§ Mr. Mellishmoved the order of the day for the second reading of the London Theatre Bill.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he was not surprised at the hon. gent. pressing this motion; but trusted, when he heard the explanation which it was in his power to offer, that he 1141 would agree to the postponement of it till next session of parliament. At the discussion of this question six weeks ago, he had, from a consideration of the subject, when other gentlemen were for postponing it till another session, only asked for a delay of a few weeks, in order to enable a set of disinterested noblemen and gentlemen to inquire into the situation of Drury-lane Theatre, and endeavour to disentangle that concern from the pecuniary embarrassments which precluded any arrangement being made for rebuilding it. He had now to state the result of that inquiry, which was, that there appeared to them to be the strongest probability that Drury-lane Theatre might be reconstructed, and thus one of the main grounds on which the present petition rested, done away. The Chairman of that Committee (Mr. P. Moore) would have to declare, that the most material obstacles to the reconstruction of Drury-lane Theatre had been removed, and that the Committee had been even able to draw out a plan, to which, as there had already been some, there was no doubt but there would be a number, and a sufficient number, of subscribers to rebuild the Theatre. On these grounds he recommended the postponement till next session; he required no greater indulgence, and, as an individual member of parliament, if Drury-lane Theatre was not then in the course of being erected, he should certainly take no part against this application. He would not enter into any discussion as to whether two or three theatres were necessary. There was now only one, and a great probability that, in a very short time, there would be two on the old foundation. But at any rate, as the patents for these were obtained for a valuable consideration, it could never be consistent with justice to deprive them of their right without giving a compensation for the same. In that case they might wait till another session, and then sec whether these titles were in a condition to permit their holders to build themselves, or so good as to be worth the purchase of other persons.
Mr. Brownedid not think the explanation that had been given so satisfactory as the House had a right to expect, after what had taken place six weeks ago, when the subject was formerly under their notice. Even supposing that a second theatre would be rebuilt, there was no ground for saying that a third might not be necessary. To those who were of this opinion the ex- 1142 planation must be of no weight; but even to those who had thought that assurance should be given for the rebuilding of Drury-lane Theatre, little satisfaction could be given by the meagre statement now made; for all that it went to say was, that the embarrassments of that concern had been looked into, but not a word of any arrangement being made for going on with the erection of a theatre. It never was suggested six weeks since, that on this ground the present Bill should be postponed; and still there was another point on which it stood completely untouched, namely, the expediency of giving the town a third theatre, which had many advocates, while there was certainly not one who maintained that a single theatre was sufficient for the amusement of this great metropolis. He therefore gave his support to the Bill.
§ Mr. Whitbread,in explanation, said, it was his intention to assert, that on or before the 1st of October next it would be ascertained whether Drury-lane Theatre could be rebuilt or not; and if it could be rebuilt, there would be at that period considerable progress made towards its reconstruction. Of this there was a great probability, as the most material obstacles, with regard to the pecuniary concerns of the theatre, had been removed.
§ Mr. W. Polethought the statement of the hon. gentleman perfectly satisfactory, and that it would be a harsh, if not an unjust proceeding, to refuse the postponement of the Bill under such circumstances.
§ Mr. Peter Mooresaid that the Committee (of which he had the honour to be chairman) had two points to consider; the first was the amount and nature of the claims upon the theatre; the second, the probability of its being rebuilt. With respect to the first, he assured the House it had been so intricate and extensive as to demand a very laborious attention for the six weeks allowed them; yet he had the pleasure to say, that all the claimants had acted in a most liberal manner, and indeed there had been a kind of competition among them, who would sacrifice most towards the re-establishment of the property and the amusements of the public. Nor had his right hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) been behind them in liberality and an anxious expression to devote his private to the general interests. As in his whole political and private life, so he had on this occasion evinced the utmost disinterestedness, and in giving up his own 1143 rights, had proceeded till the Committee thought it necessary to put a stop to it: all that he had ever said was, "Do all you can for the sufferers." The hon. gentleman then read a declaration of the Committee, to the effect that all the material obstacles towards disentangling the concern were removed: and, with regard to the second point, namely, the rebuilding of the theatre, all the indulgence he asked was for time to rebuild that noble structure. So convinced was he that this would be thought reasonable by the House, that he even hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Browne) would move the second reading to this day three months, but lest he should not do so, to put it in a proper way, he begged leave to move that amendment himself.
General Tarktonseconded the amendment and was of opinion that time ought to be given for the rebuilding of the theatre. He appealed to the feelings of the House, and called on them to consider the immortal works of Mr. Sheridan, and the stoical philosophy with which in that House he had witnessed the destruction of his property. Surely some indulgence was due to such merit. After ail, he could not see of what use a third theatre would be, when Mr. Kemble, an accomplished actor and scholar, was under the necessity of introducing quadrupeds to fill the only one which the town now enjoyed. But this was the age of "osculation. They had hon. gentlemen speculating in canals, who were not possessed of a foot of land, and cared very little for the water; and they had hon. gentlemen speculating in theatres, who never read the poets, and never entered a play-house.
Mr. Marryattdisavowed being a speculator of any kind, and noticed the extreme inconvenience to which the public were put by having only one theatre. If a gentleman applied for a box for himself and family, he was informed he could not get one for fourteen days; and thus taking it on chance for that time, if they wanted to laugh at a comedy, they were perhaps seated to cry at a tragedy: and if they desired a tragedy, they might be treated with a comedy or a melodrama. It thus happened that the managers of theatres were not competitors for public favour, but the public were competitors for the favour of the single manager who now monopolized the task of providing amusement for this great city. He did not see it shewn even that a third theatre 1144 was unnecessary; and of this he was sure, that if more theatres were allowed to be built, the public would not have them constructed of a size only to augment the profits of the managers, at which the audience could neither hear nor see those fine expressions of countenance which constituted the charm of acting; but of a moderate extent, where neither horses nor asses could be exhibited. There was another consideration which pressed upon him from the present state of the theatrical world. Some of he very best male and female performers in the country could not procure engagements, being thrown out by the quadrupeds, which could be obtained at a cheaper rate, and could act on the largest theatre, as there was no necessity for watching the expressive turns of their countenances! It had been said by Mr. Kemble (as he had seen by the newspapers), at one of the dinners of the O. P. gentry, that it required two theatres to make one good one; and he was convinced, if there were not more than one, that the consequence of the monopoly would be, that at that theatre they would have sound and show instead of sterling merit; as, from the monopoly of the Bank, they would have depreciated paper instead of sterling coin.
Mr. Morrissaid, that the circumstance of many able performers being out of employment, was one likely to be applicable to all times and situations. In France, where theatres were so numerous, and where taste was supposed to exist to such adegree, this complaint was always made, and always made with reason. As to the introduction of pageantry upon the stage, that also was a general practice to which managers must resort. It was a well known fact that the Misanthrope of Moliere was held up for many nights by the aid of a farce or some shewy exhibition, which kept the audience in good humour. The public taste was not to be considered degraded merely because it could admire talents of a different description, or performances of a distinct species. There was always a security in the good sense of the public for their coming back again to the legitimate drama. As to the question of expence, although) the food and pay of the quadruped performers were less, the whole expence of the pageant was considerably greater. But when the drama was mentioned, and its excellence preferred, they should recollect how much the drama was indebted to him whose interest was con- 1145 cerned in the present motion. They should recollect, that if we were now in a condition to contend with the Theatre of France, it was to him they were indented for that distinction. They should also recollect, that the names of Siddons, Kemble, and Jordan, appeared among the creditors of the late Theatre of Drury-lane; and decide upon the propriety of preferring their claims to the claims of a few greedy speculators whose only object it was to fill their own pockets.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, he would trouble the House but for a short time on this occasion, though he could not help feeling grateful for the personal civility and attention which he had experienced from both sides of the House. It was pleasing to him, though a party man, to find that his conduct was such as to procure for him this personal consideration. There were, however, one or two words which fell from his hon. friend on the floor (Mr. Whitbread), and his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Moore), which, sensible as he was to the compliments they had paid him, he felt hurt at being employed on this question. One of his hon. friends had asked for the "indulgence" of the House, and the other for the "favour" of postponement. Now, though grateful for the partiality they had shewn towards him, yet he would take the pride to say, that he wished nothing from the. House but its impartial justice. An hon. gent. had complained of the difficulty of procuring a box at the Theatre, and of the perversion of the public taste by the introduction of quadrupeds. But that was a mistaken view of the subject, for it was the taste of the town that perverted the Theatre. Mr. Kemble would much rather, he was sure, act on his own two legs, than call in the aid of cavalry; but the fact was, that the taste of the town was more gratified by them, that taste being perverted by the depravity of manners, and the alteration in the mode of living which prevented people of fashion from attending and taking the lead in the theatres as formerly. It was erroneous in gentlemen to say there was only one theatre, when in fact there were two, and one of them of that very description which gentlemen required, where they could hear every thing and see the varied expressions of the actor's countenance, and where there was no room for cavalry to plance about; and yet that theatre was almost deserted, although there never was a better company collected together under a 1146 more able manager. It was long since he had interfered with the management of a Theatre, but he recollected once, and only once, having interfered in procuring the representation of a play from the pen of a female author (Miss Bailey), whose admirable works were an honour to her and the country. This play (De Montford) was brought forward, and with all the aid of Mr. Kemble and Mrs. Siddons, and the most superb scenery, failed, he must say, through the perverted taste of the public. As for the present Petition, he had no objection to ten or twelve persons presenting, but he asserted, if a third Theatre were at all necessary, they (the Drurylane Patentees) had the power and right to execute it—and the House never would take away their monopoly without granting them a full compensation. Gentlemen called it the London Theatre, and so it had been read from the chair; but it had no title to that name. When it came before the privy council, he had pleaded his own cause, not from any mistrust of the learned profession but as he had done on a former occasion, without mistrusting the eloquence of the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Perceval), which, if he had done the displays of oratory which he had since given in a higher situation would completely have put him to the blush. He then had an opportunity of seeing their briefs, and must say they were the most poetical he ever read, and the privy council had rejected the claim. Upon this they came to the House of Commons to ask them to contradict the privy council, and do that which the king by his prerogative had the power of doing, and had refused. With this unusual request he was sure the House would not comply, and, indeed, it was unparalleled in the annals of parliament for them to do that which by prerogative was given to the crown. When the application was made to the council for the patent, after properly applying to the House to be incorporated, there were also ten or twelve other parties claiming and the present were really the worst in the field, and yet they now asked of parliament more than the king could grant them, and instead of a twenty-one year patent, to give them a lasting patent. This was unparalleled, and in fact stripping the king of his prerogative. To return to the assumed name of "London Theatre;" he had no objection to bringing the matter before parliament, but it ought not to come on a false pretence and in masque- 1147 rade. The parties knew that it never was their intention to build it in the city; they had no claim to it, and had even given assurance that they would, in the Committee, propose a clause not to go within the city bounds. The signature of the Lord Mayor was not quasi Lord Mayor, but as a banker to the projected work. He begged, though irregular, to ask any hon. member for the city if this were not strictly true?
Alderman Shawdeclared that the city of London had no intention of countenancing the erection of this theatre within their liberties.
§ Mr. Sheridanresumed: he hoped this would satisfy the House for the present. If ever the question came to be discussed again, it would be on the ground of compensation to the patentees, and not to wrest their property from them with the unfeeling hand of iron injustice. Even all the wild patents granted by Charles 2, had been taken away only on compensation being made, and they would never deal more hardly by a patent for which a valuable consideration was given.—He had troubled the House at this length, as he was most anxious for the interests of the proprietors and renters of the theatre, who had lost so much, and every feeling of honour and sensibility prompted him to advocate their cause. For the truth with which he had done this, and the earnest exertions making to re-establish the property, he had only to refer to his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), whose character stamped the transaction, as he would never lend himself to any untrue or delusory statement.
Alderman Shawanswered in the negative. The Royalty theatre was not within the liberties of London, but in the Tower Hamlets.
§ Mr. Sheridanexplained; and after a few words from gen. Phipps and Mr. Hellish, the House divided, when there appeared—For the second reading 23 ; For the amendment 80; Majority 57. The Bill was accordingly lost.