from passing a censure upon any body of men, particularly the right reverend bench, for whom I entertain so high a respect. A short history of the transaction will, however, be my best apology for my conduct relative to what has already happened; and for still persisting in my former opinion, and refusing now to retract it. While this Bill was passing through the other House, I applied to the most reverend prelate who sits at the head of the bishop's bench, to the right reverend prelate who just spoke, and to the other right reverend prelate in whose diocese Manchester is situated. I informed them of my intention to oppose the Bill; and desired to know their sentiments. They answered, they thought with me on the subject; and were resolved to give it every opposition in their power. Having notice of the day the Bill was to come up from the Commons, I desired the first reading might be deferred, and the Lords summoned. This being complied with, how great was my astonishment, when I moved the rejection on the first reading, to find the previous question put, and my self in a minority alone; every one member of the right reverend bench that was present having divided against me. I do therefore appeal to your lordships, if I had not reason to be offended; and if any one noble lord in this House would not think himself ill treated, if upon any question agitated within these walls, his friends, after assuring him of their support, should encourage him to divide the House, and afterwards vote directly contrary to the previous assurances given on their part?

loose equivocal expression which might admit of a double interpretation; the matter he adverted to was on record, for it was on their lordships' Journals. He said, it was no less fallacious in point of fact, than injurious to a body of men, who were certainly intitled to justice in common with the rest of their fellow subjects. He then proceeded to inform the House, that although he disapproved of the Bill, and was of course from the beginning resolved to vote against it, he did not think the first reading the proper stage to oppose it, as it would, in his opinion, be more candid and agreeable to parliamentary usage, to combat the Bill on the second reading. He therefore, from the known candour of the noble earl who had entered the protest, as well as his love of justice, expected that his lordship would withdraw it, or at least expunge such parts as may be supposed to convey to posterity a most heavy accusation on a body of men who were entirely innocent. As to the question itself, whether or not permission ought to be given to erect a playhouse at Manchester, he had not a single doubt of the impropriety of granting such a permission, in a great trading manufacturing town; but, he feared at the same time, that throwing out the Bill would not prevent the evil, as what was refused by parliament would still be supported by conscience. He said there were many plays of a moral instructive tendency, that where those representations were properly conducted, they operated to the improvement of manners; and if custom had not determined otherwise, for his own part, he could with pleasure go to the theatre to see the Eng- The Earl of Carlisle spoke much in falish Roscius; and on the whole, if a vour of the Bill; said, that Methodism theatre was to be permitted, or established was daily gaining ground, particularly in by act of parliament (for he was afraid the manufacturing towns; and that playthe evil would exist in one form, or the houses, well regulated, would be the means other) he hoped the magistrates in all of dispelling those gloomy thoughts, and those towns, where such exhibitions were that melancholy state of mind so favourpermitted, would take singular care to able to the propagation of the dangerous prohibit the representation of one particu- doctrines embraced by those sectaries. lar play (the Beggar's Opera) which, in He would not say plays were therefore at his opinion, tended more to corrupt the this time less witty, but they certainly morals of the lower orders of the people, were less immoral and indecent than the than all the other plays extant in the Eng-productions of former periods, and conselish language beside: and should the managers or directors persist, he trusted that the magistrates would vigorously execute the vagrant laws against such daring of fenders, as persons not entitled to a parish

settlement.

The Earl of Radnor. No person in this House would be farther than I would

quently a restrictive hand was less necessary than it ever was before.

Lord Lyttelton. The right reverend prelate who opened the debate, though he professes his intention of giving a negative to the Bill, has at the same time pleaded most powerfully in its favour. He says, were our theatric exhibitions properly re

gulated, they might serve and promote the cause of virtue, instead of hurting it. He deprecates the baneful effects of one play in particular, the Beggar's Opera: and seems to allow, that the representation of that play alone is to be dreaded. I am pleased to find, that the right reverend prelate has given me so fair an opportunity of satisfying him on that head; and informing him, that the intended manager has given me the fullest assurances, that that play shall never be exhibited on his theatre. The right reverend prelate likewise tells your lordships, that if custom and the current prevailing opinions of mankind had not forbidden it, he could with pleasure be present to see the English Roscius appear in some of his capital characters. I applaud the wish, and I am sorry to observe, that nothing but prejudice and ignorance could lay the foundation of a distinction, which is to preclude any set of men from enjoying the fruits of so pleasing, instructive, and solid an entertainment. The right reverend prelate endeavours to make a distinction between those places where entertainments of this kind ought or ought not to be permitted; by which he would exclude all trading and manufacturing towns. But here I must beg leave to dissent from him, and to draw a direct contrary conclusion; for in my opinion, there is no place under proper regulation, in which they should be more encouraged, as people, who labour intensely, require a proportionable recrea tion; and the sixpence spent at a theatre is much better laid out than at an alehouse. It gives me much pain, but my duty as a member of this House will not permit me to pass over in silence a matter of no small consequence mentioned in this day's debate; I mean the protest signed a few days since by the noble earl near me, which, give me leave to say, when properly and seriously considered, has a much more direct tendency to corrupt the morals of the lower orders of the people, than all the theatrical exhibitions ever represented in this country. The right reverend bench, who are the great protectors of the interests of religion, the known promoters of virtue and morality in their several dioceses, who in their own persons enforce by example what they teach by precept; who are the only set of men in the Christian world of the same description that follow the rigid doctrines of primitive Christianity, and shew themselves the true disciples of their Saviour

Jesus, (the bishops of Spain, France, Italy, and the rest of Europe having long since mixed in the common herd of mankind, and thrown off all distinctions of living and acting, which originally connected themselves with the exercise of their sacred functions.)-This very respectable body of men, I say, are not only held out to the present generation, but their names handed down to posterity, as the encou ragers of vice, immorality, and profaneness; and still the more to aggravate the charge, their own words, on a former occasion, are quoted and contrasted with their recent conduct, in order to convict them of hypocrisy, and surcharge the picture. This is the substance of the noble earl's protest. Now, what will be the probable consequences, as operating on the people? First, to increase that levelling spirit, and contempt of the high orders of the state, which I am sorry to see is already too prevalent, and which is known to be so destructive of all subordination, order and good government; and secondly, to persuade mankind, that religion and morality are no more than empty sounds taken up and echoed for personal interested purposes, when it is proved that the very protectors and guardians of both have deserted their charge, as unworthy of their care or attention. This, my lords, will be the certain effect of the noble earl's protest in its present form; and it is on this ground I now presume to contend, that it is highly incumbent on his lordship to withdraw it, or modify it in such a manner as to prevent the manifest evils it must otherwise be productive of. I know the noble lord's candour; I am satisfied of his love of truth and justice. His religious tenets are too well known: indeed his ecclesiastical, I should say his episcopal cha racter, for sanctity of life and purity of doctrine, are already so notorious, that his lordship wants no essential quality, but a mitre and a pair of lawn sleeves, to make him a perfect bishop. I therefore intreat that his lordship, from those united motives, will undeceive the public, and disabuse posterity, by erasing the exceptionable parts of the protest, or consent to withdraw it entirely. The explanation of the right reverend prelate, the sentiments of the whole bench, shew beyond question that justice rigidly demands what is now asked; for, sure, the noble lord could not wish to have it go abroad into the world, that the right reverend bench voted for the Bill, when the fact was confessedly other

in the extreme, and that I shall always think it my duty to put a negative on a Bill, in a stage in which it is attended with little or no expence, rather than vote first for its introduction (though fully determined to oppose it) and when it comes to be read a second time, vote for its rejection; which to me appears somewhat like entertaining a bill or suit in the courts below, upon no just ground, but with a view to dismiss it with double costs, as frivolous and vexatious.

wise; and that the cause of virtue, morality, and religion, should suffer by means of any such misrepresentation. On the whole, my lords, I appeal to the candour and justice of the noble lord: I trust to his care of the morals of the people, and his love of truth, that he will devise some method to set this matter upon a right footing; and I press him more earnestly to the execution of this request, because, otherwise, I must be under the disagreeable necessity of moving to expunge from your lordship's Journals, what truth will not permit to remain there; what is in its nature so very injurious to the personal character of so respectable a part of this House; and finally, what may be so destructive to the morals of the people and to the civil and religious interests of this country.

The Duke of Manchester. The noble lord (Lyttelton) seems to establish a proposition, which I must confess I am far from approving. He urges the necessity of the noble lord, who spoke last, permitting such alterations in his protest as may remove the censure it is supposed to contain on a certain right reverend body; The Earl of Radnor. Whatever might and in case of refusal, says, he shall be have been the intention of the right re- obliged to move, that the objectionable verend prelate, and the rest of his brethren words, or passage alluded to, shall be present, I could not pretend to determine. erased. I am far from approving of the I found myself compelled to act in a man- whole of the protest: I wish sincerely it ner suited to my feelings, and to the spur had not been entered, because it proceeded of the occasion. A Bill was offered to be from misapprehension, no matter on which read a first time, for establishing a theatre side; but I can never consent to have one in the town of Manchester; from the very of the most important and useful priviminute, therefore, that the division took leges of the peerage invaded, to answer place, and that I saw the members of the any particular purpose, however urgent. right reverend bench support the bringing It is the inherent, indubitable right of in of the Bill, I was clearly justified in every noble lord in this House, to protest making the distinction on which my pro- either singly or in a body; and I take it, test was grounded. The right reverend that this privilege admits of no specific prelate justifies himself on the usage of controul. This privilege, it is true, may parliament; which is, to let a Bill go to be abused, or wrongly exercised; but a first reading, perhaps out of compliment what will be the probable consequence, to whatever noble lord may happen to should your lordships attempt to establish bring it in. But I deny any such usage, a precedent that would take this right of as a rule never to be departed from: I re- protesting away? That a majority at all member myself many instances to the con- times may not only, as usual, carry every trary, particularly one, in which the right point they wish, but besides, prevent the reverend bench itself took a very leading minority from protesting; for reasons and active part, relative to the dissenters. would not be wanting to point out the neI recollect a recent instance, in the course cessity of such a mode of proceeding. I of the present session, full in point, when cannot therefore conceive, that it would a Bill was rejected on the very day it was be possible to devise any mode, or form of received; and I look upon it to be much protesting, which might not with a little more parliamentary, candid, and regular, ingenuity be interpreted to be injurious to reject a Bill, the principle of which is to some one body of men or other. On totally disapproved of, in the first stage, the other hand, the great respect I bear than, by permitting it to go to a second to the noble earl, who drew up the protest, reading, entertain, and give a sanction to and the high esteem and reverence I enthe principle, and subject the persons ap-tertain for the right reverend body, who plying for it to the expences and fees of the House. How much soever the right reverend prelate may talk of candour and parliamentary usage, I am justified in contending, that such an indulgence is cruelty

are immediately affected by that performance, induce me to wish, that the noble earl himself would offer some amendment, or explanative addition, suited to the actual circumstances of the case. But

whether his lordship will, or will not, II assured his lordship, at the time, of my can never give my consent to have any sentiments; and I little imagined, that part of the records of parliament ex- when I was complying with what I deemed punged from your lordships' Journals. As the uniform mode of proceeding establishto the Bill itself, I own myself a very warm ed by the House, I was at the same time advocate in its favour. I think the mo- laying a foundation for a charge of a most tives for condemning theatric representa- heavy and unprecedented nature, in which tions, which formerly subsisted, at present I and the rest of my brethren were to be no longer exist. The licentiousness of undeservedly involved. That noble lord's the last century is wholly banished from own ideas of justice will, I doubt not, our theatres; and how much soever our better suggest what may be proper to unmodern playwrights may fall short of their deceive the public than any thing I could predecessors in point of wit, humour, and possibly offer. A noble lord (Lyttelton) true character, they at least excel them has endeavoured to defend the Bill on in morality. I will not even pretend, that general principles; but, in my opinion, he this turn or taste of the town originated has totally failed, as to the particular apeither with authors or managers; but this plication of his arguments, in support of I will affirm, and do appeal to your lord- establishing play-houses in great manufacships for the truth of what I say, that the turing towns. I must observe, that his most moral and sentimental pieces are reasons are both fallacious and erroneous; those best received; nay more, that any for whatever may be urged for their being glaring violation of the rules of propriety established here in London, I am perfectly and decorum would meet with the marked convinced that they tend to create idleness, displeasure of the public. Besides, were and all the train of evils idleness is known there any grounds to fear that a certain to be productive of, among those who are favourite piece, justly reprobated by the destined to live by labour and industry. I right reverend prelate, as pernicious and remember, when I resided in the last diocese destructive to the last degree, of the morals I had the care of, I went to a great trading of the lower orders of the people, might be town (Birmingham) to attend an ordina exhibited on the Manchester theatre, we tion; and having a curiosity to inspect have the most full and specific assurances the manufactures carrying on by a Mr. to the contrary. Taylor, upon examining the works, I enquired how many men he employed; he answered 500. And where are they? is this a holiday? No, says he, but we have a play-house here; the men were at the play last night, and it is impossible to get them to their business for two or three days after they have been there. The noble lord has asserted another thing equally destitute of foundation or probabi lity. He supposes that the labouring mechanic will spend the six-pence or shilling he was wont to throw away at the publichouse, in the more rational entertainment of a play. Is his lordship serious, or would he attempt to persuade us, that the man who used to waste his time at the alehouse will return supperless to bed, or not rather incur a double expence, first at the play-house, and afterwards at a publichouse? On the whole, we do not speak from mere speculation; experience has already proved the evil at Norwich and other trading towns. I disapprove of the principle; I am convinced that in trading and manufacturing towns its effects are immediate and pernicious; I am therefore strenuously against committing the Bill.

1

Earl Gower endeavoured to shew, that the protest was drawn up on misconception; and therefore, as the true sentiments of the right reverend bench were at present fully known, he earnestly recommended to the noble earl to make such alterations as would correspond with those sentiments. His lordship observed, that the protest had already got into the newspapers, that, in its present form, it conveyed the most unfavourable idea of the whole bench of bishops; and that, consequently, the reparation which justice required, ought to be as public as the injury they had sustained, which he knew no way of effecting but by altering the protest, and explaining the true grounds of the mistake, or misrepresentation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury. The right reverend prelate on my right hand, has so fully explained what I had to offer concerning the protest, that I have nothing further to urge on that subject. This I may safely add, however, that the noble earl who thought fit to pass so heavy a censure on this bench, nor any other lord in this House, could possibly be more zealous against the present Bill than myself.

Viscount Dudley. I live very near the