The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-13 00:00:00

to give them the power of objecting to their introduction.
He feared that there would be some difficulty as to the
summary power proposed to be given to the Lord Cham-
berlain. In consequence of the repeal, as proposed by this
Act, of the 10th of George 11., by which players were
classed with " rogues and vagabonds," the summary power
of search, on the part of the police, would be taken away,
and difficulties certainly would, in some cases, lie in the
exercise of the summary power proposed to be given to the
Lord Chamberlain. With regard to the censorship, he
thought it was productive of utility, and that it could not
be dispensed with. He trusted that his Hon. Friend
would not hurry the Bill through the House, but that he
would afford time to the persons in this metropolis who
were interested in its provisions to make their representa-
tions to the House either for or against the measure. He
hoped that by the passing of such a measure the law on
this subject would be at length placed upon an intelligible
foundation, for it had been of late years so complicated,
and so variously interpreted, that there was no understand-
ing how any theatre stood.
Mr. HUME was sorry to hear the Hon. Gentleman
express his opinion in favour of the retention of the cen-
sorship upon dramatic performances. He was quite sure
the present and for many years depressed state of the dram.►
was attributable to the protection of the Lord Chamber-
lain and the surveillance of the censor. It was well
known that the jurisdiction of the Chamberlain opened
the door to bribery and corruption. Tne license-fees
system spoke for itself, and could nut he too soon altered.
The drama no less than the public would be benefitted
by unrestricted competition, under which genius and talent
would thrive, and corruption could not.—(Hear.) He
protested against the plea put forward by the Hon. Gen-
tleman on the part of the monopolists.
Mr. WARBURTON said that as the object of the
present system was the affording irrational amusements at
the dearest rate, so the object of the present Bill would
be to afford to the public rational aninsements at
the cheapest rate. The object of the great theatres seemed
to be to administer rather to the physical than to the men-
tal gratification of the people.—(A laugis.) As to the
existing interests of the patentees of the great theatres,
dwelt upon by the Hon. Gentleman, the fact was they
had no interest remaining in them, they being mortgaged
double and treble deep. He possessed himself a renter's
share of 5001. in Covent-garden, which, in addition to a
personal admission, entitled him to 25/. per annum—if he
could get it.—(A laugh.) Of course, during the last 12
years he did not receive a single sixpence ; but like every
other proprietor, had the right of entering the theatre.
He was ready to sacrifice his share, in order to see dra-
matic performances thrown open to the public. -
Mr. EWART regretted that the Bill was confined to
the metropolis. He bad himself presented a petition from
Liverpool, stating that in that town and its neighbour-
hood there was a popul .tion of 100,000 persons unpro-
vided with theatrical amusement. He would move a clause
to extend the Bill to the country, if the Hon. Gentle-
man would not do so himself.

Mr. LAMB, in explanation, said he did not raise an
obstacle on vested interest, but, merely asked for time for
them to make a case out, if they could. He doubted the
propriety of extending the Bill to the provinces.
Mr. BARING thought the office of censor a most
useful one. Hon. Gentlemen had only to judge fur them-
selves of the effect of an unlicensed system in Paris to
arrive at the same conclusion. The productions exhibited
in some of the theatres must shock every moral mind.
He was not favourable to a vexatious censorship, but one
which would enforce a respect for sound morals and public
decency.
Mr. O'DWYER, having visited Paris, said the result
of his travels was, that be differed from the Hon. Mem-
ber for Essex.

Mr. BULWER said that there was no need of a censor-
ship, as public morals had actually risen higher than the
license, which the censor could not lower. This was evi-
dent from the fact, that many of the old plays, which the
censor could not prohibit from being represented, were
not and could not be played from their indelicacy. The
absence of such exhibitions here as those referred to by
the Hon. Member for Essex in Paris was not imputable to
our censorship, but a higher standard of public morality.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
BURGH REFCRM (SCOTLAND).

The LORD ADVOCATE rose to submit a motion to
the House on a very important subject—that of reforming
the municipal constitution of the royal burgh of Scotland.
It was a subject of which the discussion was likely to be
monopolized by the Scotch Members, and he, therefore,
would not then enter into any details of the measure. He
believed that it would be more convenient to the House,
and more conducive to a saving of time, if the discussion
were taken at a future period. He proposed, therefore,
to read the Bill a first and second time pro forma, and
after the second reading he would move that it be referred
to a Select Committee. He would propose that this Com-
mittee should consist of all the Members fur the Scotch
burghs, about 23, which would make a very proper Com-
mittee as to numbers. By so doing the House would not
come to a discussion of the measure till it was well ac-
quainted with it. He would then only move for leave to
bring i❑ a Bill to alter and amend the laws with respect to
electing the magistrates and town councils of royal burghs
in Scotland.
Captain W. GORDON expressed his regret that the
measure was not in the first instance referred to a Com-
mittee of Inquiry, as was done with respect to the English
and Irish Corporations. He hoped, too, that the Learned
Lord would not confine the Select Committee to the Mem-
bers for Scotch burghs.
The LORD ADVOCATE explained, that a conside-
rable time would elapse before the Committee could come
to any conclusion, that the Bill would be amply discussed,
and that the Committee would readily listen to any sugges-
tions. As to placing other Members on the Committee, it
would be open to Hon. Members to name whom they
pleased when the committee was appointed.
Mr. GILLON wished to ask when the Committee
would begin its labours?
Mr. KENNEDY thought the Committee might begin
its labours immediately.
Mr. OSWALD gave his support to the motion.
An How. MEMBER. asked whether the Learned Lord
meant to take any steps to improve the constitution of
those burghs which were not Royal Burghs ? We un-
derstood the Hon. Member to call them Barony Burghs.
The LORD ADVOCATE believed that his Majesty's
Government had it in contemplation to propose a mea-
sure for them. He would certainly say, for himself, that
be had a Bill in preparation to amend the constitution of
the burghs alluded to by the Hon. Member.
Mr.ANDREW JOHNSTONE differed from the Hon.
Member for Aberdeenshire, as to requiring a Committee of

Inquiry, because the subject had already been much in-
quired into. Burgh Reform had agitated Scotland much
more than Parliamentary Reform, and now that they had
obtained the latter, he hoped that the former would be
also soon obtained. He recommended a sweeping and
effectual Reform in the burghs, similar to that which
had been made of the Parliament, and not a bit by bit
Reform.

Leave was then given, and the Bill ordered to be
brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Kennedy.
POLICE IN BURGHS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. LOCH moved for leave to bring in a Bill to en-
able all the burghs of Scotland to establish one general
system of police. He proposed to mike the qualification
for electing the municipal police the same as that for
electing Members for that House.
Mr. GILLON hoped that the Hon. Member would
not adopt this rule, as such a qualification would not
satisfy the people of Scotland.
Captain DUNLOP hoped that this Bill, like the Bi

to be brought in by the Learned Lord, would be referred
to a Select Committee.--L•ave given.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
Sir J. GRAHAM, on the part of Mr. Stanley, as he
understood his Right Hon. Friend's proposition to bring
in a Bill to amend the Constabulary (Ireland) was to be
opposed, postponed that motion.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The SPEAKER then called on Lord Althorp, who had
given notice of a motion to propose that orders of the day
should have precedence of motions every day.
Lord ALTHORP referred the arrangements agreed to
for presenting petitions relative to the Irish Coercive Bill,
and expressed a hope that Hon. Members would adhere to
that arrangement. That arrangement had been made
with a view to hearing those petitions that related to the
Bill before it passed through the Honse.—[During the
time the Noble Lord was speaking, Mr. Robinson
rose two or three times, and was understood to express
a determination to present his petitions, which did not
relate to the Irish Bill, to-morrow.] When his Lordship
had finished,
Mr. ROBINSON should take the sense of the House
on his own intention.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped the Hon. Member would not.
It would be of no use to receive the petitions of the people
against the Bill after it was passed.
Mr. H. GRATTAN hoped the Hon. Member would
wave his intention.
Mr. HUME thought the Hon. Member for Worcester
should raise the question then, and not wait till the
next day.
Lord ALTHORP thought it was impossible to raise
the question then. It was in the power of any Hot]. Mem-
ber to present a petition ; but it was in the power of the
House to decide that it should not be received. There