Star.
London, England, 1831-01-12 00:00:00

THEATRICAL PATENTS.

To try the merits of Mr. Arnold's petition foe a renewal of his
licence to t operas sod ballets, sad to examine the claims of
the winter Thee to relit seek hues, last eight the Vies-Chan.
Court was cm** is eallbselos by litigates! persons, and
lovers of the drama. The piners was so groat that Cosnoel went
Obliged to climb over the pitediese to get to their places. The Lord
Chancellor having intimated Ms intention to boar the question raised
by Drury-lane mal Theatres against the renewal of
Mr. Arnold's lima she Ilsh Opern-buuset curiosity was strong-
ly mmllloool.

Before doe Led Meaner =me, Mr. Culaaft, Charles Ketuble, Mr
0. Robi n. sled dre surugen of most of the theatrical properties in
Ludes, ugh dash uses under the Bosses.
The Lod Chsweeller. with Mr. Jude, hems Parke, Chief Justice
Tyudid. and air la. Bhadwell, aim hole Caws se wives o'clock.
The LORD Caroms Lto a thee asked the Billeherdhsend who be
wu mud for.

The 130LICITOS.GEW1tILIL ISM he had to appear before their Lord.
ships as Comet for Mr. Arnold, • gent. who had acquired great ode.
brity as the forager of a musical and dramatis enterudament. That
gentleman, whose father was the favourite of Geo. 111. had obtained a
licence from his late Majesty for the cetablkhummt of a theatre for the
encouragement of English music and Foglia potftlaulats- All
went an wail until the unfortunate Ike which destroyed his theatre
about a year sew By that melancholy event, which consumed pro-
perty to the amount sixty-six thousend pounds, he bad been wholly
incapable of re-building the theatre at his own expense, but by subscrip.
tion he might be enabled to raise it out of the ruins. That object, so
much to be desired by the adenines of the drama, haulms the appearance
of being accomplished. Mr. Arnold found that the renewal of his licence
was to be opposed by the patentees of the peat theatres, es the ground
of their exclusive patents, which they bald prohibited all other pro-
pietors of theatrical proerty front centlng in competition with
them. The effect of these object ens, he understood it, would
go the length of checking the prerogative of the crown. The patents
granted in the reign of Charles the -Second were to operate against the
power of the crown to grant a licence to any third tne. That was
the question their LordslOps had to decide. Mr. Arnold (through
his petition to the crown for the renewal of his license) called upon their
lordships to decide it, not upon any violence to the prerogative of the
Crown, but the principles of equity. The Solicitor-General proceeded
to state the facts relating to the first patent to Mr. Arnold, in the
year 1909, and the subsequent patent for establishing an English
Opera-house. The granting of this license was to enable Mr. Arnold
to begin a new plan—of a plan in fair competition with the Italian
Opera; and, therefore, if that plan succeeded, it was meant to enlarge
the exertions. Mr A. never intended to leave the whole winter to the Its.
Han Opera, and to open the projected theatre in the summer ; that was
obvious, from the avowal that it was as a rival to the Italian Theatre,
and to ascertain the taste of the town for English music. It wan there-
fore that the licence was sought, and, be submitted, was granted to
open the theatre during the whole year, certainly during the winter
season, to represent English operas and ballets of action. It was ed.
dent that something permanent was contemplated—to open when the
town was full, not to have performance% in the summer, when the town
was comparatively empty. A minor object on the part of Mr. Ar.
sold was. to encourage improved scenery, proceeding on mare mechani-
cal principles t and the performances to take place under einem.
stances more in accordance with the greater respect for the moral
decencies of society. Mr. Arnold not only contemplated to
represent English operas, but Italian operas also; and Mr. A. sought
a licence that should be " annual," because, by being annual, that the
Crown might have the opportunity of constantly revising the grant, and
refusing the license in the event of there being any abuse of the pri-
vilege granted. Mr. A. wished then,and did not altet his opinion now,
that the renewal of the Herne, should result from merit, showing that
the pace of the Crown might be usefully, beneficially, and praise.
worthily continued. George the Third took great interest in the grant.
ing of the of iginal licence, as a mark of his " 'pedal favour," to exhibit
musical dramatic entertainments at the Lyceum, in the Snead, " for
one year." Now, was not that a licence that would not have been
infringed had Mr. A.'s Theatre, continued open for the whole year ?
Had that been the extent of the acting, where would have been the in.
fringement or fraud ? He had no doubt, that had the performances been
throughout the year—not for the summer months 0n1y...-he hesitated not
to say that Mr. A. would have been justified under this Beeves. After.
wards opposition arose, but not from Drury.lane or Count-garden
Theatres, but from Mr. Greville, a gentleman who was well known in
the fashionable world ; and why ? because Mr. A.'s plan is mate de-
gree clashed with one contemplated by Mr. Oreville.
Lard Haonswan—You ere now 'peaking of the Nosed licence
granted to (Neville, Sheridan, etc.
The Souctron.Oxyzaat.—No—ei the first licence panted to Bit,.
A. alone. It was not till afterwards that a new question was raised by
Mr. Chunk, and that was in 1810, after the burning down of Drury.
lane. The licence was afterwards, in 1810, granted to Mr. Arnold and
Mr. Chunk, for their mutual benefit, one to use it in the summer and
the other in the winter. He next ante to a solemn deed executed be.
tween Mr. Arnold, Mr. Greville, and the late Mr. Sheridan, as the re.
presentative of the scattered interests of Drury-lane Theatre, then to.
trendy burnt down, and Mr. Peaks, for the use of the Lyceum Theatre,
the deed admitting the force of the annual licence, and undertaking to
insure the House. The patentee of Drury-lane (Mr. Sheridan) hired
the house, not pretending to hays any interest in, or control over, the IL
cense, for "a year," not " the year" from Feb. 1809, to Feb. 1810.
Lord Bnouoneist.— Was it a demise of the premises? If it were
from September (the date of the deed) it might be a demise of the pre-
mises ; if from February to February, it might be a demise of your
rights.
The Souctroa G z t. would settle that point, by stewing bee.
after a second licence. Mr. Sheridan's object in this deed was to ac-
knowledge all the rights of Mr. A. under the licence. Mr. S. on the
nary admitted the force of the licence. He contended that lie. %. thereby
gave his consent to the licence u far as was requisite for the argument,
Mr. Sheridan only reserving any rights the patentee might have. The
consent of Mr. S. he maintained, was clear. The second licence,
dated ?Armory, 1810, was similar in terms to the first license, and
during that period the agremxnt with the Drury company was in pro.
pets; but there was a items( licence from the Drury company, not
separated from, but bottomed on Mr. Amold's original Henke. Then,
where was the usurpation ? What ! could those of 18311 question their
title, who acknowledged and took under their title in 1810 ? In the
third licence. Mr. Greville's name was omitted-1k considering that Air. 1
Arnold and Mr. Sheridan had used him ill ; and Mr. Grevilk at that time
having a little theatrical speculation of his own So much for the exclu-ive
privileges of the patentees, even in Mr. Greville's estimation. If he got red
of Mr. Grevilk, he thought he got rid of the only human being who bad
aright to complain of lir. Arnold's licence; and Mr. Greville was not
the complainant. The argument here was not for title in the bricks '
and mortar of the Lyceum, but tor the theatrical property arising nodes
the licence. After three years the Drury company left, their own that..
'tie being rebuilt ; but neither Mr. Sheridan's interests, nor those of any
body else, on withdrawing, entered any protest against the licence and
conduct of Mr. Arnold. It was said, however, that the Lyceum cons.
piny had out played all the year round, and, therefore, bred acknow.
ledged that the ham was not of the force now urged. It was true that
Mr. Arnold's thane was not opened for three years at erwtuds. be.
cause Mr. Arnold was induced to be the manager of Drury, which
lasted three years. till 1816.
Lord fluouomm—And after that period the licence, instead of being
annual, was frees May to October.
_ _ _

The SOLICITOIL-HENZIAL admitted such to be the het; but
trusted to be able to show that, though the licences were hos 1816
in more limited tents, such feet Weeded no ground for the patent
theatres to step in and question the right of fir. Arnold to a con.
tinuados of the licence. Let it be always borne in mind that Mr.
Arnold sought no patent, no incorpowation i be sought not to infringe
on the rights of others; he simply sought foe the renewal of the litmus
from year to year—so long as he deserved the continued grace of the
Crown, but not subject to the interposition of Drury or Covent.gardea.
If they were justified la laterfering, how happened it that they had not
interposed in 1810, in 1813, and in 1818 ? From that period, err.
tainly, the Pleven woe in limited terms, but why limited be knew
not. He knew of no prooeedings—it we. perhaps fmto favour at
Court—but still those licensee were referable to the original license..—
He admitted that the Crown had the right to limit the terms of the
licenses eves to refuse them—bet be denied that there was any third
party who conk' say that the Crown could not grant such • lieenee, for
that was the principle of the opposition, against which be, on the part
of Mr. Arnold, bad to combat. There was opposed so bias a charier,
not of liberties, but of monopolies—us bind m slaves, fur all dotes, the
people of London to the two patent theatres. On what ground could
such a right, such a charter, be argued ? It was pretended that it was
the prerogative of the crown • and yet, in arguing for the prerogative,
it was to show that in exercising it, the Crown had exhausted all its
powers, not only as regarded the particular Sovereign, but of all future
Kings. That was the character of the argument, or there was no argu.
went at all in favour of the patentees. He then proceeded to the exami.
nation of the patents granted to Mr. KUl*rew and Sir W. Hawthorn ;
and having desaibed their terms generally, be argued that they were
not of the exclusive character now contended &t.-tbat they did
not exhaust the prerogative of the Crown on this particular
subject. Surely it scold be a libel on any Monarch to hold that any
privileges were granted other than foe the benefit of the public. Surely
the patents were not so be enjoyed to the exclusion of all other
so long as any could be hand in whose veins Sowed the blood of the
Killigrews and Methane& As to the language of the resents limiting
the Theatres, be did not deny the right of the Crown o thatroul all
plays; that be considered wee now the law and the prethoative—but all
right so oontunal or limit was with the Crows alone, it was not divided
with say patetismo. The patents. be considered, pew .out of the tem.
per et times, mid to elsew the pimple that they wawa to have the team
try therm with players and playhouses.
Lied Desocansts.—what me the tenth of Ilse pathos, that shin
should be no other theatres la the whole country but what banged to
thew raloaloss
Yr. lioaaseow—Tbe bobs art deilatl, " Ueda, Westaeleaser,
sod the mobtobe."

The Seitcrros-Gerream. 'aid he had endeanntred to get at the
grounds of the opposition; but in reality he was much in the dark.
Lord BROUGHAM—WeII, Men, night it not he better to wait for
their case, instead of going " fishing about" entlearourinz to get at
their reason.—(hutch hearty laughter from the pare Coursellars
learned in the law, and In all that is good—an example which the
audience took the liberty of most heartily following.)
The SOLIeIvOItsrOZWER" was much annoyed by this me-riti.ent.
Heruntecl round and observed with great gravity. that he wished for
more order. He was no:alaA and he wished that folks would remem-
ber they were not in the of a Theatre. And he so turned round
several times, looking very severely at the audience at his rear, almost
all of whom consisted of playhouse proprietors, or performers.
Lord BMOVGNIAN eventually said, Vetere were not proper decorum
the place mast be cleared ; this was not an open
The Sollcitor-General continued. He did not s ugh to " fish out"—
(there was no renewed laughter).—the reasons of his opponents; he
would only now examine the value of the patents, and their •• im lola.
hle" rights. The two patents granted by Charles 11. were. after some
years, ineorporated—a proceeding that he ventured to argue was so gross
an abuse as to render them forfeited. In the time of William 111. there
was a patent granted to Betterton, in consequence of such abuse. Then
what became of the rights now urged under the two original patents?
Lord Biennium (it being ten o'clock), at the instigation of the
Vine-Chancellor, asked whether the Solicitor-General could here conve.
niently close for the present. The Solicitor-General stating that he
could, his Lordship adjourned the further proceeding. to Thursday eren.
ing, at seven o'clock, as it would be inconvenient for tire Lord Clef
Justice (Tyndall) to attend on Wednesday.
Adjourned till Thursday evening.
---
____ _ _