The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-12 00:00:00

THE CASE AGAINST THE ALHAMBRA.

Mr. Tyrwhitt, according to arrangement, pro-
ceeded yesterday at the Marlborough-street Police-
court, to give his judgment in the case of Mr. 11.
Wigan and other theatrical managers against Mr.
Strange, of the Royal Alhambra Theatre, for an
alleged violation of the Theatres Act, by represent-
ing " Ballets" on the stage.
Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Lawrence of Fen-
church-street, was present for Mr. Strange ; Mr.
Roberts appeared for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said—l have considered the evi-
dence with the statutes and decided cases. The
summons charges an offence against the Theatres
Act, 6th and 7th of Victoria, cap. 68, section 2,
in keeping the Alhambra, a place of public resort,
for the public performance of " stage plays"
without the licence of the Lord Chamberlain.
And by section 23 the word " stage-play " includes,
among other dramatic representations, " pantomime
or other entertainment of the stage," all of them
being illegal in the metropolis without the Lord
Chamberlain's licence. Now, the Alhambra is ad-
mitted to be a place of public resort unlicensed by
the Lord Chamberlain, but licensed for music and
dancing by the county justices, under the 25th of
George 11., cap. 36. The facts relied on to support
the charge are shortly these :—At the Alhambra, a
place of entertainment and refreshment, a stage is
fitted up, with all the usual adjuncts of a regular
theatre—viz., places for receiving various charges
for admission, a tableau curtain, footlights, and
orchestra, set and side scenes, with drops and flies.
There are also boxes called balconies, for spectators,
but what would be the pit in a theatre is here appro-
priated to tables for persons taking refreshments. The
performance in question began with the descent of
40 to 60 women, draped in the theatrical costume of
ballet dancers, from some high rock built up at
the back of the stage. They came down by a wind-
ing path along what was said and not denied to be
a real stream of water to the stage. Some had
wands, and others palm branches, and others
daggers. Some remained grouped on the rocks, but
the greater part danced on the stage to the
music of a full orchestra, performing the evolu-
tions of a ballet, stated to have been produced
some time before in a pantomime at Drury-lane
Theatre. But the serious business or incident re-
presented by action seems to have been the attack
of some imaginary enemy who seemed to be put
to death by some of the daggers on the floor. Mr.
Donne, an experienced inspector of theatres, from
the Lord Chamberlain's-office, described the action
as being pantomime accompanied by dancing, and
thought that a story, though a vague one, was
acted ; that there was an engagement,-and some re-
sistance, then some expression of triumph, and in
the end a reconciliation brought about by the chief
dancer. The whole seems to have taken up from
half to three-quarters of an hour. As it appeared
only to comprise one act, the artistes who were ex-
amined styled it a ballet divertissement, agreeing,
however, that this last could only be represented as
such on a stage, with all theatrical accessories, and
could in no case exist without a pantomime—viz.,
pantomimic action. In this last tenet Mr. Donne
agreed. The artists also said that ballets were com-
posed, and that these compositions--viz., the direc-
tions for setting them on the stage, could be put
in writing, so as to send a copy to the Lord
Chamberlain, under sec. 12 of the Theatres Act,
6th of Victoria, as I apprehend the acknow-
ledged pantomime is or may be sent. It seems
to be agreed on all hands that pantomime is the
expression of feeling or incident by gestures with-
out words, and it is difficult to see how diversifying
or mixing up pantomime with another sort of word-
less action—dancing—makes incident expressed
without words less pantomime than if exhibited with-
out the dancing; and after much consideration of
this slippery subject, I think that on these facts pan-
tomime was the core and gist of the performance,
while the dancing was merely a graceful accessory
or relief to it. Now, as to the law, I must take it
that pantomime, as above described, existed in all
time, or at all events in 10th of Geo. 11., and 25th
of George 11., the years 1737 and 1751, though not
mentioned in either of the Acts, 10th of George 11.,
cap. 28, or 25th of George 11., cap. 36. It is very
possible that the only dancing contemplated by the
Legislature in 25th of George 11., cap. 36, was danc-
ing by the visitors of the public places to which li-
cencesfor music and dancing were to be granted, and
did not contemplate the exhibition of hired dancers
there, much less that of pantomimic action by any one.
However that may be, the Theatres Act, 6th of Vic-
toria, on which the summons proceeds, does include
" pantomime" in the catalogue of those stage-plays
which in London and Westminster are illegal with-
out the Lord Chamberlain's licence ; then this last
enactment extends expressly the necessity for such
licence to a performance which might, perhaps, have
been before untouched by 10th of George 11. or
25th of George 11.., unless reached by the words
" other entertainment of the stage," in 10th of
George 11., cap. 28, sec. 2, or the words " other
public entertainment of the like kind," in 25th of

George IL, cap. 36, sec. 2—namely, those of a like
kind with dancing and music only. This brings me
to the. remaining question, whether, supposing this
public dancing by hired artists had not been accom-
panied by palpable pantomime, it was an " enter-
tainment of the stage," for which, since the 6th Vic-
toria, if taking place in the metropolis, a Lord
Chamberlain's licence was required ? And it seems
to me that _dancing in this place of public resort by
• hired dancers in theatrical dresses, on a stage fitted
up with the music, lights, and scenery used fm per-
forming ballets at a theatre, cannot be less " an en-
tertainment of the stage" because such dancing in
fancy dresses in a private house would not be such
an entertainment. Let us observe the subjects com-
prised in the 10th of George 11., cap. 28, sec. 2.
They are interlude, tragedy, comedy, opera, play,
farce, :or other entertainment of the stage. Those

n the 25th of George 11., cap. 36, sec. 2, are " pub-
lic dancing, music, or other public entertainment of
the like kind." Those in the 6th of Victoria, cap.
68, sec. 2, the Theatres Act, are tragedy, comedy,
farce, opera, burletta, interlude, melodrama, pan-
tomime, and other entertainment of the stage (the
same words which occur in the 10th of George II.).
Now, according to " Rex v. Handy" (6 " Term Re-
ports," 286), tumbling and fencing are not within
these latter words in the 10th of George 11., and
Lord Kenyon there reviewed his decision in " Gal-
lina v. Laborie" (5 " Term Reports," 242), in which
he had enter alia declared public dancing to be an
" entertainment of the stage" within the 10th of
George 11. He said that if he had stated in " Gallini
v. Laborie" that these words extended to every species
of stage entertainments—e.g., tumbling or fencing
he was mistaken. But in that close review of
" Gallini v. Laborie" within so short a time after it
occurred he does not recall his opinion. Whether
Lord Kenyon in " Gallini v. Laborie" was consider-
ing public dancing taken simpliciter under 25 George
11., or public dancing on a stage at the Opera-home
in a ballet, accompanied by theatrical adjuncts, and
in so dealing spoke of it as an " entertainment of
the stage." " Gallini v. Laborie" was canvassed in
" De Begnis v. Armistead" (10 " Bingham's Re-
ports") without disapproval. I have minutely ex-
amined the above cases cited at the hearing because
the argument that the words " entertainment of the
stage," as following tragedy, &c., in the 6th of Vic-
toria, are said not to apply unless ejusdem generis
with the preceding words, including pantomime, and
the original case on the subject, " Archbishop of
Canterbury's Case" (2 " Coke's Reports"), with
" Sanderman and Breach" (7 " Barnewell and Cress-
well"), and " Exparte Hill, Carrington, and Paynes"
were cited. Lord Kenyon's dictum shows that the
general words " entertainment of the stage" in the
10th of George 11. were, in his opinion, ejusdem
generis with interlude, tragedy, &c., there preceding
them, and which words reappear under similar col-

location in the 6th of Victoria. Lawyers have
always held his opinion in great respect, and I en-
tirely concur with it. I also take it that the general
purview of the Theatres Act, 6th of Victoria, was
to impose stricter licensing requisites on dramatic
exhibitions in places of public resort, and to confine
public performances of a kind usually represented
at theatres licensed as such in town and country.
On the whole I hold the exhibition in question to
have so far partaken of pantomime as to come within
that in the Theatres Act, and also that if it had so
partaken it was still, under all circumstances, an
entertainment of the stage within that Act. I con-
vict the defendant in a mitigated penalty of 3/. Is.,
and with the less reluctance as he,has an opportunity
of reversing my decision on appeal to the Quarter
Sessions. Ido not think it is a case for costs.
Sureties were tendered and taken for the purpose
of the appeal.