Child labor was a sensitive issue in the late Victorian and Edwardian eras. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Industrial Revolution had been at its height and the working classes had taken it for granted that their children needed to be employed from an early age to help to support the family. Child labor was, by then, already an age old phenomenon, but the Industrial Revolution had led to a massive increase in child exploitation, and it was very common to find children working in appalling conditions in mines, mills and factories. Some forward thinking activists began to see the iniquity of this type of exploitation and to campaign against it. Numerous laws were passed to try to regulate the situation but it was not until around the middle of that century that these began to have any significant effect. By then, there was an increasing demand for an educated workforce and this added fuel to the childrens rights movements in their efforts to take children out of the workplace and into the growing number of schools.
By the latter part of the century, child labour, whilst not eradicated, had been very much reduced, and the theatre came under increasing criticism as one of the last bastions where the employment of children remained common. With memories of the former rampant exploitation of children still fresh this issue remained a very emotive one. Those opposed, for the most part, considered it to be as injurious to the children involved as their widespread service in the mills and factories had been, whilst it's proponents saw the situation rather differently, believing that theatrical children were, by and large, well cared for and benefitted from the experience.
There is no questioning that life for stage children was arduous, involving long hours to fit in their school work amongst the long run of rehearsals and performances - long hours which, for most of them, would bring little reward. For some, the pressures of this type of lifestyle was more than they could handle. Take, for example, the case of Mabel Love who, as a fourteen year-old, first ran away to Ireland then attempted suicide by throwing herself in the Thames (see my biography of Mabel). But hers was an exceptional case, it being the extraordinary success that she acheived at so young an age that generated the pressure that would lead her to such extreme actions. Even so, few would have considered the stage an ideal life for any child, but the reality was that many of these children came from poor backgrounds where the alternative was a life of poverty and deprivation - and since these children were often the major breadwinners for their families this applied not only for themselves but to their parents and siblings. This latter was indeed one of the main complaints of the anti stage children campaigners, who saw it as exploitation that a child be put to work to support a family - but this pre-supposes that there be a genuine alternative by which means the family might otherwise be maintained, which often was not the case.
No wonder, then, that it was a very emotive subject, which strongly divided opinion between the two camps, each only being able to see either the good or the evil. Both sides could undoubtedly point to countless examples that seemingly illustrated their case, but, for the vast majority of stage children, as is usually the case in such matters, the truth lay somewhere in between.
Reproduced below are a collection of period articles arguing the case for and against chidren's employment on the stage - including an open letter from the children's author Lewis Carroll ("Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" et al) in which he argues in favour.
THE CASE FOR
The Theatre [UK], September 1889
Stage Children
An unbiassed opinion on any subject from a competent judge of the point under discussion is at all times valuable. Mr. Lewis Carroll, the accomplished author of "Alice in Wonderland," and a valued contributor to this magazine, has addressed the following letter to the editor of the "Sunday Times," a letter written in such a dispassionate and judicial spirit as renders it most worthy of consideration by all those who wish to arrive at a just conclusion on the merits or demerits of the employment of children on the stage:
SIR, I am neither a stage manager nor a dramatic author; I have no children of my own on the stage, or anywhere else; and I have no pecuniary interest in anything theatrical. But I have had abundant opportunities, for many years, for studying the natures of children, including many stage children, and have enjoyed the friendship of many dear children, both on and off the stage.
To these reasons for writing I may, perhaps, be allowed to add that I have given some attention to logic and mathematics, which help so largely in the orderly arrangement of topics of controversy - an art much needed when so many controversialists are ladies. Long experience of that delightful sex has taught me that their system of arrangement is that of a circulating decimal, that with them analogy is identity, and reiteration proof, and that they always lay the onus probandi on their opponents.
A beautiful instance of this occurred in a newspaper letter on this very controversy a few days ago (I forget the signature, but it was surely a lady's writing). She stated that the Americans are stricter in this matter than the British, and asked, "Why should not we do as the Americans do?" forgetting that it might be asked, with exactly the same logical force, "Why should not the Americans do as we do?"
My contention is:
I. That the employment, in theatres, of children under ten is not harmful.
II. That it is beneficial.
III. That, while this practice needs certain safeguards not yet provided by the law, it does not call for absolute prohibition.
I. The harm attributed to this practice may be classed under three headings (1) physical; (2) intellectual; (3) moral.
(1) "Physical harm." Take first the charge that it causes "excessive bodily fatigue." To this there was at first an additional item "enforced by cruelty," which is now practically abandoned, it appearing, on investigation, that no evidence in support of it was forthcoming, while abundant evidence was produced of the kindness such children met with in theatres, and of their thorough enjoyment of their work. According to my experience, the work is well within healthy limits, and the children enjoy it with an intensity difficult to convey by mere words. They like it better than any game ever invented for them. Watch any children you know, in any rank of life, when thrown on their own resources for amusement, and, if they do not speedily extemporise a little drama, all I can say is that they are not normal children, and they had better see a doctor. Take next such charges as "late hours, impure air, draughts, exposure to night air," &c. The good people who raise these cries seem to think that the homes of these little ones are perfect models of regular habits and good sanitary arrangements, and that such a sight as a child outside its house after 9 p.m. would thrill the neighbourhood with horror! Let them visit a few London alleys, and judge for themselves.
(2) "Intellectual harm." This is asserted to exist in two forms, "excess of dramatic study," and "defect of other studies." A lady writer lately drew a sensational parallel between little Josef Hoffmann, who was so nearly killed by being encouraged to give constant public exhibitions of his precocious musical talent, and the ordinary stage child. It was not a fair parallel; in fact no really parallel case on the stage has yet been produced (the pathetic death of the tiny Midshipmite in "Patience" was due to causes quite unconnected with stage work); and I have myself known intimately stage children who have played the heaviest child parts on record without receiving the slightest harm. As to defect of other studies, if we contemplate the weary mass of useless knowledge which, in the present craze for teaching everybody everything, so many little minds are compelled, not to digest for that is impossible, but merely to swallow, we may well hope that the stage child is all the better for escaping much of this. Frequent mental collapse among Board school children and pupil teachers is slowly teaching us the valuable psychological fact that a child's mind is not a sausage; but we have not quite learned our lesson yet.
(3) "Moral harm." As this danger exists in every phase of human life, those who plead it in this controversy are bound to show that it is greater for children under ten than for older actors and actresses; otherwise they commit the fallacy of "proving too much." Take first "immorality, whether of general tone or particular passage, in the play itself." Ignorance of the ways of the world, and of the meanings of most of the words they hear, is a protection enjoyed by young children, and by them only. The evil itself is undeniably great though less, I believe, in this age than in any previous one but it is almost wholly limited to the adult members of the company and of the audience. Take next "the encouragement of vanity, love of dress," &c. Here, again, the danger is distinctly greater in the case of adults. Children are too deeply absorbed in attending to their stage "business," and in observing the discipline enforced in all well-conducted theatres, to have much opportunity for self-consciousness. Take, lastly, the gravest and most real of all the dangers that come under the category of "moral harm," viz., "the society of profligate men" For adult actresses this danger is, I believe, in well-conducted theatres, distinctly less than it would be in most of the lines of life open to them. Here again the good people, who see such peril in the life of an actress, seem to be living in a fool's paradise, and to fancy they are legislating for young ladies who, if they did not go on the stage, would be secluded in drawing-rooms where none but respectable guests are admitted. Do they suppose that attractive-looking young women, in the class from which the stage is chiefly recruited, would be safer as barmaids or shopwomen from the insidious attentions of the wealthy voluptuary than they are as actresses? But if it be granted that young women of this class may choose a stage life with as fair a chance of living a reputable life as they would have in any other profession open to them, it is surely desirable to begin learning their business as soon as they are competent, unless it can be shown that they are in greater danger as children than as young women. I believe the danger is distinctly less. Their extreme youth is a powerful safeguard. To plot evil against a child, in all its innocence and sweet trustfulness and ignorance of the world, needs no common voluptuary; it needs one so selfish, so pitiless, and so abject a coward as to be beneath one calling himself a man.
II. My second contention is that stage life is beneficial to children, even the youngest; and this in three ways (1) physically, (2) intellectually, and (3) morally.
(1) Physically. The deportment that must be acquired for even moderately good acting, and the art of dancing, which most stage children acquire, not only give grace of figure and of action, but are excellent for the health. In girls' schools, not so many years ago, spinal curvature was so common that an eminent surgeon, Dr. Mayo, put it on record that scarely three per cent, escaped it. I am glad to believe that they are more sensibly managed now, and that the days are passed away when it was "vulgar" for young ladies to run, and where the only bodily exercise allowed them was to walk two-and-two; but I feel sure that, even now, if one hundred children were taken at random from the highly educated classes, and another hundred from the stage, the latter would show a better average for straightness of spine, strength, activity, and the bright, happy look that tells of health. The stage child "feels its life in every limb " a locality where the Board school child only feels its lessons.
(2) Intellectually. Comparing children with children, my belief is that stage life distinctly brightens the mind of a child. Of course the same result is produced at schools, whenever they can manage to interest the pupils in their work. But how often they fail to do this! How often are the poor little victims made to do work "against the grain"! And all such work is not only badly done, but is intensely fatiguing and depressing to spirits and intellect alike.
(3) Morally. I believe that stage life, in a well-conducted theatre, is valuable moral training for young children. They learn:
(a) Submission to discipline.
(b) Habits of order and punctuality.
(c) Unselfishness (this on the principle on which you always find children in large families less selfish than only children).
(d) Humility. This because, however clever they may think themselves, they soon find that others are cleverer.
III. My third contention is that, though it is desirable to provide, by law, certain safeguards for the employment of children in theatres, there is no need for its absolute prohibition.
The legislation that seems to me desirable would take some such form as this:
That every child under sixteen (ten is too low a limit), employed in a theatre, should hold a licence, annually renewable.
That such licence should only be granted on condition of the child having passed the examination for a certain "standard," adapted to the age of the child.
That a limit should be fixed for the number of weeks in the year that the child may be engaged, and for the number of hours in the day that he or she may be at the theatre. (This rule to be relaxed during rehearsals.)
That, during a theatrical engagement, the child shall attend a specified number of hours, during the afternoons, at some school; at other times in the year during the usual hours, if attending a Board school. (High schools would probably adopt the same principle, and allow half-day attendance during engagements.)
That some guarantee be required that girls under sixteen are provided with sufficient escort to and from a theatre.
But I do not believe that the law can absolutely prohibit children under ten from acting in theatres without doing a cruel wrong to many a poor struggling family, to whom the child's stage salary is a godsend, and making many poor children miserable by debarring them from a healthy and innocent occupation which they dearly love.
Faithfully yours, LEWIS CARROLL.
There is little doubt that opinions like the above together with communications addressed to various journals by those so competent to judge as Mr. John Coleman and Mrs. Bancroft; from those who had had charge of Mr. D'Oyly Carte's Childrens Company, and others who know something about the matter influenced the fate of the Cruelty to Children (Prevention) Bill.
Besides this, the subject has been ventilated, and such statements as those made by Mr. Winterbotham (which statements the hon. member most properly, generously, and publicly withdrew when he found he had been misinformed) and by others, who will persistently represent that the stage is everything that is bad, have been refuted. Had the bill been passed in its orignal form such plays as "A Winter's Tale," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "Richard III.," "East Lynne," and a host of others, could not be acted in future, and a great hardship would have been inflicted on the numerous children employed at the theatres, not to speak of the help which their earnings afforded their parents, who are not, as some would make out, for the most part drunkards and disreputable people. The deputation that waited on the Earl of Dunraven included not only theatrical managers, but Mr. James Rodgers, Mr. John Lobb, and General Sim, of the London School Board, who bore witness to "the improvement in the appearance and manners of the youngsters after becoming connected with those places of amusement (theatres) for a little time." Thanks to the information afforded him on the matter, the Earl of Dunraven was the means of an amendment being passed in the House of Lords, which was accepted by the Commons, that children between seven and ten years of age could be employed on the stage, licensing powers for such employment to be granted by petty sessional courts.
C. H.
The Daily Mail [London, UK], 22nd February, 1908
CHILDREN ON THE STAGE
By Ellaline Terriss
I have heard people argue that the stage is not a fitting profession for children because, in the first place, it shows them an artificial and bad side of life; secondly, because it takes them away from their lessons; and, thirdly, because it unsettles them and unfits them for work afterwards. I cannot agree with such views, since my experience, which is rather extensive, of children on the stage has given me quite different impressions on this subject.
My husband and I have been giving children's plays for several years now, and we always make special preparations for the accommodation of the little people at our theatres. In order that they shall be kept in their own surroundings we provide them with special dressing-rooms, while those who ought to be at school have lesson given to them at certain times when they are not on the stage. As for the stage unfitting them for other work. I have found the exact opposite to be the case. Many of the children whom we employ come from quite poor homes, where it is uncertain what sort of work they will eventually take up, the odds being that they will take whatever they are fortunate enough to-get.
In such circumstances, regular work on the stage serves to accustom them to become punctual and diligent, and, in many cases, proves to be the stepping-stone to other employment which they would probably not have been fitted to undertake but for their sound early training upon the boards.
REFLECTED BRIGHTNESS
It is really quite surprising to note the difference an engagement works in many of the children who come to us. They arrive ragged and ill-fed, often to ask for employment because "father is out of work" or "mother is so ill," and, needless to say, in such circumstances we give them what they want, if we possibly can. But after a comparatively short stay at the theatre their whole appearance becomes quite changed and, even though their clothes may be old, there is an air of neatness and cleanliness about them which it is very pleasant to notice. The brightness of the stage seems to reflect itself a little upon their own lives, and they became different beings from what they were when they first began "to help mother."
They have, of course, many things to learn before they are able efficiently to fill the parts for which they are required, and in this connection there is one very disappointing feature about children on the stage, which is that they will grow so quickly! Consequently, the fairies of one year are too big for their roles in another year or two's time, and a fresh lot of children have to be procured and taught all over again.
The task of obtaining children for the stage nearly always brings to light at least one or two touching little stories of childish devotion or unselfishness, and I can remember many such tales myself. I think that the most remarkable story of this kind, however, was in connection with a little girl whom we had with us some years ago at the Vaudeville Theatre. The facts of her case, indeed, might have come out of a novel instead of happening in real life, so extraordinary was the coincidence that proved to be the turning-point in her life.
A PATHETIC LITTLE FIGURE
One day, on my way to the theatre, I came upon a most pathetic little figure of a child, who was crying her heart out, and from whom I could get no reply when I first spoke to her. Once having overcome her shyness, however, I was able to discover the details of her story, which, alas! was a too common one, I fear. Her father was dead, her mother kept to a bed of sickness, and the only other relative she possessed, an uncle, had gone to Canada some years before and was now completely lost sight of. And so, determined to do something towards easing the terrible poverty of their home, this poor mite had been spending several days in tramping round the great city trying to find some sort of work that might bring in a few pence which she might take back to her mother. All her efforts had been unsuccessful so far, and she was beginning to despair of being able to do anything helpful, although, she wished it so much.
I listened with mingled feelings to the broken story of hardship and suffering which, bit by bit, she told me, and, when it was over, took her along with me to the theatre and arranged for her to become one of the stage fairies straight away. Her delight over her new work was pretty to witness, and she showed the greatest intelligence in learning everything that was taught her. In a very short time she became one of the best stage children whom we had with us. On several occasions I went with her to visit her mother, but the poor woman was past all earthly help, and soon afterwards she died. A home was then found for the child, with regular employment, but she always came to us for the Christmas pantomimes to take her part as a fairy.
THE RICH UNCLE APPEARS
One night an old gentleman occupying a front seat in the stalls was so much struck by her appearance that he came round afterwards to ask if he might have a chat with the child, pointing out at the same time that he was a lonely old man with private means, so that he might be able to do something for her. And this is where the wonderful part of the story comes in, for this old man turned out to be no less a person than the uncle of our protegee, who, having made a fortune in Canada, had now come home to spend the remaining years of his life in his native land. Arrangements were soon made for his niece to live with him, and I should not be surprised if our poor little waif of a few years back becomes one day a comparatively rich young woman!
This story is, of course, a most uncommon one, but I could tell of many cases where a child's early connection with the stage has proved to be a very useful start in life, leading to permanent employment and regular wages afterwards. The stage work, too, is generally very much appreciated by the little ones, and they never seem to forget any trifling thing that one may be able to do for them at times. If the pantomime is running when my birthday occurs, in April, they celebrate the occasion by decorating my dressing-room with flowers, literally from floor to ceiling, a token of their love which is very much appreciated by me.
Talking of love reminds me of an amusing letter which I received from a boy of seventeen the day after my baby girl was born. He explained that he had long been deeply in love with me, but was filled with despair because I was already married. Now, however, he had become hopeful once more, for he had decided to marry my daughter when she was old enough and meantime he intended to work hard so as to be able to offer her a position which would be worthy of her acceptance. He concluded his letter by expressing a hope that she would resemble her mother both in appearance and disposition, although," he added, "of course, I shall not object to a dash of Seymour Hicks."
THE CASE AGAINST
The Echo [London, UK], 15th February, 1888
CHILDREN ON THE STAGE
Much has been said upon the desirability, or the evils, of permitting very young children to appear upon the Stage, night after night, in Pantomime parts.
From the interested, or theatrical manager's point of view, the little ones are the gainers. For the sordid surroundings, the wretched food, the brutality of cruel parents, and the blank dulness of grinding poverty, are exchanged careful drilling, good wages (which naturally raise the value of the child in the parental eyes), and the excitement and brightness of a gay, cheery life. But, stripped of the paint and glamour, what is the life?
As no one has devoted more loving and motherly attention to the subject than has Mrs. Henry Fawcett, I went to her, and the picture that she gives is indeed a gloomy one. She began by commenting upon the anomalies in the Education Act, which absolutely forbids the employment of a child under ten in any agricultural or manufacturing industry. This can, however, be easily evaded by the proprietors of theatrical dancing academies, who induce parents to bind their four and five-year-old children for an apprenticeship of seven or nine years. They are then trained to fulfil their little parts in a pantomime or ballet, an apology for education being carried on at a school where the hours for learning are conveniently arranged, and at which the fees are 10d. or 1s. a week, thus just escaping the clauses which define an elementary school as one in which the fees are less than 9d.
If the children are engaged at a theatre, the strain of rehearsals and performance are very great; while, if they are not actually appearing, they are going on with a steady training in dancing, so as to be ready, should the opportunity of appearance arise. A common fallacy that is often stated in defence of the employment of children on the stage is that the pantomime season is very short, and that they can return to a good school regularly as soon as it is over. But this by no means follows. A taste has arisen for performances by child players, and they frequently pass from one place to another with scarcely any interval between. And the dangers to health and morals must not be ignored.
One particular instance Mrs. Fawcett cited regarding the first. "When I first knew of the child she was suffering from a weak throat, and general debility, occasioned by the over-fatigue resulting from the performances at Drury Lane in the evening and school in the morning. After she had begun to recover a little she was taken on for the open-air ballet at the Crystal Palace. She performed in this for four months - six, if the rehearsals are included - with forty-three other children, of about her own age, in low dresses and elbowsleeves, until November. The child usually arrived at Ludgate Hill between ten and eleven, and was generally extremely tired. Her legs and ankles were often so swollen that she could only walk very slowly, and was very frightened at going through the streets alone. Once or twice she encountered dangers, and after that she always tried to keep behind a gentleman in a high hat, who used to go in her direction, near Drury Lane." Mrs. Fawcett added that there were, perhaps, few more touching scenes among the tragedies of the London streets. This poor child is now suffering from brain fever, the result of over-work.
On moral grounds there is the overwhelming testimony of Board School teachers, district visitors, clergymen, and others, who, on grounds quite apart from religious prejudices, condemn the system. A lady, signing herself "Behind the Scenes," writes: "Is it right that the clever little mimics should be subjected to irreparable harm in order to feed their families? To convince themselves that the mischief is inseparable, I ask anyone to go amongst the children on the other side of the footlights, and hear the expressions, and, above all, notice the cunning which they display. There are exceptions to every rule, and you sometimes meet with children utterly uncontaminated with their surroundings; but when the question is raised of late hours, and the unnatural excitement of a theatrical life, which is trying even for adults, surely mothers who sit in the stalls, and whose children are safe at home in bed, might weep at the lamentable wrong done to the poor little workers."
Surely, if a mother thinks for a moment of the reasons for which she takes her own little ones to the afternoon performance in preference to the evening one, and then considers what must be the strain upon these poor little ill-fed creatures who frequently perform twice a day, stand in the unequal temperature and draughts at the back of a great stage surrounded by men and women who, with all due deference to Mr. Stewart Headlam, are not unexceptionally unfledged angels, and then go home late at night often unprotected, and through weather good, bad and indifferent, it must be realised that the objections to children on the Stage are not merely a strained sentimentalism.
But, of course, while managers find it "draws" to employ them they will do so and the remedy lies in the hands of the mothers and daughters of England, who should wake to their moral responsibilities towards even one of the least of these.
IRIS
The Daily Mail [London, UK], 22nd December, 1905
CHILD ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
By Doris Arthur Jones
Of all the unhealthy ways of bringing children into prominence, that of allowing them to act is perhaps the unhealthiest.
This stricture does not apply to the numbers of little people who take part in the pantomimes every - year, and who during the Christmas season are generally better fed and cared for in every way, both as regards mind and body, than during the rest of the year.
THE BREADWINNERS
In most cases, as all the world knows, the salaries of these children form no inconsiderable item in the support of their families. They are too numerous to receive, save in very rare, cases, that individual praise which has such lamentable effects in the lives of little child actors and actresses who often have quite important parts to play. Thanks, too, to the wise and healthy rules made and enforced for the benefit of children who appear in pantomimes, little, if any, harm is done to their health, and owing chiefly to the class from which they spring and to the fact that they have not speaking parts, little harm is done to their characters.
With rare exceptions, the opposite is the case with children who can rightly lay claim to be actors and actresses. The unconsciousness of self is replaced by the most odious self-consciousness possible. For they seek for admiration from everybody. If a child be taken away from a natural and healthy life and surroundings to the exact opposite, the result is more often than not the loss of all child-like qualities and of good health.
One of the greatest evils resulting from the strenuous life of to-day is the morbid and highly-strung nervous temperament of so many modern children. What man or woman is there who would deliberately frighten a child night after night with senseless stories of bogies? Yet the mental strain of acting is just as great, sometimes greater, upon child actors and actresses.
One well-known child actress is so nervous before she goes on the stage every night that she can hardly walk from her dressing-room to the wings. This little lady lives out of London, and does not get to bed until 12.30 at the earliest. She rises every morning at 8.30, and, with the exception of an hour's walk in the morning and time for luncheon, works at lessons until five, when she leaves for town. One does not care to think of the wreck she will become in later life.
The adulation and flattery received by child actors and actresses, and above all the Press paragraphs about them, and the appearance of their photographs in different magazines, do incalculable harm. Who has not heard of the tremendous success which various small child actresses have recently achieved at leading West End theatres? A good many people have read numerous interviews with one of them which have appeared in many newspapers. She is praised and flattered to her face, and she hears she is as yet unspoilt. That may be so, but she is eleven years old, and unstinted praise and admiration cannot but have some bad effect in time.
VARIETY V. MONOTONY
Apart from this, however, and the unnatural hours of theatrical life, it is wrong to allow children to go on the stage. After a long day's schooling, should a child begin working at a most arduous and exacting profession at night? Children act, firstly, when in the natural order of things they are tired and ought to be in bed; secondly at a time when they have least control over their emotions, and are therefore least able to resist any calls made upon their nervous resources.
Children should not be allowed to do any kind of work in the day time when they are called upon to exert all their energy at night. For children do throw their whole heart and soul into their parts. They are most consciencious about it, and the pity is that this generally arises from vanity and a morbid desire to excite admiration. "When children are allowed to go on the stage they should devote their whole time to it, especially if they have any talent. This would involve the neglect of all other work, which would be impossible and wrong, but it is nearly as wrong and causes far more suffering to the children to let them do both.
The system of allowing children to act for a little while and then go to school for a little while is also very injudicious. When once children have been on the stage, for even a short period, it is absurd to take them away from what becomes a delightful source of occupation to them, however unhealthy such occupation may be. It is wrong to change the whole mode of their life, and extremely hard on a child to be taken from the free, easy, and exciting atmosphere of theatrical life to the uneventful monotonous, and rigid discipline of school life. It is wicked and impossible to try to transform a personality into a nonentity.
The school life of such children is in most cases an unhappy one. Generally they are put in classes with much smaller children, and this is far more mortifying to them than it would be to others. How many of their playmates understand there can be any cleverness apart from doing sums correctly? But there are a few who do tender an unwise homage to the small artiste. The influence that child actors and actresses exert over their admirers in a school frequently has evil effects on the latter and on the former.
"THE CHILD IS FATHER OF THE MAN"
Stage life is irregular, but even irregularity can be regulated. This, however, is rarely the case, though it is generally the child's fault. When children are able to earn money for themselves they often lose all sense of dependence upon their guardians and parents. This is encouraged by the fact that theatrical life tends to weaken a child's affections and its home ties. Child actors and actresses are hardly ever amenable even to the most loose discipline. One cannot blame them; they are only copying examples they see all around them, copying also the tricks, mannerisms, and speech of theatrical life.
A children's party was given on the stage of one of the West End theatres recently, and many little child actors and actresses were there from other theatres, and the following conversation took place between a young person of five who was acting at the theatre and another aged eight who was acting at a theatre not far off:-
Small child of eight: "Oh, how d'ye do? I admired your performance immensely this afternoon."
Small child aged five: "Thanks, you're very kind; When I get a matinee off I'll look in and see your show if I can."
One well-known boy actor of seven is, however, almost a phenomenon, as he still retains childish modes of speech. During a rehearsal one day in which he was taking part a grown-up player said: "Oh, this is my exit, isn't it?" "No," said the small boy, gravely, "there's your entrance out."
Another and really grave consideration which should keep children off the stage is the fact that their religious training is bound to suffer. It is vain to hope that amid so much artificiality children's faith will be kept pure. If they do not lose it altogether it is perverted, and more often than not twisted to suit the young person's convenience.
DORIS ARTHUR JONES
The Daily Mail [London, UK], 24th December, 1921
CHILD ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
By Charles McEvoy
"For the most part beautiful, symmetrical and healthy children are chosen for engagement," runs the official report quoted in The Daily Mail on the subject of the Stage and the Child. With this week, in almost every theatre, this annual child mart will commence to open. By Boxing Day the markets will be in full swing, while anything from half a crown to thirty pounds a week represents the bribe offered to parents for entering their offspring into this auction of childhood.
A harsh way to put it? Yes. But is it too harsh? We shall hear a lot about how happy these little mortals are, but there is no child in a sheltered nursery who is not happier. Should even thirty pounds a week tempt any parent to sell a child's future for the gain of to-day?
The child actress is a very delightful thing-to look at. But it is the childhood and the delightfulness that is being hawked, where it should be conserved. The greater the gift, the greater the actual talent, the greater the ultimate loss to the only person who matters - the child itself.
"The child who can act or sing or dance with a real genius for either should not be allowed to make a professional appearance until well in the teens. Child acting will not only spoil childhood but will spoil the child's life. Not one baby "star" in a hundred is ever heard of again as an actor or actress.
Oh, but Betty is a perfectly natural child protests the proud mother of the latest photographed and interviewed child prodigy. "She plays with her dolls (here is a photograph of her playing with them), nurses her little brother (here's another photograph) and lives just the life of an ordinary child." Betty comes in for introduction, with one eye on the visitor's pockets, and holds out a limp little hand.
"I like it just awfully," she says in a voice that no ordinary small girl ought to be allowed to use without being sent straight to bed. The writer has met many, many of these sad little figures - lovely children, whose names were household words for their fleeting day - and he can recall only two out of scores who have really made good and survived to still be stars in their womanhood.
Both came out of theatrical families, and were to be seen doing hard household work on any day one visited their homes, and in both cases they were taken away from the stage during their early girlhood and were brought back some years later to play as young women. The rest went on until all the lacing and painting in the world could not conceal the fact that they were no longer children. Then they were told that they were not wanted.
Yes, the child actress is a lovely thing, but she is as pathetic to me as a little Geisha.
Primary Sources: As indicated.
Articles Index