Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A Statement of Matters relative to the King's Theatre. By E. Waters, Esq. London,

There is no institution, perhaps, in the whole circle of English trade or amusement that exhibits so much of failure, loss, dispute, and disquietude, as the Italian Opera has done since its first introduction and establishment in this country. The sums which have been lavished upon the Theatre are truly astonishing in their amount-the patronage has been equally extensive-the attention directed to its management has been not less intense-the public and private property embarked in it capable as it should seem, of carrying on the work with the utmost facility and to the best advantage, and what is most difficult of all to account for under so much of error as is ap parent, first rate talents have been frequently engaged in its direc tion. From the variance between the conclusions any one would be induced to draw a priori from these facts and the actual events, we should be inclined to suspect that some of the leading principles upon which the business has been founded and conducted, must be entirely erroneous. No other rule will account for such universal failure extending through almost every period of time and every succession of managers.

The acknowledged difficulty of first planting an Italian opera in this country, was met in 1720, by a public subscription of no less amount than fifty thousand pounds! yet strange to say, this all vanished in seven years!! while the Royal Academy, as it was called, was under the direction of noble persons, who (probably in consequence of the important trust implied) first assumed the management. From 1729 till 1738, HANDEL struggled in vain to support an opera, out of which he came, owing perhaps principally to an opposition theatre set on foot by some noble adversaries, with the loss of almost his entire property. The well known HEIDEGGER next tried a subscription, but failed, from the immoderate demands of the singers. In 1740 the New Theatre in the Haymarket was opened for Italian Dramas. In 1752 Dr. Croza, who had for some time conducted the Opera House, ran away deeply in debt, but taking with him the receipts of a very successful benefit. In 1756, VANESCHI, the subsequent manager, did the same.

During the

next year, GIARDINI and the MINGOTTI tried the experiment, but gave it up in despair, and not without pecuniary injury. From this period till 1762, MATTEI and her husband TROMBETTI carried on the concern, when it was again taken up by their predecessors for a short time. Two years afterwards we find GORDON, VINCENT, and CRAWFORD, three musicians, in the management. VINCENT, though possessed of some considerable property, was entirely ruined, and GORDON and CRAWFORD barely escaped bankruptcy. The Honourable MR. HOBART next assured the direction. In 1772, MILLICO and SACCHINI entered upon this seemingly unconquerable labour, but continued not more than two seasons, when MRS. YATIS and MRS. BROOKES, who had succeeded, started the idea of intern ixing plays with operas, which plan was, however, forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain. From this time to 1785, the opera continued with various degrees of injury to the proprietors, when it entirely sunk under the accumulated weight of lawsuits, factious cabals, and distresses of every sort.

In 1786, SIR JOHN GALLINI (a celebrated dancing master) became the manager, and he afterwards associated himself with MR. TAYLOR, Their reign was ended most disastrously by the fire, which consumed the entire edifice,* on the 18th of June, 1789. In the beginning of 1791, the present splendid and beautiful structure, which is amongst the first (if not the very first) buildings both for sound and splendor in Europe, was finished by NovoSIELSKI.+ Claims and disputes precluded its immediate opening, in the mean while MR. O'REILLY obtained a licence for the Pantheon. Shortly

It was built by Sir John Vanbrugh.

MR. NOVOSIELSKI was a man of uncommon genius, though almost totally without education. He was invited to this country by MR. WYATT, to assist in painting the ceiling of the pantheon. From this obscure origin, a foreigner, and with no other assistance than his abilities, he suddenly became known to the British public as the architect of this, by far the finest of their theatres. His health and fortune sunk beneath the labour, and he died at an early age, leaving a young widow and four children in almost unprovided circumstances. While MR. TAYLOR remained in the management, a small box, in the upper circle, was allotted to this lady; but, to the disgrace of his successor, this privilege was, as we have understood, taken away, and the melancholy pleasure they enjoyed thus denied to the family of departed worth and merit. We have no communication either with Mns. N. her children, or her friends. We notice the fact spontaneously without their knowledge, in the hope that a representation of what is due to the memory of genjus, may reach the present proprietor, and induce him to recall the former decree.

*

after MR. TAYLOR commenced his distressful career with an entertainment of music and dancing. The pantheon was unfortunately in the same year burnt to the ground The Haym rket Theatre, during this interval, offered a refuge to the Drury-Lane Company while the new theatre was building, and it was not till the 26th of January, 1793, that it was opened for the Italian Opera Since this period, the concern has passed into the hands first of MR. GOOLD, and next of MR. WATERS, the present proprietor, whose dominion has been vexed by an increasing series of cabals, disputes, and those worst of evils, never ending suits in law or equity. To say the truth, the Lord Chancellor of England has been compelled ex officio to take a very burdensome share and responsibility in the management of the King's Theatre as well as in the keeping of the royal conscience. Such has been the ill-fated history of operatic affairs, and such is the present state of the concern, the embarrassments being now augmented, as it appears from the publication whose title is cited at the head of our article, by the complaints of the sub. scribers and the attacks of dissatisfied individuals.

The pamphlet by MR. WATERS, the present proprietor of the King's Theatre, was published in reply to the resolutions of certain meetings of noblemen and gentlemen, proprietors and subscribers to` the Opera, held at the Thatched House Tavern in the first instance, and subsequently by adjournment at the Opera House. The first meeting was on the 30th of May, 1818, and according to the Journals of the day, the complaints embodied by LORD AYLESBURY, who was called to the chair, were as follows:

"His Lordship stated the manner in which the meeting of the proprietors and subscribers had been called, and proposed to read some facts that had come to his knowledge, after which he should propose a resolution for the adoption of the present meeting. He proceeded to say, that a letter had been written by Mr.

*The regulations for the prevention of fire in France are very strict. The dresses, scenery, &c. in short, all those combustibles which constitute at once the property and the danger of a play-house, must, by a decree of the 21st of March, 1799, be kept in a building completely apart from the theatre itself. The managers are bound not only to have a sufficient provision of water, firepumps, &c. but they are further obliged to have a sufficient guard of public remen always on duty at their respective houses; and the care of seeing that no danger of fire exists is not entrusted to managers and their servants alone, but forms a part of the daily duty of the police, and the failure in these precautions, even for one single day, forfeits the license. All the great theatres of London had been burned down in succession, before any accident of that kind appened at Paris.

Waters, the present proprietor and manager of the Opera-house, addressed to the subscribers, requiring them to pay him 36. in addition to the 300l. they paid for a box for the present season, alleging as a pretence for his making that claim upon them, that the establishment had been encreased-had been materially improved, and it was his object still further to merit the encouragement of the subscribers; but so far from his having redeemed that pledge, the number of performers had been considerably lessened this season. The salaries of the musicians had been greatly reduced; in consequence of which, several of the most eminent performers had quitted the orchestra. There was at present no composer attached to the orchestra-no composer of music was at present engaged. With regard to the Italian singers, they were reduced to four of the male singers, and there was not one single Italian female singer belonging to the company. From this it was obvious there could be no performance of serious Operas. In fact, they could not be given at all; and this was in a manner a saving to the proprietor, the expense of a serious opera being considerably more than that of a comic one. Mr. Waters, the manager, might have engaged Madame Camporese, but he had neglected so to do. In various other respects he had acted in a way which neither kept pace with his own assurance nor the liberality of the subscribers. With respect to the ballet, it was too contemptible for an unlicensed theatre--it was a disgrace to a theatre royal. The divertissement has been laid aside, and that omission produced a very tedious suspension of all performance for above half an hour, the company being frequently compelled to wait for a much longer period with out any thing to amuse them, till the manager thought fit to draw up the curtain. Dancers, whom Mr. Waters had engaged for the ballet, were inferior performers taken from the minor theatres of Paris, instead of the TheatreRoyal, from whence they ought to have been selected. Five of the principal' dancers of Paris had been announced by Mr. Waters to the subscribers, as having been previously engaged by him; but they had not yet made their appearance, nor was it likely they would; nor had any others been engaged in their stead. The ballet-master of the principal Parisian theatre had been desirous of an engagement with Mr. Waters, on liberal terms, this season; but that prudent manager had declined, for no other reason than because he wished to save expense. The figure dancers were equally indifferent with the rest of the establishment. The ballets were not got up with that liberality that ought to distinguish them, considering the splendour, in point of expense, with which they were supported by the British public. His Lordship then proceeded to state the names of the performers who had been announced by Mr. Waters as having been engaged by him. It was not unworthy of remark, that Mr. Waters, when presenting to the proprietors the strength of his company, had added, that he intended still further to increase it. It was upon the ground of such increase that he had stated the advance as inevitable, in order to remunerate him for his exertions. The Noble Lord then said, that in 1811 he had the honour to belong to a committee to examine the accounts of the King's Theatre, and having had access to the books of Mr. Taylor, he had furnished himself with some notes of their contents. It appeared that Madame Catalani had a salary of 2,100%. and that the other performers in that particular department had salaries equally liberal, in proportion to their respective talents. The sum paid at that time for the singers was 9,835l. The sum total for the salaries of the dancers, who were all of first-rate talents, increased the actual expenditure of the concern to 16,780l. a sum nearly twice the amount of what was paid by Mr. Waters. His Lordship said he would not trouble the meeting by entering into a detail of the expenses to which Mr. Waters had put him

self; it was sufficient to observe, that the scale by which he paid the performers was very inferior to that of Mr. Taylor, the former manager. It was somewhat unfortunate that Mr. Waters was not present. His Lordship said he had apprised Mr. Waters of the meeting, and had expected that he would have attended it, for the purpose of entering into those explanations of his conduct which he could not but anticipate would be required. Mr. Waters had writ ten to him, requesting an interview. This he had declined. His Lordship enumerated a few of the salaries of the present principal performers; the aggregate amount for the singers was 5,100l. and for the dancers 3,2001. making together 8,300l. about half what Mr. Taylor paid, when he received from the subscribers only 300l. for, in 1811, the amount of Mr. Taylor's disbursements was 16,875l. It was upon the faith of Mr. Waters that the subscribers had consented to pay him a sum beyond what had been given at any former period; so far from having kept his word by increasing his establishment, he had placed it upon a comparatively lower scale. His Lordship, for these reasons, was of opinion, a resolution should be entered into, expressive of the opinion of the subscribers at the line of conduct pursued by Mr. Waters."

LORD LOWTHER defended MR. WATERS, but as that gentle. man has answered for himself, we shall quote his own words, having first stated, that the meeting resolved, amongst other things, "that the Opera establishment is unworthy the patronage it has received."

In reply to these resolutions, appeared, as we have said, Ma. WATERS's pamphlet, and he thus opens his case :—

"In consequence of the discussions which have occurred at the ThatchedHouse Tavern, and other places, on the management of the King's Theatre, I' take the liberty of submitting the following details. I adopt this mode unwillingly; I can have no personal desire of soliciting public attention, and merely obey, with whatever of reluctant obedience, the advice of many distinguished persons, who consider it as the most natural means of throwing off the misconceptions which have been lately suffered to encumber the character of the King's Theatre. My statement is, in all its prominent points, substantiated by documents; in its fullness and plainness, I am satisfied of the judgment of a rational public.

In the latter end of May, an advertisement in the newspapers summoned a meeting of the subscribers and owners of property boxes, to investigate the management. This proceeding I may be permitted to call at least premature. The natural and more usual step might have been to make the complaint, if there was any thing to complain of, to the individual with whom the immediate remedy lay. But no previous notice was given to the King's Theatre; Lo amicable inquiry was commenced, or attempt made to point out the alteration on which the manager would, in all probability, have been glad to avail him self of advice. A meeting was to be held forthwith, and the property and character of the individual were to be forced into crude investigation. The consequences of this were obvious to me, as they must be to any man in my situa tion. All the obscure hostility to which the manager of a great theatre is necessarily exposed, was sure to start up, under what is grossly conceived, the protection of men of rank; and all the fair objects of the inquiry were as sure to be impeded by its abruptness. I addressed the following letter to each of the subscribers to the requisition:

« AnteriorContinuar »