The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-11 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—Your esteemed and merry contemporary Punch
yesterday published, under the above title, an excellent
article (intended at my expense, but never mind that) on
the subject of the "mischievous and much-abused sys-
tem of newspaper orders," Nuggesting that the " remedy
for such things is to abandon that system." He then
proceeds as follows :

" Managers are too great cowards to do it, though they
grout under it. The best part of the press can, and ought,
to break it down for the sake of their independence, which
is incompatible with the order system as interpreted by
Mr. Charles Mathews and other managers who might be
mentioned. Let all the respectable journal, daily and
weekly, combine to renounce the ' privilege' of writing
orders, and let them signify as much to the managers.
When the respectable journals have once done this mana-
gers will perhaps better appreciate the value of a ' privi-
le,7e ' which only the strugglers, sharpers, and outsiders
the smallest of the small newspaper fry—will condescend
to accept."
Punch concludes a long article by complimenting Mr.

Albert Smith
" On having been the first public exhibitor bold enough
to avow this, in a letter in which he announces to news-
paper proprietors his intention of abolishing altogether the
privilege' of writing orders to his entertainment of Mont
Blanc. Managers, the public, newspaper proprietors, and
critics should be alike obliged to Mr. Albert Smith, for he
has done good service to all worthy members of these
classes, in thus making the first attack on a degrading,
misleading, much-abused, and in every way mischievous
system."
In all this I so fully concur, that I cannot resist asking
you, Sir, the favour of inserting the following circular,
issued simultaneously with that of Mr. Albert Smith (and
one of which was addresssed to Punch himself), showing
that, at any rate, I am not ona of the "managers who
are too great cowards" to remonstrate, however long I
may have " groaned under" the infliction,
" Mr. Charles Mathews presents his compliments to the
editor of the , and will feel particularly
obliged by his abstaining from writing his orders for the
Lyceum during the first few weeks' run of the Christmas
entertainment. . _

---;‘ Mr. Mathews is too happy at any time, to offer him
and his reporters admission—or a private box, for himself
and family; but when it is explained that press orders ar
nightly presented to the amount in money of 251. (beingae
loss of 1501. per week to the theatre), while the paying public
is actually turned from the doors, and this during the only
eight or nine weeks of the season when, unfortunately,
now-a-days, anything like a profit is to be expected, he
hopes that the editor of the
object to follow the liberal example set by The Times, and
refrain from giving indiscriminate, and frequently undated,
orders, many of which are sold at the doors, some of which
have even been presented at the boxes by privates in the
uniform of the Foot Guards, but the majority of which are
professedly passed into the hands of country friends and
persons wholly unconnected with the press,—persons who
would otherwise cheerfully pay their money during the
holyday period.
" One hundred thousand individuals with press orders
have been thus admitted into the Lyceum Theatre during
the five seasons' tenancy of Mr. Charles Mathews, and their
money, had they paid for their admission, would have
amounted to no less a sum than 25,0001.
" Perhaps this simple fact will plead more eloquently in
favour of the present appeal than ything further that
could be advanced upon the subject.an
" Lyceum Theatre, Jan. 1."
This circular, lam happy to add, has been cour-
teously responded to by many of the leading journals;
and I hope may be considered as a first step in the right
direction.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. J. MATHEWS,

(prom the Times.)
. .

It will be seen from a letter in our impression of this
morning that we have at length been addressed publicly
on a subject which, though it immediately concerns our-
selves, is not without a more general interest and bear-
ing. Many persons--too many,
indeed—will be aware
of the fact that a certain privilege is conceded to the edi-
tors of the metropolitan journals by the managers of the
several theatres and other places of popular amusement,
but the description of the system actually in operation
will probably take the majority of our readers by sur-
prise. As the character and proceedings of all public
exhibitions are necessarily reported in a newspaper for
the information of the country, and as the exhibitors
themselves are more interested than any others in the
effectual publication of this report, it is by no means
unnatural that the reporter should be welcomed
to the spectacle, or that a person whose presence
is so eminently desirable should receive a gratui-
tous admission. The practice in its origin is intelli-
gible enough ; nor will it appear very remarkable that
other gentlemen connected, or supposed to be connected,
with the journal, should ultimately have come to be in-
cluded in the exemptions at first intended for the actual
critics of the performance. At present, however, the
custom is, that every newspaper, whether daily or
weekly, should be indulged in the privilege of issuing
orders"—that is to say, tickets signed by the editors
or managers of the paper, which are to serve instead of
payment at the doors of the exhibition: As there is no
practical limit to the number of these orders, the conse-
quence is a species 'of universal "franking," and, exactly
as members o Parliament in past days used to employ
for the gratification of their friends, and to the detri-
ment of the Post-office, a privilege designed' for the
facilitation of their professional business, so have jour-
nalists extended the prerogatives of their craft, to
the woful damage of theatrical exchequers. For the
actual result of this system, as now described on
unimpeachable authority, we own we were scarcely
prepared. Mr. Albert Smith states that the "press
orders" take upwards of twenty pounds a-week from
his small exhibitiox-room, and Mr. Charles Mathews as-
sures us that 150/. a week is not an exaggerated estimate
of the tax thus imposed upon the Lyceum. The latter
gentleman adds, indeed, as a general view of the case,
" that during his five years' tenancy of this theatre there
have been admitted by press orders 100,000 individuals,
whose money, had they paid for their tickets, would have
amounted to 25,0001." Nor is this method of reckoning
altogether unfair or pretentious. No doubt, on some
occasions the places engaged by the bearers of these
orders might, if not thus occupied, have been untenanted
entirely, but generally speaking, whatever attracts the
non-paying visitors would attract the paying visitors ;
and, in point of fact, it was the compulsion of turning
away solid money from the doors when these worthless
tickets had gained admission which at length induced the
complainants to make a move for redress.
In the substance of the views expressed by Mr. C.
Mathews and Mr. Albert Smith, we do not hesitate to
express our entire concurrence. For ourselves, indeed,
we should be perfectly willing to relinquish even those
reasonable privileges in which the present system took
its rise. If it be true that the reporter is acting in some
sense for the public, yet this is no less true of every func-
tion of a journal, and immunities might just as well be
claimed in one case as another. If the newspaper works
for the public, the public pays for the newspaper, and
there is no good reason that we can discover why we
should be franked to Mr. Charles Mathews's theatre in
the discharge of our own duties any more than we should
be franked by the South-Eastern Railway in procuring
our own information. That we should enjoy a preferen-
tial title to admission in case of pressure, and should be
accommodated, under all circumstances, with the facilities
requisite for observation, is due, we think, to our cha-
racter as representatives of the public ; but beyond this
we should not be disposed to press our claims. If how-
ever, it should be thought practically desirable to
ex-
empt reporters from payment, we think the Privilege
should be strictly confined to gentlemen thus engaged,
and that the discontinuance of the present
sshould' be distinctly understood. The reader wllatneolut
have much difficulty in comprehending why we should
speak on this subject with some goodwill. As long
as
these orders are 'sent to us in blank from the theatress
for the purposes of circulation—as long as they
known to be in our possession, and wanting onlyUrs
areour
signature to make them current—we are, of course,
liable to incessant applications for a share of the favoures,
presumed to be at our disposal ; nor is it always easy to
withstand the pertinacity of a candidate for attentions
which he assumes will cost us nothing at all.
In point of fact, however, it is the character of the
press itself which is chiefly at stake in these transactions,
and which is concerned, we venture to think, in the
abolition of a system no less discreditable to journalism
than unfairly onerous to theatrical proprietors. It
stands to reason that privileges so extensive as are thus
represented could not be granted without at least the
presumptive acceptance of an obligation in return. We
do not mean to say that the operation of any such un-
derstanding as this is practically experienced, or that
theatrical critiques are influenced by the consideration
of privileges which all critics enjoy in common. Never-
theless, the custom in question is obviously neither
more nor less than a species of favour, and it can hardly
be consistent with the dignity or independence of jour-
nalism to accept at the reluctant hands of dramatic ex-
hibitors concessions which could not be received from
other quarters without grave risk of suspicion. In our
own interests, therefore, no less than in justice to the
complainants, we desire to see the system abandoned,
and the practice of exemptions either confined to re-
porters actually on duty or discontinued altogether.
At the same time, we are of opinion that theatrical
managers are to a great extent responsible for the hard-
ships against which they have at length protested. For
a long while, and especially during the predominance of
the two larger theatres, they were habitually anxious to
procure the attendance' of as many visitors as possible,
and distributed their blank orders with the view of in-
suringpose under all circumstances a well-filled house, to
that then systee general audience. It is obvious, indeed,
with limited acme now found so burdensome to exhibitors
except in the modation, could never have originated
deliberate purpose of exhibitors of another
class, for the managers of newspapers have, after all,
done no more than a ecpot what was sent to them. There
ment of
are certain
these intsma,
ttnter,shesides, in which if a re-adjust-
the theatrical system is to be effected, we think
be brought "more in
unison," as Parliarnent;yaY reformers say, " with
the spirit of the age.
Perhaps we should not
insist too strongly on
mission, though they are rerage prices of ad-
a itinaovst the only prices,
except cab-fares, which
athe:e aserebrpeeeednis reduc-
tion in these times of cheapness
Point on which Mr. Charles M •
Stith
aanddortehsesr.
thenapuwbhiiiech he failed to ed we think, once before, and
vince either his opponent or
con-
admission to his performance ; but, ifeafilii. intending visitor
He asks ss. for
goes to take his place at the box- cie of the theatre,
privils
opened for this very purpose, he
charged 65.,
,admissiitnor •
or 20 per cent, extra for the
customer. This is surely neither defensible becoming a
55. is a fit and proper price kr wise. If
theatre,
no person should be chargeti ail' extras tilliongthfeor asking
to be admitted. If a book costs 55., a bookseller does
not charge 6s. because it is ordered beforsh
should have imagined it in the interest of theparno
'll;rie.tVoVres

t o encourage rather than otherwise the system of se-
curing seats, for it certainly must be advantageous to
ascertain as early as possible the probable state of the
house. With this, however, the public is not concerned;
but we think Mr. Mathews would have some, difficulty
in proving either the expedience or the propriety of ad-
vertising a seat for 55., and then levying a tax of ls. on
every person who comes to buy it.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 11, 1853.

Closing Prices
Yesteray.

30 - 31
291 -

30 - 31
29 - 30
109 - 111
54 56

148 - 150
33 - 34

. - ...

113 115
56. -57 i
27 - 28
14 - 14
25i - 26.
- 204
24 - 26

3 - 3i

11073 :: iiii

64 - 66

- Pm
- 154
- 154

•• ..•
d

31A -32 i
1053 -106 i

Closing prices
Yesterday.—

i. --: *i
14 - 15

2 p
—7 pxn
2.3 p
1

- 1i p

4 --- 51
1 ----- li
9 - 11 p
2i - 2ip

8
-
35 - 35

14 - 15.

164 -- 16ip

39 - 41.
39 - 40
32 -32 i
5 - sip
- P
204 - 20
10 - 10
3i- 4p

ipxn
54 -5/
9i -- 10 p