Surrey Sessions.
The Times, 1824-10-21T00:00:00

Yesterday appllcation was made by Mir. Williarms, to whom the lastlicence for dramatic representations was granted, fora renewal ofhis licence. It was stated, that he had -expended nearlv 5,ao1. in improvinig that theatre, and that he looked to future seasons for remuneration. Mlr. PAGE (the magistrate) said, the Court fied nothing to do Fith Mr. WVilliama's cxpenses at the theatre. SIr. Williams'., coansel said, his client meant merely to show that he had benefitted the property, which he found to be in a bad condition. No imputation had been thrown upon the applicant, and therefore it was to be presumed that there could be no ohjcctton. to the renewal of the licence. Sllr. TP ESSIGER said, he should not object to the licence, but he should insist upon its being placed in the hands of Atr. West, the proprietor of the theatre. This was no more than accordant with the terms of the lease. Mir. S#'hrEa said, he wished, betore the licence wus granted, to aseertaifi whether there was any thing objectionab3e In the management; and asked whether a piece called Th e Hertfrod. shlire Tfagedy had not been aced at the theatre. The exhibition was of the most abominable kind, being founded upon an atrocious combination of circumstances with which all the world were now familiar - and it was said that the identical gig and horse, to whieh allusion had been so often made In the investigation, were produced at the perfonmance. Air. Williams admitted that the piece had been played, and la. mebted that ithad. Mfr. Williams's counsel said, he never was more iurprised thtn he was at the manner in which attempts had bcen made to Punish hiR client for performing that piece. He was In the Court of King'sC Bench when a criminal information was moved against that gentle- man. Certainly such a piece should not have been played. After, however, the proceeding was instituted, it wa3 totally dropped. It was upon the ground that a prejudice would be excited against Thurtell in the mninds of the jury, that the criminal intormation had been moved for. A iMfagistrate said, that circumstance liad nothing to do with 'what was before the Court. The Coansel said, the public press furnished the materials. Mr. S9IMNEYL said, if the thing was bad, it was of no importance how they oriWinated. It was the business of the learned couneel to confine himself to the mere alpplication for the licence, vwithout en. tering into the merits of the case. It was doubly objectionable, oin account of its effects on the morals of the people. The Counscl said, he at least might be allowed to aecount for conduct which appeared objectionable to the Court. MIr. R. JAcKsON said AIr. Williams himself might offer any excuse he should think neceswary, but his counsel eould not put him. self in the lace of his client before the bench. ilMr. Williams's counsel was proceeding, but several magistrates interrupted him, and declared that he could not be heard on the fiub'ect. P4r. B2N>atT %wished to know whether it was mcant to be argued that ihe newspaper reports justified the representation on the stage?P Mtr. SumNEn said the Court had alreaay determined not to hear any discussion of the topic by counsel. Hle then. asked how long the pieae was represented ? MTr. ' Williams said no more than twice. HIe stopped it ipon findling that there was a feeling against it, and did not renew it un- til after Thurtell was executed. Alr. Suasrfn asked whether Ar. Williams bad not received a notification from the Secretary for the Home Department to stop the performance, and whether he had not disregarded the order ? Mr. Williams declared that he had never recelved any cornmuni. cation from the Secretary of the Home Department on that or any other subject. Air. SPICER did not think that the argument of imimorality was very applicable as an ob*jection to the renewal of the licence. One of the most moral plays represented a circumstance as full of horror as those recorded of Thurtell, and nobody objected to George Bae n. well as a piece likely to hurt the public moraln. AIr. BEXNET r Aid not mean to oppose the licence, but he hoped the manager w7ould receive a lecture against the practice of bring. ing forward such disgracefal exhibitions. Ile hoped that nofurther vfiolation.s of decency would take place at our theatres. The licence was then granted to Air. Williams. COBURO THEATRE. Application was made en the part of aMr. Glossop for a licence to perform. The charge of having perfarmed a piece founded on the murder of Weare was also brought against this proprietor, but upon his promise that he would never again produce any thing of the kind, the licence was granted. ASTLE'S AMPH5TtEATIE. The licence was granted to Mrs. Astley, asr. Davis, and the three Misses Gill. VAUXHALL. Upon the application for the renewal of the musical licence for this place of amusement, Ilr. R. JACKSON moved that the proprietors shouid be required to refuse to supply refreshments to, or to admit visiters to the Gar- dens, after the hour of one o'clock. Sir. BENNET and other magistrates said, that such a regulation wouhl hare the effect of shutting up the gardens altogether. Mr. JACKSON sa.i, that his objection to the dancing was, that it hani an Immoral tendency. Mlr. BENNET said that except the dancers used improper nmo- tions the dancing could not he immoral. He delighted to see all classes mixed together in enjoyment, and he had frequently seen the daughters of respectable shopkeepers join in the amusement object- ed to. Mr. JACxSON said, that if Mlr. Bennet would declaretthat hehad seen suchl persons dancing at Vauxhall, the objection Abould be with. drawin. Mir. BENNET repeated the assurance, and the license was renew. ed without further opposition. SURRRV_ESR SSION5. TIZE SURREY THEATRZE.