The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-01 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. STANLEY movel that the Dublin Evening
Mail be read, in which the report of the Irish Committee
appeared.
The Clerk having read the report, Mr. Sheehan was
called to the bar. In answer to the SPEAKER, he said he
was proprietor of the Dublin Evening Mail. He sent
the report complained of to Dublin in his own name. Ile
would not state from what source he got the copy.

In answer to Mr. O'CONNELL be declined to answer
whether the usual ciution was on the back of the paper
or not, or whether the paper was printed or in manu-
script. lie was then ordered to withdraw.

Mr. STANLEY then said, that he was obliged to
move that Mr. Sheehan be either committed to Newgate
or into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. He felt
bound to state that he saw from another number of
the Dublin Evening Mad that the proprietors were de-
termined to set the House and Committee at defiance. The
Hon. Gentleman then read the passage be complained of.

On the motion that Mr. Sheehan be committed to the
custody of the Sergeant at Arms,
Mr. HUNT said he could not see how the House could
punish the present defendant for a breach of privilege,
when they allowed Peers to break some of their most
important ones at every election.
Colonel PERCEVAL and Mr. A. LEFROY opposed the
motion. They thought that the Right Hon. Secretary
ought not to have acted so harshly and unjustifiably to a
Paper because it was opposed to the Government in
politics.
Mr. STANLEY hoped to be allowed to explain. He
had not been, and he hoped the House would believe that he
was not, actuated by political motives.—(Hear.) He
had only done his duty—a duty imposed upon him by
the unanimous vote of the Committee with only one
exception, and that vote was of a gentleman of quite op-
posite politics to that of the Paper whose conduct was
under discussion.

Mr. GOULBURN said this was a most important
question. The person who gave such information must
have been guilty of a gross breach of trust, for only a cer-
tain number of copies were printed, and so carefully were
those distributed, that every one was enclosed in a wrap-.
per, and sealed, so that the person must have broken the
seal of a letter addressed to an individual Member. He
thought that it was absolutely necessary that the House
should pursue the inquiry farther, in order to find out
who had so broken the confidence reposed in him.
Mr. LITTLETON entirely agreed with the Hon.
Member. He was sorry that Mr. Sheehan would not
answer the questions from the House ; he must not only
receive a heavy sentence, but be punished till he revealed
from what source he got his information. He was one of
the Members of the Committee, but owing to circum-
stances had only attended once or twice, but he had re-
ceived all the papers connected with the proceedings of
the Committee except the draught in question, that he had
not received.

Captain GORDON said it was customary with the
Press--in fact, they made it a point of honour, never to
give up the names of soy one who gave them informa-
tion ; therefore, Mr. Sheehan had only done that which
any one else would have done in the some circumstances.
Mr. PORTMAN was of opinion that the better course
would he to commit the gentleman to the custody of the
Sergeant at Arms, because that course would give him an
opportunity of repenting, and by to-morrow, perhaps, he
ought have some communications to make to the House.
After a few words from Mr. StrAW, the question was
put and agreed to, that Mr. Sheehan had been guilty of a
gross breach of privilege.
Mr. STANLEY then said that under the circumstances
be could not do less than move that Mr. Sbeeehan be
committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. It
that gentleman persisted in not giving satisfaction to the
House, which he hoped he would not do, he (Mr. S.) would
feel it his duty to call upon the House to have the officers
in attendance to-morrow, whose duty it was to circulate
the Papers to the Committee.
The further consideration of the case was then post-
poned till to-morrow.
Mr. EDWARD L YTTON BULWER rose, pursuant
to notice, to move for a Select Committee for the pill,
pose of inquiring into the State of the Laws affecting
Dramatic Literature, and the Performance of the Drama.
They all knew that there was a patent ;ranted to the two
great theatres, for the performance of the drama. The
extent and power of these patents, with the laws by
which they are strengthened, have long been a matter of
dispute; hut by the late decision of a high judicial
authority, it seemed that all performances worthy of the
attendance of persons pretending to a reasonable degree of
education—all performances, except those of the most
mountebank and trumpery description, fit only for th
stages of Bartholomew Fair, were to be considered as is
fritieineots of the law. and as suhiee.tino those who a.ci

'n them to serious penalties. The minor theatres were,
Serthre, at this moment—with their many thousand per-
' Tillers, who depend for support on their existence—
oithout the pale of the law ; asd the question is, therefore.
()reed before the puhFc in the fallowing shape :—" How
tr is it expsdient for the tit it privileges and en
etments of this mono/el zing d. set ;lei at should be con-
inued how fir is it expedient that the minor theatres
hould be suppressed, and the exclusive patents of the two
treat theatres should be continued ?" In the first place.
to contended, that the original reason for suppressing the
ninor theatres has long since ceased to exist ; and in the
econd place, he contended, that the only possible ground
non which these patents were given in trust to the metro-
olitan theatres, had not been fulfilled. Now, the reason
or suppressing the minor theatres appeared both by
tct of Parliament and in the Lterary history of these
lines. In the licentious period in which the first
atents were granted, viz.—the time of Chatles the
S-cond, in all the unbridled re action and intoxicated
'erment of the Restoration—it seemed that the minor
theatres were the scene of very disorderly and improper
exhibitions ; and it became necessary to suppress them—
lot so much for the sake of preserving decency as of pro-
tecting the drama.__( Hear, hear.) But did that reason
:xist at present? Could any who had ever by accident
mended the smaller houses, assert that the performance
old the audience were not of the most decorous and
orderly description? So far as that consideration went,
the minor theatres are fully as entitled to a license as
the two great theatres themselves ; and the original
reason, therefore, for suppressing the minor theatres has,
,midst the growing good taste and civilization of the age,
entirely ceased to exist. On the other hand, why was a
patent granted to two theatres alone? There was hut
one possible ground—there was hut one allege'] ground—
for the preservation of the dignity of the national drama.
Now, how had the patents obtained that object? It
happened curiously enough, that no sooner were the
two great theatres in possession of this patent, than
the national drama began to deteriorate, and a love fur
scenic effect to supersede it. It was reproached to Sir
William Davenant, it was reproached to all the stage ma-
nagers under the new patents, that they made their chief
object in theatrical decoration a mechanical improvement.
This reproach, with more or less justice, had constantly
existed—this reproach, with peculiar justice, existed at the
present time. Indeed it was impossible to look back to
the last fourteen or fifteen years without being struck
with the extraordinary poverty of intellect which had
been displayed in the legitimate drama, compared with
that which any other department of literature had called
forth. There had been exceptions, very honourable ex-
ceptions ; but, if there are exceptions, never had any ge
neral rule fewer exceptions; and we are tempted to ask
with the Lord Chancellor, not how many plays have
been produced of our literature, but rather how many
pl .ys had been produced fit for grownup men and women
to go anti see ? When we had given so vast a privilege to
two theatres solely fur one object, viz. the preservation of
the dignity of the national drama, we were bound, in jus-
tice, to see if that object had been effected. We are bound
in justice to say where are the plays, to produce and en-
courage which we gave you this exclusive privilege?
Where are the immortal tragedies, where are the chaste and
brilliant comedies.—(Cheers.) You were to preserve the dig-
nity of the drama from being corrupted by mountebank ac-
tors and absurd performances ; you have therefore, we trust,
driven jugglers and harlequins from the national stage; you
have admitted no wild beasts; you have introduced no fire-
eaters and sword-swallowers ; you have preserved the
dignity of tho national drama inviolate ; you hive left it
such as it was when you took it from the hinds of Ben
Jonson or Shakspeare : for, if you have not dune this,
then you have not fulfilled that object for which we took
from your brethren those privileges we have intrusted to
you. When they looked round and saw the dioramas, and
the cosmoramas, and the jugglers, and the horses, and the
elephants, and the lions, which have been poured forth
upon the stage, they could not but feel that the dignity of
the drama had not been preset ved, and the object of these
patents bad not been fulfilled. Seeing then that the
reason for suppressing the minor theatres no longer existed,
seeing that the object of these patents had not been
real zed, they were enabled to take a broader view of the
question, and to recognise the tnonstrous injustice that the
law would inflict on the public; for was it not absurdly
unjust to say to the immense and scattered population of
this metropolis, you shall go only to two theatres for the
harmless recreation of a play—no matter how remote the
habitation of the play-goer—no matter how incon-
venient for the purposes of hearing and seeing the
arrangement of the Theatre. Paddington and Pim-
lico, Westminster and the Tower Hamlets, Mary-
!shone and Shoreditch, were all to disgorge their
play-going population in the direction of Covent-garden
or Drury-lane, where, when they had at last arrived, they
would find not perhaps a tragedy, not perhaps a comedy,
but a very fine scene in a very bail melo-drame_or,
perhaps, if they were in eminent luck, a couple of lions
and a diorama, by way of keeping up, lie supposed, the
dignity of the national drama.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Was not this, indeed, unjust to the public, whom it de •
prived of all the numberless advantages of competition?
Was it not unjust to the author and the actor, whom it
limits to so overstocked and narrow a market? But it
might be said that the minor theatres, notwithsanding
their illegality, continue to exist, and that this injustice to
the public was not therefore committed. But would not
that fact alone be sufficient ground for inquiry ? The small
theatres were liable to serious penalties. They were told
that those penalties would be enforced. If enforced, what
injustice of the law ; if not enforced, what mockery of the
law.—(Hear, hear.) In either case amendment was
necessary. Laws that were iniquitous should be altered ;
but so also should laws that were impracticable. Why
expose the laws to be at once hated for their doctrine and
laughed at for their impotence? Why have all sound and
fury in the theory, signifying nothing in the practice ?
Besides, if you cannot, in the teeth of public opinion,
shut up the small theatres, why nut let them assume a re-
spectable, a lawful character? What encouragement do
you give to the proprietors of the minor theatres for a re-
gular and continued spirit of enterprise while this uncer-
tainty hangs over their head? What unfair injustice this
precarious uncertainty of the law causes ! One proprietor
breaks the law with impunity. The Lord Chamberlain,
however, honours the illegal theatre with his presence—
sanctions the illegality by his patronage—and another
proprietor, as at this moment is the case, may be suddenly
prosecuted and cast into prison for the crime of earning
his bread exactly in the same manner as his brethren, but
not exactly with the same fortunate impunity. Let us
then have these laws defined, and clear and uniform in
their application. Let us know what theatres shall exist,
and what performances they shall be allowed to act ; and
do not let us keep up iniquitous uncertainty, which, while
it renders the property of the minor theatres so precarious
and illegal, fritters away by contraband far more than it
would by open rivalry the property of the great theatres,
involves them in constant prosecutions and constant
litigations, and makes the public ridicule as impotent, or
hate as tyrannical, those who enforce the laws, and sym-
pathise as martyrs or heroes with those who defy it.—
(Hear, hear.) A great cause of the deterioration of the
drama, it was universally acknowledged, was to be found
in the size of the theatres. It was in vain to expect plays
that should not depend upon show, in theatres where it
was impossible to consult the ear. The enormous size of
these houses rendered half the dialogue lost to half the
audience, and thus the managers had been compelled to
substitute noise and glitter, and spectacle, and the va-
rious ingenuities of foil and canvass, for wit which would
be three parts inaudible and for pathos which
would scarcely travel beyond the side-boxes. It was ab-
surd to hope that the drama can be restored until it was
exhibited at houses of a convenient size. But what was
the caue of the overgrown size of these theatres? Why,
the patents; no sooner were the proprietors of the two
great houses in possession of the exclusive right of enter-
taining the town, than they naturally enlarged their houses
to take in as much of the town as possible. Ths patents
encouraged them to hope for unreasonable profits, and their
only care was to find room for all the new comers whom
they supposed would be driven into their net—quite for-
getful, that though you may shut up a commodious theatre,
you cannot fo tee the public to yawn and shiv, r in an in-
convenient one. But it was said that the proprietors of
one or both of the large theatres intend to diminish the
size of the theatres, and to make them reasonably less ;
but while that would be a very fair arrangement for one
part of the public, would it be fair to the other part ?
while it would be very fair to those who were admitted,
would it be fair to those who were excluded ?—( Hear.)
Would it be fair to the public to say, " You shall go only
to two theatres ;" anethen to reduce the size of those
theatres, so that only a very small part of the public cool,
be admitted ? So if you diminish the size of the house
you will elevate the character of the drama—a nese
impetus will be given to the stage, people will be able
to hear and see better—many more persons than a
present will be desirous of going—but where are they t.
go ? Exactly at the time that you will increase the
' number of the frequenters of the theatre, you wil
diminish the accommodation afforded them. Su ths
the two houses are in this diletunia, either they tou•
retain their present size and the legitimate drams
must continue debased or .be banished, or they mu-
' s'a;a size and commit a greater injustice to th
°a-- 'ion to the greater improventes

•.!ie theatres in order to restore the drama, you must in-
•.i+e the number of the theatres in order to receive the

die.—(Hear, hear.) Now there was also another
iint he should touch upon—viz., the authority of the
,rd Chamberlain, and more especddly that of the Dra-
itic Censor. It may be remembered, that when Sir
tobert Walpole brought in the Bid commonly called the
'lay-house Bill, in :which the authority of the censor is
.n• the first time settled and defined, Lord Chesterfield said,
his celebrated speech on that Bill, that we were about
give to the Lord Chamberlain, an officer of the House-
old, a power more absolute than that which we would
\ tend to the Monarch himself.—(Hear.) lie was at a
s to know what advantages they had gained by the
rant of this almost unconstitutional power. Certainly,
ith regard to a censor, a censor upon plays seemed to
.tin as idle and unnecessary' as a censor upon Woks. Let
ein look back for a moment. Although until Walpole'e
:WI the powers of a censorship seem to have been onset-
'esi and doubtful, it is certain, at least, that the Master
f the revels at first, and the Lord Chamberlain after -
cards, exercised a right similsr to that of a censor ;
ehole passages in Davenant and in Mas,inger were ex-
,unged by the Master of the Revels ; and now mark
iow really useless, so far as morality was concerned, were
he pains he took upon the subject; they knew what those
,iassages were ; they contained only some vague po-
litical allusion, and did not contain a line of
the indecencies and immorality that might be
found in those plays. And why ? Because a
,tensor sees only with the eyes of his contemporaries, and
because the custom and temper of the times allowed the
indecency and the immorality. The only true censor of
the age was the spirit of the age.—(Cheers ) When inde-
cencies were allowed by the customs of real life, they would
be allowed in the representation, and no censor would

forbid them. When the age did not allow them, they would
not be performed, and no censor need expunge them, Fist
instance, while the licenser at this moment may strike out
what lines he pleases in a new play, lie has no power by
strict law to alter a line in an old play. The most inde-
licite plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, of Wyche! ly or Far-
quhar, may be acted unmutilated, without submitting them
to the censor ; hut they are not so acted, because the good
taste and refinement of the age would not allow tbeem....a
because, instead of attracting, they would disgust an
audience. The public taste, backed by the vigilant Am°,
nition of the public press, may, perhaps, be more safely
trusted for the preservation of theatrical indecorums than
any ignorant or bungling censor, who (however well the
office may be now fulfilled) may be appointed hereafter ;
who, while he may strain at gnats and cavil at straws, will
be without any other real power than that of preventing
men of genius from submitting to the caprice of his opi.
nions.—( Hear, hear.) Now there were two other polnte
for the Committee to consider, viz.. the number of theatres
that should be allowed, and the performances they shall
be permitted to exhibit. With respect to the first, he
would read a short passage from Sir W. Scott's Life of
Dryden, which was applicable in itself, and emanated from
no common authority : "I do not pretend," says Sir W.
Scott, " to enter into the question of the effect of the
drama upon morals ; if this shall be found prejudicial, then
two theatres are too many ; but in the present woful de-
cline of theatricrl exhibition, we may be permitted to re-
member that the gardener who wishes to have a rare diver-
sity of a certain plant, sows whole beds with the species ;
and that the monopoly granted to two huge theatres must
necessarily diminish, in a complicated ratio, both the num-
ber of play-writers and the chance of anything very excel-
lent being brought forward."—(Cheeis.) Now, he must
confess, for his own part, that he thought the public likely
to be the best judges as to the number of theatres. On the
one haud, he did not think there would t e more theatres
than could find audiences to fill them ; on the other hand,
he thought there ought to be as many the itres as the
public were willing to support. Now with regard to the
performances, he did not think it would In wise to lay
any restrictions on the legitimate drama; for, putting out
of the question the difficulty of defining what tire
legitimate drama really was—a difficulty that would
alien the door to new disputes and new litigations—
lie thought it was absurd to allow what was frivo-
lous and to forbid what was great : to allow vaude-
villes from the French, and not to allow tragedies
from Shakepeare. It was unjust to the public to suffer
what was indifferent of its kind, and to forbid what was best
of its kind—to allow what might lower and enervate the
public taste, and not to allow what might reline and exalt
it. He would wish them to leave the stage free from such
restrictions; and in so doing lie did not ask them to tty
any novel experiment, he only asked them to leave it such
as it was in the days of 'Messinger, and Beaumont, and
Fletcher, and Jonson, and Shakspeare, when seventeen
theatres were constantly open to a metropolis a tenth part
of the size of London at present, and a population by it
hundred degrees less wealthy and intellectual.—(flear-
He now came to the last point he should touch upon, viz.,
the state of the laws regarding dramatic copyright. As
they had heard a great deal in that House of the advantage
of the close boroughs, in returning to Parliament men of
intellectual habits, whom some Hon. Members declared
were the representatives of literature—(Hear, hear)—what
had they done for the literature they represented ? The
whole state of their laws regarding literary property was
infinitely more harsh and inconsistent than that existing
in France ; but the state of the laws regarding drarnalic
copyright alone would long be a proof how indifferent this
House had. been to the general claims of that property,
which ought to be the most sacred of all, because it en.
courages all—because it ennobles all—because it produces
all—the property that is derived from intellectual exertion.
—(Cheers.) The instant an author published a play, any
manager might seize it—mangle it—act it—without the
consent of the author—and without giving him one six-
pence of remuneration. If the play was damned, the
author incurred all the disgrace—if the play succeeded,
he shared not a farthing of the reward. His reputa-
tion lay at the mercy of any ignorant and selfish ma-
nagerial experiment ; he might have published a play
that he never meant to be acted, that lie knew would not
bear to be acted ; but if, as in the case of Lord Byron,
Ms name alone would attract an audience, he was dragged
on the stage to be disgraced against his will, and was
damned for the satisfaction of the manager and the dignity
of the national drama. He had no power—no interest
in the results of his own labour—a labour, often more in-
tense and exhausting than the severest machanical toil.
Was this a just state of things The commonest inven-
tion in a calico—a new pattern in the most trumpery
article of dress—a new bit to our bridles—a new wheel to
our carriages—may make the fortune of the inventor ; but
may the i
notrelieve
ia invention
groat
o thef thep
ofivneersttyof h
dramat e
inventor.in the world
i
If
Shakspeare himself were now living—if Shakspeare him-
self were to publish a volume of plays, they might be
icted every night all over the kingdom—they might bring
thousands to actors, and ten thousands to managers—and
Shakspeare himself, the producer of all, might be starving
in a garret.—(Hear, hear.) In france, the state of our
laws in this respect was scarcely believed. There no
work of a living author could be performed at any
theatre, provincial or metropolitan,. without his formal
consent, on the penalty of forfeiting the whole profits to the
author. In Belgium, the same law existed, and in both
countries the author's family, his widow, his children suc-
ceeded to his intellectual property, and for a certain number
of years shared in its profits.—(Hear, hear.) By this a
two-fold purpose was served—justice is done on the one
hand, and emulation excited on the other. Should they,
than, be more backward—more unjust than our neigh-
bours—(Hear)—and should these poor authors who had
le much to struggle against—in the common literary ca-
lamities of a slender income and a diseased frame—be the
only man in the whole community literally denied that
necessary blessing pledged by every free State to its sub-
jects, viz. the security of property? He trusted he had
established sufficient ground for the appointment of a
Committee, but as one of the English public, and as a
Member of that house, he was desirous that the age—
the nation—and the Legislature should be freed from the
disgrace of these laws on the' one hand, and the want of
law on the other, which were so glaringly unjust in them-
selves, and so pernicious to one of the loftiest branches of
intellectual labour.—(Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.

Sir CHARLES WETIIERELL thought many of the obser-
vations of the Hon. Member for St. Ives were a sort of side-
scene slap at Lord Brougham. He had, after an elaborate in-
quiry—having called the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas
and Mr. Justice James Parke to his assistance—given his judg-
ment and advice to the Crown, that the Crown, though it
might allow the minor theatres to keep open for a longer time
than at present, ought not to allow them to keep open all the
year. That was saying, by implication, that the Crown ought
not to consent to the establishment of additional theatres. Lord
Brougham had then, by implication, decided that the inu:tipli-
he
cmiia,otteitoirotftcnroifft.,sgrma,ap,leplrotyhineutaintnr.geescaewsascasornmiloyint
iaitcdtie:ehis,ahtbholeew.
evvrleeirre,oobgbaejcteiacyuteesedoitfto
was
e
Crown. If a case of abuse were established, he would then
support the Hon. Member; but to hear what was said on the
subject, it might be supposed that the liberty of the people was
invaded—that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, so much
was made of dramatic liberty being infringed and violated. He
admitted that the stage was deteriorated—that lions and tig rs
had taken the place of actors—that camels and eameio,
now walked over the boards, and that the whole theatre
parted from the classic models of Shakspeare and I
Admitting this, however, what was the reined-
multiply the theatres. Then we should have

m the Tower Hamlets and ia the Finsbury

have lions and leopards in Lambeth,

stead If purifying them, would only render what was bad incu-
rable and intolerable. Again, with respect to the composition
ef pieces ; Did the Hon. Member suppose that multiplying
theatres would improve that ? At Paris there were thirteen
or fourteen theatres, and he had never heard that it made any
modern Corneilles or Racines. Another branch of the subject
was the moral discipline of the theatres. If the licensing sys-
tem was carried on oppressively he would be ready to remove
it. But no case had been produced of its having been impry-
perly exercised.
Mr. LAMB would not enter into any competition with the
Hon. Member for St. Ives on the subject of dramatic criticism,
for though he had formerly known something of the matter,
he had not of late frequented the theatres much, and he knew
he should be no match for the lion. Member. Ile admitted
that there was a great falling off in the drama, owing, he be-
lieved, to the falling off of patronage, and the encroachment of
the minor theatres, which had brought theatrical property into
a most inefficient and inconsistent state, and showed that a full
inquiry into the subject was needed.
Mr. W. BROUGHAM thought that his Hon. and Learned
Friend (Sir Charles Wetherell) had taken rather a mistaken
view of the effect of the Lord Chancellor's decision in relation
to the question before the House. At the time the reference
was made to the Lord Chancellor, assisted by the Vice-Chan-
cellor and other Judges, the question to be discussed was, as to
the state of theatrical property as it then existed, the validity
of the patents, and the interest of certain creditors of the larger
theatres in the result ; and judgment was given, partly on the
:;round of validity, and partly on that of the interest of
the creditors. But the question which the Lord Chan-
cellor bad to try was one thing, and that which it was
the duty of the House to consider was another. It was for
the House to inquire into the state of the law, and also into
the propriety of that law, with a view of rectifying it if evil ;
whereas, it was merely the duty of the Judges to pronounce
their opinion upon the law as it stood—(Hear, hear)—and
this was the sole object of his Hon. Friend's motion for a Com-
mittee. He did not imagine that, when Shakspeare wrote,
there were such large theatres as Drury-lane and Covent_
garden. He was sure that the drama was not benefited by
them. His Hon. Friend near him (Mr. G. Lamb) said, that
the Chamberlain had power to license theatres ; but the
Chamberlain had only power to authorise the performance of
burlettas.--[Mr. Lamb here made some observations to the
Hon Gentleman, which were inaudible in the gallery.] His
Hon. Friend differed with him in opinion, but he had care-
fully considered the laws relating to the subject, and must
a there to his own opinion,which was most distinctly that every
theatre performing the drama, whether with Chamberlain's
license or without, is liable to an information.—(Hear.) lie
gave his most hearty concurrence to his Hon. Friend's motion.
Mr. .1. CAMPBELL bore testimony to the correctness of
the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for Southwark, as
to the illegality of the present peformances of the minor
theatres. The law was violated night after night. Every per-
son felt the necessity of such amusements. Even the Hon.
and Learned Member for Boroughbridge, as soon as he had re-
covered from his extraordinary fatigues on behalf of the Reform
A laugh)—feeling the necessity of some relaxation,
would probably go to the Olympic—(A laugh)--he would go to
Madame Vestris in order to recruit himself—(Much laughter)
—and he was sure that Hon. and Learned Member would
never sanction anything which ought to be put down by law,
he anticipated that they would have even his vote. There was
much objection to the great theatres, also, on the score of im-
morality. It was impossible to take a modest woman there,
without the greatest danger that something might occur.
Mr. HUME said it was quite wrong that two theatres should
h sse exclusive patents. These patents had been granted in the
drays of monopoly ; we were now emancipating ourselves from
other monopolies, and he hoped we should also emancipate
ourselves from this.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SIIEIL said that there were three subdivisions of the
question before the House ; the first was, whether a dramatic
eensorship should exist, by which a previous approbation by a
licenser should be rendered requisite ; the second, whether cer_
tain theatres shored enjoy a monopoly of the dead as well as
living genius of the country through their exclusive right to re-
present regular tragedy and comedy ; the third, whether means
ought not to be taken to give dramatic writers a privilege ana-
logous to that which was conferred through the medium of co-
pyright on other authors.—(hear, hear.) With respect to the
first question—the propriety of making a preliminary license
indispensable to the production of a new play, he thought that
a series of continued facts was preferable to any speculation.
In Ireland, a license for a new play had never been required.
lie was delighted to hear the Hon. Member for Boroughbridge,
at-tellies great political achievements, engaging in a discussion
like this. He was in truth a sort of ambulatory encyclopaedia,
there was nothing he did not touch, and he touched nothing
which he did not adorn. But he owned that to his opinion on
dramatic questions he was not inclined to attach any very great
importance, when he found the Hon. and Learned Member
mistaking Steel's comedy of the dollSCiails Lovers for Addi-
son's Cato--(Loud laughter)—and how could he have made
such a mistake with regard to Cato? Was he not himself the
great stoic of Toryism ? Was not Boroughbridge a modern
Utica ?—(A laugh.' Did not the lion. the Learned, and ex_
ceedingly dramatic Gentleman realize in the opinion of his
parts, the famous line,—
" A good man struggling with the storms of fate,
And greatly falling with a falling State ?"
—(Loud Cheers.) The lion. Gentleman had not only been a
critic on the drama, but a great performer in those scenes
which were now enacted in the political theatre ; and he (Mr.
Sheil) was bound to acknowledge that, whatever might have
been the defects of his character, the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman had at all events adhered to the Horatian rule of units,
and observed the celebrated injunction of the poet--
4 servatur ad idnum,
Qualis ati incepto processerit, et sibi constat.—(Cheers.)
Mr. E. L. BULWER replied.
Sir E. SUGDEN objected to the appointment of Committees
for the investigation of subjects which the Government ought
to take into their own hands. The motion was then agreed to,
and a Select Committee was appointed.
STATE OF IRELAND.
Mr. GORDON postponed to a future day the motion of
which he had given notice for this day, upon the state of
Ireland.

BEER BILL.
Mr. TREVOR rose for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
Beer Bill.
Mr. F. PALMER supposed that the object of the Hon.
Gentleman was to revive the old monopoly, which had disgraced
the country for so many years, when the brewers used to meet
every year to regulate the strength and the price of their beer.
Lord ALTIIORP could not agree to the principles on which
the Hon. Member proposed to found his measure. The present
motion he felt it his duty to resist.
Mr. HUNT also opposed the motion.
Mr. WEYLAND had seconded the motion merely that it
might he discussed. He thought that the beer-houses were in-
jurious to the community, and ruinous to those engaged in the
trade. He recommended his Hon. Friend to withdraw his
motion.

Mr. TREVOR, not from any factious motive, but from a
sense of duty, would persist in his motion and divide the
House.

Against the motion ... 109
For it l2
Majority —97
'rhe original question was then put, and the amendment, as
au addition thereto, was adopted.—Motion agreed to.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
}louse adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S.

Comparing books occupied so much time yesterday afternoon
that very little actual business was done ; we can, therefore only
quote the odds offered or taken at the close of the room

DERRY.
4 to 1 agst Mr. Ridsdale's Trustee
7 to 1 agst Mr. Batson's Mixbury
8 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Margrave
10 to 1 agst Mr. Vansittart's Perion
13 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Beira)), (taken(
13 to I agst Lord Mountcharles's Minster
13 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's St. Giles
21) to 1 agst Mr. Forth's Gratis (taken)
20 to 1 agst General Yates's Daft Jamie
22 to 1 agst Mr. Chifney's Emilia).
25 to 1 agst Lord Worcester's colt
30 to 1 agst Sir G. Heathcote's Damascus (taken)
to 1 agst Lord Egremont's lot
33 to I agst Lord Chesterfield's NonCompos
2000 to 25 agst Mr. Rush's Reveller colt (taken)
even on Sir Giles agst Damascus and Daft Jamie
500 to WO on Perion agst Beiram
509 to 400 on Non Compos agst Spencer
OAKS.
4 to 1 apt Mr. Chifney's Emiliana
5 to 1 agst Lord Lowther's Whimsey
11 to 2 agst Lord Exeter's Galata
10 to 1 agst Mr. Nowell's Lady Fly
11 to 1 apt Captain Byng's Dryad
'2O to 1 agst Mr. Sadler's Eleanor
'2O to 1 agst Mr. Mill's Kate
20 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Somnabule
20 to 1 agst Mr Biggs's Miss Badsley
The field agst three.
ST. LEGER.
A to 1 agst Mr. Richardson's Fang
10 to I agst Lord Kelburne's Georgiana C.
14 to 1 agst Mr. Beardsworth's Ludlow
15 to 1 agst Mr. S. L Fox's Julius
Id to 1 agst Mr. Ridsdale's Trustee