KING’s THEATRE.

THIS theatre closed on Saturday the 10th of last month, with Paer’s Agnese, his finest work, in which the principal part, Uberto, was most ably performed by Sig. Tamburini. Of the rest we will in mercy say nothing.

Thus has terminated a season eminently distinguished by the performance of operas thoroughly worn out, and the production of two imported fresh from Italy, which proved less endurable than the hacks that preceded them. Nearly half the subscription nights passed with scarcely a tolerable performer on the stage; and for the other moiety, that is from Easter, twice as many performers were engaged as could be properly employed. This is called liberal and judicious management! But there is not much difficulty in being liberal when performers are sent off with bills at enormously long dates; and it is perfectly easy to gain a character for skilful management, if bringing out old operas badly, and new ones utterly destitute of every kind of merit, is thought worthy of praise.

The Observer has replied in the following article to a remark made in our last Number:—

‘Laporte’s total losses this season are said considerably to exceed 30,000l., but even including the 10,000l. he sacrificed to his unfortunate Covent Garden speculation, we cannot help thinking there is an exaggeration in the account. Some time since we mentioned the nightly expenses of the Opera as nearly 1,000l., a statement which has since been disputed by the Editor of the Harmonicon, who contends that they are not more than 750l.; but he is obviously referring to the year 1819, and seems not to take into view the increased charges in all the departments since that date. We are quite ready to admit that they ought certainly not to exceed 750l.; and a stop must be put to the exorbitant demands of foreign singers and dancers.’

Our contemporary has forgotten that he stated the nightly expenses of the theatre at considerably more than 1000l.; but no matter. He is extremely mistaken in supposing that our estimate of 750l. a night was made on the expenditure of 1819. The entire expenses of that season—a very wretched one—did not amount to 410l. nightly. And we will add, for the information of the writer in the Observer, that in the season of 1817, when the most complete company that ever performed on the Italian stage was engaged, the whole of the disbursements, of all and every kind, did not exceed 430l. a night. We are aware that the increased rent is now to be added; and for this, and other advances, we made much more than ample allowance: 650l. would have been nearer the mark than the larger sum. In some important departments, the expenses are less now than in the year to which we allude: the present mode of lighting with gas instead of wax, is a diminution of many hundred pounds; and in 1817 the lowest sum paid to the orchestral performers was eighteen shillings per night: do not several now take twelve, or even less? And during the best part of the season, are not some discharged for the evening, in order to admit auditors at fifteen shillings or a guinea each, thus saving the pay of performers, and gaining by filling their places with company? What, we would further ask, has been the cost of scenery, dresses, decorations, copying, &c. this season? Any frequenter of the Opera will answer, little more than half the usual sum, and less than half of what was due to the subscribers and the public. For, let it be borne in mind, the subscription was three hundred guineas for a box that cannot conveniently hold four persons, and rarely contains so many, though six tickets are issued for it; that is more than a guinea and a half per night for each person actually seated!

M. Laporte’s losses, it has been said, considerably exceed 30,000l.!—whoever reported this might as well have added another cypher, and made the sum three hundred thousand. That he lost much by Covent Garden there can be no doubt; but if he has very materially suffered by the King’s Theatre, why go on with it? With the increasing unwillingness to pay so enormously for boxes,—with the spirit of emigration so active,—when the public have found out that stalls are better in every respect than boxes, and cost a family about three-fourths less,—and when unskilful management is pretty sure to co-operate with all these causes,—what possible chance is there that the ensuing season will be better than the last? It must be worse; and with this prospect before him, M. Laporte would not risk another, should his losses by the Italian Opera have amounted to one-half, or even one-fourth of the most moderate sum reported.

It is easy to understand why statements of extraordinary losses are authorised, or, at least, why they remain uncontradicted. The King’s Theatre has always had the reputation of being a losing concern, but it is easy to show that most of those who have held it for the last fifty years have made money, much money, by it. And it is not very difficult to prove that, with tolerable management and a fair rent, it might always, upon an average of three years, be made a most profitable undertaking for the lessee, and a place of elegant amusement, highly creditable and useful to the metropolis of a great empire.