entry by the clerk and the printed paper, which professed to be a copy of it. He could assure their Lordships that he had himself been entirely misled by the entry on the vote upon this occasion. When he had perused the libel that morning, he had referred to the printed votes, and he had found them different from the record. He thought it but fair and just to state this to their Lordships, leaving it to their Lordships to do with the case what they might think advisable. The Lord Chancellor explained, that the entry of the judgment on the record was, in the first instance provisional. In every case where the judgment of the House coincided with that of the tribunal below, until the amount of costs was ascertained, the judgment could not be, even though affirmed, entered as finally passed; and consequently, as in the case which gave rise to the present discussion, the printed vote of their Lordships House stated that the case was postponed for further consideration. to be were inserted in hand-writing differing from that of the body of the document the words "to be;" but in the printed votes the word "affirmed" was not used at all, the judgment being there stated to be postponed. The meaning of the interlineation in the written minute, he took to be that stated by the noble and learned Lord, but how far the wording of the printed vote was correct he had yet to learn. The statement of the noble and learned Lord respecting the practice of the House, he believed to be perfectly correct. In cases where judgment was given, affirming the judgment of the Court below, with a fixed and determined amount of costs, he would say, for instance, with 100l. costs, the vote of the House would be entered as finally affirmed; but in cases where the judgment of the Court below was affirmed with an amount of costs to be ascertained on a future occasion, the proper entry would be, that the case was postponed until the amount of such costs was ascertained. In the present case, as the judgment was affirmed with The Earl of Mansfield thought it was amount of costs as yet unascertained, the 'but due to the persons accused of having proper entry would have been "to be postcommitted a breach of their Lordships' pri- poned until amount of costs ascertained;" vileges, to state, that he originally laboured instead of which it was stated in the under the same misapprehension respecting written minutes that the case was the judgment of the House, as the noble affirmed," and in the printed minutes, that Duke who had but just addressed them. it was "postponed sine die." That there He saw in one of the newspapers an was a considerable degree of confusion in account of the speech made by the noble the taking down and printing of the miand learned Lord when delivering judg-nutes was evident, and of course it would ment in the case; and as in that account be a question with their Lordships how far the noble and learned Lord was made to conclude by moving "that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed with costs," he did not entertain a doubt that such a judgment had been given. His attention, however, was more particularly called to the subject by a friend, who asked him if, such a judgment had been given, and, on referring to the printed minutes of their Lordships' proceedings, somewhat to his surprise he found that no such judgment had been entered, but, on the contrary, that the case had been postponed till a future day. Wishing, then, naturally to ascertain what was the real fact, he availed himself of the earliest opportunity to examine the written minutes, and these certainly he found to be very different from the printed minutes. Whether they ought in terms to correspond with each other he knew not; but in point of fact they did not correspond, and he would shortly state what constituted the difference. In the written minutes above the word "affirmed" that confusion ought to go in palliation of the breach of privilege, should they decide upon calling the printer to the Bar. He did not state the circumstance in defence of the person accused of the breach of their Lordship's privileges. In the propriety of calling that person to the Bar to answer for his offence, he entirely concurred; and even though, as was the case on a former occasion, their Lordships might be accused of prejudging the case, by designating it as a breach of privilege before the party was brought to the Bar, he had no objection to assent to the noble Earl's present Motion. The Lord Chancellor begged to set the noble Earl right upon the question of privilege. It was absolutely necessary that the article in question should be declared a breach of privilege before any proceedings were taken to bring the printer to the Bar. The printer of the paper, in fact, could not be brought to the Bar unless their Lordships decided that the article in question was a violation of their privileges. He could resist the Order to attend, and no officer would be safe in arresting him, unless he could produce in his justification the Resolution of their Lordships, declaring that a breach of privilege had been committed by the publication of an article in his paper. By that Resolution the case was not at all prejudged; it was only placed in a situation to be considered by the House. His principal object in again obtruding himself upon their Lordships' notice was to say, that with the drawing up of the Minutes of their proceedings he had nothing whatever to do. He never saw the entry made in the Minute-book in the case alluded to until his attention was called to it. Nay, more, in the whole course of his life he never saw a single Minute of any proceedings in that House until that day at five o'clock, when, in consequence of the article in the paper, he referred to the Clerk s-book to see in what terms the Minute in question was entered. There certainly was some confusion in the entries, and his wish was, that that confusion might operate in favour of the accused party. His wish was, that the unfortunate printer might get out of the scrape into which he had been unwillingly brought by others. He bore no ill-will whatever to the poor man who would be obliged to appear at the Bar to answer for what persons beyond the reach of their Lordships authority had done. He should, indeed, be glad to get at the real authors of the libel, and it was in the hope it might be possible to reach them through the individual who would have to stand at the Bar, that he was disposed not to regret the Motion which had been made by his noble friend. With respect to the insertion of the words "to be" in the written Minute, he could only say, he knew nothing whatever about it. It was stated, and with somewhat of a marked emphasis, by the noble Earl who last spoke, that the insertion was in a hand-writing different from that of the general entry; but he desired distinctly to say, that he had nothing whatever to do with it. It would be easy for their Lordships to examine the Clerks at the Table upon the point, and he was satisfied it would appear, that the interlineation was in the hand-writing of one of them. He (the Lord Chancellor) at all events never saw it until that day, and was in nowise responsible for any incorrectness which it might display. With the Clerks of the House, and with them alone, the mistake, if any, rested; and whenever the printer of the paper was brought to the Bar, he would certainly insist upon their being examined, with a view to show that he had never in any way interfered with the entry, and particularly that he had not himself inserted or directed the insertion of the words "to be" as they then stood in the written Minute. This would be but due to himself, and he was sure their Lordships would not refuse such an examination whenever he should request it. Earl Grey observed, that the manner in which the entry upon the Minutes of the House was made had nothing whatever to do with the question under consideration; it might, perhaps, be a proper subject for future consideraation; but certainly did not properly belong to the matter under discussion. The only question for present consideration was, whether the article alluded to was or was not a breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House, and whether the Minute was correctly entered or not made no difference whatever. In his opinion their Lordships could not help acceding to the Resolution he proposed. It was but a necessary foundation for future proceedings, and by adopting it they decided nothing as to the character of the publication in questionnothing as to the guilt of the person whose name appeared to the paper as its printer. By admitting that the article was a breach of privilege they merely took the necessary preliminary stage to ascertain whether it was written with a malicious intent, or whether the writer of it was sincere in the opinions he therein expressed. How far the article was malicious, or how far it was justifiable, would remain for consideration when the printer was at the Bar, and the case would not, he repeated, be in the smallest degree prejudiced by their then deciding, that it constituted a breach of privilege. The Question, that the article complained of was a breach of privilege, was agreed to. Earl Grey moved, "That Thomas Payne, whose name appeared as printer and publisher of the Morning Post, be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on Monday next;" but at the suggestion of some noble Lord who stated, that in cases involving a breach of privilege, a day should not be allowed to intervene, the noble Earl altered the time, and Mr. Payne was ordered to attend on the following day (Saturday), The Marquess of Clanricarde moved, that the House resolve itself into Committee. The Bishop of London said, it was not his intention to move, that the Bill be committed this day six months, neither did he intend to oppose it, but he must be permitted to repeat now what he stated last year, namely, that the theatres of the metropolis were conducted in a manner that was a scandal to a moral people and a Christian country. He repeated this, notwithstanding all the obloquy and odium to which he had been subjected in consequence of his former declaration to the same effect. He felt, that the mode in which plays were represented at the theatres was subversive of the moral feelings of the people; and if not checked would ultimately tend to shake the State itself, because whatever tended to demoralize the people, would endanger the institutions of the country. He repeated, that he should not oppose the Bill, but if it should go into Committee it was his intention to move, "That the words in the preamble representing theatrical entertainments as having a moral tendency should be expunged." Lord Segrave opposed the Bill because he considered it was calculated to interfere with the interests of the two patent theatres. He contended, that additional theatres were not wanted in the metropolis, for the town was already overstocked. With the exception of Mr. Sheridan Knowles, there was hardly a dramatic writer whose works were worthy of being produced on the stage, and therefore it could not be said, that the Bill was required to forward the interest of dramatic authors. Neither could it be urged, that it was necessary to give scope to the talents of good actors, for of actors of eminence there was at present a remarkable scarcity. If this Bill were allowed to pass, the consequence would be, that an unlimited number of theatres would start up from time to time, for the power of licensing them would be vested not only in the Lrd Chamberlain, but in the Lord Mayor of London also; so if these two official persons happened to be theatrically inclined, the metropolis would be inundated with minor theatres. Regarding, therefore, the interests of the two great theatres, and considering that the Bill was in other respects likely to be injurious, he felt it his duty to oppose it, and should therefore move, as an Amendment, "that it be committed that day six months." Lord Wharncliffe also objected to the Bill, not only because it would infringe upon the rights of the two great theatres, but because it gave the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Mayor the unlimited power of licensing as many theatres as they should think fit. He denied, that the patent theatres established a monopoly, for it could not be contended that the regular drama was not acted at many of the lesser theatres now established. At the Victoria theatre the plays of Shakspeare were constantly performed, and he believed that at other minor theatres-at least if he could judge by the bills-the regular drama was occasionally resorted to. He believed, however, that the taste of the public was no longer inclined for the regular drama; and that being the case, he owned he could not see the justice of charging the two great theatres with monopoly. A sufficient number of theatres were open throughout the year to gratify the desire of the public; and he could not but feel, therefore, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), by the introduction of this Bill, had treated too lightly the rights and privileges of the patent theatres. A Bill for the better regulation of the theatres now established might be passed with advantage, and therefore as a question of police he should be inclined to give his support to such a measure. As, however, the objects of this Bill were of a different nature, he must say, that he could not give it his support. He believed that the real object of the Bill was, to promote the interest of two or three theatres that were now good speculations, and would be still more profitable if it were allowed to pass. Some of the smaller theatres were open all the year round; and on the whole, considering that the public had no case of grievance to complain of, he valled upon their Lordships not to give their sanction to the Bill, but to vote for the Amendment which had been moved. The Earl of Mulgrave was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and considered that it ought to go into Committee, in order that its several provisions might be duly considered. Some measure of the kind was necessary, for the increased and still increasing size of the metropolis called for additional accommodation and greater facilities to meet the inclination of the public to attend theatrical entertainments. The patent theatres exercised a monopoly which ought no longer to exist. The ob ject of the Bill was misunderstood, it was, number of theatres they might think fit. not to increase the number of theatres He confessed, also, that he could not see already established, but rather to place why every theatre established under the them under certain regulations by which Bill should be made to contain 1,500 perthe public would be better accommodated. sons. The Haymarket theatre, he beIf the House would allow the Bill to go lieved, did not contain so many. For his into Committee, he believed there would own part, he preferred a small theatre, where be no difficulty in expunging any clause he could see the faces of the performers, against which reasonable objections could and enjoy what was passing much more to be urged. He was aware, that their Lord- his satisfaction than in the larger houses. ships as a body, did not take much interest Under a good regulation, he should have in theatrical entertainments. Indeed, it no objection that the number of theatres was useless to deny, that their Lordships' should be extended, and with that imprestastes were not inclined that way. Whether sion he should vote for the Committee. it was owing to any change which had taken place in their feelings or habits, or whether it was to be attributed to the manner in which the theatres were conducted, he would not stop to inquire; but such was the fact. Their Lordships should consider, however, that as the great body of the people were deeply interested in the drama, it was their duty to afford them every reasonable facility, in order to indulge their tastes for an amusement so rational, and to which they naturally attached so great a degree of interest. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would not adopt the amendment proposed, but would rather allow the Bill to go into Committee, for the purpose of considering how far it might be advisable to adopt its provisions. Lord Wynford said, that as the proprietors of the two great theatres had vested large sums of money in them, he considered it would be very unjust to interfere with the rights which they enjoyed under the patents which they held. He considered that the number of theatres now established were amply sufficient to meet the wants of the public; and he believed that, as far as the interests of the proprietors of the patent theatres were concerned, they would have no objection that the theatres now existing should continue, provided they were closed according to their licences, and that no others were established within a distance of two miles of the metropolis. If the noble Marquess, who introduced the Bill should not feel disposed to accept that offer on behalf of those whose cause he advocated, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill, as he did not think it right that the property vested in the patent theatres should be sacrificed. The Earl of Malmesbury objected to the power given to the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Mayor of London to license any The Marquess of Westmeath suggested to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) to withdraw the Bill, in order to bring it forward in an amended form. The House divided on the Amendment: Contents 22; Not-contents 8-Majority 14. Committee postponed for six months. List of the Nor-CONTENTS. Clanricarde, Marq. of Malmesbury, Earl of Melbourne, Lord Mulgrave, Earl of HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Mr. WARBURTON, against the Church Rates Bill.-By Mr. ToOKE, from Jamaica, for compensating Congregations for the Destruction of their Chapels.-By Mr. DUFFIELD, Mr. HALL DARE, and Mr. R. N. SHAWE, against Clauses in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.-By Sir HENRY PARNELL, from three Places, for an Alteration in the present System favour of the Bankrupts (Scotland) Bill-By Mr. BLACKBURNE, from Huddersfield, against the Sentence passed upon Captain Atcheson and Lieutenant Dawson.-By Sir A. HOPE, from Linlithgow, for Protection to the Church of Scotland. of Church Patronage in Scotland; from Dundee, in POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT-REPORT.] The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill having been read, Lord Althorp moved, that the Amendments be read a second time. Lord Granville Somerset was afraid, that under this Bill it would be impossible for poor persons to obtain relief if they should be opposed by the parochial authorities. The pauper had no means of enforcing his claim to assistance, except by appeal to a distant central board, or by indicting the parish officers. That might lead to starvation and cruelty. He wished to give Magistrates a power of enforcing relief in cases of extreme emergency. He was also desirous, that the Secretary of State should exercise the same supervision with regard to any suspension or alteration of existing regulations by the Commissioners as in the case of new rules. Mr. Walter said, that the Bill being in this advanced stage, he apprehended it was the duty of those who, like himself, had opposed it on its first introduction, to state whether their aversion was removed or diminished by the modifications it had undergone. It was possible, certainly, that the character of a measure might be totally altered by the various provisions introduced with a view to regulate its operation in detail: and he heard it said, with respect to this Bill, when objections were stated: "Oh, it will come out of the Committee a totally different thing." It had now come out of the Committee, and he asserted that it did not come out of it a totally different thing, but that whatever objections were entertained with respect to the principles of the measure at first, remained undiminished, or very little diminished, in its present stage. It was, in truth, as it had been justly called,-so far as related to the management and support of the poor, and in reference to the long-established Poorlaws, a revolutionary measure. He did not think the statesmen of this age and nation wiser than the statesmen in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and that there fore the principles first laid down by the Ministers of that illustrious princess, however they might be modified in their application to existing circumstances, should be wholly cast away, and other principles, the invention of speculative heads, substituted in their place. There was this difference also between the law of Elizabeth and the present Bill-the former was an Act of Parliament, containing in itself a complete code of Poor-laws, in twenty brief and intelligible clauses, upon which the country acted from 1601 to 1662; whilst the latter, containing upwards of four-score clauses, neither brief nor very intelligible, was only part and parcel of a code consisting at present of 118 statutes. If from such a nucleus, for the present Bill was no more than a nucleus of what was to be, it increased with proportionate rapidity, he concluded that the new Poorlaws of England, before the natural death of the present Parliament, if it lasted the usual time, would be equal to those massive volumes of which a sample was lately produced by the right hon. member for Tamworth. For the sake of clearness and conciseness, he should confine his remarks to three of the chief provisions-the Central Board, the workhouse system, and the emigration scheme. Now, with respect to the Central Board, besides its despotic power, the objection was, that it created not merely fresh patronage, for one might have seen some bounds to that, but a fresh source of patronage which was immeasurable in its effect and extent. We could have found fault before, for example, with the Board of Taxes, the Victualling Board, the office of the Commander-in-chief, and many others, each as having too much patronage attached to it; but then these were old institutions, carried perhaps to a considerable excess. But who could calculate beforehand what would be the expense of a Central Board of Poor-law Commissioners, now first invented, and to push forth its arms into every parish of the kingdom? The only change under this head was, that the new Commissioners were not to have the same power, immunity, and irresponsibility as the ancient Judges of the realm; they were not to be allowed to imprison at will upon summary process; but the Commissioners were themselves, in one word, patronage, newly created patronage-patronage liable to yearly and indefinite increase. All objection, therefore, to the Bill under this head was undiminished. Whatever were the evils -- |