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

frrn:hise and if the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had his
vote, it ought to have been struck off his poll.—(Laughter.)
He (the Attorney-General) should rejoice to see those persons
who had for a number of years loyally and fa;thfully served her
Majesty eni rusted with the franchise. —( Hear. ) But he certainly
for one w )uA not go the length of the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber, in proposing that a residence of six months on landing
upon these shores should entitle them to the franchise. Such a
proceeding would be found to be highly prejudicial, and would
lead to the discussions of national questions of great intricacy
and inconvenience, and on these grounds he should certainly op-
pose it.---( Hear, hear. )
Mr. PRYME rose, and was met with loud cries of " Oh !
' 01, !" The Speaker repeatedly called " Order," but the nose
continued for two or three minutes uninterruptedly, Mr. Pryme
re r aining all the time immovable with his hand raised. The gra-
. vitv of his countenance and demeanour while the House was in an
uproar, created general laughter. Silence having been at length
restored, the Hon. Member observed that he hoped the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman would extend the rights of citizenship
to those foreigners who, after residing a certain time in that
country had taken the oaths of allegiance.
PECHELL replied. He denied that he had pro-
posed or wished to introduce so sweeping a measure as had been
asserted by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The object
he had in view was to lessen the expense of denization, but he
certainly had no intention of submitting such a proposition
as the Hon and Learned Gentleman alluded to to the House.
The motion was then agreed to.
LAW OF COSTS.
Sir F. POLLOCK then rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to amend the law relating to double and treble costs, and to
pleading the general issue only in certain cases. The Learned
Gentleman, who was most imperfectly heard, was understood
to say tl.at he proposed to abolish double and treble costs under
all local and public Acts. Surely, parties who sought redress
and failed, should not be punished with double and treble costs,
merely because they wece unsuccessful. He remembered a
a case in which a man brought an action for an infringement of
the Building Act. The question was referred to arbitration The
tward was that the defendant had intended to comply with the
Act, and that therefore his intention should protect him from
' the liability of his conduct. In this case the plaintiff suffered
from the defendant in the first instance—he got no redress—
ard because he did not he was called upon to pay treble costs.
He also proposed that that clause in the Poor-law Amendment
Act, which enabled Guardians of Unions to inflict parties with
more than double and quadruple costs, and upon parties by whom
; they naight suppose themselves aggrieved. As for pleading the
general issue, he would take away all such privilege from private
speculators and all under Government protection—such as Ma-
' gistratel Constables, Excise-officers, and the like. Ho also
proposed to repeal those enactments which now obliged parties
give notice of action. There were not less than 700 or 800
Act, of Parliament relating to this subject. He would take away
the obligation of giving notice of action except for public
officers entitled to public protection, and he did not see why
the advantage of having notice of action should not be taken away
from Dock and Railway Companies, and from mere private in-
dividuals. Great hardships were sometimes suffered under this
provision of giving notice of action. A short time since a man
broug!it a case of injury against a Railroad Company (we mi-
. derstood) and proved his case, but he was turned out because
• lie had not given notice of action. The several limitations of
actions he would reduce from six to three years. After some
further remarks the Hon. and Learned Gentleman moved for
leave to bring in his Bill.

Leave was
WESTMINSTER THEATRES.

Me. T. DUNCOMBE, amidst great applause, rose to move
that it is the opinion of the House that during Lent no greater
restrictions should be placed upon theatrical entertainm-nts
within the city of Westminster than are placed upon the like
amusements at floe same period in every other part of the metro-
polis." In bringing forward this motion he was actuated by
loyal as well as patriotic and humane and just considerations.
tie did not wish to see her Majesty blockaded from going to
the theatres of Westminster during Lent.—(Lat_ighter and
licar, hear.) He would not have troubled the House with
this motion if he did not feel that it was based upon principles
of equal justice as well as of common sense.—( Hear, hear.)
lk felt that the fault of bringing forward this motion did not
rcst with him, but with the Right Hon. the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, who, when this subject was intro-
duced the other night, would not condescend to give the House
the slightest reason for refusing the motion. If there
were any apologies to be made on this ground, he (Mr. D.)
mini l not occupy the time of the House in making it, but
ould leave it to the Noble Lord to apologise.—(Laughter.)
'Filen the Noble Lord was upon that occasion supported by a
large majority, but many of those who then supported him did
so thinking that his (Mr. D.'s) motion was irregular in point
of time, and in point of form—irregular in point of time, be-
use. it was supposed inconvenient that upon a petition being
pr,snuted a motion should be made without previous notice;
mid in point of form, because it was deemed that as the Noble
Lord had advised the Lord Chamberlain, who issued the re-
strictive order, and who was connected with the Court of West:.

minster, it might seem discourteous, as making her Majesty a
party in the dispute. However these reasons were no arguments
why they should not support the present mot ion which was brought
forward hi an entirely different manner. Would the Noble Lord
tell him why the inhabitants and players of Westminster should

lyl placed under a severe periediCal -restriction, merely because
I it was an old custom, which said," it shall be so." He trusted
J that Hon. Members would relieve a large body of respectable
j and meritorious individuals from those restrictions. Whatever
I might he their political and religious feelings out of the House,
ijusth e ought to induce them to do so here. It was really most
1 cruel and absurd that while in every other part of the metropolis
I the inhabitants were amusing themselves on Wednesdays and
1 Fridays in Lent, en the north side of Oxford-street, and the other
side of the water, and while Court dinners, snd parties, and
balls, and levees, at which her Majesty receved her loyal sub-
jects, were taking place in Westminster—( Hear, hear,
l hear)—it was most absurd and cruel that an interdict
should be issued, forbidding the most harmless entertain-
! ments, not only to the inhabitants of Westminster at large, but
what was still worse, to that unhappy class of men, called
.....

players and operatives at the theatres.:—(Hear, hear). This
i restriction stoppad those men of one-third of their incomes.
li Honourable Gentlemen stated on a former occasion, that
\when those individuals made their engagements, they
did so with a full knowledge of what awaited them.
The performers did not complainof this, they only complained
, that they had no engagements upon those nights.—( Laughter.)
/ Their salaries were weekly, hut they were paid only for the
1 nights on which they played. Were the permitted the
I same privileges enjoyed by performers elsewhere, they would
I be paid for six nights instead of four, and would thus enjoy
f that one-third of the income which was now stopped by this
unjust prohibition. He would appeal to her Majesty's M nis-
I tors, the great performers of political dramas of the d ty—
( Great laughter and cheers)—he would ask them how would
they like to have one-third of their weekly salary sto .ped
—( Shouts of laughter, hear hear, and cheers)—be, Luse
there was no House ?—( Renewed laughter and che. rs.)
He did not see why, if Mr. Rice, of Downing-street, was per-
mitted to receive his salary on the Wednesdays and Frida; ; in
I Lent, Mr. Rice, of the Adelphi, should be deprived of li ..
' (Laughter.) He would refer to the Morning Rat, the
organ of the fashionable world, for an account of what had
taken place on a Wednesday in Lent within the City of I.:est-
minster, in the jurisdiction of the very Lord Chamberlain ..vho
! had decided that on that day in the City of Westminster no',ody
had any right whatever to enjoy themselves. In the first pace,
he foth:d that on that day there had been a great dinner at the
Freemasons' Tavern—(Laughter)—of the members of the
i Drury-lane Theatrical Fund. He might as well state that
this dinner was in general a performance of broad force,
with a mixture of musical entertainments. He found
it stated in the Morning Post that his Royal Highness the
1 ' Duke of Cambridge was in chair—,hat the party was a very
large one, and the whole was kept up with great conviviality.
--(Laughter.) That in the course of the evening a variety of
wings were sung and that afterwards Mr. Rice—(Laughter)—
' it was not stated whether he was Chancellor of the Exchequer
I _-( Increased laughter)—Mr. Rice, the real Jim Crow—( R ars
of la ZNhter)—tang " Si' ch a gettin' up stairs"—(Renewed
laueliter and " Jim Crow" with several new verses—
(Great fan ~,,,,":
had quitted ter)—and that after the Illustrious Chairman
' the c,: air, Mr Rice was voted into it by acelarna-
I
tion, and kept up Vie"
erviviality_e had then looked to see if
of the after part of the
evening —( Roars of laugi:!er• ), H
I a!,:, other. persons were enj.7i,ng themselves in the
(;it y of Westminster, under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chun-
Leriiin ; he had looked for the purpose Of discovering who had
~;; ~cii parties during this time of penance, and he found that
1 her Majesty had entertained a large party at this Royal Palace,
and that the band of the Life Guards had been in attendance,
1 and performed several pieces of music—(Hear)—and who, of
all personstid the House imagine stood first upon the list of the
d.itinguished individuals who had been entertained by her Ma-
I i ity upon that occasion—why, the Marquis of Coningham,
i ;:;e Lord Chatn'oerla.n, the " Arbiter Elegantiarum i of the
City of Westminstei.—( Hear, hear.) Far be it from him to
sappoe.• that the Lord Chamberlain (I'd not represent to her
Majesty, while the band of Life Guards were ailaylng, that this
was a time for penance, and that her Majesty must be Of
course aware that it was his duty to prevent any one en-
joying themselves in the city of Westminster,—(Cheers and
laughter.) Ile then thought he would see how the Cabinet
I Minister; observed the Wednesdays in Lent, and he found ,*.`sat
1 the Marquis of Lansdowne gave a large dinner party—he went
I still farther, and baying a great wish to see how the digni-
tleies of the Church occupied themselves on these occasions—
-1 he had again referred to the Morning Post, and he there found
I that yesterday beinga Wednesday in Lent, the Bishop of Llandeal
Ihad ,c;iven an elegant dinner party—( Cheers and laughter)—at
the Deanery of St. Paul's, to a large party of gentlemen con-
nected with his diocese.—(Laughter.) When he found that
1 these were the occupations of her Majesty, of the Ministry, and of
the Church during this season, which the Lord Chamberlain said
should be devoted exclusively to prayer, penitence, and piety,
he must say he could not understand upon what ground his mo-
tion was to be opposed. The people of the City of West-
minster did not grudge her Maienty the use of the band
of the Life Guards, for which they paid ; they only asked
to be permitted to pay for their own band, and listen to it in
I the boxes of Drury-lane or Covent-garden. He knew not on
what grounds his motion could be opposed, and yet he under-
stod it was the intention ;,of her Majesty's Government to op-
pose it. There was no law on the subject; it was dependent
upon the caprice of the Lord Chamberlain. Sir James Scar-
lett had said that he did not know of the existence of any law
on this subject, and that this prohibition was merely an old
custom. The only law that could be at all imagined
to grant this authority was the 10th Geo. IL, which
.enacted, that every acting drama should, before its performance,
be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain, for his approval, And
that no piece should be performed without his licence, and
that it should be in his power to prohibit the performance of
any piece even after it had been licensed, and thus the
House would see that it was impossible that any piece could
be produced of a seditious, blasphemous, or objectionable na-
ture, and many pieces after having passed the ordeal of the
Lord Chamberlain, had been hissed off by the good sense of the
audience. The Lord Chamberlain makes tkis a ground for as-
suming the power to prohibit these performances during
Lent ; but it is clear that this prohibition is only
issued to please those who like' the observance of old cus-
toms ; but he could not see why this ()id custom should not ha
abandoned, or why many other examples of ofc.l Lenten custoi
should not be revived, as they were customs quite as respectable
as this which it has been thought proper to keep up. There
was an old Lenten custom which existed up to the time of George
11. Up to that period there was an officer of the King's pa-
lace denominated the King's cock-crower. —(Laughter. )It was
the duty of this officer to perambulate the palace dur-
ing Lent, and crow the hours of the night, which at other
times were proclaimed by the watchmen. The then Prince of
Wales, afterwards George 11., happening to be en-
tering his apartment for supper one evening, met the King's
cock-crower, who crowed the hour to him, and as he
did not understand his language—(Leud laughter)—and
was unable to comprehend his interpreter's interpretation,
of it, he thought the King's Cock-crower intended to insult
him by crowing—he accordingly seized the unfortunate crower
by the throat, and nearly strangled him, in consequence of
which he was so ill as to be for some time incapable of per-
forming the duties of his office. After this occurrence the
, matter was submitted to the grave consideration of the Court,
1 and it was determined that the office should be abolished. Now
I if this old Lenten custom of shutting up the theatres were to be
1 eentinned, he td not see why the other old Lenten custom
of Kings Cock- crower should not be revived. In other countries
the National Drama received national support. In France the
[-national theatres were supported by the national purses.
In France the national theatres were rent free—he asked for
'nothing of this sort in this
country.r He believed that the
thesitres paid 3,0001. a-
year
'.l.ltltOrd, who made no deduction for " the d r"to the Duke of
nnights on which the
; houses were shut up. He only
of lyased that they should be put
pa
on in equality with other the metropolis, and he could