license Sadler's Wells.]

Mr. Ladbrook having brought in a Bill to enable his Majesty to grant letters patent for the licensing of the performance of certain public entertainments at Sadler's Wells, the same was read a first time.

Mr. Sheridan said, that he had consented to the Bill being read a first time, because it was really his wish that the House should have an opportunity to consider the matter fairly, and to understand what was demanded from them. With regard to the petitioners for the Bill, and the allegations stated by them in respect to the large price paid for the purchase of their shares of the property of Sadler's Wells, by Messrs. Wroughton and Arnold, if the House could, with any sort of consistency, do any thing to prevent their sustaining a loss, no man in that House would go farther than he would; he wished them to be dealt with as liberally and as handsomely as possible, because he was ready to admit, that the case of Sadler's Wells stood upon very different grounds indeed, from that of the Royalty Theatre. That was a scheme set up upon false pretences, and supported by a conspiracy of justices of the peace, to defeat the law, which they were bound, by their oath to execute. The present application came forward in a decent manner, and according to the practice he had ever wished to be pursued, when he knew more of what was going on with respect to the Theatres than he did at present, having long since entrusted his interest in them to the management and care of others in whom he had reason to place a confidence. Mr. Sheridan wished such an application to be liberally considered, and that the legal monopolists might not stand on their rights too strictly. He had ever been, and he trusted he ever should be an enemy to any thing like oppression in any matter great or small; and, on the present occasion, he confessed that the apprehensions of other people interested in the rights, supposed to be attacked by the Bill in question, went beyond his own; but it was, however, to be remembered, that those apprehensions related to a property, upon which, taking the two winter theatres only, a sum little short of 200,000/. had been embarked. He felt it therefore his duty to endeavour to protect those rights according to their ideas of the injury they might sustain, and not according to any more indulgent way of considering the subject, which he might himself have en

tertained. Mr. Sheridan then proceeded to argue on the nature of the present application. The proprietors of Sadler's Wells had declared in their case, that the cause of their application for a bill to enable his Majesty to grant them a licence to continue the entertainments of Sadler's Wells as heretofore, was, that "the proprietors of the winter theatres had lately instituted suits at law not only against the last newly erected theatre, but intended to commence suits and prosecutions against all others indiscriminately." To his own personal knowledge, that inference was wholly unfounded, and the proprietors of Sadler's Wells knew it to be groundless. There was no intention to proceed against them, or to molest them in any way whatsoever. In another instance, also, the case of the proprietors of Sadler's Wells was fallaciously stated. They told the House that they came there only to ask that they might be legally empowered to continue their performances as usual. That was not the fact; because what they asked for was a monopoly, as appeared clearly from an examination of their case. There was some degree of unfairness also in their mode of reasoning against others, who stood in a similar predicament. Speaking for themselves, they said, "that doubts may arise, whether in strict construction of law, their performances might be, strictly and minutely, within the letter of their licence;" but when they spoke of the riding schools, the circus, and the new set of competitors, they stated them as performing in defiance of known laws, upon the authority of musical licences only; whereas their own licence contained not a letter of power more than the licences of their adversaries which they reprobated; the only difference being, that the one was granted by the Surrey justices, and the other by those of Middlesex. From this it appeared, that their object was monopoly, and not licence; and the House could grant them no relief according to their own statement, unless they put down all similar places, and shut their doors in future against all similar applications. Their claim to the preference might or might not be well founded; but he could not but think that places of similar amusement under the Surrey licences would afterwards come with a pretty strong case to Parliament for an equal indulgence, and that it would be an odd reason to give for refusing their requests, that the proprietors of Sadler's Wells had the merit of

transgressing the law first, and had there- | fore received a protection from the legislature, to which those who had only followed their example were not entitled. This, however, was a matter for Parliament to consider. If they chose to grant the preference, and to establish the monopoly which the present Bill aimed at, and as a matter of regulation and police to stop there, the proprietors of the winter theatres would have little to complain of; for he took it for granted, that certain alterations would be made in the Bill, and that no part of the new powers would be suffered to entrench in the least on the rights of the winter patents, either as to season the species of performances. Mr. Sheridan concluded with observing, that the winter theatres had a right to complain a little of those who had brought in the Bill. The petition had been before the House nearly two months, and yet the Bill had not been brought in till just at the last moment, close upon the commencement of the Sadler's Wells season, in order that its near approach might be used as an argument, and in order that it might come into discussion at a time when the winter proprietors could not so well be heard against it by their counsel, if they should judge that measure necessary. He should on that account, notwithstanding the surprise that had been attempted on the House, move, "That the second reading of the Bill be postponed to the 4th of April."

Mr. Ladbroke answered, that if the second reading was put off till the 4th of April, some of the most profitable part of the Sadler's Wells season would have elapsed before the Bill could be decided upon. He therefore moved to insert the words "Tuesday next" in the motion by way of amendment.

Sir Herbert Mackworth expressed his surprise at the argument of the hon. gentleman, who had considered the present as an application for a monopoly. There was not in the whole Bill one word that would support such an inference. Nor could he see how the winter managers could be at all injured by the Bill passing. If he thought it in the least likely, he would be the last man to support the Bill, as he well knew the very great expense at which those theatres were kept open for the amusement of this great metropolis. He therefere never would give his concurrence to any measure likely to prejudice their interests; but the authorizing the proprie[VOL. XXVII.]

tors of Sadler's Wells to continue to perform the same entertainments as they had been used to perform for many years past, struck him in a very different point of view. Sadler's Wells contributed very essentially to the amusements of the town; though, certainly, its entertainments were of a subordinate rank to those of the winter theatres. He contended strenuously against the argument, that a monopoly was desired, and said, the hon. gentleman had reasoned solely out of the case of the proprietors of Sadler's Wells, and not from the Bill itself. Had he reasoned from the Bill, his argument must have assumed a different shape. With regard to the observation, that there were other places of entertainment on the same footing as Sadler's Wells, and that therefore, if the House agreed to the Bill for licensing one place, they must necessarily agree to future bills to license others, it might as well be said that, because the magistrates licensed one public house, they must license a great many more in the same district. The magistrates were bound to exercise their discretion, and to license just as many public houses, and no more, in different parts of the town, as should to their judgment appear necessary for the accom modation and entertainment of the inhabitants of those different districts. In like manner, the legislature would exercise their discretion, and license Sadler's Wells, if they thought it right without making it a precedent for licensing other places of similar entertainment. Sir Herbert mentioned the modest nature of the petitioners application, and said, as they desired a license under such restrictions, it was scarcely possible that they could injure or interfere with the winter theatres, and therefore he saw no manner of occasion for the patentees to be heard by counsel against the Bill, and as the commencement of Sadler's Wells season was so near at hand, he considered it as rather cruel to delay the second reading beyond the ensuing Tuesday.

Mr. Fox said, it was highly indecent to contend in that House, that a bill was necessary to pass with all possible dispatch, because it was essential to the interests of those who applied for it, that it should do so, after the parties had themselves been the cause of a very considerable delay, and had kept off the discussion of the Bill till just on the eve that it would appear necessary to have it passed. The petition for the Bill, according to the forms of the [M]

House, must have been before the House nearly two months; why was not the Bill brought up sooner? With regard to the hon. baronet's being surprised that his hon. friend should rather have argued from the case of the proprietors of Sadler's Wells, than from the Bill itself, where those who introduced a Bill, did not advance an argument in its support, it was natural to look to the case of the parties, to see what arguments they themselves grounded their application upon. If there was no occasion for the winter managers to be heard by counsel, he supposed that the winter managers would not desire to put themselves to that expense; but, it was clear, from what had been said in their behalf, that they did think it necessary to be so heard, and the House must give parties leave both to think and to act for themselves, as they were, undoubtedly, best able to judge what was the most requisite to take place upon their account. He hoped, therefore, that the original motion might pass, being determined to take the sense of the House upon the question, if it were opposed.

The House divided for the second reading on the 4th of April: Yeas, 48; Noes, 39.

Debate on the Clause of the Mutiny Bill for incorporating the New Corps of Military Artificers.] March 12. The report of the committee on the Mutiny Bill was brought up; and, on the reading of the clause for incorporating the newly-raised corps of military artificers,

Mr. Sheridan said, that he conceived the object of it to be so important, that he was determined to oppose such an innovation in every stage, and to take the sense of the House concerning its alarming tendency. He stated his objection to the adoption of the new principle of expediency and economy-the more dangerous because the more plausible-instead of the old principle of defence and actual necessity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to have a right feeling for the fundamental principles of the constitution. He had been too apt to lend himself to every project of his colleagues, and to think his office was merely that of furnishing defences of the measures of other men cloathed in fine language. The present measure had been brought forward upon the specious pretence of economy, a plea that ought ever to be cautiously admitted, when under it the greatest evils

might be sustained. If the present measure should be adopted, it would be laying a ground for the most alarming consequences. The army was increasing in every part of the globe at the moment it should seem most unnecessary, and, at the moment when it was stated that the glory of Great Britain was in its utmost splendour, and its power unrivalled; in proportion as peace was declared to be secure, the country was called on to increase its expense.

Mr. Pitt contended, that the clause was good, as it provided workmen to do work better than it would otherwise be done, and at a saving after the proportion of 2000/. in 22,000l. These were both, therefore, desirable matters; and it was also a wise measure, as it would render those who acted as artificers useful in time of war. The only question was, whether any actual inconvenience would exist from the measure, and whether there could result from it any dangerous consequences to the constitution.

Sir W. Molesworth considered it as a dangerous precedent, and as the beginning of a system which could not be too narrowly guarded. They ought to repel innovation in limine, and as it was a system that might go to the shipwright, and to every other department of government, it met his decided reprobation.

Mr. Hussey was concerned to discover that the vigilance of the country was not roused on a question of the greatest constitutional importance. He could not avoid deeming the paltry saving of 2000!. a year, an insufficient reason for putting 600 Englishmen under military law. It was an improper exertion of such a law, and a dangerous precedent.

Sir C. Gould spoke in support of the clause.

Col. Fitzpatrick opposed it as unnecessary, and unconstitutional

Mr. Pelham expressed his alarm at this measure, which he conceived to be unconstitutional, and declared his determination to oppose it, as by the plea of economy the House might be deluded, and the only means of checking expenditure defeated.

Mr. Marsham said, that if the House agreed to put 600 Englishmen under martial law for the paltry consideration of 2000. a year, they would be devoid of those feelings for the constitution, for which they ought ever to be most vigilant.

Mr. Steele said, that the artificers had,

لا

The Surveyor of the Ordnance contended that it was impossible by any other means to keep so useful a set of men together. He urged the necessity of extending military law to them, to prevent their desertion of the public service in time of war, and argued against the possibility of danger to the constitution, were the House to adopt the measure.

Mr. Courtenay said, that he never had heard of any difficulty in raising of artificers in time of war. He saw no necessity for the measure, and particularly for gunners and master-gunners being under the law, who were never so considered before, but were liable to dismission if they acted improperly.

Sir C. Gould said, that both gunners, and master gunners had been tried by court martials.

Mr. Fox said, that the clause must operate to the surrender of part of our liberties. When a minister came into the House to propose either an increase of the excise, or of the military laws, it was his duty to make out an exceedingly strong case for so doing. In the present instance, the only one given for the deprivation of the liberties of individuals, was the saving of 20001. per annum. The present question when considered as going to the deprivation of the rights of individuals, became at once important and alarming.

The question was put, and the House divided: Yeas, 114; Noes, 67.

March 13. On the order of the day for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill,

Mr. Hussey objected to the clause which respected the new corps of military artificers. He wished te know if they had already been enlisted and attested as soldiers. If they had not, it was a very violent and arbitrary measure to say to these men, you must now enlist as soldiers, and be subject to military law; otherwise we shall turn you adrift. It was a paltry consideration in ministers to infer, that because this scheme would save the nation

Mr. Pitt reminded the hon. gentleman, that the question before the House was, whether the Bill should be read a third time? when that was done, then would be the proper season for the hon. member to come forward with his motion.

Mr. Sheridan considered the clause as involving a very important constitutional question, and therefore wished it to be postponed until the morrow, that gentlemen might have an opportunity of considering it with that attentive deliberation which it really merited. The question put by the hon. gentleman whether the artificers had yet been enlisted and attested as soldiers, had not been answered.

Mr. Steele said, that all the artificers were intended to be enlisted, and that some of them were already embodied.

Mr. Sheridan said, that if they had already been embodied, those who were the authors of that measure had been guilty of a very illegal act, for he understood the recruiting orders had been issued previous to the meeting of Parliament, and, consequently, they had taken upon them to raise a body of men without the consent of Parliament, and without having stated any reason for a measure which could only be justified from the strongest poli, tical necessity.

The Secretary at War observed, that the King, by his prerogative, certainly had a right to raise troops, subject afterwards to the sanction of Parliament.

Mr. Fox admitted that, in time of war, the King might raise troops without the immediate consent of Parliament, and even on the alarm of war, the House had always been disposed to consider it sufcient reason to justify the raising of such a body of troops as the exigency of the occasion might require, of which the House would afterwards judge, approve, or condemn accordingly; but he denied, in the most direct terms, that in time of peace, the King could constitutionally exercise any such power, or that the Executive Government could be warranted, after the alarm of war had subsided, in directing any number of troops to be levied, on the faith of a subsequent act of

parliament, and, far less, that they could legally raise a corps which was new to this country, and for which they had not even the implied approbation of any former act. Some gentlemen had stated the advantages of such a corps of artificers in our garrisons abroad. For his own part, he reprobated every attempt to introduce into this country the military establishments of any garrisons which were not immediately under the protection of the British Legislature.

Mr. Pitt denied that there was any intention to surprise the House into this - measure. On the contrary, the warrant for recruiting the corps had been laid upon the table before the Ordnance Estimates were voted; they had been raised upon the same principle with all the new levies, a measure which the apprehension of war had justified, from a liberal interpretation of the King's prerogative.

Mr. Fox contended, that no interpretation of the King's prerogative could justify the countenance of a measure which had originated on the alarm of war, after that alarm had subsided.

Sir C. Gould asserted the right of his Majesty to levy troops on the faith of their being afterwards sanctioned by Parliament,

The Bill being read a third time, the Speaker informed the House, that it was now the time to move any amendment on the Bill.

Mr. Hussey then moved, that the clause for subjecting the artificers to military discipline be left out.

Mr. Sheridan could not avoid reprobating the dangerous doctrine laid down by sir Charles Gould. If it was true that the King could raise any number of troops without the consent of Parliament, or, what was the same thing, not voted by Parliament, he was then independent of Parliament as long as he had money to pay those troops. Mr. Sheridan denied that any such power could be exercised by the King on constitutional principles. He maintained that every man who exceeded the number limited by the Mutiny Bill, did not come under the Mutiny Act, nor, consequently, under military law. He took notice of the singular manner in which the warrant directed the men to be attested, that if they were not found to be good carpenters, masons, bricklayers, collar-makers, miners, &c. of which the duke of Richmond was to be the sole judge, they might be reduced at his plea

sure from ninepence to sixpence per day. It was stated also, in the warrant, that those men were to be employed on the fortifications. Considering the noble duke's passion for military projects, the House ought to be watchful of every opportunity which he might embrace of gratifying his favourite pursuit, as he would no doubt employ these 600 men on a principle of economy, as he did the convicts.

Sir Charles Gould observed, that every man who did enlist, whether under the authority of the Mutiny Act or not, was subject to be tried by military law. Were the soldiers themselves to be judges of the law? If this were once admitted, it would open a door to every species of disorder.

Mr. Fox contended, that the lowest soldier had a right to judge of the tribunal by which he was to be tried. If he was not included in the number limited by the Mutiny Bill, he might refuse to be tried by military law; and it was as much his right as any man's in that House to appeal to the laws of his country. If the doctrine that day laid down by the learned gentlemen were admitted, the Bill of Rights was virtually repealed. He trusted that such doctrine would never be supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and much more did he wish that it should not be countenanced by those who might one day be called on to sit as judges on the lives and properties of their fellowsubjects.

Mr. Pitt agreed in the general principles laid down by Mr. Fox, but defended the measure of raising a corps of artificers subject to military law, which neither violated the principles of the law nor the constitution.

Mr. Fox observed, that though no man could entertain a doubt of his private regard for the noble duke at the head of the ordnance, yet the principle of subjecting so many men to his caprice was of that tyrannical nature which every man must abhor, and which he trusted the House would not countenance.

Mr. Hussey's amendment was negatived without a division. The question was then put, that this clause stand part of the Bill; and the House divided, Yeas, 142; Noes, 70.

Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion for the Repeal of the Shop Tax.] Mr. Fox rosè to make his promised motion for the repeal of the Shop Tax. He observed that it was not his intention to take up much