Under that Act the minor theatres, as the music-halls, for proceedings had been distinguished from Drury Lane, Covent taken in Birmingham of a similar cha Garden, and the Haymarket, were in racter. There was not a literary instituthe habit of playing what were called burlettas and melodramas, which were not prohibited under the 10 Geo. II. c. 28, the Act which established the licensing of plays by the Lord Chamberlain as at the time of the passing of that Act, this description of performances was unknown, the words in that Act were any interlude tradegy, comedy, opera, play, farce, or other entertainments of the stage, or any part or parts therein." It was also the custom to keep the piano going, so as to bring the performance within the 25 Geo. II. c. 36. It was, however, decided by the cases of Rex v. Neville, 1 B and Ad. 489, in the year 1830, and Levy v. Jales, 8 A & E 129, that the licence for music and dancing did not authorise the acting of plays, and the Victoria Theatre was held not to be a licensed theatre. This being the state of things in 1831-2 a Select Committee of that House was appointed to consider the subject of dramatic literature. The Committee came to the conclusion that the trade in theatres ought to be thrown open, that the peculiar privileges of the three principal theatres should be done away with, and that all the theatres ought to have the power of performing any plays they thought proper. The Report of this Committee gave rise to the present Dramatic Licensing Act, under which Act the term "stage plays" was taken to include "every tragedy, comedy, farce, burletta, interlude, melodrama, pantomime, or other entertainment of the stage, or any part thereof." The words burletta, melodrama, and pantomime, being for the first time introduced into the definition of" stage play." What was the course which the grasping managers of these theatres had taken on the present occasion? A ballet had been performed at the Alhambra and other places. The managers of the theatres laid an information against Mr. Strange, the proprietor of the Alhambra. The case came before Mr. Tyrwhitt, at the Marylebone Police Court, and he decided that the performance was within the Act of Parliament. Mr. Strange appealed to the Middlesex magistrates, and they quashed the conviction. The theatrical managers were not satisfied, and Mr. Tyrwhitt had since granted a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench. It was not only in London that a crusade had been commenced against tion in the country, if these managers of it as with the objection that such a clause was not germane to the subject of the Bill then before the House. This Bill provided that although the licence to be obtained under the 25 Geo. II. c. 36, should extend to the public performance of stage plays, still that licence should not, any more than it did at present, authorize the sale of beer, wine, or spirits, and that the 7th section of the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 39, should not apply to any place so licensed. In many theatres there was a beer-engine in the pit, gin and cordials were sold there, and so in the gallery and at the back of the boxes; but the managers were not content with this, for between the acts cans of beer were carried through the theatre, greatly interfering with the knees and backs of the audience. Was it not better to sit in a chair before a little table and drink your sherbet or what not? But then, forsooth, the theatre managers said, "Oh, you degrade the drama by allowing its performance in these music-halls!" After what he had told the House about the sale of liquor in theatres, he thought they would not be of opinion that the dignity of the drama had much to do with the question. And now what had been the decisions upon the music-hall performances? In the Birmingham case there was what appeared to be dancing and talking upon the stage; but, in point of fact, nobody was on the stage at all, the figures of the actors being reflected on the stage from a looking-glass placed out of sight of the audience. The manager thought he was safe, but the case was brought before the Common Pleas, which held that, under the Dramatic Licences Act, this was a stage performance. In the case of the Canterbury Hall perform ance, which he invited hon. Members to go and see, shadows were also thrown upon the stage, and Mr. Norton went to Canterbury Hall, and having seen the performances said that, though very unwillingly, he was obliged to give judgment against the proprietor, expressing his opinion, at the same time, that it was an admirable one, and was more amusing than most of the performances he saw at the theatre. For his own part he could not understand how the reflection of a person dancing seen in a mirror was anything improper so long as that person was decently garbed. Why should the stage be the only place where there was not free trade? No less a sum than £1,667,000 had been spent in building and fitting the London concert halls, music-halls, and entertainment galleries. These places would accommodate 179,000 people, and he believed that they were conducted with the greatest propriety. The number of theatres in London was twenty-three; the number of these places of entertainment forty-five. Stated shortly, the object of the Bill was to legalize the performance of stage plays at any place for which the magistrates' music and dancing licence had been obtained. But if the House thought that the performance of every species of stage plays ought not to be sanctioned at any but licensed theatres, could there be any objection to the music-halls having the same privilege which the minor theatres possessed before the monopoly was broken up-namely, the performance of burlettas, interludes, and melodramas? It must be remembered that the Lord Chamberlain's surveillance would still apply to the performance at these places, as the Bill reserved to the Lord Chamberlain the licensing of the plays performed; and he proposed certain provisions to insure the safety of the audience. He regretted that at that late hour (five minutes past one o'clock) he had not the opportunity of explaining the provisions of the Bill as he should desire to do. Although he could scarcely expect that the measure would become law this Session, he hoped the House, by reading it a second time, would affirm the principle that alterations ought to take place in the present system, and that the unseemly struggles which now took place between managers ought no longer to continue. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Locke.) MR. NEWDEGATE said, it was evident from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the subject was a very wide one. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. Amendment proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." SIR GEORGE GREY said, if his hon. and learned Friend meant to press the Bill, it was quite necessary that the debate should be adjourned. Considering the very late hour to which the House had sat that morning, that there had since been both a day and an evening sitting, and that the House would again assemble a few hours hence, he should not attempt to enter upon a discussion of the details of the measure. He suggested for the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend whether, having called attention to defects existing in the present law, it would not be well to withdraw the Bill for the present, and re-introduce it in a new Parliament, where his hon. and learned Friend, he hoped, would find a place. In the state of public business, an adjournment, moreover, really implied a relinquishment of the Bill for the present Session. MR. H. BERKELEY believed that if this Bill became law it would have the effect of turning every pothouse into a theatre, and every theatre into a pothouse. MR. BRADY also thought the passing of the Bill would reduce the drama to the lowest pitch it had ever stood at in the country. MR. LOCKE said, he was not disposed to accept mere assertions as an answer to his arguments. As for the comment of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley), he had heard it before; it was not original, and he knew where it came from. Being anxious that the subject should be fully discussed, he would not oppose the Motion for adjournment. Question, "That the debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to. Debate adjourned till Thursday. ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL-[BILL 165.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS. (In the Committee.) and Portland, and for the creation of a Central MR. KINNAIRD suggested that this Order should be discharged. The Bill was one of 140 clauses, and there was not the 1. Resolved, That towards providing a further least likelihood of its passing this Session. sum for defraying the expenses of the construcTHE LORD ADVOCATE said, they tion of works for the defence of the Royal Docknever could pass any Bill unless they tried yards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dover to do so. It was only fair towards the Arsenal, a sum not exceeding £650,000 be charged noble Lord the Member for Haddington-upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingshire (Lord Elcho), who had taken such pains with this important measure, that the Government should afford him all the assistance in their power. Committee deferred till Thursday. EXPIRING LAWS. Select Committee appointed, "to inquire what temporary Laws of a public and general nature are now in force, and what Laws of the like nature have expired since the last Report on the subject; and also what Laws of the like nature are about to expire at particular periods or in consequence of any contingent public event, and to report the same, with their Observations thereupon, to the House :-Mr. PEEL, Mr. DODSON, Sir dom; and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities, for such a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon and payable out of the said Consolidated Fund. 2. Resolved, That the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the payment to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, out of the said Consolidated Fund, of the sum of £600, for the management of the contributions to be received by the said Governor and Company in respect of the said Annuities. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, June 14, 1865. MINUTES.PUBLIC BILLS-Resolutions [June Transfer. First Reading-Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) [215]; Harbours Transfer * [216]. Second Reading - Tests Abolition (Oxford) other hand, all tests and subscriptions at the University were relaxed or abolished, I do not believe that the University would be revolutionised or the Church destroyed. If the dilemma is forced upon me, that the change we advocate is either small, and not worth making, or, if large, then dangerous, I will frankly accept the premise of the latter horn, while I repudiate the conclusion. The change, I admit, will be large and substantial. So far from being dangerous, it is in our eyes not only safe, but expedient, wise, and even necessary, in the interest of the University, in the interest of the country, and, I would venture to say, in the interests of the Church itself. Were I prepared to allow that the Bill admitted of being so cut down in Committee as to give a fresh legislative sanction to the exclusion of Dissenters from the most important privileges of an academical degree-for instance, if I were prepared to accept what is called the Cambridge compromise-I should indeed lay myself open to the criticism of having introduced for the second time a measure of no urgent importance. But after the Liberal party has decided once for all to accept the larger issue, and bestow the privileges of a degree without limitation, independently of a theological test-if we remember that the Bill was read a third time last year, and only lost in the final TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD) BILL. [BILL 85.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. GOSCHEN:* Sir, two opposite criticisms have been passed upon the measure now before the House. Some have called it too small, and some have called it too large. It has been called too small by those who assumed that the privileges which, under the present Bill, are to be acquired by a Master of Arts without a theological test might, and probably would, be cut down in Committee, and not ex-stage, after three divisions, by a majority tended to the enjoyment of a share in the government of the University. It has been called too large by those who assumed that the privileges would be granted in their entirety. A measure which would confer the barren privilege of Master of Arts upon those candidates for that degree, who are not prepared to comply with existing regulations, was thought not to be worth the time and attention of this House. A measure which bestowed not a barren privilege, but a substantial privilege, a privilege carrying with itself all the rights which belong to the Master of Arts under the present system, was accused of tending to revolutionise the University and revolutionise the Church. I could not agree in either of those positions. Any progress made in the relaxation of tests and subscriptions and I need hardly remind this House that by tests and subscriptions I mean not creeds, not formularies of faith, but forms of inquisition-any progress made in the relaxation of tests and subscriptions I consider to be most worthy of our time and attention; and if, on the of two in a full House-I am sure no one The it is open to hon. Members to take exception to the principle of the Bill, or to take exception to the results of the Bill, or to oppose both the principle on its own account, and its results, direct and indirect. But let it not be said by hon. Members, as it was said last year, that under cover of a specious principle we are trying by underhand means to bring in larger results which we should be afraid to bring in nakedly. We contend for the principle for its own sake. We avow the results, and are prepared to defend them. Our position is that our Universities, historically, for all general purposes, are national institutions, and legally, lay corporations. That their exclusive connection with the Church of England is, if I may use a technical term, "accidental, not essential." That our clergy merely happen to be educated there, as they are educated at our schools, for purposes of general training, before their own special studies begin. That theology is taught at Oxford, like history, or philosophy, simply as a part, and, it must be confessed, a very small part, of the general curriculum. That education, not professional, but general, and general in its widest sense, is in practice the education given at Oxford, looked for in Oxford, and I hope to be maintained in Oxford. That to this general education it is in the general interest of the country to attract the greatest possible number of Englishmen. That no class of Englishmen can, as a class, be attracted so long as they are placed under humiliating restrictions, or invited to occupy a position of legal, social, and academical inferiority. That any regulations which exclude from academical degrees, and all the privileges connected with these degrees, are a badge of that inferiority and that humiliation. That the imposition of religious tests falls under the head of such regulations, excluding those whom it is for the general good to include, humiliating those who ought to be attracted, and running counter to the national and unprofessional character of our Universities. This, Sir, is our position. These are the principles upon which the Bill is founded, leading to results by which we are prepared to stand. And, independently of the character of our Universities and their history, independently of law, independently of the expediency of making the area of the University co-extensive with the area of the nation; as a general principle, we contend that it is a solecism in science to connect academical degrees with compulsory professions of faith, and worse than a solecism in religion to secure a regulation orthodoxy by the temptation of secular rewards. I do not say that there is no other line of argument by which the present system may be effectually condemned. If I could even grant that the policy of exclusion were expedient and just, I should still call the present system, by which that policy is attempted to be carried out, a short-sighted system, an ineffectual system, an immoral system. And, unquestionably, it will be a great gain if, while we carry out the principle of making academical degrees independent of theological tests, we sweep away a system which, in its very application, independently of its objects, involves so great an amount of evil. But for the present I will confine myself to the arguments which I have stated. I have said, Sir, that our Universities are lay corporations by the law of the land. And when I say this I am not speaking at random; indeed, I fear, that to some hon. Members I may seem to be simply stating a truism. It is, however, a truism so often forgotten that I may be excused if I insist upon it. The doctrine that our Universities are lay corporations is laid down as the established law in our text books. Stephen, in his Commentaries, speaking of lay corporations, divides them into civil and eleemosynary, and says that civil corporations are established for a variety of purposes. "and among these corporations," he tells us "The general corporate bodies of Oxford and Cambridge must be ranked; for it is clear," he says, "that these corporations-namely, Oxford for they are composed of more laymen than clergy and Cambridge, are not spiritual or ecclesiastical, neither are they eleemosynary foundations, though stipends are annexed to certain magistrates and professors, any more than other corporations where the acting officers have standing salaries, for these are rewards pro opere et labore, not charitable donations only, since every stipend is preceded by service and duty." This applies, of course, to the Universities in their collective capacity. But even the colleges which might, without impairing the strength of my argument, be ecclesiastical foundations, this text-book of English Law asserts to be "Lay, and not ecclesiastical, falling under the head of eleemosynary corporations founded for the promotion of piety and learning. All these eleemosynary corporations, though in some bodies, are, strictly speaking, lay, and not ecclethings partaking of the nature of ecclesiastical siastical, even though composed of ecclesiastical persons." |