Year: 1874




law the British public has spasm Of virtue. 1t is
now passing through one Of those restorative
periods. Not to make the remark too general,
it is the public which interests itself in
the stage which is experiencing morality.
The change it must be confessed, does not
come q moment too soon. 1t is not yet certain
how far it will go how completely the stage 10 to
be purged of the indecencies which have lately
hourished there. But the spssm came at lucky
season for Family Fair. That freespoken sheet was
sued not long since for libel upon the manager of
the ST. James Theater and the action has been tried
this week in the Common Pleas A part of the
alleged libel consisted in criticism on matters
which need not DETAIL for the question there raised
was a general oue-a very important one certainly.
1t was sought to prove that the article complained
of was malicious and overstepped the limits vof
proper comment. On this, Mr.. Justice Keating once
more laid down the law which can hardly be laid
down too often. Public performances. he said, on
the stage otherwise, were subject to fair crti-
cism; manager author, actor invited public
notice. and persons were not liable for criticisms,
though harsh aud derogatory. if the jury thought
them fair. The language of the learned judge
leaves something to be desired in point of ceaTneSs
but of its meaning there need not be much doubt
lie and the jury evidently thought that these parts
Of the article were written without malice, and
most people who read it will be of the same opinion.



sion of dramatic imperfections A piece had been
produced called Tert- Vert an opera boue, and with
1t dance called the riprele Family Fair summed up
the whole in its concise way as "the worst orches
tra some of the attest singing and one of the most


indecent dances in London" Was the dance inde-
cent or not 1t took two days and the united en-
ergies of judge, jury, five lawyers and host
of witnesses to answer this question Tho plaintiff,
who was the lessee of the theator. swore that he
neither knew of nor countenanced any lndecency.
The editor and writer of theatrical paper swore
they saw nothing wrong in the dance, and three
professional gentlemen of particular distinction
swore the same thing, while the costumer who made
the dresses Of the women who danced testified that
they were rather longer than usual. But. on tue
other sde appeared no less person than the Lord
Chamberlain himself, the Marquis of HertfOrd. Hc
had received he said, numerous written and verbal
complaints against the performance aud In coDse-
quence went himself to see it. The dance was, In
his opinion neither graceful nor artistic, but de-
cidedly and purposely indecent. After seeing It, he
wished to have it withdrawn altogether, but was
advised not to because it would be brought out in
the provinces. where he had no jurisdction-an odd
reason but as good as most that can be given for
the sort of censorship heretofore exercised from the
Lord Chamberain's Office. No such Dances no can
can OF dance of that kind was now performed, said
Lord Hertford in any London theater to his knowl-
edge. He had given orders they should all be
stopped. One would rather like to know when the
orders were given-whether before after the ap-
pearance of the article in The Times some ten days
since attacking the ndecencics of certain thcatcrs
1t is certain that within fortnight the too famous
Mile. Sara and troupe were dancing at the
Alhambra, and that what was there known by
the modest name of rustic Quadrile was such
performance as would not be tolerated on the
French stage, which vlrtuous England denounces as
immoral The can-can is always spoken of as an i'm
portaton from France. The nameis an importation,
hut not much more. The can-can as danced in En-
gland s mOnstrous exaggeration of the worst fea-
lures of the French. In point of costume there is
not much to cloose-not much more of it on one
stage than the other. But in point of license the
English dance far Outstrips Its foreign progenitor.
The word which Vanity Fair uses, indecent is very
moderate word indeed to describe its grossness.
Under Lord Hertford, as under his Liberal prede
cessor it fOurished long unchecked and it is graft
fying now to find this great functionary waking up
to what has been going on about him. DE has
strained meantime at many gnat while swallow
ing bis camel without Grimace. / can hardly be
wrong in attributing the change to Mr. Pigott, the
new Licenser of Plays. He is said to have ex-
pressed from the first determination to the
policy of his prcdeceSSor-to compel reform in
tune and in certain dances, and to abr0gate the
puerle Iestrctions'on the French drama in London,
which brought it finally to bankruptcy. The change
could not be effected in moment. 1t was thought
uni just to compel managers to cancel contracts into
which thev had been permitted TO enter unsuspect-
ingy while Lord Hcrtford was Lord Chamberlain.
But it resolved that the stage should be decent
and this long before anything like protest had
appeared in Tie Times elsewhere OCCASION
ally in q criticism like this of Panity Fair, to which
il is time to return


Mr.. Thomas Gibson Bowles followed Lord Hert-
ford. lie is the proprietor and editor of Vaaity Fair
lie testified that, having received attorneys let
ter on behalf of the plaintiff on account of this art
Gle, he went himself to the piece and the dance
20 decide whether the criticism just one, and
whether he should offer rcparation and an apology.
He thought the piece q literary production con-
temptible the acting not acting at all, and the
ripirelle twas simply the can-can, with all the inde-
cency and none of the art of the original. Where
upon he resolved to stand fire. Some half dozen
other witnesses gave their opinion the dance to
the general effect that the most indecent they
had ever seen. Thejury had no doubt about it, and
Mr.. Justice Keatng gave them to understand that
their verdict on the whole would turn on that
asking, in they believed the evidence as to the
dance, what damages man could CLAIM who had
polluted the drama and degraded the British stageT
None at ALL they answered and Immediately found
for the defendant The Press approves heartily and
Mr. Bowles gets share of the praise due him for his
courage the sense he has shown bv bis resolute de-
fense of what is due to bis profession, to himself,
and to the public.


One ruling of Mr.. Justice Heating, however, can
not be commended. When Mr. Bowes was asked
the Of the writer of the article he declined to
give it, but upon pressure from the plaintiffs coun
eel, the Judge ruled that he must. This is. if mis-