Lords Sitting of 5 March 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Hereford, from the Guardians of the Hereford Union, for an alteration of the Poor-laws.— By the Bishop of London, from Finchingfield, against the Grant to Maynooth.—By the Earl of Rosebery, from the Town-Council of Edinburgh, for an alteration in the Import Duties, and from Medical Practitioners of Stirling, for Medical Reform.— By the Duke of Buckingham, from Saint Eval and Saint Coval, Cornwall, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Stratford, from Rathmullan, for the Abolition of Patronage in the Scotch Church.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Duke of Argylewished to state to their Lordships that if no other Peer undertook the task, he should feel it to be his duty to introduce a bill upon the subject of patronage in the Church of Scotland.
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that the bill which he had brought forward in the last Session of Parliament upon the subject of Church patronage, had had the advantage of the support of the noble Duke. He took it for granted, therefore, that the measure which the noble Duke now proposed to introduce could not be very materially different from that which their Lordships had already considered. To any proposition coming from the noble Duke, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) should be disposed to pay the utmost attention. At the same time, he could not help saying, that he thought the noble Duke would find the task he proposed to undertake somewhat more difficult than he was at present aware of. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) knew it had been said, and by some of the leaders of the General Assembly, that there were ambiguities in the measure which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had introduced, which, of course, might be removed by any subsequent measure brought forward by the noble Duke. If the noble Duke thought lit to introduce a bill for that purpose, it should receive his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) most respectful attention. With respect to the anti-patronage desire, on the part of the dominant party in the Church of Scotland, he could only say, that he most cordially wished, that the noble Duke might be right, and he wrong upon that point. He was, last year, of the same opinion as the noble Duke. At that time, he believed, that the dominant party did not wish for the abolition of patronage; and he expressed that conviction over and over again, in their Lordships' House, fully believing the declarations, that were made to him upon the subject. But when he
1338
now saw synod after synod, and presbytery after presbytery, all adopting by large majorities petitions praying for the total abolition of patronage, whilst in the last Session of Parliament, the very same parties contented themselves by limiting their prayer to the point of non-intrusion, he could not but think, that a complete change had taken place in the views of the dominant party in the Church, and that their desire now was for the abolition of patronage alone. There was not a petition presented to the House in the course of the present Session, that did not pray for the total abolition of patronage. When the noble Duke mentioned, that he had been in communication with a deputation of the committee of the General Assembly, by whom he was informed, that the desire of the dominant party did not extend to the total abolition of patronage, he asked him who those deputies were, and the noble Duke mentioned the names of two gentlemen who particularly described themselves as not entertaining a desire for the abolition of patronage. Now, in August last, a great public meeting for the abolition of patronage took place. At that meeting violent resolutions were adopted. The meeting pledged themselves solemnly, before the face of God and man, to use their utmost endeavours to procure the abolition of patronage, and an association was formed, whose exertions were to be confined to that object alone, all secular objects, as they called them, being laid entirely aside. Upon the committee appointed to carry those resolutions into effect, and to form other similar associations throughout Scotland, he found the name of one of the two gentlemen mentioned to him by the noble Duke. Again, he found, that so late as the last week of November, 1840, the presbytery of Edinburgh met, and a motion was made by a very influential person, in a very violent speech, for the abolition of patronage:—
"The question of patronage,(said this speaker), was now thrown loose from the difficulties which were formerly said to attach to it. Formerly anti-patronage men were met with a cry, that they were making a change— that it was impossible to get a suitable settlement, and a great many weak pretences; but all these were now out of place—they were now in a situation in which they would no longer tolerate patronage; but were compelled to go to Parliament and demand its abolition."
Now, both the rev. gentlemen mentioned by the noble Duke were present at that

1339
meeting, and voted for the motion. How, after that, they could assure the noble Duke, that they did not desire the abolition of patronage, he was at a loss to conceive. From the circumstances to which he had alluded, coupled with many others, he had been led to draw the inference, that the non-intrusion feeling had given way to an anti-patronage feeling in the minds of the dominant party in the Church of Scotland. He sincerely hoped, that they might be ashamed of the course they had taken, and that the noble Duke might be right in his estimate of what their wishes really were. If so, no one would be more happy than he to assist the noble Duke in legislating upon the subject.
The Duke of Argylethought it very extraordinary that he should have received such strong assurances from the gentlemen to whom he had referred within the last ten days. If the dominant party in the church should continue to press their views upon the subject of non-intrusion without aiming at all at the abolition of patronage, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to bring forward a measure in the course of the Session.

MASQUERADES.
The Bishop of London,seeing the Lord Chamberlain of her Majesty's household in his place, begged to put a question to him respecting certain performances which, as he was informed, had lately been given at Drury-lane theatre. Their Lordships would be aware that formerly dramatic representations were not allowed to take place at the larger theatres on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. Two years ago, in consequence of a motion in the House of Commons, the practice was altered, and dramatic performances were now allowed every evening during Lent, with the exception of Wednesday and Friday in the first and last week. He was not then going to express to their Lordships the feeling with which he viewed that vote of the House of Commons. He looked upon it as a hopeless task to seek the revocation of it, and therefore would allow it to pass without comment; but he believed it was not understood at the time that the House of Commons came to that vote, that the leave to keep the theatres for dramatic performances was to extend to another kind of performances of a far more objectionable nature, namely, to masquerades or bal masqués, one of which had already taken place, not, it was true, upon
1340
a Wednesday or Friday, but upon a Monday, during the present season of Lent. It mattered not much upon what day an act that could not be redeemed had taken place; but it became of greater importance, in his view of the question, when he knew that it was to be repeated, he believed, that very evening at the same theatre. If that were really the case—if an exhibition of this nature were again to take place, he hoped it would be without those offensive circumstances to which he was about to direct their Lordships' attention. The exhibition of last Monday week was not merely a bal masqué, of the nature of which, indeed, he (the Bishop of London) professed himself entirely ignorant; but a species of entertainment in which a variety of performances were combined, connected with some of which there were, as he was told, circumstances of gross and offensive indecency—so gross and indecent, indeed, that they were received with the hisses and clamours of the more respectable part of the audience. But it did not appear that the disapprobation so expressed produced the desired effect. One of the offensive performances to which he alluded was exhibited in the feats of a troop of French dancers and prostitutes. This performance was so utterly at variance with all that, he was happy to say, the respectable part of the community in this country still considered decent and proper, that they would not tolerate it. It was loudly condemned even by the very class for whose entertainment it was prepared—relaxed as the morals of that class unfortunately were. These performances on Wednesdays and Fridays, during Lent, were not tolerated in Roman Catholic countries, and he hoped that Protestantism in this country would not so far relax its severer features as to allow the feelings of the people to be shocked and their morality to be undermined by the exhibition of performances which even Roman Catholic countries would not allow at this sacred season of the year. He regretted to say, that the Protestant religion of late years had fallen very far short of the strictness of the Roman Catholic in these respects; he hoped it would not be permitted to fall still lower. Hitherto it had been considered that the Lord Chamberlain of her Majesty's household had the power of preventing improper performances at whatever time they might be appointed to be represented. It appeared, however, that the authority of that officer, as applied to entertainments of the

1341
nature of those of which he was now speaking, was questionable. It was also very generally considered, but without the least foundation, that a person holding the station which he held in the Church, had authority to prevent performances of an improper kind. That was a complete mistake: he had no authority of that kind. All that he could do when he heard of any improper performance at the public: theatres was to communicate with the Lord Chamberlain, and to request that officer to take the necessary steps to suppress it. And in justice to those who had filled the office of Lord Chamberlain during the time that he had held the see of London, he must say that no representation of his, relative to dramatic performances had ever been unattended to. From the noble Earl who now filled the office, every communication that he had felt it his duty to address to him upon such subjects had invariably been met with the readiest and promptest attention. He was anxious, on this occasion, not only to express the opinions which he entertained of the demoralizing effects of such representations, upon the habits and character of the middle and lower classes; not merely to enter his protest, as a minister, against any permission on the part of a Christian Government to such performances; but to vindicate himself and the Government in the eyes of the Christian public, and to give the noble Earl an opportunity of stating, as he was sure he would be able to state, that the performance to which he had alluded had not taken place with his permission or sanction, and that if it were repeated, it would be at least with his decided disapprobation, if it were not in his power to visit the offenders with punishment.
The Earl of Uxbridge,in answer to the question of the right rev. Prelate, begged to state that the performance of the 22nd February, to which the right rev. Prelate had referred, took place, not only without his sanction, but even without his knowledge. His attention was first called to the subject by the announcement of a second entertainment of a similar kind. He then desired a letter to be written to Mr. Dunn, the secretary of the Drury-lane committee, of which he held a copy in his hand. The noble Earl read the letter to this effect: that the Lord Chamberlain's attention having been called to a bill announcing a masquerade at Drury-lane theatre, for Friday evening, he (the Lord Chamberlain) desired to intimate to the committee, that
1342
no licence had been granted by him for such performances. That letter was written by Mr. Martin, the chief officer in the Lord Chamberlain's office, on the 1st of March. On the following day he received a reply from Mr. Dun, to the following effect:— That the committee had done the utmost in their power to meet the object of the noble Earl, and had endeavoured to obtain a postponement of the performance to some other evening. They regretted, however, that the difficulties of obtaining such a postponement were found to be quite insurmountable. They begged to observe, that the performance partook more of the character of a private ball than of a public masquerade, and they submitted that it fell within the class of entertainments allowed to be performed on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. They added, that no pains should be spared to bring the entertainment within the strictest bounds of decorum. He considered that letter quite satisfactory, and hoped that the information which the right rev. Prelate had received as to the character of the last performance was much exaggerated. He (the Earl of Uxbridge) could only say, that he had done the utmost in his power to check any improprieties that might attach to such performances, but he had no authority to suppress them. The Act 25 George 2nd, c. 28, which empowered the Lord Chamberlain to grant licences for dramatic performances made no provision and gave him no power for repressing entertainments of the class to which the right rev. Prelate objected. In the present case, therefore, the Lord Chamberlain was powerless.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it certainly appeared that the noble Earl had done all in his power; but if it were not in the noble Earl's power to remedy glaring abuses of this nature, then he must complain of the state of things which placed it out of the Lord Chamberlain's power. The character of the performances given by one evidently not fastidious upon matters of this kind was thus described in the columns of the Morning Post:—
"Each successive masquerade clearly convinces us that England is not yet ripe to this sort of amusement. There were all kinds of dresses, splendid and fantastical, Turks, Greeks, Romans, Yankee Doodles, Hindoos, and even the ecclesiastical,' which Byron tells us was prohibited at Venice when Beppo ogled his wife. But the one thing wanting was the joyous spirit of raillery and repartee, which is only to be met with in the foyer of the bal de l'opera. There was nothing either of the

1343
humour, but much of the objectionable, to revive our reminiscences of the Bal Chicard; and an improper and injudicious attempt made by some French canaille to introduce the Can Can was very properly nipped in the bud by loud and long-continued expressions of disapprobation from all sides of the House. In fact, the gestures were such as the Charivari says are défendus par la charte et lâ decence, and would not even be tolerated at the Chaumiere; but these ill-advised denizens of Paris not having the fear of the gendarmes before their eyes, fell into the error of taking liberty for licence, and conducted themselves in such a manner as to elicit the public expression of disapprobation to which we have referred."
If the Lord Chamberlain were powerless in a matter of this kind, he thought, that it would be the duty of the noble Marquess who presided in the Home Department to inquire whether the law did not provide the means of repressing annoyances of this nature, and whether the Attorney-general should not be directed to take the necessary steps to punish the offenders. For his own part, from what he had heard of these performances, he entertained no doubt that they ought, in the strict sense of the word, to be regarded as dramatic entertainments, and thereby to come within the provisions of the statute, 25 George 2nd. At all events he thought that the noble Marquess, the Home Secretary, ought lo take the advice of the law officers of the Crown upon the subject.
The Marquess of Normanbywould certainly make inquiries upon the subject. If exhibitions of an indecent nature were made at the theatre, he had no doubt but that the law would furnish the means of punishing those who were engaged in them. The matter should be inquired into.
The Earl of Glengall,as chairman of the committee of the theatre, might, perhaps, be permitted to say that when the committee became aware that that lessee was about to give masquerades, they recommended that such exhibitions should not take place, but under the lease which they had granted they had no power of preventing them. That lease would expire to-morrow. When the committee learnt from the reports in the newspapers, that conduct of an improper character had been pursued by some of the people who assisted at the entertainment, they immediately made inquiries upon the subject, and were informed that the reports were very much exaggerated. However, they insisted upon it, that if the masque-
1344
rade were repeated on Friday evening, or any other evening, such performances as those, which had excited the disapprobation of the audience, should not again take place, and they received an assurance from the lessee that such representations should not be repeated. He had no doubt that that assurance would be faithfully acted upon. The committee were exceedingly anxious before and after the receipt of the letter of the Lord Chamberlain, to prevent any entertainments whatever on Wednesday and Friday evenings, during Lent; but though they were unable to accomplish that wish, it was understood between them and the lessee, that no performance should take place that could in any respect be considered as indecent or indelicate.
Subject at an end.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengallrose, pursuant to notice, to move for copies of correspondence between the Poor-law commissioners and landowners at Clonmel. For the last forty years no measure of greater importance had passed than the act which gave Poor-laws to Ireland, and it was of the utmost consequence that those laws should be administered with impartiality. He wished he could believe, that such had been the line of conduct pursued by the commissioners, but he thought he should be able to prove that such was not the case. The subject comprised two parts—one, the conduct of the commissioners with respect to the appointment of the returning officer; the other, the result which ensued from that conduct. On neither of these points did he think the commissioners had acted with impartiality. He thought the commissioners had neglected their duty in the appointment of a violent political partisan, and in refusing all inquiry, by means of which heavy legal expenses had been saddled upon the Clonmel union. The noble Earl concluded by moving for certain papers connected with the subject, including the correspondence that had taken place between the Poor-law commissioners in Ireland, and the guardians and landowners of the Clonmel union.
The Marquess of Normanbyregretted that his noble Friend had given no notice of his intention to bring the subject before their Lordships. A few days would have enabled him to communicate with the Poor-law commissioners. He was per-

1345
fectly ready to listen to any suggestion for the appointment of a better class of returning-officers, and he had no objection to the production of the papers when they should be necessary for the public service.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that, considering all that had passed upon the subject of the Poor-law, and the confidence expressed by many of their Lordships that the commissioners would fairly and honourably exercise the powers intrusted to them, he thought that those officers would have properly fulfilled their duty. He would now give notice that on Monday he would submit a motion to their Lordships for an exact copy of the minutes of the Poor-law commissioners, under the particular clause of the Act of Parliament under which, he said, all the correspondence ought to be recorded. He thought it necessary that their Lordships, should be furnished with an exact copy of those minutes in order to show how these mistakes had arisen. Such matters required explanation. He had supported the measure, and many noble Lords had done the same, in the full confidence that it would be fairly and properly carried into execution. He, for one, had been greatly disappointed with the working of the measure, and he felt certain that it was owing to the Poor-law commissioners not having performed their duty. With that he charged them, and he should make his motion on Monday, in order to show their Lordships how one clause of the act had been carried into execution, and that their Lordships might be able to trace every act of the commissioners to its origin.
The Marquess of Normanby: Would the noble Duke have any objection to postpone his motion until Thursday, for the purpose of allowing time to communicate with the Poor-law commissioners.
The Duke of Wellington: Thursday be it.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it appeared to him, upon looking over the papers handed to him by his noble Friend (the Earl of Glengall), to be doubtful whether their Lordships ought to be satisfied with an explanation proceeding from the noble Marquess. It appeared that a gross breach of privilege had been committed, deserving the severest punishment. There was an official letter, of which a copy had not been given in the return, and a letter was
1346
inserted in the return which had never been sent.
The Marquess of Normanbyadmitted that a primâ facie case for explanation had been made out. If a satisfactory explanation should not arrive, it would be for their Lordships to decide what ulterior steps should be taken.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, with regard to due notice not having been given, their Lordships would remember that last year the case of the Clonmel union had been entered into twice at considerable length, and then no satisfactory explanation had been given.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.