SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 June 1865)

§ MR. LOCKE,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that such a measure had been rendered necessary in consequence of the action taken by the managers of certain theatres. Having obtained a monopoly, they wished to prevent all other persons who did not possess the Lord Chamberlain's licence from giving any stage performances which interfered with such licence. These powers were claimed under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 61, called the Dramatic Licensing Act, which empowered the Lord Chamberlain to license theatres (not being patent theatres) in certain districts of the metropolis — namely, in London and Westminster, Fins-bury, the Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, and Marylebone. Theatres situate in other parts of the metropolis and the country generally were licensed by the magistrates—with the exception of certain places in which there were Royal residences, concerning which there was some dispute. Previous to the passing of this Act the patent theatres—Drury Lane, Covent Garden, and the Haymarket —possessed the exclusive right of performing the legitimate drama—although what that was it was difficult to discover, for, with the exception of Sadler's Wells and one or two other theatres, the performances were by no means legitimate. Besides the Dramatic Licensing Act, the 6 & 7 Vial. c. 61, there was the Act of the 25 Geo. II. c. 36, which was commonly called the Music and Dancing Act, and was passed to restrain persons from having public music or dancing on their promises without the licence of the magistrates granted at quarter sessions, the object being mainly to restrain what were called disorderly houses. By section 2 of that Act, the Justices in London and Westminster, or within twenty miles thereof, after the 1st of December, 1752, were empowered "to grant licences for public dancing, music, or other entertainments of the like kind." 179 Under that Act the minor theatres, as distinguished from Drury Lane, Covent Garden, and the Haymarket, were in the 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 180 the music-halls, for proceedings had been taken in Birmingham of a similar character. There was not a literary institution in the country, if these managers of theatres had their way, that would be permitted to perform a scene out of Shakespeare's plays or a portion of an opera. Under these circumstances the House was, he thought, called upon to interfere by legislation. The managers formerly complained that they had not the same privileges as the patent theatres; they then cried out for free trade; but they were now monopolists. They claimed to go further than the proprietors of the patent theatres, and wanted to have a monopoly of every species of stage performance. Such a state of things ought not to be permitted. The theatrical managers alleged that they were actuated by the desire to uphold the true drama—but, in fact, they hardly ever performed a piece that came within the definition of the legitimate drama. It was said that in some of those music-halls eating and drinking and smoking were allowed. Well, was the House aware that a licence to a theatre to perform stage plays carried with it a wine, beer, and spirit licence? This was in consequence of a clause having been introduced into an Act, the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 39, the 7th section of which Act authorized the Commissioners of Excise to grant retail licences to sell beer, spirits, and wine, in any theatre established under a royal patent, or licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, or by the Justices. Until the year 1858 this section of the Act had been considered as making it optional with the Excise to grant such licence, but a case was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and Sir FitzRoy Kelly gave it as his opinion that the Commissioners had no option whatever, and that the production of the Theatrical Licence entitled the holder of it to demand the licence to sell beer, wine, and spirits in the theatre as a matter of right. It appeared that there was no doubt that the opinion given by Sir FitzRoy Kelly, was a correct opinion, at all events it had been acted upon ever since, and it was the custom for the officers of Excise to bring the beer, spirits, and wine licences to every new lessee of a theatre as a matter of course, and receive payment for them. He (Mr. Locke) had endeavoured, when the Refreshment House Licences Bill was in Committee, to introduce a clause repealing the 7th section of the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 39, but he was met 181 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 performance, 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 182 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 post 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.

§ 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.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, if his hon. and learned Friend meant to press the Bill, it was quite necessary that the debate should he 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 183 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.