Lords Sitting of 14 February 1862

DESTRUCTION OF CHARLESTON HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, he desired to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in reference to a report in the newspapers that a second squadron of ships laden with stone hail been despatched by the Government of the United States to be sunk in the Maffitts Channel of the harbour of Charleston. It was added that a third squadron was in the course of equipment, and was intended for a similar purpose. Now he (Earl Stanhope) desired to know whether the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had received any information from Washington respecting these rumours, and if so, what course he intended to pursue in regard to them? He had been in hopes that the former despatch of the noble Earl would have settled the question, for it seemed to him (Earl Stanhope) to have laid before the American Government, in so comprehensive a form, and with such unanswerable arguments, the considerations that ought to guide them in regard to such enterprise, that he had hoped it would settle the question. It seemed to him to be a most worthy sequel to the policy with respect to American affairs which all parties were agreed in thinking had done so much credit to the noble Earl and had so fully vindicated the honour of the country, and to the approbation which had already been bestowed on that policy he begged to add his humble meed of praise. It was difficult to see how the sinking of large ships laden with stone on banks of mud at the entrance of a harbour could end in anything else but the permanent destruction of that harbour; and it was on that ground, as far as he could understand, that the measure was originally put forward and afterwards defended. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not justified by the laws of war. War, undoubtedly, sanctioned many grievous acts, but it did not sanction any act of this kind. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not an act of war of man against man, or of nation against nation, but it was an act of war against the bounty of Providence, which had vouchsafed harbours for the advantage of commerce and for the civilizing influences of intercourse between one people and another. On this ground we were well entitled and

259
were bound to enter a protest against such acts. He wished to hear from the noble Earl whether these reports were well founded; and, if so, whether he had taken or designed to take any steps in the matter? He should also wish to know whether the noble Earl had received any communication from the Government of France on the subject, and whether the Government of France, to his official knowledge, had made any similar representations to the Government of the United States with respect to the destruction of the Port of Charleston?
Earl RUSSELL: In answer to the noble Earl, I have to state that I have received no official information beyond that contained in the despatches which have been laid upon the table of the House. This, however, is a matter so important—the sinking of vessels at the mouth of a harbour—that I cannot doubt the reports which have appeared in the newspapers. I am very happy, however, to hear the protest of the noble Earl against the permanent destruction of these harbours. When we consider that they are commercial harbours, and in time of peace and when there is severe weather harbours into which vessels can run, it must be considered a most barbarous act to destroy them. From the reply of the American Government, however, the noble Earl will have seen that these stone vessels are intended as an obstruction to the channel, and to aid the blockade, and are not intended for a permanent destruction of the harbour. In a recent conversation upon this matter with the American Minister at this Court, he told me that he believed it was not intended that there should be a permanent destruction of the harbour of Charleston, and that such a thing would be impossible, for the two rivers which run into the harbour are sure to make a channel, which it will be impossible to destroy. He added that it was only the intention of the American Government to make a temporary obstruction, and that when peace was restored the blockade would be removed. This is the only information which I have received from the American Government. As to the course which the French Government have pursued, I have only to say that I communicated to them as soon as her Majesty's Government had decided to remonstrate against this proceeding, and from M. Thouvenel we have received an assurance that the Government of the Emperor took the same view which we do in reference to this subject; but
260
whether any official representation has been made to the Federal Government I am unable to state.

METROPOLITAN THEATRES IN PASSION WEEK.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose, to call Attention to the Licences accorded by the Lord Chamberlain to the various Theatres in the Metropolis having this Year been granted with the Omission of the usual Clause prohibiting their being opened on Ash-Wednesday, and during Passion Week. He trusted that some explanation would be given for this abandonment of a time-honoured custom. As far back as history threw any light on the question, the licences of the Lord Chamberlain had always prohibited the theatres from being open for the performance of plays on Ash-Wednesday and during Passion Week. Ash-Wednesday was the first day of the period set apart by the Church for humiliation and prayer. [Viscount SYDNEY: There is no intention to allow theatres to be opened on Ash-Wednesday.] Then he would confine his observations to Passion Week. It could not be said that the prohibition of performances in that week made any inroad on the amusements of the public; nor could it be said that the lessees and proprietors of theatres had any cause to complain of it, for they took their theatres subject to the prohibition of performances in Passion Week, and no doubt their rent was fixed at a sum in accordance therewith. Neither could it be urged that many persons were thrown out of employment by the restriction; because during the time theatres were closed for performances, persons were employed in preparing them for the Easter amusements. He could see no sufficient ground for this extraordinary change. Perhaps he should be told by the Lord Chamberlain that in the licences granted to provincial theatres a provision that they should be closed during Passion Week did not exist; but surely that could be no reason for allowing the metropolitan theatres to be opened, seeing that in their management an example ought to be set to all other theatres in the country. Was the Crown to set an example of what was right, or descend to the level of that which was wrong? Their Lordships were, about two year ago, told that such was the state of religious feeling among the working classes, that not more than 2 per cent of them ever went inside a place of worship. Now,

261
although he believed that that statement was much exaggerated, yet the feeling existed to a very considerable extent. But could they hope to see that feeling changed for the better toward things sacred in their character, when they saw the responsible advisers of the Crown sanctioning this unwarrantable innovation? He felt bound to state, that in his opinion, if the country was canvassed, the people would, from one end to the other, protest against such an innovation; and he could not help expressing his great surprise that such a step as this should have been taken at a time when their Sovereign was suffering under affliction in the loss of the Royal Consort. He hoped he had said enough to show their Lordships that evil consequences would follow the course which it was proposed by the Lord Chamberlain to pursue. But whether that course should be approved or censured by their Lordships, he felt satisfied in having performed his public duty in bringing it before them.
VISCOUNT SYDNEYsaid, he rejoiced that the noble Viscount had given him an opportunity of stating to their Lordships and the country the nature of the change in the licences to theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. He further rejoiced that the noble Viscount had done this because he believed that there was generally a great misunderstanding upon the question. The noble Viscount had referred to a late national melancholy event; but the alteration in the licences was made at Michaelmas, and consequently it was long before that calamity occurred that the change was decided upon. The best answer to the question of the noble Viscount would be to describe the present state of the law. Certain theatres in the metropolis were under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and these were opened by his annual licence. The other theatres in the metropolis were licensed by magistrates, as were also the theatres in Edinburgh and Dublin, and throughout other portions of the United Kingdom. In those theatres there was no restriction as to performance during Passion-Week, or as to the nature of the entertainment. The managers of the theatres which are under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain have long complained of this anomalous state of things —that they are prevented opening their theatres in Passion Week, while adjoining theatres, and also music-halls, casinoes, and dancing-places, are allowed to
262
remain open for even unlicensed performances. As an example, he might mention that the Haymarket Theatre must close during Passion Week, while no such restriction applies to the Alhambra and other places of that description. The managers of the Covent Garden Theatre were unable to open their house, but were to go to Dublin, being at liberty to do in Dublin and Edinburgh what they could not do in this metropolis. He thought that this was an anomalous state of things, and that there was some justice in the complaints made by the managers of these theatres. Another ground which they urged against the restriction was this—that it was a great hardship to the employés—that, in fact, 1,500 people were thrown out of work by the closing of the theatres. These were the grounds on which the change referred to had been made. He was not prepared to argue the question whether all the theatres or the places of amusement in the metropolis should be closed during Passion Week, but this he would say, that even-handed justice should be done to all. If one theatre was compelled to close, all should be subject to the same restriction both in metropolis and provinces; and if the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain—in which plays could only be acted after being licensed—were to be closed, all other theatres should be closed also; and not only the theatres, but the music-halls, casinoes, and dancing-places. It was, however, for their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, not for him, to deal with that question. He would only add, that nothing could be further from his intention than to do anything that could be considered as repugnant to the religious feeling of the country, and he could assure the right rev. Prelates of his conviction, that if the theatres were opened during Passion Week, they would be conducted with becoming propriety.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was quite sure that the Lord Chamberlain (Viscount Sydney) had expressed his sincere conviction when he said that, in removing the restrictions referred to, he had no intention of doing anything repugnant to the religious feeling of the community. He had had many opportunities of intercourse with the noble Lord in his official capacity, and was satisfied that the sentiments which he had expressed were those he had always felt. At the same time he must say that the

263
reasons given by the noble Viscount struck him as being quite insufficient to justify his course of action. The Lord Chamberlain argued that the theatres under his control in the Metropolis should be under no disabilities and not subject to any disadvantages as compared with theatres in other parts of the country and with other places of amusement. He (the Bishop of London) was glad to hear that Ash Wednesday and Good Friday were excepted days. He was not sure, however, that the theatres not under the control of the Lord Chamberlain were prohibited from opening on those days. He was therefore almost afraid that if this were so, according to the noble Viscount's reasoning, in another year Ash-Wednesday and Good Friday might not continue to be prohibited days for the theatres under his control; that there might from time to time be a pressure on the noble Viscount to extend to them the liberty which the other theatres enjoyed. The entire question was really one of degree. He did not mean to say that the religious community of England would pay less attention to those sacred days whether the theatres were opened or not; but his distinct impression was that changes in that direction were very dangerous. He could not but remember the popular pressure that some time since had been brought to hear on the authorities to throw open on the Lord's day places of amusement which were hitherto closed. For his part he always considered that it was best in these matters to be on the safe side. He regretted that the Lord Chamberlain had not greater control over places of amusement generally, and considered that it would be very desirable that a reasonable and intelligent principle should be established for the regulation of all places of amusement throughout the entire kingdom.
After a few observations from Viscount DUNGANNON.
EARL DELAWARRsaid, that he had no intention of throwing the slightest imputation on the noble Viscount (Viscount Sydney), but having; had the honour of filling the office of Lord Chamberlain, he could not help saying that in his opinion the recent change would have the injurious effect of lessening the respect felt by the community for the sacred season referred to. He hoped that the noble Viscount would reconsider the conclusion at which he had arrived, as he believed that such a performance of duty would carry with it the hearty approval of the public.
The MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsuggested, that the Lord Chamberlain might make an arrangement with the managers of the theatres under his control which would have the effect of soothing the religious feelings of the community. Without entirely recalling his permission for the performance of plays in Passion Week, he might arrange that the theatres should be closed on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday immediately preceding Easter—these days being considered of a more solemn character than the earlier days of the week. The hardship which was complained of by the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain was not without precedent elsewhere. As their Lordships were doubtless aware, the theatres in France, which received a subvention from the Government, which were, in fact, the national theatres, were required to close on the three last days in Passion Week, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would feel the obligation to protect the religious observance of those days no less than in other countries. It was well known that of late years the great majority of visitors to theatres were not resident in London, but persons who visited London for a few days. Such persons would not choose Passion Week for their excursions, and therefore managers of theatres could not be so much injured as was supposed by the closing of their theatres in that week. He would also remind their Lordships that both Houses of Parliament adjourned over the last three days of Passion Week, during which time the transaction of public business was suspended. He thought that some such arrangement as he had suggested would be satisfactory, and that managers would find it to their own interest not to shock public feeling by doing that which had never been done before.
In reply to the Marquess of NORMANBY,
VISCOUNT SYDNEYstated, that the scheme of Lord Normanby could not be carried out, inasmuch as the licences for all the theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain were issued annually at Michaelmas; consequently they were issued for this year. Also, that he (Viscount Sydney) had hoped to have had the support of the noble Marquess on this occasion, as it was during the time that his Lordship held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department that the change was made as to the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, on which days the

265
theatres under the Lord Chamberlain were formerly closed, Lord Normanby having advised the Lord Chamberlain of the day to agree to this change as desired in the House of Commons.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that besides the main question brought that evening before the House, one collateral point had often occurred to him, which he would take the opportunity of stating; namely, whether it was not a great anomaly that theatres should be under the control of the Lord Chamberlain at all? What possible reason could be given for it? It was plain to him that the regulation of the theatres, so far as regulation existed, should be vested, not in the Lord Chamberlain, but in the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and if he wished for testimony on that subject, he would bring as a witness the Lord Chamberlain himself, who, instead of acting on his own unassisted judgment, had gone to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and endeavoured to obtain his concurrence in the step he has taken. The fact of vesting theatrical arrangements in the Lord Chamberlain belonged to a state of things which had entirely passed away. In former days the theatres in question were appendages to the Royal Household, and still the performers styled themselves "Her Majesty's servants." But that system had become obsolete, and the continued jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain was an utter anomaly. The system having passed away, the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain should pass away also. He thought it very desirable that at some future time their Lordships should appoint a Committee to ascertain the state of the law on the subject, and he was sure that the result of such investigation would be to simplify the existing system, and to place the regulation of the theatres as also the licensing of plays in the hands that ought to be responsible for it, and that were already intrusted with every other kindred branch of jurisdiction.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.