HL Deb 02 March 1812 vol 21 cc1075-7

Lord Holland moved the second reading of the Drury Lane Theatre Bill.

The Duke of Norfolk

thought, that some farther delay ought to be allowed, that the nature and object of the Bill might be more fully investigated. Well regulated theatres, he bad no doubt, were highly proper in all large cities, and contributed, not only to the entertainment of the people, but also to the improvement of their morals. He had no objection, therefore, to the measure merely as a Bill for building a theatre; but there were some points in the Bill that deserved mature consideration. It might be expedient, in the progress of it through the House, to turn their attention to the state of the metropolis, with regard to its theatres in general, and to consider the foundation and tendency of the monopoly. He should, therefore, propose the postponement of the second reading till to-morrow se'nnight.

Lord Holland

stated, that the object of the present Bill merely was to extend the time and enlarge the powers for carrying the design of the former Bill into effect. This was its principle, and he saw no reason for the delay proposed by his noble friend. It was of great importance to those concerned, that if the Bill was to pass at all, it should pass speedily. If long delays were allowed, the Bill might be got rid of by a side wind. If his noble friend objected to any of the details of the Bill, the committee was the proper place in which to state them When the Bill should be amended in the committee, some time might be permitted to elapse between the commitment and the third reading.

The Duke of Norfolk

said, that the osten- sible intent of the Bill certainly was to carry into effect the provisions of the former Bill; but he rather thought it would be found, that the enactment went beyond that; and as the second reading had been generally understood to be the proper stage in which to discuss the principle of any measure, he should persist in his motion for delay.

The question was put, but no division took place. The Bill was then read a second time, and a motion made for committing it to-morrow.

The Duke of Norfolk

opposed this also, and contended that the committal at least ought to be fixed for a more distant day. There was no good reason for hurrying the Bill in this manner through the House. The session was not so far advanced that the loss of the Bill could be seriously dreaded merely from a delay of a few days.

Lord Erskine opposed the delay, and lord Redesdale supported it, observing that there were certainly some provisions in it that required consideration. After a few words from the Lord Chancellor, stating that he had approved the second reading now, because the amendments, if any were required, might be made in the committee, it was agreed that the Bill should be committed on Thursday.

Lord Erskine

moved for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the best means of ventilating the place, in which their lordships sat, and adverted to the uncomfortable feeling which must be excited, and which he himself had experienced from the vast number of small holes in the floor. One might catch cold even in a post-chaise in summer, if the chaise were full of small holes. He was the more alive to this subject, from the experience he had had in the courts where he had long practised.

Lord Grenville

had no objection to the committee merely for the purpose of enquiry, but at the same time said, that the plan recommended by Mr. Davy had not as yet had its fair trial. The House had undoubtedly been rendered more comfortable since that plan had been adopted.

The Lord Chancellor

had the greatest respect for Mr. Davy; but if any of their lordships would come on Wednesday, and sit with him to hear a Scotch cause, with 500 holes under that table, all the philosophers in the world could hardly persuade him that his situation was of a very comfortable nature.

Lord Mulgrave

had often suffered se- verely from oppressive heat in the House; and of the two extremes, he should certainly prefer cold to heat.

The Lord Chancellor

requested the noble lord, who was a very good lawyer, to come and hear the Scotch cause, and then he would probably alter his opinion.

The motion was agreed to.