1832.] The Dramatic Monopoly. 213 



honest effort they choose to free themselves,, that freedom cannot be 

 denied them. If it be possible that so just a cause can be lost, their 

 pusillanimity must be at once the cause of defeat, and the excuse of the 

 victors. But let us hope better of them. We need not gratuitously 

 pay them so ill a compliment, as to suppose that they cannot perceive a 

 better reward for their services from twenty unconnected competitors, 

 than from two mock-bidders, who have previously settled among them- 

 selves the price at which the auction shall close. We cannot suppose 

 them to be so insensible to the higher objects of their art, as not to 

 prefer its exercise where it may be best discerned and appreciated. 



One of the objections which we have heard, and which we consider 

 as the only one in reference to this part of the subject which merits a 

 reply, is the idea that the drama might thus become vulgarized that 

 the performance of the great tragedies, entrusted to unworthy hands, 

 would have the effect of corrupting the public taste, and leading it from 

 the real criticism of acting, to the love of unnatural farce, and melo- 

 dramatic high colouring. Let us examine the position. The question 

 is only this ; whether an actor shall play a particular character under 

 the free patronage of his audience, or by the fiat of an individual spe- 

 culator ; whether excellence is best understood and appreciated by those 

 whose money rewards its exertions, and who pay in exact proportion to 

 suit their appreciation, or by a manager, whom a thousand interests 

 but those of the art may prompt to use such ability, without much re- 

 ference to its proper claims. And by which is the public taste the more 

 vulgarized? By the performance of any known character by an 

 incompetent individual, who may be instantly compared with those who 

 have ably sustained the part ; or by the absence of ability in writing, as 

 well as acting, by the venting of nonsense which, however badly, may 

 not be inappropriately mouthed ? Comparison, free^ and unlimited, is 

 the only test of excellence ; those who reward talent are its only 

 efficient judges ; and real ability need no more fear the eclipse of 

 pretension than the lustre of the sun need shrink from the ray of a 

 rushlight. But there is a means of vulgarizing their profession, which 

 some of the defenders of its assumed dignity do not appear to remem- 

 ber. To make the principal attractions of a national theatre consist of 

 the worst kind of melo-drama ; to depend for the resources of its trea- 

 sury for one-third of the season upon an exhibition of wild beasts, in a 

 performance not even possessing the claims of ingenuity, and a clever 

 display of the qualities of the quadruped performers ; for another third 

 of the season upon a comic pantomine, and probably for the remainder 

 upon an Easter spectacle these are indeed effectually to vulgarize the 

 drama. The question is one in which all personality should be scru- 

 pulously avoided ; but as the illustration is so strikingly before us, let 

 us ask what must have been the impression of a Frenchman on reading 

 the bills of Drury-lane theatre for some months past, and comparing 

 the display of the tragedies of Macbeth and Firginius, and of the name 

 of a representative of the principal characters now, at all events, un- 

 rivalled with the type of Hyder All, and the ambitious announcement 

 of M. Martin ! Again and again we call upon the actors, as a body, to 

 consider the subject with as much attention and as little prejudice as 

 can be brought to the task. It would surely be ungraceful in them to 

 accept the parts of camp-followers., and share in the booty, though they 

 dreaded the conflict. 



