The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-19 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

R. Whitworth and Co., Rivington, Lancashire, cotton-
spinners—J. Graham and Co., Lincoln's•inn, solicitors—
T. R. Flint and Co., Margate, ironmongers—NV. and J
H. Bare, Colchester, fish-carriers—G. Mills and T. Lloyd,
coal-merchants—S. Hassett and R. Waller, Goodtnan's-
stile, Church-lane, Whitechapel, brass-founders--W. Ack-
land and D. T. G. Mil, Bideford, Devonshire, surgeons—
J. and J. Turner, Shelley, Kirkburton, Yorkshire, cloth-
manufacturers—T. Knight and J. Waters, Davies-street,
Berkeley-street, skin-salesmen—R. Harrison and J. An-
ders; Liverpool, provision•dealers—W. Raynor and Co.,
Edward-street, Portman-square, saddlers—J. Pringle and
Co., Milford, South Walls, rope-makers—J. E. Eburne
and AV. Knight, Coventry, ribbon-dressers—W. Batson
and T. Huteson, I3urringham, Lincolnshire, maltsters
—J. Carson and J. Murray, Reading, linen-drapers—E.
Waller and R. Taylor, Wrangle, Lincolnshire, millers
—R. and W. Braithwait, Sheffield, Yorkshire, manu-
facturers of scissors—L. Weatheilmrn and C. Metcalf,
Bradford, Yorkshire, straw-hat-manufacturers—R. and
J. Clapham, Batley, Yorkshire, cloth-manufacturer—J.
Sayca and S. Jesper, Macclesfield, Cheshire, drapers--
W. and T. Calrow, Higher Woodhill, Bury, Lancashire,
cotton-spinners—J. Townsend and Co., High Holborn,
haberdashers--J. Clarke, jun., and J. Dike, White-cross-
street., colour-paper-manufacturers—R. Elston and P. G.
Mayhew, P 1 tistow, Essex, stage-coach proprietors—J.
Collinson and Co., North and., South Cave, Yorkshire,
grocers—W. and A. Patterson, Selby, Yorkshire, tea-
dealers--T. Wilson and J. Fowler, Sheffield Park, iron-
founders—R. and W. Puzey, Wardour-street, Soho, hat-
ters—J. Hignett and T.-Lightfoot, Liverpool, tobacco-
manufacturers—T. Ellis and B. Lyons, Chester, coal-
merchants—W. Morton and R. Russell, Edinburgh,
leather-factors—J. and H. Madden, Frome Selwood, So-
meraetsbire, grocers—J. and T. Lee, Warrington, Lanca-
shire, sail-cloth-manufacturers--J. Coulstock and H.
Martin, Reigate, Surrey, millers—M. Robinson and Co.,
York, druggists—R. Hawkins and G. D. Monteith,
Brierley-hill, Kingswinford, Staffordshire, surgeons.

RIGHTS OF THE PATENT THEATRES.

Yesterday evening, at the usual hour (seven
o'clock), the hearing of Counsel upon Nit. Arnold's
petition was renewed.
Sir E. B. SUGDEN proceeded with his argument.
The first case to which he called their attention
was O'Rielly's, in which the Lord Chancellor of
that day (Lord Tburlow) said that the King might,
if he pleased, license twenty new playhouses within
the metropolis, and even in Covent-garden and
Drury-lane; but it was for his Majesty to consider if
that would be proper and right. So exactly said
Mr. Arnold ; he sought for nothing more, in the
way, at least, of proving any matter of strict
right, than to make it apparent to their Lord-
ships that the Crown possessed the clear and
undeniable right of licensing as many playhouses
as his Majesty might be advised it was proper
to license ; and having done that, he merely
submited to the Crown, in the form of petition
and supplication, that his license be restored to
him. Lord Tburlow, in giving an opinion in
O'Rielly's case, went on to say that he did
not know whether the other Theatres had their
Patents in fee or not ; but of this he felt perfectly
assured, that whether they bad or nor, they had
better not provoke inquiry, and he entertained not
the least doubt that their Patents would not stand a
moment if abused. Thus, then, he had the great
authority of Lord Tburlow, that those Patents
would not stand a moment if the privileges which
they conferred happened to be abused; but even if
not abused, he thought it could be collected from
what his Lordship said—though certainly he had
expressed no distinct opinion to that effect—that
those patents had no, legal validity whatever. When
an application was made for a third Theatre in the
year 1810—an application that probably was re-
membered by one, at least, of their Lordships (the
Lord Chancellor), who, having been then at the
bar, was concerned in the cause—

• The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes, I think I was for
Covent-garden.
Sir E. B. SUGDEN resumed—On that occasion
Drury-lane fully admitted the right of the Crown,
as no rational man could deny that right—the right
of the Crown to grant as many new patents as it
thought proper, and to say to any Theatre in London,
you shall not set up a monopoly. He would now
refer generally to what had been the patent rights,
and what had been the history of those Theatres in
respect of their patents from the original grant of the
patent to the present time, premising that he did
not profess to be minutely accurate. Io 1662, as
had more than once bee:: stated to their Lordships,
two patents were granted ; these were afterwards
united in Rich, in the year 1681. By the deed
made in that year—to which Killigrew, on the one
part, and Davenant, Betterton, and Smith of the
other, were parties—there was a clear abandonment
of one of the patents, and an attempt to unite both
in the hands of one man. Now, as a lawyer, he
found the utmost difficuby in thscovering which of
the patents was intende,i to be abandoned—that is,
which of the two waa proposed to be suspended by
that alleged deed ei union—a deed that, in his ap-
prehension,
had the effect of dissolving both patents;
at least, he conceived that such a union had taken
place as precluded subsequent severance. In such a
state of things it became impossible that the right
should undergo any other change than that ofrevert-
ing to the Crowns. In the year 1695, a license was
granted to Bettert on for Drury-lane; and in 1705, a
license was granted for a theatre in the Old Tennis-
court, Lincoln's Inn-fields ; a license was also granted
to Congreve and Vanbtaigh, for an Italian Theatre in
the Ha)market ; and'in 1708, the two companies
were re-united, and the Haymarket Theatre conti-
nued to give Italian performances. In 1709, Rich,
who up to that time had been performing in Covent-
Garden Theatre, was silenced for misconduct, but
he still kept his patent. In that matter there walk
nothing done till the month of November, 1709,
when on the 19th of that month a license was
granted to Collier, fur Drury-lane; and this he
considered to be a matter of much importance. A
license was granted to that person by a letter from