PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE STRAND THEATRE.
THE Lord Chamberlain is lending himself to do the work of BUNN. Pursuant to his Lordship's instructions, measures are in progress for shutting up the pleasant little Theatre in the Strand, and punishing the actors who have committed the offence of per- forming in it. These proceedings are, we presume, according to law ; but they are indefensible in equity and common sense. If the performances at the Strand Theatre were indecent or seditious, we should be the last to offer a word in its behalf; but a better- conducted theatre is not to be found. Why then should the Haymarket, Adelphi, Olympic, Queen's, and Pavilion, be open with impunity and all the vengeance of the law be hurled upon this unfortunate little establishment? Why should the necessary licence be denied to it ? We challenge any one to give a reason satisfactory to common sense for the refusal. That the theatre is wanted, is plain from its being well attended, although the other minor playhouses in its vicinity are crammed nightly. But then, the great houses are on most niglits half empty at half-price. There's the rub—Burns pounces on the Strand because it is unprotected ; gladly would he demolish the Adelphi and the Olympic also The absurdity, and injustice to the public, of continuing the monopoly of the Patent Theatres is manifest from the present state of things. The pretence is that the legitimate drama requires especial support. But when are the plays of SHARSPEARE,BKAUMONT and FLETCHER, MASSIZIGER, OTWAY, CONGREVE, Or SHERIDAN, performed at Drury Lane or Covent Garden ? Who is there to act them? In tragedy there is ELLEN TREE—and there the catalogue begins and ends. KEAN and YOUNG are gone, MACREADY and CHARLES KEMBLE cannot stoop to a connexion with BuNN. Young KEAN gets good engagements in the pro- vinces. ELTON and BUTLER are to be seen at the Minors. In comedy the great houses have FARREN, who is certainly unrivalled in his way. But MATTHEWS, LISTON, REEVE, MITCHELL, YATES, and F. MATTHEWS, are not to be seen on their boards. Madame VESTRIS, Mrs. YATES, Mrs. KEELEY, Mrs. NISBETT, and those clever girls the Hoitrosts, draw the public from, not to, the Patent Theatres.
As theatres are for the public amusement, we hold it to be tyranny of a most vexatious description to attempt to force audiences out of a house they prefer, to one which is more expen- sive, and by no means so agreeable. The Strand Theatre, we repeat, is wanted. The Adelphi and Olympic are as full as they can hold every night ; and the Strand has been tilled from their overflowings. The pretence, therefore, upon which Magistrates refuse to license a new tavern, namely that there are already too many in the same vicinity, is not available in this instance. It is to be hoped that the present session will not pass over :without something being done in Parliament to put theatrical tmattera on a better footing. The Tories have an opportunity of ;picking up a little popularity by passing a similar bill to that fiVinch they rejected last year. But, alas! justice in this instauce must be done at the expense of a monopoly—a word which has always sounded pleasantly in Tory ears. Busts/ is one of the privileged classes, or the representative at least of the privileged. To interfere with a monopoly, is a very different thing from lay- ing down a footpath, or opening a few acres of the Regent's Park for the accommodation of plebeians.
Previous page
