The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-12 00:00:00

lease to Mr. Sheridan the teem was altered, and ran from
September, 1809, to May, 1810.
The LORD CaraNceeton.—Then how establish a yearly
letting under the license, when the term was so altered?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The deed between the
parties set out that Mr. Arnold was the principal pro-
prietor of the Lyceum, which was of itself a recognition
of the lieense, and therefore of the power and right to let,
though for a tern) different from that contained in the
license ; the premises were regularly demised.
The LORD CHANCELLOR-Were the premises only de-
mised, or was the license included? For it would be but
right to know if there was also a demise of the right of
property under the license which was from February to
February, and not from September to May, as in the letting
to Mr. Sheridan. Take care that the latter delusion might
not prove a bar to the right for which you are now con-
tending.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL-.4115t SO ; but he would
shell-, from the provisions of the deed, that each of the
contracting parties for the Lyceum and Drury-lane had
stipulated for all the then existing rights of the one Thea-
tre under the license, and of the other under the patent.
The premises were not only not alone demised, but the
expenses of the house (the Lyceum) and the division
of the ultimate residue, were to be managed ae before,
which was in equal thirds between Mr. Arnold, Mr.
Sheridan, and Mr. Greville. The deed also stipu-
lated that the license should continue as it had been
already granted to Mr. Arnold, although, as was be-
fore stated, Mr. Sheridan conditioned that the monopoly
of the Drury-lane Patentees should not be invaded in con-
sequence of the existing license under the Lord Chamber-
lain. The object of this deed, generally, was to ackoow-•
ledge the license and all the other rights granted under it,
to the Lyceum, and to all of which Mr. Sheridan fully
consented, though be was naturally enough jealous of the
privileges of Drury-lane. So far then as the contract
went, as well as the deed, there could be nothing doubtful,
unless, indeed, they were in this case to be differently con-
strued from what they would be in the ordinary transac-
tions of this nature between man and man. The license
was fully acknowledged. Mr. Sheridan declared his con-
sent to it, though as a Patentee he did not waive his
right of monopoly, and that was a consideration of very
considerable importance. The license of Mr. Arnold was
from Feb. 1809, to Feb. 1810, and the reason of the alte-
ration was simply this :—Mr. Arnold had neither sought
nor obtained a license for the performance of Tragedy or
Comedy, which it would be necessary for the Drury-lane
Company to perform ; but this they could not have done
without permission from the Lord Chamberlain, which
under those circumstances was granted. And this, in
fact, was no new license, but only an alteration to suit the
particular circumstances of the case.
The LORD CHANCELLOE-The first lease to Mr. Arnold
was from February, 1809, to February, 1810. The lease
(for it amounts to that for all the purposes of this case)
was from September, 1809, to May, 1810, and that was
not Mr. Arnold's original lease.
The SOLICITOE-GENXEAL—Certainly so ; but he was
prepared to shew that the old license, from February,lBo9,
to February, 1810, only went off in consequence of the sub-
sequent contract with Mr. Sheridan, which made an ex-
tended license necessary, in order that the Drury-lane
Company should be enabled to act in tragedy and comedy
as well as in opera and other dramatic entertainments, to
the two last of which the old license for the Lyceum was
restricted. Here be begged leave to state his suspicion
that an attempt would be made on the other side to in-
troduce a charge of interpolation into the license, and he
only mentioned it, not as worthy of refutation, but to shew
he was aware that some such idle intention existed. The
license to Mr. Sheridan from Sept. 1809, to May,lBlo,
was not referrable to the single title of Mr. Arnold alone,
but merely chewed that the general title for acting was en-
larged, and the general title so far went hand in hand
with the particular title. The result of all this went to
show, that upon the representation being made to the
Crown of the change of the demise to Mr. Sheridan, the
term of the license of 1809 was extended and carried down
to February, 1811. In the license of 1812 the name of
Mr. Greville was omitted, because that gentleman no
longer wished to trouble himself with the concern. He had
some better speculation, as he imagined, in view at the
Argyll Rooms; and, indeed the quarrel did net arise be-
tween Mr. Arnold and Mr. Greville alone, for the Patentees
of Drury-lane had, in Mr. Greville's opinion, used him
very ill, and the separation took place upon a joint
agreement. In fact, the Drury-lane Patentees joined with
Mr. Arnold as to his possession of the license; in short,
there was now, he believed, no dispute whatsoever upon
that part of the subject. He was sorry to weary the at-
tention of the Court by referring so often to dates, hut the
truth was, he felt obliged to state them, not knowing par-
ticularly the line of argument which was likely to be
ude
h
op-
posed to him. He begged to remind the Court, that ire
May, 1812, Mr. Arnold obtained a license for the per-
formance of English operas, ballets of action, &r. for the
Lyceum for one year, and that was only varied from that
of 1809 by commencing in May rather than in Feb oat y
as it was before. Lin
13th of May for the yearsses 18 followed
w 8
as far as documentary evidence could go, he could prove
Licenser
147:neeir li,tsellys.onA