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

tat on the demise of Mr. Sheridan, the license, as well I
as the theatrical property in the Lyceum, were let to and
so considered by him, and that the mere bricks and mortar
used in the Theatre were only considered as in ordinary
cases every titan of common sense would consider them.
The Drury-lane Company acted during the period of three
years at the Lyceum ; they then withdrew to open their
own splendid house, but yet there was no protest ever
made against the license of the Lyceum ; its validity was
never questioned, nor the privileges which it conveyed
ever called in question. Quite the contrary. Mr. Ar-
nold took out the license regularly de anno in annum,
without any hesitation or difficulty in the grant. Here it
might be said that Mr. Arnold did not give operas or
other musical entertainments at the Lyceum the whole
of the year round ; but it was not for him (the So-
licitor-General), unless he thought proper, to state any
reason for his not so giving them for the year round. It
was enough for him to show that by the terms of his license
Mr. Arnold was at perfect liberty to do so--that Hi:ewes
extending, as it did, from year to year. Mr. Arnold, if
he thought proper, could waive the exercise of his right
for a given period, without enabling any man to dispute
the possession of such a right. However, a reason could
he assigned for Mr. Arnold's not giving entertainments
for the year round at the Lyceum. Mr. Arnold had
embarked himself for three years with the Drury-lar_•.
Company, and it would not be unnat❑ral to suppose that
in acting as he had, and abstaining from giving winter
performances, he had some sufficient and valuable under-
standing with the Patentees of Drury-lane. In fact,'
such was the nature of the connection between theta, that
Mr. Arnold was requested to become the Manager of
Drury-lane for three years, from the year 1812, during
which time he felt he vias judging best for his own interest
not to open the Lyceum during the winter months. But
the not acting there during the winter months was by no
means an abandonment of his right to do so, under the
terms of his license, if he considered it would have been
advantageous to him. In the year 11515, he was bou❑d
to admit, the license was confined to certain months in
favour of the Patent Theatres.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Had Mr. Sheridan any thing
to do with Covent-garden Theatre ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—No, my Lord, only with
Drury-lane Theatre.

Tile LORD CHANCELLOR—Because here you know we
have to deal with parties interested in both the Winter
Theatres.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that a consider-
able question in this case was whether the great Winter
Theatres step in and prevent the grace and favour of the
Crown being continued to the Lyceum in the same man-
ner as it prevailed from the year 1809 to the year 1815 ?
Mr. Arnold was not now asking for any patent, or any
charter of incorporation, to shield him from the responsi-
bility which his situation necessarily obliged him to incur :
he merely asked for the continuance of the grace and fa-
vour of the Crown—that the Winter Theatres should not
unduly interfere with his rights and interests under the
license of the Crown ; at the same time that he was per-
fectly willing and disposed to allow to every other person
in the community the full exercise of all those rights and
privileges to which he might be entitled. When that case
came before the Privy Council, the whole gist of it turned
upon the point be had noticed. Drury-lane and Covent-
garden Theatres, and a great many persons, made common
cause together with Mr. Arnold, and endeavoured to in-
duce the Crown not to favour the new proprietor. Such
was the case, and how was it that Covent•garden and
Drury-lane, at such a particular crisis, took no ot•jec-
tion to Mr. Arnold's license ? Could it be sup-
posed that Covent-garden and Drury-lane had in-
sidiously laid by merely to induce Mr. Arnold to
act with them as in a common cause, and done
so with the fraudulent intention of coining forward at
some future period to dispute the title of the man with
whom they had acted under the very license subse.
quently to he disputed ! He admitted that at a later
period the license of Mr. Arnold had been circumscribed,
for his opponents had found other or more influential
friends at court. Mr. Arnold had received a license for
six years consecutively, and he never could allow that be-
cause that license had since been circumscribed, and that,
too, without the knowledge or interference of any Court
of Law or Equity—that therefore the original license was
abrogated in spirit and practicalsility. This he could not
allow, and still less could lie allow that the Patent Theatres
had the least right to interfere and step between his client
and the grace and favour of the Crown, to be exercised
for the pleasure and rational amusement of the people. ,
The Patentees stepped in and claimed an absolute right
even over the prerogative of the Crown, and set forth
their own patent as entirely inviolable. 'Why, from what
source did the patent flow ? From Charles the Second.
And was the prerogative of the Crown so well defined in
the days when this patent was granted, and so powerful,
too, as to exhaust the prerogative itself, and take from all
future Kings and front all the laws and institutions, the
least power to act upon the question? Such a position
was too monstrous to be seriously maintained, and there-
fore he would not longer trouble their Lordships upon it.
But the Court would probably hear something of thealis-
tensing power. The Learned Solicitor-General was pro-
ceeding to make some remarks respecting the patents of
Covent-garden and Drury-lane Theatres, when

The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if the Solicitor-General
was aware of the precise terms of the patents—if he had
seen them ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had not; they were
sealed to hint ; but he presumed his Learned Friends would
allow their Lordships to inspect them.
Mr. HARRISON had no objection to handing the patents
to his Learned Friend as well as to their Lordships.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proceeded to read those in-
struments, from which it would appear that from 1662,
the exclusive right of performing an unlimited range of
dramatic pices throughout the year in London was ac-
ceded to Killigrew and Davenant—one to be at the head of
the " King's House," and the other of that of the
" Duke's." He contended that those very words proved
the revocability of the patent, for the Duke's house refer-
red to the then Duke of Yolk, and, as was well known,
that title was extinct more than once, for the Duke, who
first gave creation to it, was afterwards King, by the title
of James the Second. Was he not also justified in argu-
ing, that the power of granting patents could be more le-
gally exercised to the public detriment? In a word, he
was unable to conceive how any lawyer could maintain
that one King possessed the power of imparting to a sub-
ject the prerogative of all future Kings. At the distance
of two hundred years—at a time when the morals and
the manners of the age were so widely different—at a pe-
riod when luxury had created, he might say, so many lux-
uries, were there patents brought forward to monopolize
everything in the way of stage-playing. They were not
now dealing with the patents as they were in King Charles's
time—they were not now, he might say, to act upon the
ame principles upon which the patents were granted at so
old a date. The manners of the age, as lie said before,
prechided them from so doing. In King Charles's time
people had not arrived to such a refined and polished
taste as they had at the present day ; and supposing
that King Charles had thought proper to extend his fa-
vour and patronage to other theatres beside Drury-lane
and Covent-garden, no one would have availed himself of
his patent, for a very good reason—namely, that he could
not have benefitted from them ; in short, the houses
would have been empty. What, however, did the whole,
then, in substance, amount to ? What did the law say
upon the case, besides taking into consideration the taste
and public feeling that prevailed at the time when the pa-
tents were granted ? He could say that there was a great
feeling against stage acting at that time; and he might,
perhaps, ascribe that to a wish riot to have the town inun-
dated with Theatres—the very existence of which was im.
proper, and calculated to injure the morals of good citizens
—at th it time riot very proof against worldly temptation ;
and he (elr. Horne) would not deny that such a feeling
might be right. He, however, would come to the
question, what was the true interpretation to be, put upon
these patents? He looked upon them as grants to certain
persons, enabling them to build houses for the purpose of
representing plays and dramas. In many books which
treated of theatrical matters, amongst which was the fa-
mous " Cibber's Life,"—a publication that treated of
many important matters at the time in which the author
lived—he found that actors were considered as the servants
of the King; that they were paid a salary, and even
clothed, when acting in that capacity, and that no others
but these servonte could play.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Mr. Solicitor, the point
strikes me at present, and therefore I wish to be informed,
whether in the patents there are any defined limits for the
two Theatres to act in? Do they state any in particular,
or do they exclude all Theatres front every part of the realm?
Mr. HORNE—No, my Lord, the limits are laid down
to be in London and Westminster.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do they enter into the way
in which any other Theatres are to he enabled to exist?
Do they state anything about licenses?
Hannisorr—That, my Lord, is stated in the 10th
of George 11.
Mr. Ilcstese (smiling)—No, no, that won't do; that is
bringing your case down a little too far.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—If there were no licenses,
there could have been no vagrancy or any thing of that kind.
Mr. RaftefsoN—Oh my Lord, the licenses, previous
to the granting of the patents, were obtained from the