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

not understand the ground upon which his motion could be
opposed. He would therefore move " That it is the opinion of
this House, that during Lent no greater restrictions should be
placed upon theatrical entertainments, within the City of West-
minster than are placed upon the like amusements at the same
period in every other part of the metropolis.—( Loud cheers,
in the midst of which the Hon. and Learned Member set down. )
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He thought it most un-
just that those in power should maintain such restrictions on
the poor, which they _in their own persons disregarded.--
( Hear, hear.) And lie trusted the Noble Lord would see the
justice of doing away with these restrictions, while the Court
and the Nobility were constantly acting in contradiction to them.
( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, the Hon. Member for Fins-

bury finds fault with me for not having used arguments
against his proposition when he last brought it forward. To
my silence then, it seems, we owe that very amusing and face-
tious speech which he has delivered on this occasion. But,
Sir, though this subject may be made as amusing, or perhaps
more so, than any other, I do not think questions connected
with the respect due to the Established Church.—(Oh, oh,
and cries of " Hear, hear, hear")--ought to be made the
topics of entertaining remarks in this House.—(" Oh, oh," and
"Hear,- hear.") Since the last discussion I have had the
opportunity of consulting the Bishop of London—( Laughter
from the Ministerialists, " Hear, hear," from the Opposition)
—in the presence of another distinguished Prelate, and he stated
that he did consider this a respect due to the Established
Church that these erformances should be restricted during
Lent.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear, hear.") And I do
think that on subjects of this kind her Majesty's Ministers
ought to look rather to the opinions of the heads of the Church
—( " Hear, hear," and " No, no")—t.nd to what has been the
custom from time immemorial, than to cross the river to the
" Surrey," or over Oxford-street, to Marylebone.—(Hear,
hear.) Let me, Sir, first advert to what is the state of the
law on this question, and the case on wihch the Hen. Member
rests his motion; viz., that the practice is different in the
City of Westminster than in other parts of the metropolis.
Sir, by the Act of 10th Geo. 11. power is given to the Lord
Chamberlain, as to theatrical performances—into the limits of
that power I will not now enter, and only observe that prior to
that time these entertainments were not customary in the City.
By another Act it is enacted that the Magistrates shall not
have the power to license theatres within twenty miles of
London, and therefore the theatres at present existing in Surrey
and other places out of London, although they have these
theatrical entertainments upon Wednesdays and Fridays ie
Lent, yet during those days they are liable to information and
penalties, as not being legally established and not within the
power f the Act. Sir, there was an action brought
as to the Victoria Theatre, when it was contended
that the theatre was net licensed, and Lord Denman ruled
that it was not a legal place for dramatic entertainment, as it
had not been licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. Now if these
theatres have been allowed to go on without interference—
( Hear, hear)—that is s defective state of the law, or the law
is net properly enforced—(Hear, hear)—but I really think it
is too much to say that on a question of the religious observani.e
of Lent you are to pay ne regard to the opinions of the heads
of the Church, or to ancient custom, but that you are to imitate
the illegal practices which have sprung up.—( Hear, hear. )
With regard to the minor theatres of Westminster, the Lord
Chamberlain, in order to make them conform to the rules
laid down for Drury Lane and Covent Garden, inserted in
their licenses a provision that there should be no performance
on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent. They therefore
cannot complain of any injustice. And with regard to Drury-
Lane and Covent-Garden they well knew the conditions upon
which they were to continue to act—as they had acted. Now,
Sir, as to the practice—the Hon. Member says it is great hypo-
crisy, because we find that her Majesty sometimes gives dinners
upon Wednesdays, and that other persons do so.—( Hear.) Why,
Sir, the same argument may be used as to Sundays.—( Hear,
and No, no.) Sir, Ido think that instead of saying the prac-
tice of Westminster ought to be assimilated to that of the rest
of the metropolis, there is more reason to say that the practice
of the rest of the metropolis should conform to that of West-
minster.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerialists,
and " Hear, hear, hear" from the Opposition.) Ido not object
to Parliament passing any law upon the subject, but I do object
to this House entering into a resolution as to the manner in
which a power vested in the Crown should be exercised Sir,
supposing this resolution was to pass, is it to be said that be-
cause the House of Commons has passed such a resolution that
therefore the Lord Chamberlain must change the practice ?-
-( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) Well, but it may
happen that some Noble Lord or some Right Rev. Prelate may
more a counter-resolution in the other House of Parliament,
and then what is the Lord Chamberlain to do? Why he
must, between the two resolutions act upon his own discretion.
Sir, no doubt a change is required in the law as regards thea-
trical entertainments ; but although the difference of practice
in the Metropolis man be good ground for an amusing speech,
it is no reason why the Lord Chamberlain should depart from
the usual custom. I therefore move the previous question.
Lord TEIGNMOUTH wished to ask one question of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. He wished to know whether tnat
Hon, Gentleman would put a dinner, given by a Bishop of a
religion whose ordinances imposed upon him the rites of hospi-
tality—( Loud laughter)—Hon. Members might laugh, but
would the Hon. Member answer the question, would he put
such a duty, for it was a duty—(Laughter)—on the same foot-
ing as a theatrical entertainment ?—( Laughter. ) He did not
deny that such entertainments might be rendered quite rational,
but from the manner in which they were now conducted they
were rendered sinks of iniquity. In them were con.ained not
respectable persons only, but persons of every description.
Prostitutes and all other classes.—(Laughter.) He was sure
that if the Hon. Member had had tne good fortune to partake
—(Laughter)--as he had often done of the hospitalities of one
of the Rev. Bench—(Laughter) —he would have seen that if
all dinners had been conducted in a similar manner, that as

many as possible might be allowed.—(Laughter.) He hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would answer the question.
Mr. LEADER—The Noble Lord, the Secretary for the
Home Department, had treated the motion of his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Duncombe) as if it related merely to the question of
amusement, and had treated the speech of the Hon. Gentleman
as if it were only an entertaining one. But he entreated the
House to recollect that it was net a question of mere amuse-
ment—he entreated them to recollect that it was a question
seriously affecting the subsistence of a hundred families. They
were to recollect that the stars could, during the nights the
theat-es were closed, go to the other theatres, as they
might go to the country staring, where the people were not so
puritanical, or considered it was not wicked to go to the theatre
on a Wednesday or Friday in Lent. He was astonished to hear
the Noble Lord declare that the motion of his Hon. Friend
could possibly do harm to the Established Church. He (Mr.
Leader) would not accuse the Noble Lord of hypocrisy, but
most certainly the country would think it appeared very like it.
It was so absurd to talk of the theatres being opened on the
Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent in Westminster hurting the
Established Church, when the people know how those day's
were spent in other places--when they knew that the Protestant
Church did not now look upon these days with any
peculiar reverence.—( Cheers). It was not at all a fair
comparison to put them into competition with the
Sunday, which was the acknowledged day of rest as well as the
day for the observances of religion. The Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Teignmouth) had taken part with the Noble Lord on
this occasion.—(Ironical cheers and laughter.) After the sen-
timents delivered lsy the Noble Lord—as he thought it so essen-
tial that the theatres should be closed in Westminster, let

him be consistent, and bring in a Bill to close the theatres in
Marylebone on the same occasions.—(Immense cheering.)
The people in former times attached to theatres were considered
disrespectable, and they might be s•, but now they were not
only a respectable but a very agreeable and highly useful
class of society.—(Considerable cheering.) Let them not
then have a law for the people of Westminster and another for
the people out of it. He had no doubt the dinners of the Bishop
of Llandaff were very good ones, and he (Mr. L.) did not see
any reason why he should not give as many of them as he
pleased on either Wednesdays or Fridays during Lent, but nei-
ther could he see any reason for the people attached to thea-
tres in Westminster being kept out •f a dinner on those days
altogether.—(Cheers.) He trusted that the majority of the
House would take the common sense view of the matter, and
not be led away by the overstrained religious zeal of some in
that House.
Lord DUNGANNON had heard with some degree of satis-
faction the extraordinary expressions of attachment made by
the Noble Lord to the Church.—(lronical cheers.) He trusted
that attachment might be shown in the measures produced by
the Noble Lord in future. He had expressed himself in strong
terms that evening, and he (Lord D.) was not sorry to hear it.
Although he said this, and although he was one who adhered as
strictly as any one in the House to the Church Establishment
—( Hear, hear, hear)—still he could not support any-
thing which he considered unjast.—(Loud cheers.)
He rould not consent to sash a quibble, because he

considered that it was unjust to have one law for the rich and

another for the poor..—(Cheers.) He had never joined in
suppoiting any of the Sabbath Bills upon the same ground ; he
felt that the people of this country were disposed to be reli-
gious, and he felt perfectly sensible that they could not be
rendered more so by any oppressive legislation whatever.
Although he was not often found voting along with the Hon.

Gentleman oppcsite, and thqugh it was still Tess often that he
was fortunate enough to go out with the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, still on the present occasion, as he felt that the Hon.
Member was trying to get rid of an absolute and gross absur-
dity, he would on this occasion vote with him. He could call
it nothing but an absurdity to oblige the theatres to be closed
in Westminster, while those in other places were open and
free tn the entrance of all classes.—(Loud cheers.) It was
obvious and clear that if an evil did exist, if the theatres being
open were an evil, get rid of the evil in toto, and he joined in
the call made by the Hon. Member for Westminster, to intro-
duce a Hill for that purpose. It was absurd and unjust to sup-
pose that the Establishment could suffer in any way because a
theatre must be closed in one place while it is open throughout
the country. If the evil were as great and obvious as some
Hon. Gentlemen had stated it to be, then bring in a Bill to
close all places of public amusement throughout the country on
those days : but do net make invidious—he would go further,
and call them absurd—restrictions upon one place and upon
one people alone, He would support the motion of the
Hon. Member upon principles of common justice.—( Cheers. )
Sir J. GRAHAM said that nothing had been further from
his intention than to have trespassed a single moment on the
attention of the House, until he heard the speech of the Noble
Lord who had just bat down. He feared the time had come

when any humble support he could give to the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State would be an impediment rather than other-
wise. —ralear, hear, and a laugh )—but on the present occasion,
when he had seen him in the bold discharge of his duty, assume
grounds that were unpopular, and when he had seen him man-
I fully stand up in support of those grounds, considering it his duty
to do so, he (Sir J. Graham) would be base indeed, having
taken counsel with him on this subject, if he shrunk
from asserting now what he had done on a former
occasion. He therefore must say that he entirely agreed
with him in the course he had pursued. He did not pretend
to say that he really believed it was necessary for the mainte.
nance of the Established Church that there should not in West-
minster be performances of this description • but he contended
that as long as by the ritual of the Established Church Wed-
nesdays and Fridays were set apart for sacred observances—as
long as the law continued what it was, it was the duty of her
thicftes servants to uphold it. The Theatres Royal in West-
minster we":"°'
only Theatres which were under the con-
troul of her Maje-.7tv's Chamberlain, and if it were expedient
and the law that the We..it.7.14,1ays and Fridays in Lent should
‘tsi,servances, it was the
be held as days appropriated for sacreZ:
duty of her Majesty's Government to enforce the :17- aa far
go, as
it would to compel those observances. He contendeo
that when the heads of the Church represented to her Majesty's
Government those days should be observed, it was the duty of the
servants of the Crown to enforce it. He did not wish to put
it on higher grounds. He certainly had had occasion to oonsi-
der this subject, when he was one of the servants of the late
King, and he had then expressed the same opinion as he had
given now. Nothing had been further from his intention than
to have addressed the House at all, but seeing the Noble Lord
pressed as he had been, and being an old colleague of his, he felt
bound to support him.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. WARD said that after the statements of the Right Hon.
Baronet, in which he laid down the broad principle that two
eays in the week having been appointed by tho ritual through-
out Lent, for sacred observances, it was the duty of the
servants of the Queen to enforce their observance, after
that statement by the Right Honourable Baronet, perhaps
he would have no objection to allow him (Mr. Ward) to put
a question to him, which was, whether he was not to-morrow
(Friday) going to preside a a great public dinner ?—(Great
laughter.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—That is a charity dinner.__( Hear. )
Mr. WARD—Yes, but it is of a convivial character; and if
entertainments of that description were to be allowed to, take
place, he could not see why the people should not be allowed on