§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he had first to present a petition, signed by some 1,400 gentlemen of the highest respectability, who stated that they and their families had been in the habit of hearing lectures on astronomy, delivered at the Opera-house during Lent, Passion week, and other seasons. The petitioners complained of the 840 course adopted by the Lord Chamberlain in refusing to allow the Opera-house to be open for the purpose of enabling Mr. Howell to deliver lectures on astronomy. The petitioners prayed that the House would adopt such means as they thought proper to give them that opportunity of hearing lectures on science which had been so suddenly withdrawn. The method by which he proposed to give effect to that petition, and that which he had presented on last Monday, from Mr. Howell, was to move an address to her Majesty, that she would be graciously pleased to command the Lord Chamberlain to withdraw the order for closing the Opera-house during Passion-week. The House would recollect that during the last session of Parliament a discussion had taken place as to the performance at the theatres during the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. The House had come to the decision that on those days the performance should be allowed to take place; and, in consequence of that decision, the Lord Chamberlain had issued an order at the commencement of the present Lent to all the theatres under his jurisdiction, that they would not be required to close during Lent, except on Ash-Wednesdays and Passion-week. It had been the intention of Mr. Howell to deliver lectures during that week at the Opera-house, on astronomy, but an intimation had been sent to him that those lectures would not be permitted. A letter was then sent by the solicitor of the Opera-house, asking upon what principle that prohibition had issued. That question seemed rather to have puzzled the Lord Chamberlain and his officers. They returned no answer to the question as to the principle. Mr. Lumley received an answer, dated 5th March, that is the date of his letter, informing him that it was not intended to allow any of the theatres within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain to be opened during Passion-week, and that, therefore, no licence could be granted for entertainments at the Queen's Theatre. On March 6th, the following day, Mr. Lumley again wrote, requesting to know whether the prohibition extended to lectures on astronomy, giving as his reason for the application that the lessee, who was under very heavy engagements, was accustomed to derive a considerable profit from astronomical lectures during Lent; and he (Mr. Lumley) could not believe that the prohi- 841 bition was intended to apply to them. The answer to that letter again evaded the question, and merely repeated the terms of the Chamberlain's reply of the 5th of March, and added, that it was not intended to allow any of the theatres in his jurisdiction to be opened in Passion-week "for any entertainments whatever." It was to be observed, that the entertainment proposed to be given was not of a dramatic but of a scientific, and, to a great degree, religious nature. For the last century, it had been the custom to give entertainments of a more dramatic nature, under the name of oratorios, on the Wednesday and Saturday in passion-week; when the whole orchestra and company of the Italian Opera-house (sometimes with Madame Grisi at their head) performed. From 1806 to 1822, Walker's Eidouranion was exhibited at the Italian Opera-house in that week, and Mr. Adams's lectures delivered there up to 1837. From that year up to the present Mr. Howell had exhibited his orrery and delivered lectures in that theatre in Passion-week. He wished to give further proofs of the anomalous proceedings of the Lord Chamberlain. Up to the year 1836, lectures had been given within his jurisdiction during Lent on ventriloquism, and what was called Shaksperian readings. During Passion-week, from the year 1760 to the year 1772, tea-parties had been given at the Haymarket by Mr. Foote, and an entertainment called "Collin's Evening Brush," took place formerly during Lent in Leicester-fields. He might instance several other facts of the same sort, but he wished particularly to call the attention of the House to what took place in 1835. During the Thursday and Saturday in Passion-week, in that year an oratorio was performed at Drury-lane. He could not, therefore, see why the Lord Chamberlain had refused the license in question to Mr. Howell. He had himself applied to the Lord Chamberlain when Mr. Howell failed, on the subject, but he could get no satisfactory answer. The sic volo sic jubeo principle seemed the only one on which the Lord Chamberlain seemed disposed to act, but he trusted that the House would not concur in the opinion of the Lord Chamberlain, and that they would not deprive the public of a rational amusement. Such nonsense ought not to be any longer countenanced. He would add one word with regard to the opinion of the public press on the nature 842 of Mr. Howell's lectures. That opinion was, that those lectures contained powerful appeals on the greatness and the wisdom of the Creator, in maintaining the planets in harmony, and binding them in obedience to his wonderful law. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not, therefore, see why the public should be excluded from the benefit of attending the lectures in question.
§ Mr. Fox Maulesaid, in opposing the motion he could assure his hon. Friend he did so without any feeling that astronomical lectures were not justifiable during the season to which he alluded. He opposed it on the principle that his hon. Friend having drawn the attention of the House some time ago to theatrical performances, the Lord Chamberlain, in conquence of their decision, had laid down a rule that during Lent all the theatres might be open except on Ash Wednesday and Passion week; and such being the rule laid down, he thought his hon. Friend had not any right to complain of the Lord Chamberlain, that he would not break the rule for the purpose of allowing for five days the delivery of astronomical lectures. When his hon. Friend, in 1837, had brought forward the motion to which he had alluded, his opinion was, that the theatres should not be open in Passion-week for any purpose. In that, there was no exception made for astronomical lectures or other entertainments. Mr. Howell might remove his orrery out of the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction, to the Argyle-rooms, Hanover-square rooms, or Exeter-hall. He thought, that if they opened the door on this subject ever so little, other entertainments of a more objectionable character would soon follow. He was borne out in that assertion by the fact, that in 1832, a licence had been granted for mechanical exhibitions. Now, he apprehended such exhibitions were quite as innocent as astronomical lectures. But what happened? Why, they were immediately accompanied with music and such entertainments. He thought, where a rule had been laid down for closing all the theatres during this week, it should not be departed from on light grounds.
§ Mr. Humewas sure that any person who had heard the hon. Gentleman's defence, must see that he was as anxious as any one to have these obstacles removed. The hon. Gentleman said, will you open the door? but his hon. Friend, the Mem- 843 ber for Finsbury, had shown that the door had been open for more than half a century. He believed there was no other building in which astronomical apparatus could be so conveniently exhibited. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his objection, or that, at all events, the House would overrule it.
§ Lord R. Grosvenorfelt it his duty to oppose the motion for the address. Whilst on this subject he must say, that Passion-Week was a week which ought to be set apart by a Christian Legislature for holy ordinances; and he regretted to find that a right rev. Prelate had selected such a time for bringing forward a discussion in another House calculated to excite feelings of rancour and party animosity.
§ Mr. Goulburnconfessed that he was very much astonished, that a motion for a simple address to the Crown should have been made the vehicle for an attack upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nothing could be more unjustifiable than to cast an imputation on that right rev. Prelate for intending to bring forward a motion in the other House. He (Mr. Goulburn) agreed, that if the Houses of Parliament were to make a rule that they would not sit in Passion-week, it would be an improvement on the system at present adopted; but if Parliament declared they would sit during Passion-week, he did not think that the Prelates of the Church ought to be charged with a neglect of their duty for raising their voices in Parliament in favour of the Church. As to its having been a party motion, he would observe that he did not know whether the right rev. Prelate considered the bill in question a party measure or not, but the debate in the other House of Parliament, the other night, showed that it was there considered anything but a party question.
Mr. Vernon Smithobserved, that nothing could be more unfair than the observations just made by the right hon. Gentleman. Whether the motion made by the Archbishop of Canterbury was a party motion or not, it certainly was a strong motion of attack upon the measures adopted by the Government with respect to one of our most important colonies, thereby giving rise to dissension and religious animosities. His noble Friend had not complained of the Archbishop of Canterbury bringing forward the motion, but he had objected to the time he bad chosen. The fact was, 844 the Archbishop had chosen the very latest day before the holidays for bringing on the motion.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he had little to reply, for there had been no argument used against him. His motion had nothing to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury. If it were at all connected with the Church, it was so by the fact that several clergymen had signed the petition which he presented.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 49: Majority 24.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Acheson, Viscount | Lushington, rt. hn. S. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Lynch, A. H. |
| Ainsworth, P. | Mackenzie, T. |
| Archbold, R. | Miles, W. |
| Baines, E. | Miles, P. W. S. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Morgan, C. M. R. |
| Barneby, J. | Morris, D. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. | O'Callaghan, hon. C. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | O'Connell, D. |
| Berkeley, hon. G. | O'Conor, Don |
| Broadwood, H | Packe, C. W. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Parker, M. |
| Brotherton, J. | Parker, R. T. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Pattison, J. |
| Coote, Sir C. H. | Pease, J. |
| Curry, Sergeant | Pinney, W. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Dundas, C. W. D. | Rundle, J. |
| Easthope, J. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Ellice, E. | Salwey, Colonel |
| Ellis, W. | Slaney, R. A. |
| Fielden, J. | Smith, G. R. |
| Fitzalan, Lord | Staunton, Sir G. T. |
| Fort, J. | Steuart, R. |
| Gisborne, T. | Stock, Dr. |
| Greene, T. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. | Thornley, T. |
| Hall, Sir B. | Turner, W. |
| Hamilton, C. J. B. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Hastie, A. | Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H. |
| Hawes, B. | Wall, C. B. |
| Hector, C. J. | Wallace, R. |
| Hill, Lord A. M. C. | Walsh, Sir J. |
| Hobhouse, T. B. | Williams, W. |
| Hoskins, K. | Wood, B. |
| Hughes, W. B. | TELLERS. |
| Jones, J. | Duncombe, T. |
| Lushington, C. | Hume, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Ashley, Lord | Eastnor, Visct. |
| Bagge, W. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Bailey, J. | Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. |
| Baring, H. B. | Grattan, J. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Brownrigg, S. | Grimston, Viscount |
| Buller, E. | Grimston, hon. E. H. |
| Clerk, Sir G. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. |
| Dick, Q, | Hepburn, Sir T. B. |
| Herries, rt. hn. J. C. | Palmer, G. |
| Hogg, J. W. | Powerscourt, Viscount |
| Holmes, hon. W. A. | Round, C. J. |
| Hope, hon. C. | Rushout, G. |
| Hope, G. W. | Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A. |
| Houstoun, G. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Hurt, F. | Sanford, E. A. |
| Kelburne, Visc. | Shaw, right hon. F. |
| Lygon, hon. General | Smith, A. |
| Mackenzie, W. F. | Smith, R. V. |
| Maclean, D. | Style, Sir C. |
| Mahon, Viscount | Thompson, Ald. |
| Mordaunt, Sir J. | Villiers, Viscount |
| Neeld, J. | TELLERS. |
| Pakington, J. S. | Seymour, Lord |
| Palmer, R. | Maule, hon. F. |