complied with. But a supplicatory letter from Brandon procured his reinstatement in office, and the customary routine is restored.

We cannot dismiss this subject without a few observations. Nothing, as it appears to us, can be more unfounded, than the vulgar and senseless clamour against the trifling advance in the prices of admission to the theatre. The first feeling would naturally be, its being an innovation-contrary to custom; and whatever is contrary to custom, is likely to encounter popular resistBut the question is, whether the advance be reasonable? It should be observed, that the prices have remained unvaried during nearly twenty years, within which period, it must be allowed, that expences of almost all descriptions have been more than doubled; and the salaries, in particular, of all per formers, have been raised four-fold. Mr. Kemble stated (and doubtless with perfect truth) " that the price of the pit, in the reign of Queen Anne, was three shillings; the galleries, a hundred years ago, the same as they are at present. One hundred and fifty thousand pounds (says he) have been already expended to make this the first theatre in Europe. The proprietors have still to furnish a wardrobe, scenery, and other most expensive decórations, necessary to the getting up (as we phrase it) of our dramatic representations, all of which have increased double, treble, quadruple, and more within the last five years." These circumstances afford a strong presumption in favour of the proprietors; and if we credited the report of the committee, this presumption would be converted into a firin conviction. But, it

must be acknowledged to be scarce ly conceivable, that the committee, however dexterous in business, could have obtained, in two or three days a competent knowledge of ifié accounts of many years.

But admitting that the proprie tors made eleven or twelve per cent. on their capital-that is, six or sèven per cent., in addition to the legal interest;-what just ground of complaint would be furnished the public even by this rate of profit? the average profits on capital are from 12 to 15 per cent., and the proprietors can be considered only as a company of traders, who have embarked a quantity of capital in a given concern. They have, there fore, a right to expect a reasonable profit, that is, a profit which is allowed to be the average profit on capital. But who are to be the judges of this reasonable gain? undoubtedly the proprietors them selves, as in all other instances of the investment of capital. They alone can be the best judges' at what rate they can afford to accommodate the public. If the public suspected imposition, and their suspicions were not shown to be groundless, they might conspire to stay away from the theatre, and the evil would speedily cure itself. The idea of extortion is absurd, as plays, though delightful and humanizing amusements, are not necessaries of life. The least defensible part, in our opinion, of the conduct of the managers, is the erection of private boxes, which, as they are the haunts of profligacy, are offensive to morals and to decency; and were they appropriated only to the nobility, and persons of conse quence, they would be invidious distinctions in a national theatre. It' Dd 4

may

may be doubted, however, whether the proprietors would be able to indemnify themselves, or, at any rate, to derive a reasonable profit without the private boxes. They are said to produce 12,000l. a year, Their value to the proprietors is certainly the only excuse that can be made for them.

After all, if the proprietors were in the wrong, the law was open for the redress of grievances. The pro-, prietors act under a patent, which patent, if it can be shown to have been abused, is liable to be revoked. Serjeant Best, though counsel for Mr. Clifford, observed, that "however illegal or improper was the conduct of the managers, it could not be resisted by riot." He admitted the illegality, therefore, as well as the existence of the riot; he only contended, that his client could not be proved to have had any share in it. We are about to have another new theatre erected, and it is to be hoped, that no pretext will be afforded for a repetition of noises and outrages, which are more distinctive of barbarism than 'of civilization.

23. Curious cause.--The king and the lord of the manor of Holdernesse. The curious suit between the crown and Constable, Esq. lord of the manor of Holdernesse, in Yorkshire, is at length determined; it is of much importance to lords of manors on the sea coast.

A cask of wine was floated on shore on the coast of the manor of Holdernesse. The coast bailiff, and some Custom-house officers, on hearing of the stranger's arrival, went immediately to pay a complimentary visit; the officers laid hold of one end of the cask, and said, "this belongs to the king;" the

bailiff laid hold of the other end, and said that it belonged to the lord of the manor. Say the offi cers, "it is smuggled, it has not paid the Port duty;" said the bailiff, "I think it is Madeira." The officers smiled at the honest man's blunder, and explained, they meant the duty on wine imported; says the bailiff, "it has been in no port, it has come by itself on the beach." Both parties remained inflexible: and the officers having, after grave consultation, determined, that the bailiff could not drink the cask of wine whilst they went to their Custom-house at a short distance for advice, proposed the wine should be put into a small but; but the bailiff thinking it safer within the lord's immediate jurisdiction, in the mean time removed it to the cellar of the baronial chateau. The officers returned on this: "Oh, ho!" said they, "now we have you; the wine is our's to all intents and purposes, as it has been removed without a permit."-Says the bailiff, "if I had not removed the wine without a permit, the sea would the next tide." "Then," quoth the officers, "the sea would have been put into the court of exchequer." The bailiff shut the great hall door in their faces.

The lord was exchequered; that is, the attorney-general filed his information against him; lawyers learned were engaged on both sides; the crown lawyers said the officers were certainly right; the lord's lawyers said he certainly was.

The cause came on at York assizes, and the noise it made was as great as the contested election there. All the wine-bibbing lords of manors in that and the adjoining counties were present, and the court

was

was consequently very much crowded. A special verdict was found, which left the question for the determination of the court of exchequer.

It came on to be argued. Sir Roger de Coverley's dictum, that "a great deal may be said on both sides," was demonstrated to the fullest extent, by the long-robed band of wordy combatants engaged by the crown and the lord of the

manor.

The court took time to deliberate; and on the last day of last Term, pronounced judgment that it was a case which the Act requiring permits for the removal of wine did not embrace, the Act only alluding to wine which had paid duty; that from the case in Vaughan,

1

it was clear, that wine to be liable to duty must be imported; that wine, as Vaughan said, could not be imported by itself, and must be by the agency of some one else; and that it was in that case determined, that wine wrecked could not be subject to duty. The lord keeps the wine, and will have to pay an enormous bill of costs for the defence of his rights, as in informations by the Attorney-General, though the verdict is with the defendant, he does not get his costs. John Bull will (but hold, we have just mentioned the name of Mr. Attorney)--and the counsel who were in the cause say, in their opinion, it was one of the best casks of wine which ever reached the English coast.