Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:49:53.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Royal Opera House in Leicester Square (1790)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2008

Curtis Price ,
Judith Milhous  and
Robert D. Hume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The King's Theatre, Haymarket, was destroyed by fire in June 1789. Shortly thereafter some wealthy and powerful patrons – notably the Prince of Wales (the future George IV), the Duke of Bedford and the Marquis of Salisbury – launched an ambitious scheme to build a fabulously expensive Royal Opera House in Leicester Square. The venture was designed to re-establish London as a major centre for Italian opera and ballet, to reform the wayward financial and artistic management of the King's Theatre and to give the capital city a grand opera house of modern design that would rival any in Europe. Because the royal patent promised for Leicester Square was blocked, the scheme had to be dropped, and the sponsors wound up establishing the ill-fated and short-lived Pantheon Opera instead – but that is another story. Our concern here is with the Leicester Square project which, though never realised, did set in motion many of the changes desired by its backers and helped to return London to the mainstream of opera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Opera Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 We are at work on a book entitled The Pantheon and Italian Opera in London, 1785–1800 (to be published by Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

2 London, 1966.

3 No full scholarly account of the King's Theatre, Haymarket, in the 1780s and 1790s has ever been written. For some basic facts (mostly from printed sources), see Nalbach, Daniel, The King's Theatre 1704–1867 (London, 1972).Google Scholar The three of us will be publishing studies of the King's Theatre in this period (largely from new MS sources) in the near future.

4 For the text of the act, see Liesenfeld, Vincent J., The Licensing Act of 1737 (Madison, 1984), 191–3.Google Scholar

5 Public Record Office, LC 5/154, p. 35Google Scholar, licence to Vanbrugh and Congreve to establish a company of comedians. It was granted 14 December 1704 and was published in the London Gazette of 21–25 12 1704.Google Scholar

6 For the grant, see Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert D., ‘The Charter for the Royal Academy of Music’, Music and Letters, 67 (1986), 50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Taylor, William, A Concise Statement of Transactions and Circumstances respecting the King's Theatre, in the Haymarket, 2nd edn (London, 1791), 38–9.Google Scholar

8 For example, William Taylor received a licence for Italian opera at the King's Theatre during 1782–83 on 28 September 1782 (LC 5/162, p. 282), and Gallini and Crawford were licensed for 1783–84 on 29 November 1783 (Taylor, A Concise Statement, 329).

9 See Donaldson, Ian, ‘New Papers of Henry Holland and R. B. Sheridan’ (Part II), Theatre Notebook, 16 (1962), 117–25.Google Scholar Holland was in the personal service of the Duke of Bedford and was soon to design the new Covent Garden playhouse.

10 British Library (BL) Th. Cuts 42, fol. 6v. We would guess that the date is after May 1787, when the Lord Chancellor ordered a partition of the Leicester estate (Survey of London, vol. 34, 421).Google Scholar

11 BL Th. Cuts 42, fol. 7. The intended location we interpret as somewhere in the parish of Covent Garden.

12 The best account of these matters remains the Survey of London, vols. 29–30 (London, 1960).Google Scholar For the failed attempt to oust Gallini, see various newspaper accounts preserved in BL Th. Cuts 42.

13 In the summer of 1789 Taylor offered either to buy Gallini out, or to co-operate with him in re-establishing the theatre on its former basis. Gallini reportedly agreed to sell (i.e., to let Taylor pay off his mortgages) and then backed out of the agreement – possibly because Taylor failed to deliver the money. By 5 August 1789 Gallini was reportedly trying to block the rebuilding of the King's Theatre (BL Th. Cuts 42, fol. 15v). For relevant charges and countercharges, see Taylor, , A Concise Statement (n. 7)Google Scholar and O'Reilly, Robert Bray, An Authentic Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relating to the Opera-House in the Haymarket (London, 1791).Google Scholar

14 The letter is printed by O'Reilly, , An Authentic Narrative, 50–1.Google Scholar

15 Cholmondeley's two letters of 3 July and Salisbury's reply of 7 July are printed in Taylor, , A Concise Statement (see n. 7), 13–17.Google Scholar There is evidence that the fire was merely an excuse for proceeding with plans that were already well developed. On 19 June 1789, just two days after the fire, there was a newspaper report that the Duke of Bedford's plan for a new opera house had been submitted to Lord Chancellor Thurlow – presumably for a legal opinion on patent issues (BL Th. Cuts 42, fol. 16v).

16 The Lord Chancellor stated in April 1790 that a new grant to another enterprise would be ‘so manifest an injustice’ to the old opera's creditors ‘that it could never be in the royal disposition to sanction such a measure’ (London Chronicle, 13–1504 1790).Google Scholar For discussion, see Section 5.

17 Printed in Taylor, , A Concise Statement (see n. 7), 18.Google Scholar

18 On 25 July 1789 a newspaper reported that Gallini had presented plans for a new opera house to the Prince of Wales. They are said to be based on Palladio and Vitruvius and to be drawn by an attorney's clerk (i.e., Robert Bray O'Reilly). See BL Th. Cuts 42, fol. 38. In the same collection (fol. 15v) we find an announcement that a new opera house, to be completed by the end of 1790, will be built on the quadrangle from Covent Garden Theatre to James Street and Hart Street to the Piazza. This may represent a temporary site choice for the Gallini–O'Reilly venture, or it could be another plan, otherwise unknown.

19 A Concise Statement, 25.Google Scholar

20 For a good overview of his career, see Highfill, Philip H. Jr, Burnim, Kalman A. and Langhans, Edward A., A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, 16 vols. in progress (Carbondale, 1973–1974), 9, 257–60.Google Scholar

21 London, 1790.

22 O'Reilly, , An Authentic Narrative (see n. 13), 64.Google Scholar

23 O'Reilly, , An Authentic Narrative, 60.Google Scholar

24 Gallini was a Knight of Rome.

25 Bedford Estates Office, Pantheon Papers, 5.D.5.

26 Bedford Estates Office, Pantheon Papers, 5.D.6.

27 Bedford Estates Office, Pantheon Papers, 5.D.3 and 5.D.4 (letters of 2 and 4 01 1790).Google Scholar

28 Soane Museum, Drawer XIV.3.

29 Virtually the same notice appeared in the 12 January Public Advertiser. We have printed two substantive additions from this source in boldface. Both papers evidently published what was in essence a press release from O'Reilly.

30 Texier, Le, Ideas on the Opera (see n. 21), 52, 53.Google Scholar His estimate was unrealistically low.

31 For these figures, see Langhans, Edward A., ‘The Theatres’, in The London Theatre World, 1660–1800, ed. Hume, Robert D. (Carbondale, 1980), 62, 64.Google Scholar

32 The Survey of London, vol. 34, 457nGoogle Scholar, raises the possibility that the plan was by George Maddox, ‘who is reputed to have assisted Soane for a short period’. Because the ground plan ended up in Soane's collections, his name is conventionally attached to it, but this proves nothing about its origin.

33 A Concise Statement (see n. 7), 9–11.Google Scholar

34 An Authentic Narrative (see n. 13), 57–9.Google Scholar This was presumably the Opéra du Palais Royal, which opened on 15 May 1790 but housed the Variétés Amusantes, not the Opéra. See Piettre, Jean-Hugues, ‘Pélerinages en architectures disparues: L'Opéra du Palais-Royal’, in Victor Louis et le théâtre, ed. Roudié, Paul and Rouyer, Philippe (Paris, 1982), 55–63.Google Scholar

35 His claim is at least partially confirmed by the newspaper item of 25 July 1789 cited in n. 18.

36 See, for example, Glasstone, Victor, ‘L'influence de Victor Louis en Angleterre’, in Victor Louis et le théâtre (n. 34), 65–81.Google Scholar

37 On the French campaign for modern theatres, see Carlson, Marvin, Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture (Ithaca, 1989), 74–9.Google Scholar For plans of Lyons and other modern theatres, see Dumont, Gabriel Pierre Martin, Parallèle de Plans des plus belles Salles de Spectacles d'Italie et de France, avec des Détails de Machines Théatrales (ca. 1774; rpt. New York, 1968).Google Scholar

38 Leacroft, Richard, The Development of the English Playhouse (London, 1973), 128–31.Google Scholar

39 Patte, Pierre, Essai sur l'architecture théâtrale (Paris, 1782).Google Scholar For Novosielski's proposal, see Leacroft, , 131.Google Scholar

40 Saunders, George, A Treatise on Theatres (London, 1790).Google Scholar Saunders states in his introduction that he has pursued his enquiries at a time ‘when projects are forming for the erection of two new [theatres] in this city’ (p. [vii]). Saunders', TreatiseGoogle Scholar is the first such book in English on its subject but, according to Izenour, Saunders' ideas are no more scientifically sound than Paste's. See Izenour, George C., Theater Design (New York, 1977), 57, 61.Google ScholarSaunders', Introduction is signed 17 02 1790Google Scholar, but the book was not published until 25 January 1791, when it was advertised in the Morning Chronicle as published ‘this day’. So Saunders had no influence on the plans for Leicester Square, but his work gives us some sense of how the possibilities looked to an English designer in 1790. Izenour, , 155 n. 28Google Scholar, states erroneously that the two new theatres to be built in London were the ‘Theater Royal, Drury Lane (which had recently burned down), used principally for drama, and […] Covent Garden, for opera’. This is extremely misleading: Saunders' reference is to the King's Theatre, Haymarket, and Leicester Square; Drury Lane had not burned down; and Covent Garden was not then primarily an opera house.

41 Survey of London, vol. 34, 457.Google Scholar

42 See n. 36.

43 We make this calculation from Leacroft's reconstructions and the figures given by Langhans in ‘The Theatres’ (seen. 31).

44 The painting is briefly described by Hayes, John (Trevor), Catalogue of the Oil Paintings in the London Museum (London, 1970), 38–40.Google Scholar

45 See Country Life, 41, no. 1055 (24 03 1917), 287Google Scholar, and The Connoisseur, 62 (05–08 1920), 170.Google Scholar

46 Now in the Royal Collection, Windsor Castle. Most of these exteriors are reproduced in the Survey of London, vol. 34.Google Scholar

47 Glasstone (see n. 36), 66. Compare with the elevation reproduced in Pariset, François-Georges, Victor Louis 1731–1800: Dessins & Gravures (Bordeaux, 1980), esp. Plate 56.Google Scholar

48 Bedford Estates Office, Pantheon Papers, 5.D.34. The defective grammar and syntax are characteristic of O'Reilly.

49 Stuebe, Isabel Combs, The Life and Works of William Hodges (New York, 1979), 11.Google Scholar

50 See Price, Curtis, ‘Turner at the Pantheon Opera House, 1791–92’, Turner Studies, 7 (1987), 2–8.Google Scholar

51 This Crown copyright record is published by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

52 The following passage is cancelled at this point: ‘And that the said Company shall be under the sole Government and Authority of the said Robert Bray O'Rielly his Executors Administrators and Assigns all scandalous and mutinous Persons shall from time to time by him or them be ejected & disabled from playing in ye said Theatre.’ For analysis, seep. 25 below.

53 Part of a long cancel at this point includes the following passage: ‘Wee further command the strictest regard to be paid to such Representations as any way concern civil Polity or the Constitution of our Government that these may contribute to the support of our sacred Authority and the Preservation of Order and good Government And it being our Royal will and Pleasure that for the future our Theatre may be instrumental to the Promotion of Virtue and Instruction to human Life.’

54 That is, the patent would automatically be voided by an unapproved trade, without the Crown's having to institute the usual proceedings to revoke it – called a writ of scire facias. The next clause says that scire facias may be used to revoke the patent for other causes, not just unapproved trading.

55 Sir Archibald Macdonald's approval was sought because he was Attorney General.

56 These provisions can be found in the 4 June 1747 grant to James Lacy and David Garrick (PRO C66/3621, no. 15) and extended to them for another twenty-one years on 26 October 1762 (C66/3682, no. 45). Much of the terminology stems directly from the original patent grants to Killigrew and Davenant of 1662 and 1663 – PRO C66/3013, no. 20 and C66/3009, no. 3, respectively.

57 A Concise Statement (see n. 7), 30.Google Scholar

58 A copy of this three-page manifesto is preserved in the Harvard Theatre Collection, bTS 318.84.

59 For an account of the official ceremony (reportedly attended by ‘at least 4000 persons’), see the London Chronicle of 3–6 04 1790.Google Scholar

60 We are inclined to doubt that Thurlow was quite so uninformed as he affected to be.

61 London Gazette, 7–10 08 1790.Google Scholar

62 For an account of the Pantheon venture, see Price, Curtis, ‘Italian Opera and Arson in Late Eighteenth-Century London’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 42 (1989), 55–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar