The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-24 00:00:00

aps be able to selact from it the names of those among
them who, in my opinion, have been influenced by the
press privilege.
I have already caught one alive and nailed him against
my wall, and 1. have set my trap for another, whom I
hope shortly to pin by the side of Mm. --I am, sir, your
obedient servant, C. J. IVIATHEws."

The demand upon us for the names of the indi-
viduals—whose names Mr. Mathews ought him-
self to have known before he libelled them—is
simply shirking. Let him state the names of the
newspapers, as we have already urged upon him,
and we daresay the names of the persons will not
long remain a secret.

THE PRESS AND THE THEATRES.
(From the Sunday Times.)
We have hitherto forborne to make any comment
upon the subject of press admissions to the theatres
or to the circulars addressed by Mr. Charles
Mathews and Mr. Albert Smith to several editors
of the London newspapers, withdrawing the cus-
tomary privilege at their respective places of enter-
tainment, because, in the first place, it was a matter
of perfect indifference to us whether such privilege
were abolished or not ; and, in the next, we con-
ceived it to be an affair entirely between the press
and those two gentlemen, in which the public could
have no interest. As, however, some of our con-
temporaries have given to the question an impor-
tance it does not deserve, and have taken views of
it with which we do not entirely concur, we will as
briefly as possible state our opinions in relation.
thereto. • Strange as it may seem, when Mr. Al-
bert Smith, from the summit of his Mont Blanc,
launched at his quondam friends his famous Press-
Privilege-Abolition Circular we were not in the
slightest degree disturbed—" we slept the next
night well, were free and merry," and enjoyed our
breakfast the following morning with our usual
appetite ; nor were we a whit more discomposed
when, shortly after Mr. Charles Mathews, with a
capful of prosperity in his sail, politely requested
us to abstain from exercising our privilege of
writing orders for the Lyceum Theatre. Indeed,
such is our insensibility upon the point, that were
every theatrical manager and exhibitor in London
to follow the example set by these gentlemen, it
would. not cause us a moment's uneasiness or
embarrassment. As we do not, however, con-
sider either Mr. Mathews or Mr. Smith the
mouth-piece of their respective classes of caterers
for the public amusement some of whom
have formally requested us to continue the
privilege of sending our admissions as usual into
their houses, it would be most ungracious in us to
fling back a courtesy that has, on the one side,
been spontaneously offered, and accepted without
the compromise of any principle of independence on
the other. The editors of established journals do
not solicit the " privilege" of which Mr. Mathews
complaiis ; it has been in all cases the voluntary
act of managers, whose interest it is that every no-
velty and striking feature in the performances at
their theatres should receive all possible publicity
through the press. These are clearly the grounds
upon which the " press privilege," as it is called
stands ; and each manager or exhibitor is the best
judge whether it be for his interest to withhold or
continue it. It is, as we have said, a matter of
perfect indifference to us which way they may de-
cide ; we have never sought for the " privilege,"
nor will we retain it a moment longer than a free
and unrestricted use of it is accorded to us ; but
we will not, because Mr. Smith or Mr. Mathews
chooses to act illiberally and ungraciously towards
the press, fling our " privilege" in the face of all the
other managers in the metropolis. If the proprietor
of. a theatre, lecture or concert room, formally in-
vites or gives permission to a number of newspaper
editors to write admissions, he does' so with the full
knowledge of the number he can accommodate, and
the subsequent withdrawal of the privilege because
his house or room fills, proves that it would never
have been granted had they been of any value to
the generous donor. Mr. Albert Smith, who, by
the way, is more than any other man we know in-
debted to the public press for its earnest and ge-
nerous support, when he commenced his public en-
tertainment, takes credit to himself for having
" thrown the first stone" at what he calls a " great
evil, which he hopes will soon be knocked to
pieces ." but he forgets that he did not disdain to
avail himself of this " great evil" at the outset of
his career, and that, with commendable prudence,
he refrained from kicking down the ladder by which
he had risen until he had no longer use for it. If
he has fallen into the error of admitting " a nick
of common orders" to his entertainment, he has but
himself to blame, and. should rather have restrained
and corrected the abuse than have involved respect-
able journals in the implied censure which his abo-
lition of press admissions implies.
With regard to the astounding statistics of Mr.
Charles Mathews, they would b quite conclusive
for his argument if he had not, as Sheridan re-
marked of some person, drawn on his imagination
for his facts. He tells the world that press orders
representing 1501. in money are presented per week
at the theatre, and that no fewer than one hundred
thousand individuals with press orders had been
admitted to the Lyceum during his five seasons of
tenancy, whose money, "had they paid for ad-
mission," would. have amounted to the monstrous
sum of 25,0001. Now, the whole value of this
formidable array of figures rests upon the hypo-
thesis "if they had paid." There is a 'great virtue
in a " but" or an " if," as Mr. Mathews knows ;
and when he reckons up his nightly press paper as
so much cash out of pocket, he should also supply
us with some data for this assertion. Our experience
of a greater number of years than we care to name
enables us to say that, with the exception of the
Christmas holiday time, the press admissions, so far
from keeping money out of the theatres, are frequently
the means ofadclingto the theatrical exchequer, for no-
thingis more common than one, two, or more persons
paying to make up a party where a press order has
been given away. The persons to whom they are
given are not, as Mr. Mathews asserts, such as
would otherwise pay to the theatres :—men con-
nected in one way or another with literary or
artistic pursuits, who have not too much money to
expend at theatres, are the principal recipients of
these admissions. When we consider, too, that the
boxes in almost every theatre are for a great por-
tion of the year so thinly attended that managers
are compelled, in addition to the press orders, to
circulate a large amount of " house paper" to give
their otherwise vacant benches a respectable ap-
pearance--when this fact is taken into consider-
ation, and, further, that there are no press admis-
sions for the pit and galleries--the really paying
parts of the house---„it seems to us that the dreadful
loss Mr. Mathews represents himself to have
sustained exists mainly in his own lively imagina-
tion. The subject might be discussed more largely
if it were necessary ; we might ask why publish-
ers send books for review to newspapers when the
editors might if they pleased purchase every work
they intended to notice • or why any peculiar privi-
lege should be granted io the representatives of the
press by those persons who are anxious to gain
publicity for whatever they may have for public
exhibition. Do they complain of " a shower of
newspaper admissions ?" No ; they are too deeply
sensible of the assistance which the press can ren-
der them, not to endeavour to secure it ; and we are
satisfied if all the journals were to throw up their
privilege, that the managers would be the first to
solicit their re-acceptance of it.
Since the foregoing was written we have received
from Mr. Webster, the lessee of the Haymarket and
Adelphi Theatres, the following communication,
which, however, requires no comment beyond what
we ha
matheZ made upon the circulars of Messrs. C.
and Albert Smith. We cannot afford the
ed for the insertion of the tabular state-
'nem% to which Mr. Webster's letter refers :
"theatres Royal Haymarket and Adelphi,
Jan. 20th, 1853.
" Sir,—The exurseesyseironl of opinion and the voluntary
renunciation, by`
journals, of the privilege of
writing theatrical admisasi
ttduces me to abolish the
system, and at the same =We a repeat an offer made by
me five years since which sfavourably received, but
could not be adopted in consequence of want of unani-
mity.
" The proposition is, that the names of the
proprietor
or manager, dramatic critics, and such other officers of the journal as may be designated
17ePteible
the pro-
prietors, shall be inscribed on the free list
foyrpeornsotn:l
admissions on all occasions, except benefits •
and
first production of new pieces, a place shall' be reserved
for the representative of the journal, who, if he cannot
use it on that evening, shall have it exchanged for a
more convenient opportunity.
" You are not, perhaps, aware of the extent to which
the system of distributing press orders has been carried,
nor that it has been a constant complaint among the
theatrical reporters for journals that the orders are
given away in channels which preclude their employ-
ment for the legitimate use of the critics, and who
have been thus obliged to have special admissions
granted them, or to have their names inserted on the free
list. The enclosed tabular statement, extracted from the
;lightly books, exhibits the number of persons admitted
by Press orders only, during the years 1850, 1851, and
1852, at these two theatres, with the equivalent amount
lavuler
rand it is fair to presume, that as these orders
attachedt h.eoietve, scarcely ever been used by gentlemen
sum the
olhe journals, a considerable portion of the
into the treasue7. would otherwise have found its way
"In full confidencea this,
proposition meeting transmit to the reY I trust, very reasonable
our views, I will request you to
d ?.sorer of each of my theatres the
list of names you esire to be i
(haattended to.
and it shall be immediatel tiscribed on the free list,
"I need scarcely add
a will afford me pleasure
to offer to you, for yourF
sonal attentions that may bee'lnii ymany •ndofriends, any per-
your obedient servant, -er.--I am, sir,

1;13. WEBSTER."