The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-12 00:00:00

DRAMATIC LITERATURE.

(Evidence before the Committee.)
T. B. MASH examined.
Previous to Sir Robert Walpole's Bill, do you
consider the Lord Chamberlain had any precise au-
thority for licensing theatres, or that the Master of
the Revels had ?—The Master of the Revels, I con-
sider, was an officer under the Lord Chamberlain,
and acted under his direction, but the licensing of
the theatres was always with the Lord Chamberlain.
By the Act of Anne, c. 23, sec. 12, the Lord
Chamberlain had the power of taking up, as rogues
and vagabonds, every person who attempted to act
without letters patent from the King, or a license
from the Lord Chamberlain. That was by the 12th
of Anne ?—That is repealed so far as goes to taking
them up as rogues and vagabonds, but there is a pe-
nalty of 501. imposed instead.
Has the Lord Chamberlain the power of granting
a license to play the legitimate drama at the Adelphi
and the Olympic ?-1 presume he has that power,
not of himself, but the King.
But has he the power ?—I should conceive he
would not take upon himself to do it without con-
sent of the King. The minor theatres are restricted
to the performance merely of burlettas and those
sort of entertainments, and are not allowed to
play the regular drama. There have been several
applications for leave to play the regular drama,
which have been refused.
J. PAYNE COLLIER examined.
Do you happen to know in what way the exami-
nation and authorising of plays by the Lord Cham-
berlain, or by the Master of the Revels, com-
menced ; and how it was first recognised ?—The
origin of the office of Master of the Revels is to be
traced back to the year 15-15. The Master of the
Revels was originally appointed, as far as we can
ascertain, to superintend the household of the King
in relation to the Court entertainments. The third
Master of the Revels was Edmund Tylney ; he was
the first person exercising any authority in licensing
and correcting plays publicly acted. He appears to
have done so in exactly the same way as the exa-
miner of plays at this day. He read the plays; he
erased such parts as he objected to, and if he ob-
jected to them entirely, he forbade them.
?—I do not find that the Lord Chamber-
lain exercised any authority till the year 1624. That
is the first instance in which he is mentioned in con-
nection with the control of players. In that instance
certain players committed an offence, and the Lord
Chamberlain was instructed by the King to remit
the sentence inflicted upon them by the Privy

Council.
In Shakspeare's time I think the largest theatre
was about 50 feet square ?—The largest theatre, I
think, was about 45 eet in the interior. Speaking
from memory, I should say that the back of the
stage from the farthest auditor was about 45 feet.
Do you not consider that the public taste has
been considerably deteriorated by the quality of the
representations that have been given at the large
theatres ?—Decidedly. I think that the great thea-
tres have owed their present condition partly to
their magnitude, partly to the representations that
have taken place at them, partly to the difficulty of
hearing, understanding, and enjoying representations
of a more regular and legitimate drama. In fact, it
all resolves itself into magnitude.
--?—ln the reign of Elizabeth, during the
life of Shakspeare, there were seventeen theatres
open, but not all open at the same time; but I know
from evidence capable of being produced from the
Harleian Collection of MSS., that in the year 1586
there were, as was asserted, not less than 200
players in London. A company of players did not
then consist of more than 10 or 12.
Mr. P. F. LAPORTE examined.
Where do you think is the most encouragement
given to theatres, in France or in England, by the
public and by the Government think in France.
Is not there a tax upon the minor theatres in
France?—No, quite the contrary; there is an en-
couragement given to enable the proprietor to bring
forward the great sort of drama, which is expected
to be the best.
To which of the theatres P—To all the Royal
theatres, such as the Fran7ois, Opera, and the Co-
mique Opera.
Do not the minor theatres at Paris contribute a
portion of their receipts towards the three great
theatres ?—They do, a large portion.
Then how do you reconcile that with your opi-
nion that the theatres are more encouraged in Paris
than they are in England, as there is no tax here
upon minor theatres ?—No, and that is why the
great ones cannot support themselves.
Is not the cause of the drama better supported
here, taking it as a whole, than it is at Paris ? -I do
not see how; the minor theatres in all countries,
being cheaper and having less expense, have more
chance to support themselves than the large ones.
What proportion of the receipts of the minor
theatres at Paris are contributed to the large ones ?
—One tenth.
Are they not obliged to contribute to the poor ?
—They contribute to the poor, but they make the
public contribute that, because they are allowed to
increase what is taken for the purpose.
What proportion is given to the authors ?
Twelve per cent, of every night's receipt.
Do you think that the minor theatres are more
flourishing there than they are here P-1 think
they are.

Do you think the public taste in France is in
favour of minor theatres ?—The public taste is de-
cidedly for the best performances, an 3 whenever
there are good performances at the large theatres,
they go there in preference to the small ones; but
the smaller theatres being cheaper, they have a claim
upon many more people.
Has not the question been very much agitated at
Paris, whether the legitimate drama ought to be
confined to the two great houses ?—lt has been.
How many theatres are there in Paris ?—About
14 open at a time.
Do you think that in France the legitimate drama

ought to be confined to the two great theatres ?—I
think it ought.
You are aware that the question has been very
much debated P—lt has.
Have not the theatres Royal a regular allowance
from the Government ?—They have.
Do you know the amount P—lt is very large,
indeed; the Opera has as much as nearly 40,000/.
sterling a year; the Francois about 8,000/4 but
then the Francois were very rich in former times;
they had a great deal of funded property. I think
the Opera is now given to a lessee, who receives
32,0001. from the Government, taking all the chances.
Have the theatres flourished during the last year
in Paris ?—They have, as much as can be expected
in these times.
Has the public excitement there been prejudicial
—ln Paris, public excitement is sometimes favourable
to the theatres, because every body likes to go and
get entertained at night after business.
How is a theatre managed in the provinces ?

The provincial theatres are divided into three classes;
and each class pays a certain price to the authors.
Is there any connection at this time between the
theatre you have and other great theatres with re-
gard to the management ; is it at all likely that they
will be at all united under one management ?—De-
cidedly not.
Are not the actors at the minor theatres at Paris
bound to go to the Theatres Royal if they become
so distinguished as to make it desirable to do so ?
There is in France an idea that the theatres exert a
great influence upon the manners of the nation ; and
therefore the large theatres, in which the best music
and the best drama is to be produced, are greatly
encouraged, and there is a public school, called the
Conservatoire, supported by Government, in which
new performers are educated, and those new per-
formers are decidedly the property of the large
theatres, and they are not allowed to go on the
small theatres, except after trying their skill at a
large theatre, and then, if they do not answer, they
may go where they can.
If persons, having begun to act upon the
small theatres, become distinguished, have not
the large theatres a right to demand their ser-
vices ?—They have not; but such is their desire of
getting for the first theatres the best talent they
can, that sometimes Government makes sacrifices to
obtain them—and I could quote several actors who
received large sums; one who receives a thousand
a year from the Government to go nowhere else but
to the Francois.
What do you understand you shall continue to be
able to act at Covent-garden ?—I conceive that
what has been acted till now, I have a right to con-
tinue the same.
Have you looked into the finances of Covent-
garden theatre ?—Yes.
And you know that their affairs have not been
very flourishing the last year ?—Yes.
Do you attribute that failure to want of manage-
ment, or to the state of public taste P—l think there
are many causes within the last few years that have
reduced the theatres to that state they are in now.
I think the dinner hour is the main point; then
the many nights offered to the public at the
Italian Opera-house I consider to be very injuri-
ous; and then taking into consideration also the
state of the country, and the excitement of politics
and occupation, which has not permitted the public
to attend to amusements so much.
But you think that in Paris the excitement
does not operate unfavourably P—l think we can-
not draw a comparison between the spirit of the
French people and the English, the French are
such a play-going people; and I believe there never
was such a tine house, the French Opera-house, as
when the Prussians were under the walls on the
30th of March.
You once had a theatre that was not licensed ?
—I had.

Now you are the manager of a legal theatre,
have you it in contemplation to attempt to prose-
cute any of the minor theatres P—l think the pro-
secution, if any, must rest with the proprietors, and
I would not make myself a party to it.
Should you call upon the proprietors to prose-
cute ?—I think that is their affair; they must manage
better than I can. If 1 felt myself injured by it, I
would.call upon them to put me in as good a situa-
tion as they can.
What is the manner of reading plays at Paris,
does it rest with one person, or is there a commit-
tee established for the purpose ?—lt is different al-
most at every theatre; there is a committee in the
large theatres; there are some where a committee
is established, and some others where the manager
himself takes the reading of the plays.
In Paris are there many instances of plays being
detained for some years by the committee, hefore
they are read over?—The answer is given the very
day that it is read.

How long is that generally ?—There is reading
every week.

Is it always read in due course, or is there any
preference given to favourites ?—There is a pre-
ference which the manager has of selecting what he
considers of actual advantage to the theatre.
Then, in fact, the committee there are merely
agents of the manager?—They are judges and
advisers.

What is the manner of licensing plays there ?
There is no licence at all.

Do you find that there is any want of a licence;
are there many indecent plays permitted ?—The
public would not suffer them; the public is the
best judge.
How long has the censorship ceased to exist ?—lt
has ceased since the fall of Charles the Tenth.
Before that time there was a licence, because they
were so afraid of political allnsions.
Mr. C. KEMBLE examined.

Have you ever made any calculation of what
would be a sufficient number of theatres for the
amusement of the metropolis, considering the size of
the metropolis ?—I have but one way of looking at
it, and that is, that if your theatres are never above
one-half full, which is the fact on an average, I can-
not for my life see the necessity for any more theatres
in London.

But if the small theatres are full, and the large
theatres are only half full ?—I beg leave to say the
small theatres are by no means full. Madame
Vestris' theatre has been full; the Adelphi has, I
believe, just covered its expenses, not more. Madame
Vestris has been successful; but it is a mistake to
suppose the minor theatres are generally prosperous.
We see there are two of them have failed within
the last six months, the City theatre and Rayner's;
there are two theatres gone; then there is the
Queen's theatre gone; there are three gone ; there-
fore you cannot argue that the public want those
theatres; the public do not want them.
Why should not they want the attraction, but the
cause ?—Where would be the attraction if there
were additional theatres erected in which the actors
were dispersed ?

Is it not your fault for not giving them some
other representation more suited to the public taste?
—No; if you will have the kindness to inquire into
it you will find, I fancy, that we give them as
great a variety as possible of entertainments of the
best sort we can procure. The proprietors of thea-
tres are not authors; they can only take such pieces
as are presented to them ; and they take the best,
of which there is very good evidence; for some
gentlemen, who thought they had reason to com-
plain of want of judgment in the proprietors, took
upon themselves to publish a volume or two of re-
jected plays. That publication completely excul-

paled the proprietors in th• of of lie public;
and they saw very clearly that these Only* ought to
have been rejected. I :.::icy there are very few in-
stances where a good piece has been rejected. I
question very much whether there is one on record,
certainly not for these many years.
Do you not think it highly probable, if there we• e
many theatres, you would have many companies of
the same degree of excellence, from which you
might select the best for performers of pieces at the
patent theatres ?—I should doubt that very much.
The play of the countenance, which forms 50
great a part of the pleasure we derive from good
acting, of course the size of the theatre has an
effect in making it more or less visible ?—There is
not the least doubt of it; it may be too large, that
is admitted; but who should say what is the pre-
cise distance from which to judge ? because you may
see better than I do, another may hear better than
I do, and, according to that scale, we should be
obliged to have a theatre for every individual.
When Miss O'Neill, and other celebrated per-
sons who have engaged very much the attention of
the town by their talents, were on the stage, have
they or have they not been able to produce an
effect in every part of the theatre ?—The object is
to know whether those eminent performers (I have
mentioned the name of Miss O'Neill, but I refer also
to your own family more particularly), have not
been able to produce an effect in every part
of the theatre when they have performed, the
theatre being of its present size ?—All their repu-
tation having been made in these theatres, Mi,,s
O'Neill's reputation having been made in these
theatres, and the other persons to whom you have
alluded having also made their reputation in these
theatres, I conceive they must be perfectly well
adapted to their powers, otherwise I should suppose
they would never have achieved their reputation.
Then the inference is, that persons may possess,
as actors, talents sufficient to produce an effect in a
small theatre, though they do not possess talents
equal to produce an effect in a large theatre ?—I
would not exactly put it in those words. I should
say a more restricted power might certainly produce
a better effect in a small theatre than it would in a
large theatre.
Then the consequence of having nothing but
large theatres would have the effect of completely
shutting out all persons possessed of powers capable
of being appreciated in a small theatre only ?—lt
would certainly militate against a very great reputa-
tion ; but I should think it would not have the
effect of shutting them out altogether.
Would not the fair inference from that be, that as
there are a great variety of powers, perhaps with the
sime degree of excellence, in order to appreciate
that excellence it would be necessary to have a great
variety of theatres ?—lf it be necessary to have
more, I do not see any very valid objection to that ;
but that would be building theatres for restricted
powers instead of efficient ones.

What is your opinion, from experience, of theatres
built of various sizes in order to bring forward pet-
sons of mediocre talent; what effect would that have
upon the profession ?—I should think it would he
destructive of the profession.