§ Mr. Mellishmoved the second reading of the Bill for the erecting and maintaining a new Theatre for dramatic entertainments with in the cities of London and Westminster. On the Speaker inquiring if counsel were in attendance,
§ Mr. Sheridanrose and slated, that he had no intention of calling in the assistance of counsel, as he believed a very brief statement of the circumstances of the case would be sufficient to enable the House to form a judgment upon the question before them. He had expected that the hon. gentleman, the worthy representative of Middlesex, to whom it was his duty to express his sense of the politeness and attention which he had received at his hands on this occasion, would have prefaced the motion for the second reading of this Bill, by some statement of the grounds on which it was recommended to parliament, and the principles on which it laid claim to the sanction of the legislature. The only account, however, which he had been able to obtain explanatory of the objects of the measure, was a print-ed paper which had been pretty widely circulated, and which certainly contained nothing in the shape of argument to support it. This paper represented to the public, or to these whom it addressed, that they ought not to be discouraged by the splendid talents that would be exerted against their cause. He disclaimed for his own part any knowledge that such exertions were intended to be made, conscious as he was that the only motive that impelled him to come forward on this occasion, was a feeling of what was due to the number of persons interested in the property of Drury-lane Theatre. He was most ready to acknowledge the candour and fairness 497 that bad been shewn him by the gentlemen with whom the present motion originated, and was clearly of opinion that they had been influenced by the erroneous opinion that the Drury Lane Theatre, would not be rebuilt. When he assured them that this was a mistaken notion, and that there was the strongest probability of its speedy re-establishment, he was disposed to think it would be deemed advisable to withdraw this Bill. He must at the same time contradict a rumour which had gone abroad, describing his industry in canvassing votes for the question; he had, indeed, made no efforts for any such purpose, determined to leave the case to abide by its own merits. Last year the proposers of the new establishment applied to the privy council, and applied in vain; subsequently to which application, a Bill passed through Parliament for incorporating the proprietors of the late Drury Lane Theatre. Why had they not opposed this Bill, presuming as he did, that they intended to introduce the present measure? After this Bill, however, had passed, it was intimated to him that the late Lord Chamberlain, lord Dartmouth, of whom he always wished to speak with respect, notwithstanding his conduct in this business, intended to question the legality of the dormant patent. On the 28th of June, 1810, he received a letter from his Lordship expressive of his resolution to oppose the erection of any theatre in the city of Westminster. Under these circumstances it was impossible that the Drury Lane Proprietors could proceed. A negociation followed upon the subject with lord Dartmouth, the result of which was, a final settlement, that the dormant patent should not be acted on, and that the running patent should continue in force 21 years. These were the sole and uncontroulable causes of the delay in rebuilding Drury Lane Theatre. He had observed, that with respect to the present application, there had been some popular arguments used in the Petition, which were omitted entirely in the Bill. It was represented in the former, that the New Theatre would be established on the principle of opening at the old prices, and of furnishing correct, moral, and rational entertainments. These objects, however, formed no part of the Bill. He was aware, that he should be charged with defending a monopoly, and he was perfectly sensible of the just odium in which monopoly was generally held. But 498 on a sweeping principle of this nature, the monopoly of the East-India Company, lord Gwydir's mooring-chain monopoly, &c. should be all abolished. So far as his own individual interest was concerned, he would willingly surrender, it to the public; but what he must contend for was, that it was contrary to the whole spirit of legislation to interfere with any charter or patent, without providing adequate compensation. He must say, that the present Bill took a most colossal stride; and while it placed one foot upon the chartered rights of the city of London, boldly trod with the other on the ancient prerogatives of the crown. The Bill as it was now framed gave the right of building the new Theatre either on the scite of the Mansion-house, or Guildhall, or the Royal Exchange; but he believed the people in the city were prepared to resist so dangerous an innovation. He would not detain the House further than to say, that it was evident that the present application would never have been made, but for the discovery in another place that the royal prerogative was opposed to it.
Mr. Browne, after expressing the high opinion which he had ever entertained of the genius and talents of the right hon. gent, who had just sat down, observed, that there were two grounds on which the motion submitted to the House might be supported. The first was the great recent increase of the population of the metropolis, and the second, the great and notorious embarrassments in which the property of the Drury-lane proprietors was involved. He believed the neglect of rebuilding that Theatre arose solely from inability. Convinced, however, as he was, that it would never again hold up its head, yet, if there was every reason to believe the contrary, the argument for a new Theatre would be equally strong. As to what had been said of the prerogative of the crown, it could not be contended that it was not necessary for the subject matter of prerogative to be as ancient as the prerogative itself. The number of play-houses was originally limited by Act of Parliament, to prevent the licentiousness which their number was supposed to encourage. If the evidence should now be the other way, an Act of Parliament must be the proper mode of establishing a different regulation. At the period of the Usurpation, all stage-plays were prohibited; at the Restoration they were opened again; and, as appeared from Mr. Hume's History, much licen- 499 tiousness followed. In order to restrain this licentiousness in some measure, two exclusive patents were granted—one of them to sir William Davenant; but the Grown could not be said to mean by that act to part with its discretion; the spirit of the declaration was barely, that there should be but two Theatres at that particular time. In a short time after, a patent was granted to one Betterton, and this was followed, in some time, by the patent to Collier; after which, in the reign of George I, another patent was granted to Rich. The right hon. gent, in the concluding part of his speech had attempted to throw some obloquy on the measure, because it had been rejected before; but when the right hon. gent, stated that it was rejected by the privy council, he should have stated the ground upon which they did so. They did not say that another Theatre was not necessary, but merely that the mode in which it was proposed to carry it into effect, by incorporation, was an objectionable mode, as, in the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, it would have given privileges to the New Theatre which would operate to the disadvantage of the old ones. It was probable that Drury-lane Theatre would never raise its head again; but if a positive pledge could be given that it would, he believed that he could undertake to say the Bill would be withdrawn.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that when anybody set up a claim to a legal monopoly, the best that could be done was to examine that claim. He had a great friendship for the right hon. gent. and for many connected with him, and he had great pity for those who had suffered by the destruction of Drury-lane Theatre; but even, if he had no regard for his right hon. friend, the dignified manner in which he conducted himself on the night of that, calamity would have made him anxious that his loss should not be aggravated. The delay that had taken place in the rebuilding of that theatre, was caused in the manner already described, and he was happy to be able to state to the hon. gent. near hint, that being one of those who were occupied in examining the property, he had reason to know that Drury-lane theatre was likely to be restored. This investigation was not yet sufficiently advanced to enable him to state the time, but he would propose that the second reading should be put off to this day six weeks; and if it was then made manifest 500 that it could be re-established, they might next session consider the question of prerogative, and the question whether the town was actually in want of a third theatre. With respect to the monopoly, he understood that a valuable consideration had been given in money for the patent of Drury-lane. The Hon. gent. had put the question on a fair footing, and, he believed, would not think it unfair in him to move as an amendment, that the word "now" be left out, for the purpose of introducing "this day six weeks."
§ Mr. Mellishsaid he should be sorry to oppose such a proposition, but he had not now the power to consult those persons at whose request he had brought in the Bill.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that if there should be no other opportunity of bringing it in this session, he would be right in not yielding to the amendment; but as that was not the case, he saw no ground for opposing it.
§ Mr. Mellishsaid, that as the sense of the House appeared to be against him, he would not so far injure the cause of those for whom he acted, as to call for a division.
§ The Amendment was accordingly carried.