SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 April 1883)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was not asking the Legislature to introduce any new practice, but merely to sanction that which had, in ignorance of the law, taken place for 40 years without any person interfering. It had hitherto been the practice of these who were owners of large houses—many being Members of their Lordships' House—to grant the use of these houses temporarily for the performance of stage plays, concerts, and other similar purposes in aid of charities; but, until recently, it appeared to have occurred to no one that it was possible that such benevolent intention was otherwise than perfectly legal. It would probably be in the recollection of their Lordships that a month or two ago a case was tried by one of the police magistrates of the Metropolis—the case of Sir Percy Shelley—in which it was stated that a private person had no power to lend his house for this purpose with- 721 out contravening the law. The effect of that decision was that any person who lent his house for the purpose of a charitable performance would hereafter be liable to a penalty of £20, and every person who took part in it would be liable to a penalty of £10. The history of the subject was briefly this. Before 1837 there was, practically, no Statute law on the subject. The law relating to the Theatrical Profession then consisted really in these portions of the Vagrant Acts which dealt with actors as rogues and vagabonds. But in 1837 a distinct authority was given by Parliament to the Lord Chamberlain, continuing and confirming his power to licence plays for the Metropolis, which continued until 1843, in which year an Act was passed giving to the Lord Chamberlain authority to licence places for stage performances within the whole of the Metropolitan boroughs. It was under that Act that the case he had referred to was decided, though for a considerable number of years no person had thought of interfering ill the matter. With regard to that Act a noble and learned Lord, who was not then in the House (Lord Bramwell), declared on one occasion that it was very clumsily drawn, and their Lordships would probably agree with that opinion; and although the point whether the Act applied to performances in aid of charities was not what was raised before him, the noble and learned Lord declined to express any opinion upon it. Under these circumstances, he (the Earl of Onslow) would ask their Lordships to relieve these who were labouring under the disability he referred to. There could be but little doubt that public interest in the Dramatic Profession had considerably increased in the last few years, and a school was now established in England for the training of actors. It had been said that there was considerable rivalry and jealousy between professional and amateur actors; but he thought there was much misconception on that point. Some somewhat scathing remarks were made a few days ago, by perhaps the leading actor of the present day; but he had ascertained that they wore intended to apply, not so much to these who were bonâ fide amateurs or who were members of Dramatic Clubs, which had for their object the training of young men and women for the stage, as to these who 722 appeared on the public stage before they were qualified to do so. As a proof that the public interest in dramatic performances had increased, he might state that while in 1843 there were only 29 theatres in the Metropolis, in 1878 there were 50, and the number had since increased by five or six. There were only two objections urged against the measure. First, that it tended to take away from an author the copyright of his work. Any such intention as that was far from his thoughts when framing the Bill; but if it could be shown that it would have this effect, he should be perfectly willing to insert a clause in Committee to meet it. The second objection was far more important—namely, that there was nothing in it to protect the public from the danger of fire. He had every desire to see the public properly protected in this respect, and, with that view, he submitted the Bill, three weeks ago, to the Metropolitan Board of Works, with a request that they would suggest a clause to meet the objection; but, up to the present, he had received no reply from the Board. He had, therefore, prepared a clause on the point, proposing that the occupier of any house where stage plays were performed should give eight days' notice of any performance to the Clerk of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that if it should appear that such place was defective in structure, or that there was any danger to the persons attending, the Board should have power to prohibit the entertainment. During the last 40 years there had been no interference on the part of the Goverment or the Metropolitan Board of Works with these who gave such charitable performances; and ho could not believe that their Lordships would now oppose an effort to rectify the law in order that they might be given legally.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
believed the matter was not of sufficient importance to call for legislation, and that the noble Earl had not made out a case for interference in the subject by Parliament. It was a pity to put in motion so great a machine to meet what at the most was a trifling inconvenience. The Lord Chamberlain's power was useful, and such measures as this tended towards its abrogation. What were charitable 723 purposes? And why impose upon magistrates the decision, which would vary in different places according to their idiosyncracies? If ladies and gentlemen now chose to assemble in a theatre, there was nothing to prevent them from subscribing what they pleased to any charity, provided that was done voluntarily; but if money was to be taken at the doors, there was no reason why they should escape the present restrictions. The licence was not costly, and the matter was really not one of public importance, or one which called for any legislative interference. He should oppose the Motion.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, he quite agreed with every word which had fallen from the noble Viscount. His own views, however, went even further. The object of the Bill appeared to be this. It was not such a small thing, for it meant simply the cancelling of the main principle of the Act for licensing theatres. That principle—which was founded on the wise ground of public utility—was that no performance should take place in any but a patent or licensed theatre. It was not necessary to remind their Lordships that a licence was required for theatres on grave public grounds. The noble Earl, it was true, would make an exception in the case of performances for any purpose of charity or of public utility. But he (the Earl of Rosebery) thought both these terms admitted of very wide interpretation. The definition of charity could be applied to a vast number of cases, ranging over an infinity of subjects; but, after all, the question was, whether people assembled to see a performance for the purpose of charity or public utility or not, they must be protected, as all great assemblies should be protected. The idea of the Legislature in insisting on licences was not to recognize the authority of the Lord Chamberlain or of the Justices of the Peace, but it was to see that no plays were presented to audiences which were not suitable for representation. The noble Earl, as to that, only laid down that no play should be presented which had been refused the Lord Chamberlain's sanction; and there was nothing in the Bill, as far as he could see, to prevent any play, however improper it might be, which had not been submitted to the Lord Chamberlain, from being presented in this man- 724 ner. Another requisite in matters of this kind was the preservation of order, and there was also the protection against fire and the safety of the structure in which theatrical performances were given. If there were any particular theatrical performance that would seem to require the protection of the Legislature, it was one which took place, not in a structure usually employed for the purpose, but in a private dwelling-house or some building not intended for it; but it was exactly in that case that the noble Earl's Bill would withdraw every protection which was deemed essential with regard to buildings constructed for the purpose. The noble Earl had alluded to the great increase in the number of theatres which had taken place in London during the last 30 years; but that statement furnished one of the strongest arguments against his own Bill, because if there had been that very great increase, there was surely no particular reason for endeavouring to introduce a new and unlicensed sort of theatre for the amusement of London playgoers. If charitable performances were required, there was nothing, or very little, to prevent the engagement of a theatre for the purpose. For these reasons, he was sorry to say that the Government were not able to support the second reading of the Bill.