The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-03 00:00:00

DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in rising to move
the second reading of this Bill, said, that although the
matter he had now to bring before the attention of the
House might be considered of a much less important
nature than those that had occupied it for some few nights
past, yet he was sure their Lordships would believe
that the subject was one of no light importance to those
whom it more immediately concerned. Property of con-
siderable amount, and the existence of hundreds, who had
embarked their all, depended upon it.—(Hear, hear.)
The law relating to theatres, as it at present existed, was
most injurious to the morals and public feelings of the
community.—(Hear.) It would not be necessary for Lim
to go into a long history of the progress of the drama ; he
would only shortly state what the law was upon the sub-
ject, pointing out its bad consequences, which he believed
would_ he rendered nugatory by the present Bill.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) It had been said that this Bill
would infringe on the prerogative of the Crown. In his
opinion, of all the unfounded statements that bad ever
been made with respect to the Bill, that was the most
devoid of truth, there not being one word about the
King's prerogative in the Act.—(llear, hear.) By
an Act introduced by the late Sir Robert Walpole, all per-
sons were prevented from giving dramatic representations
without the license of the Lord Chamberlain. Such was
the state of things at present, that many most respectable
theatres could not by any possibility obtain such a li-
cense; and in the City of London, as the law now
stood, no theatre could be licensed. This was
a very great infringement upon the enjoyments
of the public, and he would ask the Noble Lord whether
such a state of things could much longer exist. It was
true that some of the theatres of the metropolis were of
that character that they were considered unworthy of
notice by the proprietors of the two large houses, but the
moment that any theatre acquired a respectable character,
as he was happy to say many of the minor theatres had
done, that was the signal for the institution of proceedings,
by the proprietors of the two large houses, against them.
This state of things bad naturally excited a great deal of
discontent in the metropolis. Two petitions were pre•
sented, and two Committees were appointed to institute
an inquiry, and it was upon the report of the last Com-
mittee that the present Bill was founded. It was proposed
to establish two great principles by the all, on which
there could not, he believed, he any difference of opinion,
viz., that encouragement should be given for the exercise
of talent, and that the public should be guarded against the
repetition of licentiousness and of all improper conduct in
theatres. The report (which the Noble Lord read)
was strongly in favour of seine measure by which
encouragement should be given to actors and authors. The
greatest grievance which the public complained of was,•hat
at present there was no law to restrain the performances
of pieces and songs which, though not so couched as
to he laid hold of by the existing laws, yet contained
allusions of a highly indeeent nature. By creating
a power of suppressing unlicensed theatres those low and
immoral exhibitions which now existed would be put
down, because it would then become the duty of the po-
lice to suppreos them. Another evil which the Bill would
remove was the state of immorality permitted in cerain
portions of the audience, which was such that no respec-
table tradesman with his family could pass through the
lobbies without having their feelings outraged by s,.enes
which ought nowhere to be encountered In public. It
was notorious that persons of a certain class went to the
theatres, not to seek dramatic amusements, but avowedly
for purposes of vice. In no other country was such a
state of things to be found ; and the present Bill would
give the Lord Chamberlain such a power over the regu-
lation of theatres as to prevent it. If their Lordships
tt said
present
took. d to the regularity and morality of the
must alter people they
them
il,aermge e ss
Captaintae t
what or fi
propertiesetisi et
must
property
andetph,
enerpasstbya embarked
kwas
in
proprietors
his
this
isßtile
It
sea
s.r a
in
sdnthatre.
patent theatres, and that t
?,s. e respect be had to vested
ina s which
aof
Covent-garden theatre, when examined before the Com-
mittee, said that lie had twenty thousand pounds in the
theatres for which he expected to get nothing until the
de!it of 160,0001. should be paid off. And this person
bad what he called " property" to be damaged by the
1111. The state o. Drury-lane was still worse, for in the
evidence of the treasurer it appeared that the investments
in the theatre amounted to 212,0001. The debt beyond
this was now only 6,000/., and when that was paid off it.
was expected that the shareholders were to commence
to receive about two per cent. upon their ca-
pital.—(Hear. hear.) Why, to call this " property,"
vested and to say that its destruction would be to injure
rights, was perfectly absurd. The Noble Mar-
quis then argued that there was no right of patent
possessed by Drury-lane theatre, and that no claim of
that kind could tie maintained. Another objection made
to the Bill was that it would be injurious to the Briiish
drama, and that we should have no more fine plays. His
answer to that was there was no monopoly at the time
winch produced Shakspeare, and Congreve, and Ben
Johnson, end Beaumont and Fletcher, and Massinger,
and the host of writera of that day. Tlie large theatres
desired
-either that their monopoly should be continued to

them or that the small theatres, if allowed to remain open,
should be so taxed as to reimburse them the losses they
had sustained. This was, in point of fact, the ground
upon which the opposition of the larger theatres to this
Bill proceeded; but before their Lordships determined on
throwing it out, they should consider well that three
thousand persons depended on the minor theatres for
support, and that if they were closed (and unless this Bill
were passed they most assuredly would be in a very short
time) every one of these persons would be cast upon the
world without any means of sustaining their existence.
He repeated that the great theatres never bad and never
ought to have a monopoly, and therefore it was that he
should now move that this Bill be read a second time.
The question having been put,
The Earl of GLENGALL contended that this ought
to be considered strictly as a question of property and
vested rights. The title of the Royal Theatres to exclu•
sive privileges had been acknowledged over and over again,
not only by the highest judicial authorities in the country,
but also by the Parliament ; and therefore, as the pro-
prietors of those theatres had expended large sums of
money on the good faith of the patents which had been
granted to them, they clearly were entitled to demand that
their property should be protected. The Noble Earl then
moved as an amendment that the Bill be read a second
time this day six months.
The Bishop of LONDON said it was not his intention
to take an active part either for or against the Bill, but
be must say that be could not help objecting against its
preamble, which declared that it would tend greatly to the
accommodation of the public and to provide them with
innocent and rational amusement. Now he denied that
such an enactment would tend to improve the public
morals, and therefore it was that he objected to a 'multipli-
cation of theatres. He would not now advert to the
question whether or not the prerogative of the Crown was
invaded by this Bill, but he must say that he teought the
provision which not only directed but peremptorily re-
quired the Lord Chamberlain to grant licenses to a certain
number• and description of theatres was in absolute
defiance of the authority of his Majesty.--(Hear, bear,
hear.) On looking at the several clauses he found
that the Lord Chamberlain was bound to grant a license
for opening a theatre provided that three months pre-
vious notice was given, and that the inhabitants of the
district made no objection to it. An important feature hi
the case was with respect to tbat which would constitute
a district. A district was to be formed by a radias of
220 yards, and the Bill provided that the application for
opening a theatre within this circle should be signed by at
least 150 respectable inhabitants, rated at 101. a year.
Now, be knew that many such districts could be found
in which there were not even one hundred and fifty
respectable householders. According to this calculation,
there would be no fewer than two hundred and fifty
theatres within the distance of two miles from the General
Post-office. He must say that the character of, or rather
the manner in which, a theatre was conducted, should be
made a consideration of paramount importance; for if he
was rightly informed, evils of the most outrageous de-
scription flowed from the present system of managing such
establishments.—(Bear.) Representations with respect
to the abuses existing in theatres had frequently been made
to him, and unhappily it was the opinion of some that he
was responsible for these abuses. The newspapers, too,
had teemed with letters addressed to him on the subject of
these abuses; but although it was not in his power to
correct them as he could wish, he was still bound to ac •
knowledge to their Lordships that no remonstrance or re-
presentation he had ever made upon the subject to the Lord
Chamberlain remained unattended to. Their Lordships,
he was sure, would excuse his taking any part either
in altering or amending this Bill, for such a course would
be inconsistent with the sacred office which he had the
honour to bold ; but still he must say that keeping the
theatres open on Saturday nights beyond midnight was a
gross and scandalous infringement of the Lord's Day.—
(Hear, hear.) There was a theatre called the Garrick
Theatre, in Leman •street, G eadman's-fields, Whitechapel,
respecting which he had received innumerable complaints.
With the part of the town in which this theatre was
situate their Lordships could have little acquaintance ; but
a deputation that had recently waited on him, declared
that since its opening the moral character of the whole
vicinity had undergone a most lamentable change. This
theatre opened at first without any license. A license was
afterwards granted to it, but subsequently refused ; and it
was now, as originally, open without any authority what-
ever•. What added to the evil of the immorality
which it produced was, that the property in the neigh-
bourhood had become greatly deteriorated in value, and the
reason tradesmen assigned for not taking the houses was,
that they,, would not live in the scenes of riot and tumult
which this theatre nightly occasioned. But to show the
effects of such places of amusement, and to prove that they
were anything but innocent and rational, he would just
mention a single instance. Within the last fortnight,
the daughter of a poor widow residing in the vicinity of
the theatre, the only prop of her mother's declining years,
contracted a sudden taste for theatricals. The girl was
educated as well as persons in her condition usually were,
but, being able to obtain admission to the theatre nightly,
she fin Illy quitted her mother altogether, and gave her-
self up to an abandoned course of life, destroyed the hap-
piness of her p .rent, and ruined her character irretrievably.
The same fate had happened to the apprentices of trades •
men. They first began by frequenting theatres, their
next step was to rob their masters, and if they were not
charged with the commission of criminal offences their
indentures were at all events cancelled. That which oc-
curred in the neighbourhood of this theatre happened, he
had no doubt, elsewhere, and therefore their Lordships
would see how necessary it was to adopt some course of
checking instead of encouraging so bad a system.—( Hear,
hear.) Ile was not prepared to say that such places of
amusement should not exist, but he was ready to contend
that an increased facility for establishing fresh theatres
should not be given, for he was convinced that such a step
would only tend to break the bonds of society asunder.
Lord WYNFORD fully concurred in all that had fallen
from the R;glit Rev. Prelate, but he still thought that
as the :,opulation of the metropolis had increased four-
fold, the number of theatres ought also to be increased in
proportion. He suggested whether a selection from the
existing theatres, regular and irregular, might not he made
in order that rational and innocent amusement should be
afforded to the public; but be must say that seventeen
were a great deal too many for that purpose. Two the-
atres, be fully admitted, would be wholly inadequate to the
wants of the metropolis, and as he did not wish the public
to be debarred from any rational amusements, he should wish
to see those chosen against which no complaints of a very
serious kind bad been made. There was much in the
Bill of which he approved, but there was also much against
hich he objected, and he therefore hoped their Lordships
would send it to a Committee, in order that such provi-
sions of it as would be advantageous might be retained,
and those having a contrary tendency should be rejected.
Lord MELBOURNE said that the Bill was in smile
respects good and in others bad. Compelling the Lord
Chamberlain to grant licenses was not only taking away
from him all discretion, but a manifest invasion of the
prerogatives of the Crown. He hoped, therefore, their
Lordships would allow the Bill to be read a second time,
and then send it to a Committee up stairs.
Lord SEAGRAVE had such strong objections to this
Bill, that he must give his support to the amendment of
the Noble Eat 1. He objected specifically to the sixth
clause, which would render the power of the Lord Cham-
berlain entirely useless. He would, therefore, support the
amendment.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, that in sup-
porting this Bill the right of the Crown to grant patents
would not be infringed upon.—(Question.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when a divi-
sion took place--
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
ROBBERY IN DWELLING HOUSES BILL.
Lord SUFFIELD moved that the report of the Robbery
in Dwelling Houses Bill should be now received. The
Noble Lord was proceeding to make some observations
upon the Bill, when a message from the Commons was
announced,
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BERNAL appeared at the Bar, and brought up the
Irish Church Temporalities Bill, as amended by the House
of Commons, to which they prayed the concurrence of
their Lordships.—Laid on the table.
Lord SUFFIELD then resumed his argument, and
proceeded to say, that, looking to the committals and
convictions of prisoners, it must be evident that the law
as it stood required a change, particularly in the case to
housebreaking in the daytime. He knew it might to
urged that the recent changes in the law bad increase.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST Q.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES presented a petition signed
by upwards of 60 market gardeners residing at Deptford
and other places in the neighbourhood of London, praying
(as we understood) to be relieved'trem the payment of
assessed taxes.
Captain ELLIOTT brought :up certain papers, which
were ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the importers
of corn in Hull, upon the subject of the importation of
foreign corn.
A message from the Lords stated that the House of
Lords had agreed to several Bills sent up by the House.
Mr. CURTEIS presented petitions from various pa-
rishes in Sussex against tithes.
Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from the Isle of
Wight, against negro slavery.
Mr. E. BULW ER presented a petition from the guar-
dians of the poor of the town of Lincoln, praying that a
Bill containing certain regulations respecting them might
be broughtin.
Sir H. HARDINGE gave notice of his intention fa
present a petition from certain stationers and paper mann-
facturers in the city of London, alleging that Sir John
Key, a Member of that House, was concerned in a Go-
vernment contract for paper. He (Sir H. Hardinge) had
written a letter to Sir John, enclosing a espy of the peti-
tion, and mentioning that it was his intention to present
it to the House on Monday. On presenting it, he meant to
move fur the appointment of a Committee to inquire into
the circumstances of the petition.
Mr. O'CONNELL, after putting a question to Mr.
Stanley (neither which, nor the answer to it, could be
heard), gave notice, that early in the next session he meant
to move for the establishment of a Legislative Assembly
in New South Wales.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition, which,
as he stated a few nights since, bad been left with
hint, signet' by eight hundred of the most respectable
merchants and housekeepers of Westminster, praying that
the Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt might
not be passed into a law. As the Solicitor-General had
intimated his irstention of not pressing forward the Bill this
session, he (Sir R. Peel) would say nothing further on the
subject at present. It had been erroneously stated that
be was anxious that this Bill should be passed without
delay. All he had said was that he was desirous that the
fullest time should be taken for the most ample considera-
tion of the measure.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL was understood to say
that he had hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would have
expressed an opinion on the subject on presenting the
petition.
Sir R. PEEL could not understand the extraordinary
imputation against him for not making a long speech.
Mr. HUME said, that although he had not
expected a long speech, he had expected to have heat d an
opinion, but from the manner in which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had presented the petition, it might be said to
be with no opinion at all.
Sir R. PEEL said the Han: Gentleman was certainly
doing all in his power to promote a discussion. He (Sir
R. Peel) bad done his duty in presenting the petition,
which was from a highly respectable body of men in
Westminster, many of whom were constituents of the
Honourable Member's. It was against the immediate
passing of the Bill, and as the Bill was postponed, he hail
refrained from pronouncing an opinion on the subject,
as be was never disposed to express an opinion without
giving reasons for it.—(Hear, hear.) He had expressed
an opinion some time since, and which he still retained,
on the necessity for some cheaper and speedier means of
recovering small debts, as the present state of the law
amounted to a bar in many cases.—(Hear.) This was
different from giving an opinion on a law for the abolition
of imprisonment for debt. He saw, therefore, no reason
why any Hon. Member should surmise his being possessed
of hesitating doubts.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished it to be under.
stood that he had not withdrawn the Bill from any doubt
of its benefits, but merely because of the difficulty of
passing it in the present session.—(Hear, hear.)
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day for taking into consideration the
Lords' amendments to the above Bill having been read,
and the amendments having been read a first time,
Lord ALTHORP said, although be should move that
they be read a second time, and should recommend their
adoption to the House—(Hear)—because they did not
upon the whole touch the principle of the Bill, he most
say that be did not consider them improvements
to it.—(Hear, bear.) The principal alteration made by
the Lords was in certain cases giving a stipend to a curate
for performing the duties of a suspended benefice.
The greater part of the amendments which had been
made were verbal, but that was one in the substance
of the Bill, as were those which he should now notice.
They bad sent the Bill up to the Lords, requiring that,
before any new church was built in a parish, a fifth of
the expense should be subscribed. An alteration was male
by the Lords in this provision, and he confessed he thought
it no improvement to give a discretionary power to the
Commissioners without such a subscription being made.
He did not think this an improvement, for he thought it
desirable that some assurance should have been given of the
church being ready wanted ; but as the matter was left to
the Commissioners, and as they hoped they would
not go to the expense of building a church where
it was not necessary, he was not prepared to
difEr with the Lords' amendment on this account.
Again, as the Bill left this House, it provided that
the Commissioners should have at their disposal the
revenues of suspended livings, to appropriate them to
Church purposes wherever they thought proper ; by an
amendment made by the Lords, the Commissioners
are directed to apply the proceeds to the parish in
which the appointment of a clergyman has been sus-
pended, unless they shall think it better not to do sq.
—(Hear, and a laugh.) He confessed that this did not
appearto him a material amendment.---(Hear, hear.) The
clause would, in his opinion, have been just as good before
as it was now, but he was not inclined to differ with the
Lords on account of the change which had been
made by them on this point. There was ano-
ther amendment of some importance, to which
he wised to direct the attention of the House ; it was
stated in the list of the Lords' amendments, in the hands
of Hon. Members, clause A. It empowered the Arch-
bishops of Armagh and Dublin to appoint fellows of
Trinity College, Dublin, to ten livings belonging
to the patronage of the suppressed bishoprics.—(Hear.)
There was nothing in the amendments, he believed, which
called for any particular observation from him at present,
and he would only move, that they be now read a second
time.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Lords had not
made any very mischievous alteration in this Bill,
but at the same time it would be delusion to suppose
that the people of Ireland would be contented wish such
a piece of reform as this. They did not require any altera-
tion in the number of the Protestant Bishops. It was no
consolition to them that eight or ten of them should be
taken from their present number. It was certainly a
sweeping mode of proceeding, as far as the church was
concerned ; it was a good bold blow; but what the people
wanted really was, that a prospect be held out to them
of removing the burdeos of a church which was so grealy
disproportionate to the extent of its professors. It was
calculated that not above one-sixtieth of the people of
Ireland belonged to the Irish Church. He believed that
was an extravagant calculation ; but supposing that it
numbered one-eighth of the people, did it net present
a curious, grievous, flagrant, and most afflicting ano-
maly, that the other seven-eighths should bear the burden
of that establishment ? It was said that the property of
Ireland belonged, for the most part, to Protestants, and
that although as far as numbers were concerned they
were the minority, yet really and substantially they were the
near.)
chiefstipports of the Irish Church. Now there aniglst.tros:nmde
truth in this as regarded property held in fee .!
hear.)
butwer
eitti
in
to tef
athen
bands
derivative()f
Roman in t
ce interests att Ihi,.....icobt(di:Peiaahirad,d
m4O e
As far as the amendments which
bedid not think
curious s s of hereditary wisdom,.
P'eun-r.require any particular observation
they were such as to
_‘
if thought toey rather evinced aispositiek
from him. e
in the Bill were concerned, altheugh they afforded tome