"which was so much assisted by his abilities, and ad"vanced in respectability by his association.”

Mr. Pocock always bore in mind the maxim handed down to us from Pliny, "Never do anything but what "deserves to be written, nor write any thing but "what deserves to be read ;" and if a similar eulogy could be passed upon all of us, what an irreproachable set of people we should be.

269

66

CHAPTER XII.

Repeal of the Union" carried-State of the dramatic world examined-An actor's theory and practice at variance-His former and present salaries at greater variance-Horne Tooke's opinion of expedition-Industrious fleas-No unanimity-Shakspeare neglected for want of actors-Demonstration of the rents of yesterday and to-day-Reduction of prices, and vitiation of taste-List of company-Macbeth's music-Othello's attraction-A tragedian proves his own want of it-An article of engagement-The Jew and the Jewess-Mr. Balfe-The Provost of Bruges-Distinction between a tuck-hunter and a tuft-hunter.

"THE Repeal of the Union" now became a question much more discussed in the theatrical, than it is ever likely to be in the political world; and although attended with as many difficulties as the junction was first of all carried through, this bill did what the other never will-PASS. The two grand objects sought to be attained by uniting the interests of the two patent theatres were, a reasonable reduction of the exorbitant salaries that had been some time back demanded and paid, and the allotment of a particular class of entertainment to a particular theatre. To

conduct these theatres as they had been conducted so many years, required at least FOUR DISTINCT COMPANIES to each house-tragedy, comedy, opera, and ballet; and at the same time they were united, there was barely an effective one in either of these departments. The theatres must therefore either have been united, or by continuing in rivalry, with the ragged forces then at their command, have both closed prematurely, and in disgrace. For example, and there is nothing like example after all: the only disposable tragic force of any ability at that time to be procured, consisted of Messrs. Macready, Warde, Cooper, Miss Phillips, Mrs. Sloman, and Miss E. Tree. [Mr. Kean was no more. Mr. C. Kean had resolved upon "provincialising" until he could command 50%. per night! while Mr. Charles Kemble and his daughter were in America.] If therefore this "force" (Bless the mark!) had been divided, it would have been utterly impossible to perform a tragedy unscathed by the just sibilation of a disgusted public. United, they were not much to boast of-opposed, they would have been contemptible. The comic strength consisted of Messrs. Farren, Dowton, Bartley, Blanchard, Harley, Meadows, Mrs. Glover, Mrs. Gibbs, Mrs. C. Jones, Mrs. Humby, Mrs. Fitzwilliam, and Miss Taylor. (Madame Vestris having a theatre of her own, and being suffered to play "comedies," under the name of "burlettas," possessed Liston, Keeley, and Mrs. Orger, while Mr. Yates, equally favoured, monopolised the Mathews. Power was in

America.) Although much better off in this branch of genius than in the preceding one, it is nonsense to assert that any of the stock comedies could have been efficiently represented with this force on the same night, at both theatres. Then, in opera, were in the market Messrs. Templeton, Wilson, H. Phillips, Duruset, Seguin, Bedford, Miss Sherriff, Miss Inverarity, Miss Betts, Miss H. Cawse, and Miss Poole. (Braham was contemplating the erection of his own theatre, while Sinclair and the Woods were in America!) All of these, but three, having been put into the first opera (Gustavus) brought out after the junction of the theatres had been effected, how would it have been possible to have supported, with any degree of effect, an opera at each house, had they been in a state of rivalry? Such was the condition of the Dramatis Persona when the junction was deemed advisable; and if one of its professed objects was to reduce the salaries then considered so high, how much more essential must some such measure Now be, when many of the salaries are three, four, five, and six times higher? If 30l. a week to Mr. Macready, 30l. a week to Mr. C. Kean, 201. a week to Mr. Power, 30l. a week to Mr. Farren, 67. a week to Mr. Templeton, 157. a week to Miss Ellen Tree, &c., were looked upon as exorbitant salaries (and with an exception or two they were) in what light must, at this present writing, 100%. for four nights be regarded to the first ;* 501.

* In the evidence given before a select committee of the House of Commons, which I shall have frequent occasion to refer to,

a night to the second; 1201. a week to the third; 601. a week to the fourth; 30l. a week to the fifth, and 251. a night to the latter? Such is the fat-headedness of JOHN BULL that, if a man receive 251., a night for his services, he thinks that man MUST be a genius, all his faults are directly thought beauties, and the actor's ipse dixit becomes the auditor's authority. Mr. Macready, for receiving 251. per night, is thought a better actor (by a set of fools) than Mr. Kean was when he had 201. a week, or than John Kemble when he had 361. a week, as actor and manager, or than Mrs. Siddons, whose last engagement was, I believe, 1000Z. for eighty nights, somewhere about 127. per night ! ! This part of the argument we have however already gone into, though it cannot be too frequently dwelt upon. The rational reduction of the salaries was obviously one main object; but another, and perhaps an even more important one, was the allotment of the different branches of the profession to both, instead of confining them all, as heretofore, to one theatre. My

Mr. Macready, now in the receipt of 251. per night, gives this answer to question 2350, "I think that actors, being paid by the night in London, is particularly injurious."

"The evil that men do lives after them !"

Now, considering the attempt that has been ineffectually made to palm him off as a Shakspearian actor, in the little Haymarket theatre, his own reply to query 2340 is the best of all possible settlers of the question: " For Shakspeare's plays, I should think very few of "them can be found which can have due effect given to THEM IN A "SMALL theatre !"