sweets upon the desert air," and I was determined at all events to test my own opinion by that of the public. Mr. Balfe, when I was stage-manager of Drury Lane theatre in 1823, was a humble member of the orchestra-"in coarse and homely phraseology," a fiddler; and when introduced to me in the summer of 1835, his name and his fame (then become entirely continental) were new to me. The beauties of the first work he was desirous of bringing out were admitted, by many able judges of music, and strenuously impressed upon me by the recommendation of Mr. Cooke (Toм, for fear of a mistake.) The Siege of Rochelle was accordingly produced, and its success verified every judgment that had been delivered upon its merits-though not calculated in itself to prove highly attractive, it had the good fortune to become linked, in representation, with the Jewess, and thus "ran" 70 nights the first season. It became the fashion, as it invariably does in this country, to abuse a man the moment his abilities begin to denote a mental superiority over those he is surrounded by. In France, Italy, and Germany, every species of encouragement is held out to a rising genius; in England, he is subject to every possible detraction, and the moment Balfe's talent burst out upon the town, it was assailed by the most unwarrantable attacks. Persons calling themselves musical judges were loud in their assertions that every note of The Siege of Rochelle was stolen from Ricci's opera of Clara di Rosemberg-and it was not until this last named composition was produced by the Italian Buffo company, under the spirited direction of Mr. Mitchell, that these self-constituted judges tardily and reluctantly admitted there were not half-adozen bars in the two operas that bore the slightest resemblance to each other. Mr. Balfe's reputation could afford these assaults; he is gifted with extraordinary talents, and if ever I have had occasion to "maintain a point" with the MAN, I have never for a moment denied the eminent abilities of the COMPOSER. I like him, however, in either capacity, and speak of him accordingly-but to the argument. If the principle I have been advocating, and still hope to see effected by some one or other, had this year been the ruling one at Drury Lane theatre-that is to say, if the performances had been confined to opera, ballet, spectacle, the profit would have been enormous; but the treasury having to sustain the burden of a tragic and comic company into the bargain, all exertion was but labour in vain. For thirteen successive weeks (devoted to the Siege of Rochelle and the Jewees,) a body performers (totally unconnected with the performance of either, and who could not by possibility be connected with any piece of a similar character) whose united weekly salaries amounted to £226., never once crossed the stage. Here was a sum, exceeding £3,000 in amount, literally thrown hors de la fenêtre. Up to the last night of Mr. Macready's performing here, this season, he played but 38 nights, and received £760, which is an average of £20 per night, if calculated at that rate. It may be asked, why he, who was receiving so large a salary, was not more frequently employed? The reader has been told what was the general nature of the receipt to his performances in the plays of Shakspeare-ruinous enough. He was solicited to play Eleazar, the Jew, (a very fine part, and one that mainly contributed to whatever metropolitan reputation Mr. Vandenhoff enjoys,) and he refused to do so! After the "6 run of the Jewess (in which he had refused to play,) Mr. Lovell's new tragedy, entitled The Provost of Bruges, was produced, the first eight nights of which realized an average receipt of £159, out of which the author was entitled to the not unreasonable sum of £20.* Ruinous again! If a performer, having the power, will refuse to play in pieces calculated to bring money, and only consent to play in such as keep it out of the house the first loss (of paying a high salary for nothing,) is by far the least. same may be said of Mr. Farren, who this season played but 51 nights, and received £945, for so doing, making an average of nearly £19 a night. What is the consequence in all such cases? Not only has the manager to provide all this mass of money, but to summit to the eternal complaint of those who re The *To prevent misrepresentation, or the charge of wilful, or as far a possible, any mistake, the subjoined letter is here introduced: "MY DEAR BUNN, "Elstree, Sept. 24, 1835. By this mid-day's post I have received an answer from the author of The Provost of Bruges, and I am by him authorised to say that, although he had expected the terms established by usage, and enjoyed by his predecessors and contemporaries, yet he will not let you suppose him a very rigid stickler for ancient rights. I am farther deputed to submit the following arrangement to you which he will be content to accept, hoping that you will give all the assistance in your power to his play : viz. 201. per night for the first fifteen nights (instead of the customary nine) -50%. additional if it reaches the twentieth night, and another 201. if it should reach the twenty-fifth. This appears to be a fair proposal, and I give it to your consideration, as I received it. I think I shall be in town on Saturday, in which case I will call at the theatre for the chance of seeing you; but in the mean time send me an answer to this, which I may transmit, as an understanding between you to the author. I have read Marino. I fear we shall find the quantity of words over-weigh us-Mais, nous verrons. "To A. Bunn, Esq., "&c., &c., &c." "Your's ever, "W. C. MACREADY." REDUCTION OF PRICES. 191 ceive it-because, if you wORK A PERFORMER, id est play him perpetually, he grumbles at what he has to do; and if you do not" work him," he grumbles at having NOTHING to do! There is an anecdote in circulation of a dabbler in periodical literature being compelled (much against his inclination) to attend church; he was pretty decorous during prayers-but on the parson ascending the pulpit, and delivering for his text, " And a certain great man gave a dinner," the said writer, unable to contain himself, rose up and eagerly exclaimed, him,"-proving that, although there is a discretion in a tufthunter, nothing can stop the mouth of a tuck-hunter. So it is with the gentlemen I have been referring to-nothing on earth can stop the mouth of an actor. 66 NAME-name CHAPTER XIII. Reduction of prices, and consequent reduction of character-Difference of views taken in and out of Parliament-Mr. Kemble's theory and practice opposed to one another-Mr. Farley-"Stars" self-nominated— Olympic company superior to the Covent Garden one-Cheap postage no benefit-Auber and Rodwell-Doctor O'Toole and Doctor YatesThe Provost of Bruges-Mr. R. B. Peake's frolicks-Proposed illumi. nation for the return of legitimacy-Not enough money taken to pay for it-Miss Joanna Baillie and Sir Walter Scott-Theatrical funds, and their annual dinners-Tom Dibdin, and his annual dinner Marriage certificate of Malibran. THE reduction of the prices at Covent Garden Theatre, the nature of the performances to which that reduction led, and the manner in which those performances were prepared, created a greater revolution in the theatrical world than had ever yet taken place, not excepting the unprecedented circumstance of uniting the two theatres. Nor is it to be wondered at. If it did nothing else, it turned into complete ridicule all the efforts the parties accessory to this desecration of their property had been for two successive sessions of parliament making to uphold it. In the memorial the proprietors had on these occasions addressed to the Lord Chamberlain, and in the petition they preferred to the House of Commons, they studiously pointed out to his lordship, and to that one branch of the legislature, the stipulations they had expressly made with their lessee, that their 192 MR. KEMBLE'S THEORY theatre should be conducted as Covent Garden has always been accustomed to be conducted "—they made this stipulation, most certainly in their lease with me. I did so conduct it; and on a diminution of £1,500 per annum in the rent, I offered to do so again, for, by doing so, I knew I should be in a position to appeal to parliament for protection, in the event of any fresh invasion of the patent rights that had been leased to me. It will, moreover, be found, on a reference to Sir William Davenant's patent, that it authorizes "his heirs, executors administrators, and assigns, to receive such sum or sums of money as was, or thereafter from time to time should be, ACCUSTOMED to be given or taken in other play-houses and places for the like plays, scenes, presentments, and entertainments!" It may be argued, that though this is an authority for demanding high prices, it is not a prohibition against taking low ones. Virtually I think it is-inasmuch as it having been "customary" to take seven shillings to the boxes, there could be no contemplation of such a degrading_reduction, that reduction not having been " customaly." It appeared to me they were, by making it, flying in the face of the very patent, whose prerogative they had been so lustily fighting to defend; and assuredly they were falsifying all the fine sayings they had been preaching up. It would be a difficult argument to sustain, that, reducing the prices to 4s., 28., and 18., and presenting on that stage the common pieces which had been worn out at the Surrey Theatre, was "conducting Covent Garden Theatre in the manner it had been accustomed to be conducted." When, in the year 1832, that redoubtable display of mummery, entitled "a select committee on dramatic literature," was entertained, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. S. Duncombe, M.P., and Mr. E. L. Bulwer, M.P., Mr. Charles Kemble was asked, (question 628,) "whether he thought the price of admission could not be lowered a great deal?"-And he replied, “I do not think it could, so as to give that perfection of perform. ance which you are now in the habit of witnessing in those theatres!"-and again, (question 714,) when interrogated as to lowering the prices giving satisfaction to the public, he returned for answer, "I do not believe we should have one person more in the theatre if we did!!!" With all this evidence lingering on his memory, as the result of his judgment, still Mr. Charles Kemble was a party to the leasing of Covent Garden Theatre expressly to be opened at these reduced prices, thereby entirely converting it to a minor theatre! It is not to be supposed that his object was a selfish one. Yet it is somewhat singular that in a preceding part of his evidence before this "select committee," (question 611,) when asked, "Is a minor theatre able AND PRACTICE AT VARIANCE. 193 to give a larger salary to an eminent performer than a larger theatre?" his response was, "It may for a moment, for the sake of opposition. A man having no capital embarked in a theatre of this sort may say, 'My aim must be to weaken my adversary, therefore I will offer an eminent actor double the money he gets at the other theatre:' and I am sorry there are TOO MANY OF us incapable of resisting applications of that description." It can scarcely be imagined that a gentleman, maintaining such an opinion, consented to the conversion of his own major into a minor house, merely to have an opportunity of carrying that opinion out: but it is extraordinary that his own subsequent actions bore testimony to his antecedent judgment; for he became "one of those incapable of resisting" the offer of a tempting payment, having, immediately after the humiliation of Covent Garden Theatre, engaged himself to his tenant on a high nightly salary. This inconsistency between conduct and opinion in a person of Mr. Charles Kemble's talents and station in his profession, was calculated to effect a considerable alteration in the aspect of theatrical affairs, and no doubt would have done so, had not his own share in the matter completely verified his own assertions. Mr. Kemble's observation that those reduced prices would not bring one person more into the theatre was fully borne out in the long run, and consequently the establishment had all the disgrace, without any of the advantages, of the speculation. It was an undertaking based in error, and not altogether clothed with integrity. Very large sums of money had years back been paid by the present occupiers of private boxes, in the full expectation that the tenants of them would be provided with the same class of entertainment, and the same degree of talent, as far as possible, that had hitherto sustained the reputation of that theatre; and that, before the curtain, the same class of society and the same order of decorum would be received and preserved as heretofore. They made the large investments in those boxes upon the faith of the proprietors of the theatre, and were as fully justified in appealing to them to keep that faith inviolate, as the proprietors were in appealing to parliament, and stating that they had invested large sums of money upon the patent of the theatre, on the faith of the crown. They were equally amenable to the shareholders, who had made such heavy advances, under the impression that the faith of the crown and that of the proprietors was coeval. It was, therefore, a very questionable measure in point of probity, and in every other respect it was a disgraceful and a ruinous one. The result of it at the time was a failure, and it has since had the effect of lessening the character of both the patent theatres VOL I..-17 |