The Sun.
London, England, 1824-10-21 00:00:00

SURREY SESSION.

THE SURREY THEATRE.
Yesterday application was made by hlr. 'Williams, to whom
the last licence for dramatic representations was granted, for a
renewal of his licence. I t was stated, that he bad expended
nearly 50001. in improving that theatre, and that he looked to
future seasons for remuneration.

Mr. PAGE (the Magistrate) said, the Court had nothing to
do with Mr. Williams's expences at the theatre.
Mr. Williams's Counsel said, his client meant merely to
show that he had benefitted the property, which he found to tut
in a bad condition. No imputation had been thrown upon the
applicant, and therefore it was to be presumed that there could.
be no objection to the renewal of the licence.
Mr. THESSIGER said, he should not object to the licence,
but he should insist upon its being placed in the hands of Mr..
West, the proprietor of the theatre. This was no more than
accordant with the terms of the lease.

' Mr. SuittwEß said, he wished, before the licence was
granted, to ascertain whether there was any thing objectionable
in the management ; and asked whether a piece called 7'he
Hertfordshire Tragedy had not been acted at the theatre.
The exhibition was of the most abominable kind, being found-
ed upon an atrocious combination of circumstances with which
all the world were now thmiliar ; and it was said that the
identical gig and horse, to which allusion had been so often
made in the investigation, were produced at the performance.
Mr. Williams admitted that the piece had been played, and
lamented that it lied.

Mr. Williams's Counsel said, he never was more surprised
than he was at the manner in which attempts had been made
to punish hix client tbr perti►rming that piece. Ile was in.
the Court of King's Bench when a criminal information was
moved against that gentleman. Certainly such a piece
should not have been played. After, however, the proceed-
ing was instituted, it was totally dropped. It was upon the
ground that a prejudice would be excited. against Thurtell in
the minds of the Jury that the criminal information had been
moved for.

A Magistrate said, that circumstances had nothing to do with
what was before the Court.

The Counsel said, the public press furnished the materials.
Mr. Su mix ea said, if the thing was bad, it was of no lin-
portance how they originated. It was the business of the
Learned Counsel to confine himself to the mere application for
the licence, without entering into the merits of the case. It was
doubly objectionable, on account of its effects on the morals or
the people.
The Counsel said, he at least might be allowed to account for
conduct which appeared objectionable to the Court.
Mr. R. Jack sox said Mr. Williams himself might offer any
excuse he should think necessary, but his Counsel could not put
himself in the place of his client before the bench.
Mr. Williams's Counsel was proceeding, but several Magis.
trates interrupted him, and declared that he could riot be heard
on the subject.
Mr. RENNET wished to know whether it was meant to be
argued that the newspaper reports justified the representaiion
on the stage ?
Mr. Su tux nu said the Court had already determined not to
hear any discussion of the topic by Counsel. Ile then asked
how long the piece waS represented ?
Mr. Williams said no more than twice. He stopped it upon
finding that there was a feeling against it, and did not renew it
until after Thurtell was executed.
Mr. SUMNER asked whether Mr. Williams had not received
a notification from the Secretary for the Home Department to
stop the performance, and whether he had not disregarded the
order ?

Mr. NI illiams declared that he had never received any com-
munication from the Secretary of the Home Department on that
or any other subject.
Mr. SPICER did not think that the argument of immorality
was very applicable as an objection to the renewal of the licence.
One of the most moral plays represented a circumstance as full
of horror as those recorded of Thurtell, and nobody objected to
George ilurnterll as a piece likely to hurt the public morals.
Mr. 11EN tirT did not mean to oppose the licence, but he
hoped the manager would receive a lecture against the practice
of bringing forward such disgraceful exhibitions. Ile hoped
that no further violation of- decency would take place at our
theatres.—The licence was then granted to Mr. NVilliatns.