Our recent remarks upon the necessity of intelligent amusement for the people, have drawn forth the following letter from the Reverend Thomas Odell, who was lately rather severe upon us at a public tea meeting, for advocating theatrical performances. The full effect of the castigation of the Reverend gentleman was lost upon us, as, contrary to his expressed belief, we did not happen to be present.

Neither his address, therefore, nor his present letter, have made us converts to his opinion, and we still hold that a well conducted theatre not only may be classed amongst legitimate popular amusements, but that it ought to rank very high amongst them; and that an intelligent community ought not to rest satisfied till such an institution be fairly established amongst them, and entrusted to the control of suitable hands. However, let our opponent speak for himself:-

To the Editor of the Argus.

Sir, - Your 'leader' of this morning, headed "Public Amusements," was read with some degree of surprise, and you will perhaps allow me, through your columns, to make a few observations relative to it.

The desirableness and necessity of recreation of some kind cannot be doubted. Sleep is necessary to afford this to the weary; exercise in the open air to afford it to those whose hours are chiefly spent within doors; and enjoyment of some kind to afford it to those accustomed to the monotony of business.

Intelligent and innocent recreation cannot be objected to, whether found in the flower-garden, or the lecture room; or listening to exhibitions of musical talent; or in any other way which does not offend the proper rules of morality and religion. It is willingly admitted that both mind and body must have some unbending. But it is a pity that occupying such an important position, you should dwell as you have done, and in the spirit you have done, on the great benefit to be derived from attendance at the theatre - particularly, when the only theatre in Melbourne is, according to your own shewing, a 'sink of iniquity.'

It is a comparatively easy thing to state what a theatre might be; but did you ever know one, or ever read of one, that did not accommodate its representations to the prevalent taste of the people, that is, of the people accustomed to frequent such exhibitions; and did you ever know an instance where, whatever the character of the few who might occasionally attend, and draw some lessons of morality, previously understood, from the incidents portrayed, the majority were not those who found their chief enjoyment in fashionable display, or who were degraded to a position which rendered them the direct designers and promoters of immorality?

Your paper enters many families. In my visits, as Minister of one of the Melbourne churches, I find it in not a few of the families of those who attend my ministry. The young read it, - it contributes to the formation of their opinions. There can be no positive objection (though some may be rendered sorry) to your advocating theatrical amusements if you please - and these whose opinions differ from yours have an equal right to oppose your teachings, particularly if they regard them as dangerous - but when this is done, don't, Mr. Editor, don't, stoop to misrepresentation; - your advocacy will gain nothing by it; don't gratify, as Melbourne journalists are too apt to do - a love of abuse. It won't further your cause. Don't represent religious people, who certainly find as much happiness in their way of life as you theatre-loving people can do in yours - as 'Straight laced Puritans, who hold that to laugh is to sin; and that man is sent into the world to interlard every third sentence with a groan.'

Now, I remember referring to your late "liberal" tone on the subject of theatricals, in public, and, if I am not mistaken, in your presence. But if a public teacher regards your public teachings as dangerous, is he to be silent because the "Argus" said it? Is no one to impugn your statements without subjecting the class he is connected with to misrepresentation? The opposition of 'men like these,' 'occupants of the pulpit' may confirm your impressions of the correctness of your views, and you and Shakespeare may dare them to an encounter. But are you really Sir Oracle - (few would enter into conflict with Shakespeare) - and is no one to oppose your views without your ire being provoked to misinterpretation?

And yet not a few regard this course or yours as illiberal. This view is taken by many who make yours their family paper, and yet care for their rising children. They think that such opinions are not fit reading for them. It may not be what you call 'bitterly offensive;' but they don't like it, and still less do they like that in advocating what they consider of immoral tendency, you should do it with illiberal, venomous, and sarcastic feelings at what they regard with veneration.

Now, Mr Editor, after what I have said, I still value your paper; but in these matters, do mend your manners.

I am, yours, &c.

THOMAS ODELL.

King Street,
Wednesday Morning,
October 29th.

We think that our experience of theatres is likely to have been much more extensive than that of our correspondent, and therefore, we hasten to inform him, in answer to his questions, that we have known many such establishments which have come up to the standard that he appears to think impossible; theatres in which no indecency is ever perpetrated, no obscenities ever heard; within whose walls the splendid sentiments of the greatest writers the world has ever known, have been listened to and applauded, by hundreds who have left their seats, wiser and better men for what they have heard.

That the Theatre may be abused is also too true, but it shares that liability to error with all other institutions, the Press for instance, and even, with all reverence be it spoken, the Pulpit itself. When unfortunately getting into unworthy hands, where no thought but that of sordid profit ever obtrudes, the theatre may be prostituted to the worst uses; degraded into a mere trap for the drunkard and debauchee; and sink into the greatest nuisance that can be inflicted upon a community.

How far this has been done here, by a gentleman whom some people are seriously proposing to make Chief Magistrate of the City, we leave the public to judge; although the more respectable portion of that public having long since been scared from attending there, they are scarcely in the most suitable position for forming an adequate impression of the real state of things. Nor will we trust ourselves to express our opinion of the deep responsibility incurred by any man who thus abuses the opportunities afforded him; and by such insidious poison as this, deteriorates the character of all those over whom his influence extends. But Mr. Odell ought not to judge us by such doings as these or hint at our resting our argument for theatrical entertainments, upon a case which presents nothing but unmitigated evil.

Mr. Odell is sharp upon us with regard to what he is pleased to style misrepresentation, but we think unjustly so; we have no motive, and can have no wish to do anything of the sort. But in return for his advice as to the proper mode of conducting a paper, we may tell him that we believe that he and all gentleman of his cloth, have room for improvement in the tone they adopt towards the recreations of those whose dearest interests they are bound to study. If they would treat the individuals composing their several flocks as if they were beings of flesh and blood; if they would part with a little of their own starch, and soften something of their austerity; if they would endeavour to direct that appetite for relaxation into proper channels, which cannot be altogether stifled; if they would even mix a little more with the amusements of their people, and in some degree sanctify and purify them by their presence; we believe that they would strengthen rather than decrease, their hold upon the affections; that they would extend rather than diminish their sphere of usefulness.

The time is passing away when we are to be taught that this life is to consist of nothing better than one dull round of drudgery. A more humane and wiser policy is beginning to prevail which those of most influence amongst their fellows would do well to encourage. The very article which has so jarred upon the nerves of Mr. Odell, has been read in a kindlier spirit in other quarters, and some unknown friend has forwarded a few lines from no less a pen than that of Charles Dickens, as coinciding with the more genial tone which we believe is the best calculated to advance the general interests of society. We cannot do better than conclude with the extract itself, which is as follows:

"Pleasures of all kind, be they never so harmless, are nowhere so unpopular as in Great Britain. In Scotland, especially, recreation is more or less associated with idleness and dissipation. The notion is doubtless a legacy left us by the Puritans, and is strengthened by the hard struggle that is kept up among the majority for the means of existence, or the accumulation of wealth. The best words - the mildest definition bestowed by modern Puritans - a large class - upon any sort of amusement are, that it is a 'loss of time.' When a man does anything by which he ceases to increase his earnings, or to husband his estate, he is said to be 'losing time.'"

"The mind, according to this creed, is a clock, which, provided it be regularly wound up, can go on continually without any rest, and without any lubrication by the amenities and enjoyments of life. Young men who now and then indulge in a visit to the theatre, are shunned by their more staid acquaintances, as persons likely to lose caste and character, and to borrow money."

"A country walk on a Sunday evening, after a day's devotion, is, in Scotland, considered a crime; though drinking whiskey in private at home is considered almost a necessity. Even in England, on a week day, if a man of business be seen in a public garden, he always believes an apology for himself imperative. He seldom avers he is there for his own proper pleasure; he was passing the gates, and 'turned in for a stroll,' or he happened to be going to Bayswater, and Kensington Gardens, like Sir Harry Blunt's treason, 'lay in his way.' When he goes to Vauxhall Gardens, it is by 'the merest accident in the world.' He must have a pretence, even for taking his family to the Great Exhibition."

"If he gives a dinner, it is less for the sake of social enjoyment than 'to keep his connexion together.' If he be newly married, and neither a lord nor a landed gentleman, and entertains his friends more than once a year, his ruin is confidently predicted. If the middle class Englishman, thus becomes a censor deliciae of his equals, how much more rigidly does he apply the censorship to his inferiors. A mechanic, with his wife and family in a teagarden, presents to his darkened perception the incarnation of imprudence. A vision of idleness looms lazily forth before his eyes from a group of factory children playing at marbles; and the workhouse stares him in the face, when he sees a party of labourers stumping and batting and bowling and scouting at cricket."