Lords Sitting of 9 March 1812

LICENCE TRADE.
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale moved for copies of the forms of Licences granted for the conveyance of cargoes from one foreign port to another, with the condition of touching at a British port, for the three years ending the 5th of January, 1812.
Earl Bathursttook the opportunity of stating, that licences granted for vessels sailing from foreign ports, to touch at British ports before sailing to their ports of destination, did not operate to swell the amount of imports and exports, as the cargoes were not entered amongst either.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, he did not allude to vessels touching at a British port, but where they were entered in the progress of their voyage under licence from foreign port to foreign port. There was another case, however, of which he had just been informed, and which served to shew the fallacy of the accounts of exports and imports—a vessel sailing from America, under a licence from the emperor of France, bound to Bourdeaux, was captured by a British cruizer, and condemned as prize in the Admiralty Court, and then the cargo was sent under a British licence to the very same port to which it was originally destined.
Earl Bathurstsaid, he would not now enter into the question as to our right to capture a vessel bound to a port under blockade, and to condemn it as prize; but with respect to the alledged fallacy of the accounts of exports and imports, he denied the fact; the amount of the export of British produce and manufactures was distinctly stated in the accounts, and distinguished from foreign produce which had
1210
been imported for the purpose of being re-exported. It had been stated on a former occasion, that merchants entered at the Custom-house more than they intended to export, and that this rendered the account of exports fallacious. The fact was, however, that the quantity of goods actually exported was entered on the back of the cocket, and it was from these entries that the official account of exports was made up.
The Motion was then agreed to.

DRURY LANE THEATRE BILL.
On the question for the third reading of this Bill,
The Duke of Norfolkrose and declared his disapprobation of it in its present shape. There were some clauses which he thought highly necessary in order to render it worthy the concurrence of their lordships, and which he meant to propose. His grace then took a view of the progress of the measure, including the act of last session, from its first rise to the Bill now in its last stage before their lordships. The real fact was, that a principle of exclusive right was claimed and acted upon, in these measures, and while it was acted upon, the people of the metropolis could have only two houses adapted for the species of amusement to which the Bill referred. The very great difference between the British metropolis at the periods in which the patents were granted, and at the present day, formed a material part of the consideration. The population of the metropolis was not then one-third equal to what it had now become, and the facts proved, that under the monopoly, the proprietors or managers could not, with their two theatres, accommodate such an increased population, so as to bear a just proportion to the powers of the human voice or the human eyes; in consequence, they were obliged to have recourse to exhibitions of a most unprecedented and extraordinary kind, such as the introduction of the monsters of Africa, and other distant climes, upon the stage, forming loathsome or disgusting spectacles. These practices were to be attributed to the metropolis.—The noble duke then adverted to the private boxes, the principle of which he disapproved. The people of England, he observed, had a right to a general admission to a public theatre—no part of it should be exclusively appropriated to the rich. He should therefore propose the exclusion of the relevant clause. It was upon this general ground that he objected to such exclusive

1211
appropriations: with respect to the rise in prices, the consideration was very different: looking at the comparative value of money, it was what the proprietors had a right to do; but when, from the effects of exclusion, whole rows of boxes were seen empty, the opposition which was made to the practice, was, upon the principle to which he had referred, in his mind, fully justifiable; and inconsequence of the opposition that was made, the number of these private boxes were greatly reduced. The noble duke concluded, by moving for the omission of those parts of the clause relative to the appropriation of private boxes to which he had adverted, for the purpose of introducing an enactment modelled agreeably to his idea upon the subject, and providing that the appropriation and allotment of private boxes should remain subject to such laws, rules, and powers as have existed heretofore.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, it most forcibly struck him, in reference to the noble duke's proposed enactment, that it would be highly necessary to know what were the rules, laws, and powers, to which these things were subject heretofore. As to what the existing law for such things was, he did not know; but when he was a young man and occasionally frequented a theatre, public boxes were in effect rendered private any night the box-keeper thought proper, on application being made to him for the purpose.
The Earl of Rosslyndefended the Bill in its present shape. Referring to the question of private boxes, he observed, that the number of private boxes in the old theatre, was, he believed, 34 or 36. The proprietors, with respect to the regulation, possessed in law the same right which every man had in his own property. He referred to the arrangements proposed in that respect; with regard to the boxes of the prince of Wales, the duke of Bedford, proprietor of the land, and of Mrs. Garrick, who was so considered, in honour of that distinguished person who had so greatly advanced the refinement and reputation of the British stage. The regulation which was made with respect to the sales of the private boxes for a number of years, had the general approbation of the proprietors; in fact, it was one imposed by the proprietors on themselves.
The question was then put on the clause, and negatived.
The Duke of Norfolkthen objected to the power given of leasing these boxes for
1212
21 years, and proposed as an amendment, that they should be only let from year to year, which, to a certain extent, at least, would make them more open to the public in general. This amendment was also negatived.
The Duke of Norfolknext proposed to add a clause to the Bill, providing that nothing contained in this or the former Bill, should go to recognize the validity of the patent of Charles the 2nd. The ground upon which he did this was, that the report of the committee had stated this patent as recognized by the former act. He then adverted to the absurd monopolies which had been sometimes granted, and yet declared to be illegal; and stated as an instance, a patent granted to one of his ancestors, the earl of Surrey, that every public house in the city of Westminster, must be licensed by him. If this patent had been valid, the successors of that nobleman must have been among the richest men in the world; for they would have had the power of saying, that no one should keep a public house in Westminster without purchasing a licence from them. Commercial monopolies by such patents were too odious to stand long. Theatrical monopolies, being of less importance, were less attended to; but still they stood on the same principle, and ought to be abolished. At present it was at least a question, whether they were legal; but it was the duty of the House to take care that nothing should be done by a side-wind that should appear to recognize them as valid.
The Earl of Rosslynopposed the clause, on the ground that there was no occasion for it.
Lord Erskinealso opposed it, observing; that there was nothing in the Bill recognizing the legality of the patent.
The Earl of Lauderdaleagreed perfectly in what had fallen from the noble duke, on the subject of monopolies; and if there were any thing in the Bill that should appear to give the least countenance to the idea that parliament recognized the validity of the patent, he should think that the clause ought to be introduced. He had not examined the Bill sufficiently to enable him to judge whether that was the case or not, and proposed that the farther consideration of the question should be adjourned till to-morrow.
Lord Redesdaledid not think that the Bill recognized the validity of the patent; but enough had been stated by the noble

1213
duke to make it proper that the discussion should be adjourned for a day, that they might examine more particularly into the effect of the Bill in that view.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to the clause, on the ground that whatever rights the former Bill had given, the persons concerned were now entitled to them; and it would be an act of injustice and had faith to deprive them of those rights.
The Earl of Lauderdaledid not see how there could be any injustice in securing the public against these persons, acquiring that which they not only had not claimed, but had expressly disclaimed, namely, a legislative recognition of the validity of their patent. If there was any thing in the former act which might, by the ingenuity of lawyers, be tortured into an argument for the recognition of the patent, the doubt ought to be done away, instead of making one error the ground-work of another.
Earl Greydeclared himself of the same opinion as the noble duke on the subject of theatrical as well as commercial monopolies; and if there was any reasonable ground of suspicion, that there was any thing in the Bill recognizing the legality of the patent, the adjournment, at least, ought to be agreed to.
Lord Erskinestill opposed the clause, on the ground, that there was no such recognition in the Bill.
The question was first put on the motion of adjournment, which was negatived; and then on the additional clause, which was also negatived. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.