Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume X, Issue 2734, 27 January 1879, Page 2

The Theatre aud its influences was the subject of an interesting discussion at the last Annual Church Congress at Sheffield The Rev. the Earl ot Munay opened the debate, and in the course of his speech remarked that the Theatre in its purity possessed wonderful teaching power as an agenfe for good. He referred also to the operations of a society formed in Manchester called the Dramatic Reform Society, which may be said to be under the auspices of the church, since two Bishops are numbered among its vice-presidents. We gather from the report of his speech that the object of this society is to encourage good acting and the performance of plays of a superior class. The Earl claimed the sympathy of the church with the theatre. The Bishop of Manchester related how he had delivered a special address to an audience composed of the theatrical profession, and had received as a mark of gratitude a water colour picture produced by the scene painter. The bishop had evidently been behind the scenes and had made himself acquainted with the circumstances of many of the people who fretted their hour upon the boards. He discover ed that the premiere danseuse was supporting an aged mother and a crippled sister out of her earnings, and that there were other cases of a similar nature. The Bishop, in his character of a missionary, gently reproved the manager for producing such pieces aa "Pink Dominoes," whereupon the manager replied : " The people will have it. Then there is another point of view—it is much cheaper to put on the stage." "Give them a play of Shakespear's," I suggested his lordship ; but here again the ideas of the ecclesiastic when weighed by the practical worldly logic of facts were found to be merely theoretical." "It costs £3,000 to put such a play on the stage as Henry the VIII. or Henry VI., and were it not for the Christmas pantomime we could not in fact make it pay. The public demand a spectacle, and we can put the Pink Dominoes on the stage for £40." Then the Bishop put on his considering cap, and after much cogitation arrived at this conclusion, which we endorse: "The reason why these objectionable features exist is this—that we patronise the very things which in our punctilious and professional moods we condemn. It may be true there are clergymen who would denounce the theatre loudly, and yet have not sufficient influence in their own households to prevent their wives, sons, and daughteis from going there. Then what we have to deal with iirst is the hollowness of society on this matter. The heart of society is not souud on the question. I don't believe that actors or playwrights wisli to corrupt the age, but they are obliged by the necessities of their position to conform more or less to the demand of the age; they meet that demand with a supply, aud those who create the demand are those who are supplied. I don't believe myself that the theatre will ever be purified until society has been worthily elevated, and that, I hope and trust, will be brought about."