was not a single O. P. who had not raised the prices of his shop-goods over and over again since the admission to the boxes was 6s. and to the pit 3s. 6d. The argument of these men, to use one of their own homely couplets, was

"John Kemble, let your monopoly cease, And then raise your prices as high as you please."

We are by no means advocates for theatrical monopoly: we wish the stage of our country were as free as the press, and despair indeed of seeing the drama revive till this freedom shall take place. But " John Kemble," (as the proprietors of this theatre were throughout the contest personified,) has no controul over this monopoly; and could no more have bidden it to cease, than the O. P. riot. The king will have the theatres limited by letters patent; and is it not very hard to say to one of these patentees, "You shall not be suffered to raise your demands, in proportion as demands are raised upon you, till a contingency happens over which you have no controul ?” If they are not to be the better for the patent, do not let them be the worse. It is almost idle to argue this question; for the king's patent very properly gives its holders permission to demand such prices as they shall think reasonable; and, in point of law, they have a right to do so. In point of fact, they, on the present occasion, compromised that right upon the principle of, " Any thing for a quiet life." They had struggled against public fury vain ly and hopelessly for nearly three months; and, seeing no prospect of any termination to the riots which nightly shook the walls of their house, they chose rather to sacrifice the rise on the price of admission to

the pit, than to perpetuate scenes so disgraceful and so alarming. This conduct on the part of the proprietors we approve; but we openly utter our reprobation of the violence which rendered it necessary; a violence so unlike the generosity of the English character, that it remains to

this moment an anomalous and inexplicable blot. We have never heard it contended, that the prices of admission before the rebuilding of the theatre were too high; and the evidence of the committee for examining the affairs of the theatre, (evidence as respectable as this great country could select from its commercial body,) proves that the profits of the concern for several years had been far less than is common in the ordinary speculations of trade. How, then, was a small rise improper, when every thing else had risen? It is vain to contend that this rise was occasioned by the existence of a theatrical monopoly. That argument would be all-powerful, if the increased demand had really been exorbitant; but the use of it was a cruel appeal to popular prejudice, when no such exorbitancy was even pretended; and it is surely hard that a fair claim should be resisted, merely because made in circumstances which might have rendered it possible to enforce an unjust one. For our own part, we believe that Old Prices were clamoured for, because power was in the hands of the acclamants; and that the pleasure enjoyed in the despotic exercise of that power, aided by the absurd introduction of boxing Jews and hired ruffians, was the chief, if not the sole excitement, to all the riots which we have recorded.

We are not such advocates for the expediency of private boxes in a public theatre, to which there are many

objections, chiefly founded on the popular nature of a theatre, and the natural dislike of a free people to the obtrusion of aristocratic distinctions; but we cannot wonder that opulent families should wish to preserve their wives and daughters from the increasing contamination of the public lobbies, the shamelessness and open profligacy of which have arrived at a pitch that almost precludes the possibility of permitting one's family to pay even an annual tribute of admiration to the talents of Mrs Siddons.

In looking back upon the history of this riot, it is impossible not to be disgusted with the unfeeling wrongheadedness of the rioters. Their behaviour was indeed so completely wanting in that refinement, which it is the part of the drama to induce, that we cannot help thinking the O. P.'s of the theatre were by no means the theatrical public of London. They consisted, if we may_credit the description of those whose names were recorded at Bow street, of idle city clerks and apprentices, who preferred Covent-Garden pit to the Fives Court near the Pad and Swimmer, just at that time, because there was a better row going forward there. Truly theatrical men would have known better than to revenge the acts of the proprietors of the theatre upon Mr Kemble, who was merely their mouth, or upon Mr Brandon, who was only their hand. They would have reflected, that the most obnoxious measure to which recourse was had, the introduction of fighting Jews to combat the O. P.'s, was the entire act of an individual, of Mr Henry Harris, at whom, and not at Mr Brandon, their rage would

have been directed. But we are disgusted with the thoughts of this disgraceful scene; and, glad as we were to see it closed, we could have wished that that end had been brought about by the high hand of the law, rather than by the friendly one of compromise, this mode establishing no security whatever against the repetition of theatrical riot.

Another year must elapse before we can record the tears and the smiles of the tragic and comic muses upon their return to this theatre; for this barbarous war, which had chaced them away so long, has brought us to the close of the year 1899.

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

On the 1st day of Easter term, Sir Samuel Romilly moved the Court of Chancery, on behalf of Messrs Morris, Winston, and others, proprietors of one half of the Haymarket Theatre, to remove Mr Colman, the proprietor of the other half, from the chief management of the theatre, upon the alleged ground of his inability to fulfil the duties of his situation, in consequence of his being con. fined for debt in the King's Bench prison; and for the court to appoint another person in his stead, who might, by his personal attention and exertions, be able to do more ample justice to the situation. The learned counsel stated, that the bill filed by the plaintiffs set forth that the defendant was, in 1804, sole proprietor of the theatre; he became embarrassed, and sold four-eighthsof it to the plaintiffs; that, since that period, he had again become embarrassed, and had not given his assistance to the the

atre, by which means the property and interest of it had decreased, for want of an active person at its head. It was alleged, that the defendant had entered into a treaty with Mr Harris, proprietor of the late CoventGarden Theatre, to dispose of to him his play of the Africans, for 10001., although he might have had 11001. from the proprietors of the Haymarket Theatre; and also, that he had stopped the performance of a popular piece, called the Critic, which they had played for three nights last season to overflowing houses. Sir Samuel Romilly contended, that these were sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the defendant from the management.

Mr Hart, counsel for the defendant, stated, that, by a deed of agreement, all differences were to be settled by arbitration-none had taken place, and until there had, the court had no cognizance. He admitted the Africans had been offered to Mr Harris for 10001.; but that sum was more advantageous to Mr Colman than 11001. from his own theatre, of which 5501. would have come out of his own pocket. As to the Critic, he prevented its performance to oblige Mr Sheridan, who had signified his displeasure on the occasion. It was further contended, that the value of the property had increased, the shares, which, in 1805, brought 25001., being estimated in 1807 at 50001. The circumstance of the defendant's confinement could be no ground for his dismissal; being in the Bench, he was sure to be found at home. In the case of Mr Taylor, the manager of the Opera House, who had attachments and outlawries against him, the interest of the concern was proved not to have suffered by neglect, and so the learned counsel

trusted it would be found in the present case.

The Lord Chancellor took a few days to consider the difficulties of the case, before he gave judgement; and on the 224 of April, his lordship ordered the case to stand over till the 4th of May, to afford the parties an opportunity to settle the business amicably. On that day, Sir Samuel Romilly informed the court, that the parties could not agree in the appointment of arbitrators. Mr Craw ford, the barrister, was chosen by the plaintiffs, and Mr Harris, the manager, by the defendant, and mutually objected to. The Lord Chancellor concurred in the opinion, that Mr Harris was a very unfit person for an arbitration in such a case, and said he should take till the 8th of May to come to his decision, which he felt confident would be disagreeable to all the parties. Mr Hart-" My Lord, it will not be necessary, as we will appoint another arbitrator without giving your lordship the trouble of interfering." Lord Guildford was accordingly appointed, and his lordship and Mr Crawford not agreeing, a further application was made to the Chancellor on the 6th of June, on behalf of Mr Morris. The application complained that Mr Colman had interfered in the treasurership, contrarily to his contract, and had engaged performers, not only without the consent, but in defiance of Mr Morris. In answer, it was stated, that Mr Colman received the money, merely to enable him to perform his engagement with the public, and that, if his partner was ready to receive it, he had no objection. It was replied, that Mr Morris would, by such an act, acquiesce in the engagements of which he disapproved. On the 13th of June, the Lord Chancellor ordered

art out of all question: Her Jealous Wife is her chef d'œuvre.

On the 14th of June, the Critic was restored to its place on the stock list at this theatre. The great attraction of this dramatic olio is the Sir Fretful Plagiary of Mr Mathews, a piece of acting which is, beyond doubt, one of the chef d'oeuvres of the stage. The "fretful temper" of the character, which "winces at every touch," is inimitably depicted by Mr Mathews's continual restlessness and eager examination of every look in the room, to see whether it makes for or against him; and nothing can be finer than the quickness with which he catches at every favourable spark, and turns round to fan it into a flame.

On the first of July was produced, from the pen of Mr Theodore Hook, a new farce, called Killing no Murder, the first representation of which excited an unusual interest, on account of its being known in the theatre, that Mr Larpent, the deputy-licenser, had refused to pass it, till it had received certain alterations. The title of the piece, Killing no Murder, at first led the public to believe, that the license was refused for political reasons; but it afterwards turned out that Mr Larpent's only objection to the piece was, that its second act was a "most indecent and shameful attack (we quote his words) on a very religious and harmless set of people, and was altogether an infamous persecution of the methodists, whom government did not wish to be ridiculed." The farce was easily altered; for nothing from Mr Theodore Hook's pen possesses so laborious a compactness and finish as to be injured by subsequent change; and it was found necessary to suppress only one scene,

which was afterwards published by the author with the rest of the farce. Thus purged, the farce made its appearance on the stage; and is certainly the liveliest offspring of Mr Hook's giddy muse.

On the 10th of July was produced one of Mr Dimond's " three-act plays," under the title of the Foundling of the Forest. Mr Dimond has a pretty talent for working up dismal stories into spectacles, and providing them with flowing words: he has now acquired a habit of producing one of these things regularly at the Hay-market, which, being a summer theatre, is ambitious of rivalling Astley's and the Circus. The Foundling of the Forest should have usurped no higher situation than that of a melo-drama. It is not without interest; but it proceeds upon the wrong principle of mistaking horror for terror, and pain for pity. The character of Bertrand is like the exhibition of a man on the rack; this agonized wretch has taken an oath to commit murder, and suffers the most dreadful conflicts of conscience, whether he can more safely break a vow, or cut a throat. The piece, however, met with great success, and ran a long career with " Killing no Murder."

On the 1st of August, a musical romance, called The Vintagers, was produced from the pen of Mr Eyre of the theatre. This piece ranks Mr Eyre as an author about as high (or rather as low) as he stands in the scale of actors. The great blot of the drama is the clap-trapping English sailor, which, we are informed, was heightened to suit the taste of its actor, Mr Farley, and against the better judgment of Mr Eyre. The music was composed by Mr Bishop, a