the force of habit will go. Such men as these we cannot afford to lose; and when in addition to many of that class, Mr. Price, as stated, has from time to time transported nearly all the leading performers of the day, the usual difficulties attendant upon management at home have become of course thereby materially increased.

As the management of Mr. Macready will, in its proper place, require exclusive consideration, it were a task of supererogation to anatomize the merits or demerits of others who have at various times filled the managerial chairs of the two principal London Theatres. Their names, in some instances furnish testimony for the possession of superior abilities, and bear out the fact that, in their respective failures, the fault did not rest solely with themselves. It will be the province at all events of one of them, to inquire into causes, after having stated effects. Theatres, their directors, and all persons employed in them, are considered, by some people, public property

Lord Stanley (for the safety of whose son Richmond is naturally anxious) THUS, on his entry after the issue of the battle:

ELLISTON (as Richmond). Your son, George Stanley, is he dead? POWELL (as Lord Stanley). He is, my Lord, and safe in Leicester

town!

ELLISTON (as Richmond). I mean,—ah !—is he missing?

POWELL (as Lord Stanley). He is, my Lord, and safe in Leicester

town!!

And it is but justice to the memory of this punctilious veteran, to say, that he would have made the same reply to any question which could, at that particular moment, have been put to him.

30

SIR ROBERT WALPOLE AND

to a much greater extent than they really areneither the spectator nor the critic having actually any right to inquire into their doings, beyond an unprejudiced notice of what transpires before the curtain. The circulation of idle rumours, the assertion of ridiculous falsehoods, and the garbled statement of facts, indulged in by thousands, respecting the movements of the theatrical community, is more prejudicial to the cause of the drama and the character of its professors, than the inventors or promulgators can imagine, or are inclined to believe.

I have frequently taken up a newspaper, containing a column of gossip stated to be replete with "Dra"matic intelligence," in which there has not been one word of truth from the first to the last syllable-have read criticisms on performances that never took place, and heard discussions on the private characters of artistes, with whom the disputants had no acquaintance, and of whom they subsequently admitted that they had not the slightest knowledge. No other avocation, however public, is exposed to the same injurious and absurd practice, it is fair to presume, as there is none other so little regulated by any defined principle, or so generally unprotected by the laws which govern the rest of the world.

How long I may entertain my present feeling, it is not for me to determine; but I can conscientiously say, that when I vacated the managerial chair of Drury Lane theatre, I forcibly felt the truth of Sir Robert Walpole's remark to his medical adviser, on

whom he had just conferred an essential favour. "Sir "Robert!" said the Doctor, "I am as happy as if I "was a King!"-"And I," rejoined Sir Robert, as he shook the Doctor cordially by the hand, “and I—as "if I wasn't a Minister.”

CHAPTER II.

Indifference of the public to theatrical amusements-Advantages possessed by the Foreign stage-Consequent cultivation of the art -A few singers do not constitute an Opera-Difficulties under which the large theatres labour-Folly of reduced prices-Necessity of reduced salaries - Lord Chamberlain - Difference between authority and oppression-Sir E. L. Bulwer and the Marquis Conyngham-Licences to be had for asking-Hardship on the Haymarket theatre complained of by the manager to the publicThe Duke of Sussex's opinion of the proper support of the London Stage.

It will naturally be inferred, from several observations in the preceding chapter, that the principal cause of the failure of the two National Theatres is attributable rather to a want of patronage on the part of the public, than to any want of ability, or spirit, on the part of those who have hitherto had the management of them. There cannot, to speak generally, be a question of it. The magnitude of these buildings has very reasonably been urged as another cause, and such is the case; but that admission only resolves itself, as an additional reason, into the one grand point alluded to. Were there a possibility in

this country of maintaining and upholding Drury Lane and Covent Garden theatres, in the manner they ought to be maintained and upheld, there cannot be a doubt that the importance of the empire, and its character for profuse expenditure and liberal patronage, would justify the erection of two such dramatic temples. But we are an untheatrical people, and consequently when we support those establishments, it is not through any love of the art or profession practised within them, but from extraneous excitement held out to us as a temptation to enter them. We contribute nothing to the advancement of the drama, beyond the occasional price of admission to one or other of its arenas; we do not subscribe to the necessities of any of its professors, beyond the trifling sums collected annually at the Fund Dinners, to which, as visitors, we are rather attracted by the charms of a good dinner and subsequent entertainment, than by any great consideration for the more immediate object of those meetings.

Contrast the position of the principal theatres in most other countries with their station here, and little further argument will be necessary to prove what I have advanced. The character of the English people differs very materially from that of almost every other European power in this particular. The maintenance of a well conducted stage is a state affair with most continental cabinets: and when, in addition to the support derived from the respective governments, the general animus of the