The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-01 00:00:00

THE THEATRES.-THE PATENT QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
In my last I noticed some rather extraordinary statements
put forward by one of your contemporaries on the subject
of the dispute existing between the lessees of the Theatre
Royal and the lessee of the Liver Theatre. 1 now notice the
remainder of the article in question.
Your contemporary says-- -
" The speculation is not a new one. It has been tried be-
fore, and who ever succeeded ? What were the conse-
quences? Empty benches constantly at the Royal, though
the first talent from the metropolis was engaged, and crowded
houses every night at the Liver, with merely the stock com-
pany. How can it be expected to succeed in Liverpool,
where the law is peculiar as regards theatres, or rather where
no law whatever is applicable to them ? In London—in the
centre of the lord chamberlain's district—where the majors
perform under Killigrew's and Davenant's patents, and royal
grants of modern date, all exertions to procure a compulsory
closing of the minors have failed, and the costs have fallen
on the originators of the prosecution after two years anxious
labour and bravery of the public condemnation."

The speculation (that is, I presume, the information or
prosecution), is not a new one ! It is not, truly !—" it has
been tried before." Messrs. Raymond and Hammond were
fined some years ago; and a manager at Manchester was
imprisoned within the last few years for doing what they
did, and for what Mr. Raymond, Mr. Webster, Madame
Celeste, and Mr. Strickland have been just served with no-
tices of information.

The case of London—that all exertions to procure a com-
pulsory closing of the minors failed—is a rather unlucky
statement. It betrays either ignorance, or a wilful pervert-
ing of the truth. In London, it is well known, that oppo-
sition to the law impoverished many and utterly beggared
others. Rayner, Russell, Chapman, and others, can " a
round, unvarnished tale deliver" of successful prosecutions.
If the annals of the Strand Theatre, the City Theatre, the
Garrick, and others were searched, a few plain facts would
speak out with a tongue like a trumpet. What was all the
agitation some ten or eleven years ago for ? What were the
purposes of all the meetings at the Crown and Anchor, in
the Strand, and elsewhere, at which Sir Edward Lytton
Bulwer and others presided, when Sheridan Knowles, Doug-
las Jerrold, Searle, and many more bright and intellectual
men were listened to with attention the most profound, as
they boldly arid eloquently advocated not only their own
rights but those of the drama.

I fear I am spreading my communication to a great length,
but I pray you, Sir, pardon me. The article goes on to say
—" Mr. Raymond did not seek collision with the Theatre-
Royal lessees. They challenged him by opening their
theatre fully two months before the customary commence-
ment of their season, and resorting to pantomime as an
attraction, he was, in self-defence, obliged to meet them with
the licensed drama." Mr. Raymond truly " did not seek
collision with the Theatre-Royal." • The smuggler who
brings over contraband articles, and sells them cheap in oppo-
sition to the fair trader, does not challenge him ; it is the trader
challenges the smuggler—who, by not paving the Queen's
duty, can undersell him. As for the " customary commence-
ment of the season," it appears to me, that armed as they
are with a patent, the lessees of the Theatre Royal can begin
their season, or finish it, when they please. That the Royal
Liver entertainments, generally speaking, have been of a su-
perior description, no one will deny : they have been unex-
ceptionable, and got up in a mode deserving of the warmest
patronage. Nor can any one deny that a vast improvement
has been effected by the lessees of the Theatre Royal in the
way their entertainments have been piLt upon the stage. Mr.
Hammond has the world before him—is a man of great talent
in his profession, and of persevering industry—qualities that
must be brought to bear, when success is the object. Ido
not deal with either lessee ; I deal and grapple with the ques-
tion; and that is why I trouble you with this—because, I
believe that for fairness and uprightness, integrity and ho-
nesty of thought, no paper ranks higher in Liverpool than
the Standard. Nor can a paper take any but a prominent
position, when it is known that it is neither to be bullied or
bought.
As to Messrs. Anderson and Hammond knowing that the
monopoly was disputed, that I have nothing to do with, nor.
what their motives or determinations were. They no doubt
saw and still see their way clear. But Mr. Clarke never did
try to put down the minor theatres. If Mr. Clarke's suc-
cess was not remunerative to the extent he thought he had
a right to expect, it was attributable rather to the badness of
times than caused by popular prejudice.

As to Mr. Hammond's proceedings elsewhere, I am not
his apologist, if such he needed, but I think he requires
none. I only want to show the truth. If Mr. Hammond
did exert his talent at minaicry--and certainly that was an
astonishing effort—as charged against him by your contem-
porary, he did it in his own defence. The case is altered.
As for Mr. Anderson's attempting to oppose a monopoly in
Glasgow, I have understood his object in his agitation was
to show that no patent rights existed.
our contemporary next says :—" In equity, we have no
doubt the patent has long been forfeited ; in law, we do not
think it can he sustained, except for the protection of the
Theatre-Royal against penal inflictions." This is absurd ;
for if the patent in equity has long been forfeited, and it
cannot be sustained in law, how can it protect the theatre
from penal inflictions ?
In conclusion, I state now, as I have done before, that I
am an advocate for all that is legitimate and right. Mr.
Raymond, as the writer of the article I have been comment-
ing upon states, is " a man of large family, and whose means
of existence depend upon the success of his labours." Mr.
Hammond is, I believe, a man also of " large family, whose
means of existence depend upon the success of his labours."
Thus are the lessees balanced. But what cares the public a
jot about such things, whether they have one child or twenty,
will people support either on that account? The public
cares only to be pleased, and will pay for its pleasure.
I advocate not men but principles—l do not wish to see
the public opinion lead wrong—l want to see the scales
nicely balanced, justice holding the beam.
Personally lam in favour of a second patent. I signed
with all my heart and with my best wishes, the first as well
as the present petition for a second patent to be granted to
this town, and I will do so again and again, because to my
profession it will be an advantage as well as to the public.
On a future occasion I will, with your permission, state my
reasons more fully.
Let us see what the result of the kirkdale petty sessions
will be. THESPIAN.
Liverpool, March 26.

PilfutiAßlioNic SOCIETY.—This very excellent society
announce their open rehearsals in another part of our paper
this day. The Philharmonic is at present rather short of its
numbers. As this may not be generally known, we mention
it for the information of the amateurs, and the supporters of
" Li belle Science," who should lose uo time in joining.