mittee's predecessors ought to have been brought forward to answer for their conduct. Mr P. Moore, at the commencement of the last season, advanced 1000l. to enable the theatre to open a like sum was now ready, and could the Court say it should be kept shut? It was true, there were debts on it, but that was no reason they should not have an opportunity of liquidating them. Would the Court say, that the select committee should lock up the theatre, and disperse the performers, and cut up the concern root and branch, because they were a little embarrassed? He trusted he should not have to address his Lordship in reply, to induce him to open the theatre, or rather to suspend this extraordinary injunction. He reminded his Lordship, that though the house was shut, the rent to the Duke of Bedford was still going on; the taxes proceeded; the interest on the bonds accumulated; the interest on 3750l. per annum, for eighty years, was going on, and nothing coming in to liquidate all those charges. The loss the holders of private boxes would sustain-the ruin that would be entailed on the poorer classes of persons about the theatre-and the salaries of those persons who must of necessity attend, although the house were shut, were among the arguments used to induce his Lordship to dissolve the injunction, and with which the learned gentleman concluded a speech of two hours duration.

Sir Samuel Romilly hoped he should not take up much of his Lordship's time. His learned friend had had an extremely difficult task to perform, and he had proved that he needed no acquisition of strength, for there had been as large a portion of time expended as though the whole three had been heard. He strongly deprecated the asperity with which this case had been conducted, and the artful man

ner, he must say, in which it had been argued. Had the objection relative to the want of parties been persevered in, it would only have delayed the hearing till to-morrow. The case must be taken to be now argued de bene esse, and, in his opinion, its merits lay in a very narrow compass. The case had been put as eight proprietors against five. This was not the fact, for it was a bill filed for carrying into effect an opinion expressed by a great body of proprietors at a general meeting. In fact, it would be impossible to bring all the parties before the Court, as from death, abatement, and all other causes, the question might never be brought to a conclusion. There was no act of Parliament that prevented a few persons coming before the Court in behalf of a great number of persons with their expressed wish. He did not know why the names of Messrs Cocker and Eĺlice were so particular. ly brought before the Court, for he had never heard that gentlemen of the profession had ever come before it in any other situation than other persons. He had heard of a story which happened many years ago on the Welsh Circuit, where the jury were all Welshmen, in which it was said, on coming to a name in the paper of causes, "Oh! we'll take this, it can't take long, for I shall tell the jury the plaintiff is a rich attorney, and the defendant a poor widow, when they will soon dispose of it." He did not know if his learned friend was of this opinion, but he must deprecate the insidious way in which Messrs Ellice and Cocker had been mentioned. Sir Arthur Piggot had designated this as a monstrous case, and that it was unnecessary to say any thing further on it. He did not mean to throw the slightest insinuation on the sub-committee, who, it was possible, might be possessed of talents to sway empires, but he must say they were not fit to hold the reins of thea

trical government, for they would bring nothing but ruin on the concern, if the blow was not averted by shutting up the theatre. One fact was, his learned friend did not like a change of administration. To turn out an administration was not always so comforta ble a job as some persons supposed, and in this case the select committee was not biassed by gain, for they act ed voluntarily and without reward. If their object was to turn out the present theatrical administration, and get in themselves, it could not be for the love of power, but to avert the ruin pending over them. It had been described as a secret job, and this was the whole of the case-they wished to save themselves from ruin.

The Lord Chancellor.-The great seal is in the hands of the five.

Mr Peter Moore.-No, my Lord, they have no power.

Sir Samuel Romilly.-The keeper of the conscience is the second named defendant.

-

Sir Arthur Piggot. He cannot act, my Lord.

Here the Court, the most crowded we ever witnessed, burst out into a hearty laugh, his Lordship himself being unable to maintain his gravity.

Sir Samuel proceeded. The words in the affidavit were, "will" and "may" be the ruin of the proprietors, if the committee are suffered to open the theatre.

This was denied, it being contended that it was only "may."

greater amount had been incurred. The present reminded him of a plot to overturn a government with a treasury of 17-(Laughter.)-The 1000l. that had been advanced, had never come back, but many had gone after it, which would be the case again if the theatre was opened. If they could find a good-natured creditor who would stop till best suited him, and then come and sweep every thing away by an execution, and after this, if they could find a good natured public who would go to see the performers in their common clothes, without gardens, trees, &c. usually exhibited, it might be very well to open the theatre, but till that could be done, it was folly to think of opening. If by the arrangement of the select committee, the most pressing debts could be got rid of, the theatre might again go on. The opinion that appeared so monstrous to Sir Arthur Piggott, was held by the great majority of 50 proprietors out of 200. The sub-committee acted on mere sufferance.

The Lord Chancellor.-What has been the practice under the act?

Sir A. Piggott.-There has been no objection made till this bill was filed.

The Lord Chancellor said, that he should read over the acts very carefully. He thought the specification agreed to before the House of Lords was, that Drury-lane Theatre should never come into the Court of Chancery.

After much argument, in the course of which Sir Samuel ironically assimilated the persons in office in the theatre to the great officers of state; he said that Mr Lamb, who had been one of the committee, had now become a plaintiff against them. Sir Arthur was very much surprised at its being wished to place the whole management in one person's hands, but a proposition to that effect had been made by his clients. One person had the manage

ment of the other theatre, and under his guidance it prospered. This case was the same as that of a canal which had stopped for the want of funds, for that was the very case here. It was not just that the proprietors should be losing 80001. a year to sup. port the performers, when they had already lost so much. An appeal ought to be made to the public, whom they had delighted, in their behalf. Sir Samuel concluded by submitting, that as the Court was justified in grant ing the injunction, so it was in maintaining it.

Sir Arthur Piggot made a most able reply, and concluded by submitting that the injunction should be dissolved. The Chancellor delayed giving judg. ment till the following day, when he stated, that, after having carefully perused the bill, and the acts to which it referred, the result of the whole was, that by the first act the proprietors were constituted a corporate body, and had powers vested in them, which the legislature gave them very particular directions how to discharge. He might lay it down as a principle of law, that while the powers vested in select parts of a corporation, could be exercised by the select parts of that corporation, it was impossible for him to say that a body of men could assume powers which were not given them by the act of the legislature. The general assembly of proprietors in this case might give advice; at least they might appoint a select committee to give such advice, but that committee had no power to dictate to the general or sub-committee what they ought to do. If it was true, as was alleged, that the general committee was not a valid one, and that the subcommittee was in the same state, by not acting agreeably to the provisions of the act of Parliament, then the question before him was, whether the corporation could any longer exercise their

powers, and he must judge of that as he would do in the laws made relative to corporate bodies. This question, however, might as well be avoided, for the benefit of all parties. It would perhaps be as well for him not to go into the affidavits at all; yet he felt very much that this speculation was going on at an immense hazard. Of this he was very deeply convinced, but how was it possible for him to interfere in a case where the powers of the committee were settled by act of Parliament? He had given the case his most serious attention, and after weighing all the circumstances in his mind, he was decidedly of opinion that he could not support this injunction, on account of the absence of parties; this was not the only reason, for he also was convinced that no case whatever had been made out to justify him in continuing the injunction.

The injunction was accordingly dissolved.

AYRTON AGainst Waters, for MaNAGEMENT OF the Opera HOUSE.

Sheriff's Court, January 10.

Mr Wild stated, that the plaintiff was William Ayrton, Esq. and the defendant Edward Waters, Esq. The declaration was for 12001. for work and labour. The defendant had suffered judgment by default, and the Jury were impannelled to ascertain the damages.

Mr Scarlett, in a very eloquent speech, addressed the Jury. He attended, he said, on behalf of a gentleman whose name was of high celebrity in the musical world. The plaintiff was the son of Dr Ayrton, an eminent professor, and many years master of his Majesty's chapel. He had brought up his son, the plaintiff, in the same

profession, had given him a liberal education, and had rendered him fit to engage in any situation, or associate in any society. The defendant was a gentleman extremely well known-almost as well known in courts of justice as the King's Theatre itself, in consequence of the contest in which he had been engaged with Mr Taylor, the former proprietor. The object of the present inquiry was, to ascertain what sum of money was reasonably to be paid to the plaintiff for the labour, assiduity, and skill he had bestowed in the concerns of Mr Waters, in the musical department of the Opera House last season, and for other services, which, though not falling under that class, had been rendered by the plaintiff for the defendant. He would here observe, that the Italian Opera had for many years been unproductive. To those who frequented the Italian Opera it was well known, that on former occasions it was sufficient if the Manager exhibited one singer, male or female, in a season, whose attractions were sufficient to draw the attention of the audience: but all propriety in getting up the drama for theatrical representation was thrown in the back ground, in order to render more prominent the particular person engaged as principal singer. In the event of the singer so engaged failing in producing the effect expected, there were also engaged in a season two new principal dancers to perform in the ballet. He recollected, in the early part of his life, when he had more leisure, though not more taste, than he had at present, he was used to attend the Opera, and it was then considered that it was quite in time if any one arrived at the Theatre before the ballet commenced; for such was the state of the Italian Opera, that many persons of the higher order, many of whom had great taste-nay, the whole mass of the British public, who knew the

connection there was between the fine arts, regretted the state of the Italian Opera as it then was, and wished an attempt should be made to introduce the Operas of the best masters, and that they should be got up so that all the parts should be cast in the most advantageous manner. Mr Waters particularly was influenced by a desire to produce that effect. It so happened that the attention of Mr Waters was directed to Mr Ayrton, by the celebrity the latter had acquired as manager of the Philharmonic Concerts. Mr Waters thought no one better qualified to undertake the musical department of the opera than one who had conducted those concerts, which were attended with a greater degree of fame than any concerts had ever been before. In former times, if you heard one fine piece of music in a concert, you were obliged to listen to many dull and tiresome compositions; but the conductor of the Philharmonic Concerts proceeded upon the principle of excluding every thing that was not excellent; and with such success had they been attended, that the number of subscribers was only limited by the size of the room in which they were performed. Thus was Mr Ayrton introduced to Mr Waters. He was a gentleman, a scholar, acquainted with foreign languages, understood not only what belonged to the science of music, but to the business of the world. Mr Waters applied to him in general terms for his assistance. Mr Waters had himself no intimate knowledge of music, nor was he much acquainted with foreign languages; therefore his engagements with his Italian performers were of necessity by proxy. He induced Mr Ayrton to accompany him to Paris. When arrived there, the first step was to engage Ambrogetti, Angrisani, Camporese, and Madame Fo

dor.

Every pains were taken by Mr Ayrton, to form a complete corps dra

matique, in which one particular person should not stand before the rest, but where every part should be equally prominent. The success of the Opera, in consequence of those arrangements, was unbounded. The zeal of Mr Ayrton was not confined to his duty; he wrote the advertisements for the defendant-composed for him. (Here the learned counsel read an advertisement, published by Mr Waters, which expressed his own ideas of the extraordinary success of the Italian Opera last season.) Upon the subject of the various duties which devolved on the plaintiff, his first was to give his advice to the proprictor as to the merits of the vocal and instrumental performers previous to their being engaged. He was, likewise, if necessary, to re-model operas, a duty which did not depend on the mere knowledge of music, but required other qualifications; for music might be set to the grossest nonsense. The poetry of one of the finest Italian lyric poets, Metastasio, had been so altered by the writers of operas within the last century, that they had become the sub. ject of ridicule among the wits of those days. The plaintiff had, therefore, to restore the purity of the poetry to such operas as had been degraded by the style in which they had been written. Another duty imposed upon the plain. tiff grew out of this circumstance; the performers of the opera were generally gifted with great talents, and many of them had, in consequence, a consider able, but just share of vanity. Particular singers conceived that they acted particular parts, or sung particular airs, better than others. This produced jealousies among them, and it was the task of the musical director to compose these jarring feelings. He was himself to determine that for which they were most fit, well knowing, that they were themselves not always the best judges upon that subject. This

species of vanity was not confined to singers; for it was well known that the most splendid orators had made themselves ridiculous by pretending to be what nature never intended thempoets. The musical director had to appreciate and direct the genius of each individual performer. A director, who was to adapt the music of such a man as Mozart, or, to use the phrase of Milton, "to marry music to immortal verse," was not a director who was to be met with every day. Here was a Signor who desired to have such a song, and a Signora who preferred such an air. It required a man of profound knowledge of the world to sooth the irritations of the one, or flatter the other, in order to induce them to make a sacrifice of their vanity. It required such a man as Mr Ayrton, a man of suavity of manners, of great address, of sound judgment, and refined taste. Mr Waters would have done well if he had kept this gentleman in his service; but the love of economy had prevailed. The only question then was, what should be the remuneration? He should call professors, who would say, that they would not have filled Mr Ayrton's situation under 10001. ayear;-they would say, that it was impossible to have procured a fitter man, or one who combined more talents than Mr Ayrton. He was, therefore, entitled to a liberal compensation. As Mr Waters had thrown it on a quantum meruit, he trusted the Jury would give the plaintiff what he deserved. It was not unusual formerly to pay large salaries to persons who filled this depart ment. The late Mr Sheridan, than whom no one was a better judge, did not think 1000l. a-year too much. It was to be observed, that the music was of the best sort, and the performers of the first eminence. Madame Fodor had 15001. a-year, and the others were paid in the same proportion. It was therefore important, that such talents