Licensing, police, censorship, public taste, dramatic literature, "drink and the drama," literary institutions, morning performances.

The question of licensing seems fraught with anomalies and difficulties. There are the conflicting jurisdictions of the Lord Chamberlain and the magistrates, and the troublesome arrangement of the licences themselves. The Lord Chamberlain within his own district issues a licence for the drama, or rather for the performance of a stage play; the magistrates in their different districts issue licences under differently framed rules; spirit licences, music licences, dancing licences, and licences for "entertainments of the like kind," are the source of infinite trouble and confusion and lead to endless evasions of the law. As has been before observed, the pith of the whole matter seems to lie in the so-called "interpretation clause." Define the expressions "stage plays" and "entertainment of the like kind," and licensing would become comparatively easy. At present lawyers are at variance about it, and whilst a chance, and a good chance, of winning their case exists, the wording of the Act will remain a loophole of escape for the transgressors of the spirit of the law, and the Lord Chamberlain's licence will not be requested, because, by good management, they can put before the public all or nearly all that it wants under a licence from the magistrates. "Music and dancing and entertainments of the like kind" cover a multitude of sins; and although it seems that the music or dancing licence and the spirit licence, without which the bastard theatres cannot thrive, are issued alternately half-yearly, and are thus intended to be one a check upon the other, the magistrates seem practically to form their judgment as a rule more by the wants and wishes of the neighbourhood, (sometimes, indeed, by the tenor of their private views,) than by the requirements of the proprietors themselves. The natural result is, that information can be laid, secretly or otherwise, against any one who is about to set up a saloon, and a system of espionage is sometimes organized which is most reprehensible. It seems also an

anomaly that in the country and beyond the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction in London, theatres as well as saloons are licensed by the justices. Much the same may be said of this arrangement as of the foregoing. The magistrates are influenced in many ways; country managers are sent from one bench to the other to get their licences; trouble, dissatisfaction, and expense are needlessly incurred, and it would appear very desirable that country theatres should also be licensed and regulated by the same authority as London theatres. Connected with the licensing is the police question. The power of the police to enter the licensed houses is at present so ill-defined and so hampered by technical restrictions, that in many cases they are useless. Besides this, too much discretion, as regards giving information or not, appears to be vested in them; and it depends, in some cases (and the fact is at least open to suspicion), on the treatment they receive from the proprietors, whether they suppress or not the objections they may entertain, and omit to give

notice to the magistrates. They seem, however, as a rule, to do their duty; but it seems unfair, not only to them, but to the public generally, that their powers are not better defined. In France their duties are distinctly laid down in the code of rules regulating places of entertainment. There is a commissary of police, with his corps de garde, in every theatre; and he exercises a vigilant control over public decency and order. In England the police is not called in until there is a disturbance, and then it is sometimes necessary to go through the formality of shouting "Murder" before the policeman may enter a licensed house. These two questions then are intimately connected, chiefly because the magistrates depend to a great extent on the reports of the police in granting a renewal of the licence.

There is little or no complaint of the system of censorship as now exercised by the Lord Chamberlain. From 1852 to 1865, only 19 out of 2,816 plays were condemned, and managers and authors generally concur that the power vested in the Lord Chamberlain has, as a rule, been exercised with tenderness and liberality. The only objection really seems to be that, as the Lord Chamberlain is not directly responsible to Parliament, he may be guided by his private opinions in his judgment of a play; and though the above evidence shows how rarely he has differed from the opinions of authors and managers, it is considered by some that the censorship should be exercised by an officer responsible to Parliament. The question of the extension of his powers has a far wider scope, and has given rise to much discussion. It seems generally to be desired that the Lord Chamberlain, or the officer charged with the duty, should exercise a censorship and complete supervision as to regulations, not only over the whole of the theatres in the kingdom, but, as far as the changeable nature of saloon entertainments will allow, over the music-halls also. This change would, it is urged, do away with the vexatious system of licensing by magistrates. Under one responsible jurisdiction, under one censorship and supervision, justice to the claims of all would be more certainly ensured, and evasions of the law more easily detected and punished. Private opinion as to the morality of a song or the decency of a ballet would not be practicable; police regulations could be effectually brought to bear, and the many evils of double jurisdiction, with all its concomitant anomalies, be swept away. A larger staff would naturally be required, but it is admitted that this extension of the censorship would be feasible. There seems to be no question as to the desirability of the censorship, or at least, only on the part of the freest of free traders. It evidently does not press on dramatic literature, and is admitted in all countries, except in America, to be advisable as a safeguard against any outrage on the public taste or feeling. Evidence has, however, been given that in that country, where there is perfect freedom in all matters appertaining to the stage, the self-acting censorship of the public has been always found sufficient.

These last remarks lead naturally to the 3rd point of discussion, which is one of the greatest importance, viz., the condition and effect of the public taste. From the times when the "spectacle of two women fighting for a shift of the value of half-a-crown," or of "bull-bait with fireworks," and similar degrading scenes, formed the staple of the amusements of the lower orders, till the present day, when nigger minstrels, tumblers, and performing dogs are amongst the sources of their recreation, public taste has gone through many and various phases. The evidence on this question is extremely divided, and the different remedies suggested are numerous. According to individual bias, Shakspeare's dramas, the Alhambra ballets, Evans's music, are to amuse and elevate the taste of the public. Some would shut up every music-hall in the kingdom, others would allow them to give every species of entertainment if the proprietors can secure a licence. And this question is so intimately connected with that of dramatic literature that they can hardly be separated, and may be better discussed together. There is no doubt that the increasing demand of the people generally for amusement has called the music-halls into existence, and it may almost be fairly argued from the fact that very few new theatres have been erected, that the demand has been for something different to that which theatres supply. The low price of admission charged at the musichalls necessitated the attraction of large numbers, if the place was to pay a profit. This could only be done by varying constantly the nature or the details of the entertainment, and to supply this variety a number of writers of comic songs, duologues, and non-dramatic pieces like Mathews at Home, were called into existence, as well as a host of performers. The demand being great the price of the supply rose, for writers and performers were paid better by the proprietors of music-halls than by the managers of theatres, and they naturally gave their services in preference to the former. Young men who could sing and act a little, and who might have supplied the stage and become good actors, writers who might have composed comedies, enlisted for the music-halls; and there are, on the other hand, cases in which actors and actresses since become celebrated, began their carcer at a music-hall; but these cases are disputed and cannot affect the argument generally. Here, then, arises the point at issue. If all kinds of certified and licensed establishments were thrown open to free competition, would not the managers of music-halls be able to offer a higher class of entertainment to the public? Would not the writers in their service adopt a higher standard? Would it not call the capabilities of dramatic authors into freer play, and create a spirit of rivalry which would lead to the improvement of public taste, instead of being, as now, the source of constant bickerings and lawsuits? There is evidence on both sides as to this, and there is evidence on both sides relative to the public taste. The crowded state of the saloons and music-halls of every degree of refinement and squalor, from Exeter Hall to a penny gaff, both of which have a similar licence and

are subject to similar penalties, shows that all classes like the amusements such establishments afford, and like them according to their respective tastes and means, with or without cigars and beer. The theatres, on the contrary, are falling off, it is said; at many of them half-price has been abolished, and the managers, instead of lowering their price of admission to attract greater numbers, are charging more and more every year. If free competition would affect them in a still greater degree, in many respects they would also reap some benefits. A brisk competition among dramatic authors and actors must give them a larger selection at a lower price; and if, as they assert, they have the improvement of the public taste so much at heart, they can avail themselves of these advantages to make their theatres as attractive as the music-halls. Moreover, the saloon proprietors have no intention to perform the same description of pieces that are acted at the theatres. Their buildings are not adapted for them, and the arrangements in the auditorium are such, that, with the exception of light pieces, burlettas and spectacles of various kinds, they would not attempt to trench on the province of the legitimate drama. This leads to the discussion of one more point in connection with the subject; indeed, the whole question is so involved, that it is difficult to treat each part of it separately. Drinking and smoking are said to be incompatible with the purity of the drama. These enjoyments, absolutely, as regards the latter, practically, as regards the former, forbidden at the theatres by law, are the main-springs of the success of the music-halls. The evidence is most conflicting as to whether the sale of liquors and cigars or the price of admission constitutes their chief source of revenue. It has been hotly debated whether or no the drinking at saloons is an evil or a good, whether it keeps men and women from the public-house, or leads them there and to worse places; whether it heightens the enjoyment of a song or a pantomine, or produces a drunken oblivion of all that goes on around. It would change very materially the character of the music-halls if, whilst permitting the performance of stage plays in them, the licence prohibited smoking and drinking there also; and theatrical managers would have to encounter a most formidable rivalry if it were otherwise. But the saloon proprietors by no means wish for this; they are not desirous of changing their establishments into theatres, or if some of them were, the only result would be a keener competition for good actors and good plays. They know that the class for which they cater would not come to them without the social attractions of drinking and smoking; as has been shown before, they do not desire to interfere with the theatres, but have, as regards a great many of them, an equally laudable desire to improve and lead the public taste into a higher groove. As to the disorder or impropriety that is induced by the absence of restraint in music-halls, the evidence, or at least the great weight of evidence, shows that it is so inconsiderable as hardly to enter into the question. Under judicious and vigorous management, the proprietors of saloons who are really desirous of keeping up a

good reputation for the conduct of their establishments, are perfectly able to do so. Several witnesses appeal to the State to guard the morals and regulate the passions of the people. It is questionable whether in England this would be tolerated. The law has power to punish those who offend against it, and it is in every way the interest of the proprietors to be careful.

There are two more points to which the attention of the committee has been called, requiring brief notice, viz., the state of law relative to institutions and galleries of entertainment, and the clause which prohibits morning performances. On both these heads it is productive of the most ridiculous anomalies. A literary institution in London cannot give a recitation without a theatrical licence, which the Lord Chamberlain may, and generally does, refuse. A similar institution in the country gets a

Everyone present at taken at the door for

magistrate's licence and performs anything it likes. amateur theatricals in a private house, if money is charitable or other purposes, is liable to be indicted for being present at or taking part in an unlicensed performance; * and not only theatrical performances but any entertainment of any conceivable sort, down even to Pepper's Ghost, in an unlicensed house, where money is paid at the door, is illegal, and every spectator can be fined. This presses very hardly on many kinds of establishments. In some London districts remote from the good class of theatres, and in which the inhabitants, though respectable and educated, are too poor to be able to afford the expense of going thither, the committees of lecture-halls and such like institutions gave dramatic performances by the pupils of their elocutionary classes and an actress or two engaged for the night. They were stopped by a notice from the Lord Chamberlain; he would not give a theatrical licence, for the very good reason that he would have to grant one to every one who applied for it, and as it has been already stated, almost every entertainment coming under the meaning of the present Act, every attempt at amusement of that kind, however innocent or useful, must be given up or attempted illegally. This can be hardly the spirit of the law, for it is quite certain that these institutions, being utterly unfit for regular dramatic performances, and being entirely dissimilar in their objects and arrangements from music-halls, being in fact only semipublic, and a growth of recent years, were never taken into consideration when the present law was passed.

The special licences which have been granted to a few of the so-called galleries of illustration, for instance, to German Reed, are a source of grievance to many, as, indeed, any such exceptions to the law must be. Regarding morning performances one word will suffice. The Act prohibits

There is a story that the Prince of Wales intended on one occasion to be present at some private theatricals given in aid of a charity. He was however warned that by doing so he rendered himself liable to be apprehended as a "disorderly person" and fined. The Prince, against whom such a charge would indeed be illtimed, decided on staying away.