THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in putting some Questions to the Lord Chamberlain, of which he had given Notice, on the subject of the closing of theatres on Ash-Wednesday, said, he wished to disclaim sympathy with the spirit of certain communications which had appeared in the newspapers on the subject of his inquiry. The authority of the Lord Chamberlain in respect of theatres had existed since 1627, and he thought the dramatic profession would be very sorry to change it for any other. He did not wish to enter into any discussion of the religious part of the question, whether theatres should or should not be allowed to be open on Ash-Wednesdays, while all other trades and professions were allowed to be exercised on that day. Formerly, he was told, the theatres were closed on the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, but this restriction was done away with in consequence of a Resolution in the House of Commons—he would leave it to others to decide whether, in a Christian country like England, theatres and music-halls should, in a religious season like Lent, be permitted to be open, and whether the theatrical profession or trade should be allowed to go its own way; but he challenged the noble Marquess who filled the office of Lord Chamberlain to assign any good reason why theatres in Westminster must remain closed on 1278 Ash-Wednesday, while a theatre at Chelsea could be open—to explain why he should prevent the Haymarket company from acting in their own theatre on that day, while they could go down to Nottingham and play in a theatre there. He would further ask the noble Marquess to justify the fact that Drury Lane Theatre was closed by his authority for theatrical performances on that day, while a musical performance which would have been illegal at St. James's Hall did come off at Drury Lane. They knew very well that a certain party wished to make Ash-Wednesday an universal holiday; but, as their Lordships were very well aware, every other trade continued its usual avocations on that day; but the closing of the theatres meant that many poor families could earn no pay. The evening was kept by some of the actors and actresses in attending a dance for the Dramatic Fund. Did the noble Marquess think this was a more legitimate occupation than that in which these ladies and gentlemen were ordinarily engaged? The grave fact in the case was that the closing of theatres on Ash-Wednesday meant a day of starvation to many. That being so, Parliament and the public had a right to know why it should be enforced in the case of some theatres, while the regulation did not apply to others. It seemed a strange state of things that music-halls on the Middlesex side of the Thames could not open on Ash-Wednesday, but music-halls on the Surrey side might and did. Here was another anomaly—An old Act of George II. made it illegal to give public concerts before 5 o'clock under a magistrate's licence; so that a public concert which commenced at 4 o'clock and ended at 6 in the afternoon must be under two licences—the first part of it must be under a licence from the Lord Chamberlain, and the second part under one from the Middlesex magistrates, and he was informed as a fact that an action had been brought against the proprietor of St. James's Hall for allowing a concert to commence before 5 P.M. The licence of the Lord Chamberlain would not, however, cover some places—such, for instance, as the Polytechnic; and, consequently, if there was any infringement of hours by such a place, it was liable to be sued by an informer for a penalty of £100. The whole of the 1279 licensing system, as applicable to places of public amusement, was full of anomalies, and required revision. As the noble Marquess had stated on a certain occasion that one of the advantages of the change of Government was that the public had him for Lord Chamberlain, he hoped to hear from the noble Marquess that he disapproved that system and was prepared to recommend its abolition or amendment. He begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why those Theatres which are under the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction should be closed on Ash-Wednesday, while other Metropolitan and the Provincial theatres were not so restricted: Why Music Halls on the Surrey side of the River are allowed to open on Ash-Wednesday when those on the Middlesex side are closed, And, whether Her Majesty's Government will amend the clause in the Act 25th Geo. III., cap. 36, prohibiting concerts and musical entertainments from being given before five in the afternoon?
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (The Marquess of HERTFORD)said, that the anomalies to which the noble Duke referred arose from theatres in different localities being under different jurisdictions. Under the Act for Regulating Theatres, 6 & 7 Vict. e. 68, which passed in 1843, the Lord Chamberlain issued annual licences for theatres within the Metropolitan Parliamentary boroughs of that date. Chelsea, though now a metropolitan borough, was not so then, and, consequently, it was not within the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction even at the present time. Drury Lane and Covent Garden were licensed by patent of King Charles II., and did not come to the Lord Chamberlain for an annual licence. Theatres in all other places were licensed by the Justices of the Peace for the division in which each theatre was situated. The Justices were empowered to make rules for such theatres, and these rules were different in different localities. No material change had been made in the form of licences issued by the Lord Chamberlain for many years past, excepting the omission from the restricted days of Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent in 1841, and of Passion week, with the exception of Good Friday, in 1861. Since that date the restrictions in the Lord Chamberlain's licences were precisely similar to those in the licences 1280 for music and dancing issued by the Justices of the Peace for Middlesex under the Act 25 Geo. IL, c. 36. Perhaps he might be allowed to bring to their Lordships' recollection that in 1866 a Select Committee of the House of Commons sat to inquire into the Theatrical Licences and Regulations. The Committee, the Chairman of which was Mr. Goschen, reported on the 28th of June, 1866, that it was advisable to place all places of amusement in the metropolis under one authority. Owing to the difficulties of detail, no action was taken upon that Report. With reference to the last part of the noble Duke's Question—as to concerts not being allowed to be held under magistrates licenses before five in the afternoon—he found that the Lord Chamberlain, with the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, had since 1866, for the general convenience of the public, issued supplementary licences to those holding licences for music and dancing within the Liberties of Westminster, to enable them to give such entertainments before 5 o'clock in the evening as were permitted by the Justices' licence after that hour. The Lord Chamberlain took no responsibility whatever upon him by these licences with respect to the character of the entertainment or the safety of the building; and Her Majesty's Government had no intention, so far as he knew, of prohibiting concerts and musical entertainments being given before 5 P.M. under these circumstances, no practical inconvenience having arisen from the custom.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that nothing could be more clear than the Answers of the noble Marquess to the exact Questions put to him by the noble Duke. But he ventured to submit to their Lordships that those Answers left the matter in as much obscurity as that which had surrounded it before. According to the statement of the noble Marquess, there seemed to be three jurisdictions to which theatres were subject. There was, first, the jurisdiction of the Crown, which granted those patents to two of which the noble Marquess had referred; in the second place, there was the jurisdiction of the noble Marquess himself; and, in the third place, there was the local and district jurisdiction of the magistrates, That appeared to him to be 1281 quite enough of diversity for one subject of a not very complicated nature. But of all those jurisdictions there was none so diversified or so confused as that of the noble Marquess himself; because, if he understood rightly, his powers were so strictly local in their character that he had not jurisdiction over Chelsea and Bayswater, and even a theatre called—he presumed from some complimentary motive—the Court Theatre, and which was in the vicinity of that House, was not under the jurisdiction of the noble Marquess. If that was the fact, it was clearly desirable that some Act should be passed to amend such a state of things. But he had not heard the noble Marquess answer the Question of the noble Duke, why one theatre in particular, which he supposed was under the noble Marquess's jurisdiction, was allowed to be open on Ash Wednesday, unless it was that theatre which the noble Marquess referred to as having the patent. It illustrated the monopoly to which he had referred—how one large class of human beings who earned their bread by their connection with the stage should alone of all others of the community be restricted from earning their wages on that day, and that an exotic body of minstrels known as "The Negro Melodists" could, by a change in the locality of their performance, make that which was illegal in Piccadilly legal in Drury Lane. If he were a polemical writer—and in these clays he would rather wish he were—he would be rather curious to trace the cause of this difference—he should like to inquire why what was regarded as an immoral performance in Piccadilly should be regarded as having the odour of sanctity when it was brought within the precincts of Drury Lane. If no answer could be given to that question, there was a clear case—as had been well put by the noble Duke—for legislating in this matter. Since the noble Duke put his Notice on the Paper, he (the Earl of Rosebery) had heard that the proceeds of the entertainment at Drury Lane were given in charity, and that for that reason the performance of the Christy Minstrels was allowed to pass by the vague authorities in these matters. That might very well be; but it did not mend the case of the people who were deprived of their wages elsewhere—because there was not a single person drawing wages 1282 from any particular performance who had the slightest objection that the proceeds of the entertainment should be applied to charity so long as those wages were first paid. "What they had to complain of was that they alone of all the community were forbidden to practise their profession and earn their bread on Ash Wednesday. The question seemed to him to resolve itself into this dilemma. Either the drama itself was altogether immoral in the abstract, or else it must be held that the day itself was as sacred as Sunday. In the first case, clearly no theatrical performance ought to be sanctioned at all; in the other, clearly no other profession ought to be able to practise their calling on Ash Wednesday. There was no escaping from one horn or the other of the dilemma. Whichever horn you took, you placed the Surrey magistrates in a very painful and almost ridiculous position, because they did not seem to take the same views as regarded theatrical performances or of Ash Wednesday as were taken on the Middlesex side of the water. In fact, if any "intelligent foreigner" were staying in London on that day he would find it difficult not to imagine that these matters were regulated by geographical rather than moral considerations—though, of course, no supposition could be more erroneous. He hoped that the Leader of their Lordships' House would turn his attention to the matter, as this subject combined those social, and, as regarded Ash Wednesday, those theological elements which appeared to recommend themselves so much in legislation to Her Majesty's Government.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPadmitted that the present state of things was anomalous, but it had existed from very ancient times, and would continue to exist so long as there was a conflict of authority and jurisdiction. It did not arise from any such idea as that that which was immoral in one place could be moral in another; but from the circumstance that the Lord Chamberlain had jurisdiction in one district and the justices of the peace in others. The Lord Chamberlain, indeed, had a larger jurisdiction than the noble Earl had given him credit for—because it was upon his authority that theatrical performances were prevented from taking place on Sundays and Good Fridays as well. In the exhaustive in- 1283 quiry before the Committee of 1866 no attempt was made to procure the opening of the theatres on Ash "Wednesday, nor did the managers complain of their being closed as a grievance. At that time there were only 25 theatres in the metropolis; but there were now above 40, which was a proof that since 1866 no injury had taken place, but that the theatrical profession had been sufficiently prosperous to induce managers to embark large sums in these entertainments, and thereby to evince their confidence that Government would impose no unnecessary restriction upon them.