§ House in committee on the Theatres Regulation Bill.
§ Lord Beaumontmoved that the 7th, or Shaksperian prohibition clause, be struck out.
§ Lord Monteaglethought it a disgrace to the times in which they lived—a disgrace to literature, and to common sense, to prohibit the representation of the plays of that dramatic author, who, by all consent, was the greatest author the world had ever produced.
The Lord ChancellorThe patent theatres might not choose to play Shakspeare, or if they should happen to be shut up, then the country would not have his plays at all.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that it was for the interest of the theatrical profession that the plays of Shakspeare should be confined to the patent theatres, and it was unfair to change patents, on the faith of which large sums had been laid out, and which had been so long undisturbed except when the patent was granted to the little theatre in the Haymarket by George 3rd. The fact was that the small theatres had been breaking the law. As to the size of the theatres, the theatres in France, where alone the legitimate drama was allowed to be performed, were nearly twice as large as the English theatres. It was impossible to give proper scenic effect to Shakspeare in a small theatre: only one individual, some eminent tragedian, would have a salary fit to live upon, to the exclusion of the others. It was only in large theatres, producing enough money to the treasury for all the performers to be paid 10l. or 15l. a week, that Shakspeare could be acted. Depend upon it if this clause were given up, only one individual would be benefitted and all others injured.
§ Lord Wharncliffewas disposed to consider the objection, and would do so before the report.
Lord Campbell, if the clause stood, hoped there would be a clause compelling the patent theatres to act Shakspeare.
§ Consideration of the clause posponed.
§ Other clauses gone through, report was brought up ordered to be received on Monday.
§ House adjourned.