CHAPTER IX: l88S On 3 January 1885 the Clerk to the Leeds Justices sent a letter to the Grand Theatre which said that the Justices considered that 'strong hand rails' were necessary in the principal, and some of the other staircases in the theatre, and that the stage door should be made to open outwards. (It will be remembered that there had been an accident at the Theatre Royal, Leeds, in 1882, and that Watson had been asked to report on the safety of the Grand Theatre's exits in case of panic in 1883. It seems likely, therefore, that the Justices were now acting with an increased awareness of such dangers.) Lee Anderson received the letter, but passed it on to Kingston for the consideration of the directors. They, however, anticipated this, and decided at a meeting held before Lee Anderson sent on the letter, that the Justices' demands fell upon the theatre's lessee and not the company. Kingston ,\.,asaccordingly instructed to send the letter back to Lee Anderson. Whatever the propriety of this move, it is clearly concordant with the company's intention dating from the 1884 Annual General Meeting to make Wilson Barrett responsible for every expense that it could. This kind of action was no doubt necessitated by the 3% narrow margin of profit on which the company worked, and the strictness with which the directors controlled their expenditure is indicated by a letter to the company's auditors (Messrs John Routh) on 15 January 1885. Having completed the audit Messrs Routh had sent to the board an account for £3 l7s. 6d. Kingston sent the firm a cheque for three guineas with a note which said: 'It was understood that the fee would be as usual, and I am instructed by my directors to state that they see no reason for its increase'. That the directors could see a reason for a yearly increase in charges is evident from the fact that they included such a provision in the leases of their shops (and had refused to relent on this despite Boswell's plea in 1884). It is clear, therefore, that they would not see any reason for the auditors' 14s. 6d. increase. Wilson Barrett's rent had been paid with an average of one month's delay in 1884, and thus it continued at the beginning of 1885. Kingston applied to him for the first quarter's rent on 2 February, sent him a reminder on 27 February, and finally acknowledged receipt of the £625 on 6 March 1885. Though Wilson Barrett paid the rent from the Princess's Theatre in London, Lee Anderson kept account of the rent in Leeds, and it was he who wrote to Kingston to say that the latter had neglected to deduct property tax 391 from the first quarter's demand. Kingston wrote back that the omission was Wilson Barrett's, and not his. (A total of £114 lIs. 8d. was deducted from the second quarter's rent for property tax paid in 1884 (£52 Is. 8d.) and 1885 (£62 lOs.).) In March, also, James Wood, the principal building contractor, was at last induced to accept three fifty pounds shares as part settlement of his account. The face value of the shares was one hundred and fifty pounds, although in reality they must at that time have been worth just under sixty pounds. This difference, however, was a small percentage of Wood's total account which came to a little under eighteen thousand pounds. In April Mr Swann, who supervised the Assembly Rooms, complained to Kingston that some of the lead on the Assembly Rooms' tower was 'loose and flapping about', and that some of the panes of the glass roof over the entrance to the stalls of the Assembly Rooms had been broken by falling slates. Kingston passed this on to Sagar-Musgrave, who was chairman of the repairs sub-committee which had been appointed to vet these matters. It seems that they accepted these repairs as the company's responsibility. In May the seemingly ever smouldering question of the directors' right of admission and special courtesy during 392 a performance again leapt briefly into flame. It will be remembered that Wilson Barrett had supplied the directors with tickets to enable them to move from one part of the house to another. This was a sop to them after he had forced the deletion of the free admissions clause from the new lease. Sagar-Musgrave had attempted to use his ticket during 1vlinniePalmer's visit in June 1884 to get into the dress circle. A Hr Rogers, however, an attendant, had threatened to throw him out of the theatre unless he paid. Sagar-Musgrave had written injured letters to Wilson Barrett, but the latter had ignored them, claiming that he considered them 'rude'. Sagar- Musgrave had then involved the board in his complaints, and Wilson Barrett had been induced to make a reply to Kitson in February 1885. He had suggested that Lee Anderson attend a board meeting to explain what had happened. The board meeting was held on 19 Hay, but Lee Anderson seems to have given an explanation that did not go far to clear matters up. He had explained to Hr Rogers Wilson Barrett's instructions about the directors' tickets, he said, and when Rogers had specifically asked him whether or not he was to throw Sagar-Husgrave out he had told him that he could not. Lee Anderson claimed that he had then left while Rogers was talking with Watson. However, it seemed that Rogers had then gone up to Sagar-Musgrave and demanded that he pay_ After the meeting Kingston wrote to Wilson Barrett saying that Lee Anderson was at fault in leaving Sagar-Musgrave 393 thus to be insulted, that the board had read the latter's letters and did not consider them rude (though in seeming contradiction of this he added that Wilson Barrett should at least have acknowledged them), and that the tickets seemed useless and the directors intended to return them. The directors would visit the theatre in future under the covenant of the lease which allowed them to inspect it, as, they claimed, Sagar-Musgrave really had been doing during Minnie Palmer's visit (though they admitted that it might have been a mistake for him to use his pass for such a purpose). It might seem that the whole situation developed out of a misplaced sense of relative importances. But, taken with the protracted negotiations, and the dramatic postures, which accompanied the directors' repeated attempts to gain special favours at the theatre, it appears likely that a concept of the proper behaviour in a theatre, and of the ethics which underlay such a situation, of privilege, and of morality, motivated the directors' and the manager's actions and responses. Perhaps it is to over-simplify to say that the directors wanted to go to the theatre that they had built, and that they wanted to be afforded the greatest privileges that that theatre could offer, but that Wilson Barrett and Lee Anderson had to consider the larger picture - to nurture the whole audience's belief in what could be gained from the theatre, to keep privilege in the imagination rather than in petty 394 realities. And perhaps Rogers was simply being o11icious. But it is evident that these men were all strongly motivated in what they sought to gain, and in what they sought to deny, and this may give some indication 01 the moral and social ethos of the theatre's nightly 1unctioning. In the event Wilson Barrett sent a placatory note on 6 August to Kingston asking him to tell the directors that Lee Anderson had been instructed to allow them 1ree into any part 01 the theatre. Tickets, he said, would be sent them as soon as possible, but until then 'their private cards would be sU11icient to pass them'. It will be remembered that in 1884 the theatre was reinsured 10r £22,500 directly with a number of companies. In the summer 01 1885 the directors thought it advisable to insure also the rent. This was done with Les Insurances Belges at a rate of 3ls 6d. per hundred pounds insured, and the £2,500 rent was insured 10r £1,800. (As rent was the company's sole income this seems a reasonably prudent move, although Wilson Barrett's somewhat dilatory payment of the rent may have precipitated it. The third quarter's rent, due on 1 August t wa s not received until 8 September, and the last quarter's rent, due on 1 November, was applied for on 9 November, 9 December, and 17 December before it was paid.) Meanwhile in a reply to an inquiry from Messrs Ford Warren, Leeds solicitors (on 23 November 1885), Kingston estimated that a 1ifty pound share in the company was worth 395 twenty pounds, which was an increase of nearly four pounds on the 'quoted market price' that he had discovered at the end of 1884. Two further matters were dealt with at the end of the year: Boswell was offered a three or five year renewal of his lease at a rent of £110 per annum (and, subject to approval, he might also be allowed to alter his premises), and the Chief Constable was invited to make suggestions 'in view of an inspection being made to ascertain the present conditions and efficiency of the appliances for extinguishing fire'. The make-up of the seasons in 1885 continued to follow familiar trends.