London Theatres in 1900
Arthur H. Beavan made a survey of London's theatres, in Imperial London, published in 1901:
It is often asked, when some new Metropolitan theatre is opened, "Whereabouts
is it? Have you not enough theatres and to spare?" The question is pertinent, for there certainly appears to be a sufficient number
of these places of entertainment.
London, which at the dawn of the nineteenth century had but eight theatres (including
two circuses), now, in 1900, possessed over thirty within the four-mile radius, while there
were almost as many distributed about its suburbs, which in the year 1801 were
villages and hamlets.
Strangers must be struck not only by the way so many of our older theatres
are hemmed-in by buildings - the grand exceptions being Drury
Lane and Covent Garden - but by their inconvenient
entrances, as instanced at the Adelphi, Strand (although
recently entirely reconstructed within), Terriss's, Opera Comique, Globe, Vaudeville,
Princess's and Great Queen Street theatres, and even the porticoed Haymarket and St James'.
The enormous value of sites in the localities conventionally devoted to theatres,
partly accounts for this; but wherever suitable ground has been secured on reasonable
terms, a different order of things prevails, isolation, more or less complete,
with corresponding accessibility, being the rule, as at Wyndham's, Daly's, the
Shaftesbury, the Comedy, Prince of Wales's, the Avenue, Duke of York's, Her Majesty's
and the Court.
Which of all the foregoing is the national and representative theatre, the Theatre
Francais of London?
There can be little doubt that, by reason of its age and historical associations,
Drury Lane deserves the appellation.
Next: London's Theatrical History, 1900: Drury Lane Theatre |