedingly regretted. The powers conferred originally on the commissioners were not only altered and abridged, but the House would hear, with astonishment, altogether abrogated. They were directed to traverse the country, and call witnesses to attend them, but they were to possess no power of enforcing their attendance, or of demanding the production of any one document. This to him was inexplicable. Whatever inference appearances might suggest, he was still bound to believe, that this was not done for the purpose of getting rid of the inquiry altogether; but it was the more inexplicable to him, when he recollected that the commissioners of naval inquiry, which originated with earl St. Vincent, passed through the House of Lords with the fullest possible powers to the commissioners over all the world—their superiors as well as their inferiors-giving them authority to commit the refractory, and to fine to the amount of 20l., and without any of the remedies inserted in the original bill. In the commission also under the Irish Education bill, which passed that House, the fullest powers were conferred on the commissioners. One should have imagined, that at least similar power would have been granted under the present bill. But as it stood then, neither the power of imprisoning nor of inflicting a fine, was allowed the commissioners. The extent of their authority was to go to different parts of the country, and call for volunteer evidence, He thought from what had been experienced, and even by the committee of that House, that he could throw a little light on the nature of this volunteer evidence; and on the manner in which the invitation of these commissioners would in most cases be met. That experience would prove how little likely an inquiry so restricted was to be effectual. The committee always found, that wherever their attention was directed, whether it was to a college, to a school, or to an hospital, the parties called before them uniformly commenced with expressing the greatest deference for the character of that House—their most anxious desire to aid the endeavours of the committee in a full and unsparing examination; and, indeed, their sincere thankfulness to parliament for having directed its attention to such inquiries. These were uniformly the sentiments with which these persons set out, no doubt with an equal claim to sincerity, as was possessed by the West India proprietors in the progress of another great question, but certainly not more important than the present one, the abolition of the Slave trade, when they expressed their heartfelt desire for investigation. Yet no sooner had these strong feelings of solicitude escaped their lips, than, as in the case of other objects of anxious desire, either possessed, or about to be attained, but satiety began, and the appetite for farther enjoyment wholly palled. The second or third question put to those persons had generally the effect of making their anxiety to afford information altogether disappear. It was so in the case of Winchester school. "Produce," said the committee, "your balance sheet of last year, and a copy of your statutes."—"No;" was the answer, "we beg leave to put in a declaration that we have taken an oath not to divulge our statutes."—So that just as the parties were almost in possession of the very object which they professed to hold so dear, they declared themselves precluded by an oath from divulging their secrets. The committee expressed a desire to be acquainted with the terms in which the oath was worded; and it appeared that it was to the effect that none of their statements were to be divulged, except for necessary and useful purposes; and of this necessity and utility the fellows themselves were to be the judges. It appeared also that those statutes were produce able in a court of law, and the result was that the committee obtained a view of them.—Similar would be the obstructions with which these restricted commissioners would have to contend in their endeavours to elicit information from their volunteer evidence. He put it to his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, to say, and from his legal acquirements and practical acquaintance with the administration of law, no authority could be higher, whether any thing could be more clumsy, unsatisfactory, and inefficient, than to leave to those commissioners no other power to secure their object, than that of indictment against the demurrers for opposition to an act of parliament.

To what, then, had the House to look, as a security for having their object carried into operation? How was it that he now stood up there to recommend to the House to agree with this bill so amended (as he must technically say); bat, as he must say, in point of fact, so greatly defaced? The House had in themselves the power of securing the original object of the bill, even where the difficulty hitched; and, seeing as they did, that the original measure was so mangled—that all the powers of the commissioner had been altered, that as the bill now stood, every thing was left to the good will of those who had an interest at variance with the spirit of the inquiry—he nevertheless had the fullest confidence that the powers they possessed would be exercised and that they would be productive of the most satisfactory result. To that security he looked as his only hope. The only means of effecting the great objects in view was, that the commissioners should proceed, and call witnesses; and that they should report occasionally to that House, and make returns of the names of all persons refusing to give the information required, or to produce the documents demanded, without alleging any just cause for such refusal. And as that House would, on its next meeting, re-appoint its committee, it would be enabled to supply the deficiency which the alteration in the present bill occasioned, by empowering that committee to call those persons before them. By these means, notwithstanding all the attempts and the subtilty of others, the House would be enabled to restore sufficient virtue and energy to this measure, and to make it something like what it was in its pristine state. He now came to another head of the subject. It was not alone to fundamental alterations that the changes which had been made in the bill in another place were limited; they affected even the division the House of Commons had made of the commissioners. The bill had originally appointed eight commissioners, making four boards, each as a check—a rival to the other. This principle was retained at present, but the mode of its operation was altered. The superior nature of the minds, who laughing to scorn the rashness of the original projectors, had perfected, by their grave deliberations, the present model of legislation, thought that the figure 3 was a better divisor of 8 than 2, and afforded a larger quotient of boards. Now, as the crude scheme of the House of Commons was framed, there were four boards of two each, calculated to proceed in their labours with expedition and emulation. As the bill stood originally amended, as was the phrase, there were two boards of three each, with two useless members over. So much for the arithmetic of those elevated legislators, who scouted the original bill in its rash and imperfect state. It was now in its final state provided, that there should be three boards of three each, therefore a ninth commissioner was appointed. So that, on the whole, the alteration gave a division of commissioners capable of doing less work by one-third, and doing that diminished work at an increased expense of one-eighth. But that was not all;—very far from it. In the original bill the two Universities and four great public schools were excepted. When the bill was first discussed, one member moved to except Rugby; another proposed to except Shrewsbury; another Norwich; and, in fact, every member rose to propose an exemption for the school that was situated in the district which he represented. This would have rendered the measure perfectly nugatory, and it being so felt by the House, they rejected all those propositions, and the bill continued with its original exceptions. In order, however, to give a salutary reprimand to that House for such a decision, it had pleased the superior minds to exempt not only Harrow and Rugby, but all charitable endowments having special visitors. Now he would pledge himself to prove, that of all the charities in which abuses exist, none were greater or grosser than in those where special visitors were appointed. A variety of causes concurred to produce this evil. In some instances those visitors resided at a distance, and never exercised their powers; in others the visitor was the patron of the school, and did not correct abuses to which his system led; in others the visitor was the heir at law of the endower, and had rather pocket the funds than apply them to the proper purposes; and of course he did not visit his own sins very heavily on his own head. Indeed he could say positively that the grossest case of abuse that came before the committee, was of a charity where special visitors have been appointed, but who had never attended to their duties for twenty years. And though the evil was so ripe and rank as to have caught the notice of all persons in the vicinity, it never reached the ears of these special visitors till Christmas last. Here then, again, was an example of the vigour, the wisdom, and the enlarged and disinterested view that was taken of this subject in another place. But let not the House be disappointed in this way. Let them rely on the appointment of another committee next year. Let the commissioners report on all demurrers in limine, and the committee would turn their attention anew to the subject, break through the obstacles now opposed to them, and fol- low up the report of the commissioners with an intrepid searching, and unsparing investigation. The powers of the commissioners of naval inquiry had extended to all persons in the kingdom. They were authorized to investigate and to commit in default of satisfactory answers. Although their object was public, they were allowed to examine private individuals. They might overhaul the books of any merchant in the city, and commit him to Newgate if he refused to answer their inquiries. Why refuse to grant similar powers in the present instance?

One objection which had been made to the present bill was, that it gave no hint of any other measure by which it was to be followed. He had heard various objections made to many bills. One objection that he himself had to the present bill, as it came from the other House, was, that it had no penalty clause; another, that it had too many exempting clauses; but who had ever before heard it objected to a bill that it contained no hinting clause—no clause stating what was to come after it? Who had ever before heard it objected to a bill that it was one measure and not twenty? The objection was, that the bill was a whole and rounded measure (a description that he was sure would not apply to some of the bills that originated in the place in which that objection was made), that it was confined to actual enactment, and did not contemplate any prospective proceeding; that it had no view to any thing that was to come at the end; that it did not contain an appendix to the reader, telling him what work was to come next. Was it not enough that the bill had so suffered, that it had been laughed at and torn to tatters, but it was first to be tortured and then destroyed, if it did not contain what was to come next in the course of legislation on the subject in the ensuing session? The novelty of this objection was such, that he really did not know how to deal with it, and should, therefore, make no farther remark upon it. Of this he was satisfied, that notwithstanding all that had been done to diminish the efficiency of the measure, the knowledge that such an inquiry was going on, and that a half yearly report of its progress was to be made to the House of Commons, would even if no legislative proceeding were apprehended to be founded on that report, do great good in checking abuses, and in holding out a warning to those who were implicated in them. A number of the objections which had been made to the bill, were grounded on the confidence which those who made them reposed in courts of law, as affording the means of correcting abuses. He confessed that he himself had not much reliance on courts of law in that respect, especially with reference to expedition and cheapness. He allowed those courts the possession of learning without stint. He allowed them great copiousness, great power of drawing out written argument. The faculty of caring nothing for the time and patience of suitors and the hundreds of thousands of their clients money they enjoyed in a perfection which the wildest sallies of imagination could not go beyond. But as to expedition and cheapness, and attention to the comfort of those who were involved in the business of those courts, they were qualities by which they were certainly not distinguished. If he had previously doubted this fact, the evidence that had been produced before the committee only two days ago would have completely established it in his mind; for a more touching scene than was then exhibited, perhaps, had never been before witnessed. The committee had been inquiring into a charity that existed at Yeovil. He thought it was there, but he did not distinctly recollect the place; however the case was calculated most strongly to prove the existence of the evil which it was the object of the measure to remedy. It appeared from the testimony of three most respectable church wardens who had devoted their time to the investigation of an enormous abuse in the parish, that of an income of 2,000l. bequeathed to a charitable purpose, not above 30l. or 40l. were rendered available to it. Questions and answers to the following effect passed between the committee and those individuals. Q. Why did you not go into a court of law—there you would have found a remedy? A. We did.—Q. Did you go to the court of Chancery? A. We instituted proceedings there eight years ago.—Q. How long did they continue? A. We are not out of the court yet. The first witness examined: "I have paid 1,300l. costs, and have received only 300l. of them from the town." Q. Have you obtained no relief? A. Oh, it has ruined us.—Q. Have you found the other expenses heavy? A. Oh, good God, I have a thousand times wished myself out of the world; it has entirely ruined me; it has destroyed an excellent business of which I was possessed. The second witness examined: Q. What have you experienced with respect to this case? A. It has cost me 500l. already and I fear I do not know the worst of it. The third witness examined: Q. Have you suffered any thing by this suit? A. My heart is almost broken; indeed, my nerves are so shaken by the losses which I have sustained in the prosecution of the affair, that I scarcely know what I do; it has been the most grievous thing I ever knew. I have a wife and several children; and I beg leave to add that unless the committee allow me to leave town to night, I do not know what will become of them. The whole appearance of the man bore ample testimony to the truth of the dreadful account he gave of his condition. So much for that instance of the advantage of resorting to a court of law. Sir G. Paul a man of the most estimable character, who had devoted a long and useful life to the advancement of all that was calculated to benefit the poor, had, on the discovery of an abuse of a similar nature in a charity of 50l. or 60l. per annum, betaken himself to the same cheap and expeditious remedy. The House had already heard the general result of such steps, he would now show them a little of the mechanism by which a man's fortune and health and happiness were ruined. After the necessary preliminary steps, the cause was put on the paper in the court of Chancery in December, but was ordered to stand over. Again it was put on the paper, and again it was ordered to stand over for three days. On the 21st it was actually called on, but the court made up its mind that it would not make up its mind. On the 9th of April, for which it was fixed, the court with its usual promptitude determined that it would not determine. On the 13th of May it came on, and the court pronounced on one point, expressing its opinion that a certain lease was void, but reserved its judgment on other points. To elucidate those points the court took home the papers, and no more was heard of the cause for many months. The papers being taken home was a kind of respite and a suspension of proceeding, which relieved from expense during the time they were considering. The counsel both for the plaintiff and for the defendant however applied for judgment; but it was postponed to the 20th of January on which day it was not judged. Two days afterwards the same occurrence took place. It was then decided that it should not be decided until another day on which other day it was again decided that it should not be decided until another day on which other day it was again postponed. It was appointed positively for the 29th of February, there being but 28 days in that month. It was of course again deferred, and then again. On a subsequent day it was mentioned. This word "mentioned" was a light and airy word in that House, but in the court of Chancery it was attended with fees to the counsel, fees to the agents, fees to the short-hand writer—in short, a "mention" was not the most unexpensive and agreeable proceeding that could befal a suitor. Some days after the court acknowledged that it had mislaid the papers which so many months before it had taken home to peruse, and desired that a brief (attended with considerable expense) might beleft with the court. On the 17th of March it was again called on, and at length it was—not decided, for decided it was not unto the present moment, but it was referred to the master.

One objection to the bill under the consideration of the House was, that it would be very expensive. It had been said, that to institute an inquiry into small charities, would, in most cases, be to induce an expense greater than those charities were worth.—The rapid intellects by which this opinion was pronounced, did not perceive that the very thing wanted was an inquiry into these small charities; for a charity, although it might appear to possess but a fund of five shillings a year, might in reality be possessed of a fund of a very considerable amount. The history of the suit, which this digression had interrupted, proved, however, that the course preferred by the objectors to the expense of the inquiry by committee, was somewhat more expensive. It was sent out of one expensive court into another expensive court—out of the court of Chancery into the Master's office. Not to the present moment had a day been appointed to take it up. It would have to run the gauntlet of all the proceedings in the office; exceptions would then be taken to the report; those exceptions would be most ably, and learnedly, and elaborately argued by counsel, but, he apprehended, not so concisely and cheaply as they would be by the commissioners. It would then be sent back to the master for revision, &c. &c.

"And find no end, in wand'ring mazes lost."

The conclusion from all this, in his mind, was, that the court of Chancery might be excellent for many purposes, but that to the suitors in it it was ruinous. It might be an ornament to the state, it might be beneficial to those he belonged to it, but to those who were so unfortunate as to resort thither for equity it was irremediable though certainly not immediate ruin. And here he begged to guard himself against being misunderstood. He unequivocally disavowed the intention of throwing the slightest imputation on the integrity, on the talents, or on the incomparable and unprecedented learning of the noble and learned lord at the head of the court of Chancery. He sincerely believed, that from the days when English law and equity were separated to the present time, there never had been any individual in that situation more anxious to do justice to all parties. He believed he might say with equal confidence, that that noble and learned lord's unrivalled sagacity and subtlety were unanimously acknowledged by the whole profession, and that he was by far the man of the most wonderful legal learning that had for ages appeared in any of our courts. This was not merely the expression of his own unfeigned reverence and admiration of the great qualities by which that noble and learned lord was distinguished—he knew he spoke the sentiments of all the profession, common lawyers as well as chancery lawyers. That the learning and subtlety of the noble and learned lord were unexampled was the opinion from one end of Westminster Hall to the other. He must add, that a more kindly disposed judge to all the professional men who practised in his court never perhaps existed. But notwithstanding all these good qualities on the part of the noble and learned lord, it was his (Mr. Brougham's) duty to say, that there was a something in the court of Chancery that set at defiance all calculations of cost and time, and rendered the celebrated irony of Swift, when he made Gulliver tell the worthy Hynynhmn, his master (what he says, his honour found it hard to conceive), that his father had been wholly ruined by the misfortune of having gained a chancery suit, with full costs, not only not an exaggeration, but a strictly correct description of the fact Having dwelt at such length on this part of the subject, he should compress what he had to say in as few words as possible. He was convinced that the time was at hand when the unanimous sense of the country would be declared on this subject, and when the most anxious wish would be generally expressed for a full, unsparing, and honest investigation of those notorious and shocking abuses. It belonged to that House, and to that House alone, to confer such a benefit on the community. If they sat supinely, and sent out commissioners without taking effective steps to render the labours of those commissioners effective, their proceedings would be a mockery, and not a real advantage. The commissioners might traverse the country, they might hold their sittings, they might show a good will in the cause, they might invite persons to attend, they might frame questions to be put to those persons, they might expect answers, but they would solicit them in vain, unless they were backed by the House, unless it were universally known, and that night recognized, that the House was resolved to do its duty. Unless it did this, it would occasion the utmost irritation, inflammation, and exasperation in every parish from one end of the country to the other. The eyes of all were opened; they were steadily fixed on the subject, and in proportion to its magnitude and importance was the intensity of the interest excited. This was a feeling which pervaded every province—it dwelt in every parish—it haunted every hamlet. It every where called loudly for investigation and redress. There was no part of the country so remote, there was no district so trifling in wealth or number of inhabitants, there was no sphere so circumscribed as not to comprehend within it some bequest for charitable purposes. Every where a local, as well as a general feeling, was most strongly entertained. Both from the poor, who were immediately interested, and from the rich, who, if the poor were deprived of their right, would be compelled to maintain them, the cry was gone forth, and they all looked to that House for the means of remedying the evil. It was the duty, and be trusted it would be the pleasure, of that House to answer the call, and to institute the required investigation. There was but one way of doing so—it was, by resolving to re-appoint the committee in the next session of parliament—to constitute it of the same individuals—to clothe it with the same powers as at present. Let that be done, and he cared not for the mutilations which the bill before the House had suffered elsewhere. The committee would supply all the deficiencies which these mutilations were calculated—he feared he might add, were intended—to create. I cannot sit down (concluded Mr. B.) without once more adverting to a most interesting topic, to which I drew the notice of the House when last I had the honour of addressing them. Every day has discovered to the committee more and more proofs of the munificently charitable disposition of individuals in former times.—What I wish you to do is, only to turn with grateful attention to the benevolence of your forefathers, and to endeavour to prevent the memorials of that benevolence from being defaced. We are occupied a raising monuments to the glory of our naval and military defenders, and fashioning them of materials far more perishable than their renown; all I ask is, that we should protect from the operation of time, and from the injuries of interested malversation, those monuments of the genuine glory of our ancestors; those trophies which they won in a pious and innocent warfare, and left to commemorate triumphs unmingled with sorrow, unpolluted by blood; gained over ignorance, that worst enemy of the human race, and over her progeny, vice. Thus we shall perform a greater service to the public; we shall contribute more to exalt the name and the fame of this country than by all the other acts of public munificence in which, as a great and a victorious nation, we have been justly indulging. Whatever may be attempted to impede the attainment of this desirable object, I hope that in the next session we shall so vigilantly protect the commissioners in the execution of their duty, as to prove to all persons that any efforts to frustrate the views of this House, and to defeat the hopes of the country, are vain; and I trust, that all who have hitherto obstructed, or who may yet endeavour to thwart our views, whether from an interested dread, lest their own malversations should be detected, or from scarcely less base fellow-feeling for the malversations of others, or from a silly and groundless fear of they know not what danger—that all who, on whatever grounds, hold out a protecting hand to corruption, from the hereditary enemy of improvement and the mitred patron of abuse, down to the meanest peculator in the land, may learn that the time is gone by when the poor could be robbed with impunity. The hon. and learned gentleman then moved—

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the State of Education of the Poor throughout England and Wales; and to report from time to time to his Royal Highness, and to this House thereupon."

said, that he went along with the hon. and learned gentleman in thinking that the subject was one of those to which, now that the blessings of peace had been happily restored, parliament ought to turn its attention. He was disposed also to admit, that the inquiry was calculated not only to remedy the abuses in question, but to excite additional interest for those charities, respecting which it was instituted, and to call back the attention of the persons connected with them to their proper objects. But if the hon. and learned gentleman looked at the nature of the bill, he could not be surprised, that a measure sent to the other House, so little resembling in scope and character the inquiry out of which it was supposed to have grown, should have there met with difficulties which appeared insurmountable. The committee had been appointed to inquire, not into the charitable institutions of the country, but into the education of the lower orders; and, although their report related to objects beyond that which they were appointed to investigate, the hon. and learned gentleman extended the enactments of his bill beyond even that report, and introduced a provision to authorize the appointment of a commission to continue the inquiry. He could not conceive any hope more illusory than that held out by the hon. and learned gentleman, that the commission would be enabled to execute its task in a short time, or without occasioning those evils the existence of which in the court of Chancery the hon. and learned gentleman had described with so much exaggeration. Could that House stand the criterion which the hon. and learned gentleman had applied to the court of Chancery? Were the Order book taken, and the various delays which the pressure of business might occasion in any particular motion to be noticed, it might, by such a partial view of the subject, be frequently alleged, that the House of Commons postponed for months, very wise and important measures. Could that be urged as an imputation on the ability or attention of the House of Commons to its duties? He certainly knew it could not, as the motives for such postponement could be easily explained, as no doubt could those cases mentioned by the hon. and learned member with respect to the court of Chancery, and he hoped that those gentlemen who were more acquainted with that court than he could be supposed to be, would defend it from such unmerited imputations. The hon. and learned gentleman had made an unfair attempt to run down the character of the legal institutions of the country. Not the court of Chancery alone, but all the courts of law would suffer, if tried by the hon. and learned gentleman's criterion. Whether it was a court of assize, the court of King's Bench, the court of Common Pleas, or any other court, that delay would occasionally occur, which was inseparable from the administration of human affairs. To agree to the address proposed would, in his (lord Castlereagh's) opinion, be, to deprive the other House of parliament of the fair exercise of their functions. The hon. and learned gentleman contemplated the probability of a renewal, next session, of the committee. In that event, there would, were the present motion agreed to, be two commissions—the one legislative, the other royal, and a committee of the House of Commons, all inquiring into the same subject. The best course, in his opinion, would be, to let the commissioners proceed with those powers, which, though not so great as the hon. and learned gentleman wished, and intended to make them, were yet very great. At an early period of the next session, the House would receive some report from that commission, which would enable them to judge of its efficiency. A farther range to their operations might then be proposed if it were deemed advisable. Nothing, in his opinion, could be a more imprudent course for the House to pursue, than that which had been recommended by the hon. and learned gentleman, who had called on them to do that by address to the Crown, to which the other branch of the legislature had refused to give its sanction as a legislative measure. He considered this attempt calculated to produce such a collision between the two Houses, as must detract from the respectability of the proceedings of parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman had thought it enough to leave his proposition on the table, and that he might absent himself immediately afterwards, but he did entreat the House, whatever might be the intemperance of the hon. and learned member, not to take the first moment after the modifications which the other House had thought proper to give to the measure, to address the Crown to adopt that course, of which the other House had disapproved. The House ought rather to confine themselves to the branch of inquiry which they originally destined for the committee, and to rest on that basis for the present. There could be no objection to making the other branch of inquiry the object of another legislative measure in another session. If the House wished inquiry into the other charitable institutions of the country, there was nothing to prevent them from agreeing to such an extension in another session. On the contrary, he thought a great deal might be gained by the agitation of the question during the interval. Really, when he looked into the extent of the hon. and learned gentleman's bill, as it was sent up to the other House, he was not surprised that the Lords should not be prepared at once to assent to the whole of it. There were eleven thousand parishes in England and Wales, and there could not be less than between forty and fifty thousand charitable institutions included in the bill as it originally stood. He really thought that in the bill, as now modified, there was sufficient to occupy the commissioners till another session.—On these grounds he submitted to the House that a case was not made out, either from necessity or prudence, to justify the House in doing that by themselves, by address to the Crown, which could not be obtained this session in the shape of a legislative measure. The speech of the hon. and learned gentleman to-night, had disclosed sentiments with regard to one of the branches of the jurisprudence of the country, namely, the courts of equity, which were calculated to degrade it in the eyes of the country. It was greatly to be wished, that in a matter of so much importance the utmost temper should be observed. He was sure, that an inquiry, to be useful, must be pursued in the spirit of temper and moderation; and if it were pursued in such a way, every honest man must wish to see the object of it accomplished. If the address should be carried, one set of commissioners appointed by the Crown, and another set of commissioners appointed under the bill of the hon. and learned gentleman, would be carrying on their inquiries at the same time, and he conceived that nothing could prove more injurious than the unnecessary complication which must thereby be introduced. He would therefore conclude with moving the previous question.

said, as the noble lord had conceived he had acted somewhat disrespectfully to him in leaving the House immediately after submitting his motion, he wished to inform him that he was only in the gallery, and that not a word the noble lord had said was lost to him.

remarked, that he had not seen the hon. and learned gentleman in his place, and that he had therefore believed that he had left the house. It was at least not very usual for a member after making a motion, so to withdraw himself, as to leave the House in uncertainty whether he was present or not.

replied, that although he usually sat in a particular part of the house, he had not conceived the sight of his face to be necessary to the noble lord in making his speech. He was not aware that the effect of the arguments of the noble lord was at all injured by the accident of his not seeing him.

said, that having been so directly called on by the noble lord, to state his opinion as to the chance there was of obtaining any remedy in cases of abuse of charitable trusts through the court of Chancery, he felt he should be acting improperly towards the House, if he did not answer that call. He most sincerely thought that in such a case the remedy which the court of Chancery was capable of affording was not an adequate remedy, and that it was impossible, through the court of Chancery, to obtain redress for the abuses of charitable institutions. There were expedients of delay peculiar to that court, which, if resorted to, as they naturally would be in such a case, would throw such obstacles in the way of obtaining redress as few would be disposed to encounter. And when he considered that an information in the court of Chancery would be filed by some stranger, who had not, like a suitor in Chancery, an interest in the result of the decision, it could not be expected that such a person would be disposed to put himself to the great expense which this would occasion, for the public benefit. The delay and the procrastination might occasion him to lie out of a great expense for a number of years. If a person hearing of any abuse should think of having an information filed, he must lay his account with disbursing a great sum of costs, with the chance of recovering, if he gained the suit after a great number of years, strictly taxed costs. It would be difficult to find a man so public-spirited as to advance a great sum of money to carry on a cause in which he had no personal interest, imputing gross misconduct to a neighbour, with a chance of recovering a part of his expenses after so great a lapse of time. A bill had a year or two ago been introduced by an hon. gentleman, to which he proposed an amendment, which afterwards became a separate bill, providing that all stamp duties should be dispensed with, in cases of this description, which would consequently have been a great saving of expense; but it had been decided by the court of Chancery, that this provision did not extend to actions against persons who had got lands of charities into their possession. With respect to the proceedings in the court of Chancery, there was no man who practised in that court who must not be convinced, that very great expedients of delay might be resorted to in it, which ought not to exist in any court. His hon. and and learned friend had conceived these expedients of delay to belong necessarily to a court of equity; but it was his opinion that a great part of the abuses in the court of Chancery might be remedied, and might be remedied without any legislative interference. He considered himself at present as giving evidence with respect to the court of Chancery; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if gentlemen went to vote with an idea that a remedy for abuses in charities might be found in a court of chancery, they would be voting under an erroneous impression.

believed, that the mixing of other charitable institutions with those for education in the bill, had not occurred to the hon. and learned gentleman himself till a late stage of the measure.

said, in explanation, that he had stated to the House when he first brought in the bill, that he had so drawn it up that this addition might easily be made if the House thought fit, though the committee could not include other charities in their report, not having been instructed to do so.

proceeded to observe, that it might be convenient that the commissioners, as they went through the country in twos and threes, should inquire into the state of other charitable institu- tions at the same time that they inquired into the management of funds for education. But the great question was, what were the funds for the education of the poor? Till that was ascertained they could, have no knowledge of what supplementary measures might be necessary for rendering the education of the poor more complete; and the commission would enable the House to ascertain it. With respect to the power of committal, it had been thought that it might have the effect of deterring persons from entering on the discharge of a laborious and honourable duty, if they thought that they subjected themselves to be committed to Bridewell, if, from misapprehension, perhaps, they did not give such an answer to any question put to them respecting any trust, as might happen to please two commissioners of whom they knew nothing. With respect to the inquiry into the general manner in which the poor were educated—whether, for instance, Bell's or Lancaster's were the better mode—that was a wide field of inquiry, and quite of a different nature from what was originally understood to be proposed. Undoubtedly he did not see any objection to such an inquiry; but when the question was, whether they should take it into their own hands or wait till another session, when the concurrence of the other branch of the legislature might perhaps be obtained, he thought the latter course ought to be pursued. He was sorry the motion had been introduced, because the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman betrayed an angry feeling, with respect to a noble and learned friend of his. This was the fact, notwithstanding the compliments which the hon. and learned gentleman had paid to the exalted individual to whom he alluded. Feeling with his noble friend, that the proceeding now recommended would be likely to produce discord between the two branches of the legislature—and conceiving that a little delay would not create any evil result—he should support the motion for the previous question.

hoped that parliament would show that they were an effective parliament. He could not permit his countrymen to be deceived by specious arguments. The House stood on this question between the dead and the living. Charitable and patriotic persons had bequeathed their money for the benefit of infants and of the poor. Would the House, for frivolous and scarcely intel- ligible reasons, allow such benevolent and useful charities to be misapplied? He thought that the inquiry ought to extend to all charities—those for the relief of old age, as well as those for the education of youth. Was he addressing a British senate or not? He had sat in that House for twenty years, and he had never heard such a monstrous proposition as that it would be improper to inquire into the abuses of the funds for supporting infants and educating of the poor? He had heard allusions made to good men who were trustees, but good men might not perhaps have done their duty, or the trustees might not perhaps be good men. It was said, that such a measure would provoke too much inquiry. But what honourable man would shrink from inquiry? He was a trustee to many charitable institutions, and he courted investigation in its fullest extent. He certainly should vote against the previous question, and against passing the bill in the disgraceful state in which it had been returned to them from the other House.

said, he should certainly vote for his hon. and learned friend's motion. The question was, whether, when commissioners were appointed, it would not be a saving both of time and money, if instructions should be given to them when they inquired into the funds for the education of the poor, to inquire at the same time into the general state of the education of the poor. They would be quite at a loss to know how to proceed with respect to the disposal of the funds, if they did not know what was the state of education in the parts of the country where the funds existed. They ought not only therefore to know what were the funds, but what was the state of the education of the poor, otherwise the necessary Consequence would be, the appointment of another commission, to do that which might be obtained at once by acceding to the proposition of his hon. and learned friend. With respect to the other proposition, of extending the inquiry to all charities, nobody in the House doubted that great convenience would attend uniting this inquiry with the other; indeed, it was not well possible to separate the inquiries, as charities for education were often closely connected with charities for other purposes. If that was the true feeling of the House, he should be glad to know what objection there could be to unite the two inquiries? It was said to agree to the motion would be to entangle the House in a dispute with the other House; but he could not anticipate any such result from it. He thought such a result was much rather to be expected from the course proposed by the right hon. gentleman, namely, to go next year and call on them to concur in a measure which they had already rejected—The Lords would be sure to reject such a bill, because there was no part of the bill of his hon. and learned friend to which the Lords had shown so early and decided a reluctance, as to this part of it. The proposed proceeding was neither disrespectful nor unconstitutional—and if, as was generally believed, the investigation would disclose abuses of a most shameful nature, the House would not be performing their duty to the country, and particularly to those whom they were especially bound to protect, if they did not afford every facility in their power for the discovery and cure of those malversations which were so dishonourable to all those connected with them.

said, that, whatever opinion the gentlemen opposite might have of the measure the House could not but he obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman, who had again given it an opportunity to re-assert its opinion as to a subject of the greatest importance.—They had sent up to the Lords a bill, giving effectual powers to a commission, and giving the Crown also the power of granting salaries to the commissioners. The House had taken away the powers which could make the bill effectual; and it was now calculated only to mislead the commissioners and the public. It was certainly never in the contemplation of the House to grant salaries to commissioners, who did not possess what they deemed effectual powers. No persons, by the amended bill, were to give evidence, but those who volunteered to do so. The result, therefore, would be, that no evidence would be given in the worst cases of abuse, or only by those who had uncertain, loose, or traditional information. The inquiry, too, was restricted to charities which were solely for education. But it happened that there were very extensive charities, which were intended for various purposes among which education was one. The hon. Member alluded to the very extensive charities known, by the name of sir Thomas White's charity. With regard to the objection that the bill would operate to dissuade honourable men from accepting trusts, if this was meant to apply to charities hereafter, he conceived it had very little force; for unless some security was established against future peculation, no individual would again leave his money to such purposes. If the objection applied to past benefactions, he was afraid that the majority of present trustees were not men of strict honour. There was no doubt that the original trustees were, but, in the lapse of half a century, these trusts frequently fell into strange hands, and had always a tendency to lose their natural guardians. The noble lord had suggested the propriety of making their proceedings harmonise with those of the other House; but he must here call their attention to the failure both of Mr. Gilbert's bill in 1780, and his own twenty years afterwards to enable the trustees of existing charities to register their funds with the clerk of the peace to save them from future dilapidation, in causing adequate returns—a failure that could not have happened if the provisions of the bill had been honestly complied with. Bat what was the fact? Out of 40,000 charities, which were supposed to exist in the country, only 600 memorials had been sent in for enrolment, pursuant to the directions of the act. It was obvious then that some compulsory power was necessary to correct this disposition to concealment, or the whole intention of the inquiry would be frustrated.

objected to the motion, as it was an attempt, by way of address to the throne, to take away the power of the other House of Parliament to negative a measure. The bill had been sent back to them amended, and the hon. and learned mover, by his address, attempted to destroy those amendments, not by the ordinary mode of negativing them, but by addressing the Crown to desire it to act in contravention of them. There were two courses which they might regularly follow—to negative the bill which had been sent back, and to send up another to the Lords, or to negative the amendments; but the present proceeding would force the Crown to act in contradiction of the wishes of one or other House of Parliament. He had said this, supposing they were all agreed that the proposals of the Lords were inadmissible; but he thought there were much substantial reason in those mea- sures. The inquiry which was proposed by the bill as it now stood, would, in his opinion, have a most beneficial effect; and if all that was originally intended was not carried into execution, yet a great deal might be done upon which important legislative measures might be founded. The present inquiry would go to see how the funds were applied, and if abuses, which no doubt existed, were fully made known, such measures might be founded upon them as would effectually tend to place the charities upon their original foundation. The appointment of another set of commissioners besides those which were contemplated by the present bill, would only tend to create embarrassments, and besides be attended with a vast expense, which was a consideration by no means to be overlooked. He thought it would be more advisable to be content with inquiring into the funds devoted to education in the first place, leaving the state of education as a supplementary subject of inquiry hereafter.

expressed his disappointment at the speech which he had just heard, as he had felt assured that the right hon. gentleman would be friendly to the motion, both as it regarded the education of the poor, and the correction of the shameful abuses of the charities for promoting that object. He thought it most important to retain the words "all charities" in the bill, because, from long attendance on the committee he was satisfied that it was not in the power of government, or of any other authority at present, to put an end to those abuses, unless they were fully and accurately informed of the nature and extent of the evil; and this they could never expect to be without the most minute inquiry into it. Several recent voluntary disclosures rendered it impossible for any man to shut his eyes to the imperious necessity of instituting a strict and effectual inquiry into the administration of all charitable funds. With regard to an indisposition on the part of trustees to undertake that office if this bill were to pass, he was quite sure that it was at least not a general feeling. The bill exempted the schools of Quakers and, yet he was authorized to say from that respectable body of men, that they had not only no objection to the examination of their few charitable schools, but that they should rejoice at finding them made the subject of parliamentary inquiry. Whoever knew them, knew that they could have no apprehensions of such an investigation, nor could he conceive how any honest man could entertain any apprehensions. He was sure that inquiry would not be much longer deferred, for that many highly-respectable persons felt themselves reflected upon in their character of trustees, and were earnest in their wishes for the present inquiry. For these reasons he should give the motion of his hon. and learned friend his most decided support.

said, that if any thing were calculated to give greater weight to the eloquent and convincing speech of his hon. and learned friend, it would be the fair and manly statement which had been made by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, for he could not conceive that any thing was more natural than that those who had conscientiously discharged their duty should not shrink from inquiry. The chancellor of the exchequer had attempted to put the question on a point of technicality, but he could not see how the argument of that right hon. gentleman could be maintained. What was there improper, he would ask, in the House addressing the Crown, to carry into effect a wish which it had before expressed? He did not think the House were to be precluded from this, their undoubted privilege, because it had happened that in another place a bill, which had been sent up had been mutilated in a way to take away the benefit which might have been expected from it in a degree which would almost justify them in rejecting it altogether. He thought it impossible that the objections which had been reported to have been made to the measure, were such as could have suggested themselves to any honourable mind. Those objections were said to have come from a high legal authority, from the head of the great court of equity, the lawful protector of those who had none other to protect them, the guardian of the friendless. What candid, equitable, or honourable motives, had led to those objections, he could not devise, but let those motives be what they might, the House would, he hoped, be disgusted at the obstructions which had been devised, and would feel the propriety of agreeing to the motion of his hon. and learned friend, and thereby setting the measure, as it were, upon the same footing upon which they had before placed it. No technical objection should be suffered to destroy such a measure, but he saw no one which applied to the case. It was an exertion to rescue that property which was intended for the benefit of the poor from the hands of those who seemed only anxious to live by its plunder; and here he could not forbear expressing his thanks, and that which he conceived ought to be the thanks and gratitude of the House and the country to his hon. and learned friend for the zeal, the ability, and perseverance with which he had begun and followed up this great and important undertaking, for the great labour he had bestowed upon it, and the masterly manner in which he had urged it in the House. He trusted the House would appreciate these circumstances, and not consent to an object of such importance being defeated. The noble lord (lord Castlereagh) had spoken with disapprobation of the tone of the speech of the learned mover. He could discover nothing in that speech which could have drawn down the noble lord's dissatisfaction, unless it were the tone of commiseration with the unprotected—the tone of indignation at scandalous malversation—the tone of indignation at plunder of the worst description—the plunder of the poor and defenceless, and at the violation of property consecrated by the best of feelings to the best of purposes. It appeared that the charities in this country, for the support of the aged and the young, for the instruction of the ignorant, exceeded in amount what those who had not inquired into the subject could have conceived. It appeared also, that the abuses by which they were diverted from their proper purposes kept pace with the efforts of charity. Was it possible to deny, that it was the peculiar duty of the House to inquire into those abuses, and to take effectual measures for remedying them. He was anxious, for his own part, that the investigation should have been carried through by a committee, as he had more confidence in a committee, especially when assisted by persons as vigilant and active as the learned gentleman. He looked to commissions also with jealousy. When he saw the abuses which existed in almost every department in the country, in schools, in prisons, in the navy, in the army, the delays which existed in the court of Chancery. He would not call them abuses, for he rather thought the whole system was an abuse in itself, and it was evident that such delays existed to a terrible extent, from the immense sum to which at the present moment the unclaimed property in Chancery amounted; a sum so great, that he was almost afraid to name the millions of which it was composed. When he recollected those which had crept in even in the management of commissioners themselves, when he saw that his majesty's ministers never proposed any inquiry of their own accord, and even took it as a sort of praise when they had not opposed those which were proposed by others; when he reflected upon these circumstances, and still farther, when he saw that the result of some commissions was a baffled inquiry and increased expense, he could not but regret that the matter was not, as was originally intended, kept within the control of the House itself, and not made as the appointment of the commissioners now was, a source of additional patronage to the Crown. But the benefits which were originally intended by this bill were almost entirely done away with, by the amendment, or rather the emasculation, which it had suffered in another place. The hon. and learned mover had stated loose facts, but serious abuses. He had stated the condition in the court of Chancery, which made it doubtful whether that court was not itself an abuse. To delay was to deny justice, to make it expensive was to sell it. Yet the unclaimed property in that court amounted to millions, and those who gained their suits were often ruined by the justice of their cause. This was, he conceived, contrary to the king's oath. The king's oath, at his coronation, was "nulli negabimus, nulli deferemus, nulli vendemus rectum vel justitiam;" the answer of the subject now was, "negatur, defertur, venditur," not sold in one sense—bribes were not given to the judges, but what mattered it to the individual, whether he was ruined by giving bribes to judges, or by any other unnecessary expense? As there were sister arts of poetry, painting, &c, so there were sister abuses, and this abuse was closely connected with the misapplication of charitable funds. Whether this abuse arose from the construction of the court itself, or from the (as it was said) incomparably learned judge who sat there, he could not say—but it was worthy of serious attention, and if he might venture to suggest such a task to any gentleman, he saw beneath him a learned gentleman the most able to point put a remedy. Meantime, the scandalous and impious abuses of charities called for a remedy. What sort of trustees those who were called honourable, yet who opposed inquiry, must be, he should leave to the good sense of Englishmen to determine. He begged of hon. members to reflect upon the number and extent of the abuses of several charities, which had been already discovered—to consider the evils which those abuses were calculated to entail upon a large portion of society—the many hundreds, he might say thousands, of young persons who were left in ignorance that might have been instructed, and the numbers of the aged who were suffered to pine in poverty in their declining years, while the funds intended for their support were put into the pockets and converted to the use of a set of beings who fattened upon instead of applying them to their original purpose. He begged the House would consider these circumstances, and he was satisfied they would pause before they consented to throw any obstruction in the way of a motion whose object was, to come at the speediest method the case afforded of checking those evils in their progress. The country were interested in the measure, and would not, he was satisfied, be content with any thing short of a minute inquiry into it. The House could not take more effectual means to answer the ends of those who were disposed to vilify it, than by sitting while the abuses alluded to existed, and refusing to give efficacy to that measure which could alone correct them. He hoped therefore they would stretch forth their powerful hand to secure to the poor the enjoyment of those charitable funds which at once tended most materially to diminish the sum of human misery, and to exalt the moral and beneficent character of the wealthy of this country in the eyes of the world.

proposed to confine the few words he had to offer to the House, exclusively to the motion before it, and would therefore pass over nearly the whole of what had fallen from the hon. baronet who had just sat down, as also the greater part of the speeches which had been previously made. In order to avert the imputation of any motive which did not belong to him, he begged that it might be understood he did not abstain from noticing the speeches he had alluded to, because he was in principle an enemy to the projected inquiry. He had never uttered a word, nor given a vote on this subject, but in furtherance of that object He had no difference upon it, express or other, from the mover, but as to the mode in which he proposed to carry his plan into execution. That he might act with candour he would now say, that if the measure of the hon. and learned gentleman had continued such as it was on its first reading, he (Mr. Canning) should have felt it his duty to give it the most strenuous opposition. He, however, had approved of it in the shape which it had afterwards assumed, and this he had shown by suffering it to pass without comment. The hon. and learned gentleman would do him the justice to admit that on his part there had been no unwillingness to further the object in view. But he had now to look to the motion on which the House was called upon to decide. The bill which had been passed had been brought in after a very laborious inquiry, produced by speeches elucidatory of its object, from the learned gentleman, which, if the hon. and learned gentleman would receive a compliment from him which could not be suspected of being insincere, or offered from any unfair motive, came home to the feelings of every man in that House. The bill was ordered to be brought in on the 17th March. This order was complied with on the 8th April (and he could not wonder that the bill had not sooner been prepared), and from that period to the 20th May the House had been occupied with it. That time had been passed in polishing the measure and bringing it to perfection. It had not been much debated, for no one had been hostile to the principle of the measure, but it had been altered to meet the objections suggested, which had been very candidly attended to by the hon. and learned gentleman. On the 20th of May it had been sent to the Lords with the poor laws amendment bill, and many other important measures, which the other House was then called upon to revise, to reconsider, to adopt, to reject, or to modify. That bills thus pressed upon their attention by the working of our constitution at so late a period of the session, should always be returned perfect, was not to be expected; and he thought it but fair to allude to the disadvantages under which the other House had to exercise its functions, when a motion was made which in effect went to rebuke it for the course it had pursued. In the case of this bill their lordships had adopted the principle of the measure, and the greater part of the bill sent up to them by the Commons. That bill embraced three objects, in one of which they had fully concurred, and they had rejected, or rather they had postponed, the consideration of the other two. In consequence of this proceeding on their part, a proposition was made, that the House of Commons should take a step which he would not say was wholly unprecedented or unconstitutional, but which, if too frequently resorted to, would have a tendency (and not a small one) towards taking the whole power of the legislature into their hands. He would not say that such a course was in no case justifiable, but he had no difficulty in saying, that a case of necessity or of expediency, much stronger than any that could now be made out, could alone furnish such justification. To illustrate this position, he would refer to a case in which this right had been exercised in a much more justifiable way than it would be on the present occasion. A bill had passed the House of Commons for taking from the Crown the power of granting offices in reversion. It was sent to the Lords at a late period of the session, and there it was thrown out. Upon this the House addressed the Crown not to do the same thing which it would do if the bill had passed, but it prayed that the Crown would abstain for a definite period, till the subject could be brought under the consideration of parliament in the next year from granting offices in reversion, that they might then come to the discussion of the question with unimpaired powers. This course was justifiable in that case, for if the power of granting offices had been freely exercised within the next six months, the subject on which they were to have deliberated would have become less important, and pro tanto the efficacy of their labours would have been diminished. But, in the present instance, he wished to know what possible inconvenience could be expected to arise from a part of the inquiry being suffered to stand over for six months? It would be recollected that the bill provided that the commissioners should make their first report at the end of six months; and, if the same commissioners were named, with the same functions, to exercise on other matters, it was not only certain that great inconvenience would not arise from the enactments of the bill, as it had been returned from the Lords, but inconvenience might be much more reasonably anticipated from a contrary course being pursued, that of accumulating the functions of the commissioners 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 had heard in the course of this day, that 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 aright 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 meant—for it was necessary that he should guard against being supposed to undervalue the importance of the measure in view—if this were done, where, be 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.

said, he did not wish for a new commission. He wished the powers of the commissioners to be extended.

, 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 danger. 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."

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, during 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 Education 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.

then said, that before he moved that the House do concur in the amendments of the Lords, he wished to five 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.

spoke to order. There was no question before the House, though the hon. and learned gentleman, in order to 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.

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.

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.]

moved that the House do adjourn. He said he made the motion to give his hon. and learned friend a right to speak.

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 front 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.

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.

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.

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- 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."

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 folly aware of the objection made to the representations.

read extracts from the correspondence which passed between the parties to prove that the injunction was not unwarrantably issued.

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.

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 inadequato amuse- ment at the King's Theatre, because the natural effect of rivalship would be to cure those evils.

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.

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.