The Sun.
London, England, 1812-03-21 00:00:00

THIRD THEATRE.

The Order of the Dly hiving been read for read-
ing a second time the ThiAd Theatre Bill,
Mr. WHITBREAD requested that !he Noble Lord
wlyt had the condot3 of the would put off
the second reading until Mt.,:lay, in order to give
an oppirtunity for a Right Hon. Friend of his, who
was iniisposed (we presume Mr. Sheridan), to be
present at the dii.masion.
Lord OSSULSTONE replied, that he did not feel
authorised to postpone the second reading of the
Bill ; and after a number of observations, which
from the low tone in which his Lirdship spoke,
were wholly inaudible in the Gallery, moved
That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. P. Mooac contended, that the mode pre-
scribed by the Bill was not that which was calcu-
lated to do away monopoly. The increase of popu-
lation was stated as a ground for this additional Thea-
tre. Of this, however, he Wai certain, from the ie-
c:ipts at the existirt); Theatrrs, that the play-going
population did not increase correspondent!), with the
general population. Another serious obje4lion
which he had to the Bill, was, that it went to su-
persede the prerogative. He concluded by moving
as an amendment,

That the Bill be read a second time on this day six
months.

Lord OSSULSTONE argued at considerable !nig,
in favour of :he 11111.

Sir T. TURTON Opposed it.
Mr. SUMNER maintained the necessity of a third
Theatre. The present Theatres were so large, that
those who visited them might see, Kit could not
hear. This defea had occasioned the introduaion
of horses, dogs, and elephants on the stage, in,tead
of the ratiocial entertainment of our toretathets.—
The limited number of Theatres was also a great
bar to the display
,of Theatrical talent. If a Gen-
tleman of the brightest Theatrical talent were to
offer to perform, and his abilities lay in the same
way as the Kembles, he would have no chance of
doing so in the metropolis, but must have recourse
to a country Theatre.
Mr. WI.IITBREAD supposed, that hit Hon. Friend
had some ve:y excellent tragedians behind the cur-
tain, in Surtey. If so, he- was sure that those who
had the management of Drury-lane Theatre would
be very happy to receive them. The promoters of

the third Theatre neLitionpd tlif. cub.

jea three years ago, but, withdrew their petition,
end presented it to the King in Council, by whom
it was rejeaed. Last year they again presented it
to the House of Commons, on the ground that
Drury-lane Theatre could not be built, He (Mr.
W.) desired six weeks to inquire into the subjeEt,
Last year they againpresented • it to the House'of
to say, what proved true, that there was a prospea
of a restoration of Drury-lane Theatre. The pre-
sent forward state of that Theatre was evident to
the public. At starting, the odds were .500 to t
against them : now they were 50 to 1 in their fa-
vour. But the passing of the Bill before the House
would again turn the odds ; for although be had no
doubt that the undertaking must ultimately succeed,
yet the public confidence in it would be much
weakened. If, in another Session of Parliament,
Drury-lane Theatre should not be built and opened,
or, being built and opened it should be found that
there were not Theatres enough in the Metropolis,
the propriety of building a third Theatre might be
discussed. The supporters of this third Theatre in
the House, bad behaved in the most honourable
manner; but those out of it, had had recourse to
every kind of misrepresentation and strataceem.--
Adverting to the observations, of his Hon. Friend
opposite, he denied that Mr. Kemble wished for a
monopoly of the tragic characters of the Drama, and
pronounced a high panegyric On that Gentleman's pri-
vate and professional charaCter. As to the introduction
of animals on the stage, that was an old complaint :
Horace spoke of an elephant having been so intro-
duced at Rome, 2000 years ago. Mr. Garrick also
had been obliged to coolotm to the public taste in a
similar manner. To Mr. Kemble the public was
indebted for a great reform in scenic representations;
he had introduced more ut the works of the greatest
poet that ever lived, than any of his predecessors,
and had himself performed the principal characters

in those dramas in a manner never surpa,sed, r►nd
which had only once been equalled. To multiply
the number of Theatres in the metropohs would only
be to provide the public with bad actors every where,
and with good pacts no where.
Mr. A. BROW NE supported the original motion.
He• expressed his satisfaaion to find that it was
likely Drury-lane would be completed; but this did
not ap;,ear to him at all to militate against the erec-
tion of a third Theatre ; by increasing the number
of Theatres, an opporturiity would be given' to

those who were p,;ssessed of theatrical gttnius to
emulate ail fame of that great and versatile per-
former to whom the expression used by Dr. John-
son in his epitaph on Goldsmith, might, with justice,
be applied :

" Nullum totegit quod non =lava."
He then entered at considerable length into the his-
tory of the proceedings of those in whom the propo-
sition for a third Theatre originated, and contended
that it was a proposition to which the House, on
every fair view of the subject, ought to aceesie.—A
division ensued—

For the Amendment .
Against it

• 53
- 34
- -24

Majority

PROPERTY TAX.

Sir THOMAS TURTON gave notice, that he should
bring forward a motion, after the Holidays, on tho
9th of April, respeL•ting the mode of collecting the
Property Tax.