Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Le concert et son public

 | 
Hans Erich Bödeker
, 
Michael Werner
, 
Patrice Veit

IV. Lieux et construction de l'espace

Major and minor theatres. Competition in London in the 1830s

Gabriella Dideriksen

Texte intégral

  • 1 This article is based on Chapters one and three of my forthcoming doctoral thesis “Repertory and Ri (...)
  • 2 For a discussion of the artistic and financial management of Covent Garden after 1846, see Ibid., C (...)

1During the 1830s, an intense competitive environment threatened and eventually destroyed the previously pre-eminent position of the Theatres Royal, Covent Garden and Drury Lane as London’s principal venues for theatrical and musical entertainment1. The steady increase in the number of so-called minor theatres during the 1820s and 1830s generated an acute rivalry over repertory and artists, and furthermore led to a challenge of the legal principles under which Covent Garden and Drury Lane operated. The artistic and managerial structures of these established companies proved too rigid to adjust significantly to the changing theatrical landscape. As a result, Covent Garden and Drury Lane were forced out of the dramatic domain in the mid-1840s and turned into major venues for opera and other musical presentations2.

2The drastic transformation of London’s theatrical life was caused not only by artistic and financial pressures, but also by a change in the public and legal perception of the established companies. This in turn eventually led to significant amendments in the theatre-licensing laws that eliminated the legal protection previously afforded to these theatres. The theatrical buildings themselves formed an important focal point of this controversy, as many perceived a correlation between them and the repertory, artistic standards, and the finances of the playhouses. I will consider the background to and validity of some of these arguments.

  • 3 “Report from the Select Committee on Dramatic Literature”; subsequently referred to as the 1832 Sel (...)
  • 4 For a detailed history of the Royal patents, see The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera (...)
  • 5 For details on the King’s Theatre licence, see Price, C., Milhous, J. and R.D. Hume 1995, Italian O (...)

3In 1832 a Parliamentary Select Committee examined the legal patronage granted to Covent Garden and Drury Lane, their financial problems, and their apparent failure to encourage native dramatic and literary talent3. At the centre of the discussions, was the monopoly on theatrical entertainment which Covent Garden and Drury Lane had held since the mid-seventeenth century. Under the Royal patents granted by Charles II in 1662–1663, these were the only two companies allowed to perform all forms of spoken drama, opera, and other musical and dramatic pieces year-round4. Throughout the eighteenth century, these patents thus effectively restricted the number of legally operated theatres in London. Only a limited number of other companies received annual licences for certain theatrical entertainments, most notably the King’s Theatre for Italian opera and the Theatre Royal Haymarket for spoken drama5.

  • 6 Ganzel, D. 1961, “Patent Wrongs and Patent Theatres: Drama and the Law in the Early Nineteenth Cent (...)
  • 7 For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Ibid.: 387f. and Dideriksen, G. [Note 1]: Chapt (...)

4Between 1800 and 1832, however, more than ten minor theatres obtained annual or bi-annual licences for performances of musical entertainments; a further fifteen new theatres operating under similar licences were to open by 18436. Although the minor theatres were not permitted to present full-length drama or opera, they gradually began to expand their repertory by blurring the boundaries between the genres: plays were interspersed with songs and incidental music or performed in excerpts, while burlettas were stripped of their musical content. Moreover, many of the plays and operas originally performed at the patent theatres increasingly found their way into the repertory of the minor theatres, where they were performed in heavily adapted versions. While such alterations were permissible, other productions, such as the regular presentations of Shakespeare’s plays at the Coburg Theatre, were manifestly in breach of the licensing laws. Although prosecutions hardly ever ensued, the patent theatres objected fiercely and publicly to the infringement of their rights and launched a number of petitions and official complaints, though without ever achieving any lasting success7.

  • 8 1832 Select Committee, Appendix 13.
  • 9 See note 7.

5The increasingly liberal interpretation of these licences by the minor theatres soon posed a considerable financial threat to the patent theatres. Compared with the first two decades of the nineteenth century, annual receipts at Covent Garden had almost halved by the 1830s, as they fell from an average of £80,000 in 1809–1819 to c. £42,000 in 18308. At the same time, annual expenditure had remained high, at an average of at least £50,000; of this, well over 50% were salaries9. The significant shortfall thus created inevitably led to frequent managerial changes, as every new lessee struggled and eventually failed to balance the accounts. The actor, Charles Kemble, had remained manager of the company at Covent Garden for ten years until 1832, but left the theatre heavily encumbered with debts. Thereafter, lessees changed virtually every other season, until 1843; every one of them ended their tenure in financial disarray and many faced bankruptcy. By 1843 the theatre had become a liability which no manager appeared willing to take on and the playhouse effectively ceased to exist – a fate which Covent Garden shared with the second patent theatre, Drury Lane. Poor management at times contributed to the decline of Covent Garden and Drury Lane, yet their financial problems were almost certainly exacerbated by the heightened competitive climate.

  • 10 1832 Select Committee.

6As with all theatrical and musical enterprises in London, the patent theatres were run as commercial ventures and did not receive government or royal funding. The inherent financial vulnerability of these concerns was clearly exposed through the rivalry with the minor theatres. A reinforcement or reformation of the licensing system thus became a necessity if artistic standards and financial stability were to be retained. Not surprisingly, the patent theatres were adamant in their defence of the monopoly and attributed their financial difficulties principally to the increase in minor theatres. Meanwhile the minor theatres argued for a liberalisation of the licensing system. In their opinion, the size of the patent theatres made them inherently unsuited for the presentation of spoken drama. Furthermore, they had forfeited any claims to special legal protection by promoting foreign opera, spectacle and light entertainment over native and high-quality drama10.

  • 11 See note 7; 1832 Select Committee: 114.
  • 12 1832 Select Committee: 79 and 95.
  • 13 See note 7.

7Despite the efforts of the patent theatres to blame the minor theatres for their financial misery, their arguments were weakened by a number of assertions. Most importantly, the patent theatres were considered too large – both the actual buildings and the size of the companies. To enable Covent Garden to present the full range of its repertory, three to four separate companies were in effect employed at the theatre, specialising in the genres of tragedy, comedy, opera, and ballet. Including all artistic, administrative and technical staff, an estimated 1,000 people were permanently engaged during the 1820s to early 1840s, a figure which could be increased up to 2,000 during the labour-intensive pantomime seasons11. Accusations of overstaffing were predictably made by the minor theatres, as a more limited repertory allowed them to operate with much smaller companies. The Coburg Theatre, for example, one of the largest minor theatres, employed around 500 artists and other personnel, while the Surrey Theatre employed a total of some 40012. No significant reduction in the number of employees at the patent theatres could, however, be achieved without compromising the traditional diversity of the playhouse repertory, and very few managers were prepared or able to implement any such changes13. Covent Garden had been able to survive and had indeed depended on a large company during the eighteenth century. Yet the increased competition and simultaneous decline in receipts during the 1820s and 1830s exposed the problems of the company’s structure, as the significant personnel costs could now no longer be covered. There appears therefore to be some validity to the argument that the playhouses’ financial problems were in part induced by their unsustainable and inflexible company size.

  • 14 1832 Select Committee: 205.

8As regards the actual buildings which housed the patent theatre companies, Francis Place, a Member of Parliament and ardent supporter of the minor theatres, summed up the frequently voiced criticism with the succinct statement: “The monopoly led them to construct large houses; they built the public out”14. The implication that full capacity was unfeasible and balancing the books therefore impossible was based on the assumptions that, firstly, continuously high audience levels were unsustainable in such a vast theatre; and, secondly, inferior acoustics and sightlines had compelled audiences to attend smaller theatres. As Place put it,

  • 15 Francis Place to the author, Thomas James Serle, undated letter [c.1831?], Harvard Theatre Collecti (...)

the houses are so large that only a very small part of the audience can either see or hear, and consequently that the time must come when these houses would no longer be attended by [a] fashionable, or respectable audience, nor by any audiences sufficiently numerous to enable the proprietors to pay their current expenses15.

  • 16 1832 Select Committee: 110.
  • 17 See note 7.

9Since the opening of the new theatre at Covent Garden in 1809, managers had indeed been unable to sustain sufficient audiences. The theatre was barely filled to a third of its capacity during the 1820s, and there were even lower attendance levels during the 1830s and early 1840s. In 1832 the maximum nightly receipts for Covent Garden were estimated at£600–£70016. Yet even during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the managers had failed to maintain such full capacity for any length of time. Between 1809/10, the first season of the new theatre at Covent Garden, and 1821/22, average nightly receipts came to no more than £370. Since then matters had grown far worse, as receipts had fallen to a nightly average of around £260 during Charles Kemble’s tenure. Under his successors during the 1830s and early 1840s, average nightly receipts declined even further to £240-25017.

  • 18 1832 Select Committee: 131; Brayley, E.W. 1826, Historical and Descriptive Accounts of the Theatres (...)
  • 19 Ibid.: 31 and 56; 1832 Select Committee: 79; Ganzel, D. 1961 [note 6]: 389.
  • 20 Ibid; Price, C. et al., 1995 [note 5].
  • 21 Stephens, J.R. 1992, The Profession of the Playwright. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 41; B (...)

10Although full capacity could evidently not be maintained at the patent theatres, a comparison with other theatres provides no conclusive evidence that the problem was linked to the size of the buildings. The seating capacity of Covent Garden in 1832 was calculated at 2,500; Drury Lane, which faced similar financial problems, was said to hold some 3,00018. By any standard, these were large theatres, indeed two of the largest in London. Yet others, including some of the minor theatres, were comparable in size and were able to secure higher and more consistent audience levels. The King’s Theatre held approximately 3,280, Sadler’s Wells accommodated c. 2,220, and the Coburg, despite its designation as a minor theatre, seated c. 3,80019. Admittedly, the King’s Theatre was as notorious as the patent theatres for being in financial difficulties, but the Coburg, notwithstanding its considerable size, was apparently frequently sold out20. Equally, only a handful of the smaller minor theatres were financially stable, amongst them the Adelphi with a capacity of c. 1,100, and the Olympic, which seated up to 1,300. Many others, such as the Surrey Theatre, which seated c. 1,900, regularly suffered heavy losses21. An equation of low receipts and large theatres therefore seems tenuous. The size of the patent theatres may have exacerbated their financial problems, but it was not the determining factor in their decline.

11The second issue advanced by the minor theatres concerned the apparently detrimental design of the patent theatres.

  • 22 Place [note 15]: 8.

[...] the size of the house, by preventing the audience from seeing and hearing, gradually diminished its number, so that the money paid from all sources was unequal to the expenses of the regular drama22.

  • 23 1832 Select Committee: 24, 118 and 143; Tomlins, F.G. 1832, Major and Minor Theatres. London, W. St (...)
  • 24 1832 Select Committee: 132.

12The immense distance between the stage and parts of the auditorium at Covent Garden reportedly made it impossible to distinguish the details of facial expression and gestures, and acoustics were described as poor23. Although many artists connected to the minor theatres forcefully voiced their complaints on this matter, opinions within the artistic community were by no means consistent. Thus the actors, William Charles Macready and Edmund Kean, both of whom had performed at the patent and minor theatres, insisted that Shakespeare’s plays were infinitely better suited to a large stage and auditorium24. Kean persistently denied the existence of any drawbacks for the audience, whatever the play, and further maintained that actors were in fact far better served by a large theatre.

  • 25 The Times, 29 September 1832.

I think the [actor’s] intellect becomes confined by the size of the [smaller] theatre. [...] I think the illusion is better preserved at a large than a small theatre [...] the larger the stage the better the actor, and the less observable are his faults, which is a material consideration25.

  • 26 The Times, 2 October 1832.

13This was in part a question of acting style, as Kean’s emphasis on illusion indicates. Other actors, using rather different techniques of voice projection and gesture, were clearly more comfortable in smaller theatres – a viewpoint exemplified by the statement of the actor, William Dowton, who was wary of having to “bawl if he cannot be heard by speaking naturally”26.

  • 27 1832 Select Committee: 74.
  • 28 1832 Select Committee: 53f., 74.
  • 29 The Times, 22 October 1832.
  • 30 Ibid, 1832 Select Committee: 129; Leacroft, R. 1988, The Development of the English Playhouse. Lond (...)
  • 31 1832 Select Committee: 129.

14Like Kean, the patent theatre managers, too, emphasised the grand visual and acoustic “effects” which only large theatres could develop. Thus William Dunn, treasurer of Drury Lane, emphasised that “a smaller theatre destroys the illusion [...] of the scene”27. Nevertheless, both Charles Kemble and Dunn cautiously conceded that sightlines and acoustics were not consistently satisfactory. According to Kemble, two thirds of the audience were able to see all the details of the performance at Covent Garden, while Dunn estimated that three quarters of the audience at Drury Lane could hear well28. Neither Kemble nor Dunn, however, accepted this as the cause of the stark decline in attendance. Indeed a look at other theatres confirms the weakness of such an argument, as poor acoustics and visibility were not confined to the patent theatres, but equally affected many of the minor theatres. The testimony of the tenor, John Braham, clearly exposed the inherent problems of equating large theatres with poor acoustics. While he considered small theatres generally far more suited to singing, he described the Haymarket, a theatre considerably smaller than both Covent Garden and Drury Lane, as “the worst theatre for sound in the kingdom”, and the Adelphi as “almost equally bad”29. On the other hand, some of London’s largest theatres, such as the Coburg and the King’s Theatre, were deemed to have especially fine acoustics30. The most objective and accurate assessment was probably provided by the builder, Samuel Beazley, who concluded that the shape of the theatre and the building materials used in its construction, rather than its size, determined sightlines and acoustics. Thus he attributed the problems at Covent Garden to the faulty construction of the boxes, which were too deep and therefore obstructed both sound and vision, while he considered the acoustics at the King’s Theatre as the best in London owing to the large amount of wood used in its construction31. However, since Beazley’s opinion did not really suit either side, it was ignored and the two sides battled on in this somewhat futile argument.

  • 32 Ibid.: 118; Place to Serle, undated letter, Harvard Theatre Collection; Tomlins, F.G. 1832 [note 23 (...)

15The patent-theatres managers were also criticised for the seemingly poor quality of representations and their failure to support native dramatic and literary talent. Instead of high-quality works by contemporary English authors and composers, spectacle and foreign plays and operas now formed the backbone of their repertory32.

  • 33 Place to Serle, undated letter, Harvard Theatre Collection.

The original grants [ie. patents] were for the purpose of maintaining the Drama and encouraging genius and talent. The result has been precisely the contrary [...] [the patent theatres] substituted Spectacle for acting – sound for sense. They converted their houses into menageries, into places for the exhibition of feats of strength and agility, for parade and bombast, and Bartholomew Fair exhibitions, and Boxing matches33.

  • 34 See Dideriksen, G. [note 1]: Chapter 3.

16It was evidently in the interest of the minor theatres to exaggerate the degree to which the repertory of the patent theatres was dominated by such productions. Nevertheless, their claims are partially valid, as managers at Covent Garden showed little interest in the promotion of native dramatic talent until the mid-1830s – several years after the publication of the 1832 Select Committee report. Only from 1835 onwards, did contemporary English drama and opera feature more prominently at Covent Garden. Yet even then, these productions were apt to be most immediately affected by any adverse change in the theatre’s finances34.

  • 35 Tomlins, F.G. 1832 [note 23]: 12.
  • 36 Ibid.: 20.
  • 37 See note 34.
  • 38 The Times, 16 April 1833 and 6 February 1834; playbills for 13 November 1833, 5 February 1834 and 2 (...)
  • 39 See note 34.
  • 40 The Times, 14 December 1835, 7 September 1841 and 2 May 1842; Halliwell: 8–11; Fitzball, E. 1836, T (...)
  • 41 See note 34.

17According to the minor theatres, the repertory of the patent theatres was determined principally by their size. Since audiences could not hear or see details, they had to be entertained by large-scale productions; thus sets, costumes, stage machinery, and grandiose gestures and speech had become the norm at the patent theatres35. Some supporters of the minor theatre indeed suggested that the patent theatres were far better suited for opera and spectacle – an assessment which might be queried, given the complete remodelling of Covent Garden’s interior in 1846 to accommodate the newly established opera company36. While it is unclear whether the size of the theatres influenced the repertory to the extent implied by the minor theatres, the productions presented at Covent Garden during the 1830s and 1840s certainly point towards a preference, both on the part of the audience and the management, for large-scale entertainment37. Most new productions relied on visual and acoustic opulence; indeed the more lavish a presentation, the more successful it frequently was. Thus the adaptation of Auber’s Gustave III in 1833 employed vast artistic forces and incorporated a masked ball and lottery with audience participation; the staging of Taglioni’s ballet, La révolte au Sérail, in 1834 included a corps de ballet of up to 150 dancers; an additional chorus of 70 singers was apparently engaged for Norma in 1842 – the list could be infinitely extended38. Nevertheless, managers were continually at pains to point towards an apparently fine record of serious presentations, such as Shakespeare’s plays or the production of new plays and operas by contemporary English writers and composers39. Yet even these were frequently staged on a similarly grand scale, thereby transforming plays and operas into spectacles. The 1839/40 production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, for example, included extensive incidental music and lavish sets and costumes which almost dwarfed the play itself; the adaptation of Auber’s Le cheval de bronze in 1835, though still billed as an operatic drama, transformed the work into an extravagant spectacle which contained little of the original music, but instead boasted highly elaborate stage machinery and effects40. Not all works were of course staged in such a manner, but the tendency towards spectacle is unmistakable, however hard managers at Covent Garden and Drury Lane tried to prove otherwise. Nonetheless, no case can be made for the minor theatres’ argument that this repertory made audiences turn away from the patent theatres and had accordingly contributed to their financial problems. Rather, the success of such productions in fact repeatedly saved managers from financial ruin41.

  • 42 “An Act for regulating Theatres”, The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (...)

18Despite its financial problems, Covent Garden might have continued to operate as a playhouse had it not been for the new “Act for regulating Theatres”, which was introduced in 1843 as a belated response to the 1832 Select Committee. With this act, “all current laws regulating theatres and theatrical entertainments’ were repealed”42. The patent theatres excepted, all theatres were now to be licensed annually for all forms of musical and dramatic pieces. Although the patents continued to guarantee a perpetual licence for performance, they ceased to have any real value. The projected increase in competition and the lack of legal protection clearly acted as a forceful deterrent for potential investors, as Covent Garden ceased to operate as a playhouse almost simultaneously with the introduction of the 1843 Act. From November 1843 until the summer of 1846, the theatre was never leased to any one manager for more than four consecutive months, and only once did a lessee try to run it as a full-scale playhouse.

  • 43 The Times, 24 November 1843.

19Following a series of brief and financially disastrous tenures during the season of 1842/43, Covent Garden was advertised to let in November 1843 “for theatrical performances, for public or private meetings, concerts, exhibitions, or any of the various purposes to which it is available”43.

20This notice marked the end of the playhouse at Covent Garden; the theatre instead opened its doors to anyone able to summon sufficient capital. Thus during the coming two years, Covent Garden hosted concert series, political meetings and a touring opera company. Louis Jullien held five highly popular series of Promenade Concerts at the theatre, which, lasting between one and four months, provided the proprietors with their most regular income. On several occasions, the theatre was also hired by musicians for single concert performances, some of which were repeated annually until 1846. The one final attempt to reinstate drama at the patent theatre was made by Mr Laurent in 1844/45; his resignation, after two miserable months, served merely to confirm the demise of the playhouse at Covent Garden. Drury Lane suffered a similar fate after 1843, when it was used primarily for English opera and concert series. The challenge of their legal status and the heightened competition had thus led to the demise of the playhouse structure, which Covent Garden and Drury Lane had maintained since the early eighteenth century.

Annexes

Résumé/Zusammenfassung

La rivalité entre petits et grands théâtres à Londres dans les années 1830

Cet article analyse les plus importants facteurs du déclin des principales scènes de théâtre de Londres, Covent Garden et Drury Lane, durant la première moitié du XIXe siècle.

La position dominante de ces théâtres comme lieux de divertissement théâtral et musical fut menacée par le nombre croissant de petits théâtres qui rivalisaient avec les théâtres bien établis sur le plan du répertoire et qui mettaient en question leur fondement légal et artistique. Covent Garden et Drury Lane furent ouvertement décriés, non seulement en raison de leurs problèmes financiers, mais aussi parce qu’ils préféraient le spectaculaire aux pièces sérieuses ainsi que les pièces et les opéras étrangers aux spectacles anglais. Le débat portait sur les énormes bâtiments, sur l’immense diversité des répertoires et des compagnies que maintenaient à la fois Covent Garden et Drury Lane, et que beaucoup estimaient dépassés et peu viables. Ces facteurs n’auraient pourtant pas pu, à eux seuls, provoquer la faillite de ces établissements. C’est plutôt l’intensification de la concurrence au cours des années 1820-1830 qui révéla la vulnérabilité et le manque de souplesse de ces gigantesques établissements, et qui entraîna leur chute.

Große und kleine Theater im Wettbewerb im London der 1830er Jahre

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die wichtigsten Faktoren des Niedergangs der bedeutendsten Londoner Theater am Covent Garden und in der Drury Lane in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Der Status dieser beiden Theater als der herausragenden Institutionen der theatralischen und musikalischen Unterhaltung wurde durch die rasch zunehmende Anzahl der so genannten kleinen Theater gefährdet, die mit den etablierten Theatern hinsichtlich des Repertoires konkurrierten und deren rechtliche, geschäftliche und künstlerische Begründung in Frage stellten. Covent Garden und Drury Lane wurden nicht nur wegen ihres finanziellen Misserfolgs öffentlich kritisiert, sondern aucb wegen ibrer offensichtlichen Bevorzugung des Schauspiels gegenüber dem ernsten Drama sowie der ausländischen gegenüber der engliscben Opern-und Dramenproduktion. Die Debatte konzentrierte sich auf die umfangreicben Gebäude, aufdas vielfältige Repertoire vordergründiger Spektakel und auf die entsprechend umfangreicben Kompanien, die sowobl Covent Garden als aucb Drury Lane unterhielten und die von vielen als überholt und nicbt lebensfdbig angesehen wurden. Nicbt allein diese Faktoren haben zum Untergang dieser Theater geführt; es war vielmebr die wacbsende Konkurrenz in den 1820er und 1830er Jahren, die die Schwäcbe und mangelnde Flexibilität der gediegenen Institutionen belegte, was schliesslich zu ihrerAuflösung führen sollte.

Notes

1 This article is based on Chapters one and three of my forthcoming doctoral thesis “Repertory and Rivalry: The Second Covent Garden Theatre, 1830–1856”. University of London.

2 For a discussion of the artistic and financial management of Covent Garden after 1846, see Ibid., Chapters two and four; see also Id and M. Ringel, 1995, “Frederick Gye and the ‘Dreadful Business of Opera Management’”, 19th-century Music 19,1: 3–30.

3 “Report from the Select Committee on Dramatic Literature”; subsequently referred to as the 1832 Select Committee.

4 For a detailed history of the Royal patents, see The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garderr. 1–8; subsequently referred to as the Survey of London.

5 For details on the King’s Theatre licence, see Price, C., Milhous, J. and R.D. Hume 1995, Italian Opera in Late Eighteenth-Century London, T. 1: The King’s Theatre, Haymarket 1778-1791. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 6–8.

6 Ganzel, D. 1961, “Patent Wrongs and Patent Theatres: Drama and the Law in the Early Nineteenth Century”, PMLA 76: 385–396, here: 388.

7 For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Ibid.: 387f. and Dideriksen, G. [Note 1]: Chapter 1.

8 1832 Select Committee, Appendix 13.

9 See note 7.

10 1832 Select Committee.

11 See note 7; 1832 Select Committee: 114.

12 1832 Select Committee: 79 and 95.

13 See note 7.

14 1832 Select Committee: 205.

15 Francis Place to the author, Thomas James Serle, undated letter [c.1831?], Harvard Theatre Collection.

16 1832 Select Committee: 110.

17 See note 7.

18 1832 Select Committee: 131; Brayley, E.W. 1826, Historical and Descriptive Accounts of the Theatres of London. London, J. Taylor: 11 and 20; Survey of London: 65 and 97.

19 Ibid.: 31 and 56; 1832 Select Committee: 79; Ganzel, D. 1961 [note 6]: 389.

20 Ibid; Price, C. et al., 1995 [note 5].

21 Stephens, J.R. 1992, The Profession of the Playwright. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 41; Brayley, E.W. 1826 [note 18]: 75.

22 Place [note 15]: 8.

23 1832 Select Committee: 24, 118 and 143; Tomlins, F.G. 1832, Major and Minor Theatres. London, W. Strange: 6f.

24 1832 Select Committee: 132.

25 The Times, 29 September 1832.

26 The Times, 2 October 1832.

27 1832 Select Committee: 74.

28 1832 Select Committee: 53f., 74.

29 The Times, 22 October 1832.

30 Ibid, 1832 Select Committee: 129; Leacroft, R. 1988, The Development of the English Playhouse. London and New York, Methuen: 133.

31 1832 Select Committee: 129.

32 Ibid.: 118; Place to Serle, undated letter, Harvard Theatre Collection; Tomlins, F.G. 1832 [note 23]: 7-12; Anon 1833, The National Drama:, or The Histrionic War of the Majors and Minors. London, E. Meurs: 8, 12.

33 Place to Serle, undated letter, Harvard Theatre Collection.

34 See Dideriksen, G. [note 1]: Chapter 3.

35 Tomlins, F.G. 1832 [note 23]: 12.

36 Ibid.: 20.

37 See note 34.

38 The Times, 16 April 1833 and 6 February 1834; playbills for 13 November 1833, 5 February 1834 and 21 April 1834; Williams, C.J. 1973, Madame Verstris: A Theatrical Biography. London, Sidgwick and Jackson: 178.

39 See note 34.

40 The Times, 14 December 1835, 7 September 1841 and 2 May 1842; Halliwell: 8–11; Fitzball, E. 1836, The Bronze Horse. London, J. Duncombe: title page.

41 See note 34.

42 “An Act for regulating Theatres”, The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. London, Her Majesty’s Printers. 6 & 7 Victoria, C.68: 428–434.

43 The Times, 24 November 1843.

© Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2002

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540