The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-01 00:00:00

Theatrical Licences and Regulations.

The Committee of the House of Commons appointed to
inquire into the state of the law affecting theatrical
licences and regulations re-assembled yesterday, Mr.
Goschen, M.P., in the chair.
Mr. Smith, lessee of Astley's Theatre and Cremorne
Gardens, was first examined—He deposed that he thought
the present system of licensing theatres worked well. The
music-halls did not suffer from the system, but, on the con-
trary, the theatres did. The taste was at present more in
favour of music-halls than theatres, because people preferred
the former as they could sit down and enjoy the perform-
ance while they drank their grog, smoked their pipes, and
could have a chat. There ought to be some check on some
of the music-halls, in which performances were produced
that were disgraceful. Some of the halls, -such as the
Alhambra, the Canterbury, and the Oxford, were respect-
ably conducted. He only objected to the drama being
performed before persons smoking and drinking. If drink-
ing were done away with at these performances it would
have a beneficial effect, because people would go out when
they wanted refreshment and procure it at the taverns.
At Cremorne there was no smoking or drinking at
the theatre there, but people might smoke outside the
theatre. Cremorne was outside the Lord Chamberlain's dis-
trict, but the theatre was licensed by the magistracy. He
was in favour of maintaining the present censorship of the
Lord Chamberlain over plays to be produced. The drama-
tic art would suffer from changing the law in favour of
the music halls. The prices paid, and the demand for good
new plays had increased, and he was at present in treaty
with Mr. Boucicault for a new drama. Theatres were now
not so well supported as formerly, and he might mention
that, when lessee of Drury Lane, he had lost £3,000 by
Charles Kean's engagement, and £3,500 by an engagement
of G. V. Brooke. There were more theatres in London at
present than there was demand for. The deinand for good
actors was as good as ever, and clever actor); could com-
mand excellent salaries. Witness had paid Charles Ma-
thews £lOO a week at Drury Lane. Tho witness denied
that he had given a gentleman, who took a box from him,
a k9y to go behind the scenes. At Cremorne the season was
just opening. The programme included white-bait dinners.
(Laughter.) On Whit-Monday a ballet with 150 ladies will
be produced. The theatre was quite close to the dancing-
room, and outside its doors were tables at which people
could drink or smoke, and still go in and out of the theatre.
The smoke did not at all interfere with the performance
because it was not allowed inside the theatre. There were
boxes around the place where the dancing took place, into
which ladies and gentlemen went. The boxes were about
eight feet from the dancing platform, and above them were
dinner and supper boxes. Everybody could see into the
boxes. He found by experience that the audience at
Astley's preferred going out for their refreshments
to the taverns, probably because a higher price was
charged in the theatre saloon. Witness had the three
saloons at Astley's let at £lO a week for the
three. When witness was manager of the Alhambra the
performances were similar to what were now given at that
house, but there was no scenery near. He did not share
in the opinion expressed by Mr. Webster that burlesques
were the bane of the drama. Witness did not agree with
Mr. 'Webster that as a general rule detectives were employed
in theatres to detect and put out improper characters. Wit-
ness never employed detectives at Astley's, Cremorne, Drury
Lane, or the Alhambra. Large sums of money have been
made by some London managers. Davidgo made £25,000
at the Surrey, Ducrow made £60,000, and Mr. Phelps and
Mr. Greenwood amassed large sumsat Sadler's Wells. He
certainly did not think that improper characters were pre-
vented from going into theatres by having a detective at
the pay office who pointed them out, when their money was
not taken. Witness would not refuse the money of these
women. He would admit them and allow them to remain
so long as they conducted themselves properly, to ensure
which there was a policeman on duty. He had no objec-
tion to the performance of scenes from operas, as given at
Weston's and the Oxford, because no dresses or scenery
were used in representing them. He did not think it was
the fact that a roan was killed by a beast at Astley's, which
injured that house. He thought that if a man were killed
every night at a house it would be a capital draw.
(Laughter.) Witness did not find " Der Freischutz"
draw good houses. He found pantomime and Menken as
Mazeppa most successful, especially the latter, as the
public had a great taste for that style of performance.
(Laughter.) The drawing of curtains in private boxes was
not allowed or general. He would say in reference to that
matter, Hon/ soft qui ?nal y pense. (Laughter.)
Mr. Dion Boucicault was next examined. He said he had
written between 180 and 200 dramatic pieces, many of which
had been performed at the principal London theatres. He
had experience of the dramatic profession as an author,
manager, actor, and builder of theatres. He was at present
bringing out " Arrah na Pogue" in French, at Paris. Ho
thought the Lord Chamberlain was not the proper person to
licence plays, because the office was changeable with the
Ministry, and the play which ono Chamberlain licensed his
successor might refuse to license. There ought to be an
appeal from the decision of the Chamberlain. There was
licensing of theatres in the 'l3 nited States, where the standard
of the drama was much higher than it was in England.
The standard of the drama was higher, because the pieces
produced were of a better character than those produced in
this country, and the legitimate drama was more generally
produced in America. Besides, there were theatres in almost
each city in the States whore the legitimate drama was
played, and tragedies and comedies had longer runs than
plays of any other description. He thought the public were
the best check upon anything objectionable in a play. Many
passages in plays which were licensed, and escape even the
perception of the actors, did not escape the sharpness of the
public. As an illustration he might state that in a play writ-
ten by him, and produced years ago in London, called "Old
Heads and Young Hearts," there was a love scene in which
Mr. Charles Mathews, who played a gentleman, said to
a lady, while on his knees, "I came to scoff, but I remained
to pray," which was a quotation from Cowper. The audience
imagined it was from Byron and hissed it. - In the same
way, the prison scene in " Never too Late to Mend" was
licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, but was disapproved by
the public, and cut out of the piece after a short time. The
licenser of theatres ought to have a permanent appoint-
ment, and there ought to be some appeal from his decision,
so that he could not exercise an arbitrary power. The
licenser of theatres, with respect to the fitness of the
building, should be an architect who understood building
matters, and not the Lord Chamberlain. In Paris, by a re-
cent enactment, the music-halls, where smoking and drink-
ing were allowed, can avail themselves of the privilege of
performing dramas, but none of them have as yet done so.
The censorship of the drama in France was very strict, and
witness had heard, the' other day, that the trial scene in
" Arrah na Pogue" would be cut out, because it brought
the military into ridicule. He thought if political allusions
were strongly placed on the stage—for instance—if Mr.
Buckstone, as was suggested, were to play Earl Russell,
the public would not approve of them. With respect to re-
ligion, he was of opinion the Lord Chamberlain was ca-
pricious, because he prohibited the production at Drury-
lane of "Moses in Egypt," and yet permitted-that of the
parable of the "Prodigal Sou." The licence of the Lord
Chamberlain ought not to carry a wine and spirit licence,
but the latter should bo applied for to the magistrates. In
the American theatres the audience could smoke or drink,
but they did not do so, because they went to the theatre for
a specific object—for an intellectual and not a sensual en-
joyment. In America the people who wantedlo smoke and
drink went to the music-halls. The drama could be pro-
duced at the American music-halls, and at Niblo's T heatre
in New York ; when the drama was imported into it, smok-
ing and drinking in the auditorium disappeared. Witness
had perhaps a larger pecuniary interest in the drama than
any other person in the profession. He produced certain
pieces in London at one or two theatres and shared the
profits. The pieces were sent down to the country and he
derived half the net profits from perhaps five or six theatres
at the saine moment. The present restrictions as to the num-
ber of theatres wore detrimental to his interest and that of
other dramatic authors. Last year he monopolised two of the
London theatres with his pieces, and a third to a great extent.
It was very disagreeable for an author who had any feeling
for his brother authors to monopolise the market, and in
consequence of that, although he could have gone on with
his pieces, he retired seven months ago to leave the market
open to others, and ho would remain out of it for a year
He knew two or three persons who were anxious to build
a theatre, but were prevented because of the difficulty of
obtaining a licence. The present Lord Chamberlain might
say to the owner of the Holborn Theatre, which would be
completed in about two months, that he would give him a
licence for it ; but in the meantime the Ministry might
change, and the new Lord Chamberlain might say he did
not approve of the building. Mr. Robson was originally a
waiter at the Grecian saloon, and became a great actor

there, and did not learn his art in Dublin. Witness thought
the more the music-halls were encouraged the better it
would be for the theatres. It was better to have the music-
halls, which, by the sensual enjoyment they afforded, were
the stepping-stones to intellectual enjoyment. Witness
never saw any greater impropriety at the Alhambra than
would be seen in any very large assemblage.
The committee then adjourned.