HC Deb 11 March 1839 vol 46 cc229-43

On the order of the day being read for going into a Committee of Supply,

Mr. T. Duncombe

rose to move as an amendment in pursuance of the notice he had given, the following resolution: That this House having on a former day agreed to the following resolution, viz.—That it is the opinion of this House, that during Lent no greater restrictions should be placed upon Theatrical Entertainments within the city of Westminster, than are placed upon the like amusements at the same period in every other part of the metropolis. That this House learns with regret and surprise, that her Majesty's Ministers have thought fit to interfere with the wholly unfettered discretion which the Legislature has been pleased to vest in the Lord Chamberlain with respect to theatrical entertainments within the city of Westminster, by directing that officer of her Majesty's household so to exercise his discretionary authority as to defeat the manifest object of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament. He wished particularly to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Ministers with regard to the vote come to on a former evening on this subject, and he thought he should be able to show, to the satisfaction of the House, that not only had that vote been entirely disregarded by her Majesty's Ministers, but they had acted, with respect to it, in a manner wholly unprecedented, and so as to defeat the express object of the vote. If, on the oc- casion to which he alluded, he had been defeated in his motion,—if the majority had been against him, and said that the city of Westminster ought to be placed on a different footing from any other part of the kingdom as regards theatrical entertainments, he should have humbly bowed to the decision. But the contrary was the fact—the battle had been fairly fought and fairly won, and those who supported him on that occasion had a right—the people of Westminster had a right—to expect some results and to derive some benefit from that victory. What was then the result? He had been accused of attempting to establish that a resolution of the House of Commons was paramount to the law of the land. He was not such an idiot as to maintain any such proposition. What he maintained was, only what had been laid clown by a competent authority, that the Commons' House of Parliament was established, not to be a control upon the people, but to be a control for the people upon the executive. If the Lord Chamberlain had acted upon his own authority in interfering in a manner contrary to the vote which had been come to, he might have pleaded ignorance of that vote. Her Majesty's Ministers had no such excuse to plead, and it was they who had interfered, and, as he contended, in a most unconstitutional manner, to oppose the resolution of the House of Commons. That was proved by the letter which had been sent to the lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, from the Lord Chamberlain's-office, and which stated, that her Majesty's Ministers had directed that no other than the usual performance of oratorios should take place on the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. What had Ministers to do with the officers of her Majesty's household? He maintained that their conduct bad been most disrespectful to the House of Commons, and was an infringement of the perogative of the Crown, besides being most injurious and oppressive to those whose means of subsistence were at the mercy of the Lord Chamberlain. By the statute of the 10th of George 2nd. this jurisdiction was for the first time vested in the Lord Chamberlain; previously to that period it was confided to an officer called the Abbot of Misrule. It had been probably found that that officer abused the discretionary power intrusted to him, and it was consequently transferred to the Lord Chamberlain by the act of Parliament in question, but that act only required that every play and interlude should be submitted to the examiner fourteen days before it was acted, and that it should be lawful for the Lord Chamberlain from time to time, as and when it should seem fit to him, to prohibit the performance of any play or interlude for gain or reward. No particular days were mentioned in the act; the Lord Chamberlain had as much right to prohibit plays on Tuesdays and Saturdays, as on Wednesdays and Fridays; it was a matter entirely in his discretion. For his own part, he believed that it was not the Lord Chamberlain who had interfered with these performances; it was altogether wrong to place the blame of this proceeding either on the shoulders of the Lord Chamberlain or of the Bishop of London. The blame rested with those who had sought on this occasion to exert a new and most unconstitutional power—the blame rested upon her Majesty's Ministers, who had just as much right to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain as with that of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, or the Archbishop of Canterbury; and the House ought to say to these Ministers, "We will not suffer you to usurp the prerogative of the Crown, as you are attempting to do." It might have been expected that an administration calling itself liberal would have paid some attention to the decision of those upon whose support they usually relied. He would give a precedent of recent date, which showed the weight which ought to be given to the resolution of the House on this subject. What was done last year, after the resolution to which the House had come, upon the motion of an hon. Baronet on the other side of the House upon the subject of negro emancipation? What did the Under Secretary for the colonies say in asking the House to rescind the vote to which it had come? Then, too, let the House recollect, the majority had been only three, the numbers being ninety-eight and ninety-five, whereas upon his (Mr. Duncombe's) motion, the numbers were ninety-four and seventy-four—a majority, give him leave to say, very much greater than her Majesty's Ministers were on all occasions able to command. Upon the occasion to which he alluded, the hon. Baronet who had moved the resolution said he would leave his resolution in the hands of her Majesty's Ministers. He had done the same; he had asked the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department to take the matter into his consideration, and offered, if he would promise to take any steps to remove the evil complained of, to leave the matter in his hands. His offer, however, had been treated with perfect contempt. The Ministers told him he might bring on his motion in whatever form he pleased, and they would always oppose it. Upon the occasion of the motion of last year, to which he had referred, the Under Secretary for the colonies said, if it had been a question relating to the domestic concerns of the country he should not have thought it necessary to recommend the House to reconsider its resolution. Was not the present a question relating to the domestic concerns of the country? He was not going on this occasion to re-open the general question with respect to the observance of Lent, and the absurdity of the custom of which he complained; all that he had done before, and had also shown how Lent was observed in her Majesty's Palace; how it was observed by her Majesty's Ministers, and by the bishops; and he had only asked that the people of Westminster might be at liberty to observe Lent in an equally agreeable way. But if he had known what was going on at the time that he was addressing the House on the occasion, he might have added to his list an entertainment given in Sussex by a noble Duke, for whom no one felt a greater esteem and personal respect than himself. That noble Duke had entertained 700 or 800 guests on a Wednesday in Lent, and amongst the assembly there were fifty-nine clergymen, who assisted in the observance of Lent in Sussex. He would ask the noble Secretary for the Home Department, if he had consulted the Bishop of London about this? That right rev. Prelate, who thought it right to deprive the people of Westminster of their amusements, would probably think it also right to deprive these fifty-nine clergymen of their gowns. He, however, thought that those rev. Gentlemen deserved no such persecution; they were, in his opinion, doing nothing but what was worthy of their station and of the occasion which had called that assemblage together. Far be it from him to make any ill-natured reflections upon the subject; he joined in the acclamations of that assemblage, and in their wishes for the welfare and happiness of their noble host. But it must not be forgotten that they had met together on a Wednesday in Lent. He really thought that this ought not to have been made a question of religion. The Church ought to be too firm to depend upon the persecution of a few poor players. He cared not how many supported his motion, or whether he was in a majority or minority, being satisfied that, whatever became of his resolution, he had done his best to maintain the honour and independence of the Commons' House of Parliament. The hon. Member concluded by moving the resolution.

Lord John Russell

begged to make a short statement to the House of what had occurred on this subject, and he would then leave it to the House to decide as it thought proper. It was perfectly true that the hon. Member for Finsbury at the beginning of the Session had asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers, or of the Lord Chamberlain, to take off any of the restrictions which had hitherto been observed on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent relating to theatrical entertainments, and that an answer was given that there was no such intention. That answer certainly implied that her Majesty's Ministers had not thought proper to advise her Majesty that those restrictions which had been placed, as it was said, from time immemorial upon theatrical entertainments during Lent should be taken off; and, after reflecting on the decision which he had then come to, he had no reason for supposing that they had judged ill in not giving her Majesty such advice. He was sure, on the contrary, that if, without any cause or general wish expressed, the custom which had hitherto been observed, and the restriction which had hitherto been imposed during Lent, had been relaxed by her present Majesty, many persons would have been shocked, and many others even of those who the other evening voted for the resolution of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, would have declared that the present Ministers of the Crown, who had given such advice to her Majesty, had less respect and less regard for the established observances during Lent than had former Sovereigns and former Ministers in this country. He had never said, nor, indeed, had many other Members who the other evening voted the same way as the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, said, that these restrictions were thought necessary as a religious question, but as a question of respect for established usage; and he was sure that if her Majesty's Ministers had proposed to remove these restrictions, such a proposal would have been considered as wholly uncalled for and unnecessary, and that it was done on purpose to disregard what had hitherto been established. He had no hesitation, therefore, in saying that he did not repent the course he had taken in answering the hon. Gentleman's first question. The hon. Gentleman then presented a petition to the House, and immediately moved upon it an address to the Crown, and on a division there were 161 Members against the motion, and 72 for it. The hon. Gentleman next brought forward his proposition in another shape—in a resolution of somewhat equivocal meaning recited in the resolution then before the House. That resolution was carried by a majority of 92 for the motion to 72 against it; so that on the first motion there were 161 against, to 72 for; and on the other motion there were 72 against, to 92 for—in short, that of the whole number of Members who had voted, a much larger number had voted against the motion on the whole, than had voted for it. On both divisions, although probably many persons were the same in each, only 164 Members had in any way supported the resolutions, whilst on the very first division 161 had voted against it, and if they took the two divisions, no less than 233 Members had recorded their votes against the alteration. Therefore, when the resolution was carried, he certainly saw no reason to presume that it embodied the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the question moved last year relating to the negro apprenticeship. The first motion was made by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Sir George Strickland), and the House decided against it. Then the House gave a favourable opinion in a division on a motion brought forward by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Warwickshire. But even that was not considered decisive, and then a subsequent majority of that House was in favour of the first determination. And he had certainly expected, that in the present proceeding, the hon. Gentleman would have asked the opinion of the House as to what was to be done with respect to his resolution. But he had no objection, for the information of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, to state what he had done upon the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, thought, that he had unduly and improperly interfered with the decision of the Lord Chamberlain. Now, two or three years ago the Lord Chamberlain, on some question which then occupied his attention, told his late Majesty that he would like to consult the Secretary of State for the Home Department; his Majesty consented, and he was consulted about, as he believed, an application from a gentleman named Rainer, who wished to open a theatre in Westminster, and whose application was supported by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury. [Mr. T. Duncombe remarked, that the application had nothing to do with Lent.] Another question arose as to the time the theatres should be open, and the Lord Chamberlain had come to him, and had said he would be glad of the advice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department before he decided; and he thought that the Lord Chamberlain was justified in making the reference, and that when called upon, he was bound to give his opinion. Therefore, as to her Majesty's Ministers interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, or with the discretion of the Lord Chamberlain, it was an entirely chimerical apprehension on the part of the hon. Gentleman, because from time to time the Lord Chamberlain had asked the opinion of the Secretary of State, and by his advice he had acted, and he must say, that upon questions which affected the good order and the police of the city of Westminster, it could hardly be said to be so unconstitutional in practice as the hon. Gentleman implied. So when the late resolution had been come to, the Lord Chamberlain had again applied to him for direction and advice, but, as the question had come before the House, he did not like to give his own advice solely upon a question on which the House had passed a resolution, and he had, therefore, consulted his colleagues. They were of opinion, that this resolution of the House of Commons, after the adverse decision the other way, was not such a resolution as would justify the Lord Chamberlain in advising the Crown, or on his own authority immediately to act upon it, or to do any thing till the question was further considered. Then Mr. Bunn told them that, on a mere resolution of that House, he had incurred considerable expense. Why, the House had come to a resolution that negro apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August, but what would have been thought of a person at Demerara who should have said, "The House of Commons has passed a resolution on which I have commenced acting. I will disregard the prerogative of the Crown, I will set aside the statute law of the realm, and I will proceed on a resolution of the House of Commons?" With every respect, therefore, for the resolutions of that House, he little thought, that they could supersede the law of the realm or dispense with the prerogative of the Crown. When, therefore, the lessee of Drury-lane advertised a performance on a Wednesday and Friday in Lent, the Lord Chamberlain, with the sanction and the concurrence of her Majesty's Ministers, did inform the lessee of Drury-lane, that these performances could not be sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain, and he conceived, that the Lord Chamberlain was perfectly justified, and that her Majesty's Ministers were perfectly justified, in their interference. He thought, that if they had acted otherwise, if they had said, that a resolution of the House of Commons had been altogether sufficient, they would not only have acted wrong in this trifling case, but they would make a precedent which would be very injurious to the proceedings of Parliament and to the prerogative of the Crown. Mr. Bunn seemed to treat with contempt the prerogative of the Crown, and had no respect for her Majesty's Ministers, but another person connected with the patent theatres, Mr. Macready, had paid that respect, for having seen the account of the resolution of the House, he submitted to the decision of the Lord Chamberlain, and said that he would he glad to know what course it was intended to pursue; and the Lord Chamberlain informed Mr. Mac-ready, that, in the present proceedings, there would be no alteration, but that the whole question of the theatres was under consideration, and that it would be decided upon before the ensuing season. He would, therefore, state to the House, the general intentions of the Government with respect to this question. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, had induced the House to declare, That it is the opinion of this House, that during Lent, no greater restriction should be placed upon the theatrical entertainments within the city of Westminster than are placed upon the like amusements, at the same period, in every other part of the metropolis. He had on a former occasion explained the position in which the theatres in the other parts of the metropolis were, but he would repeat, that so long as they performed the regular drama, they acted without any authority, and, in fact, their performances were altogether illegal. It had been shown, by a decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, that if an actor tried to recover his salary, and the manager endeavoured to make him perform his contract, he had no power to do so, because the magistrates were prohibited from allowing theatres to be opened within twenty miles of the city of Westminster, and therefore their performances on Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as those on Mondays and Tuesdays and Thursdays and Saturdays, were unauthorised. This was a position in which he did not think the question should continue, and he did not think that he who lived in any other part of the metropolis should have theatres any more than those who resided within the city of Westminster, but at the same time he was of opinion that good theatrical entertainments were as good and wholesome amusements as could he provided for the people, and that they ought generally to be promoted. Upon this belief, therefore, the Government had determined that they would either introduce a bill, or that in some of the police hills now before the House, they would propose a provision that those magistrates who now had the power of giving licences for music and dancing in some parts of the metropolis should also have the power of granting licences for theatrical entertainments. He would not decide that this power should be given to the magistrates particularly, for that was a matter which would hereafter be considered, but he declared his belief that the power of procuring good and respectable theatrical entertainments should extend throughout the metropolis. The question, then, was whether the restriction upon the performances on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent should be observed, and he begged to say that he thought it would have been most unwise and indecent on the part of the Ministers if they had proposed a motion which should have had the effect of changing the system. But when this came to be the question in dispute they must look at what was the general mode of observing Lent in the metropolis and in the country generally; and it must be admitted that, whether they looked to what took place in London, or to what took place in Sussex, which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman, they saw that persons of the most serious views with regard to the observance of religion, and that a great portion of the clergy themselves, no longer observed Lent in the same manner in which it appeared to have been observed in the early times of the Reformation. They saw, then, that the custom in this respect was changed, and as it was observed that the clergy had not objected to give dinners and to go to balls during the period in question, it was not inexpedient to make a change or to cease to keep up the restriction which now existed. They were not, indeed, disposed to make any change during the present season. The Lord Chamberlain had made his order with regard to Drury-lane Theatre, and if it were disobeyed he would put his authority in force; but, by making a change in the law hereafter, they would remove the existing restriction. The hon. Member had made this matter the subject of a motion for a vote of censure on her Majesty's Ministers, for their course of proceeding on this matter, but he might have taken one of two courses in preference to bringing it forward in this shape—he might have moved upon the last resolution, proposing an address to the Crown, which would have brought the matter under the attention of the Crown, and would have necessarily procured an answer, or the hon. Member might have proceeded upon the resolution, and introduced a bill to the House to change the practice. These were the obvious courses for the hon. Member to adopt, but he had not chosen to take either, and had rather preferred snapping at the proceedings, in order to give him the means of censuring the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers. Now, be certainly did not object to the hon. Member attacking the ministers, but he thought that he had better reserve his censure for a matter of greater importance than this. He did not think that the subject was one of very great importance, the question being the salaries of the performers and the amusement of the public on one side, and the decent performance and observance of Lent on the other.

Mr. Leader

said, that in the first place the answer of the noble Lord had been as unfair to his hon. Friend—he could prove it—it had been as unfair to his hon. Friend, as his conduct had been injurious to the theatrical performers of Westminster. It would seem that the noble Lord would wish the public to suppose that this observance was to be regarded as some sort of religious ceremony, not only in a particular part of the metropolis, but all over the country; while it was perfectly notorious that it was an observance which was only kept in Westminster, to the material injury of persons connected with the theatres in that part of the metropolis. If it were a religious observance, it should be kept up every where. Those persons who, as the noble Lord said, would be shocked at its removal, must be persons having that sort of conscience which was described by an hon. Member opposite some nights ago as a sort of India-rubber conscience, unless they were likewise shocked at the performances which took place in the parish of Lambeth, and all over the country. The noble Lord's comparison of the divisions on this subject was also most unfair. Hon. Members were surely aware that the opposition against his hon. Friend arose, in the first instance, from his having infringed a point of form in bringing forward his motion at an improper time, when it interfered with the presenting of petitions. Therefore, and not on account of the motion itself, had so many hon. Members voted against his hon. Friend. In the course which his hon. Friend now pursued, he thought that he was perfectly right, and that he could have pursued none other; for her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to treat the resolution of that House with utter contempt, in acting and causing the Lord Chamberlain to act in direct opposition to it. The noble Lord treated it as a trifling matter, but it was no trifling matter to the theatrical performers, who lost one-third of their earnings in consequence of the observance being continued. The altered tone of the noble Lord, however, though it did not say much for his consistency, gratified him much, because the persons who were injured would gain by that inconsistency. The noble Lord had talked much the other night of the Established Church, and the Bishop of London, and of the great discouragement religious observances would meet with if the proposal of his hon. Friend were adopted. The noble Lord had now, however, given the House to understand, that as Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent were not particularly well observed, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a bill in order to sanction theatrical performances everywhere, and at all seasons. Although the performers of the theatres of Westminster might suffer this season, it was at least a gratification to think, that next year those absurd regulations respecting Lent would be totally abolished.

Mr. Warburton

thought, that as the noble Lord had shown so strong a feeling of conciliation, those who supported the motion of his hon. Friend would be showing a very bad spirit if they did not meet the noble Lord with the same feeling.

Sir R. Inglis

said, that notwithstanding the concession made by the noble Lord opposite to the hon. Member for Finsbury, he did hope that those who, on a former night, concurred with the noble Lord, would have, on the present occasion, an opportunity of giving a similar vote. He hoped that those who voted with him would not be guilty of the gross injustice and inconsistency of pronouncing a censure upon the conduct of Government for pursuing that which they, with the Government, held to be the right line. The question was not whether they acted up to their principles. [The hon. Baronet was interrupted by "Hear, hear."] The only thing which made him suspect himself of being in the wrong, was the circumstance of his receiving the cheers of assent, from the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Members for Dublin and Kilkenny. He repeated, that the question was not whether they acted up to their principles, but whether those principles were sound. And the proof that we were all hypocrites or bigots, individually, would not decide that point. The players had this in common with the Ministers, that both classes were called "her Majesty's servants;" hence the former were placed under the direction of the Lord Chamberlain, and probably had larger salaries; they could, therefore, the better bear the loss of not being fully employed. At any rate, they knew the con- tract on which they served, they had more distinction in their profession: and that distinction was, perhaps, considered by them as a compensation for not receiving some ten or twelve days pay in the course of the year, which might be earned by their brethren elsewhere. On the present occasion he did not mean to trouble them with many remarks as to the question whether Westminster, as such, ought to continue to be subjected to regulations from which Lambeth was free; or whether, on the other hand, those regulations ought to be extended to Lambeth; but, on behalf of the nation, he wished to take the liberty of inquiring if the public time were to be devoted to questions of this nature, and other subjects, as he conceived, equally unimportant? What would any foreigner, or any Englishman, think on reading their debates, if he saw that they were one evening spending their time in a discussion about two pounds of candles; on another whether two theatres in the city of Westminster were to be opened or closed on two days of the week? In the mean time, what became of the great interests of England? He did not hesitate to say, that they disgraced themselves by wasting so much time upon such inquiries. It had been alleged, that the mode of observing Lent contended for by those who agreed with him, was a mere relic of barbarism which ought to be abolished; but was it forgotten, that this was a barbarous usage for which a great proportion of Europe and a great proportion of the people of England entertained no trifling respect? And it was therefore with regret that he heard the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord opposite, widely different as it was from the sentiments expressed by him in his speech on the former night, and even in the earlier part of his speech on the present occasion.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that the hon. Baronet took up the time of the House by endeavouring to show that the subject was one which ought not to occupy its attention. For his own part, however, he thought that the time of the House was never thrown away when it was employed in redressing the grievances of any individual. With regard to the question of the observance of Lent, he thought that a mistake had been made, because, instead of its being contended that the people should fast, the object was to make the doors of the theatre fast. When the sub- stantial observance of Lent had been already done away with by so many persuasions of Christians, he thought it was a ridiculous relic of ancient times to endeavour to continue any part of it in this country, and he thought that it was going rather too far, and it was wasting the time of the House, to call the stopping of the performances of two theatres on two nights of the week a relic of antiquity.

Mr. Plumtre

rose amidst loud cries of question and divide. He said that he saw with pain that the noble Lord had given way to the hon. Member for Finsbury; for, he thought, that great violence would be done by the adoption of the noble Lord's proposition to the feelings of a great portion of the inhabitants of this country.

Mr. T. Duncombe

inquired whether the noble Lord would pledge himself that next year the theatres would not have this restriction upon them which prohibited them from performing [cries of "No, no!]. If that were so he should of course withdraw his motion, but if he did not explicitly understand this to be intended, he should pursue a different course. He hoped that if the noble Lord pledged himself to adopt the measure which he had suggested, the subject would not again be referred to until some distinct proposition was made.

Lord J. Russell

begged leave to say that he had only stated the general intention of the Government, but he did not give any undertaking upon the subject. He should decidedly object to the motion being withdrawn.

The Speaker

does the hon. Member propose to divide?

Mr. T. Duncombe

Yes, it appears to me that I am exactly where I was before. I do not wish to give the House the trouble to divide, but I do not consider the matter settled merely because the noble Lord says he will bring in a Bill on the subject. I wish to know whether he has the sanction of the Bishop of London, that he shall propose the measure he has suggested. I repeat that I do not wish to give the House the trouble to divide, but I have a right to ask this question. On a former occasion the noble Lord said, he had consulted the Bishop of London, and I simply ask whether that right rev. Prelate has given his sanction to the proposition which the noble Lord has made. I know I have no right to reply, and therefore I ask the question.

Mr. C. Buller

said, that his hon. Friend ought to think himself exceedingly triumphant. His triumph could not be more conspicuous, after the noble Lord had given way to the decided opinion of the House and of the country. He must, therefore, request his hon. Friend to look to the impolicy of dividing the House, when the only result which could follow would be the loss of his amendment, by those hon. Members who had come down with an intention to support him, voting in opposition to him.

Mr. Duncombe

said, that under the circumstances he should withdraw his amendment.

Lord J. Russell

should object to its being withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

Back to