1832.] [ 455 ] 



. 



THE DRAMATIC MONOl'OLY. 



WE return to this subject with the pleasing hope that our advocacy 

 of the cause of fair competition, however [humble, will not be useless. 

 Among the fair auguries which seem to portend its success, the bright- 

 est, perhaps, is the unanimity of the press in its favour. Like the 

 discovery of the cavern in Rasselas, it is better than an omen ; it is an 

 irresistible aid. We are happy that the public voice, speaking by this 

 its mighty organ, has pronounced judgment against the all-powerful 

 influence of wealth and rank, that might be supposed to ensure a bias 

 on the other side. And it should be a subject of honest congratulation 

 that a people and its leaders, engaged in the most important political 

 discussions, and occupied with the prevention of pestilence itself, have 

 yet the inclination warmly to interest themselves in the less pressing 

 consideration of the rights of artists, and the means of perfecting their art. 

 Public opinion, then, the originating power of most beneficial measures, 

 has given leave to bring in the bill, and has pledged itself to efficient 

 support. For the mere advocates of the cause, it would have been 

 better had some one vouchsafed them an answer. Their arguments are 

 merely " beating the air." After careful perusal and inquiries, a soli- 

 tary article in the " Metropolitan" is the only one which can claim a 

 line of comment. Personalities in the Sunday papers, distinguished as 

 the " scurrilous," are, of course, not noticeable ; they have no right to 

 claim a common denomination with the newspaper press of England. 

 But the opinion of the " Metropolitan," if at all founded in fact or reason- 

 ing, is of higher importance, though there is a strange aristocratic petu- 

 lance about styling the opponents of monopoly " the minors and the 

 mob ;" the writer sKould rather have said, " the small theatres, whose 

 existence has been threatened, and the public, whose rights have been 

 contemptuously disregarded/' The " Metropolitan" claims compensation 

 for the larger houses, and puts forth an objection on the score of mora- 

 lity. " If/' says the writer, " unlicensed private theatres already do 

 so much harm to the morals of juvenile linen-drapers and milliners, 

 what is to become of the infatuated calicots and grisettes, if they are 

 allowed to follow their idle propensities as a lawful calling ?" He need 

 not be alarmed ; we, at all events, and we presume the framers of any 

 legislative measure upon the subject, are actuated by the desire of pro- 

 tecting such only as by assiduous study have gained something like a 

 competent knowledge of their art. The actors, we presume, the exertion 

 of whose talents is sought to be prevented, seek no alliance with aux- 

 iliaries of this kind. Neither they nor the public wish to see theatres 

 springing up in every street, merely making the incompetency of the 

 performers a cloak for riot and debauchery. No ; they and we wish 

 to uphold an useful, as well as an agreeable art, not to suffer it to be 

 brought into disrepute by ludicrous wretchedness on the one hand, any 

 more than to be destroyed by grasping monopoly on the other. We 

 are, in the best sense, the conservatives. 



We are not, however, of those who would find fault with an existing 

 order of things without giving our best attention to the means of im- 

 proving it. We have dwelt long enough upon the faults of the present 

 system ; let us take up the more agreeable task of proposing the 

 remedy. . 



