The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-06 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 6, 1841.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, 1/I.IRCII 5.

Their Lordships met at Fice o'clock.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition
from the Baard of Guardians of the Hareford Union,
prayin; for certain alterations of tl.e existing Poor-lavr.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
a parish in the county of E3sex against the gralt to the
College of Maynooth.
Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition from
Donegal against Church P.Atronage in Scotland.
Tte E ir! of ROSE BERY presented a petition from
the May:it and Corporation of Edinburgh, imploring
the atteC:ion of the House to the present sca'e of the
Import Ditiei. The Noble Earl also presented a peti-
tion from tie Medical Association of the borough of
Stirling for Medical Reform,

Lori FITZGERALD moved for returns which had
been laid upon the table of the other House of the in-
come and expenditure of the years 1838, 1839, and
1840, and of the deficiency of the income for those three
years.—Ordered.
The Duke of ARGYLL gave notice that if no
other Noble Lord took up the subject, he would pro-
pose a measure on the subject of Church Intrusion in
Scotland, with a view to put an end to the dissensions
which at present disturbed the Church in that country.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that as the measure
which he introduced last year had the concurrence of the
Noble Duke, he took it for granted that any measure of
his Not.le. Friend's would not be very diErent. His
Noble Friend had said that he was mistaken in assert-
ing that the members of the dominant party
would not be satisfied with anything short of the total
abolition of Church patronage.. But looking at the
petitions which brad been presented this Session, he saw-
no reason to change that opinion. His Nobla Friend
mentioned to him the names of two members of the
General Assembly, who were . not in favour of total
abolition of patronage. But, in fact, both these gen-
tlemen had supported, in November last; the very vio-
lent resolution which passed at a meeting held in Edin-
burgh ; and one of them was a member of the Com-
mittee appointed to form associations in all parts of
Scotland, for the purpose of procuring the abolition.
That meeting pledged tlaemstl‘es, before God and man,
to use every effort to procuie the abolition.
The Duke of ARGYLL had received very (Effe
rent assurances from Edinburgh, and u les , he was
convinced to the contrary he would feel b Ito bring
in some measure on tie subject.

MASQUERADES AT DRURY LANE.
The Bishop of LON DON, seeing the L ird Cham-
berlain in his place, wished to put a c.uestien to him
with respect to certain performances :bat had_ lately
taken place at Drury-lane Theatre. By a -resolufon of
tee House of Commons, it was determined last Session
that dramatic performances should take place on cer-
tain days in Lent at the large theatres ; and although
he deprecated such performances at such a period, he
thought it well hopeless after such a res lotion to expect
tl:e revocation ce such a practice, but he was sure at the
time that permission was given it was net understood
that permission was given to such exhibitions as
masquerades and masked balls. Such exhibitions,
howeter, had taken place, not, he admitted, on
Wedeesday and Friday, but upon a Monday, and
that exhibition, he understood, was to be repeated
that evening ; but he trusted if that performance was to
tike place, it would be without those offeasive circum-
stances to which he would shortly allude. On Monday
week last this perforuunce took 11 lee, and, i 4 i he
was informed, circumst inces of the grossest and
most offensive indecency took pl tee, so gross
and offensive that it was received by the hisses
of the more respectable part of the audience.—( Hear,
hear.) The performances that took place were
dances by French actresses and prostitutes. And those
performances were of such a nature that the greater
part of an English audience cool I not tole rate
them. These performances during Wednesdays and
Fridays in Lent were not tolerated in Roman
Catholic countries, and he hoped that those who were
in authority would not suffer them to take place in
this. Hitherto it had been considered that the Lord
Chamberlain had the power of preventing improper per
lormances whenever they were presented ; but it ap-
peared tht.t at present the authority of that officer
was very questionahle.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Occupying the staton in the Church which he did, he
had always considered it his duty to make representa-
tions to the Lord Chamberlain whenever he considerel
that improper performances were to take place, and he
rnsto4 •may t 6 *A 14,,h hn aunt*
made had been unattended to. With reference to
the Noble Earl who was now her Majesty's
Lord Chamberlain, he must say, that upon all farmer
occasions his representations had met with the most
prompt attention. On the present occasion he was
most anxious to express the opinion he enterta'ned as
to the demoralising effects of such exhibitions, and he
begged to enter his protest against them. His object
in rising was to give the Noble Earl an opportunity of
stating whether this exhibition was with his knowledge
and approbation.

The Earl of UXBRIDGE, in answer to the question
of the Right Rev. Prelate,said that the perfJrinance had
neither his sanction nor knowledge. It took place on
the 22d of February ; and on Monday the Ist of
March, he felt it to be his duty to desire a le ter to
be written to the Drury-lane Committer, stating
that his attention having been drawn to the enclosed
bill, announcing the performance of a mas-
qiierade, he begged leave to stat-, that no licence
had been granted by him for such a purpose,
though an application bad been made to that effect.
To that letter he received a reply, dated March 2,
1841, stating that the Committee had been in commu-
nication with the parties upon the subject ; that the
performances in question partook more of the nature of
a private entertainment than a masqueral.e, but that no
pains should be spared to have them conducted with the
greatest possible decorum. That answer appeared to him
highly satisfactory. Tue Noble Earl then proceeded to read
an extract from the Act empowering the Lord Cham-
berlain to grant licenser, from which he said it appeared
that the case did not come within the provisions of the
Act. The Lord Chamberlain was, in fact, powerless.
The Bishop of LONDON said that if it was
not in the power of the Noble Earl to remedy the
evil, he complained of that state of things.—(Htar.)
The Right Reverend Prela'e then re id a paragraph
from a newspaper, describing the gestures as in the
highest degree indecent. The actors in these in-
famous scenes were Frenchmen and prostitutes, the
very dregs of Paris, who were admitted gratis.
The pericn who had the management of them
and received the profit, was of the Jewish persuasion ; a
circumstance that would not lead them to expect much
regard for the decencies of society. Could not her Ma-
jesty's Secretary for the Home Department find means
of repressing these enormities ? If not, some aiteration
in the law was certainly required for that purpos', and
her Majesty's Attorney-General should be directed to
take the necessary steps for punishing the offenders.
He (the Bishop of London) thought that the common-
sense view was that they were dramatic entertainments,
and that the parties were punishable under the Act ; at
a:l events he thought the Lord Chamberlain should take
the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
The Marquis of NORMA NBY said he would
make inquiry upon the subject ; and he had no doubt
that if the exhibitions were of the indecent nature it
had been stated, the law would be found to apply to
them,—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of GLENGALL, as Chairman of
the Committee of the-TneAtre, stated that the Theatre
In,d been let to a person of the Jewish persuasion ;
but when the Committee perceived that a mas-
querade was to be given they recommended that
such an exhibition should not take place.
They had no power, however, to prevent him under
the leas:. That lease expired to-morrow. Upon seeing
the star, ments as to the improper behaviour that took
place, I:as Committee remonstrated, and they had re-
ceived a communication that it should not be re-
peated. He had not the least doubt that
that c. mmunication would be carried into effect.
The CLanmittee were very anxious to prevent any such
exhibiticn in Lent, and to have the entertainment post-
poned to some other day, but this was found to be
impracticable ; but an understanding was effected that
no exhibitions should take place that were in any way
indecent or improper.

The Earl of REDESDALE presented a petition
from Stockten-on-Stour, praying that union workhouses
might be exempted from parochial and Parliamentary
taxation:.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presentA a peti-
tion from Stockton, against any alteration in the Corn-
laws; also a similar petition from a place in Cornwall.

SAN SULPICE.

The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that on
Friday next he should move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, earnestly praying liar
Majesty to withhold her Royal slnet;on from the ordi-
nance for incorporating the ec3lesiasties of the Seminary
of San Sulpice.
POOR-LAWS.

The Earl of GLENGALL rose, pursuant to
notice, to move for copies of correspondence be_
twee.) the Poor-Ftw Commissioners and landowners
at Cl )mnel. The Noble Earl said, that for
the list forty years no measure of greater
importance had pissed than the Act which
gave Poor-laws to Ireland, and it was of the greatest
importance that those laws should be airninis-
t,..red with impartiality. Ha wished he • could.
believe that such had been the lino of conduct adopted

bythe Commissioners,but he thought he should be able to
prove that such was not the case. For everything
he should state he was prepared to bring evidence
ueon oath at their Lordships' bar. The subject
comprised two parts—one was the conduct of the
Commissioners with respect to the appointment of
t!.e returning officer ; and the other was the re-
sult which ensued from that conduct,' on both
of which he did not think the Commissioners had tretA
with impartiaFty.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
person who was appointed is turning officer had,e the
power of performing great services, if he pleased, ,to
his political party, and hence he (the Earl of Glengall)
believed the office was eagerly sought for. By appointing
valuators of property who were under their influence
they were enab'ed materially to effect the result of any
election. In Clonmel the Commissioners selected for re-
turning officer a partisan of a particular faction in Ireland,
whose conduct in discharging the functions of Iria-af;Oe
had involved the union in great Negation, and heA.,gi;Vear•
offence to ail the " respectability" of Clonmel. lfria
person was named Butler, and the Commi.ssiaaeree,in'
appointing him, passed over a gentleman named Fennell,
the High Constable of the town, who was recomenewded
by all the gentlemen and by the proprietors of the,prio-
cipal part of Clonmel. The Noble Lord then related
a case, which was not distinctly understood 1n the gal-
lery, but in which he said that Mr. Butler was•guilty of
suborning a man named Davis to commit perjury. Da-
vis, he said, was convicted at the assizes and sentenced
to three months' imprisonment. By this returning
officer's fraudulent appointment of the guardians, and
the litigation in which it gave rise, the union was sub-
jected to upwards of 800/. in law expenses. The
Noble Eerl concluded by moving for certain returns
relative to the Poer-lawer, and also for the correspond-
ence thanhad taken place betiveen:tha Poor-law Com-
missioners io Ireland and the lindowners of Clonmell.
The Marquis of NORMANBY thought the Noble
Earl, before he brought forward such grave charges
against individuals, ought to have given some no-
tice of his intention to do so, in order that those against
whom he made them might have an opportunity of ex-
laining them. If the facts were as had been stated, there
had been such a gross breach of duty on the part. of
those Commissioners, as would shake the confidence of
the House in those officers. He had so high. an opi-
nion of the character of Mr. Nicholls, of the ability
with which he exercised his functions, and of his desire
to administer the law with the utmost impartiality, and
without any political bias whatever, that he could not
but think that V ere must be some mistake, and that in
a few days Mr. Nicholls would satisfactorily answer !he
charges. Upon this point, therefore, he would entreat
their Lordships to suspend their opinion, until an -op-
portudty of explanation had been afforded to Mr. Ni-
cholls. He (tl c Marquis of Nornanhy) believed that
the irritation ashlar bad attended the introduction of
this law was now gradually subsiding ; and he hoped,
that through the zeelous, faithful, end impartial dis-
charge of the duties of the Commissioners, it would
prove a great and lasting lea( fit to Irelaed.
The Dnke of WELLINGTON said it was im-
poesible, considering all that had passel on the subject
of these Poor-laws—considering the confidence which
many of their Lordships had placed in ti.e honour of
those who proposed the system—and considering the
great power given by the Bill to the Commissioners, it
was certainly to have been expected they would have
exercised it as it was their duty to exercise it. When
the Li gisleture entrusted great power to public officers
it expected they would exercise that power, and exer-
cise it in the way which the law intended it should be
exi rcised, and carry it into execution justly and fairly
to all parties. Now, he must say that in all these dis-
cussions, it appeared to him that this was not the case
—that in many instances it had not been the case—
that that power had been fairly exercised for the pur-
pose for which it had been granted. The fact stated
by his Noble Friend (the Earl' of Glengall) was
a moat curious one, and one on which he
should on Monday make a motion, of which
be then begged leave to give novice, namely,
that the House should have laid before it an exact
copy of the minutes of the Poor-la.v Commissioners
under the particular clause of the Act of Parliament
which said that all this correspondence ought to be
recorded. There might have been mistakes made be-
twice the dates of the letters written and received, but
tie s r were things requiring explanation. He (the
Duke of Wellington) had supported this measure, as
had many of their Lordships, in confidence that it
would be fairly carried into operation, and more par-
ticularly by those gentlemen who were employed to
point nut what was the, of their Lordships
but he (the Duke of Wellington) for one,, was greatly
disappointed in the work.mg of the measure, and he
felt certain that this was owing to the fact that the
Poor-law Commissioners bad not performed their duty
as they ought to have performed it. It was with that
he (the Duke of Wellington) charged them, and he
would make his motion on Monday, to show their
Lordships how this one clause had been carried into
execution, upon which the whole turned, namely, the
mode in which they recorded their proceedings, in order
that their Lordships and the other House of , Parlia-
ment m;ght have an opportunity of trying every act of
theirs by the original proceedings.
The Marquis of NOItMANBY said, perhaps the
Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) would have no
objection to postpone his motion until Thursday, to
give him (the Marquis of Normanby) time to commu-
nicate with Mr. Nicholls.

The Duke of WELLINGTON assented that the
motion should be postponed to Thursday.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he confessed it
did not appear to him likely that this communication
woull answer the purpose, and he thought it was very
doubtful whether their Lordships ought to be satisfied
with any explanation proceeding from the Noble Mar-
quis. It appeared to him there could be no doubt that
a gross breach of privilege had been committed, which
deserved to be punished in the severest manner. Ho
hell in his hand letters evidently official, which it was
pro►'esEed were printed in the paper before the House,
but which le'ters were in different terms and of differ-
ent dates. The letters bearing the official signature
stated one thing and the printed let tors stated another
thing. He thought it might be necessary to examine
the Commissioners on this subject at the Bar of their
Lordships' House.

The Marquis of NORMA NBY admitted with the
Noble Baronet that, if the explanation of the Com-
missioners were not satisfactory, and he should write
for it by the earliest post, he would think it necessary
that their Lordships should take further steps.
The Earl of GLENUALL made a few observations
in reply.

The return was then ordered, and their Lordships
adjourned till Monday.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, 111411cr 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
The Stoke-upon-Trent Small Debts' Bill was read a
second time and ordered to be committed.
The Christ Church and Lyndhurst Road BM was
re id a second time and ordered to be committed.

Sir E. WILMOT pte-3ented a petition from the
Woreeiter Canal Company against the Severn Naviga-
tion

Mr. O. GORE,presented petitions from places in
Montgomeryshire and Shropshire to the same effect.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented several petitions from
parishes in Nottingham, against the Nottingham Gas
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman also presented a petition
against the Severn Navigation Bill.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE presented a petition signed by
12,000 persons against the Nottingham Gas B:11. Also
a petition from the town of Nottingham to the same
effect.
On the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN, the
Sedglu Road Bill wt's read a second time and ordered
to he committed. The Noble Lord also presented a
pc titioa from th', town of Nottingham, signed by 4,500
persons
in favour of the Nottingham Gas Bill
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against
the Nottingham Gas Bill.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a similar petition from
the inhabitants of the suburbs of Nottingham
surSvieryjor.
rates of Nottingham against
the BA!.
NOTTINGHAM GAS BILL.
Colonel ROLLESTON moved the second reading
surveyors
of OtßbeHHOUighSwEay. presented a petition from the
of the Nottingham Gas Bid.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE opposed the second reading of
the Bid, on the ground that the prese,lt Company were
perceetly competent to supply all the wants of the town.
He had that day presented a petition from 12,000 in-
habtants of Nottingham against the Bill, and both the
the
A uthori t
forie s,
lightingt h e S u t
r vec rs town,
f Highways, and
were opposed
.
to the measure. A printed circular had been sent to
him containing a prospectus of the New Company, and
stating that the passing of the Bill would be a com-
well or ill
plete defeat of Ministers and the present Administration.
Now that appeared to him rather a foolish mode of
a. etting gentlemen to vote- for or against the Bill.
lighted,Nlihe
therbeticieoutkolwanssuorfe 11-11ootnii.ngNhiaemmbewras opposite thats
it had net engaged the attention o 1; her Majesty's Go-
vernment, for he (Sir J. HobhouseWad not mentioned
the matter to any of them. He trusted the House
would reject the Bill, aoul for these reasons he should
move that the Bed be read a second time CaLit day six
months.
Colonel ROLLESTON said, the measure was not
one of principle but detail, and could he best discussed
in Committee. He.could assure the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman that he h id never seen or heard of the printed
Circular to which he had alluded. The Right Hot].

Baronet bad said that since last year there had bcea
laid out ten or twelve thousand pounds in improving
these works ? Did the Right Hon. Baronet forget that
the argument which he had before used in opposition to
this Bill was that the works were so perfect that it
was not necessary to expend a single sixpence upon
them ? But he would submit. that that was not
the real question be the House ; the question was,
although this 10,0001. had been laid out .id add.tion to
rafter SUMS, was that enough to sup fallthe deficiency ?
If it was shorn, on going into Cortfittee, the:, there
was no necessity for any further advance, he wouli be
the first to support the Right Hon. Bart. Tile Rigit
Honourable Baronet said that no faults had been
found, no objections made, and that t‘he works,
as far as they went, gave perfect sut4faction. He
(Cu!. It.) had beer. informed of some instblite'et in which
they Lai bean complained t.f as inefficient, and the only
answer to that was, that if they did not like it, they
might do ..;:thotit it.—(Cries of " Divide, divide I")
After a fed' words from Mr. Easthope, Mr. Hume,
and the E-. 11 of Linco!n,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
dividcd—

For the second reading
Against it 6l
Majority -90
On the motion of Mr. DERBY, the Hawkhur.
Junction Road Bill was read a second time.

Mr. HOPE presented a petition from Gloucester,
praying .that the Severn Navigation Bill might be re•
ferred to a Select Committee.

The Harrowgate Improvement 8.11 was rem' a second
time.

General JOHNSON gave notice that when the
Poor-law Continuance Bill went into Committee, he
would move certain anaemia:a:4y. •
Mr. MARK PlirlelPSg e notieit thafon Mon-
day next he would MO hat rtain naliaesle added to
the Select Com'mittee fort. *ng in Ihthe laws -affact-
ing the expo:t atioa of sna::hi
- .
Mr. tIUME gave
.notice!that• Oti-.Mondayisext, he
would move for returns under :different heads, of the
manner in which 1,700,0001. voted within the last three
3e ars for suppressing the insurrection in Canada, had
been applied. Also, that he would move for returns of
the number of muskets, fire-arms, and military stores
landed in Syria in the year 1840.