Some five-and-twenty years later, Elliston was now memorialising the king, now petitioning the House of Commons and the Privy Council, in reference to the opening of an additional theatre.  He had been in treaty for the Pantheon, in Oxford Street, and urged that “the intellectual community would be benefited by an extension of license for the regular drama.”  As lessee of the Royal Circus or Surrey Theatre, he besought liberty to exhibit and perform “all such entertainments of music and action as were commonly called pantomimes and ballets, together with operatic or musical pieces, accompanied with dialogue in the ordinary mode of dramatic representations,” subject, at all times, to the control and restraint of the Lord Chamberlain, “in conformity to the laws by which theatres possessing those extensive privileges were regulated.”  But all was in vain.  The king would not “notice any representation connected with the establishment of another theatre.”  The other petitions were without result.

Gradually, however, it became necessary for the authorities to recognise the fact that the public really did require more amusements of a theatrical kind than the privileged theatres could furnish.  But the regular drama, it was held, must still be protected:  performed only on the patent boards.  So now “burletta licenses” were issued, under cover of which melodramas were presented, with entertainments of music and dancing, spectacle and pantomime.  In 1809, the Lyceum or English Opera House, which for some years before had been licensed for music and dancing, was licensed for “musical dramatic entertainments and ballets of action.”  The Adelphi, then called the Sans Pareil Theatre, received a “burletta license” about the same time.  In 1813 the Olympic was licensed for similar performances and for horsemanship; but it was for a while closed again by the Chamberlain’s order, upon Elliston’s attempt to call the theatre Little Drury Lane, and to represent upon its stage something more like the “regular drama” than had been previously essayed at a minor house.  “Burletta licenses” were also granted for the St. James’s in 1835, and for the Strand in 1836.

And, in despite of the authorities, theatres had been established on the Surrey side of the Thames; but, in truth, for the accommodation of the dwellers on the Middlesex shore.  Under the Licensing Act, while the Chamberlain was constituted licenser of all new plays throughout Great Britain, his power to grant licenses for theatrical entertainments was confined within the city and liberties of Westminster, and wherever the sovereign might reside.  The Surrey, the Coburg (afterwards the Victoria), Astley’s, &c., were, therefore, out of his jurisdiction.  There seemed, indeed, to be no law in existence under which they could be licensed.  They affected to be open under a magistrate’s license for “music, dancing, and public entertainments.”  But this, in truth, afforded them no protection when it