names of Barrymore, Wewitzer, etc. Miss Pope got 12 a week; Miss Mellon, £10; Miss De Camp, £7; while some of the ladies were paid nightly. At Covent Garden John Philip Kemble received £30 a week; Charles Kemble received £12 a week (I more than he got at Drury Lane); G. F. Cooke got £25; Munden, £14; Emery, £9; Lewis,

12; Johnstone, 10; Knight, £7; Blanchard, the same; Fawcett, 10; Farley, £6, and others in proportion. Mrs. Siddons received £25 a week; Mrs. Maddocks, £8; Mrs. Glover, £9; and Mrs. Litchfield, £15. It is betraying no professional secrets to say that neither Miss Ellen Terry nor Mrs. Kendal would look at a salary such as Mrs. Siddons was glad to take, while in the country now on the sharing system they can often make ten times what they make in London.

The sudden and unfortunate collapse of one of the great London theatres a house sometimes called the National Theatre-has raised the question (a question which could

only exist in the theatrical profession) as to the propriety or impropriety of taking or refusing half-salaries. Theatrical people are so hedged round with conventional and peculiar customs, that it is almost impossible to approach them as you would approach other labourers. The benefit system is one of these customs, and until this is abolished it is difficult to believe that there is not something in the constitution of a playhouse company which removes them from the operation of ordinary commercial laws. Few people, however, outside the charmed circle, fail to see the absurdity of throwing any blame on any body of actors and theatrical workpeople, or any members of that body, who refuse to submit to a sudden reduction of fifty per cent. on their salaries to sustain a falling theatre in which they never had any interest in profits. If it were the custom of managers in thriving times to call their company together and distribute bonuses or double salaries on the score of the general prosperity, there might then be some justification, in a

time of trouble, for demanding services at half the proper remuneration. This not being the case (there is no record of such a case), it is foolish and illogical to abuse, even by implication, any members of a company who refuse to act the moment they are told that the manager is not in a position to pay their salaries. The sentiment which is too often imported into theatrical transactions generally leads to some injustice, and the sooner actors, authors, and managers accept their position as traders, and nothing more, the better it will be for the so-called 'dramatic profession.'

INSOLENT PATRONAGE OF THE

STAGE.

HERE is no more unfortunate in

stitution than the Stage.

When

it is not being over-licensed and over-regulated, it is being over-patronised. Officialism looks after its morals, and Bumbledom attends to its drainage. A time may come, perhaps, when Bumbledom will wish to look after its morals as much as Officialism looks after its architecture and sanitary arrangements. At present, however, it is spared that infliction; but it is suffering from another. The Church, as it is called, has taken it in hand, and is trying to wean it from its evil ways. Bishops preach at it,

and clergymen dally with it. No Social Science Congress is considered complete without a 'paper' on this unfortunate institution. The active missionary has had his attention drawn to this new field for his labours. The inevitable tract makes its appearance, and is thrust under the nose of the mummer. He reads it, or he lights his pipe with it. If he reads it he is astonished at the liberty allowed to pious printers. He sees the name of the Deity used with a flippant familiarity that would make a Lord. Chamberlain die with horror. He goes to a church, and is astonished to hear what comes from a privileged pulpit. He wonders why the Stage is less privileged, and no one can tell him. The press and the platform astonish him still more. I am not speaking of the ulcerated journalism of the day in connection with the press, nor of the Hall of Science, in the Old Street Road, in connecnection with the platform. Any average newspaper, and any average discussion hall, may, well astonish the over-licensed, over