The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-01 00:00:00

the same day to participate in a far more :ational entertain-
ment. It was useless to disguise from themselves the fact,
that whenever the present question was mooted they would be
accused by the country of gross hypocrisy. The Noble Lord
opposite seemed to think that there was a difference between
the dinner of a Bishop and another man. How far that might be
the case he would not say, but this he would assert that there was
not one law for the rich and another for the poor, there was not
one law for the Queen and another for her subjects.—( Hear. )
They ought to act upon some uniform principle, and if these
observances were to be kept so strictly, he thought it was the
duty of the Noble Lord at the head of the Home Department to
bring in a bill for the strict observance of every day during Lent.
The only ground that could be assigned for the vote of those
who opposed the motion of his Hon. Friend, was, that it would
be dangerous, not to the morals of the people of England, bat to
the ritual of the Established Church.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if it was the wish of Parlia-
ment to change the law he had no objection to the change, but
while the law remained as it was, he thought he was
bound as the servant of the Queen to advise the Lord
Chamberlain to act in conformity with that law.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON observed, that all that-the Noble Lord
said in defence of the continuance of this practice was, that a
Bishop and an Archbishop had stated that they were against
change, and that as it was an old custom they would advise the
House not to act upon that which was the great regulator of all
Governments—public opinion.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord opposite had set himself up against public opinion, and he
(Mr. Warburton) would venture to predict that ere long he
would find public opinion too strong for him.—( Great cheer-
ing.) He knew that they were seconded by all out of the
House, and, with the exception of the precincts of
Westminster, Wednesdays and Fridays will be observed
during Lent as any other day. The Bishops and the
Archbishops had told them that more days ought to be
observed, but publie opinion had said that they ought not, and
that they would continue to observe Wednesdays and Fridays
just like other days of the week ; he would, therefore, leave
the Bishops and the Archbishops in the custody of the Noble
Lord, venturing to predict that ere long public opinion, which
had always carried the day, would obtain a complete victory.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied in
toto the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bridport. It
was very easy to say that public opinion was to be the arbiter,
but had that always been the case? In proof that it had not.
he would just call the attention of the Honourable Member
to a subject upon which he, together with several other Mem-
bers, had ventured to state that they expressed the public
opinion. That was upon a question much more interesting to
the public than the question of opening the Theatres Roya—
he alluded to the delivery of letters in the City of London—
tbere the Hon Member ventured to assort that he spoke the
voice of the public, in desiring that letters should be delivered
'on Sunday, and what was the result? Why, he found that the
public were against him upon every point. If there was
one subject upon which, more than another, he would
trust the Hon. Member, it was upon a religious question.
He wanted something stronger than the assertion of the Hon.
Gentleman on the subject. He (ths Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) entertained no religious scruples himself with re-
spect to the opening of theatres on Wednesdays and Fridays.—
( Hear, hear.) 'I hat was his own individual opinion; but if he
understood any thing of public opinion, the intorpo ,ition of the
Honse on a question of this sort would be misconstrued as a
movement against the religious feeling of the country.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But if even they were to take
a step of this description—he thought the mode in which it
was now proposed to be taken was of all others the most incon-
venient. If they were disposed to take this step, they ought
to take it in the shape of Legislation, and not by way of resolu-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had put the case of a
supposed contradiction between the resolution of one House
and the resolution of the other. He would ask whether the
House of Commons was prepared to decide questions of this
sort on resolutions ? If they did they gave precisely the same
power to resolutions of the other House, and were they prepared
to admit that? The Hon. Gentlemen behind him were com-
pletely in error in the arguments they used with respect to the
transmission of letters.
Mr. HUME—This is not under discussion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Not under
discussion !—( Cheers and laughter.)—Why if the Hon. Mem-
ber appealed to public opinion, did he mean to say that he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not at liberty to refer to these
facts.—( Hear, hear,) The Hon. Gentleman, according to his
statement, was entitled to refer to public opinion, but he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not entitled to draw illustra-
tions from public opinions in its " outward and visible signs." He
did not think that any one besides the Hon. Gentleman would
think that was a just or equitable doctrine.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. D'ISRAELI said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
endeavoured to throw the question over, or rather put it in the
twopenny post-office. He was anxious to justify the vote he
gave the other night, which was almost a solitary one on his
aide of the House, because he had as great respect for the
Established religion of the country as the Bishop of Lon-
don.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Nay, more so, for
ho did not think that he would have agreed to that measure of
spoiliation which the Bishop of London had advised with regard
to the Canons of Cathedrals.—(A laugh.) But it appeared to
him that when they were met on a question of this nature with
an expression of vague sentiment on the part of a dignitary of
the Church, that the established religion of the country was
endangered by a proposition of this kind.—( Cries of "No, no,"
met by loud cries of "Hear, Lear, hear.") Well, then, that a
Resolution of this character was not respectful to the
established religion of the country, and when a Noble Secre-
tary of State appealed to time immemorial, which appeared to
him (Mr. D'lsraeli), by the quotations of the Noble Lord to
be the reign of George 11., when they came forward in such a
high spirit, and animated by so lofty a tone, to carry the House
away, it might have become them to have made some researches
upon this question, and to come forth will something better
than a vague expression of feeling in favour of the esta-
blishment, and with some antiquarian knowlegge, a
little more recondite, though it might be time immemorial,
than the reign of George the Second. He should like to know
at what time during a Protestant sway in this country Lent
had been rigidly and properly respected.—( Hear, hear.) He
was not prepared to say that he approved of any violation of
the rigid observance of Lent, as far asWednesdays and Fridays
were concerned. He was not prepared to say it might not be
expedient, just, and profoundly religious to observe even the 40
days, but give him the 40 days of Lent as they h ad ever been
observed, when perfectly observed. Give him the 40 days
of Lent with those mysteries and moralities acted by monks.
—( Heai, hear, hear.) That was the only mode in which hu-
manity had tolerated the rigid observance of Lent, and those
were the amusements to which recourse was made.—( Hear,
hear.) In deciding on this question, they ought not to forget
that the birth of Protestantism and of the Drama in England
was almost simultaneous.—(Cheers.) The moment that Pro-
testantism had any sway in England there was a great relax-
ation of the observance of Lent. Why in the reign of James 11.,
a strictly Protestant monarch—(Cries of " Oh !")—apetition
was presented, recommending a company of players to the
patronage of the King during Lent, and the answer of one of
our first Protestant monarchs, a Defender of the Faith, was,
" They may act, but only on Wednesdays and Fridays, that
they may not interfere with our prayers.—(Cheers and laugh-
ter.) That was a fair specimen of the tone in which Lent
was regarded in an early and very Protestant period. Lent
had never been observed rigidly, and completely in Protestant
England. The mere observance of two days a week had been
a matter rather of convention of law than of strict religious
custom.—(Hear, hear.) He must say that the observance
of Lent on Wednesdays and Fridays in respect of the theatres,
without an equal observance in regard to our morals, was but
the shadow of a custom, and the shade of a faith. He was
sorry that the Secretary for the Home Department should
have urged as an objection to the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury, a fear of collision with the House of
Lords. But he congratulated those friends who sat on his
side of the House upon the advance of those principles.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) A few years back it was whispered that
the House of Lords refrained from coming to resolutions which
they deemed expedient, lest they should fall into collision with
the House of Cemmons, but now what a change a few years
had produced. He was glad this discussion had called from the
Noble Lord an expression of such devotion to the Church
Establishment, and such a fear of collusion with the
other House of Parliament.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )
With these feelings he should support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. —(Cheers. )
Mr. DUNCOMBE then replied. The Noble Lord the
Member for Marylebone had put what he considered to be
rather an unfair question. He had asked him whether he
would place a Bishop's table on the same footing as a theatre.
He ( Mr. D.) never dined at a Bishop's table—(A laugh)—bul there
wentwere to m atnhye a
trreessp, eacnt adbhl en
tmh
neumbghetr sthoef he a
ttres Churchm
imight
of
tb
e placed England
on
quite as good a footing as the elegant entertainments of a
Bishop's table.—( Hear and laughter.) The Noble Lord would
find that last Friday the illustrious consort of the Duke of Cam-
bridge attended the Queen's theatre.—( Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Bart. the Member for Pembroke had said that it was
only within the City of Westminster the Lord Chamberlain had
this jurisdiction. The Hon. Bart. was wrong, for the Lord
Chamberlain's jurisdiction extended to all theatres Royal.
There were theatres Royal, as York, Brighton, and all
the large towns, and the Lord Chamberlain had the same
jurisdiction over those theatres if he thought proper to exercise it,
that he had over those within the City of Westminster.—
( Hear.) It was well known that within a stone's throw of the
Pavillion at Brighton, during the time the Court was there, and
when the Lord Chamberlain himself was in attendance on Ash-

the public to such heavy expense. lie had never undertaken
individually to direct or alter the interior arrangements of the
House. lie was also resolved that no new experiment should
be tried, the expense of which would exceed a given sum. A
proposition bad been made to him to try an ingenious lamp
during the recess, to which he made no objection, provided he
was guaranteed against danger, for he did not wish to under-
take the dangerous responsibility of lighting the House.—
(Laughter. )
Sir F. TRENCH said that the trial o f a new experiment
involved the failure of the last. He thought the present mode
satisfactory, but if it were considered a fair line, it ought to
at any rate to have fair play. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
seemed to think that changes in political or domestic arrange-
ments—(Laughter)—was a dangerous doctrine.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter to One.

HIS Majesty the EMPEROR of AUSTRIA,
His Majesty the EMPEROR of RUSSIA,
And His Majesty the KING of PRUSSIA.
having AUTHORISED and GUARANTEED several Dis-
ributions of Money, which (though they are NO LOT-
TERIES, offer a great many possibilities of obtaining
LARGE FORTUNES,
HEINE BROTHERS at HAMBURGH, and
HEINE BROTHERS at LUBECK,
are NOW SELLING SHARES for any of the said DIS-
TRIBUTIONS of MONEY, at various prices. The Dis-
tributions contain various portions, from
NINE POUNDS. TO TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS
and upwards. Orders for less than 101. cannot be attended
to. Persons desirous to purchase may receive PREVIOUS to
giving any order, the Prospectus and Particulars, upon ad-
dressing, WITHOUT DELAY, a line to
HEINE BROTHERS at HAMBURGH.
P. Se THE NEXT AUSTRIAN DISTRIBUTION
CONTAINS PORTIONS OF 4,0001., 7,5001., and 30,000/.

MR. SERGEANT TALFOURD'S SPEECH
ON THE COPYRIGHT QUESTION.
This day is published in a 16mo Demy Pamphlet,
MR. SERGEANT TALFOURD'S
SPEECH in the HOUSE of COMMONS on WED-
NESDAY, the 27th February, to which is appended Mr.
TEGG'S LETTER to the " TIMES," on the COPY-
RIGHT MONOPOLY.
Foster and Hextall, 268, Strand.

pHE MODEL OF THE BATTLE ot
WATERLOO is NOW EXHIBITED at the EGYP-
TIAN HALL, PICCADILLY, by brilliant Artificial Light.
Constantly illuminated from Two o'clock in the Afternoon,
and throughout the Day in Dark or unfavourable Weather.
Open from Ten in the Morning until Nine 'n the Evening,

without intermission.
Admission One Shilling each.

GENERAL CONVENTION of the IN
DUSTRIOUS CLASSES.

The DELEGATES of the CONVENTION l-avirg as-
certained the Legality of Sending out Persons from their own
Body to explain the Principles of the PEOPLE'S CHARTER
and to procure Signatures to the NATIONAL PETITION,
have officially appointed the following persons in furtherance of
these objects, and to extend by every legal and constitutional
means political information among the people :
Messrs. R. Lowery and A. Duncan—to Cornwall and Somer-
setshire.

Mr. P. Hussey—to the North and East Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr. H. Craig—to the Western Counties of Scotland.
Messrs. J. Moir and W. Cardo—to Devonshire and Dorse

shire.

Mr. J. Pierce—to North Wales.

Mr. J. Collins—to Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire,
and Oxfordshire.
Messrs. T. C. Salt and B. Hadley—to Warwickshire, Staf-
fordshire, and Worcestershire.
Messrs. W. G. Burns and Vincent—to Somersetshiro, Here-
fordshire, Gloucestershire, and South Wales.
Mr. J. B. O'Be ien—to Kent, Sussex, Hampshire. and Surrey.
Messrs. W. Gill and J. Deegan—to Essex, Suffolk, Cam-
bridgishire, Norfolk, and Lincolnshire.
Persons in the above Counties are respectfully requested to
co-operate in getting up Fublic Meetings, in procuring Signa-
tures to the National Petition, and Funds to the National Rent.
By Order of the Convention,
W. LO VET T, Secretary.

Wednesday, the following pieces were performed.—(Much
laughter.) " Charles the Twelfth"—" The Maid of Switzer-
land"—and " The Vampire."—( Hear, and a laugh,) Now he
denied there was any impropriety in that. The petitioners wished
to have the theatres closed (luring Passion Week, Christmas
Eve, and Christmas Day. He would like to know if the Lord
Chamberlain was aware that at the Crown and Anchor Tavern

THEATRE ROYAL, COVENT GARDEN.
TO-MORROW EVENING, MAucir 2,
Will be repeated
THE TEMPEST.
Alonzo, Mr. Warde; Prospers, Mr. Maereaiy ; Miranda,
Miss Helen Fault ; Ariel, Miss P. Horton.
To conclude with
FRA DIAVOLO.
Marquis San Carlos, Mr. Frazer; Lorenzo, Mr. Burnett;
Zerlina, Miss Rainforth.
Monday, King Lear, with The Kin.- and the Duke.
Tuesday, The Lady of Lyons, with Katherine and Petruchio,
and High Life Below Stairs.

tg.
-
„
V. '44Y
),a„
_ ' "„

Zile ann.

LONDON
FRIDAY, MARCH 1, H 39
EVENING EDITION.

In the House of Lords last night Lord CHARLE-
VILLE entered into some explanation of the various re-
ports concerning the death of Lord NotomaY, and gave
a distinct and positive denial to the assertion that the
foot-mark left by the assassin was that of a gentle-
man's shoe. This part of the Noble Lord's statement
was confirmed by the Marquis of NOYMANBY. We
cannot venture on any further abridgement of the Noble
Lord's statements, which should be read at length, but
we think the Noble Earl is too sensitive to common re•
ports; and we doubt the propriety of the Peers con•
tradicting newspaper paragraphs. If they make a prac-
tice of doing that, every thing which appears in any
newspaper relating to themselves, and which they might
contradict, and do not, will be assumed as true.
Lord LYNDHURST very abruptly asked Lord MEI:
BOUNE whether he was aware of Lord EBRINGTON
having made a speech against the Irish Church when
he appointed him Lord-Lieutenant. If he were, Lord
LYNDHURST contended he was a party, contrary to his
oath, to a measure destructive to the Church of Ire-
land. Lord MELBOURNE replied that he did not
know whether he was acquainted with it or not,
and expressed a doubt of the propriety of making him
responsible for the sentiments of every person serving
under the Government. Lord WHARNCLIFFE charac-
terised the Noble Viscount's reply as unsatisfactory.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH followed in the same
strain. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE retorted on Lord
LYNDHURST, and told him that he ought to have been
ashamed of some of his own language. Lord LYND-
HURST, who had spoken in the first instance with more
than his usual warmth, replied loudly and angrily. Lord
HOLLAND supported the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, and
expressed his surprise that Lord LYNDHURST should
have questioned in that House the speeches of a Noble
Lord made-in another. Lord Wictmow rose to take
part in the fray. Lord HOLLAND called him to order,
saying there was no question before the House. Lord
BROUGHAM, amidst much confusion, and several Lords
starting on their -feet, moved that
_the House do ad-
journ; and, having made that motion, he attacked
Lord HOLLAND'S observations. On that motion both
the Earls of WicaLow and RODEN spoke vehe-
mently against Lord EBRINGTON'S appointment.
After much confusion the subject was dropped, and Lord
BROUGHAM wilhdrew his motion for an adjournment.
this
h sbringTheday,
hßishop o
Marriage
L f Ln o
rdAo gaveNcßtßouoNnudGeHr
BROUGHAM
gave
eie thatc
notice
f
notice
t l,
eh
that
ist I
Rouseiteo
will proceed with his Sale of Beer Bill.
The Poor-laws (Ireland) Amendment Bill was read
a third time ; and then the House adjourned. Their
Lordships sat but a short time, but in that time they
worked hard.
In the Commons many petitions were presented for
the maintenance of the Corn-laws, some for their abol

tion, and some for the extension of religious instruction
in Scotland.
Mr. HARVEY gave notice of a motion for copies of
appointments made by the Earl of DURHAM, by which
he seams to think the Members for Liskeard and St.
Andrew's have vacated their seats.

in the Strand, last night and Friday night last, there were Mr. GOULBURN adverted to the late rumours from
"Promenade Concerts ala Valentino—one shilling ?"—(Much the Cape of Good Hope, of the troops of the Colonial
laughter.) He believed 800 persons attended these concerts,
while the National Theatres were closed —(Hear.) All they Government Keying had an encounter with the emigrant
asked was that there should be musical entertainment of that Boors, and been defeated. Mr. LABOUCHERE threw
'description which could be given at a moderate price--he be-
discredit on this rumour, and read an extract from a
lieved it was a very innocent amusement—(Hear, hear)—and
he would prove to them, if necessary, that the very same en-
tertainmentfromletter
Governor,
had taken place the previous evening at improbable.
her Majesty's Palace. The Right Hon. Baronet had corn- Mr.PouLETT TfloinsoN moved the resolutionsrelative
plimented the Noble Lord in his straightforward and to private business, which will be found in another part of
manly speech, but he (Mr. Duneombe) must say that it our paper. Mr. HUMS moved his amendment, and drew
was the most unfair and unmanly speech he had ever
heard. What did the Noble Lord ? He had shifted the
blame from himself to the Bishop of London, and he stated that drew of Election Corn-
.__' _ONNELL formerly
as scandalous ac:picture of Select Committees on Private
havingapplied to him that Right. Rev. Pc-wage had declared mittees,and as Lord HOWICK lately drew of Committees
that it would be "a heavy blow" to the Protestant Church. of the whole House. Sir G. STRICKLAND took a similar
(Great laughter.) He (Mr. D.) never knew before that view to Mr. Mau, and seconded the motion. Mr.
UME'S account of what oe-
Popery was the Established religion, because that was an old FRESIIPIELD disputed Mr. H
relic of Popery, and more particularly belonging to that
of the Noble Lord's property which had been wrested from the din the Committee. Mr.
curved
Romish Church. The Noble Lord said, " Suppose you pass BURTONproceedings
this resolution"—he appeared to have s.me little intima- Committees, such as by in C •
local influence Committees
tion 'that there was likely to be a majority against procuring a larger price for their land than it was worth,
it—(Hear, hear)—at all events tnhere,e
lwas sure to be and such as being paid for their services in Committees
both described some disgraceful p g in
a majority of the couunon sense a d feel ing of the House by rail-road shares when they were at a premium. In
against him—" You may pass the resolution, but what care I
35 voted that they would
Le‘rislature, by the accounts
for it."—(Hear, hear.) IDnly !et him (Mr. D.) obtain his short, the corruption of the .
resolution, and then he would try if he could not make the of the Members themselves, exceeds that of private indi-
Noble Lord' attend to it.—(Much laughter.) The Noble Lord viduals. Who is to make laws for the purpose of
might set public opinion at defiance—he
emight set the punishing the corrupt law-makers did not transpire
resolution of that House at defiance, and p r!Ts he was
and the Commons by 245 to
taking time by the forelock, and was merely anticipating that
event which would, if he persevered in such a course, remove adopt Mr. Tttomsom 8 plan
and reject Mr. H ,
UME S.
him, and the rest of the Hon. Gentlemen from their seats on They voted, in short, to keep the corruption on foot.
"-- -Treasury Benches.—( Hear, hear, an.d. laughter.)h He Mr. JERVIS moved the appointment of the Commit-
wanted to knol7-7!!!!re was the public
.:::)p_rin4lonanw which would tee to inquire into Mr. WYNN'S case. Mr. WARD
place Westminster in a different' PI): I'C.•
wentf from Charing- part
ri6-ailed on Mr. HARVEY to explain what he meant by
of the country or the metropolis.
of theyany man, no g- saying in his address to his constituents, that he was
eross to Temple-bar. and inquired.
might be, they , matterl the victim of tand Select Committee. .
what his religious or political opinions.and absurdity 401.1 d
find that all denounce it as gross hypocrisy
deny to the City of Westminster what they dare not inflict planations of what he had said out of doors. M,.•
upon any other part of the country.. AGLIONBY insisted on explanation. Mr. HARVEY rave
to withdraw and the House
Strangers were then ordered fully justified th '1 the required explanation, and
divided, when the numbers were
~ IA epit ets •
92 of Secret and Select wbi.oh 11,e had applied to the
For the motion .................................. „
72" was laughed •
Mr. A.GLIONBY
Against it .... , ....... , ......... ..
........ Committee.. that he
Majority ....................... ... ...
with loud quence of Mr. HARVEY saying heard pio one
The announcement of the numbers was received
talk in the Committee hilt the tioil. 14 enAer.
and reiterated cheering. I After
LIGHTING THE HOUSE, - FOraethinfs like Nuabb.ling who shou 4 and who ihould
Sir FREDERICK TRENCH postponed his motion until not be ommitteQi
on the Olr the former Permnittee
Right Hon. the re.a i
to-day. He then begged leave to ask the .
._
~ ppo mid, not in
....
clii,i4,.. sx -;,.;
0 .....r. rimtvEy, as
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had undertaken in mace was at
, lust an d nd intended, and excludin
new arrangements for lighting the House without first consult- A nounee a ,,,, g also the
ing the "louse? zITTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. ll tdONNELL, Sir T. Ac-
The iItHADICELLI),II fib the EYCHEQU. ER as under 7 LAND, and Mr. C WELLRESS •
This rather unexpected .
stood to say that he' had 'roads' no ' other ari'angeliiint resultwas attributed to, Mr...Tpiy4e haying accepted a
than hose Which had already been' made, and 'which had 'put • compromise, by':ci,hich two of each side were to be ex- 1

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY,-EVENING _EDIIION,-MARCH 1, 1889

eluded, and the Committee was left abounding i❑ Mr.
WYNN'S friends.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to brinc, in a Bill to
assimilate the franchise in England, Ireland, and Wales,
and illustrated the condition of the franchise in the
several parts of the kingdom by some elaborate tables.
Mr. HuME seconded the motion.
Lord MORPETII, though he admitted the correctness
of many of Mr. O'CoNNELL's statements, felt himself
compelled to give his motion a reluctant, but decided
dissent. His Lordship explained at some length the
plans of the Government, which abourd in professions
of good will.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON opposed the Bill, and con-
demned Lord .MORPETII for not opposing it more
vigorously. Mr. REDINGTON said the Learned
Sergeant knew nothing of the franchise in Ireland.
Colonel CoNowt- took the same side as Mr. Ser-
g ant JACKSON. Mr. VILLIERS STUART and Mr.
ROCIIE supported Mr. O'CONNELL. The House de-
cided by 155 to 92 that the Bill should not be
brought in. The minority, however, is sufficiently
large to encourage Mr. O'CONNELL to renew
his attempt, which he will no doubt do.
The Hon. and Learned Member obtained leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the law of Libel.
Capt. PECIJELL brought under the notice of the House
the case of a foreigner resident 23 years at Brighton,
and not allowed to vote for that borough. He wished
the law to be altered. He moved for a return of the
expense of naturalization, and made some curious
statements of the expense of that proceeding. The AT-
TORNEY-GENERAL explained that the Reform Act. had
made no alteration whatever in the rights of aliens, who
could not vote Er Members of Parliament. The mo-
tion was of course agreed to.
Sir F. POLLOCK obtained leave to bring in a Bil to
to amend the law relating to double and treble costs.
His object is to abolish such costs.
Mr. T. DuNeomsc moved that it is the opinion of
the House, that during Lent no greater restriction be
placed on theatrical representations within the City of
Westminster than elsewhere. A somewhat ani-
mated debate took place. The Ministers, and
the staid gentlemen amongst the Tories, opposed the
motion ; but the youthful Members having remained in
the greatest number, the resolution, on "a division, was
carried 92 to 72, and the young sparks who had dis-
comfited GRAHAM, and RUSSELL, and RICE, cheered
loudly at their success.
Sir F. TRENCH postponed his motion till this day.
and the House adjourned a little before one o'clock.

Ministers were defeated last night on Mr. DUN-
COMBE'S motion respecting Westminster Theatri-
cal Entertainments in Lent, by a majority of not
less than twenty I We are heartily glad of this
defeat. It is just the fitting way in which cant and
hypocrisy should ever be treated. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury's motion was to the effect that no
greater restrictions should be placed on theatrical
entertainments in Westminster during Lent, than
were placed upon the like entertainments at the same
period in every other part of the metropolis ; and in
support of this just and rational proposition, he made
one of the most sprightly and convincing speeches it
has ever been our good fortune to read. And how was
it met by Lord JOHN RUSSELL ? In a spirit of the
most unleavened Pharisaic cant, such as no man can
wade through, without imagining at the time that
he is perusing a dull sermon by some ultra-ortho-
dox Prelate. His Lordship put the question on a
purely pious footing, regarding it as one " which
affected the established religion of the country !"
Hence, he observed—and we can fancy how he
looked, when be said it—he had taken counsel of the
Bishop of LONDON on the subject, and that immacu-
lete Apostle had told him, " in the presence of
another distinguished Prelate," that he considered
that " out of respect for the Protestant faith, thea-
trical performances should not be allowed in West-
minster on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent."
Was ever such intolerant trash spoken—even by a
Bishop ? How can theatrical entertainments in
Lent injure the " established religion?" The band
of the Coldstream Guards plays at the palace during
Lent ; Bishops give large dinner parties during
Lent ; Royal Dukes preside at convivial meetings
during Lent, at which hired theatrical singers are pre-
sent;—all these festive and vocal amusements are freely
partaken of during this season of fasting and mor-
tification, without in the slightest degree militating
against the Protestant faith—or surely the pious
Bishop of LONDON would issue his veto against
them—how then can theatrical entertainments be de-
trimental to religion? Can that be sinful at Covent-
garden which is virtuous at Buckingham Palace ?
Is the song which is strictly orthodox at the
Freemason's Tavern, atheistical at Drury-
lane ? Are we to be fortified in our faith by
hearing music in one place, and to be quavered
into infidelity at the other ? If so, then is religion
a mere matter of locality, to be regulated by the
map of London. Lord TEIGNMOUTH objected to
Mr. DUNIIIO.IIIBE'S motion, not so much, it seems,
as a matter in which the interests of religion
were concerned, as because in his speech he
had spoken irreverently of one of the Bishop of
LLANDAFF'S Lent dinner-parties. On this point
the Noble Lord expressed quite a holy horror. The
excellence of the episcopal viands—the episcopal
turtle-soup, the episcopal venison, and champagne
of equal excellence—all these savoury and irresisti-
ble arguments had convinced him—for he had
tasted them all, he said—that it was just as wicked
and immoral to object to a rich Bishop's giving a
sumptuous dinner in Lent, as to permit a poor
player to dine at all in that season I Perish the
atheistical notion, that Prelates should not, and
that actors should, dine during Lent ! So ran
Lord TEIGNMOUTH'S argument, from which we
draw the inference that to be a Tory Member for
Marylebone, is by no means to be a model of
tolerance, sagacity, and high-mindedness. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL may rely on it, that he has done
himself and his Colleagues infinite mischief by his
last night's speech. He has shown a dispo-
sition to truckle to High Church intolerance, and
conciliate his bitterest opponents—even at the ex-
pense of his own character for common sense and
liberality of sentiment—which argues a most deplor-
able sense of weakness, and, as such, will cause all
the petty, selfish hangers-on of Government to take
instant alarm, and look out for a berth in the event
of a Ministerial shipwreck. And how will the
country at large receive the strong dose of cant
which he has poured forth for their edification ?
NVith contempt, of course, and ridicule—for of this
only is it worthy.

A smart personal discussion took place in the
House of Lords, last night, relative to the appoint-
ment of Lord EBRINGTON as Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. His Lordship's speech in the Commons,
in 1838, on the Irish Church, obtained for him
the fierce hostility of the ultra, pure, high Church
Lords. It is, therefore, become a speech of great
historical importance, and we shall reprint it here :
" House of Commons, July 26, 1838.
(On the third reading of the Irish Tithe Bill.)
" Ebtington--I am desirous of saying only a few
words. I for one entirely concur in what was lately said
by the Noble Secretary at War ( Lord Ho.•. kik), that this
Bill will be a mere adjournment of the question. I have
ever considered the existence of a Church Establish-
ment, so utterly disproportioned to the wants of the
people as that of Leland, a stain and a disgrace to the
Protestant religion, and a great rni,fortune to the coun-
try. I should not be induced to support the Bill if I
thought its effect would be to prevent that reduction of the
Irish Establishment which I believe will soonbe extorted by
the unanimous demands of the people. It I could see in the
present state of parties any prospect of carrying into effect
the principle of appropriation, no consideration whatever
would lead me to listen to the question of a compromise. I
shall vote for the Bill only because I expect, that so far from
preventing a thorough reform of the Irish Church, it will,
by throwing the payment of tithes into the hands of those
a ho have more power and influence than the present payers,
render the war now waged against the Church more for-
midable."

Such a speech was honest, and therefore it morti-
fied Lord LYNDHURST; it was candid, and therefor
was an insult to Lord RODEN; it was bold, and there.
fore a censure on all the timid, time-serving Peers ; it
was true, and crossed their habitual attachrne-:
, to
deceit and mystification like a suddenc:?,'„,' 'Utast. What wonder then that the ai'"n Lord, who has for
ever forfeited the respect of the Irish, should be
anxious, if possible, to reduce Lord EBRINGTON
to his owti level f What wonder, too, that the
Noble -gad whose family name is so offensive to
mankind, and whose family has inflicted a deeper
stain on the Church than even his piety, though
it be warm and unaffected, can ever wipe off,
should have bawled aloud against honest Lord
EBRINGTON t confounding religion with a Church
Establishment, having no conception of piety except
that it is lawn-sleeves, and of virtue, except that it is
a coach and four, with two footmen in purple, the
noisy Tory Peers declared that the appointment of
Lord EsRINGTo ri would destroy the Protestant reli-
gion. To make this furious attack, the Noble Lords
forgot th.t:ir usual respect for each other, and in
their eagerness to assail an oppon„.
stepped all the orders an,l _ - over-
regulations of their
own and
u'r every Legislative Assembly.
Without giving any notice to the Ministers that
they meant to ask a question, without inquiring of
their new colleague, Lord EBruNerGic, whose