The Manawatu Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1878.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 230, 23 January 1878, Page 2

The Manawatu Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1878.

Bishop Moobhouse, of Melbourne, must be one of the most sanguine optimists of the day. He has entered the lists in favour of theatre going, and expresses,, his belief that the effect of the- stage being patronised by religious "people will be the reformation of it. We think that very few will disagree with the Bishop in his admiration of a stage such as he depicts ; and if such were a concrete fact, instead of a mere ideal, we could fearlessly commend the stage as a valuable .agent for elevating the public taste and morals. There is some truth in the couplet — " What pulpits reach not and would fail to reaoh, The stage, well purified, may safely teach." But the parenthetic i( well purified," we fear, makes the doctrine null and void for all practical purposes. -Jt is an admitted fact that- the stage is. not pure now ; but if religious peuple are to reform it by the direct interference of their patronage,; they will have at the outset to deal with it as it is, not as it ought to be. By ecclesiastical permission strong and weak may alike come in contact with an. intensely alluring^ but au un-

mistakeably corrupt institution in the hope of improving the moral tone of that institution. Now, if human experience is worth anything this trial will result less in the reform of the stage from its corruptions than in the toleration of those corruptions on the part of the reformers, and the consequent lowering of religious sentiment. It is very unlikely that the stage could become very different from what it is at present and be successful. It might, perhaps, be reformed a little and still suit the mass of playgoers, but were it reformed sufficiently to be divested of all its pernicious surroundings and to produce nothing but a healthful pabulum such as pure men, women, and children might freely partake of, it would speedily become unpopular, and effete through want of support. The popular drama has always had certain well defined characteristics which it is always likely to retain. These characteristics place it on a border-land between the healthful and the unhealthful which may be marked as unsafe, and for the weakminded, as exceedingly dangerous. It is not wise generalship for a churchma?i to lea'd the way into it in face of the fact that to many of his followers it may be destruction. The stringent rules and conditions with which the Bishop hems round theatres and theatre-goers show an excellent intention on his part, but very poor wisdom. A faint attempt will be made to observe these rules for a while, but,; it is to be feared, that the ecclesiastical sanction will make itself deeply felt when the conditions of it are forgotten. We hold that if there is to be but one drama that drama will always be of questionable morality so long as society is of questionable morality. There is no institution more representative than the drama, — none that more faithfully mirrors the tastes of the populace. The shadow is as likely to be false to its substance as the drama to be different from what the masses will have it. Take away this characteristic of the drama and you take away its vitality. If, therefore, the drama is to be reformed, the only way to effect the reformation is to reform society. The drama of to-day is better than the drama of last century, because society is better. It is possible to tell pretty accurately the moral condition of society in any epoch ,by the character of the drama of that epoch. This being so, an attempt to make the drama w-hat society as a whole is not ia an attempt to produce a forced, unnatural, and, therefore, an impracticable condition. It is like turning the compass round in the hope of making the needle point away from the North Pole. We do not imply that the drama has no influence upon society. * ; Its influence is undoubtedly great, but the influence of the drama upon society always has been||and always will be, subordinate, to the influence of society upon the drama > and henoe the reformation of the latter must fallow, not precede, the reformation of the former. We think, then* that, at this stage of our history, it is unwise to attempt to bring the religionist and the worldling together on a ground which, if made to suit the one, will not and cannot suit the other. The two are widely diverse in their perceptions of the fitness of things, and if by any such scheme as this these diversities are merged, it cau only be by breaking down the barriers that separate what ie i right from what is wrong.