THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE IN LONDON THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE IN LONDON WATSON ^JICHOLSON M.A. (Hakvaed), Ph.D. (Yale) Instructor in English in Yale University BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY 190G rm 6dc ^- COPYRIGHT 1906 BY WATSON NICHOLSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Published November iqob PREFACE ON the 22(i of August, 1843, royal sanction was given to the Theatre Regulation Bill, depriving the two patent theatres — Drury Lane and Covent Garden — of the monopoly they had possessed, for nearly two centuries, of playing Shakespeare and the national drama, and extend- ing the privilege to the minor, or independent, theatres which had sprung up and multiplied in London in spite of the " inviolable rights " of the patentees. The monopoly had been bolstered up by special legislation, revivals of vagrant acts, chicanery, and evasions of every sort, in the face of a growing public demand for an unrestricted stage for the regular drama. The subject of this volume is the story of the long struggle to free London of the theatrical monopoly, a struggle which began almost within the lifetime of the second Charles himself, and culminated in the parliamentary act of 1843. 2056025 vi PREFACE From the necessities of the case, I have gone to the sources for my materials. The most valu- able of these have been the theatrical columns of the London newspapers and magazines con- taining playbills, stage criticisms, police court records, and correspondence ; memoirs, diaries, biographies, and letters ; copies of documents in the Lord Chamberlain's office, of theatrical pat- ents and licenses, of proceedings in Parliament, King's Bench, and Privy Council ; pamphlets relating to the stage, contracts between mana- gers and actors, petitions to King and Parlia- ment, minutes of meetings, reports of commit- tees, etc, etc. As a result of this research among the sources, naturally, much new material has been un- earthed, mistakes of former historians have been corrected, and new relations of well-known facts established. Even when treating of epochs of theatrical history perfectly familiar to the stu- dent of the drama, it has been my aim to throw more light on the field, and to bring into promi- nence the main significance of the events. For example, in the first chapter, the Union of 1682, PREFACE vii Betterton's revolt, the rise of Vaubrugh's Opera House, the ejectment of Christopher Rich from Drury Lane Theatre, and Steele's contest with the Crown over his patent, have not only had additional materials gathered to them, but they have all been interpreted in relation to the mean- ing of monopolistic rights and crown prerogative over theatrical amusements. Again, to single out a few prominent topics at random, the revolts of the actors from the pat- ent theatres in 1733 and 1743 have been placed in the light of new evidence ; the relation of Henry Fielding to the other causes which brought about the Licensing Act of 1737 has been given a coherent place in the political and theatrical events of the eighteenth century ; the story of John Palmer's Royalty Theatre has been given a logical connection in the struggle for a free stage in London; the so-called " O. P." riots of 1809 have been examined with a view to their real meaning in the struggle ; the development of that dramatic hybrid, known as "burletta," has been traced from its innocent beginning to its final importance as a monopoly breaker. viii PREFACE Among the more general topics of interest to the student of English dramatic history may be mentioned the account of the warfare of en- croachments between the summer and winter theatres, and the importance of the English opera in this contest ; the attempts to establish a third theatre in London under the protection of Grovernment; the spirited struggle between the majors and minors (^. e. patent and inde- pendent theatres) ; the parts played by dramatic authors and actors against the monopoly; the various roles taken by the different Lord Cham- berlains ; and the final downfall of the patent houses as the combined result of all the influ- ences waged against them for nearly two cen- turies. In every instance, I believe, where the source of my authority for statements of fact is not apparent from the context, a footnote reference will be found. For the convenience of scholars desiring further knowledge of the subject than would be possible to present in a volume of lim- ited size, I have collected these references in an Appendix. I have in my possession copies of PREFACE ix many of the original documents used in this investigation, and these may be published in a separate volume, should it appear advisable, at some future time. While I have included Wynd- ham's " Annals of Covent Garden Theatre " in my bibliography, I have not examined it, being unable to secure a copy before the present work was in press. Relative to the Index, it has been my object to furnish as complete analysis as possible for the more important lines of investigation, and to give perspective, so to speak, to the various topics com- prising the work. If I have succeeded in this, a mere glance at this part of the book should serve to reveal the comparative importance to the sub- ject of the various titles therein contained. This method, it would seem, is better calculated to guide the reader to the real contents of the book than a senseless repetition of the pages which happen to contain proper names. It should not be surprising, therefore, if Charles II, though appearing scores of times in the pages of the book, should be mentioned in the Index only in relation to some act of importance connected X PREFACE with his name. On the other hand, the monopoly which he created, forming one of the main in- terests of the investigation, should be found exhaustively analyzed. For similar reasons, the titles of farces, operas, etc., which bear but slightly on the larger features of the subject have been omitted from the Index. In the way of acknowledgments, my sincere thanks are due the entire staff of the Yale Uni- versity Library ; to Professor Henry A. Beers, who read and criticised the first draft of the manuscript ; to Professors W. L. Cross and W. L. Phelps, both of whom read and criticised portions of the book in manuscript ; to Mr. An- drew Keogh, whose expert knowledge of biblio- graphical materials saved me many hours of labor ; to Professor George P. Baker, who read critically the entire manuscript ; and to Professor Thomas R. Lounsbury, who first aroused my interest in the subject, and has been my constant adviser and sympathetic critic during the prog- ress of the work. Watson Nicholson. New Haven, Conn., September 7, 1906. CONTENTS I. Introductory. The Theory and Practice of Theatrical Monopoly during the First Half Century of the Patent Theatres . . 1 II. The Rise of the Haymarket and Goodman's Fields Tieatres ; and their Effect on the Question of Patent Rights 20 III. The Licensing Act : The Causes producing it, and the Attempts to regulate the Stage before the Passage of that Act 46 IV. The Licensing Act in Practice, 1737-1787 . 72 V. The Royalty Theatre 98 VI. A Summary of the Conflicting Theatrical Legislation in England at the Close of the Eighteenth Century 124 VII. From the Rebuilding of Covent Garden and Drury Lane to the Burning of the Great Theatres 141 VIII. The Attempt to establish a Third Theatre ; Privy Council Proceedings 175 IX. The Attempt to establish a Third Theatre ; Proceedings in Parliament ...... 225 X. The Rise of English Opera, and the War of Encroachments 247 XI. Majors vs. Minors . . . 281 XII. The Dramatists vs. the Monopoly ... 323 XIII. The Lord Chancellor's Opinion and Knowles's Petition for a Third Theatre 356 xii CONTENTS XIV. The End of the Struggle 389 XV. Summary and Conclusion 421 Bibliography 435 Index 461 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE IN LONDON THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE IN LONDON CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THEATRICAL MONOPOLY DURING THE FIRST HALF CEN- TURY OF THE PATENT THEATRES OF all the follies committed by Charles II, after his restoration to the throne of his father, "of glorious memory," none seemed more innocent than the creation of the monopoly over the acted, national drama in London and Westminster. And none, probably, was of more far-reaching consequences, either a.s to the diffi- culties involved, or the duration of the contro- versies arising out of the simple, irresponsible act of the King, when, on August 21, 1660, he granted his letters patent to Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Davenant, making them the sole guardians of theatrical amusements in the metropolis. For the monopoly thus created lasted until near the middle of the nineteenth century; and the train of strifes which it entailed gathered in size and momentum to the end of the long 2 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE struggle waged against it. The causes alleged by King Charles for this particular act form not only a humorous commentary in themselves, — when we recall the character of the brilliant dramas written for the delectation of the Merrie Monarch and his Court, — but they also, inad- vertently as it were, contain the fulcrum on which, later, the opponents to the monopoly op- erated to oust all patent rights connected with the London theatres. In the preamble to the grant to Killigrew and Davenant appears the ostensible raison d^etre of the theatrical mono- poly created by Charles. "Whereas wee are given to understand," so runs the document, " that certain persons in and about our City of London, or the suburbs thereof, doe frequently assemble for the performing and acting of Playes and Enterludes for reevards, to which divers of our subjects doe for their entertainment resort, which said Playes, as wee are informed, doe con- tain e much matter of prophanation and scurril- ity, soe that such kinds of entertainment, which, if well managed, might serve as morall instruc- tions in humane life, as the same are now used doe for the most part tende to the debauchinge of the manners of such as are present at them, and are very scandalous and offensive to all pious and well-disposed persons." It is of little import to the later history of the INTRODUCTORY 3 London stage, that the real reason why Killi- grew was given such great privileges was that he was " our trusty and well-beloved, . . . one of the Groomes of our Bed-chamber," or that Sir William Davenant was included in the grant be- cause he had been a stanch supporter of Charles I ; the essential facts are the monopoly itself, and the purposes for which it was created, as recorded in the preamble just quoted. For al- though the separate patents issued to Killigrew and Davenant on the l5th of January and 25th of April, 1662, respectively, did not contain the references to " morall instructions in humane life," nevertheless, the grant of 1660 has ever been looked upon as the origin of the theatrical monopoly, and its enemies constantly made use of it in after days as a weapon against the thing they would destroy. But the story of the struggle against the the- atrical monopoly in London, to be understood, must be followed in the order of its progress. And, although the opposition to the monopoly began almost within the second Charles's own lifetime, it should be pointed out at once that for the first fifty years of the history of the Patent Theatres (the two built by Killigrew and Dave- nant, and designated as Drury Lane and Covent Garden), there was no concerted action against the monopoly, as such ; for it is doubtful whether 4 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE many concerned themselves about theatrical privileges at that time. So long as the theatre- going public were supplied with sufficient en- tertainment in kind and quantity, they cared little, and knew less, about the principle on which that entertainment was founded. Furthermore, private speculation (as understood to-day) in theatricals was a thing unknown in the period of the Restoration, and this was a strong negative factor calculated to support the monopol3\ How- ever, the practical operation of the monopoly, as created by Charles, had its obstacles to contend with, and these are as truly episodes in the strug- gle for a free stage in London, as if they had been consciously aimed at the monopoly itself. It is my purpose in this chapter to pass over in review those incidents in the first fifty years of the Patent Theatres, which tended to weaken the monopoly and laid the foundation for the later, conscious attacks upon it. Killigrew's company of actors at Drury Lane were taken under the fostering care of Charles himself, while the Duke of York acted as patron to Davenant's theatre. Both the King and his brother exercised an active interest in the wel- fare of their respective " servants," and, to avoid friction between the two theatres, the patents themselves provided that the manager of neither company should be permitted to receive actors INTRODUCTORY 5 from the other house. To insure further the amicable relations between the two theatres, Gibber tells us in his "Apology," that " no play- acted at one house, should ever be attempted at the other ; " to accomplish which, the plays of the old dramatists, Shakespeare, Jonson, etc., were divided between the two companies. Under such favoring conditions, both theatres prospered for some years on equal terms. But as soon as the stock plays were exhausted, this parity was broken, the public showing its preference for the King's company, which included the veteran actors Hart and Mohun, Lacy, Kynaston, and many others. To counteract the disadvantage in which he found himself, Davenant had recourse to music and dancing, expensive scenes, ma- chines, and spectacles ; but as soon as the novelty of these attractions wore off, he was left in the same situation as before. Over at the King's theatre, too, a reaction was going on : the two greatest actors there, Hart and Mohun, were growing too old to re- main longer on the stage, and their exits were sure to leave the Drury Lane Theatre in a crip- pled state. The success of both companies being thus decidedly on the wane, to save them, the King, by suggestion or command, caused them to be merged into one in 1682. Every precau- tion taken in 1660 to avoid a destructive compe- G THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE tition had proved of little avail in the face of human nature and practical affairs. Relative to the situation as thus brought about, Gibber, with his usual critical acumen, makes the fol- lowing summary conclusion. It is directly op- posed to the argument used the next century for a free stage, but it is none the less applicable to the conditions in 1682. He says : " I know that it is the common Opinion, That the more Play- houses, the more Emulation ; I grant it ; but what has this Emulation ended in? Why, a daily Contention which shall soonest surfeit you with the best Plays ; so that when what ought to please, can no longer please, your Appetite, is again to be raised by such monstrous Pre- sentations, as dishonour the Taste of a civiliz'd People. If, indeed, to our several Theatres we could raise a proportionable Number of good Authors, to give them all different Employment, then, perhaps, the Publick might profit from their Emulation : But while good Writers are so scarce, and undaunted Criticks so plenty, I am afraid a good Play and a blazing Star, will be equal Rarities." The union of 1682 is the real beginning of the theatrical monopoly in practice ; for although it had existed in fact before, it was not until the patents were in one hand that the evil ef- fects of the monopoly could appear. Then, for INTRODUCTORY 7 the first time, the patentees might impose their own terms on the actors. But the combined companies were scarcely more successful than before the union ; for the same causes which led to a falling-off in the audiences in the first in- stance were still operative after 1682. To correct the deficit in the treasury, the patentees adopted the foolish policy of reducing the salaries of their leading actors, the mainstays of the theatre, and of shelving them for the feeble reason of giving young aspirants a chance in the leading parts. * In a wild endeavor to better the financial sit- uation of the theatre, shares were sold to specu- lators, who, knowing nothing of the dramatic and histrionic arts, favored a still further reduc- tion of salaries. This step was looked upon as tyrannous by the actors, and, led by Betterton, Mrs. Barry, and Mrs. Bracegirdle, they revolted and laid their grievances before the chief officer of the King's Household, the Lord Chamberlain, then the Earl of Dorset, who, in the words of the old prompter, John Downes, " Espousing the Cause of the Actors, with the assistance of Sir Robert Howard^ finding their Complaints just," carried the petition of the seceders to King William.^ A series of accidents greatly aided the cause * Apology, pp. 152 fF. 2 John Downes, Boscius Anglicanus, 1st ed., 1708, p. 43. 8 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE of the revolters. Before the matter could be fully investigated by the King, the death of Queen Mary, on the 28th of December, 1694, necessitated a postponement of action on the memorial. Meantime, public opinion gathered on the side of the actors, so that, early in 1695, when Betterton and his colleagues secured an audience of his Majesty, it was not difficult to convince him of the justice of their complaint. The legal questions involved were submitted to the King's lawyers, who gave it as their opinion, " that no patent for acting plays given by one Prince could prevent a succeeding one from granting a similar privilege to those with whom he could trust it." ^ Thereupon, King William authorized a license to be issued to Betterton and a select number of actors to erect a theatre and establish a company independent of the pa- tentees. A subscription was immediately filled, a theatre was constructed out of Gibbon's Tennis Court, and, from its location, named the " New Theatre in Lincoln's - Inn - Fields." ^ Another circumstance favorable to the revolters was the enlistment of Congreve to the venture, who brought with him his new play. Love for Love^ with which the new house was opened on the last ^ Gibber, Apology, p. 157. ^ Thus Dowries ; but The Daily Courant (e. g'. December 28, 1702) invariably speaks of this theatre as the " New Theatre in ii»/e-Lincoln's-Inn-Fields." INTRODUCTORY 9 day of April, 1695, and which proved so success- ful that " it took 13 Days successively." Downes forgets to state, however, that Love for Love had been written for the patent house, and that on the secession of the leading actors, for whom the chief characters had been written, Congreve had no choice, thus causing a double blow to the patentees. The revolt of 1694-95 forms the fu-st land- mark in the history of resistance to the theatri- cal monopoly created by Charles II. What the ultimate effect of this revolt might have been on the monopoly, had the success of Betterton's company, which started out so auspiciously, con- tinued indefinitely, is a question which belongs to the domain of unprofitable conjecture. The facts are that Betterton was too old to manage a theatre with vigor ; democracy was rampant among his performers ; and to hasten the dis- integrating influences already at work, Betterton fell a victim to the public demand for novelty, and imported, at enormous expense, dancers and singers decked out in French furbelows. It is no surprise, therefore, to read that the patent house soon led in the' estimation of the public, and that within five or six years after the revolt, "... the peaceful tattle of the town Is how to join both houses into one." ^ ^ Prologue to The Unhappy Penitent. 10 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE At this juncture in the declining state of the new company, Sir John Vanbrugh came forward and offered to relieve Betterton from his diffi- culties. Vanbrugh had but recently completed his fine, new Opera House in the Haymarket, and had opened it with an Italian troupe on the 9th of April, 1705. But the foreigners proved a failure, and so for both Vanbrugh and Better- ton it was an opportune time to transfer the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields actors and license to the Opera House in the Haymarket. The building, however, was too large for the regular drama, and within a year from the opening, Vanbrugh abdicated, leaving his actors to manage for them- selv^es. During the following summer (1706), Vanbrugh succeeded in unloading his theatrical burdens on the shoulders of one Owen Swiney, who, in all probability, was acting merely as the agent of Christopher Rich. Rich had purchased the theatrical patents from the Davenant heirs in 1690, and this clandestine move, as proved by events, was for the purpose of once more securing single control of the two companies. Wilks, Johnson, Mills, and Mrs Oldfield were permitted to join the company at the Opera House, though to outward appearances their abandonment of Drury Lane looked like a revolt. Foreseeing the trend of circumstances, Rich availed himself of the situation, and, to all in- INTRODUCTORY 11 tents and purposes, the dramatic companies were again united at this time (October, 1706), though the fact was not generally known until 1708, when the actors, in despair, left the big house in the Haymarket and returned to Drury Lane. It was at this time that the arrangement was made between the managers, whereby the Opera House was to be appropriated exclusively to Italian opera, the patent house to waive all claims to that species of entertainment. By the union of 1708 theatrical management in London was brought back to the situation of 1682, and, as then, the monopoly was once more complete. Betterton's revolt was a failure, due to the inherent weaknesses of the management, on the one hand, and to the tact and pertinacity of Rich, on the other. One victory, however, of inestimable value had been won against the prin- ciple of exclusive privilege in theatrical manage- ment, namely, that a tyrannical exercise of that privilege might be successfully resisted. And this position was supported by the legal sanction of the King's counselors, a precedent better un- derstood and used in later conflicts than could have been foreseen in 1694. It was an overweening confidence in the effi- cacy of his monopoly that had led Rich to op- press his actors in 1694 ; and now, with supreme power once more in his hands (for the original 12 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE patents were presumably still in his possession), he began to assume his old-time arrogance. Once more he arbitrarily reduced the salaries of his players, and once more they appealed to the Lord Chamberlain for redress, with the result that Rich was commanded to pay his actors in full. This he stubbornly refused to do. Queen Anne at once issued a silencing mandate (June 6, 1709), and ordered the Drury Lane Theatre closed until further instructions. The unpaid actors again resorted to the Opera House and reengaged with Swiney, who, it seems, after all, had not played into Rich's hands. Just what factors were at work in the present case different from those which elicited King William's inter- ference in 1694-95, it is not my purpose to in- quire into here. There can be little doubt that the declining state of theatrical representations was sufficient cause for the crown to bring pub- lic amusements once more within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. And it is quite as cer- tain that political influences cooperated to work Rich's downfall. A short time before the troubles of 1709, Captain Brett had been a shareholder in the patent ; but Rich's penchant for sole power soon forced him out of the management. Brett's political influence may have had something to do with closing the patent house. But the essen- tial thing is that Queen Anne did not hesitate INTRODUCTORY 13 to silence the patents issued by Charles II, and that the restriction was not removed during her lifetime. The patents were null and void from June 6, 1709, until after the accession of George I in 1714, when John Rich, son of Christopher, was permitted to open his new Lincoln's-Inn- Fields Theatre under one of them. Closely associated with the affair which led to the closing of the patent theatre there is an epi- sode of peculiar interest. It is to be found in a report made to Queen Anne by her attorney and solicitor-general, in pursuance to an Order in Council of February 18, 1709, to inquire into the difficulties at the patent theatre. The rej)ort itself bears date of November 8, 1711. It con- tains Rich's excuse for not obeying the Cham- berlain's order to pay the actors, viz., "because that officer's name was not mentioned in the patent ; but that he readily assented to her Ma- jesty's pleasure in shutting up the house, and had not since acted." The report further informs us that Rich continued in the capacity of tenant at Drury Lane until November 22, 1709, when William Collier (who was a lawyer, member of Parliament, and an intriguing politician) came to the door of the^theatre with an armed band, " and in a riotous and violent manner '' broke into the theatre, turned out Rich, and took possession. So much for Rich's testimony. Collier, on his 14 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE side, produced a letter, dated November 19, 1709, containing her Majesty's permission for the said Collier to perform at the theatre on the 23d of November, and also stating that a license for him was in preparation. The letter further in- structed Collier " not to permit Rich, or any other pers.on claiming under him, to interfere with him [Collier] or his company." Collier was advised that a patent was of no effect unless supported by the crown; and that if any one claiming rights under the patent of Charles II should submit to her Majesty's pleasure, and waive all claims to the patent, the Queen would permit such an one to open the theatre. Now, it appears that this Collier was a shareholder in the patent, and, having made the required sub- mission, had received the royal sanction to act on the date mentioned.^ The foregoing incident marks the second stage in the history of the theatrical monopoly, and forms the second precedent of the superiority of crown prerogative over patent rights. It would be rash, however, to conclude that the patents issued by Charles II, and still in Rich's posses- sion, had been made nugatory by the silencing act of Queen Anne, or by the superseding license issued to Collier. But, certainly, the peremptory ^ An abstract of this curious incident may be found in the Dramatic Censor ior 1811, cols. 101-1-G. INTRODUCTORY 15 conduct of the Queen had an unsettling effect on theatrical affairs for the time being. Wilks, Colley Gibber, and Doggett, the three leading actors at the patent house at this time (1709), now entered into an arrangement with Swiney at the Opera House to conduct that the- atre alternately as an English playhouse and Italian opera. This aroused Collier's jealousy, who, two years later, got Swiney to exchange theatres with him. But again the Opera House proved unsuccessful, and, in 1712, Collier re- turned to Drury Lane and took the leading actors with him. In the shuffle that was going on continually at this time, Doggett was dis- carded, and another actor. Booth, was taken into partnership at the patent house. The unfortu- nate Swiney, who had served as a hand-ball for others' games, failed at Vanbrugh's Opera House and was forced to abscond early in 1713. As for old Christopher Rich, "he would still hold out, notwithstanding his being so miserably maim'd. . . . He had no more regard to Blows, than a blind Cock of the Game ; he might be beaten, but would never yield, the Patent was still in his possession, and the Broad-Seal to it visibly as fresh as ever." ^ But Rich did not live to avenge himself upon his enemies. He had bought and fitted up the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Theatre against 1 Gibber, Apology, p. 337. 16 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE the time when he might hope for better favor from the crown. But he died a few weeks before the opening of that theatre under his son, John Kich, to whom the patents descended and who opened the new Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Theatre in 1714, probably on the supposition that those documents were valid and that Queen Anne's silencing mandate ceased with her death. One other circumstance, essential to the later development of our subject, belongs to this period. This was the conflict over the patent granted to Sir Richard Steele in the first year of the reign of George I. The patent was for the lifetime of Steele, plus three years, the three j^ears having been included for the purpose of giving Steele's executors time to settle his estate. The names of Wilks, Gibber, and Booth were in Steele's patent which, it would seem, was a continuation of Gol- lier's license, which in turn had superseded Rich's patent. From 1714 to 1719, theatrical affairs ran smoothly enough. But, in the latter year, the Lord Ghamberlain (then the Duke of New- castle) affected to receive some sort of umbrage from Colley Gibber, one of the shareholders in Steele's patent, and forbade that gentleman to perform at Drury Lane. This action was but the preliminary to the one that followed, declar- ing the patent forfeited. It is not my purpose to enter into all the details which culminated in INTRODUCTORY 17 this event — some of these, at least, belong to the history of politics ; it is sufficient here to point out those facts affecting the theory and practice of theatrical monoply. Steele appealed his case to the Lord Chamberlain, but was forbidden by that official to write, speak, or correspond with him in any manner whatever. Steele then raised the plea that his patent was a freehold, and had been so adjudged by the Solicitor-Gen- eral and Sir Edward Northey, another eminent lawyer, when the document was passing. The same legal authorities are quoted as favoring the opinion that the grants of Charles II in nowise limited succeeding: sovereigfus in similar matters. In other words, Steele maintained that his patent was of the same legal value as those of Killigrew and Davenant, except as to time, the equivalent of which, he claimed, he might have had for the asking. The highest legal au- thorities of the day, F. Pemberton, Sir Edward Northey, and Sir Thomas Parker, are cited as supporting the view that, though the operation of the patents granted by Charles II might continue after his death, no prohibition on acting plays in London or Westminster could be effectual beyond the life of the king issuing it. But all resistance was in vain. Every argument brought forward by Steele in support of his patent, as op- posed to the original patents granted by Charles 18 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE II, only armed the King so much the more in ex- ercising his prerogative, which he did on Janu- ary 23, 1719-20 in an order revoking Steele's patent, and another discharging the performers.^ A review of Steele's case, together with Rich's ejectment in 1709, brings out the very evident conclusion that, irrespective of the political jug- glery which characterized the period, the crown saw the necessity, and acted accordingly, of bringing theatrical amusements in London under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. As to the question of patent rights, based on the grants to Killigrew and Davenant, neither King Wil- liam, Queen Anne, nor George I hesitated to issue licenses and patents regardless of the action of any former sovereign. Even the patentees them- selves, with the single exception of Steele, never once questioned the crown prerogative in theat- rical matters. Christopher Rich alone seemed to appreciate the value of the old patents, and while he silently obeyed the mandate of Anne to close Drury Lane Theatre, he held fast to his patents ^ Steele supported his cause before the public in a two-page sheet, issued twice a week, over the pseudonymn of ' ' Sir John Edgar." Later, his defense was published in pamphlet form as "The State of the Case between the Lord Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household, and the Governor of the Royal Company of Comedians, with the Opinions of Pemberton, Northey, and Parker, concerning the Theatre." Pp. 31, London, 1720. See also Dramatic Censor for 1811, cols. 115 S. INTRODUCTORY 19 and passed them on to his son. After events proved Rich the most far-seeing manager who appeared during the first half-centuiy of the his- tory of the monopoly. And as regards that same monopoly, it is well to note here that not once during the period thus far reviewed do we hear a single voice in support of a theatrical monopoly. Drury Lane itself, the home of the monopoly, after the ejection of Rich, was managed under a temporary license for twenty-one years, which expired and was renewed in 1732. It was during this period (1711-1732) that Drury Lane, under the expert management of Wilks, Gibber, and Booth, was the most prosperous. It was during this period, too, that the theatrical situation in London was affected by new elements which led to the climax of 1737. CHAPTER II THE RISE OF THE HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN's FIELDS THEATRES, AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE QUESTION OF PATENT RIGHTS THE first half-century of the Patent Theatres in London constitutes an epoch in the his- tory of the monopoly, characterized by a lack of competition in the theatrical business — outside that between the two houses, of course — and by an almost constant exercise of the crown prerog- ative over the patentees. The public were inter- ested in the theatres chiefly as means for their amusement. However, from about 1720, a new turn is given to theatricals in London, a turn which, for a time, threatened to submerge both the patent houses, but, instead, culminated in es- tablishing the monopoly more firmly than ever before. Numerous causes might be adduced to explain this phenomenon. Two of these stand out in strong contrast to the rest. The immense success of Gibber and his colleagues in manag- ing Drury Lane called the attention of shrewd business men to the commercial side of supply- ing the public taste with theatrical novelties. Furthermore, as has been suggested already, the HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 21 strong hand of the crown over the patentees, on numerous occasions, led men interested in the matter to have a contempt for the patents issued by Charles II. And, in the second place, the rising spirit of satire had an instantaneous effect on the stage. There is no avenue so inviting to the satirist as the drama, for the very gossipy nature of such performances assures for them a large public. The development of competition in theatricals and the rapidly growing tendency to satirize political and social foibles reinforced each other, and thus increased the demand for more theatres. Within a decade after 1720, London boasted half-a-dozen theatres, and every street had its theatrical booth where perform- ances similar to those at the other theatres might be seen.^ This new phase of the problem forced the patentees to adopt a fixed policy of action against the " minors " (for so the inde- pendent theatres were called), and precipitated parliamentary interference in theatrical exhibi- tions. It was in 1720 that a carpenter by the name ^ In a single number of the Grub Street Journal (August 27, 1730), no less than five theatrical booths are advertised. One of these advertisements runs as follows : " At Mr. Penkerth- man and Mr. W. Giffard's great Theatrical Booth, is acted a new Droll, called Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, in which are presented my Lord Mayor, four Mobbs, and a great deal of hollowing, singing and dancing." 22 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE of Potter began the erection of a new theatre in the Haymarket, nearly opposite to the Opera House built by Vanbrugh. It does not appear that Potter intended to start a rival company to the patentees ; he seems to have built his new theatre as a mere speculation, hoping to let it for occasional dramatic exhibitions. It is difficult to determine the exact date when Potter opened his Little Theatre in the Haymarket (so called to distinguish it from the Opera House) ; but the first play-bill collected by Genest for this theatre is as follows : " At the new Theatre over against The Opera House in the Haymarket, December 12, 1723, will be presented a new Comedy called the Female Fop — to be per- formed by persons, who never yet appeared in public." Cheap operas, burlesques, and farces formed the usual programme at the Little The- atre during its early years, and these perform- ances became more and more pointed and pro- nounced in their satiric and burlesque elements. Penelope^ a. burlesque opera in three acts, was brought out at the Haymarket in 1728. The next year, Patron, or Statesman's Opera, was produced there, as was also the Beggar s Wed- ding, suggestive of Gay's famous Opera of the year before. Probably, the most popular of the satires put on at the Haymarket in 1729 was Hurlothrumbo. This took London by storm, HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 23 had a phenomenal run of over thirty nights, and was discontinued only because the season was at an end.^ It swept over England, was enacted with great applause at the chief cities, — and the suspected political satire made it none the less popular. The following season (1730) , Tom Thumb made his debut; and, the same year, Rival Father (from Corneille's Death of Achilles), Female Parson, Merry Masqueraders, and other farces and burlesques of similar character came out at the Haymarket. The taste of the theatre-going public and the tendency of the London stage in 1730 are indicated by the foregoing list of plays ; for although the Little Theatre may have been the greatest sinner of the lot, it was not alone, as will soon appear, in catering to an ever-increasing depraved public demand for highly seasoned dramatic exhibitions. In 1731, Chetwood took his Generous Freemason to the Haymarket Theatre (it had been acted the year before at Gates and Fielding's booth), ^ and it is probable that Fielding's Letter Writer was acted there the same year. The condition into which the stage was rapidly drifting could not long continue without a crisis. The climax to be reached needed only a master 1 Fog's Weekly Journal, July 5, 1729. 2 Grub Street Journal, August 27, 1730. 24 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE in satire. By 1731, the necessity for placing a check on unbridled scurrility on the stage had become evident. It was during the summer of that year that the then but recently popular Hur- lothrumho was placed under the ban. In " Fog's Weekly Journal" for August 28, 1731, we read the signs of the time : " The Players of the Little Theatre in the Haymarket last Week printed their Bills for acting a celebrated piece call'd Hurlothrumho^ but were prevented by certain Constables, who came to seize them by Virtue of a Warrant or Warrants from the Justices of Westminster ; so that this seditious Play will be acted no more, and, if it be true, that the silly Character of Lord Flame is meant as a Satyr upon any body, it was prudent to prevent it." The following year a histori-tragi-comi-ballad ojDera, entitled Restauration of King Charles the Second, or The Life and Death of Oliver Cromwell, was forbidden to be acted at the Hay- market. But the limit of this satiric rage in the London theatres had not yet run its course, and before the sudden reaction of 1737 new elements were added to the situation, tending to hasten and to complicate the solution. Hitherto, the London theatres had been con- fined to the West End, that is, within the lim- its of the city proper. In 1729, a new theatre was added to the list : and this business venture HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 25 was made in the East End. In the " Coffee-House Morning Post " o£ the 24th of September, 1729, an announcement appeared to the effect that " a Gentleman well-skilled in the Management of a Theatre, has obtained Letters Patent to erect one in Ayliffe- Street, in Goodman^ s Fields, by Way of Subscription, and that the Undertaking meets with Approbation," On the 30th of the same month, the " Daily Post " informed the public that " it appears that only seven or eight Persons have applied to the Justices against Erecting the said Theatre, but that there has been no meeting about it." The gentleman " well-skilled " was Thomas Odell ; but if his " undertaking " met with " approbation " at the time of the advertisement in the " Morning Post," there must have been a violent reversal of pub- lic opinion within a few weeks, for, " on Tuesday Night last [October 7, 1729]," reports "Fog's Weekly Journal" for October 11, 1729, "the Justices of the Peace, Gentlemen, and principal Inhabitants in Goodman's Fields, and Places ad- jacent, had a General Meeting at the Hoop and Grapes in the Minories, to concert Measures to put a Stop to the further Progress of the New Theatre, intended to be erected in Ayliffe-Street." This protest bears the signatures of " Sam. Cow- per and Sam Sadleir, clerks to the Justices for the Tower Division." Their opposition to the 26 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE proposed new theatre was based on the grounds that, being " so near several publick Offices, and the Thames^ where so much Business is negoti- ated, and carried on for the support of Trade and Navigation, will draw away Tradesmen's Ser- vants and others from their lawful Callings, and corrupt their Manners, and also occasion great numbers of loose, idle and disorderly Persons, as Street-Robbers and Common Night- Walkers, so to infest the Streets, that it will be very dan- gerous for his Majesty's Subjects to pass the same." ^ In a similar strain, the Lord Mayor was ap- pealed to, to suppress the Goodman's Fields playhouse, for, it was apprehended, the cost of that theatre to the kingdom would be found to be "a great deal above Three Hundred Thousand Pounds a year by the loss ... in the work and labour of the Artificers and other Spectators that fill it." 2 From the pulpit Arthur Bedford, chaplain to Hoxton Hospital, and preacher of ^ Gazette for October 14, 1729. Appended to Arthur Bedford's " A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Butolph's in the City of London, November 30, 1729." 2 From a letter by a citizen to Sir Richard Brocas, Lord Mayor of London, 1730, referred to in " An Extract from a MS. by Oldys," and commented on in a marginal note to an original (1708) copy of Downes's JRoscius Anglicanus. See Joseph Knight's Preface (xxxiii) to his facsimile reprint of Downes's book. HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 27 afternoon Sunday sermons at St. Butolph's, Aid- gate, hurled his invectives against Odell's pro- ject. The charges brought by Bedford against the stage remind one of the upbraidings of the Puritans a century before. He accused the dra- matists and the theatres of profaning the name of God ; of inciting duels and murders ; of in- ducing idleness among the youth by alluring them away from their work " again and again ; " of fostering adultery and whoredom ; * of paving4. See also Bulwer. Drury Lane Theatre, built, 3 ; Charles II first patron of, 4 ; early success of, 5 ; patent of, united with Covent Garden, 5 ; leading actors at, 5 ; closed by Crown, 12 ; under temporary li- cense, 19, 81, n. 2, 149 n. , prosper- ity of, under Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, 19 ; secures Garrick, 7G ; purchased by Garrick and Lacey, 81, n. 1 ; used for summer season, 88 ; becomes property of Sheri- dan et nL. 97 n.\ statistics of, 10, 34, 141, 179 «., 214 n., 3G6 n., 414 n.; rebuilt, 141 f . ; immense size of, 150 ; burns, 174 ; company occupies Lyceum, 214, 3G0 and n ; Rebuilding Act, 227 n., 231, 233, 236, 237, 241 ; difflcultie.s of re- building, 201, 20G, 234, 235, 237, 243 ; is rebuilt, 241 ; lo* financial condition of, 143, 20G, 234 f., 257, 315, 349, 301, 3GG n., 370, 412 ; saved by Kean, 294 ; at war with Covent Garden, 371 f. ; restricted by Lord Chamberlain, 394, 39S, 402, 404. See also Monopoly, Pat- entees, Dormant Patent. Duncombe, T. S., speaks on Bul- wer's bill, 333 ; seconds Bunn's cause against Chamberlain, 395, 398, 402, 406 ; shows necessity of amending theatrical laws, 414. East London Theatre, 122, 304. See also Royalty Theatre. Eduard and Eleanora, prohibited, 72. Edwin, among leading actors at the Haymarket, 255. Egerton, favors Bulwer's bill, 343; opposes union of patents, 380. Elliston, R. W., letter of Colman to respecting plans at Haymarket, 15G : represents Column in ad- dress to |)ublic, 255 ; leases Royal Circus, 288 ; buys Olympic Pavil- ion of Astley, 292; in difficulties with patentees, 292 f., 299 f. ; sus- tained by Chamberlain, 301 ; peti- tions for privileges at tlie Royal Circus, 21G, 290 ; leases Drury Lane Theatre, 274, 304 n. ; his practice of "puffing," 304; hie tactics against tlie minors, 274, 276 f., 304; secures Kean, 276,277; compromises with minors, 279 ; fails at Drury Lane, and returns to Royal Circus (Surrey), ?.m, 3G6 n., 37U71.; factor in downfall of mo- nopoly, 288, 294, 297, 299, 306, 370 n. Elton, favors Bulwer's bill, 348. EngUsh Opera House. See Lyceum. Erskine. James, criticises Loudon theatres, 56 f. Fair Rosamond, prohibited during Lent, 394; not licensed on first representation, 40S. Farinelli, interdicted during Lent, 401 f. Farley, comedian, story related of, 2G6f. Farrell, J., supports Bulwer's bill, 348; arrested, :i53 n .; secures li- cense for Royal Pavilion, 3G8. See also Wyatt. Fawcett, acting-manager at Little Theatre, 153. Fazio, 297, 298. Fielding, Henry, brings out bur- lesques and satires at Haymarket, 23, 42 f. ; organizes Moguls, 42 , satirizes Cibber family, 43 ; his satires justified by Secret Com- mittee, 44 ; accused of bringing about Licensing Act, 4G f . ; success of satires accounted for, 59 f. ; his Pasquin praised by Hill, 60 ; not sole cause of Licensing Act, 69. Fitzball, manager of Covent Garden for one day, 366 n Fitz Williams. Mrs., story related of, 286 ; leading actress at Sadler's Wells, 307. Fleetwood, C, purchases Drury Lane patent, 40 ; secures Garrick, 76 ; ruined by revolt of 1743, 81, n. 1, 86 ; criticised, 82 f. Foote. Samuel, his debut, 78 ; his "Dish of Tea," 87; his Minor, Orators, and Maijor of Garrait brought out, 88 ; loses limb, 88 f . ; INDEX 467 secures patent for summer the- atre, 89 ; his success arouses jeal- ousy of Garrick, itl ; his Devil I'ljon Two Sticks, 91 ; sells pateut to Colman, 93 ; death of, 93, w. 1; time of opening Haymarket, 255 ; significance of his patent, 4'J7. Ford, shareholder in Drury Lane patent, 97 ?i. Forrester, convicted for violating Licensing Act, 320. See also Williams and Forrester. Fox, Charles James, aids Sheridan against minors, 131. Garrick, David, first appearance in London, 74 f., lOf, 7i. 3; revolu- tionizes acting, 75 ; threatened by patentees, 76; joins company at Drury Lane, 76. his Lping Valet and Lethe brought out, 767j.; with Macklin, leads revolt of 1743, 77 ; purchases Drury Lane patent' 81, n. 1; jealous of Foote's success, 91, 94; satirised by Foote, 92; encroaches on summer theatre, 93 f. ; sole proprietor of Drury Lane, 97 n. ; sells to T. Sheridan et al., 97 n. , deatli of, 97 n. ; the stage of his time described, 182 f. Gattie, actor, 260. Gay, John, Gibber's jealousy of, 50. See also Begg(tr''s Opera. Genest, J., his History of the Stage quoted, 22, 30, 35, 37", 41, 42 45 71, 76, 81, 87, 298. George BarnueU, comes out at ir- regular theatre, 29, 411. George I, accession of, 13 , permits Rich to open Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre, 13; grants Steele a pat- ent, 16 , revokes Steele's patent, 18, 423. ' George II, act of lOth year of, see Licensing Act ; act of 25th year of, 125, 136 and n., 369, n. 2, 428- act of 28th year of, 126. ' George III, act of 28th year of, 137 f., 335. George IV, extends license of Little Theatre, 279. Gibson, J., licensed at Royal Stand- ard, 368. Giffard, Henry, manager of Good- man's Fields Theatre, 28; brief account of, 29 ; succeeds Odell at Goodman's Fields, 29 ; opposition to, 29; his tenure at Goodman's Fields, 32 f.; admitted to share in Drury Lane patent, 34, 41, n.; Va- grant Act of 12 Anne applied to, 37; instrumental in bringing about Licensing Act, 44 f., 74; opens Goodman's Fields Theatre by strategy, 73; his relations with Walpole, 74 and n.; introduces Garrick on London stage, 75; threatened by patentees, 76; forced to close Goodman's Fields, 76; revives Shakespeare's plays, 76 n. See also Goodman's Fields Thea- tre. Giffard, W., 21 n. Glengall, Earl of, opposes Bulwer's bill, 353, opposes Regulation Bill, 415. Glossop, manager of the Coburg, resists patentees, 302. Golden Rtimp, The, immediate cause of Licensing Act, 44 f., 74. Goldsmith, Oliver, his She Stoops to Conquer forced on stage bv Johnson, 4U. Gomersall, R., licensed at the Gar- rick, \H\S. Goodman's Fields Theatre, built by Odell, 24; opposition to, 25 f.; silenced by crown authority, 28 ; reopened by Giffard, 29 ; location of, 30 f.; question as to tenure at, 32 f.; closed by Licensing Act, 72; reopened, 73; Garrick appears at, 75 , closed by Licensing Act, 76. Grafton, Duke of, Lord Chamber- lain, 77, 160. Graham, Sir J., reviews condition of drama, 413. Green and Amber, brokers, Drury Lane mortgaged to, 81 n. Greville, Henry Fulke, attempts to establish English opera, 161 f , 248, makes first legal attempt to break monopoly, 163, 429; peti- tions for third theatre grant, 212 ; secures license for music, 248 , his " Pic-Nic Society," 248, 291. Gusiava Vasa, prohibited, 72. Guy Mannering, 122. Hall, Sir B., presents petition to amend Licensing Act, 406. Hall, magistrate, 309, 333. See also Birnie. Hamlet, 283, 286, 389. Hamlet, Thomas, refused a license, 368. Hammond, lessee of Strand Theatre, 321 ; his victory over patentees, Harlowe, Mrs., patentees forbid to act at Lyceum, 263. Harper, prosecuted by patentees for 468 INDEX vagrancy, 38 ; significance of case, 41 ; effect of case on theatrical sit- uation, 42 f. ; comment on case, O'J. Harris, H., part owner of Coveut Garden Tlieatre, 01 ; opposes Roy- alty Tlieatre, 103, IOC f.; accused of illiberality, 109; holds both patents, 142; sole manager of Covent Garden, 143 ; sliares pat- ent with J. P. Kemble, 176 re.; dis- misses Holman and Pope from company, 237 ; aids Kinnaird in war of encroachments, 2G4 ; suc- ceeded by C. Kemble, 366 n. Hart, C, leading actor at Drury Lane, 5. Haymarket Theatre, see Little Thea- tre. Henry V, revived by Giffard, 76 n. Highmore, John, purchases Drury Lane patent, ;54 ; his part in re- volt of 1733, 34 f. : compelled to dispose of patent, 40. Hill, Aaron, editor of "Prompter," opposes theatrical monopolj-, 52, 85 f . ; his views on stage regula- tion, 56 n., 5S n. ; commends Fielding, 60 ; his views respect- ing the minors, GO ; his predic- tions, as to the monopoly, realized, 121 ; his opinion quoted, 361, 418. Holman, actor, dismissed from Co- vent Garden, 237 Home, John, his Doug/as rejected by patentees, 412. Honeymoon, The, rejected, 411. Home, Solicitor-General, counsel for Arnold in attempt to secure extended privileges at Lyceum, 357. Howard, Hon. Charles, refers to Playhouse Bill, 55. Howard, F., Earl of Carlisle, de- scribes stage in Garrick's time, 182 f . ; deprecates private boxes at Covent Garden, 187 f. Howard, Sir R., aids Betterton's revolt, 7. Hughes, Charles, builds Royal Cir- cus, 287. Hughes, E., licensed at Sadler's Wells, 368. Hunt, M. P., attacks the monopoly, 325. Htir/othrumbo, popularity of, 22 f. ; prohibited, 24. Hussey, M. P., amends Interlude Bill, 133, 138. Inchbald, Mrs. E., patentees neg- lect her comedy, 412. Interlude Bill, 131 f. Irixh Ambassador, The, 332 Italian Opera, 10, 11, 15, 144, 145, 150, 172, 247, 3G0, 390, 404, 415. Jackson, Dr., endorses Palmer's theatre, 112 and n. Jackson, Randle, arguments of, against third theatre, 207-212. Jerrold, Douglas, purchases Strand Theatre, 321 ; first appearance as an actor, 321 ; supports Bulwer's bill, 348. Johnson, B., actor, 10. Johnson, Dr., gets She Sloops to Conquer acted, 411. Jones, Charlotte, licensed at Sad- ler's Wells, 368. Jones and Rodwell, lease the Adel- phi, 303, n. 2 ; improve character of Strand, 205. Jonson, Ben, 5, 329. Kean, Charles, joins company against patentee, 386. Kean, Edmund, performs at Drury Lane, 276, 277, 204, 371 ; his ex- perience in America, 277 ; alleged cause of his leaving Drury Lane, 371 71.; death of, 372. Keeley, arrested for acting at un- licensed theatre, 314 ; supports Bulwer's bill, 348. Kelly, Miss, delivers Arnold's ad- dress at Lyceum, 259 ; disregards prohibition of patentees, 260 ; is refused license to open the Strand, 317 ; petitions Parliament, 344 ?i. Kemble, C, insulted by rabble, 310; -succeeds Harris at Covent Garden, 366 n. ; refused license during Lent, 391. Kemble, J. P., acting-manager of Covent Garden Theatre, 176 n.; criticised for employing foreign actors, 177 ; responsible for " O. P."riots, 179, 181,230 7*.; receives praise, 206 and n. ; accused of pro- fessional jealousy, 237 and n.. 244; introduces quadrupeds at Covent Garden, 230 ; with Mrs. Siddons, plays De Mon/ort, 240. Kenney, dramatist, unjustly treated by patentees, 332, 349. Killigrew, Thomas, granted theatri- cal patent by Ch.irles II, 1,3. See also Monopoly and Dormant Pat- ent. King Arthur, revived by Giffard, 70 n. INDEX 469 King's Theatre, see Opera House and, 142 n. Einnaird, D., forbids Drury Lane actors to appear at Lyceum, IJGO f . ; replies to Mrs. Orger, 204. Knight, Joseph, his Preface to Ros- cius Anglicanus quoted, 32 n. Knowles, James Sheridan, petitions Parliament for protection to dra- matists, 33'.l; his play, The Wife, 348, 370, 377; ill-treated by pat- entees, 348 f., 372; attempts to establish third theatre, 355, 380- 380; rejects overtures to write for patentees, 380, 383; goes to America, 387. Kynaston, E., among leading actors at Drury Lane, 5. Lacey, joint owner of Drury Lane patent, 81 n.\ death of, 97 n. Lacy, J., among leading actors at Drury Lane, 5. Laporte, M., manager of Covent Garden Theatre and Opera House, 3e4w.,3G6n.,371; his rivalry with Polhill, 371 ; mistreats actors, 375 f.; checkmated by actors, 377. Lear, 90. Lee, Alexander, leases Drury Lane Theatre, 366 n.; fails, 370. Lee, the actor, 90. Lenten Controversy, The, 391-404. Leopold, Prince of Coburg, chief patron of Coburg Theatre, 296. Levy, brings suit against Yates, 286. Lewis, "Monk," 159. Licensing Act, The, immediate re- sult of Golden Rump, 44 ; cause of, ascribed to Fielding, 46 f.; comment on causes of, 48 f.; sug- gested by Walpole, 63 ; chief pro- visions of, 63 f.; objections to, 65 f.; passed by Parliament, 66; Gib- ber's comments on, 67 f.; meaning and necessity of, 69 f.; causes mi- nor theatres to close, 72 ; various interpretations of, 66, 69,76, 83 f., 160 f., 170, 171. 309, 390, 393, 396, 399 f ., 408, 410, 414, 424 ; efficacy of, 72, 76, 80, 86,95, 109 f., 113, 120, 258, 269, 290, 293, 311, 317, 318, 320, 322, 382 ; evasions of, 73, 78, 79, 96, 282, 287, 289, 308, 309, 314, 330, 368, 389; see also Burletta ; operations of, criticised, 72 f., 81, 83, 106, 115, 121,355; modification of, demanded, 120 ; amended, 137, 139 n.; article v of, cited, 198 ; amendment of, prayed for, 406 ; abolition of, de- manded, 411 ; superseded by The- atre Regulation Bill, 412-420; review of, 424 f. Lillo, George, his George Barnwell put on at minor, 411. Linley, shareholder in Drury Lane patent, 97 n. Liston, J., patentees forbid to act at Lyceum, 261 ; acts at Olympic, 307. Little Theatre in Haymarket, built, 22 ; early success of, 22 f.; se- cured by revolting actors, 1733, 35 ; occupied by Fielding's Mo- guls, 42 ; buffoonery at, opposed by Aaron HUl, 52 ; closed by Li- censing Act, 72 ; used by Mack- lin, 1743, 78 ; occupied by Foote, and T. Gibber, 87 ; becomes sum- mer theatre under Foote, 89 f. ; a third royrinted by H . O. Houghton &= Co. Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. 3 1210 00500 3981