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

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS.

The following are the results of " A Table of Mortality
in the Metropolis, showing the Number of Deaths from
all Causes Registered, in the week ending Saturday, the
27th February, 1841." The Table is issued from the Office
of the Registrar-General:—

Weekly

CAUSES OF DEATH.

Total. Average

1838-9-40.
Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases l9O 204
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses lBl 151
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of
Respiration
Diseases of the Heat and Bloodvessels
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other
Organs of Digestion 59 60
Diseases of the Kidn..ys, &c.
Childbed, Diseases of the Uterus, &c.
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles
Diseases of the Skin, &c
Diseases of Uncertain Seat
Old Age, or Natural Decay 7B 71
Deaths by Violence, Privation, or Intemperance 20 25
Causes not specified
Deaths from all causes -
Average Weekly Deaths .. 926
Deaths in the Average Weekly
Week. Deaths, 1838-9-40.
Western Districts ... 143 ..•••• 139
North Districts
Central. Districts 234 ..... 190
East Districts 235 ...... 211
South Districts ...

Total IU4O 926
It is stated that under the term Metropolis are com-
prised the 32 districts herein mentioned, which include the
City of London within and without the walls, the City and
Liberties of Westminster, the out parishes within the
bills of mortality—and the parishes of St. Marylcbone ;
St. Pancras ; Kensington ; Fulham ; Hammersmith
(Chapelry) ; St. Luke, Chelsea; Paddington ; St. Mary,
Stoke Newington ; St. Leonard, Bromley ; St. Mary-le-
bow ; Camberwell ; Greenwich ; St. Nicholas and St
Paul, Deptford; and Woolwich. The population as enu-
merated in 1831 was 1,594,890. The weekly average for
1831, 1839, 1840, was obtained by dividing the deaths in
the three years by 156.
General Register-office, March 4, 1841.

IMPE &UAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS', Zhncli 5.
Their Lord hips met at. File o'Clock.

The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition
1-orn the Board of Guardians of the Hereford Union,
praying for ceitlin alterations of the existing Poor-law.
The B:shop of LONDON presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Essex against the grant to the
Ccliegc of Maynnoth. _ _

Lord STRAFFORD presentel a petition from
Danegal against Church Patronage in Scotl►►nd.
Tt o Earl of ROSE BERY presented a pettion from
the Mayor and Corporation of Edinburgh, imploring
the ettention of the House to the present scaie of the
Import DuCCS. The Noble E►rl also presented a peti-
tiu.n from the Medical Association of the borough of
Stirling for Medical Reform,

Lord FITZGERALD mowed for returns which hid
been laid upon the table of file other House of the in.
come and expenditure of the years 1838, 1839, and
1810, 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 Noll,' Friend's would not be very different. 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 had been presented this Session, he saw
no reason to cbaege that opinioe. His Noble 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-
tlernea 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 thems, s, before God and man,
to use every effort to procure the abolition.
The Duke of ARGYLL had received very diffe-
rent assurances from Edinburgh, and unless he was
convinced to the contrary he would.feel bound to bring
in some measure on the subject.
MASQUERADES AT DRVRY LANE.
The Bishop of LONDON, seeing the Lord Cham-
berlain in his place, wished to put a question to him
with respect t 3 certain performances teat had lat7ly
taken piece at Drury-lane Theatre. By a resolution of
t`se 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 eves hopeless after. such a resolution to expect
the revocation of such a practice, but:he was sure at the
time that permission was given it 'was' not understood
that permission was given to such exhibitions as
masquerades and masked balls. Such exhibitions,
however, had taken place, not, he admitted, on
Wednesday 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
t doe place, it would be without those offensive circum-
stances to which he would shortly allude. On Monday
week last this performance took I bee, and, as he
was informed, circumst inces of the, grossest and
mot. offensive indecency took place, so gross
and ,offensive that it was recsived by the hisses
of the more respectable part of the audience.—(Hear,
hear.) Tne 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 could not tolerate
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 thtt at present the authority of that officer
was very questionaLl •.—(Cries cf " Hear, hear.")
Occupying tee stat.on in the Church which be did, he
had always considered it his duty to make representa-
tions to the Lord Chamberlein whenever he considered
that improper performances were to take place, and he
must say that no representation that he had ever
made had been unattended to.' With reference to
the Noble E irl who was now her Majesty's
Lord Chamberlain, he must say, that upon all fcrrner
occasions his representations had mat with the most
prompt attention. On the present occasion he was
most anxious to express the opinion he entertained as
to the demoralising effects of such exhibition!, 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 performance had
neither his sanction nor knowledge. it took place on
the 22d of February ; and on Monday the Ist of
March, he felt :t to be his duty to desire a letter to
be written to the Drury-lane Committee, stating
that his attention having been drawn to the enclosed
bill, announcing the performance of a mas-
querade, he begged leave to atat-, that no licence
had been grawc.l by him for such a purpose,
though an application had been made to that effect.
To that letter he received a reply, dated March 2,
1841, stating that the Committee bad 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 masquerale, but that no
pains should be spared to have them conducted with the
greatest possible decorum. That answer appeared to him
highly satisfactory. The Noble Earl then proceeded to read
an extract from the Act empowering the Lord Cham-
berlain to grant licenses, from which lie said it appeared
that the case did not come within the provisions of the
Act. The Lord Chamberlain was, in feet, powerless.
The Bishop of LONDON said that if it was
not in the power of the Noble Rod to remedy the
evil, he complained of that state of things.—(Hear.)
The Right Reverend Prelateri then reed a paragraph
from a newspaper, 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.
describing
The person 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 Horne Department find means
of repressing these enormities ? If not, some a'teration
in the law was certainly required for that purpose, and
he
He (the Bishop of London) thought that the common-
sense view was that they were dramatic entertainmente,
take
and that the parties were punishable under the Act ; at
leitto rney. General should be directed to
r M
tlarje:' necessaryt
y'
steps for punishing the offenders.
ail events he thought the Lord Chamberlain should take
the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY 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 Theatre, stated that the Theatre
bad 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 bad no power, however, to prevent him under
the lease. That lease expired tomorrow. Upon seeing
the statements as to the improper behaviour that took
place, the Committee remonstrated, and they lead.ree
ceived a communication that it should not be re-
peated. He had not the least doubt that