1832.] The Dramatic Monopoly. 457 



merit in their own particular vicinages. Wherever a sufficient number 

 of rate-payers might consider the present means of dramatic entertain- 

 ment insufficient, their petition for a license ought to be the warrant for 

 its immediate grant. This would protect existing establishments from 

 ruinous and useless competition. It would render them dependent on 

 those whose tastes and feelings it is their bounden duty to consult. It 

 would give an immediate appeal from incompetency and caprice ; it 

 would be a sufficient guard to a liberal and popular management. Nor 

 should any theatres be licensed, unless declared to be fit for the accom- 

 modation of some given number of persons, and certified by a sur- 

 veyor as to their safety and convenience. The capital necessary to 

 commence speculations of this sort would in itself be a pledge of 

 some reasonable chance of success or necessity for competition, as well 

 as for the use of proper and decent means for securing the favour of the 

 audience. The hours, the conduct of the establishment, should be sub- 

 ject to the vigilant inspection of the police, acting as much as possible 

 upon fixed and well-known regulations, so as to render fine or the 

 forfeiture of the license a matter of course upon their infringement. By 

 these means the stage would still be bound in heavy recognizances for 

 its good behaviour, without being restricted in the exercise of a just 

 liberty. 



Such a plan may perhaps be considered Utopian : we do not think it 

 so. The greatest error in legislation is an attempt to combine mere 

 temporary convenience with abstract justice : the latter is never allowed 

 a fair and unfettered trial, and retarded by its drag-chain of " circum- 

 stances," a right theory apparently fails, and is laughed at as the experi- 

 ment of a mad doctrinaire. We are lothe to trifle with this principle of 

 settlement, so absolutely necessary to maintain a permanent opposition 

 to corruption, caprice, and monopoly, but if it be too democratic for 

 allowance, we presume no one could object to vesting the absolute dis- 

 cretionary power in the magistracy. 



A question may perhaps arise as to the limitation of the different 

 theatres to their respective classes of entertainment. To this, an easy 

 reply may be given. What part of their universality of performances 

 will the Theatres Royal Covent Garden and Drury Lane abandon, their 

 dignified exhibition of tragedies and comedies, or their more profitable 

 representation of melo-drrma, opera, and spectacle ? While they have 

 all, what remains but a perfect equality of competition ? We have not 

 yet heard of a pantomime at the Theatre Fran<^ais, or the Odeon, though 

 the Porte St. Martin produces such a drama as Marion de I'Orme ; and 

 surely, where the national theatres of England claim so much more, 

 they should not concede so much less. 



But, whatever arrangements might be proposed between interested 

 individuals, the public can surely permit no compromise of this sort 

 Their interest, clearly defined and incontrovertibly proved, is, to have 

 the best class of entertainment at the cheapest rate, as near as possible 

 to their own doors, and in theatres of a size for the enjoyment of it. 

 Their interest is, that actors and managers should compete, not arrange. 

 To revive the public taste, the best plays of the old masters must be 

 allowed to be acted in every theatre of the metropolis. How long are the 

 inhabitants of the immense districts of the Tower, and of Lambeth, to 

 be contented with an exhibition purposely made inferior to that pre- 

 sented to the inhabitants of Westminster ? Whv are the citizens of 



