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 paving<i 
 the road to thievery and outlawry (a thrust at 
 the Beggar^s Opera') ; and of breeding a con- 
 tempTfor all religion. 
 
 Odell does not seem to have been deterred by 
 these railings ; for all authorities agree that he 
 completed his theatre, gathered a company of 
 actors, and began theatrical performances. The 
 exact date of the opening, however, is uncertain. 
 There is every indication that the Goodman's 
 Fields Theatre was extremely successful from 
 the outset; so much so, indeed, that the clamor 
 against it was greater after it opened than before. 
 The evils apprehended before the erection of the 
 theatre seemed to have multiplied fourfold after 
 the opening, and it became evident that some- 
 
 ^ Bedford eitea the play Gibraltar in ■which the following' 
 appears : " Whores are dog cheap here in London. For a man 
 may slip into the play-house Passage, and pick up half-a-dozen 
 for half-a-crown."
 
 28 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 thing must be done to appease its opponents. 
 But the situation was unique. Goodman's Fields 
 lay outside the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor 
 and Aldermen of London, and there was no pre- 
 cedent, at least in the memory of men then living, 
 for dealing with the case. In an attempt, there- 
 fore, to bring the matter to a head, on the 28th 
 of April, 1730, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen 
 petitioned the crown to silence Goodman's Fields 
 ^Theatre, alleging the objections, moral and in- 
 dustrial, already presented. To this appeal his 
 Majesty gave his promise to issue the required 
 order.^ The next day Odell waited on the King 
 at court and appealed for leave to continue his 
 performances at the theatre as usual ; but his 
 request was denied.^ Thus forced out of his un- 
 dertaking, Odell secured a piece of ground near 
 Tottenham Court Road and began to erect a 
 new playhouse.^ 
 
 But the silencing mandate of the King was 
 of short duration, and if Odell had been pos- 
 sessed of the temerity of his manager, Henry 
 Gift'ard, he might have continued his opera- 
 tions at the Goodman's Fields Theatre without 
 
 1 St. James Evening Post, April 30, 1730. Quoted in Grub 
 Street Journal, May 7, 1730. 
 
 2 Post Boy, April 30, 1730. Quoted in Grub Street Journal, 
 May 7, 1730. 
 
 3 St. James Evening Post, July 30, 1730. Quoted in Grub 
 Street Journal, August 6, 1730.
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 29 
 
 other molestation than the maledictions of the 
 preachers and tradesmen. Giffard, for his age 
 (b. 1699), had had considerable experience : at 
 seventeen, he was a clerk in the South Sea Com- 
 pany ; at twenty, he took to the stage, played at 
 Bath awhile, then joined Rich's Lincoln's-Inn- 
 Fields company, thence to Dublin where he rose 
 to the management of the theatre. Soon after 
 Odell launched on his Goodman's Fields venture, 
 he admitted Giffard, and, because of the latter's 
 superior training in the business, turned over the 
 management of the theatre to him.^ When Odell 
 was driven, as he thought, to seek new fields for 
 his speculations, Giffard remained at his post in 
 Goodman's Fields and awaited his opportunity. 
 The year after the silencing order, Giffard took 
 the theatre on his own account, remodeled it, 
 refurnished it with costumes and scenes, and 
 opened on the 27th of September, 1731, with 
 George Barnwell."^ The old clamors against the 
 playhouse were at once revived with redoubled 
 fury. " The street where it is built," wails the 
 "Universal Spectator" (April 12, 1732), "was 
 formerly inhabited by Silk-Throwsters, Riband- 
 Weavers, etc, who employ'd the industrious 
 
 ^ This account of Giffard, up to his joining Odell, is made 
 up from Chetwood's narrative, A General History of the Stage, 
 etc. p. 166. 
 
 2 Fog's Weekly Journal, No. 149, September 11, 1731.
 
 30 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 poor ; immediately on setting up this Playhouse, 
 the rents were raised, and now there is a Bunch 
 of Grapes hanging almost at every door, besides 
 an adjacent bagnio or two; ..." But Giffard 
 continued in peaceful security, nothing disturbed, 
 until 1737, when the Goodman's Fields Theatre 
 was effectually closed. 
 
 The question whether Giffard built a new the- 
 atre distinct from the one erected by Odell, and, 
 if he did, where it was located, has been in much 
 doubt and confusion. Most, if not quite all, of 
 the authorities on the subject are of opinion that 
 Giffard, after Odell's ejection, did build another 
 theatre ; but they all are at sea as to the location 
 of one or other of the supposed two theatres in 
 Goodman's Fields. The misconception respect- 
 ing the matter has probably grown out of one 
 of Chetwood's numerous incorrect statements. 
 The statement is this : " In 1733 Giffard caused 
 to be built an intire new, beautiful, convenient 
 Theatre, by the same architect as that of Covent 
 Garden." The other eighteenth century writers 
 correct Chetwood as to the date, 1732 being more 
 in favor with them ; but none of these designates 
 the site of Giffard's theatre. The painstaking 
 Genest is disturbed by such indefiniteness, and 
 seeks relief in the assumption that there were 
 two theatres in Goodman's Fields, and conjec- 
 tures that Odell's was in Leman Street, Giffard's
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 31 
 
 in Ayliffe Street.* One other evidence gives 
 color to the theory that Giffard built a new the- 
 atre. " The Gentleman's Magazine " for October, 
 1732 (p. 1028), in giving an account of the 
 opening night at Goodman's Fields, speaks of 
 the house as a " new Theatre," and gives a de- 
 tailed description of its interior. 
 
 The probabilities are, however, that there was 
 only one theatre in Goodman's Fields at the time 
 under discussion, that it was built by Odell in 
 Ayliffe Street, and later was remodeled or re- 
 built by Giffard. The evidences for this conclu- 
 sion are numerous. The advertisement in the 
 "Coffee-House Morning Post," September 24, 
 1729, distinctly mentions Ayliffe Street as the 
 site of the proposed new theatre. That this was 
 Odell's theatre is plain, for Giffard was not then 
 in London, and no authority places Giffard's con- 
 jectural new theatre before 1732. Furthermore, 
 we know that Giffard did remodel the Odell the- 
 atre in 1731, if we may rely on the statement 
 made in " Fog's Weekly Journal," September 11, 
 1731, and it is improbable that he should build 
 " an intire, new, beautiful, convenient Theatre " 
 between the closing of the season 1731-32 and 
 the opening in the following autumn. As to the 
 reference in " The Gentleman's Magazine " to 
 " the new Theatre in Goodman's Fields," Odell's 
 ^ Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, iv, 196.
 
 32 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 theatre was still new, and the refurbishings made 
 during the summer would justify the description. 
 Again, in the " Weekly Miscellany," March 8, 
 1735, there is a remonstrance against a proposed 
 new theatre near the centre of the city, and in the 
 course of the complaints reference is made to 
 the silencing of Odell's theatre ; " but it still con- 
 tinues despite the order," emphatically declares 
 the remonstrant. As a final proof that Giffard 
 did not build a second theatre, one needs only 
 to recall that when John Rich moved into his 
 new Covent Garden Theatre (1733), Giffard 
 was induced to rent Rich's Lincoln's-Inn-Fields 
 house, whither he removed in the spring of 1736 
 (but soon returned to Goodman's Fields). If 
 Giffard had but recently completed a new thea- 
 tre of his own in Goodman's Fields, it is not 
 likely that he would leave it so soon for the 
 vacated theatre in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields. 
 
 But a question of greater importance to our 
 subject relates to Giffard's tenure at Goodman's 
 Fields Theatre. It would seem that Odell opened 
 the theatre under some sort of royal authority, 
 and it was the withdrawal of that authority which 
 caused him to abandon his venture. This, how- 
 ever, he did not do without a vehement protest.^ 
 Yet there can be no doubt that he acknowledged 
 the authority of the crown in the matter. As to 
 
 ^ Knight's Preface to Downes's Eoscius Anglicanus, p. xzxiii.
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 33 
 
 GI£fard,the case is quite different. Public opin- 
 ion was as strong against him as against Odell ; 
 nevertheless, he continued to operate the Good- 
 man's Fields Theatre for years unmolested, and. 
 without any visible authority other than his own 
 audacity. Still, not only does it appear that it 
 was the common opinion of the time that Gif- 
 fard's course in acting plays without a license 
 was not unlawful, but, also, the doubt was fre- 
 quently expressed whether the crown preroga- 
 tive itself extended so far as to silence playhouse 
 managers not holding their privileges from the 
 crown.^ This is the key to an understanding of 
 theatrical affairs in London from 1720 to 1737, 
 distinctly marking the period off from the first 
 fifty years of the patent theatres. It means that, 
 for the first time since 1660, crown prerogative 
 in matters of public amusement, so far as protec- 
 tion was concerned, was placed below the author- 
 ity of independent theatre managers. It means 
 that those interested in the theatre as a business 
 had discovered that patent rights were inferior 
 to independent speculation ; for experience had 
 proved that the crown might silence what it 
 had created. Hence, the bold competition which 
 sprang up from about 1729 onwards ; a compe- 
 tition which placed the patentees on a par with 
 
 ^ Gibber, Apology, p. 228; Weekly Miscellany, March 8, 
 1735 ; London Magazine, March, 1735.
 
 34 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 any adventurer who desired to enter the field. 
 An extravagant abuse of this newly discovered 
 tolei«,tion led to the stringent measure of 1737. 
 Before taking up the immediate causes which 
 brought about the Licensing Act, it will be ne- 
 cessary to examine the doings of the patentees 
 themselves. In 1733, John Rich removed from 
 Lincoln's-Inn-Fields to his new Covent Garden 
 Theatre, which he opened under one of the two 
 original jjatents, still in his possession. About 
 the same time, Booth, one of the owners of 
 Drury Lane Theatre, died, and his widow, Wilks, 
 and Colley Cibber disposed of the theatre to 
 John Highmore, Esquire.^ Giffard of Good- 
 man's Fields seems to have been admitted by 
 Highmore to a one sixth share in the concern, 
 because of his successful experience.^ Highmore 
 was a gentleman of leisure and sport, but was 
 unsuited to the business of managing a theatre. 
 For, almost immediately after he assumed con- 
 trol of Drury Lane, he fell out with his actors, 
 who accused him of tyranny and revolted from 
 his standard. The fact of the matter is that The- 
 ophilus Cibber, son of Colley, was incensed be- 
 cause his father did not pass the control of the 
 theatre on to him instead of disposing of it to 
 
 1 Daily Post, March 27, 1732-33. Quoted in Grub Street 
 Journal, March 29, 1733. 
 
 2 Grub Street Journal, October 11, 1733.
 
 HAYxMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 35 
 
 Highmore, and so determined to wreck the new 
 manager. Exorbitant demands were made on 
 Higlimore, among others that he should share 
 the profits with tlie actors. This the proprietor, 
 somewhat stiff-necked, flatly refused to do : he 
 felt that twelve guineas per week each for the 
 season was as much as the actors were worth to 
 him. No doubt, prejudice was created against 
 Highmore from the circumstance of his holdino; 
 in his single possession the shares of the three 
 former patentees. And, moreover, the contention 
 raised by Theophilus, that a theatre would be 
 better managed by actors than by private specu- 
 lators, had its weight in the controversy ; for 
 had not the halcyon days of Drury been under 
 the management of Gibber, Wilks, and Booth? 
 But Highmore was adamant ; even the threats of 
 the actors to take forcible control of the theatre 
 did not move him. Thereupon, in May, 1733, 
 the younger Gibber led a revolt against the new 
 manager, and secured the Little Theatre in the 
 Hay market for his disaffected company. The 
 elder Gibber used his influence to secure a pa- 
 tent for his son ; but this was denied, and the 
 revolters continued the season at the Haymarket 
 without authority.^ 
 
 1 Grub Street Journal, June 7, 1-i, July 2, 1733; Gibber, 
 Apology, pp. 228 ff. ; Victor, History of the Theatres of London 
 and Dublin, i, 20 ff . ; Genest, English Stage, iii, 400-406.
 
 36 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Charles Macklin, the Irish comedian, at first 
 joined the seceders, but thought better of it and 
 returned to Highmore. He was the only actor 
 of note to remain at Drury Lane, and, just as 
 Colley Gibber had found his opportunity to rise 
 in his profession by the revolt of Betterton, years 
 before, so now Macklin took the current when 
 it served and placed himself in a position from 
 which he could not be stirred when the re- 
 volters returned to Drury Lane in the following 
 March. But it was impossible for the " very 
 middling company " at Drury Lane to compete 
 with the old actors at the Haymarket, and, al- 
 most from the outset of the contest, Highmore 
 found his weekly expenses far to exceed his re- 
 ceipts. At first he had thought to depend on the 
 interference of the Lord Chamberlain in his be- 
 half, but that member of the King's household 
 could not be induced to venture in the case at all. 
 Finally, on the 30th of October, 1733, overtures 
 with the actors at the Haymarket were attempted, 
 in which Highmore succeeded in enlisting Rich 
 of Covent Garden — for some of the actors at 
 the latter theatre seem to have taken advantage 
 of the occasion to join the Haymarket revolters. 
 A letter from the patentees was addressed to 
 " Mr. John Mills and the other persons acting 
 at the Haymarket, but lately belonging to Drury 
 Lane and Covent Garden." This superscription
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 37 
 
 was adopted, no doubt, for the purpose of slight- 
 ing Theophilus Gibber, the ringleader of the 
 seceding company. In this letter the patentees 
 expressed a hope that an amicable understanding 
 might be reached between the contending par- 
 ties, but added that, if the actors persisted in 
 their separation, " which is greatly prejudiced 
 to us, we shall be necessitated (tho' contrary to 
 our inclinations) to proceed in such a manner 
 as the law directs, for supporting the royal 
 patents under which we act." ^ The letter was 
 returned unopened. It was then readdressed to 
 " Mr. Theophilus Gibber," who at once answered 
 in a haughty note that " he had been advised 
 that his action was legal, that he knew it to be 
 reasonable, and that he declined to change his 
 present condition for servitude." 
 
 Seeing that all negotiations for peace were of 
 no avail, the Vagrant Act of 12 Queen Anne was 
 resorted to by the patentees to test the legality 
 of acting plays without a license, or, in other 
 words, to test the power of theatrical monopoly 
 rights. Accordingly, on the fifth day of No- 
 vember, 1733, at the instigation of Rich of 
 Govent Garden and Highmore of Drury Lane, 
 Mills of the Haymarket company and Giffard of 
 Goodman's Fields were summoned to appear 
 
 ^ This letter and the answer by Gibber appeared in the pub- 
 lic prints at the time. Genest copies them, iii, 404, 405.
 
 38 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FRI!E STAGE 
 
 before Sir Thomas Clarges, justice of the peace 
 for Middlesex, to show why their respective 
 companies should not be convicted as vagrants 
 (within the meaning of 12 Anne) for acting with- 
 out patents. Both sides were represented by a 
 strong array of counsel, after hearing which "the 
 Justices were pleased to dismiss both the com- 
 panies honorably, without making any order 
 against either of them." ^ 
 
 The patentees refused to abide by this deci- 
 sion. Learned counsel advised them to seize on 
 the person of one of the leading players at the 
 Little Theatre, by virtue of a warrant of a jus- 
 tice of the peace, and commit him to prison as 
 a vagrant. Accordingly, one Harper was ar- 
 rested by the constables and hurried off to Bride- 
 well. Ample preparations were made on both 
 sides to test the act of 12 Anne; and on the 
 28th of November, 1733, Harper's cause came 
 up for hearing in the King's Bench. Once more, 
 to the chagrin of the patentees, the case went 
 against them, and Harper was dismissed. Col- 
 ley Gibber, w^ho was present at this trial, gives 
 the following reason for Harper's acquittal : ^ 
 "When the Legality of this Commitment was 
 disputed in Westminster-Hall, by all I could 
 observe, from the learned Pleadings on both 
 
 ^ Grub Street Journal, November 3, 1733. 
 2 Apology, p. 229.
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 39 
 
 Sides (for I had the Curiosity to hear them) 
 it did not appear to me, that the Comedian, so 
 committed, was within the Description of the 
 said Act, he being a Housekeeper, and having 
 a Vote for the Westminster Members of Par- 
 liament. He was discharged accordingly, and 
 conducted through the Hall with the Congratu- 
 lations of the Crowds that attended, and wish'd 
 well to his Cause." Victor dissents from this 
 opinion, averring that housekeeping was no de- 
 fense against vagrancy, insinuating that this was 
 a mere ruse to hoodwink poor High more ; for it 
 would seem that there was a concerted plot to 
 ruin the new manager by the very ones who had 
 most to thank him for. Victor's discussion of 
 this point is sufficiently important to quote in 
 full. " I doubt not," he says,^ " but my Reader 
 has had Penetration enough to see the notorious 
 Blunder committed here; tho' Mr Gibber either 
 did not, or would not see it, though he observes 
 the learned Pleadings entirely turned on that 
 single Point, Havper's heing a Housekeeper; I 
 well remember when I heard the Event of this 
 Trial, and on what a scandalous Error all their 
 boasted Triumph was founded, I could not help 
 suspecting the Integrity of the Person who con- 
 ducted this Affair ; because, if the Housekeeper^ 
 who paid Scot and Lot, could not be deemed 
 1 History of the Theatres of London and Dublin, i, 23-25.
 
 40 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 a Vagrant, the natural Question then follows, 
 Why was Harper singled out f A Man known for 
 many YSars to be a Housekeeper in the Parish of 
 St Paul's, Covent Garden ; when there were sev- 
 eral more Eminent Comedians in that Company, 
 that constantly acted at both our Fairs, and were 
 not Housekeepers ! But the Dice were thrown, 
 and the poor new Manager devoted to Ruin." 
 In a footnote to the foregoing argument, the 
 author, referring to the legal grounds on which 
 Harper was dismissed (as rejjorted by Cibber), 
 says, " I have been well informed, Mr. Cibber 
 was mistaken in his Observation on the Plead- 
 ings in Court at that Trial, that so far from the 
 Housekeeper being a protection from the va- 
 grant Act, a learned Councellor asserted, that 
 it was in the Power of the greatest Subject in 
 England to be guilty of an Act of Vagrancy ; 
 and that the only point to be disputed there was, 
 whether Harper's performing in the Hayraarket 
 Theatre was committing that Act?" 
 
 Only on personal grounds can we explain 
 Gibber's friendly attitude towards an avowed 
 enemy of patent rights, for he may usually be 
 found arrayed on the side of the theatrical mo- 
 nopoly. At any rate, soon after the close of 
 Harper's trial, Highmore sold out his interest in 
 the Drury Lane Theatre to Charles Fleetwood, 
 Esquire, to whose standard the revolters soon
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 41 
 
 returned, after they had closed their season at 
 the Haymarket on the 9th of March, 1734, 
 oj^ening at Drury Lane on the 12th of the same 
 month.^ The circumstance of Gibber's revolt 
 and Harper's trial brings out the fact that the 
 patentees had determined to adopt some policy 
 whereby they might defend the rights claimed 
 by them under the grants of Charles II. It 
 shows, also, that there was a growing practical 
 opposition to the theatrical monopoly, which the 
 King's officers seemed unable to brook, either 
 because the legal aspects of the question were 
 indistinctly understood, or because of the popu- 
 lar outcry against all appearance of servitude. 
 It is not sufficient to account for the result of 
 the two trials in this case on the grounds of 
 Highmore's aristocratic hauteur; Theophilus 
 Gibber's notoriously contemptible character was 
 enough to turn that scale. The fact is, as was 
 frequently iterated during the period, that the 
 patents were no longer held in high regard, and 
 the crown prerogative in theatrical amusements 
 was openly doubted. Had not the revolt of 1733 
 directly affected the treasuries of the patent 
 
 ^ According to Victor (i, 26), Fleetwood purchased the whole 
 of the Drury Lane patent ; according to Cibber (Apology, p. 
 231), only five sixths of it. The latter is probably correct, as it 
 appears that Giffard was still a partner at Drury Lane in Au- 
 gust, 1735. (Genest, iii, iOG, 471, 472.)
 
 42 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 houses, it is doubtful whether their managers 
 would have thought of attempting to enforce 
 the Vagrant Act. 
 
 If the victory won in the Harper case had 
 been turned to the best account by the promo- 
 ters of indei^endent theatres, it is barely possi- 
 ble that the struggle of a century's duration to 
 free the metropolis from the worst features of a 
 theatrical monopoly might have been averted. 
 But something like an overweening audacity 
 was bred by the result of that trial, and what 
 before had been but the doubtful assertion of 
 free competition became now an avowed license 
 for all sorts of extravagances. Henry Fielding, 
 who for some years had been writing farces and 
 burlesques for the stage, saw the opportunity 
 which the outcome of the revolters' trial and 
 the success of the Goodman's Fields Theatre 
 opened to him to launch out on a theatrical ven- 
 ture on his own account. Some time after the 
 return of the seceders to Drury Lane, Fielding 
 organized his famous Great Mogul Company 
 and took possession of the Little Haymarket 
 Theatre, where he brought out his three-act com- 
 edy, Don Quixote in England^ which had been 
 begun for the Drury Lane stage.* During the 
 
 ^ Genest, iii, 435. For an account of Fielding's Haymarket 
 Theatre and the Act of 1737, see Gibber's Apology, p. 231 ; Vic- 
 tor, i, 26, GO £e ; Genest, iii, 40C ff ; Dibdin, iv, 709 tf ; Baker's
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 43 
 
 season of 1736, the political satire, Pasquin^ had 
 a run of fifty nights at the Hay market. The next 
 year, a number of Fielding's satires and bur- 
 lesques were put on ; Tumble-down Dick^ or 
 Phaeton in the Suds, was written to ridicule 
 theatrical entertainments of the times in general, 
 and, in particular, The Pall of Phaeton, which 
 was acted at Drury Lane, March 1, 1736. Not 
 only was Drury Lane satirized in the piece, but 
 also the management of Covent Garden ; in the 
 dedication Fielding returned his compliments to 
 Mr. John Lun (i. e. John Rich) for the latter's 
 Marforio, a satire on Pasqiiin. In the " His- 
 torical Register for 1736," Fielding combined 
 theatrical and political satire. " Quidam " was 
 supposed to take off Sir Robert Walpole ; the 
 ridiculous contention between Mrs. Clive and 
 Mrs. Gibber for the part of " Polly " was alluded 
 to in the second act ; and Golley Gibber's pre- 
 sumptuous alterations of Shakespeare's plays 
 wei*e unmercifully, but justly, scoi-ed. 
 
 Fielding's fire proved entirely too hot for the 
 ranks against which it was aimed. Furthermore^ 
 no discriminations were made in the exposition 
 of corruption, — the Prime Minister was placed 
 
 Siographia Dramatica, p. xii, and vol. ii, 13S ; Life of Quin, ch. 
 V (London, 1766) ; Prompter; Grub Street Journal ; Gentleman'' s 
 Magazine ; Town and Country Magazine ; London Magazine ; 
 Common Sense, 1737 ; Craftsman, 1737 j Historical MSS. Com- 
 mission.
 
 44 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 on a level with Harlequin of Covent Garden. 
 Most offensive of all, his satires and burlesques 
 hit too near the mark of truth to be long" with- 
 stood unflinchingly. The report of the Secret 
 Committee, appointed by the government to in- 
 vestigate the criticisms of the satires, revealed 
 the fact that Fielding had not exaggerated.* At 
 any rate, some means had to be devised to put a 
 stop to this satiric license, which might degener- 
 ate into licentiousness at any time. The appear- / ^ 
 ance of The Golden Rump gave the opportunity j/ 
 to the goverment for interfering with the abuse 
 into which the theatre was rapidly drifting. This 
 was a two-act farce, containing the most pointed 
 sarcasm on the King and his ministers. The 
 author was unknown, the piece never appeared 
 in print ; but a suspicion was current at the 
 time that it had been composed at the dictation 
 of Walpole himself, as the most direct way of 
 silencing Fielding and other political satirists 
 of the day.^ This view is strengthened by sub- 
 sequent events connected with the history of the 
 piece. The little farce was sent to Giffard of 
 Goodman's Fields, who had, it was thought, 
 made Sir Robert his enemy by representing 
 
 1 J. Ralph, The Case of our Present Theatrical Disputes, p. 
 43, London, 1743. 
 
 ^ See Town and Country Magazine for October, 1787, p. 
 467.
 
 HAYMARKET AND GOODMAN'S FIELDS 45 
 
 pieces on his stage inimical to the character and 
 interests of the minister. If the satire was sent 
 to Giffard to entrap him into acting it, the snare 
 did not work, for he at once forwarded a copy 
 to Walpole, who laid it before the King. The 
 result of this episode was a recommendation to 
 Parliament to pass a bill to regulate and restrict 
 the stage. This was the famous Licensing Act, 
 or, as Genest characterizes it, the "gagging bill C-^ 
 for the stage." It passed Parliament June 21, 
 1737, and is of such importance as to require 
 separate treatment.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE LICENSING ACT ; THE CAUSES PRODUCING IT, 
 
 AND THE ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE THE STAGE 
 
 BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THAT ACT 
 
 " To Henry F-d-g then are we indebted for the licencing act, and 
 the theatrical power that is now lodged in the licenser." — Life of Mr. 
 James Qiiin, London, 17G6, ch. v, p. 27. 
 
 THE above quotation contains the statement 
 of a belief which was universally current 
 in the eighteenth century, and has continued 
 down to our time. Colley Gibber is, in a large 
 degree, responsible for this opinion, for writers 
 have followed his account of the transactions of 
 the period under consideration. But it is well 
 known that Gibber had cause for prejudice 
 against Fielding, since the latter had lampooned 
 the Gibber family pretty severely in the " His- 
 torical Register for 1736;" and hence, though 
 the " Apology " is generally fair, in this partic- 
 ular case allowance must be made for the vin- 
 dictive spirit in which the account is written. 
 Gibber nowhere deigns to mention Fielding by 
 name, but alludes to him as " a broken wit." 
 "This enterj^rising Person," so runs the spite- 
 ful narrative in the "Apology," "this enterpris-
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 47 
 
 ing Person, I say (whom I do uot cliuse to name, 
 vmless it could be to his Advantage, or that it 
 were of Importance) had Sense enough to know 
 that the best Plays, with bad Actors, would 
 turn but to a very poor Account ; and therefore 
 found it necessary to give the Publick some 
 Pieces of an extraordinary Kind, the Poetry of 
 which he conceiv'd ought to be so strong, that 
 the greatest Dunce of an Actor could not spoil 
 it: Pie knew too, that as he was in haste to get 
 Money, it would take up less time to be in- 
 trepidly abusive, than decently entertaining ; 
 that, to draw the Mob after him, he must rake 
 the Channel, and pelt their Superiors ; that, to 
 show himself somebody, he must come up to 
 JuvenaVs Advice, and stand the Consequence : 
 
 Avde aliquid brevibus Gyaris, ^ carcere dignum 
 Si vis esse aliquis — Juv. Sat. I. 
 
 Such then, was the mettlesome Modesty he 
 
 set out with ; upon this Principle he produc'd 
 
 several frank, and free Farces, that seem'd to 
 
 knock all Distinctions of Mankind on the Head : 
 
 Religion, Laws, Government, Priests, Judges, and 
 
 Ministers, were all laid flat, at the Feet of this 
 
 Herculean Satyrist ! This Drawcansir in Wit, 
 
 that spared neither Friend nor Foe ! who, to 
 
 make his Poetical Fame immortal, like another 
 
 Erostratus^ set Fire to his Stage, by writing up 
 
 to an Act of Parliament to demolish it. I shall
 
 48 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 not give the particular Strokes of his Ingenuity 
 a Chance to be remembered, by reciting them ; 
 it may be enough to say, in general Terms, they 
 were so openly flagrant, that the Wisdom of the 
 Legislature thought it high time, to take a proper 
 Notice of them." Victor, writing a few years 
 after the "Apology " was penned, Baker, Dibdin, 
 and subsequent students of the stage, substan- 
 tially agree with Gibber that Fielding's satires 
 were the cause of the Licensing Act. 
 
 While no one will doubt that the severity of 
 Fielding's satires was the occasion for precipitat- 
 ing the action of the government in restricting the 
 stage, to say that Henry Fielding was solely re- 
 sponsible for that Act of Parliament — without 
 materially modifying the statement — would be 
 rash, to say the least. For the tendencies at 
 work at the time, which called forth the biting 
 sarcasm of the great satirist, would, ultimately, 
 have brought about the regulation of the stage, 
 irrespective of Fielding's influence. It is my 
 purpose in this chapter to trace those tendencies, 
 as well as the attempts made to counteract them, 
 prior to the Licensing Act. 
 
 It is not easy, nor always possible, to point to 
 a definite beginning of a tendency of thought, 
 for the psychology of "movements" is too elu- 
 sive to be tabulated in statistical form. But it is 
 safe to say that the political tracts and pam-
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 49 
 
 phlets of the time, the satires and burlesques, 
 criticising government, had their origin in the 
 opposition to the pohcy and methods of the Whig 
 Ministry of Sir Robert Walpole. The means 
 sometimes used by that great statesman to main- 
 tain his hold on King and Commons, however 
 praiseworthy the end aimed at, would have been, 
 at any period of modern England, the target 
 for political foes ; while the more serious mistakes 
 (such as the methods employed in the attempt 
 to pass the Excise Bill, 1733) were the occasions 
 of a perfect volley of scathing abuse. Even 
 within the ranks of the Whigs themselves, the 
 Walpole Ministry was not always safe from 
 attacks of the severest kind. Indeed, the great 
 financier and advocate of peace could trace his 
 final downfall to internal dissensions in his own 
 party, as much as, or more than, to the strength 
 of the Tories. 
 
 It was the most natural thing imaginable for 
 the stage to make stock of the political foibles 
 of the period, and the Beggar s Opera marks 
 the beginning of that species of dramatic satire 
 which reached its climax in Henry Fielding and 
 the Licensing Act.^ Soon after the accession 
 
 1 In the Craftsman, No. 569 (May 28, 1737), appears an 
 essay alleging that the satirical attacks on the government 
 began in " Pamphlets, Poems, Journals," and afterwards " Pros- 
 tituted the Stage." See also Gentleman's Magazine, May, 1737.
 
 50 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 of George II, Gay's burlesque was brought out 
 (January 29, 1728). It was immediately as- 
 sailed as " the most venemous allegorical libel 
 against the Government that hath appeared for 
 many years. . . . The satirical strokes upon Min- 
 isters^ Courtiers, and great Men, in general, 
 abound in every Part of this most insolent 
 Performance." ^ In adition to the charge of 
 " seditious design," contained in this farce, it 
 was said to encourage street robberies.^ 
 
 The success of the Beggar'' s Opera^ induced 
 Colley Gibber to attempt something of the same 
 nature, and, the next year, Love in a Riddle 
 appeared, only to be roundly damned. " It was 
 then generally thought," writes the biographer 
 of Quin, " that his [i. e. Gibber's] jealousy of 
 Gay, and the high opinion he entertained of his 
 new piece, had operated so strongly, as to make 
 him set every engine in motion to get the sequel 
 of the Beggar's Opera, called Polly, suppressed, 
 in order to engross the town entirely to Love 
 
 1 Craftsman, No. 85, February 17, 1727-28. 
 
 2 Ibid. No. 87. 
 
 * The Beggar^ s Opera was so successful that a company 
 actually ventured to Jamaica with it, where they are reported 
 to have taken in 370 pistoles (about $1450) at the door the first 
 uight. The climate of the island, however, was so insalubrious 
 that "within the space of two months they buried their third 
 Polly, and two of their men." — Chetwood, History of the Stage, 
 pp. 40, 41.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 51 
 
 in a Riddled This bit of gossip may, or may 
 uot, be true ; but, at any rate, the Lord Cham- 
 berlain absolutely prohibited Polly from being 
 presented, after it had been rehearsed and was 
 just ready to come out. 
 
 This method of political satire, which began 
 in pamphlets and journals, became so popular 
 that the plays of the day contained repeated 
 invectives against men of high position and 
 authority in the state ; so much so, indeed, that 
 some, who otherwise were in favor of a free 
 stage, felt the necessity of some sort of censor- 
 ship, and went so far as to propose the appoint- 
 ment of a committee to expurgate objectionable 
 passages from dramatic pieces.^ 
 
 Other complaints than that the theatres were 
 going too far in their abuse of government 
 were brought against the stage. " Avarice, Inso- 
 lence, and Stupidity " were epithets applied to 
 the Cibber-Booth-Wilks management of Drury 
 ^iane, in their treatment of dramatic writers ; 
 and Rich of the other patent house escaped but 
 little better. Of the latter it was asserted that 
 " poets . . . must submit to have their work 
 mangled by a Tumbler who can't spell, and 
 truckle to the ipse dixit of an assuming igno- 
 rant Harlequin. The Vanity of W ks^ the 
 
 Pertness of C r, and the Arrogance of 
 
 1 Craftsman, No. 140.
 
 52 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 B A,^ they have found united in one single 
 
 Fellow without any of the good Qualities of the 
 other to atone for them." ^ 
 
 Such treatment as this, it was claimed, de- 
 terred the best writers from offering their pro- 
 ductions to the stage, thereby leaving that 
 function to low-grade dramatists, who lowered 
 public taste and the dignity of the profession. 
 Once more, as in the early days of competition 
 between the patent houses, the legitimate drama 
 was allowed to decline, and pantomime, puppet- 
 show, and operas with their "sing-song con- 
 certs " without sense or plot, were substituted 
 instead. Aaron Hill, editor of the " Prompter," 
 waged an incessant warfare against the man- 
 agers of theatres for permitting and fostering 
 buffoonery in the place of the regular drama. 
 In addition to banishing common sense from 
 the stage, the managers were accused of don- 
 ning " party coloured caps " in their competition, 
 while " in respect of the French Harlequin at the 
 Little Theatre in the Haymarket," the national 
 drama was sure to suffer, if the middle gentry 
 and their children persisted in following the lead 
 
 1 Wilks, Gibber, and Booth. 
 
 2 "Tag-Rhime" in Daily Courant for February 26, 1732. 
 Quoted in Gentleman' s Magazine, February, 17o2. See also 
 Grub Street Journal, Nos. 112 and 115. In the latter, " Prosai- 
 cus " defends Rich, and insinuates that " Tag--Rhime " was 
 associated with the Drury Lane interests.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 53 
 
 of " people of Quality " in learning French for 
 the purpose of understanding such foolery.^ The 
 degeneracy and immorality of the English stage, 
 due to " selfish management of actors, vicious 
 performances, and a debauched public taste," 
 was the subject of contempt and scorn for more 
 than one moralist. " All our theatres put to- 
 gether," breaks out one of these, " could not 
 furnish out one perfect company."^ The silen- 
 cing of some of the theatres was declared to be 
 the only means left to protect public morals and 
 save the dramatic art. Speculation in amuse- 
 ments had developed into " theatrical madness," 
 and it was " high time that the stage should be 
 opposed " by parliamentary interference. 
 
 As early as 1732, the evil tendencies into which 
 the theatres were drifting and the necessity for 
 regulating them were pointed out. The reason 
 alleged for the deplorable condition was that 
 theatres had been allowed to be conducted at 
 random without regard to the merit or qualifi- 
 cation of theatrical managers. It was this open 
 trade in theatricals which had substituted farce 
 and pantomime for Shakespeare and Otway.^ 
 The author of " A Proposal for the Regulation 
 
 ^ Prompter, No. 13, December 9, 1734. 
 
 2 Universal Spectator, No. 340, April 12, 1735. Quoted in 
 Gentleman' s Magazine, April, 1735. 
 
 ^ A Proposal for the Regulation of the Stage, an essay, p. 21. 
 London, 1732.
 
 54 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 of the Stage " did not spare either of the pa- 
 tentees from the arraignment. The essayist, 
 while disavowing any aim to dispossess the two 
 houses (Drury Lane and Covent Garden) of their 
 patents, advocated the erection of a new theatre 
 "on a quite different establishment." "Theirs 
 [the patentees'] is confined to their own advan- 
 tage, this [the essayist's proposed theatre] is 
 calculated for the good of the publick, for the 
 encouragement of learning, the improvement of 
 politness, and the honour of the age." All the 
 details of the plan of this proposed new theatre 
 are set forth at length, from the raising of the 
 funds to the writing and dressing of the plays 
 for representation. The main idea of the plan 
 was that a national theatre should not be run 
 by private speculators, as were the two patent 
 houses and the other theatres, but solely for the 
 purpose of encouraging the dramatic and histri- 
 onic arts. The plan is of the greatest significance 
 as being the earliest of its kind and as contain- 
 ing the germ of the third theatre arguments of 
 the next century. By third theatre is meant, 
 of course, a third theatre under the protection of 
 government. 
 
 Other schemes for the relief of the dramatic 
 situation were not wanting. In the summer of 
 1733, Exeter 'Change was advertised for sale, 
 and it was suggested that the building be pur-
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 55 
 
 chased and maintained by endowment as a the- 
 atrical college to " encourage virtue, discounte- 
 nance vice, advance education, and be the means 
 of perfecting theatrical entertainments . . . ," so 
 that " foreigners would not find our theatres, 
 which should be fountains of wit, fountains of 
 folly." ' 
 
 But nothing came of these plans, and the vices 
 complained of continued. It was the opinion of 
 most men that nothing short of parliamentary 
 action could remedy the evils then possessing 
 the theatres in London, and, early in 1733, a 
 bill for that purpose was introduced into the 
 lower house. In a letter from the Hon. Charles 
 Howard to Lord Carlisle, dated May 24, 1733, 
 mention is made of such a bill in the House of 
 Commons " to regulate the playhouses." On its 
 first reading, there was "a debate of about two 
 hours upon it, but no Division," ^ and nothing 
 came of this attempt. 
 
 A far more vig-orous effort was made to check 
 the current when, on the 5th of March, 1735, Sir 
 John Barnard asked leave to bring a bill into the 
 House of Commons to restrain the number and 
 scandalous abuses of the London playhouses. 
 
 ^ Grub Street Journal, July 5, 1733 ; Gentleman's Magazine, 
 July, 1733. 
 
 2 Historical MSS. Com. EeportXIV^, p. 115. I have found 
 this mentioned in no other place.
 
 66 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 He represented, in particular, the mischief done 
 by them to the metropolis " by corrupting of 
 youth, encouraging vice, and debauchery, and 
 greatly prejudicing industry and trade." The 
 immediate occasion of Barnard's bill was the 
 projection of a new theatre in St. Martin's le 
 Grand. ^ When Barnard's motion was read, it 
 was reported that many in the House " seemed 
 to smile." However, Sir John was seconded by 
 a number of gentlemen, including Sir liobert 
 Walpole ; and although the motion was " at first 
 received with a sort of disdain," at length its 
 supporters were numerous, and " it was spoke 
 for both by young and old." 
 
 The speech of James Erskine, on this occa- 
 sion, is especially interesting. The half dozen 
 London playhouses, he declared, had brought a 
 change for the worse to the British temper, 
 " which, though cheerful and facetious formerly, 
 yet was sedate and solid ; but now so extrava- 
 gantly addicted to lewd and idle diversions, that 
 the number of Play-Houses in London was double 
 to that in Paris ; so that now we exceed in lev- 
 ity our fluttering, fiddling masters the French," 
 whence came these follies " and many other im- 
 
 ^ Aaron Hill scouted this idea, thinking it to be only a strata- 
 gem of one of the patentees to alarm and incense the magis- 
 trates to destroy the lesser establishments. Prompter, No. liv, 
 May 13, 1735.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 57 
 
 pertinencies." Mr. Erskine greatly deplored the 
 fact that " Italian eunuchs and signoras should 
 have set salaries equal to those of the Lords of 
 the Treasury and Judges of England, besides 
 tlie vast gains which these animals make by pre- 
 sents ... so that they carry away with them 
 sums sufficient to purchase estates in their own 
 country, where their wisdom for it is as much 
 esteemed, as our vanity and foolish extrava- 
 gance laughed at and despised." The speech had 
 the desired effect, and leave was given to bring 
 in a bill " for the restraining the number of 
 Houses for playing Interludes, and for the bet- 
 ter regulating common Players." 
 
 A month later (April 3), the bill was read for 
 the first time and ordered to its second reading. 
 But it was not destined to reach its final read- 
 ing without serious obstacles. One clause in the 
 bill provided that " no person or persons shall 
 act, represent, or perform any tragedy, comedy, 
 opera, play, farce, or other entertainment of the 
 Stage, for gain, hire, or reward, other than, and 
 except such person or persons in whom the right 
 of property in and to the said Letters Patent, 
 granted as aforesaid, to the said Thomas Killi- 
 grue. Sir William Davenant, Robert Wilks, 
 Colley Gibber, and Barton Booth ... is vested, 
 and their respective deputies or servants, dur- 
 ing the continuance of the process and privi-
 
 58 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 leges of them by their several Letters Patents 
 respectively granted." The injustice of this part 
 of the bill to actors appeared in "• The Case of 
 the Comedians of the Theatres Royal Drury 
 Lane and Covent Garden." This, it was pointed 
 out, would subject actors to the arbitrary will 
 of any one happening to own one of the patents, 
 reducing them to the hard terms and indignity 
 of being bought and sold as oxen. To remedy 
 this evil, should the bill become a law, a board 
 of arbitration was proposed, to act as an im- 
 partial court in all disputes between the pa- 
 tentees and the actors. It was thought wholly 
 unfair to authors and actors alike to place the 
 maintenance of the stage within the control of 
 caprice, or the possible ignorance of any one who 
 might look upon a theatrical patent merely as 
 a proper security in which to invest his money.^ 
 If this complaint was new in 1735, it was to be 
 heard many times and oft before the evil feared 
 was corrected. It is noteworthy, this modern 
 view put forward in 1735, that the profession 
 of the actors was an investment as much to be 
 protected as the rights of the patentees. 
 
 A "-vagrant " amendment, and others, also 
 
 ^ Prompter, No. xlv, April 15, 1735. HiU -was in favor of 
 stage regulation, but lie denied that restricting the number of 
 playhouses ■would at all correct the evil. The regulation, he 
 thought, should be of the management. Subsequent events 
 proved Hill a level-headed critic.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 59 
 
 brought vigorous objections to the bill ; but its 
 doom was sealed in the proposal to insert a 
 clause to confirm (if not to enlarge) the power 
 of the Lord Chamberlain over the players. This 
 was carrying the question of restriction farther 
 than the promoters of the bill were willing to go. 
 The power of the Lord Chamberlain was thought 
 too great already, or at least it had been too 
 widely exercised on occasion (notably in prohib- 
 iting Polly and Calista from being acted). It 
 was therefore deemed advisable to postpone the 
 attempt to pass a bill such as that originally 
 contemplated, rather than to establish by law a 
 power which might be exercised in an arbitrary 
 manner, accompanied, it might be, by mischiev- 
 ous results. For this reason, the bill was sud- 
 denly withdrawn on the 30th of April (1735), 
 and the whole question left open for discussion 
 and for settlement at some future time.^ 
 
 It was at this juncture that Henry Fielding 
 saw his opportunity, and, taking advantage of 
 the foibles about him in state and society, ap- 
 plied his genius to them with a success scarcely 
 dreamed of. And here it should be observed 
 that the great satirist had no special motives 
 against government ; he used the materials he 
 
 ^ The proceedings on Barnard's Bill are reported in Cob- 
 bett's Parliamentary History of England, vol. ix, cols. 944- 
 948. See also Parliamentary Register, vol. ix, p. 93.
 
 60 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 found ready-made for the exercise of his talent 
 and for his business interests. The low condi- 
 tion of the London stage itself, quite as much 
 as the subject-matter of his political satires, ac- 
 counts for his success at the Little Theatre in 
 the Ilaymarket ; and this fact, which was then, 
 and is still, generally overlooked, was clearly 
 recognized by the best critic of the time. " The 
 very great Run Pasqu'in has already had, and 
 is still like to have," declares the acute editor 
 of the " Prompter " (No. xlvii), " is the severest 
 Blow that cou'd be given to our Theatres, and 
 the strongest Confirmation of an Opinion I have 
 ventured singly^ to advance, viz. That the Stage 
 may (and as it may, ought to) he supported 
 without Pantomimer While the patent houses, 
 with all necessary facilities for acting the legit- 
 imate drama, were competing in spectacle and 
 dumb show, " a Gentleman, under the disadvan- 
 tage of a very bad House, with scarce an Actor, 
 and at very little Expense, by the single Power 
 of Satire, Wit, and Co7nmon Sense, has been 
 able to run a play on for 24 Nights, which is 
 now but beginning to rise in the Opinion of the 
 Town." Pasquin reached fifty nights before it 
 was taken off. Hill saw that the work of Fielding 
 was sure to bring about a speedy reorganiza- 
 tion of the whole theatrical business in London, 
 and he encouraged the effort with all his might.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT CI 
 
 His main objection to the satires was that they 
 were not plain enough, that they should be more 
 " in the Carreggio Manner.'''' 
 
 As might be expected, it was Fielding's scur- 
 rilous attacks upon the follies of government 
 on which men's opinions differed. Some main- 
 tained that a system of lettres de cachet and the 
 Bastile should be practiced in England against 
 those who dared question the affairs of state. To 
 which it was retorted by the thorough-blood 
 Briton : " What do you intend by mentioning 
 these? I hope not to threaten us nor to insinu- 
 ate that nothing will make it necessary to intro- 
 duce such damned Engines of Tyranny among 
 us." ^ Men of the latter turn of mind believed 
 that satire on government had a beneficial ef- 
 fect, and, though they would not contend that 
 all government was a farce to be satirized, nev- 
 ertheless, they asserted that greatness combined 
 with meanness is the essence of burlesque. 
 
 But there was a third interest at stake in the 
 controversy, namely, the question of decency 
 and morality. So long as vice and corruption 
 merely were satirized, men might argue till the 
 crack of doom on the question of liberty and 
 tyranny ; but so soon as society's sense of re- 
 
 ^ Correspondence in Gazetteer for May 7, 1737, and Com- 
 mon Sense for May 21, 1737 ; quoted in London Magazine for 
 May, 1737.
 
 62 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 spectability was offended by the method of sat- 
 ire, it was time to close the discussion and erect 
 the proper safeguards. And this is exactly what 
 happened ; as soon as the novelty of burlesque 
 itself wore off, the low public taste had to be 
 stimulated, and the manner, the language, of 
 satire was degraded for the purpose. In unprin- 
 cipled and irresponsible hands — and free com- 
 petition had realized this possibility by 1737 — 
 there was no limit to this tendency. " Satyr 
 without scurrility," says one of the speakers in 
 A Dialogue between the most Eminent Players 
 in the Shades, " never failed of a warm decep- 
 tion, but of late such an Inundation of Immor- 
 ality, Scandal, and unbounded Licentiousness 
 had overwhelmed it, that loudly called upon the 
 Legislature for Reformation." ^ When this stage 
 was reached,^ the remedy was at hand, sure and 
 
 ^ Theatrical Correspondence in Death. An Epistle from Mrs. 
 Oldjield, in the Shades, to Mrs. Br . . ceg . . die, upon Earth ; 
 Containing a Dialogue between the Most Eminent Players in the 
 Shades, upon the late Stage Desertation. London, 1743. 
 
 2 " They [i. e. the satirists] proceeded so far at last, that 
 a Farce was actually in Rehearsal, at one of our Theatres, in 
 which the same excellent Person [in the Government] was to 
 have been introduced on the stage, as we are informed, with 
 a Pair of Scales in one Hand, to Scandalize his Office and 
 lugging uji his Breeches, to reflect upon his Politeness. But this 
 Abominable Design was happily discovered by the Vigilance of 
 Another great Personage, . . . who ... is determined to take 
 Vengeance ... by putting an effectual Restraint upon the
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 63 
 
 severe, but more far-reaching in its effects, pro- 
 bably, than was intended at the time. 
 
 Consequently, a bill was prepared (in all pro- 
 bability at the suggestion of the Prime Minis- 
 ter), bearing certain resemblances to Sir John 
 Barnard's bill, as amended, and hurried through 
 the House of Commons at a time when but few 
 members were present. The main provisions of 
 the bill were simple and direct. It prohibited, 
 under penalty of £50, the acting for " hire, gain, 
 or reward " of any play or theatrical performance 
 of any kind soever not previously sanctioned 
 by letters patent from the crown, or licensed by 
 the Lord Chamberlain. All theatres were to be 
 restricted to the city of Westminster and the 
 liberties thereof, and to the place where the royal 
 family happened, at any time, to reside. Copies 
 of all plays to be acted must be placed in the 
 hands of the Lord Chamberlain at least a fort- 
 night before being represented. 
 
 In a letter from Colonel Cope to Edmund- 
 Weston, dated May 28, 1737, among other 
 interesting things is a curious side-light on 
 the Licensing Bill. It runs as follows : " Mr. 
 Horace Walpole is expected in London from 
 Norfolk this night. The Parliament, 'tis thought, 
 will sett about a fortnight after the Holydays, 
 
 Stage." Craftsman, No. 569, May 28, 1737 ; Gentleman's Mag- 
 azine, May, 1737.
 
 64 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 in which time The Scotch Bill may be passed in 
 case the North Brittains are not strong enough 
 to throw it out before, for as they divided 99 
 against 140 odd, on the early or late day for the 
 consideration of the Bill, 'tis imagined they will 
 come pretty near in the Progress of the Bill, by 
 many of the Majority going out of Town & such, 
 as the Master, Mr. Pulteny and others, I am 
 told, not designing to attend it, they were acci- 
 dentally in the division for the Comitment of the 
 Only Bill by waiting to flame & exclaim about 
 the Playhouse Bill, I mean Mr. Pulteny for the 
 Master was strong for the suppression of Play- 
 houses &c. and said that tho' it was a thin house, 
 yet he thought if those Gentlemen who were ab- 
 sent, as had been urged, differ in opinion with 
 him and be against the bill, he thought they were 
 better employed in looking after their own affairs, 
 upon which Pulteny did roast him most vio- 
 lently, & said a man who made so gi'eat a figure 
 in his Profession in another place, might better 
 keep to that place, then fell upon Winnington 
 without mercy, and spared not Sr. Robt nor Sr 
 Wm Yonge urging that this restraint upon the 
 Writers for the Stage, was a certain preamble to 
 the taking away the Liberty of the Press in gen- 
 eral, told a story, that Charles ye 2nd seeing a 
 man in the pillory, asked the crime, 'Twas libel- 
 ling Lord Clarendon, odds fish ! cries the king,
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 65 
 
 why did not the Fool go on libelling o£ me, he 
 must now certainly suffer for libelling this great 
 man. Ye Bill will pass & no Playhouse be al- 
 lowed but in the Liberties of Westminster, & 
 these to be licenc'd & under the direction of the 
 Lord Chamberlain." ^ 
 
 One of the first objections raised to the bill 
 was the almost unlimited power which it vested 
 in the Lord Chamberlain. The discouragement 
 it would cast on dramatic art by forcing writers 
 to cater to the Lord Chamberlain's taste was also 
 pointed out. Again, it was asserted that, if it 
 was the licentiousness and immorality of the 
 stage at which the bill aimed, it was unnecessary, 
 as the law already provided for the prosecution of 
 libelers and immoral persons. Furthermore, an 
 occasional abuse of liberty, it was thought, could 
 be better tolerated than the fettering of liberty 
 itself.^ 
 
 In Parliament, Pulteny, leader of the " Patri- 
 ots," was, of course, opposed to any bill sanctioned 
 by Walpole. But it was Lord Chesterfield who at- 
 tacked most vigorously and effectively the illib- 
 eral features of the Licensing Act. He called 
 attention to the precipitancy with which it had 
 
 ^ Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Man- 
 uscripts , i, 266, 267. 
 
 ^ London Magazine, June, 1737 ; Common Sense, "No. 18, June 
 4, 1737 ; Gentleman's Magazine, June, 1737 ; Craftsman, June 4, 
 1737.
 
 66 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 passed the House of Commons ; he pointed out 
 that, to enforce what was claimed as the main 
 idea of the bill, — the suppression of licentious- 
 ness, — the press itself must be bridled. If a play 
 were rejected from the stage, was it not human na- 
 ture to be curious about what had been forbidden ? 
 And if the press were restricted, as well attack 
 liberty outright. The power vested by the bill 
 in the Lord Chamberlain was declared to be 
 greater than that intrusted to the King himself. 
 Finally, the bill was unnecessary, as the abuses 
 which its promoters claimed it was intended to 
 restrain were already provided for by law.^ These 
 were the main points of Lord Chesterfield's ar- 
 guments against the measure. 
 
 But all objections were in vain, and the Licen- 
 sing Act passed on the 21st of June, 1737, and 
 became a law three days later. A number of in- 
 terests had been involved in its passage, and, 
 undoubtedly, the smarts from the lash of satire 
 which had been inflicted on government, and par- 
 ticularly on Walpole, were the immediate forces 
 carrying the bill through. But there can be lit- 
 tle doubt that along with this ran the jealousy 
 of the patentees for the managers of independ- 
 ent theatres. These had robbed Drury Lane of 
 its leading actors on one occasion, and had taken 
 
 ^ Gentleman's Magazine, July, 1737 ; London Magazine, 
 August, 1737.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 67 
 
 away the audiences of both Drury Lane and 
 Covent Garden on numerous occasions ; all of 
 which made it indispensable for the existence of 
 the latter that the former should be exterminated. 
 If the sole aim of the act had been to free the 
 stage from abuse and to protect society, why 
 were the patent houses excepted ? For certainly 
 they were the first offenders. Or, why was not 
 some such plan adopted as that advocated by 
 Aaron Hill, namely, to permit only the legitimate 
 drama to be acted in the unlicensed (or unpa- 
 tented) theatres, thereby forcing theatrical com- 
 petition out of the domain of buffoonery and 
 pantomime to a higher level ? ^ 
 
 The underlying cause of animosity toward the 
 unlicensed theatres was scarcely covered over by 
 the political arguments in favor of protection to 
 the state. Gibber, after dwelling for some pages 
 on the political necessity of the Licensing Act, 
 lets slip another argument for it. " And now 
 we have seen the Gonsequence of what many 
 People are apt to contend for, Variety of Play- 
 houses ! How was it possible so many could hon- 
 estly subsist, on what was fit to be seen ? Their 
 extraordinary Number, of course, reduc'd them 
 to live upon the Gratification of such Hearers, 
 as they knew would be best pleased with pub- 
 
 1 Prompter, Hv, May 16, 1735. This editorial contains the 
 best criticism of the theatrical situation I have found.
 
 68 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 lick Offence ; and publick Offence, of what kind 
 soever, will always be a good Reason for making 
 Laws to restrain it." The logic of " of course " is 
 not at first apparent, nor is the force any more pa- 
 tent of the following conclusion, which assumes 
 that, since new plays must be written to support 
 a number of theatres, therefore, such plays must 
 be disgracefully bad. But to resume Gibber's 
 discussion. " To conclude, let us now consider 
 this Law, in a quite different Light ; let us leave 
 the political Part of it quite out of the Question ; 
 What Advantage could either the Spectators 
 of Plays, or the Masters of Play-houses have 
 gain'd by its having never been made ? How 
 could the same Stock of Plays supply four The- 
 atres, which (without such additional Enter- 
 tainments, as a Nation of common Sense ought 
 to be ashamed of) could not well support two ? 
 Satiety must have been the natural Consequence, 
 of the same Plays being twice as often repeated, 
 as now they need be ; and Satiety puts an End 
 to all Tastes, that the Mind of Man can delight 
 in." 1 
 
 In the foregoing discussion I have attempted 
 to brino- togfether all the essential evidences 
 showing the causes, immediate and remote, of 
 the Licensing Act, as well as to explain the dif- 
 ference in status of the theatrical question in 
 
 1 Gibber's Apology, pp. 241, 242.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 69 
 
 London before and after the passage of that act. 
 If I have succeeded in this, it will appear that 
 the Vagrant Act of 12 Queen Anne, which had 
 been passed to meet local and temporary condi- 
 tions, had fallen into disuse, and with it the 
 control of the crown over theatrical amusements. 
 This is clearly seen in the rise of the Haymarket 
 and Goodman's Fields Theatres in defiance of 
 that law, and in the results of the contests be- 
 tween the manager of Drury Lane and the actors 
 in 1733, especially the decision in the case of the 
 Patentees vs. Harper. The preamble to the act 
 itself plainly expresses, in general terms, this fact, 
 that the act was made for the express purpose of 
 amending and making more effectual the Vagrant 
 Act of 12 Queen Anne, as relates to common 
 players of interludes. In other words, the Licen- 
 sing Act restored the crown prerogative respect- 
 ing plays and players, and brought into one legal 
 focus what had already been sanctioned by com- 
 mon law. No alteration was made in the fact ; 
 simply, the fact was placed in the light of an 
 enforcing and enforceable legal form. This being 
 the case, it would hardly seem requisite to point 
 out again that no individual can be held respon- 
 sible for the act of 1737 ; or, that the real need 
 of such a law lay in the necessity of centralizing 
 responsibility for the abuse of privileges in mat- 
 ters theatrical. That the meaning and intent of
 
 70 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the act was perverted to the use of selfish and 
 tyrannical ends has nothing to do with the dis- 
 cussion in hand. 
 
 With the passage of the Licensing Act, a 
 practical policy was crystallized in a moment for 
 the patentees, and the government was committed 
 to the support of that policy. It marks the lii'st 
 distinct definition of the position of the govern- 
 ment relative to theatrical amusements, and out- 
 lines the defense of that position. The magnified 
 occasion which gave it birth soon passed from 
 sight, and the underlying real significance ap- 
 peared. All the ground gained for a free stage 
 since the days of Charles II was lost in the 
 twinkling of an eye, and the monopoly was sealed 
 more certainly than ever before. More certainly, 
 because the real meaning of theatrical monopoly 
 was better understood than ever before. Disor- 
 ganization distinguishes theatrical disturbances 
 before 1737 ; with the Licensing Act, the lines 
 were clearly drawn, and the struggle on both 
 sides gradually fell into settled order and plan. 
 But it was more than a century before the advo- 
 cates of freedom in theatrical afifairs in London 
 were able to put to rest the obnoxious Licensing 
 Act of 1737.1 
 
 ^ The new law made necessary the appointment of a new 
 official, an examiner, or licenser of stage plays, who acted 
 under the immediate authority of the Lord Chamberlain.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT 71 
 
 Relative to the first appointment to this office, Genest says 
 {English Stage, iii, 522) , " In February, 1738, according to the 
 Manuscript in the British Museum, or in April, according to 
 Chalmers, William Chetwynd was sworn in Licenser of the 
 stage (under the Lord Chamberlain) with a salary of £400 a 
 year. " Odell, founder of the Goodman's Fields Theatre, was 
 made deputy licenser.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE, 1737-1787 
 
 THE immediate effect of the Licensing Act 
 was the closing of the Goodman's Fields 
 Theatre, and also the Little Theatre in the Hay- 
 market ; and two manuscript tragedies the en- 
 suing season were prohibited by the licenser of 
 plays. One of these was Gustava Vasa (by 
 Henry Brooke), and, as was predicted by Lord 
 Chesterfield, the proscription was followed by a 
 numerous subscription and wide circulation of 
 the tragedy. Victor says of this circumstance, 
 " I am certain he [Brooke] cleared above a 
 Thousand Pounds by that Subscription ; so much 
 incensed were the Public at this first Instance 
 of the Power of a Licencer." The other piece 
 was Edward and Eleanora, a play founded on 
 an apocryphal episode in the life of Edward I. 
 This was printed in 1739, and, like Gustava 
 Vasa,) was supported by subscription. It was 
 written by James Thomson, author of " The Sea- 
 sons." The unpopularity of the act reached its 
 climax when a company of French strollers were 
 licensed to exhibit at the theatre lately occupied
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 73 
 
 by Fielding. The advertisement of these per- 
 formers was headed in bold letters, " BY AU- 
 THORITY ! " but they soon discovered that there 
 was an authority above that of mere sound, as 
 evinced by public clamor which developed into 
 a riot, effectually putting a stop to the perform- 
 ance.^ The obnoxious law itself was quite as 
 much as the public were willing to staijd ; its 
 enforcement by means of permitting to a foreign 
 troupe — and that a French troupe — the liberty 
 which had been denied Englishmen, was consid- 
 ered a sufficient justification for the violence of 
 the incensed audience. 
 
 Matters stood thus for a year or two, when it 
 occui'red to the enemies of the new " gagging law " 
 that a practical evasion might be devised. Our 
 old friend Giffard was ringleader to the scheme, 
 which was simply to get around the " for gain, 
 hire, or reward " clause of the Licensing Act, and 
 on the 15th of October, 1740, he caused to be 
 published the following announcement : " At the 
 late Theatre in Ayliffe Street — A Concert of 
 Vocal and Instrumental Musick in 2 Parts — 
 Between the Parts of the Concert will be pre- 
 sented gratis a Comedy, called The Stratagem — 
 By Persons for their diversion." Three days 
 
 ^ The play was a three-act Comedy, The Plague of Riches, 
 aud was advertised for October 9, 1738. Gentleman's Magazine, 
 October, 1738. See also Victor, i, 53.
 
 74 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 later, Venice Preserved was given, and perform- 
 ances appeared more or less regularly on the 
 Goodman's Fields stage throughout the season, 
 which closed on May 7, 1741. 
 
 That Giffard was unmolested in his operations 
 at the Goodman's Fields Theatre in 1740-41 
 does not appear to be due to the fact that he 
 evaded, or thought he was evading, the act of 
 1737, though, no doubt, it was that which em- 
 boldened him to make the attempt. It would 
 seem, rather, that for abetting Sir Robert Wal- 
 pole, by delivering to him the Golden Hump, 
 Giffard had earned the good -will of the Premier, 
 who now took the opportunity to express his grati- 
 tude to the manager by winking at the infraction 
 of the law passed at his own request. As a fur- 
 ther reason why Giffard was uninterrupted in his 
 movements, it was said that since he confined 
 himself to the plays of Shakespeare " and a few 
 deceased poets of eminence," he avoided running 
 counter to the interests of the patent houses.^ 
 
 But the time was near at hand when these 
 reasons, if ever potent, were insufficient to defend 
 Giffard from the envy of the patentees. When 
 the young David Garrick, with a brief appren- 
 
 ^ Town and Country Magazine, October, 1787. It was re- 
 ported that Walpole ordered a gratuity of £600 to be tendered 
 Giffard for his ' zeal for government, ' but that it was never 
 given. See also Baker, Biographia Dramatica, ii, 139.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 75 
 
 ticeship in one of the country theatres, first 
 appeared in London, little attention was bestowed 
 on him. Neither of the managers of the patent 
 houses, it was said, offered him any encourage- 
 ment when he applied to them. It is to the credit 
 and honor of Henry Giffard that the greatest 
 actor who has yet appeared on the English stage 
 had an introduction to a London audience. On 
 the 19th of October, 1741, Garrick appeared, 
 for the first time on a London stage, at Good- 
 man's Fields Theatre, in Richard Third. That 
 theatre had not been noted, hitherto, for the ex- 
 cellence of its performers, and so the first night 
 was not distinguished by a large, or otherwise 
 exceptional, audience. But the genius of Garrick 
 brought with it a revolution in the histrionic art, 
 from a sing-song, affected declamation to a re- 
 presentation of nature ; and by dint of this genius 
 the character of the audiences at Goodman's 
 Fields was almost immediately metamorphosed. 
 The young actor's fame spread throughout every 
 part of the town with the greatest rapidity ; and 
 Goodman's Fields Theatre, which had been con- 
 fined to the inhabitants of the city, became the 
 resort of the polite, and was honored with the 
 notice of all ranks and orders of people.^ 
 
 From a business point of view, Garrick's en- 
 
 1 Baker, Biographia Dramatica, Introduction, p. xlii ; Davies, 
 Memoirs of Garrick, 3d ed., i, 42-50.
 
 76 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 gagement at Goodman's Fields swelled the cof- 
 fers at that theatre, and, in an inverse ratio, 
 diminished those of the patent houses. The pa- 
 tentees became alarmed at the turn affairs were 
 taking, and determined no longer to brook the 
 success, at their expense, of Giffard's house. 
 Uniting their efforts, and securing the coop- 
 eration of Sir John Barnard (mover of the 
 Playhouse Bill of 1735), then one of the chief 
 magistrates of London, they threatened Giffard 
 and Garrick with the Licensing Act. Thus in- 
 timidated, Garrick made terms with Fleetwood 
 of Drury Lane and joined the company at the 
 patent house at a salary of £500. Giffard was 
 finally compelled to shut the Goodman's Fields 
 Theatre, and soon afterwards he engaged at 
 Drury Lane.^ The whole transaction illustrates 
 not only the efficiency of the act of 1737, but 
 it also discovers the fact that the patentees in- 
 tended that the law should not remain a dead 
 letter so long as it could be enforced to serve 
 their ends. 
 
 Although the patent rights of the two old the- 
 
 ^ With the exception of a brief occupancy of Lincoln's-Inn- 
 Fields, in the spring of 1743, this ended Giffard's career as a 
 theatre manager. While in charge of Goodman's Fields, he 
 had revived AlPs Well, Winter\^ Tale, Henry V, and King 
 Arthur, introduced Garrick to London, and also brought out 
 two of the actor's own pieces, The Lying Valet, a farce, and 
 Lethe, a satire. Genest, iv, 47-49.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 77 
 
 atres seemed thus secure from external foes, they 
 were not secure from internal discords. Feeling 
 too acutely the independence furnished by a 
 legal safeguard, Fleetwood of Drury Lane took 
 advantage of the situation to treat his actors in 
 a niggardly fashion, refusing them their salaries, 
 and otherwise showing them professional dis- 
 courtesies. Led by Garrick and Macklin (who 
 had been acting-manager of Drury Lane since 
 the revolt of 1733), ten of the performers formed 
 a compact to oppose the obstinacy and insolence 
 of the manager. Hoping to enlist the sympathy 
 of the Lord Chamberlain in their cause, as Bet- 
 terton had done in 1695, the seceding actors 
 applied for a license to set up a theatrical com- 
 pany at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket. 
 But to their amazement the Duke of Grafton 
 (then Lord Chamberlain) treated their suit with 
 manifest coolness ; he probably remembered the 
 unjust and despicable attempts of Theophilus 
 Cibber to ruin the prospects of Highmore, ten 
 years before, and so refused to grant a license. 
 This contingency was entirely unlooked-for, and, 
 although there can be but little doubt that the 
 revolters were all pledged to accede to no terms 
 proposed by Fleetwood, rather than bring dis- 
 aster on so many by holding out, Garrick hastily 
 beat a retreat and signed a treaty of peace with 
 the Drury Lane manager. The action of Garrick
 
 78 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 on this occasion, though excused on the grounds 
 of judgment and prudence, was bitterly attacked 
 by Macklin, and was the cause of a long and 
 caustic war of pamphlets. Macklin, true to his 
 nature and the principle which led him to take 
 his stand against Fleetwood, in the first instance, 
 remained fixed in his determination to continue 
 the warfare. As a consequence, when the com- 
 promise was patched up between the other actors 
 and the patentee, Macklin found himself out of 
 the company, likewise out of employment. How- 
 ever, the old veteran was a fighter, and did not 
 long remain idle. Though excluded from Drury 
 Lane, he gathered a company of young actors at 
 the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, and, with 
 the ostensible purpose of instructing them in the 
 art of acting, opened the theatre on February 
 6, 1744, with a concert, followed by Othello. 
 Once more the letter of the law was evaded. As 
 explained by the play-bill, " No money will be 
 taken at the doors, nor any person admitted, 
 but by printed tickets which will be delivered 
 by Mr. Macklin at his home in Bow Street, C. 
 G." Among this heterogeneous company of raw 
 recruits was a name which was destined, in its 
 way, to become famous. In the title role of 
 Othello Samuel Foote made his first appearance 
 on a London stage. ^ 
 
 ^ Cooke, Memoirs of Macklin, pp. ISS-liS ; Davies, Memoirs
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 79 
 
 For all Macklin's wrath at Garrick, and the 
 avowals of eternal enmity between Fleetwood 
 and Macklin, the latter was, with the opening 
 of the season of 1744-45, once more back at 
 Drury Lane in his favorite character of Shy lock. 
 The occasional Prologue, spoken by Macklin 
 at this time, was so full of humble contrition 
 for his recent offense, that it must have caused 
 merriment to all lovers of comedy. Theophilus 
 Gibber was left at the Hay market to succeed to 
 the management, and his purpose, or devise, 
 may best be explained in his own words, quoted 
 from his " Serio-Comic Apology : " — 
 
 " As I am advised by the Learned in the 
 Laws of the Land, that no Act of Parliament 
 deems Actinrj Malum in se, I shall not be afraid, 
 for the better Instruction of my Pupils, the 
 more to embolden them to a Stage, to permit 
 them frequently . . , publickly to rehearse sev- 
 eral Pieces of our most celebrated Authors ; 
 and that the Town may be the Judges of the 
 Progress they make in their Studies, those jffe- 
 hearsals Qivlth 2)roper Habits^ Decorations, &q.^ 
 will be exhibited Gratis^ 
 
 It was announced that money would be taken 
 for the concerts only, an emphasis being laid on 
 the free " publick Rehearsals." The musical pro- 
 
 of Garrick, Am. ed., toI. i, ch. viii ; Gentleman's Magazine, 
 October-December, 1743.
 
 80 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 gramme was to be rendered from about four to 
 seven in the afternoon, after which the doors 
 would be closed, to open immediately for the 
 gratis performance. There needed no powers of 
 divination to see through this thin veil of decep- 
 tion, and it was the more readily rent because 
 Theophilus Gibber was in very bad odor with 
 the patentees, and with the public in general. 
 Soon after the appearance of the above an- 
 nouncement, a Justice of the Peace notified 
 Gibber that an application was in process of mak- 
 ing to prevent his scheme. Theophilus persisted 
 that he had a right to earn his bread, if, in so 
 doing, he were in no wise violating the laws of 
 the land. To test the case, he manifested a will- 
 ingness to have his cause tried in the King's 
 Bench ; but he was informed that his " school " 
 was a mere sham, that the law distinctly required 
 a license of him, and that if he failed to secure 
 one, he was liable to prosecution as a vagabond. 
 The pressure was too strong for Gibber, and, 
 after a week of quibbling, " down dropped the 
 Academy," and the monopoly once more proved 
 to be invulnerable. Gibber thereupon threw up 
 the business and got employment with Rich at 
 Govent Garden where he appeared in the play- 
 bills among the actors in the Relapse, advertised 
 for January 2, 1745. Mrs. Gharke (Golley Gib- 
 ber's daughter) completed, without molestation,
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 81 
 
 the few remaining performances announced by 
 
 Cibber.i 
 
 The revolt of 1743, following so closely upon 
 the passage of the Licensing Act, called for 
 the expression of public opinion in no equivocal 
 terms. Although the result of the controversy 
 was a positive victory for the defenders of patent 
 rights in theatres, certain criticisms were I'aised 
 relative to the legality of the patents themselves, 
 which placed the holders of those documents in 
 a most uncomfortable position.^ The whole cause 
 of the disgraceful contest was entered into at 
 length, and the results of numerous " impartial 
 examens " were published to the town in that 
 convenient and popular medium, the printed 
 pamphlet. It was readily seen that the new law 
 had not reached all the evils connected with the 
 theatres, for, it was conceived, the competitive 
 warfare carried on between the two patent houses 
 was, in reality, at the bottom of the disputes of 
 1743. " When each Playhouse labours to have 
 
 ^ Genest, iv, 171. Soon after the occurrences related in 
 the foregoing jjaragraph, Fleetwood was under the necessity 
 of selling, or mortgaging, his license at Drury Lane to two 
 brokers, Green and Amber (1745). Lacey, the actor, joined the 
 venture, and, in a short time, became the sole proprietor. In 
 1747, Garrick was admitted to partnership, and the Drury 
 Lane license was renewed to Lacey and Gamck conjointly. 
 
 ^ While Drury Lane continued to be governed by a license 
 instead of a patent, it was during the whole of the eighteenth 
 century, and later, considered a " patent " house.
 
 82 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 all," argues one, " and strives to have more good 
 Sense, better Singers and finer Dancers than the 
 other, the natural Consequence must be that the 
 Town will reap Satisfaction from neither, espe- 
 cially if there be a deficiency of Prudence in 
 the Management of both. . . . The Misfortune 
 is, that the Managers are Brokers only,' and 
 bid for the Town," with the result that both the 
 public and the actors must suffer. To obviate the 
 difficulties arising from such a senseless com- 
 petition, it was suggested by J. Ralph, in " The 
 Case of the Present Theatrical Disputes," that 
 one of the theatres should appropriate tragedy, 
 while the other might cater to the public taste for 
 comedy. The serious and disgraceful controversy 
 which had been foisted on the public, it was 
 apprehended by the author of "An Impartial 
 Examen of the Present Contests between the 
 Town and the Manager," was due to rival actors 
 and unnecessary jealousies, fostered by the man- 
 ager himself ; and to the paying of salaries un- 
 justified by merit or the financial condition of 
 Fleetwood, — all for the purpose of destroying the 
 competition of the house in Covent Garden. Such 
 unbusiness-like extravagance resulted in putting 
 on cheap and poorly " dressed " entertainments, 
 and forced the conclusion that the immediate dif- 
 ficulty was due to incapable management. 
 
 1 See note on p. 81.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 83 
 
 The abuse of the Licensing Act, as enforced 
 in the contests of 1743, did not escape the most 
 scathing^ denunciation. All that had been feared 
 from its unequal operation had come to pass. 
 " The Actors are a People from the highest to 
 the Lowest," breaks forth " Mr. Neither-side " 
 in his " Impartial Examen," " the most to be 
 pitied of his Majesty's Subjects; because the last 
 Theatrical Act of Parliament has made them the 
 only Slaves in the Nation : All other Degrees of 
 People have Liberty to try to get a Livllhood 
 in the- Profession they were bred to ; and I hope 
 from the ill use of Power the two Theatrical 
 Managers have made, to see this ensuing Ses- 
 sions that Act repealed, ..." 
 
 " This Act of Parliament was so lately made, 
 and the Cause of it so well known, viz. the scan- 
 dalous Licentiousness of an abusive Wit, &c, that 
 one may venture to say it is made use of, at pre- 
 sent, for a quite contrary Purpose than it was 
 first intended. The Innocent only have suffer'd 
 by it! . . . As it was not, I'm confident, de- 
 sign'd meerly to promote a Monopoly of The- 
 atrical Diversions for two People, who, in many 
 Points, have shewn themselves unequal to the 
 Station they are in, I will hope some Amend- 
 ments will at least be made in it, or such ex- 
 planation of it, as seems now palpably necessary : 
 As it stands, let any one make Interest privately,
 
 84 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 with any Justice of Peace, they can even disturb 
 any Persons who really give their Performance 
 of a Play ; and as their Commitment is in Exe- 
 cution, the Person oppress'd must first undergo 
 the Punishment, and may afterwards try whether 
 'tis legal : An odd Circumstance, in a free 
 Country, according to an old Phrase — to Hang 
 ^emjirst, and Try afterwards.'' This is so just 
 an interpretation of the practical meaning of the 
 Licensing Act, that I have been tempted to 
 quote it at length. If the writer of the pamphlet 
 could have known that the act was to continue 
 unaltered to near the middle of the nineteenth 
 century, he would have had cause to exclaim. 
 
 But the real difficulty lay, as some were wise 
 enough to see, in the very principle of patent 
 rights, the perpetuity of which depended on the 
 bolstering-up of an unjust law. It was boldly 
 questioned whether by virtue of any grant, pa- 
 tent, or license, a theatrical manager had the 
 right to turn the public interest to private ends. 
 The manager of a theatre, it was declared, was 
 as answerable for the public taste, as a prime 
 minister for a well-ordered government ; and, it 
 was thought, any abuse of the privileges con- 
 tained in a patent should be deemed sufficient 
 grounds for the forfeiture of the grant. The 
 treatment of the actors by Fleetwood was an in- 
 stance of abuse of privilege ; the use of a public
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 85 
 
 commodity (for such was theatrical amusement 
 considered) for private ends was another. To 
 avoid, in future, any recurrence of the disputes 
 of 1743, it was proposed to regulate the national 
 theatres in such a way as to msure their manage- 
 ment for the public good. The difficulties attend- 
 ing such an attempt at reformation were antici- 
 pated. To quote again from Ralph's pamphlet, 
 " The parties concerned may not submit to such 
 a new regulation ; . . . the Managers will insist 
 upon their Patents, which flow from the mere 
 Grace and Favour of the Crown ; and the 
 Players on their respective Merits, ... to value 
 that same Merit of theirs at what rate they shall 
 think fit. But alas ! can they imagine, that the 
 Crown itself will ever suffer a Patent to stand in 
 the way of public good, ... or, have more re- 
 gard for the private interest of a Manager, than 
 for that of the Community. No, No, this is never 
 to be feared, and besides, if even such were the 
 case, there are ordinary, and extraordinary ways 
 of coming at Patents, and of rendering them void, 
 when they are visibly abused." Some years be- 
 fore, the editor of the " Prompter " (No. cxvii) 
 had summarized, in brief terms, the exigencies 
 which might (and did) overtake the theatrical 
 patents : " Had those Patents . . . determin'd 
 with the Lives of their Grantees^ Had they been 
 limited (as certainly they ought to have been)
 
 86 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 to the Personal claims of those Gentlemen, in 
 Right of whose Genius they were granted, the 
 Power reverting continually to the Crown, Care 
 would still have been taken, to bestow it afresh, 
 with View to the Original Motive, the Merit of 
 the Hand it went into. . . . But Hereditary 
 Right to be WITTY, being a false, and un- 
 maintainable Title^ the EDICTS for Perpetuat- 
 ing JUDGMENT, /e?Z (in the literal sense of the 
 Word) to be stock-jobV d^ into incapable Hands : 
 Whence a mercenary Disposition to make the 
 most of their Bargain, became the chief Point 
 of Sight, to those Buyers of an Oj)portunity to 
 expose their own Ignorance." 
 
 But such arguments and pleas were now futile, 
 for, although the episode of the secession of 1743 
 reduced Fleetwood to bankruptcy, which forced 
 him out of the management of Drury Lane, the 
 theatrical monopoly came out of the conflict un- 
 scathed and securer than ever. Henceforward, 
 the matter of theatrical privileges was at the 
 disposal of the patentees, or, rather, what seemed 
 to them the same thing, the Lord Chamberlain. 
 If any one desired to entertain the public with 
 a performance falling within the meaning of the 
 Licensing Act,^ the custom was soon established 
 
 ^ The list was inclusive, comprehending " interludes, trage- 
 dies, comedies, operas, plays, farces, or other entertainments of 
 the stage."
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 87 
 
 of first gaining the consent of the patentees, and, 
 afterwards, the license of the Lord Chamberlain. 
 On rare occasions this order was not observed, 
 but the greatest care was exercised that the 
 patent houses be kept free from the annoyance 
 and danger of outside competition. 
 
 For many years after the events just recorded, 
 no serious attempt was made to break over the 
 barriers erected about the theatrical business 
 in London. In the spring and summer of 1747, 
 the eccentric Samuel Foote, who made his first 
 appearance as an actor in Macklin's " school " 
 during the revolt of 1743, began his " Dish of 
 Chocolate" and "Dish of Tea" diversions at the 
 Little Theatre in the Hay market.^ The next 
 year he varied the programme with what he 
 pleased to call " An Auction of Pictures," which 
 he continued in 1749. A few years later (1755), 
 the Lord Chamberlain (then Duke of Devon- 
 shire) took pity on the wretched condition of the 
 disreputable Theophilus Cibber, and, for a brief 
 period during the summer, permitted him to open 
 the Little Theatre for performances. Genest^ 
 quotes Cibber's advertisement as follows : " At 
 the new theatre in the Haymarket, with authority 
 by Bayes' new raised company of comedians." 
 
 ^ General Advertiser for Api-il 22, 1747 ; quoted by Genest, 
 iv, 225. 
 
 2 English Stage, iv, 424.
 
 88 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 The regular drama was presented at these per- 
 formances. On Sej)tember 28, 1759, The Busy 
 Body was given at the Haymarket for Mrs. 
 Charke's benefit, and the next year Foote's 'farce, 
 The Jfijior, came out there. But in 1761, a man 
 with a do^-show forestalled Foote in securing: the 
 Haymarket Theatre, and so Foote and Murphy 
 were suffered to open Drury Lane as a summer 
 theatre. Every summer for the next four years, 
 as we learn from the old play-bill collector, 
 Foote was at the Haymarket, bringing out his 
 own characteristic productions — Ifinor, Orators^ 
 Mayor of Garratt, and others. 
 
 But little significance can be attached to these 
 summer amusements of Foote's at the Haymar- 
 ket from 1747 to 1756, for they were so unique 
 that many of them fell outside the definitioij 
 of theatrical performances proper, and scarcely 
 any of them could be regarded as competing 
 with the exhibitions at the patent houses. It was 
 in view of this fact, and particularly since 
 Foote's entertainments were given in the sumr 
 mer season, that they were tolerated. However, 
 essential results sometimes develop from appar- 
 ently inconsiderable beginnings. In February, 
 1766, Foote made a visit to Lord Mexborough, 
 in Hants. A number of gentlemen of distinction 
 were there at the time, among others the Duke 
 of York, and, knowing Foote's reputation for
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 89 
 
 repartee, they bantered liim on the subject of his 
 horsemanship. In a spirit of braggadocio, he 
 was induced to mount the Duke's horse, a most 
 spirited animal, but he was scarcely seated in the 
 saddle when he was thrown with such terrific 
 violence as to break one of his legs in two places. 
 Everything known to the surgery of the day was 
 done to save the limb, but to no avail, and am- 
 putation was finally resorted to.^ The Duke of 
 York keenly felt his responsibility in this sad 
 affair, and did what he could to compensate 
 Foote for his loss. Using his influence in the 
 proper quarter, the Duke succeeded in obtaining 
 for Foote a patent for a theatre in the city and 
 liberties of Westminster, with the privilege of 
 performing dramatic entertainments there from 
 May 15 to September 15 (inclusive) during 
 the period of his natural life.^ Foote's biogra- 
 pher (Cooke) says that he purchased the old 
 premises in the Haymarket and erected a new 
 theatre on the same ground ; but it is altogether 
 likely that he merely improved and occupied 
 the old theatre built by Potter.^ 
 
 The patent thus granted to Foote created a 
 
 ^ The accident happened on February 3, 1766. Mention is 
 made of it in the Gentleman's Magazine for February, 1766. 
 
 2 Gentleman's Magazine, July, 1766. "Wed. 9 [July], 1766. 
 " A Patent Passed the Great Seal, to Samuel Foote Esqr. only." 
 
 ^ Baker, Biographia Dramatica, Introduction, xlv ; London 
 Magazine, May, 1767 ; Public Advertiser, July 24, 1766.
 
 90 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 third royal theatre, though, it will be observed, 
 it was to Foote solely, and was to continue 
 merely for the lifetime of the original grantee. 
 Furthermore, it was to operate during the sum- 
 mer season only, and hence could not be con- 
 strued as interfering with the privileges claimed 
 by the monopoly. Foote began performing at 
 the Haymarket under his patent soon after it 
 had passed the Great Seal. During his second 
 season (1767), a circumstance arose which threat- 
 ened the success of Foote's establishment. Barry, 
 "the greatest of Eomeos," returned from Ire- 
 land, where he had been acting, in July, 1766, 
 and, together with Mrs. Dancer (who later be- 
 came Mrs. Barry), Mr. Lee, and others, rented 
 the Opera House, built by Vanbrugh in the 
 Haymarket, and began playing Shakespeare to 
 enthusiastic audiences. The rivalry proving too 
 dangerous to the Little Theatre, Foote put a 
 stop to it in the most effectual (and modern) 
 fashion, by securing the leading actors of the 
 opposing company and taking them into his own 
 employ.^ This move necessitated a change of 
 program at Foote's theatre: in order to give 
 opportunity to the talents of Barry and Dancer, 
 for the remainder of the season the legitimate 
 drama, including Lear^ Venice Preserved^ etc., 
 appeared pretty regularly, in place of the usual 
 
 ^ Cooke, Memoirs o/Macklin, 2d edition, 164-169.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 91 
 
 fare of comedy and farce. But at the opening 
 of the winter season of 1767, Garrick, who was 
 at the hehn at Drury Lane, shrewdly put a stop 
 to these successes by taking Barry and Dancer 
 into the patent company. 
 
 Nothing further, for some years, occurred to 
 alter or in any way affect the theatrical situation 
 in London as it appears at the opening of the 
 season of 1768. Garrick was still at Drury 
 Lane. John Rich had died in 1761, and was 
 succeeded at Covent Garden by his son-in-law, 
 Beard, who, in 1767, sold out to Colman, 
 Harris, Powell, and Rutherford. On the 30th of 
 May, 1768, Foote brought out his famous Devil 
 upon Two Sticks. In the course of the dialogue, 
 towards the conclusion of the piece, occurs the 
 following interesting passage which contains 
 certain strictures on the patentees worth quoting. 
 The Devil has just recommended Harriet and 
 Invoice to go on the stage, but adds that he can 
 be of no service in getting them employment 
 either at Drury Lane or Covent Garden. 
 
 " Invoice. No ? I thought. Sir, you told me 
 just now, that the several arts of the Drama 
 were under your direction. 
 
 " Devil. So they were formerly ; but now they 
 are directed by the Genius of Insipidity : he 
 has entered into partnership with the Managers 
 of both houses, and they have set up a kind of
 
 92 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 circulating library, for the vending of dialogue 
 novels, — I dare not go near the new house, for 
 the Demon of Power, who gave me this lameness, 
 has possessed the j)ates, and sowed discord 
 among the mock monarchs there ; and what one 
 receives the other rejects,^ — and as to the other 
 house, the manager has great merit in himself, 
 with skill to discern and candour to allow it in 
 others ; but I can be of no use in making your 
 bargain, for in that he would be too many for 
 the cunningest Devil amongst us.^ 
 
 " Invoice. I have heard of a new playhouse in 
 the Haymarket. 
 
 " Devil. What, Foote's ? Oh, that 's an eccen- 
 tric, narrow establishment : however, it may do 
 for a couj) cVessai and prove no bad foundation 
 for a future engagement." 
 
 In February, 1773, Foote announced his 
 " Primitive Puppet Show," and before the mid- 
 dle of April had given it seventeen times. Tlie 
 Sentimental Comedy was also acted at the Hay- 
 market before the 15th of May, and as late as 
 the 18th of Sejitember. Other pieces were per- 
 formed out of the season limit of the patent, but 
 the jealous eyes of the patentees, especially of 
 Garrick, were on the movements of the freak at 
 
 ^ Referring to the notorious quarrels of the managers at 
 Covent Garden. 
 
 - A hit, of course, at Garrick's close-fisted business charac- 
 teristic.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 93 
 
 the Haymarket, and any irregularities there, in 
 the way of stretching privileges, were almost al- 
 ways "by permission" and usually for some per- 
 former's benefit. As an example of the extreme 
 vigilance exercised by the patentees, in May, 
 1776, when Foote opened the Haymarket for 
 the summer season, he shut it again at once 
 because Drury Lane had not yet closed. Finally, 
 in 1777, Foote sold his patent to George Colman 
 (the elder), who at once disposed of his share in 
 the Covent Garden management and devoted his 
 attention to his new purchase.^ But it should be 
 observed that the tenure under which Coleman 
 managed the Haymarket Theatre was not, as is 
 usually supposed, the same as that by which Foote 
 claimed privileges. Colman held by virtue of an 
 annualliceiise^ issued by the Lord Chamberlain ;^ 
 and, although the Little Theatre continued to 
 be called a royal theatre, probably because of 
 its origin, it was in reality on the same precarious 
 footing as the other theatrical concerns which, 
 later, made their appearance. 
 
 The circumstance noted in the foregoing para- 
 graph, of the Drury Lane Theatre keeping its 
 
 ^ Foote was to receive ^1600 per annum during his life ; 
 Coleman was to receive, in addition to the theatre and ward- 
 robe, all of Foote's unpublished pieces. As Foote died soon 
 after this transaction, Colman, it would seem, made rather a 
 good bargain. Oulton, History of Theatres of London, i, 57. 
 
 ^ Colman, Random Records, i, 235.
 
 94 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 door open in 17TG until after the 15th of May, 
 that is, until after the opening of the Ilaymarket 
 season, was not, as might appear on a casual 
 observation, purely fortuitous. It really marks 
 the beginning of a new policy adopted by the 
 patentees to counteract the growing popularity 
 of the summer theatre. For some time, Garrick 
 had manifested a jealousy of Foote's success^ 
 and, on occasion, had become even apprehensive. 
 For example, when Foote advertised his " Pup- 
 pet Show " in 1773, Garrick was noticeably ner- 
 vous until he knew just what Foote intended 
 to do. As early as 17G7, the success of Barry 
 and Dancer at the Haymarket aroused the envy 
 of the Drury Lane manager. The successors of 
 Garrick were no less vigilant. Now, the patents 
 granted to Killigrew and Davenant contained 
 no restrictions respecting the length of the theat- 
 rical season ; custom alone had fixed the limits. 
 Foote's patent did restrict him to a definite 
 period, beyond which he dared not go without 
 " permission ; " while, if the patentees were so 
 disposed, there was nothing to prevent them from 
 encroaching, ad libitum^ on the season of the 
 summer theatre. That such a course was the 
 deliberate plan of the Drury Lane managers is 
 proved by subsequent events. The elder Col- 
 man opened his first season at the Haymarket 
 at the usual time, May 15 ; and, just as Foote
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 95 
 
 had done the preceding year, closed it again 
 until the 28th of May, when he reopened the 
 house for three performances a week until June 
 11, after which, for the remainder of the season, 
 the Haymarket was open six nights each week. 
 The younger Colman in his Random Records 
 has explained the irregularity of the perform- 
 ances at the Haymarket in 1777 as follows : — 
 
 " The closing of the Theatre directly after the 
 opening on the 15th of May ... is easily ac- 
 counted for, by the attempt to enter into a com- 
 petition with the two great Winter Houses ; — 
 The Proprietors of which were not yet prepar- 
 ing to shut their doors for the summer. Empty 
 benches at the Haymarket were the consequence 
 of this experiment ; — and no wonder, when so 
 weak a rivalry, in an incipient scheme, was set 
 up against the attractions at Drury Lane and 
 Co vent Garden." 
 
 The charitable, or innocent, way in which this 
 explanation is put shows clearly that the right 
 of the patentees to continue their performances 
 into the summer was not qestioned, at that time, 
 by the manager of the Haymarket. It may in- 
 dicate, also, that the real motive of the patentees 
 in extending their season was scarcely under- 
 stood by the proprietor of the summer house. 
 But a continued repetition of the tactics was 
 sure to induce the suspicion that the action of
 
 9G THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the patent houses was the result of a precon- 
 certed plan. Again in 1779, Colman felt under 
 the necessity of deferring the commencement 
 of his season until May 31, because the actors 
 on whom he was dependent were engaged at one 
 or other of the "great" houses, and the latter 
 continued their performances until the last of 
 May.* These belated openings of the Haymarket 
 continued without interruption or active opposi- 
 tion until the season of 1787, when the manager 
 made a vigorous attempt to run his establish- 
 ment without regard to the programmes at the 
 winter theatres. But the Haymarket manager 
 uttei'ly failed in his aggressive policy. Two years 
 later (1789), Colman again put on a bold front, 
 this time adopting the maxim that "the devil 
 can be fought only with fire," and competed with 
 Covent Garden in the character of the perform- 
 ances put on at the Haymarket, by reducing the 
 Miser to three acts.^ 
 
 By this time the meaning of the contest be- 
 tween the patentees and the manager of the 
 Little Theatre in the Haymarket had become 
 perfectly apparent. The struggle had gradually 
 assumed such proportions that it was a question 
 whether the monopoly would allow any theatrical 
 
 1 Oulton, History of Theatres of London, etc. (2 vols.), i, 82, 
 164. 
 
 '^ London Chronicle, May 26, 1789.
 
 THE LICENSING ACT IN PRACTICE 97 
 
 diversions in London, except those under the 
 immediate control of the patentees themselves. 
 But the mode of extermination adopted by the 
 winter theatres could not be conducted without 
 some compensatory losses. " The winter man- 
 agers," comments the editor of Toum and Coun- 
 try Magazine for June, 1789, " make approaches 
 every season towards continuing their houses 
 open during the summer season — but in our 
 opinion they must always lose in the experiment 
 as a recess is necessary to excite curiosity." 
 However, it appears at first sight that the con- 
 test was too unequal to cause serious damage to 
 the two old houses. But the struggle had hardly 
 yet commenced, and it was too early to predict 
 results. Meantime, an episode of peculiar inter- 
 est had occurred to absorb the attention of the 
 London public, and to turn aside, for the mo- 
 ment, the warfare between the patentees and the 
 Little Theatre in the Haymarket. Before re- 
 suming the latter subject, it may be well to take 
 account of the curious incident alluded to.^ 
 
 1 The following chronology may be of service in keeping 
 straight the events of the next few years : In 1774, Lacey died, 
 leaving Garrick sole proprietor of Drury Lane ; in 1776, 
 Garrick sold ont to Thomas Sheridan, Linley, and Ford ; in 
 1777, the elder Colman purchased the Haymarket, leaving 
 Harris and Powell at Covent Garden. In 1779, Garrick died. 
 R. B. Sheridan succeeded Thomas at Drury Lane soon after 
 the transfer of 1776.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 
 
 BACK in the days when the inimitable 
 Foots was amusing the pubhc with that 
 new species of theatrical entertainment called 
 "A Dish of Tea," there was in that eccentric 
 comedian's train of admirers a lad who was 
 destined to all the buffets, with but little of the 
 glory, of the actor's lot. This was John Palmer, 
 " Plausible Jack," a kind-hearted, irresponsible, 
 lack-judgment, devil-may-care sort of a fellow, 
 who, as usual with such characters, laid the 
 consequences of his own follies at the door of 
 his fellow creatures, or to the account of fate. 
 
 Palmer had a predilection for the stage, if for 
 anything, from early youth ; and, by one of the 
 many chances which marked his course through 
 life, was turned into that profession. Nor was he 
 by any means devoid of all the elements belong- 
 ing to the histrionic art, although he received 
 rebuffs, time and again, on his applying to Gar- 
 rick, " the great little man." However, after a 
 checkered career as an itinerant actor among the 
 provincial theatres, Palmer finally secured an
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 99 
 
 engagement with Foote, on the opening of the 
 Haymarket under the patent in 1767, and, soon 
 after, succeeded in getting a minor part in the 
 Drury Lane company. With the Haymarket 
 under Cohnan, and Drury Lane under Sheri- 
 dan, Linley, and Ford, Palmer became a regular 
 performer at both theatres, and rose to a respect- 
 able position in the leading comic characters. As 
 the original Joseph Surface, he may be said to 
 have fairly secured his reputation as an actor.^ 
 
 But John Palmer could endure success no 
 better than poverty and obscurity. No sooner 
 had he been established on his comedian's throne 
 than schemes of a wilder ambition than he had 
 yet dreamed of took possession of him. He would 
 build and manage a theatre of his own in the 
 metropolis ! To this venture he had probably 
 been impelled by the injudicious advice of 
 friends. The plan was to go to the East End 
 of the city and there erect a theatre, for which 
 purpose the audacious Palmer secured a suffi- 
 cient loan ; and on the 26th of December, 1785, 
 the first stone of the new structure was laid by 
 the projector himself. The occasion was the 
 scene of a grand procession, and the ceremonies 
 at the laying of the corner-stone went off with 
 
 ^ For contemporaneous accounts of the life of John Palmer, 
 see The General Magazine for January, February, and March, 
 1788. Also The Monthly Visitor for December, 1798.
 
 100 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE " 
 
 a great flourish.^ In a receptacle prepared for 
 the purpose, the following inscription was de- 
 posited, after it had been read first by the 
 Kecorder of Maidstone : — 
 
 " The Inscription on this Scroll is intend- 
 ed to convey 
 The following Information, — 
 That 
 On Monday the 2(;th day of December, 
 In the year of our Lord 1785, 
 
 And 
 In the 26th year of the Reign 
 Of our most Gracious Sovereign 
 
 GEORGE THE THIRD, 
 The first stone of a BuUding, 
 Intended for a Place of Public Entertain- 
 ment, 
 was laid by 
 JOHN PALMER, COMEDIAN, 
 In the presence of a numerous Party of 
 
 Friends to the Undertaking ; 
 John Wilmot, Esq, being the Architect 
 and Builder, 
 Tlie Ground selected for the Purpose 
 Being situated within the Liberty 
 OF 
 His Majesty's Fortress and 
 Palace 
 Of the Tower of London 
 It has been resolved, that in honour of the Mag- 
 istrates, the Military Officers, and Inhabitants of the 
 said fortress and palace, the edifice, when erected, 
 shall be called, 
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE. 
 Sanctioned by authority, and liberally patronized 
 by subscription." 
 1 Town and Country Magazine for July, 1787. Oulton, i, 
 167-196.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 101 
 
 This was the beginning of the Royalty Theatre, 
 auspicious enough, indeed, but the sequel proved 
 that the attempt fell on evil days. It was about 
 a year and a half from the breaking of the ground 
 in Wellclose Square until the new theatre was 
 completed. From all accounts the structure, both 
 exterior and interior, was the most beautifid and 
 most convenient of the London theatres, at the 
 time it was built. It was 120 feet in length, 56 
 feet in breadth ; and, by accurate computation, 
 was capable of seating 2594 persons.^ 
 
 Several days before the announced opening of 
 the new theatre, a "house-warming" was indulged 
 in by the manager, the subscribers, and friends 
 to the undertaking, all of whom were invited by 
 card, after the most approved fashion. By seven 
 o'clock of the appointed evening (Saturday, June 
 9, 1787), a "brilliant audience were assembled." 
 The house was crowded from pit to gallery, many 
 having to be turned away for lack of room. The 
 building was brightly illuminated, and when the 
 curtain went up, discovering to the admiring 
 gaze of the spectators the magnificence of deco- 
 ration and the convenience of arrangement, the 
 highest praise was called forth from those present. 
 
 To entertain and gratify the invited guests, a 
 
 1 For a complete description of the Royalty Theatre, see 
 Gentleman's Magazine for June, 1787. See also General Maga- 
 zine for same date, i, p. 49.
 
 102 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 number of scenes (painted by Dixon) were ex- 
 hibited, "which, by judges of the art, are allowed 
 to be capitally executed," while some vocal pieces 
 were rendered with "exquisite taste." Delpini, 
 who had been secured for the occasion, created 
 some amusement by a burlesque air, humorously 
 accompanied on the guitar. At this juncture Mr. 
 Palmer entered the orchestra amidst applause 
 from every part of the theatre ; " which continu- 
 ing long and violent, he stood on the seat appro- 
 priated to the band, and several times bowed in 
 return for the flattering distinction." After re- 
 freshments had been served, the assemblage, 
 which consisted of " some of the most respectable 
 families in the vicinage, the magistrates, and 
 several persons of eminence in the city," began 
 to disperse ; but first, " by mutual smiles, testified 
 the pleasure which so elegant a spectacle had 
 afforded them." * The opening of the Eoyalty for 
 regular theatrical performances was announced 
 for June 20, 1787. 
 
 During all the time, be it observed, that 
 Palmer had been pursuing his Royalty scheme, 
 he had been engaged at Drury Lane in the 
 winter season, and at the Haymarket during the 
 summer. On just what legal authority, or in 
 what capacity, Palmer intended to conduct his 
 new theatre, he had kept scrupulously to himself, 
 * London Chronicle, Monday, June 11, 1787.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 103 
 
 either evading or dissimulating when questioned 
 on this point, but leaving the impression that he 
 felt perfectly secure in his movements. A few 
 days prior to the advertised opening of the Roy- 
 alty, Messrs. Harris, Linley, and Colman, man- 
 agers of Co vent Garden, Drury Lane, and the 
 Haymarket, respectively, caused to be published 
 in the newspapers of the day extracts from the 
 various Vagrant and Vagabond acts, and accom- 
 panied these with a joint resolution to enforce 
 the same against Palmer should he attempt to 
 open his theatre in defiance of those statutes.* 
 This action caused the leading performers, en- 
 gaged for the Royalty, to decline to enter into 
 any transactions that might make them liable 
 to prosecution and fine for acting for " hire, 
 gain, or reward." However, Palmer went forward 
 with his preparations for the opening, but was 
 under the necessity of announcing that the pro- 
 ceeds of the evening would be devoted to the 
 benefit of the London Hospital. 
 
 On the evening of June 20, 1787, the Royalty 
 Theatre was thrown open to the public to witness 
 the first performance. The house was crowded 
 and the competition for places was very marked. 
 When the curtain arose (at seven o'clock), some 
 
 1 General Magazine, June, 1787 ; Oulton, i, 167-196. It is 
 curious to note that, in the face of a common enemy, the three 
 Royal Theatres buried all difFerences among themselves.
 
 104 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 little disturbance was caused by a few persons 
 calling for Palmer's ])ateut. The suave manager 
 came forward and after appealing to the audience 
 not to give cause of complaint to his enemies 
 by boisterous conduct, delivered an address (writ- 
 ten by Arthur Murphy), containing the follow- 
 ing lines in reference to the opposition of the 
 patent theatres to the new Royalty : — 
 
 "Yet some there are who would our scheme annoy; 
 'Tis a monopoly they would enjoy. 
 Th' Haymarket, C event Garden and Old Drury 
 Send forth their edicts ' full of sound and fury.' 
 Three jarring States ^ are leagu'd in jealous fit, 
 And they — whom wit maintains — wage war on wit. 
 But wit, like day-light, nothing should restrain, 
 The same in Goodman's-fields and Drury-lane. 
 And if the Drama list on Virtue's side. 
 Say — can the moral be diffus'd too wide! 
 If the sun gild yon West with golden ray, 
 The East ^ may feel the beam of rising day- 
 Like gen'rous rivals let all parties boast 
 One only struggle — Who shall please you most ; 
 Fines and imprisonment no more proclaim. 
 But praise the soil from which our Garrick came."* 
 
 This was followed by the representation of As 
 You Like It, and an after-piece, 3Iiss in Her 
 
 1 Alluding to the strifes of the patentees, and the war of 
 encroachments between the winter houses and the Haymarket. 
 
 ■^ The Royalty Theatre was situated in the East End of 
 London ; the royal theatres at the West End. 
 
 ^ Garrick made his first appearance in London at Goodman's 
 Fields, near the site of the Royalty.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 105 
 
 Teens. At the close of the performance, Palmer 
 made his appearance before the audience and 
 addressed them on the subject of the founding 
 of the new theatre and of the "jealous opposi- 
 tion" of the old theatres. At this time, he made 
 public the authority on which he had founded the 
 hopes of the Royalty. He had, he said, deemed 
 the license of the Governor of the Tower, and the 
 Magistrates of the Hamlets attached to its juris- 
 diction, sufficient sanction for the acting of plays 
 in that district. He complained bitterly of the 
 action of the three managers in waiting till the 
 last moment, after he had gone to the expense 
 of erecting and furnishing the theatre, before 
 raising any objections to the project. The atti- 
 tude of Mr. Colman was characterized as par- 
 ticularly unfair, for, said Palmer, " in the course 
 of the last summer, when I performed at the 
 Little Theatre in the Haymarket, Mr. Colman 
 wrote a Prologue, which I spoke on my benefit 
 night, and among others, were the following 
 lines : ^ — 
 
 " For me whose utmost aim is your delight, 
 Accept the humble off'ring of this night ; 
 To please, wherever plac'd, be still my care, 
 At Drury, Haymarket, or Wellclose-Square." 
 
 " As Mr. Colman knew the plan I had then in 
 
 1 In Prolog'ue to the Comedy of Tit for Tat. See European 
 Magazine, September, 1786.
 
 lOG THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 view, it was fair to conclude that he did not 
 meditate an opposition." 
 
 Of the Covent Garden manager, Pahner al- 
 leged that he had given his consent in writing 
 for one of his actors. Quick, to engage at the 
 Royalty. That the patentee should now be found 
 in active opposition to the new theatre was suf- 
 ficient cause for astonishment and chagrin ; while 
 the enforcement of an act of Parliament against 
 one attempting to represent a moral exhibition 
 was a hardship and an injustice. "Tumblers 
 and Dancing Dogs might appear unmolested be- 
 fore you : but the other performers and myself, 
 standing forward to exhibit a moral play, is 
 deemed a crime." The address closed with the 
 announcement that the theatre would be shut 
 until a species of entertainment could be pro- 
 vided that would not subject the manager to 
 danger.^ 
 
 This address aroused the sympathy of the 
 public in Palmer's behalf, and had the immedi- 
 ate effect of bringing on a paper warfare ; for 
 the managers, whose characters had been ex- 
 posed to public view in a contemptible light, felt 
 it incumbent on themselves to explain their atti- 
 
 ^ For accounts of the opening night, see European Magazine 
 for June, 1787 ; Town and Country Magazine for July, 1787 ; 
 General Magazine, June, 1787 ; London Chronicle, June 22, 
 1787.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 107 
 
 tudes. In answer to the charge of duplicity, the 
 elder Colman authorized the editor of the " Lon- 
 don Chronicle " (June 23, 1787) to say, that 
 before the lines referred to in the Prologue by 
 Palmer were either spoken or written, not only 
 was the Royalty Theatre well under way, but 
 also that he (Colman) had been assured by 
 Palmer that the latter's plans in no wise con- 
 tained anything that would interfere with the 
 interests of the Haymarket Theatre ; that, in- 
 deed, the chief object of the undertaking was to 
 engage the public attention for the winter sea- 
 son ; that to these assurances Palmer added a 
 ready concurrence to a proposed renewal of his 
 engagement at the Haymarket Theatre, but that 
 instead of carrying this proposal into effect 
 he had evaded the matter of reengaging with 
 Colman until February (1787), when the latter 
 notified him that if he did not make an imme- 
 diate engagement, he would be considered as 
 having withdrawn himself from the company in 
 the Haymarket ; and, finally, under pressure of 
 this ultimatum. Palmer had signed an agreement 
 for the summer season of 1787, though appar- 
 ently offended at the lack of confidence evinced 
 by Colman on the occasion. 
 
 Harris of Covent Garden likewise felt him- 
 self in the position of self-defense, and, in a 
 public letter, answered Palmer's allegations. He
 
 108 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 explained that it was hardly within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the patentees to notify any one of the 
 existence of a law so notorious as the VajTrant 
 and Vagabond Act ; that as to the lateness of the 
 notice served on Palmer that he would be pro- 
 secuted if he attempted to open the Royalty, 
 Palmer himself was to blame for that, since he 
 kept the source of his authority a secret until 
 the Monday preceding the 20th of June ; and 
 that the opposition of the i^atentees could be 
 justified on the ground of protection to their 
 "legal monopoly." As to the correspondence with 
 Quick, referred to by Palmer, Harris quoted the 
 same letter, showing that he had made no active 
 opposition to the Covent Garden performers 
 engaging at the Royalty Theatre.^ 
 
 Palmer returned to the attack in a full-page 
 letter to the " London Chronicle " (June 26, 
 1787). Harris was the main target for the Roy- 
 alty manager's invectives. As to the " legal mo- 
 nopoly " being in danger of the rivalry of a new 
 theatre, Palmer asserted that he had formerly 
 proposed to the managers of the winter houses, 
 that if they would abandon their prosecutions and 
 acquiesce in the opening of the Royalty Theatre, 
 he (Palmer) would agree to shut his theatre 
 the day prior to the commencement of the 
 winter theatres, and that Harris had treated this 
 1 London Chronicle, June 22, 1787.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 109 
 
 proposal with disdain. " Protected in a legal 
 monopoly^ he would not yield, even when yield- 
 ing might have redounded to the credit of his 
 liberality, and could not by any means have been 
 detrimental to his present property, or eventual 
 interest. So much for the spirit of rivalry, 
 which, in the true Turkish stile, actuates Mr. 
 Harris to bear no brother near the throne." 
 
 Relative to Harris's denial of " active opposi- 
 tion," Palmer insinuated that the Covent Gar- 
 den manager went among the different perform- 
 ers, dissuading them, "and by every species of 
 menace endeavored to deter them from appear- 
 ing on Mr. Palmer's boards ; " that the same 
 person was " closeted with Sir Sampson Wright, 
 in deliberation on the methods to be taken to 
 prevent Mr. Palmer from pei'forming; " that he 
 prepared " the only magistrate for the Tower 
 Royalty, in the mode by which he could conduct 
 himself to suppress and ultimately ruin Mr. 
 Palmer ; " that he encouraged informers, and 
 " had the information in style ready cut and 
 dried ; " and that in the very letter from Harris 
 to Quick, there was a threat to prosecute as 
 " rogues and vagabonds " those actors engaging 
 with Palmer. All of this seemed to Palmer to 
 bear the marks of " active opposition." ^ 
 
 ^ The quarrel was taken up by the pamphleteer : A Review 
 of the Present Contest between the Managers, favoring the
 
 110 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 These recriminations, when reduced to their 
 lowest terms, that is, divorced from the personal 
 element, may be simplified to the bare statement 
 that Palmer, in attempting to open the Royalty 
 Theatre, was violating what had come to be the 
 leading clause of the Licensing Act ; and that 
 the patentees were determined to defend the 
 advantageous position which that act gave them. 
 The incident is the first flagant example of utter 
 defiance of that act, during the first half century 
 of its operation ; for the contest which had sprung 
 up between the Little Theatre and the patent 
 houses had not grown out of any palpable in- 
 fraction of the written statute. How Palmer 
 could have been allured into the self-deception 
 of believing that his scheme had even a fair 
 chance of success, is beyond the power of under- 
 standing. He must have known that the mandate 
 of the Governor of the Tower was inferior to an 
 Act of Parliament, else why did he guard the 
 secret of his authority ? If he placed his depend- 
 ence on the moral support of public opinion, it 
 would seem that he should have waited until 
 that public opinion had been tested, before 
 making a material sacrifice of himself and his 
 friends. Furthermore, the least appreciation of 
 
 Royalty, was refuted by A Very Plain State of the Case, or, The 
 Royalty Theatre versus the Theatres Royal, — probably by 
 Colman.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 111 
 
 the meaning of the theatrical events of his own 
 times would have assured him that the patentees 
 would be " actively opposed " to any and all 
 efforts to break through the walls of their " legal 
 monopoly." It was sheer waste of time to accuse 
 the patent managers of duplicity and illiberality ; 
 as Harris asserted in his open correspondence, 
 he was simply following the instinct of self- 
 preservation, a line of conduct which Palmer 
 himself would have adopted could he have 
 changed positions with any one of the patentees. 
 The fact is, that in Palmer's whole procedure in 
 the Royalty affair, audacity strove with lack of 
 judgment and foresight for mastery. 
 
 The next morning after the opening (and clos- 
 ing) of the Royalty, Palmer assembled his crest- 
 fallen company in the green-room of the theatre 
 and delivered himself of the following character- 
 istic speech : 
 
 " Ladies and Gentlemen, 
 
 " The combination formed against my new un- 
 dertaking may have occasioned you to suppose 
 yourselves deserted. I am the injured party, and 
 as a proof that I wish to be considered exclu- 
 sively in that light, I mean to do everything in 
 my power to take care of you. I have engaged 
 you respectively at certain salaries. The house 
 is now shut, and you cannot be of use to me ;
 
 112 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 but God forbid that you should be sufferers by 
 the combination against me! Until the theatre 
 shall open, which will be soon, I will allow each 
 of you half the amount of your salaries ; and 
 when the theatre opens, should not one of you 
 be of service to me in the capacity of an actor, 
 or an actress, you shall all receive your salaries, 
 for the continuance of the season. My friend 
 is not here, but I can answer for him in point 
 of liberality. God bless you all. I feel myself 
 bound to protect you as parts of my family." ^ 
 
 In less than two weeks from the abortive 
 attempt to open the Royal Theatre with the 
 regular drama, on the 3d of July, Palmer re- 
 opened the house with exhibitions similar in 
 character to the performances at Sadler's Wells, 
 Astley's, and other places of amusements in 
 which " theatrical entertainments," as generally 
 understood by the Licensing Act, were not in- 
 cluded. Such performances comprised burlettas, 
 dances, pantomimes, and the like, in contradis- 
 tinction to the regular drama, of which the 
 patentees claimed a " legal monopoly." Palmer 
 prefaced the evening's entertainment with an 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, June 23,1787. "My friend" probably 
 refers to Dr. Jackson, who was indorsing Palmer's scheme. 
 Jackson is the supposed author of Sodom arid Onan, a scurril- 
 ous attack on Foote.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 113 
 
 occasion address, written on the subject of the 
 opposition made to the Royalty Theatre by the 
 patentees and Colman. This was followed by a 
 musical pastoral, The Birthday, or Arcadian 
 Contest, and a new dance called The Triumph 
 of Cupid. The evening closed with a panto- 
 mime, Hohsons Choice, or Thespis in Distress, 
 a hit at the patent houses, and well received.^ 
 This bill, with additional and occasional varia- 
 tions, was repeated a number of times with con- 
 siderable success, meriting the approbation of 
 theatre critics.^ 
 
 Indeed, so successful was the irrepressible 
 Palmer with his singing, dancing, and dumb- 
 show exhibitions, that, even with this reduced 
 order of performance, the jealousy and anger 
 of the patentees were aroused anew, and every 
 action at the Royalty was scrutinized in the 
 hope that some violation of the Licensing Act 
 might be detected. Threats were made that any 
 attempt to speak in a pantomimic performance 
 would be interpreted as dialogue, and prosecuted 
 as representing the regular drama ! By some 
 indiscretion, it seems that one of the performers 
 in a dumb-show uttered a word or two. The ex- 
 ecution of the managers' threats began when the 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, July 4, 1787. 
 
 ' London Chronicle, August 15, 1787 ; European Magazine, 
 vol. xii, 63.
 
 114 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 elder Bannister ^ and the younger Palmer were, 
 in consequence of informations, convicted as va- 
 grants in Justice Staples's court and committed 
 for fourteen days. The case, however, having 
 been transferred to the court of James Robinson, 
 William Robinson, and Richard Brooke, Justices 
 of the Peace for the Tower Hamlets, the prison- 
 ers were discharged on bail.' 
 
 But the affair was not to end here. The action 
 of the second justice's court, in reversing the 
 decision of the first, was something more than 
 professional discourtesy ; it was a conflict of 
 authority within the same district, which de- 
 manded a hearing in Westminster Hall. The 
 case dragged on for months. On the first day 
 of February, 1788, we find the following record : 
 " In the Court of King's Bench a second rule 
 was made absolute against two magistrates of 
 the Tower Hamlets, for having illegally dis- 
 charged some performers of the Royalty Theatre, 
 who were committed by another magistrate in 
 that district for performing in plays and inter- 
 ludes, contrary to an express Act of Parlia- 
 ment." 3 Not until May (22d) of the following 
 
 ^ Charles Bannister, Sr., refused to abandon Palmer when 
 the rest of the company left him at the time when the three 
 managers threatened them first, i. e. before June 20, 1787. 
 
 2 Town and Country Magazine, August, 1787. 
 
 ^ Gentleman'' s Magazine, March, 1788.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 115 
 
 year were these offending justices brought up 
 for judgment, when Justice Ashurst pronounced 
 the sentence of the court upon them, which was, 
 that each of the defendants should pay a fine of 
 £100 and be imprisoned until it was paid.^ 
 
 Meantime, Palmer continued his operations 
 at the Royalty. When opportunity afforded, he 
 advertised his complaint against the relentless- 
 ness of the patentees. In an Occasional Address, 
 delivered at the Royalty in the autumn of 1787, 
 occur the following lines : ^ — 
 
 " Behold the Comic Muse, a dire event ; 
 Lost to the Stage — by Act of Parliament — 
 Then wonder not good folks, or think it strange, 
 That I, long tongue-tied, hazard now a change. 
 For who could this same dumb-show hear, and feel 
 The flatt'ring transports which such scenes reveal." 
 
 And again, the following month (December, 
 
 1787),— 
 
 " But not for me th' immortal bard to quote : 
 Three modern managers claim all he wrote, 
 Else Henry's wars and Agincourt we'd show 
 And bid with kindred warmth your bosoms glow." ^ 
 
 Palmer's appeals to the popular mind had their 
 effect, and aroused much sympathy in his cause. 
 Measured by the rules of abstract justice, there 
 
 ^ Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lix, pt. i, p. 463. 
 
 ^ European Magazine, November, 1787. 
 3 Ibid., December, 1787-
 
 116 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 can be little doubt that the course pursued 
 against him by the inexorable patentees was 
 mean and unfair, and this is especially true of 
 the unrelenting spite which characterized the at- 
 tacks on Palmer after the latter had been forced 
 to abandon the idea of a regular theatre. The 
 real injustice and absurdity of the prosecution 
 of the Royalty performers did not escape cen- 
 sure. " Does it not imply some little inconsist- 
 ency in a well-regulated State, for one subject to 
 be punished as a rogue and vagabond for doing 
 that in publick, which another, perhaps the first 
 peer in the realm, is proud to do with applause 
 within the walls of his own house ! " ^ On the 
 other hand it is quite as certain that, by his 
 own questionable conduct. Palmer lost much 
 compassion, which otherwise might have been 
 his due, and injured the cause for which the 
 Royalty movement stands. The circumstance of 
 his reeno^aofement with Colman for the summer 
 of 1787 has already been mentioned. His treat- 
 ment of the Drury Lane management is still 
 more blameworthy. Palmer was engaged to act 
 at that theatre for the season of 1787-88, which 
 was to have opened on September 15 with The 
 School for Scandal. Palmer gave no warning 
 
 ^ Gentleman's Magazine, March, 1788. The allusion, " first 
 peer," etc., is to private theatricals, which were much in vogue 
 at this time.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 117 
 
 that he was not to be depended on, until the day 
 immediately preceding the one advertised for the 
 opening, and then precipitately sent in his resig- 
 nation from the company. Unprovided with a 
 Joseph Surface, the managers were under the 
 necessity of withdrawing their bill, until they 
 could supply the deficiency. This called for an 
 explanation from Palmer to the public. In a 
 letter published in the prints of the day, he ex- 
 cused himself by saying that he had been " illib- 
 erally treated by the Managers of the Winter 
 Theatres," that he had been " insulted individ- 
 ually," that his brethren had been stigmatized 
 in general, and that for these reasons he had 
 convened his subscribers and "had submitted 
 implicitly to their opinion and advice ; they 
 honourably concurred with him in sentiment, 
 that he had been extremely abused, and ac- 
 corded with his proposal of quitting Drury Lane 
 Theatre." For the delay in sending in his resig- 
 nation, Palmer put up the unintelligible excuse, 
 "the hurry in which I have been kept for some 
 days past, by the respect I owe to the public." 
 In his indignation, he pointed to the appellations 
 of " Vagrant, Rogue, and Vagabond " which had 
 been applied to him " for some months past ; " 
 and then broke out into the exclamation, "Do 
 the Managers of Drury Lane imagine that I 
 can, with any propriety, appear on their boards ?"
 
 118 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 But Palmer was always acting, both on and 
 off the stage, and so well did " Plausible Jack *' 
 succeed in his profession that the public was 
 more than once fooled. To protect himself from 
 the censure which was sure to follow his repre- 
 hensible conduct in waiting until the last day 
 before the opening of Drury Lane before notify- 
 ing the management of his withdrawal from the 
 bills, in a blustering spirit of magnanimity, he 
 offered to appear in his part as advertised, know- 
 ing full well that the proposal would be rejected. 
 Palmer, by contemptible means, thus scored one 
 point in revenge.^ 
 
 Undaunted by his failure to open the Royalty 
 for the regular drama, or by the incessant at- 
 tacks of the patentees on the success of his pan- 
 tomime shows, Palmer petitioned Parliament at 
 its next sitting for leave to bring in a bill to en- 
 able His Majesty to license the Royalty Theatre. 
 This petition was accompanied by another, signed 
 by five thousand inhabitants of Middlesex, in fa- 
 vor of Palmer's theatre. But the peculiar course 
 adopted by Palmer in conducting his scheme from 
 the beginning began now to tell against him. 
 The very member (Mr. M. A. Taylor) who pre- 
 
 1 For the correspondence connected with this incident, see 
 European Magazine for September, 1787. The Town and Coun- 
 try Magazine for October, 1787, severely reprimands Palmer 
 for his conduct in this affair.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 119 
 
 sented the petition apologized to the House for so 
 doing, while the opposition to the motion showed 
 the hostility which Palmer had aroused in ig- 
 noring the Licensing Act. Mr. Anstruther, in 
 speaking against the petition, called attention to 
 the fact that Palmer, " after having for twelve 
 months trampled upon the law of the country, ap- 
 plied with a very bad grace to Parliament for an 
 Act to license his theatre. Now that the arm of 
 the law had reached him, he applied for a law 
 to sanction his proceedings ; but, prior to this, 
 he had set the law at defiance. The pretence 
 that he thought the license of the Constable of 
 the Tower would enable him legally to give dra- 
 matic entertainments, was barely a pretence ; for 
 every man who could read might learn, that the 
 King himself, much less the Constable of the 
 Tower, could not exercise powers which were re- 
 strained by a positive Act of Parliament."^ The 
 motion was, of course, lost (February 8, 1788), 
 and thus ended Palmer's attempt to establish the 
 Royalty Theatre. It would, naturally, be sup- 
 posed that the contest had left him the inveter- 
 ate enemy of the three managers, but to our 
 great surprise we read in the " London Chron- 
 icle " for June 11, 1788, that he was once 
 more at the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, 
 where he " was welcomed back to that stage on 
 
 ^ Gentleman's Magazine for May, 1788 ; Pari. Beg., xxiii, 159.
 
 120 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 which he has ever exhibited his talents to the 
 best advantage, with most gratifying tokens of 
 favour and affection." The hatchet was buried 
 and the pipe of peace smoked with Drury Lane 
 also, and Pahner renewed his engagement at 
 the patent house, where he was warmly congrat- 
 ulated.^ 
 
 The legal aspects arising out of the episode of 
 the attempted founding of the Royalty Theatre 
 have been brought out in the course of the 
 narrative and need not be repeated here. That 
 the patentees aimed to stretch the Licensing Act 
 to its utmost limit in aiding their own designs 
 was manifest in every point in their opposi- 
 tion. It was clear that they interpreted the Act 
 of 1737 as meaning to legalize their monopoly, 
 and that they intended to use the advantage 
 for all it could be made to produce. It was 
 barely possible, that, in their zeal, they went 
 even too far for the safety of their own posi- 
 tion. 
 
 The contest brought out, also, the necessity of 
 some modification of the Act of 1737. This fact 
 appeared in a startling form when, in the House 
 of Commons, Anstruther pointed out that not 
 even the king coidd license a theatre in opposi- 
 
 ^ Oulton, in his History of the Theatres of London, i, 167-196, 
 has collected a great deal of valuable contemporaneous mate- 
 rial on the Royalty for 1787.
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 121 
 
 tion to the Act of Parliament. That act in- 
 cluded Westminster only/ and, evidently, the 
 time was near at hand when this limitation 
 would prove too narrow. 
 
 Finally, and of the greatest importance, public 
 attention, in a wide sense, for the first time 
 since the passage of the Licensing Act, was 
 called to the glaring absurdities and gross in- 
 justices attaching to that act when operated for 
 purely private ends, in defiance of the public 
 desire. It clearly appeared that the predictions 
 of Aaron Hill, over half a century before, had 
 come to pass, namely, that a monopoly of the 
 legitimate drama must ultimately lead to a 
 lowering in tone of theatrical performances. 
 This was the essential complaint of Palmer 
 against the opposition of, the patentees, and the 
 public had had the first lesson in its truthful- 
 ness ; time alone would prove how well it had 
 been learned. 
 
 It may not be out of place here to mention 
 the main facts connected with the stormy history 
 of the Royalty Theatre from 1787 to its final 
 destruction in 1826. It opened and closed under 
 numerous managers, and, together with the 
 usiilil cheap order of performances and the 
 
 ^ On petition a number of cities and towns had obtained, at 
 various times, acts of Parliament relieving them, in part, 
 from the restrictions of the Licensing Act.
 
 122 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 frequent persecutions by the patentees, it eked 
 out but a half-existence, at best. After Palmer 
 abandoned his scheme, a bookseller, named 
 Steele, came into possession of the Royalty, but 
 he soon surrendered the management to Wewit- 
 zer, the actor. Then, for a time, Macready, 
 father of William Charles, gave some dignity to 
 the place. In 1803, Mrs. Steele and Astley, the 
 amphitheatre king, applied to the Wellclose 
 magistrates for, and were granted, a license to 
 perform interludes at the Royalty. By 1807, it 
 had again changed hands, and, in 1813, another 
 Palmer tried his fortune with it. It was about 
 this time that the name of the theatre was changed 
 to " The East London," though the old name, also, 
 stuck to it. Rae, of the Drury Lane company, 
 attempted to raise the theatre into respectability 
 in 1819, but fate seemed to have marked it 
 from the beginning. In 1826, the Royalty was 
 burned to the ground. It was immediately re- 
 built as " The Royal Brunswick," and opened 
 on February 25, 1828. Three days later, during 
 a rehearsal of Guy Mannering, the theatre 
 collapsed, killing fifteen and injuring a score 
 more. 
 
 On the site of the Royalty and Royal Bruns- 
 wick now (1905) stands the Sailors' Home, and 
 the only vestiges remaining to suggest that here 
 was once a place of theatrical amusements, are
 
 THE ROYALTY THEATRE 123 
 
 the curb-stone posts bearing the inscription, 
 "R. B. T."^ 
 
 1 For contemporaneous accounts of the Royalty, 1787-1828, 
 the student is referred to the following: General Magazine, 
 September, 1788, June, 1789, April, 1790 ; Town and Country 
 Magazine, November, 1789 ; Monthly Visitor, November, 1797, 
 February and April, 1798, March, 1799 ; Morning Chronicle, 
 October 7, 1802, October 25, 1807 ; London Chronicle, October 
 6, 1803, October 5, 1819 ; Reasoner, July, 1813 ; Literary Chron- 
 icle and Weekly Review, December 18, 1819 ; New Monthly 
 Magazine, April, 1827 ; Britannic Magazine, x, p. 70.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 A SUMMARY OF THE CONFLICTING THEATRICAL LEGIS- 
 LATION IN ENGLAND AT THE CLOSE OF THE 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 TO appreciate the delusion under which Palmer 
 and his advisers attempted to establish a 
 theatre in London for the regular drama, it is 
 necessary to glance at the various parliamentary 
 acts in force during the last half of the eigh- 
 teenth century. The old Vagrant Act of Queen 
 Anne, which descended from the Rogue, Vaga- 
 bond, and Sturdy Beggar Act of 39 Elizabeth, 
 had continued through the century unrepealed, 
 and had been reinforced by the Licensing Act 
 of 1737. These acts were primarily for the same 
 purpose, to protect morality and defend the 
 peace; though the Licensing Act aimed, also, 
 to secure government from the scurrilous abuse 
 of satiric invective. We have seen how both 
 these laws became, in time, interpreted in the 
 narrow sense of forming the legal safeguard to 
 the patent monopoly. Had no other laws than 
 these existed, regulating the theatre, Palmer's 
 stupidity in violating them had been wholly in- 
 excusable, for the practice of half a century had
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 125 
 
 clearly established the fact that the patentees 
 had succeeded in turning the Licensing Act 
 strictly to their own account. 
 
 But there was another act of Parliament, 
 passed in the 25 George II (fifteen years after 
 the Licensing Act), which is responsible for 
 misleading Palmer. This law was enacted to meet 
 the police demands of certain places of amuse- 
 ment, and Sadler's Wells in particular. The 
 " Wells," as a resort, may be traced back into 
 the period of the Commonwealth. By 1727, the 
 place had regular performances of dancing, sing- 
 ing, rope-walking, and so forth. The extrava- 
 gances of the next few years in theatricals, treated 
 in an earlier chapter, extended to Sadler's Wells, 
 shortly reducing it to one of the most disreputa- 
 ble dens of thieves, robbers, and licentiousness 
 in, or about, London. In 1744, information was 
 laid before the grand jury against the proprie- 
 tors for keeping a disorderly aiid disreputable 
 house. To put a stop to these evils at the Wells, 
 and kindred places, in 1752 (25 George II), 
 Parliament passed " An Act for the better pre- 
 venting Thefts and Robberies, and for regulating 
 Places of public Entertainment, and punishing 
 Persons keeping disorderly Houses." ^ 
 
 After reciting the deplorable, state of morals, 
 fostered by places of public entertainment, the 
 ^ Statutes at Large, vii, p. 43.
 
 126 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 act provides for the licensing of such places at 
 the discretion of the magistrates in their quarter 
 sessions of the peace. The act was an experiment 
 to be tried for three years, and was to extend to 
 London and Westminster (and within twenty 
 miles thereof). Any person found keeping a 
 " house, room, or garden " for public entertain- 
 ment, without such license from the Justices of 
 the Peace, was to suffer the penalty of one hun- 
 dred pounds fine, and " be otherwise punishable 
 as the law directs in cases of disorderly houses." 
 No charge was to be made for issuing licenses 
 for the purposes aforesaid. Drury Lane, Covent 
 Garden, and the King's Theatre in the Haymar- 
 ket were exempt from the act. 
 
 At the expiration of this law governing the 
 licensing of public places of entertainments, its 
 operation had proved so beneficial that it was 
 renewed and made perpetual.^ It was under this 
 act that Palmer thought to open the Royalty 
 Theatre. As it made no pretense of including 
 the regular drama within its provisions, it is 
 plain why the performance of Shakespeare's 
 plays "for hire, gain, or reward" was adjudged 
 illegal, and the theatre closed. When it opened 
 again on the 3d of July (1787), and for a good 
 portion of the remainder of its history, it was by 
 authority of the 25 George II, as outlined above. 
 1 28 George U, cap. 19 (1755).
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 127 
 
 The attempt of Palmer to establish a theatre 
 in London in spite of the patent houses and their 
 "legal monopoly" was, to all appearances, a mis- 
 erable failure. But the public interest which it 
 elicited in the question of exclusive privileges in 
 matters relating to the general good was an in- 
 calculable victory on the side of an unrestricted 
 stage. The immediate result of the conflict was 
 a complete demonstration of the security of the 
 patentees within their stronghold ; but, at the 
 same time, it was also made clear that the pas- 
 sive acquiescence of the preceding half century 
 had changed to an active and determined oppo- 
 sition to the theatrical monopoly. 
 
 The effort made in the Royalty venture was 
 the signal for other places of amusement to sue 
 for an extension of privileges. On the 10th of 
 March, 1788, a bill was presented to the House 
 of Commons, and passed its first reading, to en- 
 able His Majesty to grant letters patent for the 
 licensing of certain entertainments at Sadler's 
 Wells. At this time, the patentees were fortu- 
 nate in having a representative in Parliament 
 who was both interested in the welfare of the 
 theatrical monopoly, and also capable of defend- 
 ing it. Richard Brinsley Sheridan had beeu 
 associated with the management of Drury Lane 
 since the exit of Gar rick, and a worthy succes- 
 sor he was of the great actor's jealous watchful-
 
 128 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 ness over the patent rights of the theatre. When 
 the Sadler's Wells bill was introduced, Sheridan 
 (who had represented Strafford since 1780) 
 placed himself on record as regards his attitude 
 towards all attempted encroachments on the 
 " legal monopoly." He was the first on the floor 
 after the reading of the bill, and his speech on 
 this occasion characterizes the policy of the pat- 
 entees for the next quarter of a century. 
 
 At the outset of his remarks, Sheridan stated 
 that he had consented to the first reading of the 
 bill in order that the house might fully appreci- 
 ate what was demanded of them. To protect the 
 proprietors (Arnold and Wroughton) of Sadler's 
 Wells from loss to their investment, no one, said 
 Sheridan, would go farther than himself. And 
 here he took occasion to draw a contrast between 
 the method adopted by the proprietors of Sad- 
 ler's Wells in seeking a legal existence, and that 
 of Palmer in attempting to establish the Royalty 
 Theatre. " That was a scheme set up upon false 
 pretences, and supported by a conspiracy of Jus- 
 tices of the Peace, to defeat the law. . . . The 
 present application came forward in a decent 
 manner." But this was only a bit of jDlaster ap- 
 plied in advance of the lashing that was to fol- 
 low. Further signs of magnanimity, in dealing 
 with Sadler's Wells, were manifested by the 
 Drury Lane manager. He desired the pending
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 129 
 
 application to be liberally treated, that the " legal 
 monopolists might not stand on their rights too 
 strictly." The wily orator had ever been, and he 
 ti'usted " he ever should be an enemy to anything 
 like oppression in any matter great or small." 
 As to the matter under consideration, he con- 
 fessed that the apprehension of others interested 
 in certain rights, supposed to be infringed by the 
 Sadler's Wells bill, went farther than his own. 
 But, notwithstanding Sheridan's apparent friend- 
 liness toward the petitioners from Sadler's Wells, 
 he saw certain cogent reasons why the bill should 
 be rejected. The cause, stated in the application, 
 he alleged, was at variance with the truth. It was 
 there asserted that the proprietors of the winter 
 houses " had lately instituted suits at law not 
 only against the last newly erected theatre 
 [meaning the Royalty], but intended to com- 
 mence suits and prosecutions against all others 
 indiscriminately." Sheridan assured the House 
 that this charge was wholly unfounded. Another 
 misleading statement in the application was dis- 
 covered by the patentee. Seemingly, the propri- 
 etors of Sadler's Wells asked only to be legally 
 empowered to continue their performances as 
 usual. What they really asked for, as inter- 
 preted by Sheridan, was a monopoly. Now, ad- 
 mitted Sheridan, if Parliament desired to grant 
 a monopoly for a certain class of performances,
 
 130 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 it could do so, of course ; but he strongly ob- 
 jected to giving parliamentary sanction to a con- 
 cern which, according to its own testimony, had 
 been guilty of violating the privileges of its li- 
 cense. What the Sadler's Wells proprietors 
 were actually seeking, asserted Sheridan, was a 
 legal safeguard to protect them in their illegal 
 practices. The allusion is, of course, to the en- 
 croachment at the Wells on the regular drama. 
 It would be embarrassing, thought the advocate 
 for the patent houses, to say to other apphcants 
 for licenses to exhibit performances similar to 
 those at Sadler's Wells, that, inasmuch as the 
 latter place of amusement had been the first to 
 transgress the law, it should have a monopoly in 
 that line. 
 
 Sheridan assumed, without argument, that, in 
 case the House saw fit to grant the application 
 for a Sadler's Wells bill, it would be so altered 
 " that no part of the new powers would be suffered 
 to entrench on the rights of the Winter theatres, 
 either as to season or the species of performance." 
 He alluded to the fact that the petition for the 
 bill had been before the House " for nearly two 
 months," insinuating there had been a special 
 purpose on the part of the promoters for waiting 
 till near the season for opening Sadler's Wells 
 before bringing it up. On account, therefore, of 
 the nature of the application, Sheridan moved a
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 131 
 
 postponement of the second reading until April 
 4. The purpose of this motion was, of course, to 
 delay the further consideration of the bill until 
 after the time for the usual opening of the Wells. 
 
 In answer to Sheridan, his opponent, Sir H. 
 Mackworth, denied that a monopoly was aimed 
 at by the bill, or that any attempt was made by 
 it to infringe the rights of the patentees. Neither 
 was it needful to suppose that, by granting Sad- 
 ler's Wells a license to continue harmless per- 
 formances, such as they had been used to do, a 
 precedent would be thus established compelling 
 Parliament to grant similar licenses to all ap- 
 plicants, Sheridan, however, enlisted the influ- 
 ence of Charles James Fox, and the second 
 reading of the Sadler's Wells bill was postponed, 
 as moved by Sheridan, by a vote of 48 to 39.^ 
 
 It was with comparative ease that Sheridan 
 seemed to defeat the Sadler's Wells bill, but the 
 matter was not to drop here. Mainwaring, the 
 original mover of the bill, immediately framed 
 another of a more general and far-reaching na- 
 ture, looking towards an amendment and expla- 
 nation of the theatrical laws then in force. The 
 motion to bring in this bill, which was known as 
 the Interlude Bill, was made on the 8th of April, 
 1788, and, as outlined by one of the clauses of 
 
 1 Parliamentary History of England, vol. xxviii, cols. 159- 
 163 ; Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1788.
 
 132 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the bill, it was clearly intended to attain the same 
 end as the Sadler's Wells bill. The motion was 
 agreed to by tlie House without opjDosition. A 
 week later, a petition came up from the Koyalty 
 Theatre, praying to have a similar clause to that 
 of Sadler's Wells inserted in the Interlude Bill.^ 
 The Speaker of the House declared the Royalty 
 petition out of order. The Sadler's Wells petition 
 to be annexed to the bill, he said, had been pre- 
 sented within the time limit ^ allowed to peti- 
 tioners for private bills ; the Royalty had come 
 in too late to have its merits examined. Poor 
 Palmer's petition was, thereupon, referred to a 
 committee, but not until a staunch supporter of 
 fair play and an unshackled stage had expressed 
 surprise at the prejudice exhibited towards 
 the Royalty. This advocate (M. A. Taylor, the 
 original mover of the Royalty bill) went far- 
 ther, and asked the reason why Drury Lane and 
 Covent Garden should have a monopoly to the 
 exclusion of all other places of amusement. He 
 insisted that a theatre in Whitechapel could not 
 injure the " great " houses, and that that part of 
 town (the locality of the Royalty) ought to be 
 indulged as well as the West End. 
 
 ^ Parliamentary Begister, xxiii, 458, 459, 497 ; Gentleman's 
 Magazine, September, October, 17SS. 
 
 ^ At this (5th) Session, the Sth of February was fixed as 
 the last day for receiving petitions for private bills. Gentleman's 
 Magazine, May, 1788; London Chronicle, February, 1788.
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 133 
 
 Fox contended that there was already a suffi- 
 cient number of places of amusement, and that 
 any increase of these would destroy the perfec- 
 tion of those already established. As to the pro- 
 prietors of Sadler's Wells, they had long been 
 acting from allowed prescriptive right, he said, 
 and were more entitled to the indulgence prayed 
 for in the petition than the proprietors of the 
 Koyalty Theatre, who had no such grounds to 
 proceed on and no claim to favor. 
 
 The Royalty petition was infectious. On the 
 25th of April, a memorial from the proprietors 
 of the Royal Circus was presented to Parliament, 
 praying for a clause in its favor. But the rul- 
 ing which had been applied to the Royalty peti- 
 tion was repeated, and the House proceeded to 
 the third reading. At this juncture, one of the 
 members (Mr. Hussey) thought to "feel the pulse 
 of the House," as he expressed it, by offering a 
 rider to the bill in the form of a clause intended 
 to relax the ris^or of the then existins^ acts of Par- 
 liament relative to strolling players. As the law 
 stood, it was in the power of any malicious or 
 interested person to apprehend traveling come- 
 dians, and have the vagrant clause enforced upon 
 them. The amendment which was now sprung 
 upon the House, proposed to give to the quarter 
 sessions, and to the quarter sessions only, the 
 power to grant licenses to any company of come-
 
 lU THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 dians to act plays for forty nights, in the course 
 of a year, in any town or city in the realm ; pro- 
 vided, the said town or city should be specified, 
 and not to be at a less distance than thirty miles 
 from London, nor than fifteen miles from any 
 place in which there should be a patent theatre. 
 The motion was, of course, overruled, as it 
 contained matter entirely new ; whereupon, the 
 mover intimated his intention of forming it into 
 a bill. The original motion having passed the 
 House of Commons, the bill was sent to the 
 Lords for their concurrence. When on the 5th 
 of May (1788), the bill came up for considera- 
 tion in the upper house, a determined opposition 
 appeared to the clause making it " lawful for the 
 proprietors of Sadler's Wells to continue exhib- 
 iting performances of singing, dancing, panto- 
 mime, and music, and other entertainments 
 which have been exhibited there, etc." It did 
 not escape the managers of the other minor 
 theatres ^ that if this clause, unmodified, were 
 left in the bill, not only would Sadler's Wells 
 secure thereby a legal monopoly of that species 
 of amusement (singing, dancing, etc.) which had 
 
 ^ The term " minor theatre " was, at first, intended to in- 
 clude those establisliments not permitted to represent the reg- 
 ular drama, i. e. all except the two patent houses. The dis- 
 tinction continued even after the regular drama had crept into 
 the smaller theatres.
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 135 
 
 hitherto been open to all the lesser places of 
 entertainment, but also that the indefinite privi- 
 leffe contained in " other entertainments which 
 have been exhibited there," practically insured to 
 Sadler's Wells the lawful presentation of other 
 forms of theatrical performances than those per- 
 mitted by custom or statute ; for it appears that 
 the proprietors of the Wells had, on occasion, 
 stretched their licensed privileges. In the exami- 
 nation of the bill in the House of Lords, the 
 proprietors of Astley's, the Royal Circus, and 
 the Royalty were represented by counsel. For 
 Astley, it was claimed that the magistrates 
 of Surrey had licensed his house of amusement 
 for ten successive years, a fact which seemed to 
 indicate the respectability of the place, and that 
 the proposed bill would operate to ruin the estab- 
 lishment. AVitnesses from Sadler's Wells were 
 here introduced, who deposed that that place of 
 entertainment had been conducted for upwards 
 of fifty years, and that very large sums had been 
 expended on it. But it was not certain that these 
 expenditures had been made since the restrictions 
 of the 25 George II (1752). 
 
 The Lords were convinced of the partiality of 
 the bill, and, therefore, considered an amend- 
 ment to include the Royalty, the Royal Grove 
 (Astley's), and the Royal Circus. The proprie- 
 tors of the patent theatres and the Ilaymarket
 
 136 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 arose in alarm at this and forthwith petitioned 
 the Lords against the proposed amendment. 
 The Duke o£ Richmond shrewdly observed that 
 counsel for the patentees had spoken strongly 
 against three of the minor establishments, but 
 had failed to say one word against Sadler's 
 Wells. Why the latter concern should receive 
 greater indulgence than the others on the same 
 footing, the Duke was unable to conceive. It 
 was admitted that all four of the minor theatres 
 had been guilty of violating the statutes regulat- 
 ing those places, but Sadler's Wells had been a 
 law-breaker for a much longer jseriod than the 
 rest.^ That the winter houses and the Hay- 
 market wished to monopolize the whole business 
 of dramatic entertainment was no reason why 
 the inhabitants of one part of the town, as well 
 as those of another part, should not enjoy the 
 amusements of a theatre. This allusion was to 
 the Royalty Theatre ; and in answer to the 
 opposers of that theatre, who complained that 
 the passages to the place were thronged by per- 
 sons of immoral character, it was retorted that 
 Drury Lane and Covent Garden were subject 
 to the same criticism. 
 
 The position taken by the Duke of Richmond 
 
 ^ This allusion, no doubt, applies more particularly to 25 
 George II (regarding morals) than to any violation of the 
 Licensing Act.
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 137 
 
 fairly voiced the attitude of the Lords. The bill, 
 as amended, passed the House without a divi- 
 sion, and was returned to the Commons. But 
 the interests of the patentees were strongly- 
 represented there, and, on the 25th of June 
 (1788), the amended bill was rejected. This 
 was the formal conclusion of the attempt of 
 Palmer to obtain parliamentary protection for 
 the Royalty, though, as related in a former 
 chapter, his hopes had been virtually blasted 
 some time previous to the fate of the Interlude 
 Bill.i 
 
 But the time was at hand when all parties 
 were agreed that the Licensing Act should be 
 amended. This was evident from the discus- 
 sions on the Interlude Bill ; and had that bill 
 been stripped of its special features, which 
 were tacked to it in the interest of private in- 
 dividuals, it would have passed. Now that the 
 real objections to the bill had been pointed out 
 in both houses of Parliament, nothing remained 
 but to draw up a measure free from those ob- 
 jections. This was accordingly done in " An 
 Act to enable Justices of the Peace to license 
 Tlieatrical Representations occasionally ; under 
 
 ^ For the history of the Interlude Bill, see Parliamentary 
 Register, xxiii, 458, 497; xxiv, IKi ; Gentleman^ s Magazine, 
 June, September, October, 17S8 ; London Chronicle, May 6, 
 June 23, 26, 1788.
 
 138 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the Restrictions therein contained," which passed 
 both houses.^ The preamble to this act states 
 that its purpose was to exempt England, as a 
 whole, from the narrow restrictions of the 10 
 George II (Licensing Act). The bill grew im- 
 mediately out of the Hussey amendment to the 
 Interlude Bill, and gave to Justices of the Peace 
 authority to license (on petition) such theatrical 
 performances as were presented at the patent 
 theatres in Westminster, at any place, city, or 
 town, within the magistrates' jurisdiction, for a 
 period not to exceed sixty days which should 
 fall within the limits of the four months to be 
 specified in the license. It was further provided, 
 that no place licensed under the provisions of 
 this act should be within twenty miles of Lon- 
 don, Westminster, or Edinburgh. 
 
 There were now three distinct general laws 
 of Parliament governing the theatres of the 
 realm, besides numerous special acts applying 
 only to certain large cities. By the act of 28 
 George III, it was intended to recognize the 
 main provisions of the Licensing Act relating 
 to the patent houses; to leave the magistrates 
 free, within a radius of twenty miles from the 
 metropolis, to license places of public entertain- 
 ment, according to the 25 George II ; and, at 
 the same time, to give to the remainder of the 
 
 ^ Statutes at Large, 28 George III, cap. xxx.
 
 CONFLICTING LEGISLATION 139 
 
 kingdom, lying outside the magic circle, the op- 
 portunity for theatrical amusements enjoyed by 
 the inhabitants of Westminster. Thus legisla- 
 tion stood, respecting the theatres, at the close 
 of the eighteenth century : the Lord Chamber- 
 lain was chief authority in Westminster, the 
 home of the patent theatres ; magistrates in Lon- 
 don and Westminster, and within twenty miles 
 thereof, might license certain species of theatri- 
 cal amusements ; magistrates outside the twenty 
 miles circle could authorize the regular drama 
 for a limited period each year ; while special 
 legislation in the case of individual cities per- 
 mitted the same privileges (in the particular 
 cities named in the special acts) as those en- 
 joyed by the two patent houses in the metropo- 
 lis. ^ 
 
 No more complicated or cumbrous legislation 
 regulating the theatres of England (or any- 
 where) could be imagined. The purpose of the 
 various laws was to give to the whole realm the 
 privileges enjoyed by London ; but these acts 
 were so palpably partial in their operation that 
 that alone was sure, in time, to call for a reor- 
 ganization of the whole system. Furthermore, 
 
 ^ Patents outside of London were issued as follows : Man- 
 chester. 1775, 1700 ; Newcastle, 1787 ; Bath, 1707; Chester, 
 1798, 1819 ; Bristol, 1799 ; Kingston, and York, 1803 ; Liver, 
 pool, Birmingham, and Margate, 1807 ; Edinburgh, 1809.
 
 140 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 there was an overlapping of jurisdictions pro- 
 vided by these various acts of legislation, which 
 was calculated to cause trouble ; while the indefi- 
 nite restrictions relative to the kinds of enter- 
 tainments that might be exhibited under au- 
 thority of the magistrates' license (25 George 
 II) contained the germ which was destined to 
 work the destruction of the whole artificial theat- 
 rical organization. All these discrepancies and 
 contradictions were the result of the attempt to 
 keep inviolable the rights of the patent theatres, 
 and when the readjustment to a rational basis 
 should come, it must necessarily be at the sac- 
 rifice of the monopoly.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 FROM THE REBUILDING OF COVEXT GARDEN" AND 
 
 DRURY LANE TO THE BURNING OF THE GREAT 
 
 THEATRES 
 
 THE period of twenty years succeeding tlie 
 Royalty episode marks a transition in theat- 
 rical affairs in London, hitherto unexampled in 
 the number and importance of events. One thing 
 was certain, the good times consequent on the 
 undisturbed quiet of exclusive privileges were 
 past forever. The managers of the " great " 
 houses felt the necessity of bracing their position 
 in every imaginable direction, and the stupen- 
 dous efforts which they made to prove their long- 
 established security reacted, in time, to pull down 
 their enormous defenses about, their own heads. 
 Sheridan conceived the plan of meeting the 
 growing demands of an increasing metropolis by 
 demolishing the old Drury Lane Theatre, ^ and 
 erecting in its stead a much larger and more 
 masjnifieent edifice. The execution of this desi"jn 
 
 ^ The following' statistics relative to Drnry Lane Theatre 
 may be of interest: built 1602; burnt 1672; rebuilt 1674; 
 enlarged 176;^; pulled down 1791; rebuilt, reopened 1794; 
 burnt 1809 ; rebuilt 1812.
 
 142 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 was commenced in 1789. v Sheridan secured the 
 Opera House in the Haymarket ^ for the patent 
 company while the new Drury Lane Theatre was 
 in course of construction. But huge difficulties 
 stood in the way of the great patentee. The new 
 structure was scarcely well on its way, when 
 suddenly all operations on it were arrested. The 
 subscribers had discovered that there was no 
 patent for Drury Lane Theatre^ and they re- 
 fused to pay their subscriptions to support a 
 concern of such dubious tenure. It has been 
 pointed out more than once in the course of this 
 investigation that, when the patents were united 
 in 1682, they passed into the hands of the suc- 
 cessor to Davenant, and, presumably, were in- 
 herited by John Rich in 1714. By the same 
 order of conjecture, both the patents became the 
 property of Beard, son-in-law to John Kich, 
 on the death of the latter (1761), and, in the 
 transfer of 1767, were given over into the pos- 
 session of the new managers, Colman, Harris, 
 Powell, and Rutherford. Of this quartette, Col- 
 man had gone over to the Haymarket (1777), 
 
 ^ This was the house built by Vanbrugh in 1704. It was 
 variously called The Opera House, the King's Theatre, and 
 Her Majesty's Theatre. It burnt in 1789, and the Drury Lane 
 company then moved to the Pantheon, in Oxford Street, until 
 the Opera House in the Haymarket was rebuilt (1791). The 
 Pantheon was first opened in 1772 ; converted into an Opera 
 House in 1784 ; burnt 1792.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 143 
 
 Powell was dead (1769), and, at the time of the 
 rebuilding of Drury Lane Theatre, Harris was 
 practically the sole head in the management of 
 Co vent Garden. 
 
 The situation in which Sheridan found him- 
 self at this time (1792) was anything but envi- 
 able. Everything depended on the subscribers, 
 and to maintain his hold upon their confidence, 
 and purse-strings, it occurred to the ingenious 
 Sheridan to get possession of the "dormant pa- 
 tent." Application, therefore, was made to Harris 
 for the old Killigrew grant. The Covent Garden 
 manager agreed to dispose of it for ,£15,000, and 
 the document was at once deposited in the hands 
 of a banker for t*he inspection and satisfaction 
 of the Drury Lane subscribers. However, a new 
 difficulty now arose to complicate matters. The 
 transaction respecting the "dormant patent" 
 coming to the knowledge of a Mr. White, who, 
 by marrying the daughter of the then late Mr. 
 Powell, possessed a considerable shai'e (one 
 fourth) in Covent Garden Theatre, White called 
 on Harris and expressed his dissatisfaction at 
 the proposed transfer of the old patent to Drury 
 Lane. Harris was inclined to pay little heed to 
 these objections, but White demonstrated his 
 sincerity by obtaining from the Court of Chan- 
 cery a prohibition of the sale of the patent, 
 which was thereupon restored to Covent Garden.
 
 144 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 It does not appear that White had any partic- 
 ular scruples against the Drury Lane manage- 
 ment possessing the "dormant patent;" he simply 
 insisted that, as a shareholder in the Covent 
 Garden Theatre, he should be consulted in the 
 matter under consideration, and he refused to 
 sign the transfer of the patent to Sheridan unless 
 he receive ^5000. After considerable bickering, 
 the sum of £20,000 was finally agreed on.^ 
 
 Closely connected with this transaction runs 
 another affecting our general problem, though 
 apparently quite different. Since the troublous 
 days in the reign of Queen Anne, the question of 
 Italian opera had scarcely been a factor in the 
 theatrical affairs of London. Among the schemes 
 and counter-schemes of that period, it will be re- 
 membered, it was generally understood that Ital- 
 ian opera should be relegated exclusively to the 
 Opera House in the Haymarket. This arrange- 
 ment was undisturbed for years, except by the 
 periodic attacks, in pamphlets and newspapers, 
 on foreign actors and actresses. But in the theat- 
 rical disturbances of the last fifteen or twenty 
 years of the eighteenth century, the opera ques- 
 
 ^ The history of this transaction appeared in the London 
 Chronicle for July 30, and September 12, 1792. These two 
 numbers of the London Chronicle contain the only mention I 
 have ever seen of White's connection with the transfer of the 
 patent to Sheridan. This throws entirely new light on the 
 reason why Sheridan purchased the " dormant patent."
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 145 
 
 tioii also was involved. The history of the opera 
 controversy in London is long and interesting, 
 but it is my object, in this connection, to touch 
 on those points only which associate themselves 
 naturally with the main pursuit.^ 
 
 About 1781, the Opera House in the Haymar- 
 ket (King's Theatre) became the property of 
 William Taylor. Not long after this (1784), a 
 building in Oxford Street, constructed in 1772, 
 was converted into an opera house, which became 
 the property of one O'Reilly in 1789. This was 
 the Pantheon, and O'Reilly at once fitted it up 
 for a class of entertainments similar to those 
 represented at the King's Theatre in the Hay- 
 market, that is to say, for Italian opera. On 
 the 17th of June, 1789, Taylor's Opera House 
 caught fire during a rehearsal, and burned. Tak- 
 ing advantage of the circumstance, O'Reilly, who 
 was a politician, wielded his influence with the 
 Lord Chamberlain, and secured a license for 
 Italian opera at the Pantheon. A war was thus 
 precipitated between the opera managers. Tay- 
 
 ^ For some of the material connected with the opera quarrels 
 in London, see A Concise Statement of Transactions and Cir- 
 cumstances respecting the King^s Theatre in the Haymarket. By 
 W.Taylor. Pamphlet, pp. 46, London, 1791. Also, The Opera 
 Glass: exhibiting all the curious proceedings of the King''s Thea- 
 tre, &c. By E. Waters, London, 1808. Seven Years of the 
 King^s Theatre. By John Ebers, London, 1828. Outline for 
 a General Opera Arrangement, London, 1792.
 
 146 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 lor was refused a license on the pretext that one 
 for the same purpose had been granted to 
 O'Reilly ; and the question to decide was, who 
 had the monopoly for Italian opera in London, 
 — Taylor, whom precedent would sustain in his 
 claim, or O'Reilly, who maintained his position 
 by virtue of the Lord Chamberlain's license ? 
 
 On December 31, 1790, a number of gentle- 
 men, interested in the settlement of the dispute, 
 met at Carlton House in the hopes of devising 
 some means of reconciliation between the bellig- 
 erents. A scheme of union of the two manage- 
 ments was proposed, the Opera House in the 
 Haymarket (which was then rebuilding) alone 
 to be used for operas, the Pantheon to be re- 
 served for light and select entertainments of mu- 
 sic and dancing. But the parties were too much 
 at variance to reach a compromise, and the meet- 
 ing broke up without having accomj^lished any- 
 thing.^ Meantime, the new Opera House in the 
 Haymarket was pushed to its completion, and, 
 as the new Drury Lane Theatre was barely com- 
 menced, Sheridan occupied the Opera House 
 with the patent company, where he opened the 
 season September 22, 1791. 
 
 The dispute between Taylor and O'Reilly was 
 finally settled by the latter getting inextricably 
 involved during the season of 1791, and by the 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, 4th, 8th, 17th January, 1791.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 147 
 
 burning of the Pantheon the next year. Sheridan 
 was at this time (1792) negotiating for the 
 "dormant patent," and he now came forward in 
 the opera controversy, ostensibly for the pur- 
 pose of definitely settling the point of the Italian 
 opera. The plan of settlement was known as 
 an Outline for a General Opera Arrangement^ 
 and is a striking example of Sheridan's finesse. 
 In the first place, the Drury Lane manager ap- 
 pears as the chief representative of the interests 
 of the King's Theatre (Opera House in the 
 Haymarket), and general mediator between all 
 parties. The Pantheon was represented in the 
 Outline by William Sheldon, while Covent 
 Garden was not included in the committee that 
 framed the articles of settlement. This seems 
 the more strange inasmuch as Harris was still 
 in possession of both the patents of the monop- 
 oly. To secure for the proposed Arrangement 
 the dignity and support of high authority, the 
 approbation (in signature) of the Prince of 
 Wales and the Marquis of Salisbury, then Lord 
 Chamberlain, was obtained. The Duke of Bed- 
 ford, owner of the ground on which Drury Lane 
 Theatre once stood, also entered his signature. 
 
 Shrewdness marks the entire thirty-one arti- 
 cles of the Outline. From a hasty examination 
 of these, it would seem that the main purpose 
 throughout was to settle once for all the vexed
 
 148 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 question of the Italian opera ; and, from the 
 attention given to Mr. Taylor's interests in the 
 settlement, that gentleman must have been highly 
 gratified with the Arrangement. A monopoly to 
 that species of entertainment was surrendered to 
 the Opera House in the Haymarket, and a clause 
 was inserted which contained a waiver of all 
 pretensions in that direction on the part of Drury 
 Lane and Covent Garden. To put at rest the 
 danger of the Pantheon rivalry, provision was 
 made for the dismantling of that Opera House 
 as soon as the new Opera House in the Haymar- 
 ket should be ready for occupancy. In return 
 for such liberal concessions, Taylor was to assume 
 the indebtedness of the defunct Pantheon, 
 amounting to about <£30,000. The management 
 of the Opera House, as proposed by the Outline, 
 was to be griven to five noblemen who should be 
 named by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Bed- 
 ford, and the Marquis of Salisbury. To put it 
 plainly, the Outline was distinctly aimed at bring- 
 ing the monopoly of the opera directly under 
 the influence of the Drury Lane management. 
 
 One other strategic stroke — the main one 
 for our purpose — should be observed in con- 
 nection with the Outline for a General Opera 
 Arrangement. The matter of the " dormant pat- 
 ent " — Sheridan's chief concern at that time 
 — was thrust into the opera settlement, though
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 149 
 
 having absolutely nothing to do with it. To give 
 a semblance of propriety to the dragging into 
 the Outline of the " doi-mant patent," it was 
 agreed that the Opera House in the Haymarket 
 should contribute ,£5000 toward the purchase 
 of the patent from Harris, that document then 
 to be " annexed inseparably " to Drury Lane 
 Theatre. This assessment on the Opera House 
 happened to be the exact amount demanded by 
 White for his one-fourth interest in the "dor- 
 mant patent," and it was levied at an opportune 
 time for the furtherance of Sheridan's plans. To 
 cover over the real meaning of this clause in 
 the Outline, another immediately follows, con- 
 firming and establishing the Opera House in the 
 monopoly of Italian opera ; and this, in turn, 
 is succeeded by the provision to secure the man- 
 agement of the Opera House to the Prince of 
 Wales, the Duke of Bedford, and the Marquis 
 of Salisbury. These three clauses (6th, 7th, and 
 8th) of the Outline form a curious psycholog- 
 ical study, and together seem clearly to explain 
 Sheridan's motives. 
 
 The question of the " dormant patent " being 
 thus satisfactorily settled, as Sheridan thought, 
 work on the new Drury Lane Theatre progressed 
 without further serious interference.^ The im- 
 
 ^ It is significant that the uew theatre was not opened under 
 the " dormant patent," but under a running' license (21 years),
 
 150 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 mense size of the new theatre is worthy of men- 
 tion, as that was soon to become a factor in the 
 struggle for a free stage. The building was 320 
 feet in length, 155 in width, and had a roof 
 width of 118 feet. Covent Garden had antic- 
 ipated Drury Lane in the matter of increased 
 size, as it had been remodeled and enlarged only 
 a short time before (1791). The influence of 
 these changes in the size of the buildings on the 
 theatrical problem was enormous and of constant 
 recurrence. The subject will be treated more 
 fully in another connection. 
 
 While the details of these larger and novel 
 features of the patent theatres were in progress, 
 the struggle for existence, on the one hand, and the 
 war of extermination, on the other, between the 
 Little Theatre in the Hay market and the winter 
 theatres, had been resumed. In 1792 (15th of 
 June), an occasional Prelude entitled Tioo Sides 
 of the Gutter ^ was presented at the Haymarket 
 and contained a complaint of the unfair treat- 
 ment by the patentees. It was intended, also, to 
 satirize the size and gorgeous magnificence of 
 
 recently issued. It turned out later that Sheridan did not se- 
 cure the patent in 1792, and the whole question reappeared in 
 a later controversy, to be taken up in the next chapter. 
 
 ^ This was the sub-title, the chief title being Poor Old Hay- 
 market ; written by the younger Colman, who, since 1790, had 
 been manager of the Haymarket, the elder Colman being inca- 
 pacitated by hemiplegia (of which he died in 1794).
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 151 
 
 the new patent theatres.* It was during this 
 period that the Drury Lane Company, from time 
 to time, occupied the theatre in the Haymarket. 
 During the winter season of 1793-94 such was 
 the case. The new theatre in Drury Lane 
 was completed in March, 1794, and on the 12th 
 of the month received the patent company. A 
 play had been advertised the same evening at 
 the Haymarket, but, remarks Oulton,^ as " two 
 theatres could not keep open under one patent, 
 the Little Theatre closed in a very abrupt man- 
 ner." No better evidence of the completeness 
 of the monopoly could be conceived than this. 
 The futility of the effort to compete with the 
 winter theatres was more and more apparent to 
 Colman, and, for a number of years, with occa- 
 sional brief intervals of exception, he practically 
 gave up the fight, and conformed his summer 
 season, not to the letter of his license, but to the 
 will of the patentees. At no time, be it remem- 
 bered, during this rivalry, was the right of the 
 patent houses to encroach on the summer season 
 questioned ; for it was freely acknowledged that 
 a patent contained authority above a license. 
 But the tyranny of exercising a legal power 
 for the sole purpose of crushing an inferior was 
 
 ^ European Magazine, June, 1792. See also London Chronicle 
 for June 15, 1790. 
 2 History of the Theatres of London, ii, 135.
 
 152 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 complained of bitterly, and, by degrees, the 
 public sympathy was aroused on the side of 
 the weaker party. 
 
 A climax was reached in 1802, when the win- 
 ter theatres extended their season so far into the 
 summer that the Haymarket was unable to open 
 until the 2Gth of June. This determined Col- 
 man to put forward his best efforts to ignore the 
 patent theatres altogether, and to open his thea- 
 tre, for the future, on time. A short time before 
 the close of the summer season of 1802, he had 
 a notice posted in the green-room at the Hay- 
 market, informing the actors that none of them 
 need consider themselves as subject to engage- 
 ment for the ensuing season, unless they could be 
 in readiness to act for the period authorized by 
 the license, that is, from the 15th of May to the 
 15th of September. And the day before the 
 close of the season the play-bills contained the 
 following announcement to the public : 
 
 " Circumstances have arisen for several years 
 past, which have curtailed the term allotted to 
 this theatre, for the representation of dramatic 
 performances, of more than one fourth. 
 
 " As the justly due and customary thcmks, at 
 the conclusion of the 'present season, will be fol- 
 lowed by reasons why this theatre will, in future, 
 decidedly exercise' its rights, during the fit II pe- 
 riod which has long been graciously granted by
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 153 
 
 His Majesty, it is humbly hoped that the audi- 
 ence will show indulgence to the length of the 
 address^ which will, on this occasion, be sub- 
 mitted to their candour." 
 
 This advertisement had the desired effect of 
 filling the theatre the next night (September 15) 
 to its utmost capacity. At the close of the enter- 
 tainment, Fawcett, Colman's acting manager, 
 came to the front of the stage, and, after deliv- 
 ering the annual thanksgiving, read the promised 
 address from the proprietor. As this contains 
 an admirable summary of the relations existing 
 between the Little Theatre and the patent 
 houses, it should be quoted in full. The Address 
 runs thus : 
 
 " When a Royal Patent was about to be 
 granted to the late Mr. Foote, it was inquired, 
 with that justice which characterizes the English 
 throne, what annual extent of term might be al- 
 lowed him, without injury to theatrical patents 
 then existing in this metropolis. The proprie- 
 tors of the winter theatres were interrogated on 
 this point, and, in consequence of their docu- 
 ments, a patent was granted to Foote for his life, 
 to open a theatre annually, from the 15th of 
 May to the 15th of September, inclusive. 
 
 " Winter houses never closed precisely on the 
 commencement of his term ; but Foote was 
 unique^ and depended chiefly on his own writing,
 
 154 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 and his own acting. A licence was given to the 
 Elder Colman, for the same annual term^ on 
 Foote's death ; but, aware that he could not, 
 like his singularly gifted jjredecessor, depend on 
 his own individual powers, he engaged a regular 
 company of comedians, chiefly selected from the 
 winter theatres, for whose assistance he was 
 obliged to wait till those theatres closed. He 
 ventured in every shape, very deeply on a lim- 
 ited privilege, which this mode of speculation 
 rendered still 77iore limited. The Younger Col- 
 man, our present proprietor, succeeded his father 
 in this licence, but bought the property at the 
 expense of several thousand pounds, and thus 
 came into a theatre, where the custom of depend- 
 ing on the movements of the winter houses has 
 now curtailed its short season by nearly one 
 third ! 
 
 " The object at length in view is, to remedy 
 the evil without invidious and vain attempts to 
 attack much more powerful theatres, who have 
 an undoubted privilege of acting jjlays all the 
 year round. The proprietor has no intention of 
 tiring the public ear by a querulous appeal ; he 
 admits that others have the fullest right to make 
 their property as productive as possible; he 
 wishes merely to follow their example ; and so- 
 licits your support in his effort in establishing a 
 company of actors totally independent of them.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 155 
 
 There are but three houses permitted to give 
 you regular batches of plays in London ; and this 
 house (by far the most humble) sees no reason 
 when they will all be making their bread, on 
 the 15th of next May ; why even three of a trade 
 should not perfectly agree. 
 
 " Should his arrangements succeed, which are 
 even at this early period, actively forming, you 
 will {on the reopening of the theatre) greet the 
 return to London of some favourites, who, it is 
 trusted, will find no diminution of your protec- 
 tion ; you will witness new and rising merit, 
 which it is your marked practice to foster. There 
 is no theatrical town in the United Kingdom 
 which will not be resorted to, in the hope of 
 procuring you its choicest produce ; and, in ad- 
 dition to other authors, you will be intreated, 
 early in the season, to show your indulgence to 
 the proprietor's further attempts at dramatic 
 competition ; whose pen he humbly hopes, not- 
 withstanding the long duration of your encour- 
 agement, is not yet quite worn out in your 
 service." ^ 
 
 Such was the ambitious " platform " of the 
 Haymarket proprietor for the campaign of 1803, 
 and every promise made therein was carried out 
 punctually to the letter. Late in 1802, Colman 
 
 1 London Chronicle, September 16, 1802. See also European 
 Magazine for May, 1803.
 
 156 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 writes to Elliston, the comedian, relative to en- 
 gaging him for the season of 1803, and takes 
 pains to impress his determination to open the 
 theatre on time. " In short," he continues, "we 
 must meet on the Haymarket ground next year 
 for four months, or not at all. It is my intention 
 to open the house on the 15th of May with an 
 independent company . . . " ^ The Worcester 
 theatre, Portsmouth, Weymouth, Bath, and York 
 were levied on to furnish actors for this experi- 
 ment,- and on Monday the 16th of May, 1803, 
 the Haymarket Theatre opened free from any 
 dependence on the patent houses for actors. If 
 the attendance was any criterion, the venture 
 was a success, for "the house was better attended 
 than is usual on the first night." The play for 
 the evening (^The Jeio) was prefaced by a dra- 
 matic sketch in one act, entitled No Prelude^ in 
 which Waldron appeared in the role of prompter, 
 lamenting, in soliloquy, the hard lines in which 
 the Haymarket had been placed, and reading a 
 letter from Colman, whimsically explaining his 
 theatrical expedients. Elliston then came on as 
 deputy-manager, and, in the dialogue which fol- 
 lowed, the new actors w^ho had been secured were 
 discussed and the support of the public suppli- 
 cated for them. 
 
 ^ Raymond's Life, of Robert William Elliston, p. 78. 
 ^ London Chronicle, May 17, 1803. Mathews was the chief 
 recruit from York.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 157 
 
 The effort proved successful, and the season 
 at the Haymarket coincided, for the first time 
 in years, with the limits of the license. Again, 
 in 1804, the Little Theatre opened on time, 
 though not quite so auspiciously as the year be- 
 fore, as Drui-y Lane did not close her doors 
 until the 12th of June.^ The summer season 
 this year (1804) was pushed once more to Sep- 
 tember 15, and was pronounced " most success- 
 ful." However, on the closing night, the audience 
 showed some dissatisfaction, arising from the 
 circumstance of one of the actors (a Mr. de 
 Camp) being obliged to quit the theatre before 
 the play was ended, in order to attend an en- 
 gagement at the Drury Lane Theatre.^ Early 
 in the season a similar difficulty arose when two 
 of Colman's actors. Bannister and R. Palmer, 
 continued at Drury Lane, thereby crippling the 
 Haymarket company for nearly two weeks. The 
 sturdy resolution of Colman was thus check- 
 mated at the very beginning of its operation, 
 and the tactics displayed by the patentees in 
 this particular season (1804) became the regular 
 practice with them. The provinces were scoured 
 by Colman for an independent company, only 
 to have his best recruits at once transferred to 
 one or the other of the patent houses ; for it 
 
 1 London Chronicle, June 13, 1804. 
 
 2 Ibid., September 18, 1804.
 
 158 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 was the ambition of every actor who came up to 
 London in those days to get an engagement at 
 either of the two " great houses." 
 
 As a result of Colman's fruitless experiment, 
 the Little Theatre in the Haymarket was for 
 sale at the close of the season of 1804 ; and be- 
 fore the opening of the ensuing season, the pro- 
 perty had changed hands, Messrs. Morris and 
 Winston succeeding to the management.* But 
 this change in the directorship of the theatre 
 had no effect on the attitude of the patentees, 
 who continued to advance their winter perform- 
 ances farther and farther into the summer sea- 
 son. In 1805, the Haymarket Theatre did not 
 open until June 8, the reason being, according to 
 the " London Chronicle," that the new partner- 
 ship had been formed too late to begin sooner. 
 The real reason of the delayed opening was that 
 the winter houses pleased to keep open until late 
 in June, Covent Garden not closing until the 
 15th of the month. From this on until after the 
 burning of the patent houses, the Haymarket 
 fell back into its old dependence on the winter 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, June 10, 17, 1805. Oulton has it (iii, 
 58) that one-half interest in the Haymarket was for sale 
 and that Colman's brother-in-law, Morris, and Thomas Dibdin 
 were supposed to be the purchasers, but that it turned out that 
 Dibdin declined to enter into the transaction, being deterred, 
 probably, on account of the encroachments of the winter 
 houses. Colman still remained in the theatre as a shareholder.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 159 
 
 houses for performers, with the practical admis- 
 sion that it was useless to oppose the " legal 
 monopoly." 
 
 Meantime, new conditions were arising which 
 were to tax the ingenuity of the patentees far 
 more than any difficulty which had yet presented 
 itself. The old opera controversy had reap- 
 peared in a new phase ; for the Outline had not 
 altered men's natures. The large theatres had 
 gradually repudiated the legitimate drama; spec- 
 tacle and dumb-show had proved better suited 
 to their size. Especially did the new century 
 bring with it a type of dramatic entertainment 
 which, ever since, has succeeded in holding its 
 own in competition with the regular drama. 
 This new species was the melodrama which came 
 into England with spectres of German castles, 
 and nerve-racking scenes of the "Monk" Lewis 
 order, together with the long train of modifica- 
 tions and variations of these which at once fas- 
 cinated the minds of the rabble. The patent 
 houses went with the current, but the movement 
 was sure to call for a reaction on the part of 
 sticklers for the legitimate drama. The patentees 
 were bound to bear the brunt of the criticism 
 when it should come, for, since the passage of the 
 Licensing Act, they had stood as the champions 
 of Shakespeare and Otway. 
 
 But the greatest change, immediately affect-
 
 160 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 ing the question of patent rights, was in the 
 Lord Chamberlainship. When the Act of 1737 
 was under consideration, the monarchical power 
 vested in the Lord Chamberlain by that act was 
 pointed out ; but the needs of the case seemed 
 to demand some fixed responsibility, and as for 
 the patentees, they favored the act because they 
 thought they saw in it their bulwark of defense 
 against. opposition. And such had been the case 
 as proved by events. The Dukes of Grafton 
 and Devonshire, and the Marquis of Salisbury 
 had guarded the patents with a jealousy second 
 only to that of the patentees. But there was 
 scarcely anything in the Licensing Act to insure 
 the perpetuity of this guardianship. The office 
 and the law remained after the individual filling 
 it was no longer Lord Chamberlain. And now 
 the other side of the shield was to be turned to 
 view. Salisbury had joined Sheridan in his so- 
 called Opera Arrangement, — which was in re- 
 ality a Drury Lane arrangement. But Salisbury 
 had been succeeded by the Earl of Dartmouth, 
 and the Earl of Dartmouth exercised the author- 
 ity given him by the Licensing Act as he saw 
 fit, not as dictated by the patentees. The boom- 
 erang had returned. 
 
 The independence of the Earl of Dartmouth 
 in the capacity of Lord Chamberlain appears on 
 more than one occasion. In the summer of 1804
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 161 
 
 a series of concerts were given in London by 
 amateur native talent. These were so successful 
 that Henry Fulke Greville, Esq. (a retired 
 colonel in the army, whom we shall hear more 
 of later) became enthusiastic for an established 
 English opera. He drew up a plan of his 
 scheme, and sent it, together with a letter (dated 
 July 27, 1804), urging action in the matter, to 
 the Earl of Dartmouth. It was proposed to se- 
 cure the Pantheon in Oxford Street, and to in- 
 duce the Lord Chamberlain to grant a license for 
 music and dancing twice a week (Monday and 
 Friday). Greville argued that such a venture 
 must necessarily succeed, for, as it was intended 
 to employ only English singers, the national 
 vanity would b6 flattered, and the entertainments 
 would be popular. The difficulty of getting the 
 proprietors of the Pantheon to agree to a pro- 
 posal to sell the building was anticipated: in 
 case of failure in that quarter, it was suggested 
 that a site in Albemarle Street might be had 
 where a suitable room for the purpose could be 
 erected. 
 
 Colonel Greville's plan went much further 
 than music and dancing. After indicting the 
 patent houses for debasing the public morals 
 and literary taste, he boldly proposed to enact 
 the regular drama — " genuine comedy and ap- 
 proved good tragedy " — on two more days of
 
 162 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the week (Tuesday and Saturday). The house 
 should be small, to hold not to exceed six hun- 
 dred, and of the "600 persons attending these 
 nights amusements," prognosticated the san- 
 guine Colonel, " I will venture to assert not 
 twenty would otherwise have attended the pub- 
 lic theatres; but granting the whole number 
 was drawn from the theatres, what right and 
 title have these establishments to a monopoly 
 of the whole town?" The Lord Chamberlain 
 apprehended " a great deal of trouble would be 
 made by the proprietors of the three winter 
 playhouses " (evidently including the Hay- 
 market), should they attempt to carry out 
 Greville's proposed scheme. This was granted 
 by the Colonel, who insisted on the question 
 "whether improvement and utility are to be 
 prevented shooting forth to maturity because 
 the individual interests of three patentees whose 
 affairs are most flourishing are to be in some 
 measure rivalled." Greville had conversed on 
 the subject with Braham (the tenor), he said, 
 and that gentleman had fallen in with the sug- 
 gestion to establish a new theatre. The purpose 
 and result of such a venture were summed up 
 by Colonel Greville in the hope that, " if His 
 Majesty would grant a patent or even a licence, 
 I am sure society might reap very considerable 
 benefit, from a greater encouragement being
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 163 
 
 administered to the exertion of talent supported 
 by refinement and taste." * 
 
 Lord Dartmouth was unwilling to take the 
 step of declaring the patents null and void by 
 using his authority to set up a rival theatre for 
 the regular drama in the precincts of Westmin- 
 ster, and even the license for music and dancing 
 was not issued for some time after the corre- 
 spondence just quoted. For all his enthusiasm 
 and progressiveness, Colonel Greville was not 
 destined to inaugurate the English opera in 
 London. Nevertheless, his proposal in 1804 
 marks the first effort In that direction, and his 
 audacious plan to erect a third theatre for the 
 regular drama is the first legal attempt to break 
 through the monopoly.^ It is of further interest 
 to note that, though Lord Dartmouth could not 
 be induced to grant a license for " genuine comedy 
 and approved good tragedy," he was not un- 
 friendly to a discussion of the points at issue. 
 That he did not lean towards the theatrical 
 monopoly is apparent from another Incident. 
 Early in 1807 he was petitioned in behalf of 
 James Grant Raymond, Robert Palmer, and 
 
 1 Historical MSS. Commission, Report XV, pp. 284-286. 
 
 ^ I am aware, of course, that Dr. Arnold, the musical com- 
 poser, attempted to secure a license in 1794 for the Lyceum, 
 which he had recently purchased and fitted up for a theatre. 
 But this was for musical entertainments. The patentees pre- 
 vented the license.
 
 164 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 others, who alleged that the proprietors of the 
 Haymarket were guilty of partiality against 
 the winter performers. The attitude of Lord 
 Dartmouth in his answer to this petition is un- 
 mistakable. The signatures are denounced as 
 forgeries, and, if real, to be only performers of 
 minor ability, " some of them the mere refuse of 
 the London Theatres." To the complaints in the 
 memorial Lord Dartmouth's retort was sharp 
 and decisive : " The grievances under which the 
 petition [er]s appear to labour (if they ever did. 
 exist) exist no longer : but the fact is that the 
 Winter London performers were never aggrieved 
 by the Summer Theatre, while the Summer 
 Theatre has been long struggling to prevent it- 
 self from sinking under the power of its Winter 
 neighbors." Instead of the Haymarket refusing 
 to receive the performers from the patent houses 
 (as asserted by the petition), it was a well-known 
 fact, retorted the Lord Chamberlain, that the 
 Little Theatre was forced to depend on the 
 winter houses for its company of performers.^ 
 
 If any doubt remained as to the Earl of Dart- 
 mouth's views respecting the patent houses, it 
 was soon removed by his practical interpretation 
 of that clause in the Licensing Act which vested 
 the power to grant theatrical licenses in the Lord 
 Chamberlain alone. He had not felt that he 
 1 Historical MSS. Commission, Report XIII*, 503, 504.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 165 
 
 dared openly to violate the patents granted by 
 Charles II, but leaving the patentees in the en- 
 joyment of their monopoly of the regular drama, 
 he turned to exercise the authority secured to 
 him over the irregular drama. Some of the vari- 
 ous places of amusement had for years been suf- 
 fered to exhibit a variety of musical perform- 
 ances, dances, and pantomimes. These were, 
 as has already been pointed out, Sadler's Wells, 
 Astley's, Royal Circus, and Royalty. To these 
 should be added the Sans Souci, in Leicester 
 Square, a little " band-box of a theatre," built by 
 Charles Dibdin and opened by him on the 13th 
 of October, 1792, with an entertainment called 
 The Quissars^ "in the course of which he intro- 
 duced one-and-twenty new songs." ^ All of these 
 had continued down into the nineteenth century 
 without molestation (except in the case of the Roy- 
 alty), for they could scarcely be said to compete 
 or interfere with the monopoly. Lord Dart- 
 mouth's friendliness towards these smaller con- 
 cerns now (1807) produced a perfect inundation 
 of applications for theatrical licenses. In the 
 " Morning Chronicle " for November 16, 1807, 
 appears the following article on the subject : 
 
 "NEW THEATRES 
 
 " A new Theatre, the San Pareil, was opened 
 on Saturday night [Nov. 14]. It is under the 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, October 15, 1792.
 
 166 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 direction of Monsieur Giroux^ whose young and 
 elegant daughters perform at it, and which is 
 designed to form a Nursery for the Opera and 
 other Theatres. It is a beautiful little place, 
 almost opposite the Adelphi, in the Strand. 
 
 "Another Theatre, to be called the Minor 
 Theatre, situate in Catherine-street, is to be 
 opened this night [Nov. 16, 1807]. There are 
 several others in a state of forwardness, which 
 are all to start as rivals to the great Theatres. 
 
 " The theatre, in Argyll-street; ^ 
 
 " A theatre, in Tottenham Court-road ; 
 
 " A Theatre, in Berwick-street ; 
 
 " A Theatre, in Leicester-fields [the Sans 
 Souci] ; 
 
 " Two Theatres, at the Lyceum, in the strand; 
 
 " The Pavilion, in Wych-street ; 
 
 "Besides Sadler's Wells, the Royal Amphi- 
 theatre, the Circus, and the Royalty. 
 
 " In addition to all which, we understand that 
 application has been made to the Lord Chamber- 
 lain to grant a licence for a New Opera. 
 
 "Paris must hide its head." 
 
 This marks the first great stirring of practical 
 opposition to the patent houses. But even now, 
 the action of the Lord Chamberlain in granting 
 licenses to the lesser establishments for enter- 
 
 ^ The Argyll Street Institution decided to wait another 
 season, pending the difficulties of the King's Theatre.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 167 
 
 tainments outside the regular drama need not 
 have produced any serious rivalry to the " great 
 houses," had not the latter seen fit to accept the 
 challenge and to abandon the ground appropri- 
 ated to their exclusive use by the monopoly. As 
 it turned out, they took alarm at the innovation 
 and audacity of the Lord Chamberlain in pre- 
 suming to grant a license without their consent 
 and approval, and were resolved to chastise the 
 upstart offenders. Thus was inaugurated the 
 war between the majors and minors, which was 
 not to cease until the monopoly itself was no 
 more. It was given out on "undoubted author- 
 ity" that the proprietors of the winter theatres 
 had resolved " to put an immediate stop to the 
 encroachments made on their property, under 
 the authority of the Lord Chamberlain." Coun- 
 sel were employed, who gave the decided opin- 
 ion that the patents were explicit and absolute 
 as to what theatres should exist in Westmin- 
 ster, and that any attempt on the part of the 
 Lord Chamberlain to license any other place 
 for theatrical representations, without the con- 
 sent of the patentees, was an infringement on 
 those patents, and, hence, was illegal. " Cer- 
 tain it is," continued the argument for the 
 monopoly, "that from the day the first royal 
 patent was granted to Old Drury, through the 
 whole of Mr. Garrick's time, and ever since,
 
 168 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 until the cbamberlainship of Lord Salisbury, 
 the uniform practice at the Chamberlain's Of- 
 fice, was to refuse even to listen to an appli- 
 cation for a single night, though for a charity 
 benefit, unless the party applying brought with 
 them the previous consent in writing of the 
 Proprietors of the established Theatres." 
 
 So much for the legal claim of protection to 
 the patents. In addition to this, the patentees 
 referred to their title in equity, averring that, 
 even if the right were with the Lord Chamberlain, 
 nevertheless he was " bound by positive covenant " 
 not to license any new concern for dramatic 
 exhibitions. And here the underlying motives 
 of the Outline for a General Opera Arrange- 
 Tnent came to the surface. That was the "cove- 
 nant," the result of " a long discussion and 
 arbitration, recognizing and guaranteeing the 
 exclusive rights of the three established The- 
 atres," which, it was pointed out with an air of 
 injured right and dignity, had been signed by the 
 Marquis of Salisbury, and had been honored 
 by the concurrence of his Royal Highness the 
 Prince of Wales himself. On the faith of that 
 settlement, "so guaranteed," the proprietors of 
 Drury Lane had, they protested, laid out a con- 
 siderable sum for the " dormant patent," the 
 King's Theatre (Opera House) had "contributed 
 thirty thousand pounds on recovering its licence
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 169 
 
 . . . ; and finally this deed formed the whole 
 foundation for the rebuilding of Drury Lane 
 Theatre, in which undertaking a property not 
 less than three hundred thousand pounds have 
 been embarked, and all in the confidence and 
 on the faith of this arrangement, secured under 
 such high authority." 
 
 Threat was made by the patentees, that, should 
 the proprietors of the Opera House (King's 
 Theatre in the Haymarket) not succeed in set- 
 tling their wrangles, they would resort to the 
 " dormant patent " for the benefit of the winter 
 houses, " which patent is at present only withheld 
 from being operative through respect to the 
 established Opera House, and the terms of the 
 affreeraent before referred to." The defense of 
 the patentees included also a proposed petition 
 to the Crown. ^ 
 
 This statement of the patentees' demand, that 
 the Lord Chamberlain restrict the duties of his 
 office in such manner as to insure the inviolabil- 
 ity of the monopoly, fairly defines the contest 
 which was soon to wax fierce and strong. Ac- 
 cording to the position taken by the monopoly 
 owners, the patents issued by Charles II to 
 
 ^ The outline of the patentees' position in the controversy 
 with Lord Dartmouth was printed in the Morning Chronicle for 
 November 21, 1807. See also European Magazine for Novem- 
 ber, 180T ; and The Cabinet for December, 1807.
 
 170 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Killigrew and Davenant took precedence over 
 all subsequent acts of Parliament, and the latter 
 were effective only as interpreted by the patent- 
 ees. The acquiescence of the Lord Chamber- 
 lains, from the time the Licensing Act was 
 passed to the reign of Lord Dartmouth, in the 
 wishes of the patentees, was proof to the latter 
 that the Lord Chamberlainship existed for the 
 sake of the patent houses, and that the Licens- 
 ing Act simply legalized that relationship. Lord 
 Dartmouth's appreciation of his functions as Lord 
 Chamberlain revealed the possibilities of conflict- 
 ing authority which had lurked in the theatrical 
 monopoly ever since its creation, and especially 
 since 1737. 
 
 In support of the Lord Chamberlain's abso- 
 lute authority in theatrical matters, precedent 
 was not wanting. The patents themselves de- 
 pended on that official for enforcement, even 
 when the patent houses alone were concerned. 
 When, in King William's reign, the clause was 
 violated, prohibiting one of the theatres receiv- 
 ing an actor from the other theatre without the 
 consent of the latter, the authority of the Lord 
 Chamberlain was sought to correct the abuse. 
 We have seen also, in the case of Betterton's re- 
 volt, that it was through the mediation of the 
 Lord Chamberlain that a license was secured from 
 the King for the revolters ; and in the later re-
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 171 
 
 volts, already considered, the Lord Chamberlain's 
 authority was not doubted, except in a single in- 
 stance, and even then Steele was forced to sub- 
 mit to the silencing order of that official. This 
 authority went so far as to restrain and chastise 
 the conduct of actors when not employed at the 
 theatres, for the Lord Chamberlain was the 
 mouthpiece of the Crown in all theatrical affairs. 
 Finally, the Licensing Act itself confirmed the 
 absolutism of the Lord Chamberlain's power, 
 and especially relegated to him the authority of 
 licensing theatres. Viewed in this light, it mat- 
 tered little to Lord Dartmouth that a contradic- 
 tion of authority was contained in the Act of 
 1737. The attempt to exercise both authorities 
 at the same time would prove which was the real 
 one. If the conduct of actors, the licensing of 
 theatres, the contentions of managers, and the 
 differences between actors and managers fell 
 within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, 
 there were grave reasons for believing in the final 
 authority of that official. Relative to the last 
 point, the disagreements of actors and mana- 
 gers. Lord Dartmouth had his deputy (T. B. 
 Mash) make an investigation of the historical 
 precedents on the subject. This led to the dis- 
 covery of a document ^ in which the Lord Cham- 
 berlain's viltimate authority is established in all 
 ^ Unfortunately, this document is now, probably, lost, but
 
 172 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 cases of controversy between actors and mana- 
 gers. Sir R. Steele's case is the only exception 
 noted of a denial of the Chamberlain's absolute 
 authority over theatrical matters. 
 
 The presentation of the patentees' case throws 
 light, also, on the Opera Arrangement of 1792. 
 It now (1807) transpires that the underlying 
 motive of the settlement was to reinforce the 
 "legal monopoly," and to make possible the re- 
 building of Drury Lane Theatre. This appears 
 in the explanation of the purchase of the " dor- 
 mant patent," and in the threat to use that pat- 
 ent if the " new projects " (the minor theatres) 
 were not abandoned forthwith, notwithstanding 
 the " guaranteed faith " of the opera arrange- 
 ment. That the Outline was a blind to hide the 
 schemes of the patentees, especially of Sheridan, 
 is evident in the confession that the securing of 
 Italian opera to the King's Theatre was a mere 
 sop to be repudiated whenever the interests of 
 the patentees were endangered. 
 
 Another question of interest in the protest of 
 the patentees against the Lord Chamberlain is 
 connected with the " dormant patent." Did Sher- 
 idan think when he purchased it in 1792 to 
 strengthen his monopoly '•: If so, why did he not 
 
 the results of the investigation are extant in a letter from 
 T. B. Mash to Lord Dartmouth (dated Aug. 17, 1809). Ris- 
 torical MSS. Commission, Report XIII *, p. 505.
 
 FROM REBUILDING TO BURNING 173 
 
 make use of it instead of the 21-year license? 
 Or, rather, did he hold it in reserve, as indicated 
 by the above statement, as a safeguard against 
 any attempt to establish a rival theatre ? And 
 did the patentees have any genuine confidence 
 in the efficacy of the "dormant patent" for any 
 purpose ? The exact status of the old Killigrew 
 patent had not been determined in 1807, but 
 the time was not far distant when it, and the 
 whole question of patent rights in theatres, was 
 to be reviewed in a manner to test the sincerity 
 of the patentees' pretenses regarding it. Mean- 
 time, the fact was significant that Sheridan had 
 permitted the "dormant patent" to remain 
 asleep after its supposed purchase from Harris 
 in 1792, and the bluster about reviving it did not 
 seem to scare Lord Dartmouth. The resistance 
 of the patent houses to the authority of the 
 Lord Chamberlain in granting licenses to the 
 minor concerns was as useless as that of the 
 Haymarket had been against the encroachments 
 of the winter houses. A still greater danger, 
 which shook the old concerns to their very foun- 
 dations, was in store for the defenders of monop- 
 oly rights. But never in the history of the patent 
 houses did the zeal and courage of the patentees 
 appear to such advantage as when beset by the 
 direst events. The first catastrophe — the burn- 
 ing of both the " great houses," Covent Garden
 
 174 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 in 1808, and Drury Lane in 1809 — was in itself 
 sufficient to daunt the proprietors; while the at- 
 tempt, following immediately on these disasters, 
 to establish a third theatre in London, was even 
 more discouraging. A consideration of this at- 
 tempt, the most important single episode in the 
 history of the struggle to break the shackles 
 of the theatrical monopoly, will form the basis of 
 the next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A THIRD THEATRE : 
 PRIVY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS 
 
 EARLY on the morning of September 20, 
 1808, Covent Garden Theatre was discov- 
 ered to be on fire ; in a few hours it was entirely 
 consumed. With unexampled energy, a new struc- 
 ture was begun before the close of the year, and 
 almost precisely one year from the date of the 
 conflagration, the new theatre, larger and more 
 magnificent than ever, was thrown open for 
 theatrical exhibitions. The immense expense to 
 which the proprietors had been subjected in 
 erecting the new building (the estimated cost 
 was X300,000) led them to increase the price of 
 admission to the performances. This action 
 precipitated the notorious " O. P." (i. e. "Old 
 Price") riots which lasted from the opening 
 night, September 18, to December 17, 1809, 
 when a compromise was reached between the 
 managers and the public. The London theatre- 
 goer of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
 had been used to fracases in the pit and boxes, 
 and even to riots of brief duration and respect- 
 able limits. But the " O. P." riots touched the high-
 
 170 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 water mark, especially in the matter of time and 
 the zeal with which they were conducted. Pande- 
 monium reigned almost continuously for the sixty- 
 seven nights on which the Covent Garden The- 
 atre was open, during the period of three months 
 following the opening night. Matching the per- 
 sistence of the rioters — that is the audiences — 
 were the obstinacy and haughty demeanor of the 
 proprietors ^ in refusing to be dictated to at all 
 by the rabble. 
 
 I have given above what is generally supposed 
 to have been the cause of the " O. P." riots, 
 namely, the advance in the admission prices to 
 the theatre ; and certainly this was one of the 
 chief origins of the tumults. But there were 
 other factors of great importance entering into 
 the dispute. The increased dimensions of the 
 new edifice, it was claimed, had been made at the 
 sacrifice of the drama, for though a large house 
 would hold more people than a small one and, in 
 one respect, be more for the public accommoda- 
 tion, yet a great loss was sustained thereby to the 
 drama itself, as no actor could hope to give the 
 finer tones to expression and, at the same time, 
 be heard and seen by the audience in all parts 
 of the house. As a result, pantomime and spec- 
 
 ^ In 1802 John Philip Kemble purchased of Harris a one- 
 sixth share in Covent Garden. The next year (1803) Kemble 
 became acting-manager of that theatre. 
 
 I
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 177 
 
 tacle were resorted to, to the detriment of the dra- 
 matic art and to the lowering of the public taste. 
 
 Another cause of complaint, tending to pro- 
 duce the riots of 1809, was the employment of 
 foreign troupes in the new theatre, in preference 
 to English companies. The average Englishman 
 had always been extremely sensitive on this point, 
 and unquestionably it was a most inopportune 
 time for the Covent Garden managers to import 
 their actors and actresses when England's rela- 
 tions with the Continent were anything but set- 
 tled. The mere mention of a foreigner for the 
 English stage, even in times of profound peace, 
 was sufficient to cause an outcry against the 
 practice. As a result of this antipathy, Mme. 
 Catalini, who had been engaged by the Covent 
 Garden management to open tne season, was 
 compelled to cancel her engagement before the 
 disturbances could be quelled. 
 
 Of a more serious nature was the indictment 
 brought against the new arrangement of private 
 boxes at Covent Garden Theatre. This was a 
 question touching public morals directly ; for, 
 it was declared, the new private boxes were " in 
 open defiance of public decency." It was a noto- 
 rious fact that this new adjunct had been made 
 to the theatre to accommodate the lewd women 
 of the town. That this was one of the leading 
 causes of the riot may be seen from the fact
 
 175 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 that, in September, 1810, when Covent Garden 
 opened for the season, the riots were renewed 
 because the proprietors had not fulfilled that 
 part of the compromise of the year before, call- 
 ing for a removal of the private boxes.^ 
 
 Out of the riots themselves developed cir- 
 cumstances which were used as serious charges 
 against the proprietors. During the progress 
 of the disturbances, the attitude of the audi- 
 ences became frequently so threatening that 
 the managers of the theatre thought to defend 
 themselves and property by opposing force with 
 force, if need arose. As a result of this foolish 
 policy, "pugilists, jews, and the most ruffianly 
 inhabitants of the metropolis, appeared in the 
 pit, to support the cause of the proprietors." 
 It was generally supposed at the time that these 
 bruisers were admitted to the theatre free of 
 charge, " for the sole object of preserving pub- 
 lic tranquility." This manoeuvre was almost, if 
 not quite, as unpopular as the cause generally 
 adduced for the riots, and only operated to ag- 
 gravate the mischief it was intended to reduce.' 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, September 11-25, 1810. The compiler 
 of the Covent Garden Journal says (in his Preface, i, 22) 
 apropos of the riots, " The most important feature in the fol- 
 lowing discussion, undoubtedly, is that of the private boxes." 
 See also Advertiser for October 26, 1809. 
 
 ^ Considerations on the Past and Present State of the Stage, 
 etc., pamphlet, pp. 54+Appendix, London, 1809. See also 
 London Times, November 14, 1809.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 179 
 
 As might be expected, the managers of Cov- 
 ent Garden Theatre were arraigned by the 
 public for bringing about these disgraceful 
 scenes, by an injudicious, if not tyrannical, ex- 
 ercise of power ; and the discussion which fol- 
 lowed on the disorders sought to inquire into 
 the nature of the privileges contained in the 
 patents. It was openly charged on the propri- 
 etors that they had dared to advance the price 
 of admission, knowing that they had no compe- 
 tition, and that the public would be forced, there- 
 fore, to submit to their demands.^ In regard to 
 the question of admission, the patentees rejoined 
 that the original patent issued by Charles II ex- 
 plicitly gave to the holders the privilege of fixing 
 the price of admission ; that the theatrical busi- 
 ness in London was " their own monopoly," and 
 that, being a monopoly, any attempt on the part 
 of the public to dictate the terms of management 
 was a violation of property rights. To this it 
 was retorted that the patents contained, like- 
 wise, the clear intimation that theatrical amuse- 
 ments were for the benefit of the public ; that 
 the grants of Charles II to Davenant and Killi- 
 grew were unlike monopolies in general (which 
 give exclusive privileges to their possessors), in 
 
 ^ Covent Garden Journal, ii, 616. It should be remarked 
 that Drury Lane Theatre burned on the 24th of February, 
 1809. See also pamphlet signed " Candidus."
 
 180 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 that they were held in trust for the benefit of 
 the public ; that any adv^antage accruing to the 
 patentees from the monopoly was in no sense 
 absolute, but conditional on a return to the pub- 
 lic of services in proportion to the favor ex- 
 perienced by the Crown protection to the mono- 
 polists; and that any violation or abuse of the 
 privileges contained in the monopoly was suf- 
 ficient cause to nullify it. At best, the patents 
 were very shadowy documents, and their use to 
 invade the rights of the public was never in- 
 tended, nor would it be tolerated. The law of 
 custom was as much to be observed as any grant 
 of so doubtful title as the theatrical patents, 
 and the arbitrary advance of price to the theatre 
 could not be legally, or justly, sustained on the 
 plea of a " legal monopoly." ^ 
 
 On the other hand, there were moderate crit- 
 ics of the theatrical situation who looked upon 
 any attempt to compel the managers of Covent 
 Garden to sell entertainment to. the people at the 
 price dictated by the purchaser to be a palpable 
 violation of the rights of property. Those tak- 
 
 1 CohbetVs, December 16, 1809 ; Covent Garden Journal, ii, 
 616-624, et passim. ' ' The only ground on which such a mo- 
 nopoly can be defended," says the editor, " is the means it 
 gives to its possessors of catering for the public amusement 
 at a cheaper rate than they could do if their trade -were 
 open and unlimited." See also, in this connection, Consid- 
 erations on the Past and Present State of the Stage.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 181 
 
 ing this view thought that extenuating circum- 
 stances might make it necessary to increase the 
 price of entertainments as well as any other com- 
 modity; almost everything had doubled in price 
 since the close of the French Revolution, and 
 why not the admission to the theatre ? Further- 
 more, it was pointed out by cool-headed, unpre- 
 judiced observers, the slight advance of one shil- 
 ling to the boxes and sixpence to the pit was 
 a matter too trifling to quibble over, much less to 
 create a riot.^ 
 
 But on the other counts brought against the 
 managers, public opinion was scarcely divided. 
 The deleterious effects of the increased dimen- 
 sions of the theatre on the drama and on acting 
 have been mentioned. The old building had 
 been too large for the effective representation of 
 Shakespeare's plays, for which reason buffoon- 
 ery, pantomime, and melodrama had been sub- 
 stituted, to the detriment of the stage and the 
 degradation of the public taste. The new theatre 
 emphasized these evils, and for the banishment 
 of the legitimate drama from the English stage 
 the management was held responsible. It was 
 irony, not charity, that dictated such criticism 
 
 ^ Cobbett's, December 7, and 16, 1809 ; Covent Garden Jour- 
 nal, ii, 707-710 ; 768-765. Cobbett admits one evil caused 
 by the advanced prices to the pit and boxes (for the price 
 to the galleries remained the same), namely, that poor people 
 must necessarily take the back, and less satisfactory, seats.
 
 182 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 as this : " But this [the then existing state of 
 the stage] is not such a sign of perverted taste 
 as it is of a prudent toleration of Blue Beards, 
 Kettledrums, or the distant view of the big-bel- 
 lied Virgins of the sun ; for if the manager did 
 not provide these, he could give the audience 
 nothing." A contrast between the theatre in the 
 days of Garrick and the new Covent Garden 
 Theatre was a subject for lament among those 
 who could remember the time when everything 
 connected with the dramatic and histrionic arts 
 was made to subserve the arts themselves. From 
 a tract, written by Frederick Howard, Earl of 
 Carlisle, at the time of the "O. P." riots, I quote 
 the following extract, pertinent to the discussion 
 in hand : 
 
 " A modern audience would be surprised to 
 hear how the public were accommodated forty 
 years ago [i. e., circa 1770]. The side boxes 
 were few in number, and very incommodious, 
 especially when the frequenters of those boxes 
 ever appeared in them in full dresses, the 
 women in hoops of various dimensions, and 
 the men with swords and habiliments all calcu- 
 lated to deny convenient space to their neigh- 
 bours. Frocks were admitted into the front boxes, 
 but they were not usually worn by gentlemen in 
 the evening ; women of the town quietly took 
 their stations in the upper boxes, called the
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 183 
 
 green boxes ; and men whom it did not suit 
 either to be at the expense of dress, or who had 
 not time to equip themselves, as before described, 
 resorted to the pit. This of course comprehended 
 a large description of persons, such as belonged 
 to the inns of court, men of liberal pursuits and 
 professions ; and who, by an uniform attendance 
 at the playhouse, became no incompetent judges 
 of the drama. 
 
 " Their situation in the pit enabled them to 
 hear and to observe. Their habits of life led 
 them to an acquaintance with the authors and 
 the actors of the day ; the latter were not ig- 
 norant they were continually before a tribunal 
 that makes itself respected, and whose sentence 
 conferred fame or censure ; and they were con- 
 vinced that negligence, ebriety, and buffoonery 
 would not be suffered to pass unnoticed or un- 
 punished. Garrick's voice, with that of many 
 others in his troop, reached without effort the 
 deepest part of the front boxes, nor was lost 
 even in the farthest rows of the galleries. The 
 general custom of wearing swords was certainly 
 productive of spilling blood before resentment 
 found time to cool ; but as far as the theatre was 
 concerned it was instrumental to decorum ; the 
 scene was hardly ever disconcerted by noisy 
 quarrels, blows, or such indecencies as we now 
 witness ; the weapon was at hand, and the
 
 184 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 appeal to it was rather more serious than to the 
 fist, and enabled the weakest to contend with 
 the most athletic. Women of the town were 
 never permitted in the boxes below stairs with 
 the single exception of the beautiful Kitty 
 Fisher, whose appearance occasioned great dis- 
 may among all the frequenters, male and female, 
 of the hitherto unpolluted front boxes. . . . The 
 stage formerly seemed to have commanded more 
 universal interest than at present. . . . These 
 circumstances, with many others, incline me to 
 believe that the beauties of the author, and the 
 merits of the player, were much more constantly, 
 than in these days, the topics of conversation 
 and observation ; the natural consequence of 
 hearing accurately, and of being able not only 
 to compare one actor with another, but with 
 himself ; a perpetual stimulant to the latter to 
 exertion, and not to trifle with the audience. . . . 
 " The audience formerly, and in the times I 
 am alluding to, were contented to attend favour- 
 ite performances and performers under much 
 inconvenience, and what would now be called 
 disfigurement of the scene ; but still they saw 
 and heard, and, even with the following enumer- 
 ated abatements of the illusory charm, crowded 
 the house. At a benefit of the principal actor or 
 actress, a large division of the pit was added to 
 the front boxes, leaving few rows of the former;
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 185 
 
 besides this, many seats were placed on the stage, 
 so as to afford the actors a very contracted space, 
 not more perhaps than twenty feet square ; this 
 o£ course excluded for the night almost all the 
 accustomed decorations and change of scenery ; 
 but these inconveniences were thought lightly of, 
 partly because long habit had inured the spec- 
 tators to sixffer them, partly because the two 
 great faculties of the ear and eye were still re- 
 tained ; while now we are made to accept as 
 compensation for the surrender of these, an 
 expensive and tinsel pantomime, the noisy music 
 of which may be heard where the human voice 
 could never reach, and the glittering robe of 
 a Blue Beard be discovered, where no eye could 
 observe upon any change or expression of the 
 actor's countenance." ^ 
 
 The matter of personal safety also entered 
 into the question of the size of the theatres. In 
 case of fire during a performance, it was pointed 
 out, in such large structures the casualty list 
 must necessarily be great, for a large audience 
 would be liable to stampede and trample many 
 to death. ^ A small theatre was freer from this 
 
 ^ Thoughts upon the Present Condition of the Stage, and upon 
 the Construction of a New Theatre. By Frederick Howard, Earl 
 of Carlisle, pp. 47 + Appendix, London, 1809. 
 
 ^ The Sadler's Wells horror (October 15, 1807) was fresh in 
 the minds of people. Owing to a false alarm of fire, a panic 
 ensued, in which more than twenty persons were crushed to 
 death.
 
 186 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 danger. As to the plea of the patentees, that the 
 increased population of the metropolis required 
 larger theatres to accommodate the audiences, 
 the answer was sought in the simple question, 
 Why are there not more licensed theatres ? Some 
 went even so far as to suggest that the increased 
 dimensions of the new Covent Garden Theatre, 
 with the consequent bad effect on the public 
 good, was sufficient to work a revocation of the 
 patent. "Now," argues one, " though the exact 
 dimensions of the theatre cannot be supposed to 
 be dictated by the patent, yet the erection of the 
 building, adequate to the rational purposes of 
 the drama, must have been one of the virtual 
 stipulations on which it was granted ; and if so 
 it may deserve consideration, how far the erect- 
 ing the present structure (beautiful and appro- 
 priate to other objects, as I admit it to be) does 
 not, in strictness, work a forfeiture of the pro- 
 prietors' monopoly." ^ 
 
 Of a far more serious nature was the indict- 
 ment brought against the Covent Garden man- 
 agement for the arrangement of the private 
 boxes in the new theatre, "in open defiance of 
 
 ^ Considerations on the Past and Present State of the Stage. 
 The patent theatres, before their enlargement in 1790-94 
 •would each hold about a £300 audience ; after the rebuilding 
 of the theatres after the fires of 1808-09, the two theatres 
 together would accommodate £1500 audiences, Drury Lane 
 alone, on occasion, holding over £800.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 187 
 
 public decency." The excuse given by the pro- 
 prietors for this innovation was, that some per- 
 sons " feel it necessary, or convenient, to segregate 
 themselves and their families, more especially 
 the younger females, from some of those incon- 
 veniences inseparable from a public theatre." It 
 was evident to every one that the " inconven- 
 iences " had but one meaning, namely, the 
 women of the town who were a nuisance to the 
 real auditory and a disgrace to the management of 
 both the patent theatres. It was pertinently asked, 
 whether the private boxes were merely the re- 
 treat of decency alone, or rather were they not 
 constructed to serve the very opposite purpose ? 
 " If," says Sir Frederick Howard in his " Thoughts 
 upon the Present Condition of the Stage," " the 
 internal part of the theatre had attractions to 
 keep those who pay at the door, in their places, 
 the lobbies would not be filled with profligates 
 of every description, familiarizing the yet uncor- 
 rupted and modest to scenes of such meretricious 
 impudence, hardly exaggerated by Hogarth in 
 the supper in his Rake's Progress. What parent 
 could conduct his wife and daughters through 
 this sty without trembling with the fear, that 
 though those sights are to them shocking and 
 horrible, they may not be so to-morrow? An 
 audience who went to the play to hear and see, 
 would quickly interfere with these orgies."
 
 188 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Worst of all, the managers were fearlessly ac- 
 cused of fostering immorality for the immense 
 profits which accrued to them from the rental of 
 the private boxes, and this was declared to be a 
 perversion of the terms of the patents which were 
 intended to sanction public theatres, not private 
 bagnios.* "The royal patent can be no more 
 construed to sanction improper practices in its 
 holders than could the licence which was for- 
 merly given to public stews indemnify the owners 
 of them from a like responsibility. . . . We 
 take it upon ourselves fearlessly to affirm that 
 there is not a night on which this [Covent Gar- 
 den] or any of our theatres are open, when the 
 managers are not liable to an indictment for 
 keeping a disorderly house, under its most usual 
 acceptation, viz., a brothel ; and that of the most 
 loathsome, mischievous, corrupt, and disgusting 
 description." ^ 
 
 Admitting the triviality of some of the charges 
 brought against the patentees, such as the en- 
 gagement of a foreign singer, " the pensioned 
 hireling of Buonaparte " (an allusion to Cata- 
 lini), the alleged abuse of monopoly privileges 
 
 1 Sunday Advertiser, October 29, 1809 ; quoted in Covent 
 Garden Journal. 
 
 ^ Cobbett, in a strained efFort to be liberal, denied that the 
 private boxes increased immorality, evidently overlooking the 
 main point, the effect on the decent part of the audience. 
 Covent Garden Journal, ii, 707; Preface, 24, 25.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 189 
 
 of a more serious nature demanded a thorough 
 examination of the whole question of theatrical 
 patents. Lord Dartmouth was appealed to in an 
 open letter to exercise his power, as Lord Cham- 
 berlain, to put a stop to the shameful conduct of 
 the theatre.^ But his lordship was too wise to 
 meddle with a quarrel which was bound to take 
 its course anyhow. Threats of petitioning Par- 
 liament for leave to erect a new theatre in the 
 metropolis were advertised in the " Times," No- 
 vember 2, 1809. Plans for a new third theatre 
 were submitted to the public, containing various 
 schemes for obviating the evils inherent in the 
 patent houses. 
 
 "Service to the public," became the shibbo- 
 leth of the opposers to the patentees. The new 
 theatre, when built, should hold by the legiti- 
 mate drama. Therefore, the structure must be 
 small, with the idea of private gain wholly 
 secondary. To avoid all difficulties growing out 
 of monopoly in perpetuity, the patent for the 
 new national theatre should be issued for not 
 longer than seven years, and be revocable for 
 cause. To lessen the danger from conflagrations 
 the theatre should be built of stone. The air 
 was suddenly filled with schemes for a third 
 theatre. Elaborate plans for a subscription the- 
 
 ^ Times, November 7, 1809 ; Sunday Advertiser, October 29, 
 1809 ; quoted in Covent Garden Journal, ii, 60S, 657.
 
 190 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 atre were published broadcast ; others conceived 
 the idea of a joint-stock company ; while others 
 still, apprehending the difficulty which was sure 
 to arise respecting the patents, proposed that 
 " the government make a liberal purchase of the 
 patents originally granted for the accommodation 
 of a population small comparatively with the 
 present." ^ 
 
 But there was a prior claim to all these to the 
 conception of a third London theatre. While 
 the rabble was howling itself hoarse in the " O. 
 P." riots, while the public and the managers 
 of Covent Garden were hurling invectives and 
 recrimination at each other, and the papers were 
 filled with accounts of the uproar and the in- 
 scriptions on the placards at Covent Garden, 
 a company of London gentlemen were quietly 
 formulating a plan for the erection of a third 
 winter theatre. Even before the opening of the 
 Covent Garden Theatre, and the " O. P." riots, 
 they had seen that the time had come for an at- 
 tempt to oppose the monopoly with another stage 
 for the regular drama. By the middle of Sep- 
 tember, 1809, these gentlemen had already had 
 two meetings on the subject, and it had been 
 given out that they intended to erect a theatre 
 
 ^ For these various proposals, see The Times, Oct. 30, Nov. 
 2, 1809 ; Frederick Howard, Thoughts upon the Present Condition 
 of the Stage, Appendix ; Morning Chronicle, Oct. 7, Nov. 8, 1809 ; 
 Considerations on the Fast and Present State of the Stage.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 191 
 
 in the East End of the city. It was also reported 
 that they were drawing up a petition to the 
 Crown to grant them a license for the purpose ; 
 and that they had pledged themselves to the 
 amount of ,£250,000 towards carrying the under- 
 taking into effect. 
 
 It was understood that the petitioners would 
 base their prayer on the plea that all monopolies 
 are injurious and prevent that fair competition 
 by which the public are benefited. The evils 
 arising from the theatrical monopoly were aggra- 
 vated by the fact that London had increased 
 three fourths in extent and population since the 
 creation of the monopoly by Charles II, so that 
 many were deprived of the pleasure of the acted 
 drama, on account of the distance to the estab- 
 lished winter theatres. The proposed new the- 
 atre was intended to relieve this emergency. 
 One rumor had the site of the new building in 
 Fleet Street, and it was to be a model of beauty 
 and convenience. It was also noised about that 
 the petition would contain an offer to fix a price 
 for admission the same as that at the Haymar- 
 ket, box, 4s., pit, 2s. 6d., gallery. Is. 6d., which 
 should not be altered under penalty of forfeit- 
 ing the license. It was proposed to call the new 
 playhouse The London Theatre Royal. ^ 
 
 Some of the rumors relating to the plans of 
 1 Sunday Examiner, September 17, 1809.
 
 192 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the London gentlemen referred to were, doubt- 
 less, unfounded, or wholly false. But the essen- 
 tial part of the report was true, namely, that 
 a petition for a third theatre was in preparation. 
 This petition was signed by fifteen gentlemen, 
 including the Lord Mayor of London (Thomas 
 Smith), five members of Parliament, and Rich- 
 ard Cumberland, the dramatist. It was ad- 
 dressed to the King, and prayed for a charter- 
 grant to establish a theatre for representing 
 the regular drama. It averred that the peti- 
 tioners had agreed to subscribe £200,000 for that 
 purpose. The reason they gave for such a pro- 
 ject was that the increased population of London 
 and Westminster made another theatre desirable 
 and expedient.* 
 
 The subject of the theatrical monopoly, which 
 had its origin in the Crown, had run its cycle and 
 was once more back to the Crown. But that 
 which had been created by the Merrie Monarch 
 without a moment's hesitation was too weighty 
 a problem for His Majesty, in 1810, to solve off- 
 
 1 Proceedings before the Privy Council, 1810, Appendix A. 
 The Historical MSS. Commission make note of the petition 
 of the Lord Mayor of London, and other gentlemen, for a 
 Third Theatre, and have marked it, " n. d.," evidently knowing 
 nothing of the Proceedings before the Privy Council for the 
 consideration of the aforesaid petition, or of the time when 
 the petition was made. See Historical MSS. Com., Report 
 XIII S p. 503, 1892.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 193 
 
 hand. The King in Council, therefore, referred 
 the petition to his Attorney and Solicitor- 
 General for legal opinion in the matter, who 
 advised against the grant, on the grounds, first, 
 that such an incorporated charter as that prayed 
 for would give to the corporation so constituted 
 an advantage over all other theatres in the 
 metropolis ; and secondly, that " future creditors 
 of such a theatre would be abridged of their 
 legal remedies for the recovery of debts." 
 
 At the time of petitioning the King, a similar 
 memorial was sent to the House of Commons, 
 asking leave to bring in a bill for the jjurpose 
 of erecting a third theatre in London, should 
 His Majesty give his consent. After the Attorney 
 and Solicitor-General rendered an adverse opin- 
 ion to the scheme, the memorialists at once 
 prayed for a hearing before the Privy Council. 
 The date appointed for the Council proceedings 
 was the 16th of March, 1810, and, until after 
 this important event, it was useless to prepare 
 a bill to be brought before Parliament. On the 
 19th, therefore, the House of Commons was 
 petitioned by the promoters of the third theatre 
 plan, for an extension of time for bringing in 
 private bills.* 
 
 Sheridan strongly opposed granting the ex- 
 
 1 For these petitions see Proceedings be/ore Privy Council, 
 1810, Appendix B, C, P.
 
 194 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 tension of time (three weeks) asked for by the 
 petitioners. He thought the application most 
 extraordinary. A committee " above stairs " had 
 been appointed to hear the memorialists for a 
 third theatre, yet the latter, declared the adroit 
 Drury Lane manager, "had not dared to come 
 before that committee since the 8th of February." 
 At the last hour they had come in praying for 
 time. The whole business seemed to Sheridan 
 " a tissue of finesse and insincerity." The appeal 
 to the Privy Council, after the Attorney and 
 Solicitor-General had rendered an opinion ad- 
 verse to a third theatre scheme, and, at the same 
 time, the application to the House for an exten- 
 sion of time, proved that the petitioners wanted 
 two strings to their bow. In the petition to the 
 Privy Council the " Lord Mayor of London " ap- 
 peared ; in that to the House of Commons it was 
 plain " Thomas Smith." Sheridan denounced 
 this as artifice. He then appealed to the House 
 to keep in mind the sacredness of vested pro- 
 perty rights and the inviolableness of patents ; 
 but no attempt was made by the patentee at this 
 time to defend the principle of monopoly. The 
 temper of the House, however, was on this occa- 
 sion at variance with the Drury Lane representa- 
 tive ; for, after a brief debate, the application of 
 the third theatre promoters was granted for an 
 extension of time to brins: in their bill.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 195 
 
 Meantime the Privy Council had had its first 
 sitting on the petition of the Lord Mayor and 
 others interested in the third theatre movement, 
 praying to be heard against the Attorney and 
 Solicitor-General's objection to the incorporation 
 plan, and asking leave to suggest means by 
 which creditors would always be safe from loss 
 incurred by the theatre's indebtedness. These 
 were the specific points for consideration before 
 the Privy Council. But it was clear to every 
 one concerned that the hearing was to be in 
 reality an examination of the whole question of 
 the patents granted by Charles II, and the claim 
 of the patentees to a "legal monopoly." This 
 was to be the battle royal for a free stage, and 
 the most careful preparation was made by both 
 sides ; on the one hand, for an attack on all the 
 weak points of patent rights, on the other, for 
 a defense of individual, vested, property rights, 
 based on a faith in the inviolableness of patent 
 privileges. 
 
 For the purpose of hearing the champions of 
 these diverse causes, the Lords of the Council met 
 on the 16th of March, 1810. This august body 
 consisted of the Lord President (Earl Camden), 
 Earl of Aylesford, Earl Harrowby, Lord John 
 Thynne, the Master of the Rolls (Sir William 
 Grant), Sir William Scott, Mr. John Trevor, 
 and the invincible Sheridan. The petition of
 
 196 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the Lord Mayor and others was read. At the 
 same time numerous counter-petitions were pre- 
 sented, praying that the first petition be rejected. 
 The proprietors and shareholders in Drury Lane 
 and Covent Garden manifested the greatest 
 alarm at the petition for a third theatre, and 
 memorialized the King in Council, showing how 
 destructive to their interests a third winter the- 
 atre would prove. Their legal arguments against 
 a rival were founded on the grants of Charles II, 
 which, they claimed, gave to Killigrew and Dav- 
 enant the exclusive right to erect two theatres, 
 and on the suppression and silencing of all other 
 theatres in London at the time the patents were 
 issued ; for this was construed by the patentees 
 as creating a perpetual monopoly to the " heirs, 
 executors, and assigns" of the original grantees. 
 As counsel for the third theatre advocates, Mr. 
 Warren appeared .to answer these claims, as well 
 as the other counter-petitions and the Attorney 
 and Solicitor-General.^ 
 
 Counsel for the petitioners gathered his argu- 
 ments about two main topics, viz., the nature of 
 crown prerogative, and the desirability of a third 
 
 ^ A full account of the Privy Council proceedings on the Peti- 
 tion for a Third Theatre (March 16, 19, 26, 1810) was pub- 
 lished in pamphlet form at the time, together with copies of 
 all the counter-petitions. This Report is the source of my ac- 
 count in this chapter. See, also, London Chronicle, March 17, 20, 
 1810.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 197 
 
 winter theatre in London. On the first of these 
 heads it was contended that, if it were the pre- 
 rosative of the Crown which made the theatrical 
 patents valid, then the prerogative must have 
 belonged to Charles II as King, and not as an 
 individual. If the latter alternative were true, 
 the flimsiness of the monopoly claim appears at 
 once ; and if the former interpretation be the 
 correct one, the power of succeeding kings 
 to grant patents must be conceded. In other 
 words the prerogative of a King is temporary, 
 that of the Crown perpetual, or until altered by 
 act of Parliament. The true meaning intended 
 by the clause in the patents giving " full power 
 and authority " to certain individuals, their heirs, 
 etc., and for the suppression of all other persons 
 acting plays without authority, is simply that 
 none shall act without authority, and it does not 
 establish a monopoly. That this was the con- 
 struction placed by succeeding monarchs on the 
 clause in the patents referred to, attention was 
 called to Steele's patent (January 19, 1714), 
 to the one granted to Foote, and to the Opera, 
 and Lyceum.^ So, also, did the Crown issue a 
 license to Wilks, Cibber, and Booth (July 3, 
 
 1 S. J. Arnold was panted a license in 1809 for Eng'lish 
 opera at the Lyceum. A consideration of this theatre will be 
 taken up in a succeeding chapter. The Opera, mentioned in 
 Warren's speech, refers to Vanbrugh's house in the Haymar- 
 ket.
 
 198 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 1732), another to Lacy and Garrick (June 24, 
 1747), which was renewed (October 26, 1762), 
 and to Sheridan, Linley, and Ford, all for the 
 like period of twenty-one years. 
 
 From these numerous instances, the conclusion 
 was deduced that there was no restriction on 
 succeeding kings arising from anything contained 
 in the original patents. As a further evidence in 
 support of this position, citation was made of that 
 provision in the Licensing Act (art. v), wherein 
 " no person or persons shall be authorized by 
 virtue of any Letters Patent from His Majesty, 
 ... or by the licence of the Lord Chamberlain," 
 to act anywhere in Great Britain, except in Lon- 
 don and Westminster, as clearly implying the 
 power of the Lord Chamberlain to issue licenses, 
 and of the Crown to issue patents.^ Otherwise the 
 clause itself would be nugatory. But the refer- 
 ence to this clause in the Licensing Act required 
 a consideration of the differences between a patent 
 and a license. Warren held that there was no 
 difference, so far as the monopol}^ was concerned ; 
 for both were infringements on the exclusive 
 privileges claimed for the patents by the patentees. 
 That the monopoly might be broken, and that 
 for such an object a license was as effectual as 
 a patent, the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, the 
 Opera House in the Haymarket, and the Lyceum, 
 
 * Cf. Statutes at Large, 10 George II, cap. xxviii, art. v.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 199 
 
 were instanced. For, since the two original 
 patents specified no particular time of tlie year 
 for acting, their privileges extended to all sea- 
 sons, and the existence (by virtue of license or 
 patent) of any other theatre for summer, spring, 
 or winter was incontrovertible evidence that the 
 grants of Charles II to Killigrew and Davenant 
 did not create a monopoly in perpetuity, and 
 that a license was as effectual as a patent. 
 
 Having, as he was convinced, answered the 
 argument that the original theatrical patents 
 created a perpetual monopoly, the leading counsel 
 for the third theatre petitioners attempted to 
 show cause why a third establishment for the 
 regular drama was desirable. The counter-pe- 
 titions from Drury Lane and Covent Garden had 
 given as reasons why such a concern should not 
 be chartered, the inviolable security of the 
 patents themselves , the expense incurred in 
 building and ornamenting the new Covent Gar- 
 den Theatre ; and the jeopardy in which a third 
 theatre would place the creditors of the patent 
 theatre. As to the objection current that the 
 new Covent Garden Theatre was too large, the 
 patentees answered that the theatre had been so 
 constructed to meet the accommodation of an 
 increasing population.* This was a weak point 
 
 1 The population of London in 1810 was about one million, 
 or about double that of the time of Charles II.
 
 200 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 in the armor of the patentees which had been 
 frequently sought by the public. Carried to its 
 logical conclusion, it meant that whatever the 
 increase in the population, the capacity of the 
 patent theatres could be enlarged in proportion. 
 The contention was manifestly absurd. " They 
 do not advert to this circumstance," retorted 
 Warren, "that they may enlarge them to such 
 a degree that many of the persons present can 
 neither see nor hear." The Drury Lane peti- 
 tioners had said that " the average nightly 
 receipts of the Theatre of Drury Lane, and they 
 believe also of Covent Garden, for a series of 
 years, fully prove that the persons resorting 
 thereto, have not amounted to more than one- 
 half of the number those Theatres were capable 
 of containing, . . ." From which assertion it 
 was intended to prove that a third theatre was 
 not expedient. The reply to this was, that the 
 patent theatres were too large, the public stayed 
 away because they could not be commodiously 
 seated. " How does it happen that Covent Gar- 
 den is not full, now that Drury Lane is not in 
 existence ? " The answer, it was maintained with 
 confidence, was the strongest plea for a third 
 theatre. The large theatres were empty because 
 of their size, and it was to correct this lack of 
 theatrical accommodation for the public that the 
 petitioners were before the Privy Council.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 201 
 
 The Covent Garden counter-petition had inti- 
 mated that the project for a third theatre was a 
 result of the recent calamity to Drury Lane, and 
 that the promoters of the scheme were in hopes 
 that, if their petition were granted, it would 
 deter the proprietors of Drury Lane from re- 
 building. To this insinuation Warren answered 
 for his clients that it was their intention to peti- 
 tion for a third theatre, irrespective of the plans 
 and prospects of Drury Lane. They had no 
 other thought but that Drury Lane would be re- 
 built. Coming to the objections of the Attorney 
 and Solicitor-General, that a charter of incor- 
 poration for a theatre, such as that applied for 
 by the petitioners, would secure to the latter an 
 advantage over the other theatres, by removing 
 personal responsibilities for the (possible) liabil- 
 ities of the corporation, Warren answered, that 
 to relieve all doubts on this point, the projectors 
 of a third theatre were ready to place in the 
 hands of trustees a stipulated sum, say £40,000 
 or £50,000, over which they were willing to 
 surrender all control, to meet the emergencies 
 apprehended by the King's lawyer. It was con- 
 tended by the advocate for the third theatre 
 party that a corporation was far more stable than 
 individual ownership in property ; certainly the 
 patent houses could not be held up as a proof to 
 the contrary. It was denied that advantage was
 
 202 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 sought over the other theatres by the charter 
 prayed for ; the petitioners had the single desire 
 of serving the public in the way of dramatic en- 
 tertainment. "We are willing," said their coun- 
 sel, " to take the Charter limited in any way that 
 His Majesty's advisers may think proper. We 
 shall consent to put ourselves under any restraint 
 that will enable us to represent moral amuse- 
 ments to the Public." 
 
 Curwood assisted Warren in defending the 
 cause of a third theatre. After repudiating 
 Sheridan's insinuations *that the petitioners for 
 a new theatre had brought their case before the 
 Privy Council in a surreptitious manner, hoping 
 to get His Majesty's consent before the House 
 of Commons could oppose the measure in Parlia^ 
 ment, Curwood went straight to the essentials of 
 the theatrical controversy. He flatly denied that 
 entertainments could be controlled by crown 
 prerogative. If they could, then such authority 
 had existed from time beyond memory — which 
 was contrary to historic fact. 
 
 But the core of the problem was probed when 
 the legality of the theatrical monopoly was ex- 
 amined. It was admitted by Curwood that long 
 after the time when monopolies were held to be 
 void, a distinction was made between mouopolies 
 of trade and those of amusement. Attention 
 was called to the case arising in the forty-fourth
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 203 
 
 year of Elizabeth's reign (reported by Sir E. 
 Coke, vol. 77), in which the monopoly of the 
 traffic in playing-cards (granted to Ralph Bowes 
 in 30 Elizabeth, and renewed in 42 Elizabeth) 
 was declared null, thus overruling the distinc- 
 tion previously made between exclusive privi- 
 leges in trade and in amusements. The sequel 
 to this case may be traced to the Statute of 
 Monopolies in the reign of James I. From this 
 it was argued that the patents granted to Killi- 
 grew and Davenant were void ab initio. 
 
 This review of monopolistic legislation was 
 the more necessary as the counter-petition of 
 Sarah Richardson, owner of one fourth interest 
 in Drury Lane Theatre, expressly laid claim 
 to the exclusive privilege of Drury Lane and 
 Covent Garden to represent plays and other 
 theatrical performances. And here it is worthy of 
 note that the counter-petitions from Drury Lane 
 and Covent Garden assumed no right to a mo- 
 nopoly based on the patents, while the represent- 
 atives of Covent Garden distinctly denied any 
 such pretension, emphasizing, however, the right 
 of "long-established custom" which the two the- 
 atres had enjoyed to act plays in the winter and 
 spring. On this point Curwood drew the dis- 
 tinction between a patent of favor and a patent 
 of right, adding that the counter-petitioners had 
 evidently mistaken the former for the latter;
 
 204 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 but that in either case an abuse of the patent 
 worked its forfeiture. 
 
 Adverting to the Attorney and Solicitor-Gen- 
 eral's fears that a charter of incorporation would 
 render the security of future creditors unstable, 
 Curwood added a point to that made by his col- 
 league. He explained that the corporation peti- 
 tioned for was unlike commercial, insurance, and 
 such-like corporations, in that, from the outset, 
 the theatre corporation would have ,£200,000 
 visible, either in funds or in property, in addition 
 to the accumulating fuAd which they proposed 
 to set aside to secure their creditors. What bet- 
 ter security had the patent houses to offer than 
 this ? it was asked. Sheridan had said in his pe- 
 tition that the renters (i. e., stockholders) * of 
 Dury Lane were liable for all security to cred- 
 itors ; but he had neglected to state that the 
 renters were the chief creditors. Wherein lay 
 the security to the smaller creditors? 
 
 Curwood also dwelt on the size of the patent 
 
 1 Although stockholders, the " renters " of Drury Lane par- 
 took of no share in the profits of the concern. They had free 
 admissions to the theatre, and received the legal rate of interest 
 on their subscriptions ; but were individually responsible to 
 the extent of their private fortunes for the indebtedness of the 
 theatre. On the other hand, the members of the proposed 
 third theatre corporation would be liable only for their sub- 
 scriptions. Herein lay the advantage pointed out by the Attor- 
 ney and Solicitor-General.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 205 
 
 houses : " The great size of the theatres entirely 
 defeats the object of the Drama, and looking 
 down from the height of the vast concave, the 
 Actors appear like the inhabitants of Lilliput 
 parading the great hall of the imperial palace of 
 Brobdingnag. Not a feature of the face can 
 be distinguished, far less the variations and flex- 
 ibility of muscles, the turn of the eye and grace- 
 ful action, which, in an accomplished Actor, gives 
 life and energy to the composition of an eloquent 
 Author." The saloons and lobbies, the dens of 
 immorality at the patent houses, were also con- 
 demned. 
 
 The arguments of Mr. Adam, the first of the 
 counsel representing the patentees to speak, were 
 made up largely of apologies, avowals, and denials, 
 and were hardly calculated to defend his clients' 
 cause. Some of the points, however, ai'e worthy 
 of notice. As to the question of exclusive priv- 
 ileges enjoyed by the two patent houses, the 
 integrity of these, he said, should be respected, 
 because, for a vast period, the proprietors of 
 these theatres " had been acting upon the faith of 
 reasonable expectation, which forms as it were 
 the equitable principle of the equitable code of 
 any country." The history and the law involved 
 in the case fell outside of Mr. Adam's province ; 
 he was content to base his claims on the state- 
 ments of the counter-petitions. He denied that
 
 206 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the theatre -going public had increased in direct 
 proportion to the population, and to support 
 this denial the change in the business habits of 
 the town was alluded to. The new system 
 of carrying the mails had altered the business 
 hours of the merchants, and, as a result, fewer 
 people attended the theatres, in proportion to 
 the population, than formerly. Prior to 1810 
 much of the business of the metropolis was trans- 
 acted in the evening after an early dinner. 
 At the time of the third theatre project many 
 commercial men remained at their counting- 
 houses until seven o'clock to answer their letters 
 within post hours. By the time they could re- 
 gale themselves it was too late to go to the 
 theatre. " Thousands of other . . . manners and 
 customs of the people " also entered into the prob- 
 lem, declared Mr. Adam. 
 
 The " deplorable and unfortunate situation of 
 Drury Lane " and its effects upon " the widow and 
 fatherless " was presented to the Council's con- 
 sideration. So, too, the interests of Mr. Harris, 
 and "a gentleman high in the public esteem as 
 an actor," ^ were matters not to be lost sight of. 
 A joint-stock company was a terrible thing to 
 contemplate, said Mr. Adam, for it was sure to 
 grow into a monopoly ( a privilege for which the 
 
 ^ Alluding to Kemble, who was a shareholder in, and man- 
 ager of, Covent Garden.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 207 
 
 patent houses were not contending), the greatest 
 clanger of which would lie in the very safeguard 
 which the promoters proposed to establish to se- 
 cure the creditors of the concern. Because, as 
 the theatre grew in power, this fund would neces- 
 sarily increase proportionately and get so large 
 at last as to endanger the creditors for whose 
 preservation it was created. 
 
 At the close of Adam's speech, which his coad- 
 jutor dignified with the epithet " impressive," the 
 Council proceedings adjourned until the follow- 
 ing Monday, the nineteenth of March. Immedi- 
 ately on convening the second sitting, the mem- 
 bers were addressed by Mr. Randle Jackson, 
 counsel for the trustees of Drury Lane Theatre. 
 If the effort of Mr. Adam had been feeble, the 
 like may not be said of the arguments delivered 
 by Jackson. For eloquence and persuasion, for 
 method and coherency, and, above all, for subtle 
 reasoning and a knowledge of legal authority, 
 his speech was among the most effective before 
 the Privy Council on this occasion. A few times, 
 in the course of his address, Jackson pressed the 
 sympathies of the Council harder than was need- 
 ful, as when he referred to Mrs. Richardson and 
 her " four amiable and interesting daughters " as 
 having no other protection than " Heaven and 
 your Lordships ; " and again, when speaking of 
 the actors and actresses of the burnt Drury Lane
 
 208 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Theatre as the " sons and daughters of Misfor- 
 tune, these objects at once of admiration and sym- 
 pathy, of merit and disaster." But these appeals 
 never sank into the maudlin or ludicrous. And 
 when ridicule was employed against the argu- 
 ments of his opponents, the manner was always 
 so genial and manly that it attracted rather than 
 repelled. 
 
 For the most part, Jackson employed his 
 time answering argument, and so masterfully 
 was this done that, often, the weaknesses of his 
 own side were turned to his advantage. The 
 points made by the opposing counsel were an- 
 swered in order. As to the opinion that the 
 patents to Killigrew and Davenant were monop- 
 olies, and, hence, were void ab initio^ Jackson 
 denied the premise, supporting his position on, 
 first, Blackstone's definition of a monopoly, viz., 
 " a licence or privilege allowed by the King for 
 the sole buying and selling, making, working, or 
 using of anything whatsoever, whereby the sub- 
 ject in general is restrained from that liberty of 
 manufacturing or trading which he had before; " 
 and, secondly, the interpretation which should, 
 as he saw it, be placed on the decision in the 
 playing-card case, already referred to. The 
 patent involved in that case, Jackson maintained, 
 was for trade and traffic, and the decision against 
 it had no reference to the amusement of card-
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 209 
 
 playing ; the crown prerogative, as regards 
 amusements, remained unlimited by the findings 
 in that case. Resorting to a doubtful quibble 
 and relying on the definition of monopoly given 
 above, Jackson impressed the point that the 
 Drury Lane patent did not grant a sole privi- 
 lege, and hence could not be adjudged a mo- 
 nopoly ; for the creation of a rival patent at the 
 same time put it beyond the power of Drury 
 Lane to exercise an exclusive privilege. To the 
 assertion that Charles II had no right to bind 
 his successors, the case of Steele was raised in 
 answer, in which it had been decided in favor of 
 such right. " What is it then we contend for," 
 concluded Jackson on this part of the subject, 
 " but that ... we still retain the exclusive 
 right therein conveyed, of being one of two 
 houses, and that we must retain that right, until 
 it shall be shown by due course of law that 
 public expediency calls for a third Theatre, or 
 that we have so conducted ourselves as to de- 
 serve the suppression of our own ? " 
 
 Warren had put forward the argument that 
 the two patents had ceased to be valid from 
 the circumstance of other patents and licenses 
 having existed subsequently. Jackson remarked 
 that it was worthy of mention that so faith- 
 fully had the spirit of those patents been com- 
 plied with that at no time during the whole
 
 210 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 period which had elapsed since they were granted 
 had there been more than two regular theatres 
 open at the same time ; and that even when 
 both patents had fallen into one hand, the rule 
 was still observed as to the coexistence of two 
 houses, no thought ever having occurred of con- 
 solidating the two into one house,* but rather to 
 consider them as safeguards against the erection 
 of a third theatre. It was shown that all licenses 
 subsequent to the patents had been of a tempo- 
 rary and conditional nature, and not opposed to 
 the patent houses. Warren was corrected as to 
 his confusion of patent and license. The former, 
 observed Jackson, was to be distinguished by its 
 having " the sign manual " by its having passed 
 through " all the solemnities of office ; " while 
 a license is the " mere act of indulgence of the 
 Lord Chamberlain, and much more limited in 
 its nature and extent." Charters had often been 
 shown to be " sacred things," and on this long- 
 established sanctity the patentees would rest the 
 merits of their case. 
 
 The charge was reiterated that the petitioners 
 for a third theatre had seized upon the critical 
 moment when Drury Lane was in ashes, in the 
 
 ^ Whether this was a conscious or unconscious mistake I do 
 not know. The history of the theatre was not very well known 
 in 1810, Gibber and Malone being the chief authorities for 
 those desiring to learn about the subject.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 211 
 
 hopes of discouraging the subscription for the re- 
 building of that theatre, and Jackson warned the 
 Council that if they granted the petitioners their 
 prayer there was no assurance that the Drury 
 Lane subscription would succeed. " The question 
 is not the building of a third theatre ; it is 
 whether the Lombard Street Petitioners or the 
 Patrons of Old Drury, shall build a second 
 Theatre? the town cannot maintain three in the 
 same neighborhood : if your Lordships exalt 
 them, we must become prostrate and extinct, 
 our fate will be sealed, and we shall sink to rise 
 no more." And their Lordships are assured by 
 the speaker that this is not addressed to their 
 "feelings merely." 
 
 All of the arguments presented by Adam were 
 strengthened by Jackson. The irresponsibility 
 of a joint-stock company was enforced by a 
 reference to the recent example of the Globe 
 Insurance Company,^ application for a charter 
 for which had been denied on the very grounds 
 now (1810) raised against the third theatre 
 advocates. A further difficulty attaching to the 
 theatre corporation plan was discovered by Jack- 
 son. The penalty provided by the Licensing Act 
 for the offenses therein described is a stipulated 
 fine, in failure of which the person of the of- 
 
 1 This was in 1806. See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 
 1st Series, for 1806, passim .
 
 212 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 fender must answer. It was suggested that the 
 person of a corporation would be hard to de- 
 fine.^ 
 
 By the date of the second sitting of the Coun- 
 cil, on the petition for a third theatre, a numer- 
 ous and varied list of counter-petitions had been 
 sent in. Some of these were read at the conclu- 
 sion of Jackson's defense. One of them was 
 from Henry Fulke Greville, Esquire, the opera 
 enthusiast. His petition on this occasion laid 
 claim to a priority of right in the matter of 
 establishing a third theatre. Greville averred 
 that he had, in 1809, prepared a plan for this 
 purpose, but had been informed that he could 
 represent only operas and farces, the Lord Cham- 
 berlain " not thinking it for the present just or 
 right to break through the monopoly of the 
 Patent Theatres." Upon this, he (Greville) had 
 written to Mr. Perceval, " praying for the support 
 of His Majesty's Government in favor of a bill 
 he intended to bring into Parliament, for leave 
 to act under a Patent, and to extend the nature 
 of the Performances at the New Theatre he had 
 already the authority of the Lord Chamberlain 
 to set on foot." Perceval's answer to this request 
 showed that gentleman's opinion on the subject 
 
 ^ Jackson must have been using this for effect, for he must 
 have known that the actors in a chartered (corporate) theatre 
 could not be prosecuted under the Licensing Act.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 213 
 
 to be that he " does not immediately recollect 
 how far the King can or cannot, consistently 
 with existing Patents, grant one for a New 
 Theatre, but he conceives if the King cannot do 
 it Parliament could not, without infringing the 
 rights of the present Patentees, give its sanc- 
 tion to such an Establishment." It was then 
 too late for Greville to bring a private bill into 
 Parliament (Perceval's letter is dated April 15, 
 1809); and so he decided to exercise the au- 
 thority already possessed for musical entertain- 
 ments, as he felt persuaded, he said, that when 
 the necessity appeared to the Lord Chamber- 
 lain for permitting an unlimited range of the 
 drama, such privilege would be annexed to his 
 theatre. 
 
 But just at this stage of the Colonel's plans, 
 the wily Sheridan interposed his influence to put 
 a stop to GreviJle's operations. He made over- 
 tures to Greville for a coalition of theatrical 
 interests, and at the same time promised that 
 when the necessity for a third winter house should 
 appear, he would give not only the sanction of 
 his "dormant patent," but would also use his 
 " best endeavors to affix the third Patent at your 
 Petitioner's new projected Theatre." "In conse- 
 quence of this arrangement," continues the peti- 
 tion, " a request was made to the Lord Cham- 
 berlain for a Licence to perform the Drama this
 
 214 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Season under your Petitioner's Licence, which 
 has been done." ' 
 
 S. J. Arnold, proprietor of the Lyceum The- 
 atre, presented a companion petition to Colonel 
 Greville's, in which he prayed for a joint grant 
 to himself and Greville, in case a third theatre 
 were deemed advisable, in view of their former 
 petitions, and as a protection to investments 
 already made by them. The friendly relations 
 with Drury Lane were pointed out, for, since the 
 burning of the great theatre, " your petitioner 
 has been the means of keeping together the 
 company of the late Theatre Royal Drury Lane 
 at the Lyceum Theatre, under an arrangement 
 with Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Greville." Relative 
 to the transaction between Sheridan and Gre- 
 ville, referred to by the latter in his petition to 
 the Privy Council, the following letter (dated 
 August 17, 1809) from T. B. Mash, deputy- 
 Chamberlain, to Lord Dartmouth, is significant 
 
 ^ The same year in which Drury Lane Theatre burned (1809), 
 Greville secured a license for the English opera in the ■winter, 
 and S. J. Arnold a similar license for the summer season. This 
 ■was a source of alarm and jealousy to Sheridan, who deter- 
 mined to nip the matter in the bud. Looking about for quarters 
 for his Drury Lane Company, he conceived the plan of flat- 
 tering Arnold and Greville with a proposal of coalition, the 
 three managers to join licenses and forces at the Lyceum. The 
 ruse was successful, the Lyceum opening on the 25th of Sep- 
 tember, 1809, under the triumvirate. — See London Chronicle, 
 Sept. 26, 1809.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 215 
 
 as showing the motives and methods of Sheri- 
 dan : 
 
 " It has been intimated to me that a very cu- 
 rious proposal has been made by Mr. Sheridan 
 to Mr. Greville, viz., that he should relinquish 
 such a paltry protection as that of the Lord 
 Chamberlain's licence, which according to Mr. 
 Sheridan's pretentions will avail him nothing 
 when opposed by the Patentees, as they shall 
 certainly crush all those places of entertainment 
 acting under such authority, and that therefore 
 for Mr. Greville's better security they should, 
 with Taylor and his son Tom, jointly open the 
 Opera House for four nights a week for English 
 operas under the dormant patent. I have not 
 seen Col. Greville since, but on the morning 
 (last Thursday) he received the invitation from 
 Mr. Sheridan to meet him at Kelly's the come- 
 dian, who keeps a music shop in Pall Mall, to 
 dine with him there, he told me that if anything 
 particular transpired he would call upon me the 
 following morning, and not having seen him . . . 
 looks I think a little as though Mr. Greville was 
 nibbling at the bait Mr. Sheridan has thrown out. 
 I am also further informed that Mr. Sheridan 
 slept at Kelly's that night, as he said, for the 
 purpose of being near Carlton House, to be 
 ready the next morning to accompany the Prince 
 of Wales in order that His Royal Highness
 
 216 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 might introduce him with his memorial to the 
 King, and desired when he went to bed that he 
 might be called at eight o'clock, but unfortu- 
 nately having made too free with Kelly's wine, 
 he could not rise till near two, and thereby lost 
 a fine opportunity of carrying his threats into 
 execution." ^ 
 
 On the facts stated in their petitions, counsel 
 Adolphus founded the claims of Greville and 
 Arnold. The desirability of a third theatre did 
 not enter into the question with them, only if one 
 were to be erected, they thought that justice de- 
 manded a recognition of their prior application. 
 R. W. Elliston, the comedian, manager of the 
 Royal Circus, in behalf of himself, suggested, in 
 addition to the plea of justice, the economy and 
 wisdom of conferring the privileges of a third 
 theatre (if one were expedient) on some of the 
 numerous proprietors who already had " devoted 
 their property to such objects," and who had 
 shown their capabilities of managing a theat- 
 rical concern. 
 
 Warren, in rebuttal, showed the worthlessnesa 
 of the petitions just introduced, since, with all 
 their pleas of priority, superior training for the 
 business, and so forth, they had shown no mate- 
 rial means of supporting their claims ; whereas 
 the projectors of a third theatre had backed 
 1 Historical MSS. Commission, Report XIII *, p. 505.
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 217 
 
 their proposals with X200,000.i On the other 
 hand, the petitions of Greville and Arnold " as- 
 sist us one-half of the way," since both recog- 
 nized the necessity of a third theatre. 
 
 Warren showed the greatest acumen, prob- 
 ably, when meeting the argument made against 
 the corporation plan, and for his purpose he 
 found the most valuable witness in Sheridan 
 himself. The latter in his counter-petition had 
 ended it with the opinion that " the protection of 
 a Charter of Incorporation . . . was the only 
 practicable mode of re-building the [DruryLane] 
 Theatre, and making a just and honourable ar- 
 rangement with the numerous and respectable 
 persons interested in its prosperity." It was 
 hardly consistent to condemn the method of cor- 
 poration proposed by the third theatre petitioners, 
 and, in the same breath, to declare that plan 
 the only business-like one on which to reestab- 
 lish the patent house. 
 
 Another apparent weakness in the coiinter- 
 petitions, and in Jackson's arguments, was found 
 in the point continually dwelt on by the pat- 
 entees and their representatives, that a third 
 theatre would add to the unfortunate condition 
 of " creditors, widows, and orphans." " They put 
 it as a private case," exclaimed Warren, " we 
 
 ^ This thrush caused Arnold and Greyille to set a subscrip- 
 tion on foot, and in two days they raised £70,000.
 
 218 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 as a public one : . . . We are not to be told, 
 by way of argument, that private individuals 
 have laid out their money and their property in 
 theatrical concerns, have been unsuccessful, and 
 are ruined ; that is no consideration for your 
 Lordships." 
 
 At the conclusion of Warren's reply, after he 
 had shown the flimsiness of the argument that 
 a corporation had no person on which the law 
 might seize (since the directors, or managers, 
 would stand in that relation), and corrected 
 the misconception respecting his arguments on 
 the invalidity of patent monopolies (denying 
 that he had said the patents were void as regards 
 monopolies, but as regards crown prerogative), 
 Sheridan sprung something of a surprise by ris- 
 ing in his place in the Council, and announcing 
 that on the following Monday (March 26) he 
 intended to show that the patents of the two 
 houses amounted to a monopoly. The Council 
 then adjourned its proceedings on the petition 
 for a third theatre until March 26. 
 
 In the interim the parties representing the 
 various theatrical interests in London girded 
 their loins for a final effort. Arnold and Gre- 
 ville secured the services of Brougham (who 
 had been on the Northern Circuit up to March 
 25), who gave dignity to their claims, and added 
 the very strong point in favor of the minors,
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 219 
 
 that though they had to depend on annual 
 licenses, nevertheless, since these had been 
 granted year after year without opposition, the 
 proprietors had made large investments on their 
 faith in the continuance of the licensed privi- 
 leges. This was the identical ground on which 
 the patentees claimed protection under their 
 patents, and if the argument was effectual in 
 the one case it should also apply to the other. 
 
 Complications had arisen during the week 
 from March 19 to March 26. Sheridan, either 
 to defeat the petition of the applicants for a 
 charter of incorporation, or to take advantage of 
 the occasion to reorganize Drury Lane on a cor- 
 porate plan, — or both, presented a petition at 
 the third sitting of the Council, " that if it be 
 fit to advise His Majesty to grant any Charter 
 of Incorporation for the purpose of erecting a 
 New Theatre, the same should in every princi- 
 ple of justice and equity," be granted to Drury 
 Lane, " in preference to the claim of any other 
 Applicant." 
 
 Sheridan was responsible for introducing still 
 other perplexities into the controversy. In his 
 first petition to the Council, he had referred to 
 the old Killigrew patent as follows : " If a third 
 regular established Theatre should indeed be 
 deemed necessary, and called for by the Public, 
 the Proprietors of Drury Lane Theatre have a
 
 220 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 third reserved Patent, which has been purchased 
 at a considerable price by the Trustees of the said 
 Theatre, and which they are willing should be ap- 
 plied to the attainment of the above object, instead 
 of allowing new speculators to interfere with their 
 just rights." A brief sketch of the " dormant 
 patent " has been given in a preceding chapter. 
 It will be remembered that George White was 
 to receive X5000 for his one-fourth share in the 
 patent. It now turns out that no portion of that 
 sum had ever been paid, and White, with other 
 co-partners in the " dormant patent," rose up in 
 righteous indignation at Sheridan's presump- 
 tions, and petitioned the King in Council to 
 protect them in their rights ; " for to this hour 
 no part of the said sum of .£5000 or the interest 
 thereof, hath been paid to your Petitioners, for the 
 agreed purchase money, or price of their share 
 and interest in the said Patent." 
 
 The contract alluded to was none other than 
 the Outline for a General Opera Arrangement, 
 which was hereupon produced and read, and 
 was probably better understood than when it 
 was drawn up (1792). White's prayer was to 
 the effect that if a third theatre should be estab- 
 lished on the authority of the " dormant patent," 
 he ought to be admitted as a shareholder to the 
 extent of X5000. 
 
 It was time for Sheridan to prove his monop-
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 221 
 
 oly. But if the curiosity of his hearers led them 
 to expect any novel arguments, they were disap- 
 pointed. The assertion was made simply that 
 the patents granted to Killigrew and Davenant 
 formed a monopoly, or they were meaningless. 
 And persons were not wanting to accept the 
 alternative. The monopoly had been created, 
 whatever might be thought of the fact, and, ar- 
 gued Sheridan, ought not to be destroyed with- 
 out first compensating those who had invested in 
 property in the faith that the exclusive privileges 
 contained therein were inviolable. 
 
 The Drury Lane patentee declined to discuss 
 the expediency of a third theatre, that was a 
 matter for others to decide ; his main contention 
 was that the " dormant patent " should have first 
 consideration, in case a third theatre were desir- 
 able. The danger of raking up this old document 
 was quite apparent to Sheridan, and in his peti- 
 tion he had called it a " reserve Patent." Taylor 
 and White had brought the subject out still 
 more prominently, and too frequently for its own 
 good. Warren was not slow to pounce upon this 
 in his rejoinder. It was not clear to him, the 
 discrepancy between the "understanding " which 
 Sheridan and the other proprietors had at the 
 time of the Opera Arrangement, respecting the 
 " dormant patent," and the use to which Sheridan 
 now proposed to put it. Much pleasantry was
 
 222 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 indulged in by Warren over the " Sleeping 
 Beauty," to the evident discomfiture of the Drury 
 Lane manager. Warren maintained that, once 
 asleep, always asleep ; and from the principle of 
 non-user, he established the invalidity of that 
 vexatious document. 
 
 A glimpse at the proceedings, before closing 
 this part of the subject, will not be out of order. 
 The following description was sent to Elliston 
 (who was at that time in Bath) by a friend : 
 
 " Sheridan sat at the Council board, whose 
 petition came on after yours. There was one 
 also from the wife of Tom Sheridan [Thomas 
 Sheridan was at this time in Spain, in a declin- 
 ing state of health]. All the petitions were in 
 the hands of counsel, excepting Greville's, yours, 
 Sheridan's, and that of Mrs. Thomas Sheridan. 
 Sheridan was very declamatory, and certainly 
 produced an effect ; but, I think, yours was as 
 persuasive as any. Lord Harrowby perused it 
 with evident attention. The Attorney-General, 
 who was officially present, gave strong indications 
 of dislike and hostility to a third theatre, and 
 shook his head wonderously like Lord Burleigh, 
 or as you might have fancied the Xorc? Mayor 
 in ' Richard the Third.' 
 
 " To your petition Sheridan listened with more 
 gravity than he is accustomed to exhibit. 
 Graham was present, and observed, 'you were a
 
 A THIRD THEATRE ATTEMPTED 223 
 
 pretty fellow to petition the King after violating 
 the laws of your Circus ; and that if you were 
 brought before him, he should deem the utmost 
 penalty under the Vagrant Act applicable to 
 your case.' The Justice was in a fury, much was 
 said about the illegality of your circus ' Macbeth,' 
 when Sheridan slily observed, the greatest viola- 
 tion was to the bard, in your attempting the 
 impersonation. Adam attending on behalf of 
 Drury Lane Theatre — he was quite didactic and 
 pathetic." ^ 
 
 This closed the arguments of the famous pro- 
 ceedings in Council for a third theatre. Scarcely 
 a feature of the theatrical situation relative to 
 the patents had escaped the closest scrutiny. 
 All imaginable arguments, from the various 
 hostile attitudes of the Crown to the patentees, 
 from the grants of other licenses and patents, 
 from analogies in other monopolistic fields, 
 from the abstract question of crown prerogative, 
 down to the practical absurdity and injustice of 
 a theatrical (or any) monopoly in the nineteenth 
 century, were marshaled against the patentees. 
 But the Privy Council was like adamant. As 
 Sheridan had admitted, monopolies were gener- 
 ally looked upon as evils and probably were ; 
 nevertheless, the theatrical monopoly, by long- 
 established custom, had been made an exception, 
 ^ Raymond's Life of Elliston, pp. 169, 170.
 
 224 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 and it was not for their Lordships to make the 
 first break into the " sacred rights " of the pat- 
 ents. Furthermore, they could evade the main 
 issue by holding their decision strictly to the mat- 
 ter of the corporation plan of the petitioners. 
 
 The result of the hearing before the Privy 
 Council was made public on the 14th of April 
 (1810).^ The opinion of the Attorney and 
 Solicitor-General was sustained, and the ques- 
 tion of the expediency of a third winter theatre 
 left unsettled. This finding was a foregone con- 
 clusion ; but the arguments before His Majesty's 
 Council had served to bring out, as never be- 
 fore, all the questions connected with the the- 
 atrical patents. The proceedings developed the 
 fact also that there was a strong antagonism to 
 monopolies, even among the supporters of the 
 patentees, — Sheridan himself admitted his dis- 
 like for them in general. But the theatrical 
 monopoly still remained legally as firmly estab- 
 lished as in the time of Charles II. 
 
 1 Gentleman's Magazine, April, 1810.
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A THIRD THEATRE : 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 
 
 PETITION is the inalienable birthright of the 
 Briton. The defeat of the third theatre ef- 
 fort in the Privy Council was promptly followed 
 by a memorial to the King for a theatre patent.^ 
 But what the petitioners could hope for in that 
 quarter is hard to conceive. Taking the cue 
 from these attempts, the performers at the late 
 theatre in Drury Lane petitioned His Majesty 
 (May 9, 1810), through the Lord Chamber- 
 lain, for a license to erect and conduct a new 
 theatre on the plan of the patent houses. Of 
 course the prayer was useless, but it contains 
 matter germane to the subject of a third theatre. 
 The performers set forth that, since the burning 
 of Drury Lane, they had been deprived of the 
 emoluments which were their due ; that, though 
 they had no desire to interfere with vested prop- 
 erty rights, they had no confidence in the 
 proprietors' ability to rebuild the patent theatre ; 
 and that, if a third theatre were permitted to be 
 
 1 Gendemati's Magazine, April, 1810.
 
 226 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 built, the performers should have the preference. 
 Substantial reasons were given in support of 
 their petition. As to the means necessary for 
 such a venture they assured the King that, with 
 what had been proffered to them already, and 
 with what they could raise among themselves, 
 they would have ample means for the purpose 
 of erecting and conducting a theatre such as 
 Garrick acted in, " when seeing and hear- 
 ing were principally and materially attended 
 to." ^ As argument in favor of theatrical man- 
 agement by experienced actors, the history of 
 the stage was cited. It was assumed as axiom- 
 atic that the representation of the drama would 
 be better conducted by artists than speculators. 
 It was promised that, in case their petition were 
 granted, they would establish a fund for the 
 benefit of the infirm and aged of their profes- 
 sion. Out of these suggestions were to appear, 
 later, benefits of practical worth to the actor ; 
 though the present attempt to establish a third 
 theatre by professionals proved futile. 
 
 The proceedings in Council had been dragged 
 out to such length that the original petitioners 
 were prevented from getting a bill before Par- 
 liament before the close of the session. In the 
 mean time, Sheridan had taken time by the fore- 
 lock and petitioned the House of Commons for 
 
 1 London Chronicle, May 15, 1810.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 227 
 
 the privilege of transferring the Drury Lane 
 property to a large body of subscribers in order 
 that the claims of creditors to the establishment 
 might be satisfied, and for the purpose of re- 
 building the theatre. It was especially implored 
 that the proposed subscribers should not be held 
 liable for more than their subscriptions.^ This 
 was precisely the ground on which the third 
 theatre projectors had been denied ; but Sheri- 
 dan was back of the scheme now, and that made 
 a difference. 
 
 But this move did not deter the agitators for 
 a third theatre. The next session of Parliament 
 found them in a stronger array than ever. No 
 serious attempt had been made to rebuild Drury 
 Lane Theatre, and this fact became a strong 
 argument for a new theatrical establishment, 
 although the promoters of a third theatre per- 
 sistently denied that Drury Lane, in reality or 
 in ashes, entered at all into their motives. 
 Nevertheless, the existence of but a single the- 
 atre, exercising a power more exclusive than 
 any since the days of Christopher Rich, giving 
 to the public a grade of entertainment, if not 
 
 1 Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, 1st Series, vol. xvi, col. 757. 
 It is noteworthy that .when the Drury Lane Rebuilding Bill 
 was before the House of Lords, one (the Duke of Norfolk) who 
 was financially interested in Drury Lane Theatre expressed a 
 decided opinion that there ought to be a third theatre. Cobbett, 
 vol. xvii, col. 747. See also London Chronicle, March 3, 1812.
 
 228 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 undeniably inferior in quality, at least highly 
 unsatisfactory to the most enlightened taste, 
 pleaded forcibly on the side of open competition. 
 A new champion now arose to assist in the 
 struggle for a free stage. John Williams (1761- 
 1818), satirist and critic, the " terror of actors 
 and actresses, good and bad," entered the lists, 
 and, as editor of the " Dramatic Censor for 1811," 
 made the campaign against the patentees one of 
 education. "With less judgment than Aaron Hill, 
 Williams was a more caustic critic than his 
 worthy predecessor, and was willing to go to 
 infinite pains to establish the charges made 
 against the patentees. He went into a careful 
 examination of the patents to determine, if pos- 
 sible, the source of an exclusive privilege which 
 compelled the inhabitants of the city and suburbs 
 of London " to make a weary and expensive pil- 
 grimage of many miles, whenever they may want 
 to suspend the operations of care, by a visit, 
 with their families, to a colloquial theatre ; and 
 why their ears and eyes are offended, when they 
 are there, by a pertinacious and insulting display 
 of vulgar and ungrammatical pronunciation of 
 language, and by debasing spectacles in action." ^ 
 As Hill had maintained in 1735, so now it was 
 pointed out, that it was the misuse of power in 
 the hands of the patentees which lay at the bot- 
 
 ^ Dramatic Censor, col. 97, et sq.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 229 
 
 torn of the complaints, and that a correction of 
 the evils would come the sooner, the greater the 
 abuse. Among the charges laid at the doors 
 of the winter theatres was the encouragement of 
 dullness, and the discountenance of genius. It 
 was declared that, " until the spell of monopoly 
 is dissolved and broken, neither the Public, nor 
 the Children of Genius, can have any alternative 
 but a desponding submission to the baneful 
 effects of an exclusive patent." 
 
 On the last day of January, 1811, the petition 
 for a third theatre in London was presented to 
 the House of Commons.' The plan proposed 
 for the new theatre differed from those thereto- 
 fore devised. The subscriptions were to be £1000 
 each, the subscribers to form a joint proprietor- 
 ship. The proprietors were to receive ten per 
 cent, on their subscriptions, if the profits 
 amounted to so much, otherwise there was to 
 be an equal and rateable division of the actual 
 profits of the concern. If more than ten per cent, 
 should be realized on the investment, the surplus, 
 up to five per cent., was to be distributed 
 amongst the public charities. 
 
 There were to be no " free admissions " of any 
 kind, or to any one." A committee of four, 
 
 1 European Magazine, vol. 59, p. 142 ; Gentleman'' s Magazine, 
 vol. 81, pt. 1, p. 164. 
 
 2 This was one of the chief complaints against the patent
 
 230 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 chosen for life as chief directors, together with 
 the Lord Chamberlain or his nominee, were to 
 constitute a Board of Superintendence, with 
 power to appoint annually a manager. The 
 manager was to have unlimited control over the 
 internal affairs of the theatre, with the proviso 
 that the engagement of performers and the 
 question of their salaries must be submitted to 
 the Board for approval. No actor, while a 
 public performer, could serve as manager.^ 
 Prices of admission were fixed at 6s. to the 
 boxes, 3s. to the pit, 2s. to the lower gallery, 
 and Is. to the upper gallery. The size of the 
 theatre was planned to be but little more than 
 that of Old Drury before 1791. No property 
 boxes were included in the plan, although the 
 stage boxes were to be at the disposal of the 
 performers for their friends ; while the system 
 of "orders" found no place in the proposed 
 new theatre. 
 
 This plan had much to commend it. The evils 
 and abuses attendant on, and fostered by, the 
 patent houses were to be totally inhibited ; the 
 accommodation of the public was kept constantly 
 
 houses. " Women of the town " would, at the opening of the 
 season, purchase, for a nominal sum, say £5, entrance to the 
 theatre for the entire year. This was called " free admission." 
 ^ This clause was aimed to cover the complaints against 
 Kemhle at Covent Garden, apropos of the " O. P." i-iots.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 231 
 
 in view ; and while a sufficiently liberal arrange- 
 ment was offered to shareholders to induce them 
 to invest their capital in the concern, all tenden- 
 cies towards running the theatre for private 
 gains were discouraged. It was confidently 
 hoped by the well-wishers of the plan that the 
 time was at last come to break the monopoly. 
 The more enthusiastic supporters of the idea 
 went so far as to announce an almost certain 
 victory. The patentees were told that they alone 
 had, "by their own misconduct, put an end to 
 that exclusion of competition, which it was their 
 interest to preserve." ^ 
 
 But zeal in a cause does not always insure 
 success. Once more the host had not been reck- 
 oned with. The spirit of Old Drury, like the 
 Killigrew patent, was only sleeping. Rousing 
 itself in the presence of danger, the committee, 
 appointed under the Rebuilding Act to examine 
 into and adjust the affairs of that theatre, met 
 (March 12, 1811) and resolved " to proceed 
 with vigilance and assiduity." 
 
 Taking timely alarm at the promulgation of 
 this report of the Drury Lane Rebuilding 
 Committee, the petitioners for a new theatre 
 (probably with a view to incite the members 
 of Parliament, friendly to their attempts, to be 
 present when the second reading of the bill 
 ^ Dramatic Censor for 1811, cols. 248-258.
 
 232 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 came up) caused to be published a response 
 to the action taken by the Drury Lane pro- 
 prietors. The conduct of Sheridan in the Privy 
 Council in 1810 was reviewed. They called at- 
 tention to the impression which the astute man- 
 ager left at that time, that there was a fair 
 prospect of rebuilding the Drury Lane Thea- 
 tre, for which ostensible purpose a subsequent 
 bill of incorporation had been passed. When 
 Sheridan had, by these tactics, succeeded in 
 silencing his opponents, "his splendid abilities 
 fell again into their wonted lethargy," and the 
 announcement of the Drury Lane Committee 
 that they had determined " to proceed with vigi- 
 lance and assiduity," was the result of the "un- 
 wearied Petitioners renewing their application 
 to Parliament." And again it was declared that 
 the affairs of Drury Lane had no relation what- 
 ever to the third theatre project. 
 
 Other considerations of a cogent nature inter- 
 vened to delay the decision of Parliament on the 
 London Theatre Bill. On the 25th of March 
 (1811), Mr. Mellish (member for Middlesex) 
 moved the second reading. When the Speaker 
 put the question, whether counsel were in attend- 
 ance, the inevitable Sheridan arose and blandly 
 stated that he had no intention of calling in the 
 assistance of a lawyer, that a brief statement 
 of the circumstances of the case would be suf-
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 233 
 
 ficient to enable the House to determine the 
 question before them. The representative of 
 Drury Lane was of opinion that the originator 
 of the motion had been influenced by the erro- 
 neous supposition that Drury Lane would not 
 be rebuilt ; but he (Sheridan) felt confident that 
 when he assured them that this was a mistaken 
 notion, and that there was the strongest possi- 
 bility of its speedy reestablishment, it would be 
 deemed advisable to withdraw the bill. This 
 story of the " orator, wit, classic, and statesman," 
 that the rebuilding of Drury Lane Theatre was 
 imminent, had been repeated often enough to 
 form a standing joke. He had depended on it 
 to defeat the projects of the petitioners for a new 
 theatre in 1810, and now, two years after the 
 theatre had been In ashes, he repeated the worn- 
 out tale. Some there were, induced in good 
 faith to contribute a small fortune towards re- 
 building the patent house, who now looked upon 
 the equivocating, procrastinating methods of the 
 manager of that concern as the sheerest non- 
 sense, used to cover up a wholesale swindling 
 operation.^ 
 
 Having mentioned the Rebuilding Act, Sher- 
 
 ^ See letter to Dramatic Censor, for April, 1811, cols. 219- 
 221, from one who claimed to have subscribed £150,000 and 
 who had been " to that hour unpaid, either principal or in- 
 terest."
 
 234 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 idan was under the necessity of explaining why 
 that legislation had not been taken advantage 
 of. His excuse was, that, after the bill had 
 passed, it had been intimated to him that the 
 Chamberlain (Lord Dartmouth) had intended 
 to question the legality of the " dormant patent," 
 and that he had received from his Lordship a 
 letter (dated June 28, 1810), expressive of his 
 resolution to oppose the erection of any theatre 
 in Westminster. A compromise was reached, 
 however, by which it was agreed to leave the 
 " dormant patent " out of the question, and to 
 permit the running license to continue for twenty- 
 one years. These, said Sheridan, were the 
 causes of delay in rebuilding Drury Lane, and 
 time was what they now required. At any rate, 
 he maintained, it was not the custom for the 
 legislature to interfere with charter and patent 
 rights without adequate compensation. On the 
 other hand, it was pretty clear to many that 
 the notorious embarrassments of Drury Lane 
 had rendered the proprietors incapable of re- 
 building it.^ This fact had become apparent 
 to those most intimately concerned in the in- 
 terests of the patent house. Sheridan's genius 
 
 ^ Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, 1st series, vol. xix, cols. 
 496-500; London Chronicle, March 26, 1811; Gentleman's 
 Magazine, vol. 81, pt. 1, p. 373 ; European Magazine, vol. 59, 
 p. 300.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 235 
 
 and finesse had succeeded for thirty years in 
 baffling the foes of the monopoly, but, with the 
 theatre in ashes and the finances of the insti- 
 tution hopelessly involved, it seemed beyond his 
 power to extricate the affairs of Old Drury from 
 the ruin which enveloped it. Furthermore, 
 Sheridan's business methods were not of the 
 sort to inspire confidence in his followers. He 
 had exhausted his fund of tricks, which had 
 once passed for magic, in raising enormous sums 
 of money ; and, without financial aid, Drury 
 Lane Theatre could not be rebuilt. Meantime 
 the arguments for a third theatre were grow- 
 ing more and more importunate. 
 
 In this crisis a recruit appeared on the side 
 of theatrical monopoly to frustrate the hopes of 
 the third theatre enthusiasts. More than this, 
 by vigilance and zeal in behalf of Drury Lane, 
 he succeeded in performing the seven-days wonder 
 of rearing a phoenix out of the ashes of the 
 burnt patent house. If one should turn the leaves 
 of parliamentary history for the period under 
 consideration, one would find a name recurring 
 so frequently as to call for special attention. 
 Scarcely a question of importance or public in- 
 terest arose at this time in the metropolis with- 
 out receiving the opinion of Samuel Whitbread, 
 Esquire, the great London brewer, to whose 
 judgment the greatest respect was accorded.
 
 236 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 When the Rebuilding Act was passed (1810), 
 incorporating the Drury Lane proprietors, Whit- 
 bread was named in the Committee to investi- 
 gate the affairs of the theatre. He now appeared 
 in the House of Commons and infused new 
 spirit into the opposition to the London Theatre 
 Bin. He sanctioned all that Sheridan had said; 
 but he did more than merely supplement the 
 orator and politician, — he became the new stand- 
 ard-bearer of theatrical patent rights. When 
 Whitbread arose as sponsor for Drury Lane he 
 received the attention due an oracle ; and when 
 he asserted that he confidently expected the re- 
 storation of Old Drury, cries of " Hear ! Hear ! " 
 resounded from the House. He thought that, in 
 ■ view of the prospects of rebuilding the theatre, 
 the third theatre advocates would be willing to 
 postpone the second reading of the London 
 Theatre Bill for six weeks, in which time he 
 hoped to be able to speak decidedly as to the 
 progress of the rebuilding committee. It was 
 useless to reiterate to the House that the re- 
 building of Drury Lane Theatre had nothing 
 to do with the matter before them; since the 
 decision of the Privy Council in 1810, the two 
 questions had been indissolubly linked. All op- 
 position to Whitbread's motion to postpone the 
 second reading was futile, and the death-knell of 
 a third theatre was struck.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 237 
 
 But the battle was not over by any means. 
 During the six weeks' interval, the contestants 
 were busy. The "Dramatic Censor " continued 
 to put in earnest strokes against the monopoly. 
 Vigorous attempts were made to arouse a senti- 
 ment against the Rebuilding Act ; the method 
 of carrying it " through both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment with a degree of silence unparalleled " was 
 stigmatized, and especially obnoxious was the 
 clause it contained providing for private boxes. 
 
 The injury to the histrionic profession by the 
 monopoly was greatly deprecated. The policy 
 that caused the dismissal of Holman and Pope 
 from Covent Garden was branded as "crooked." 
 The motive back of their ejectment was declared 
 "too palpable to be problematic." These artists, 
 it was asserted, were walking the streets unem- 
 ployed, " with the broad arrow of managerial 
 interdiction " on their brows, the former " wait- 
 ing for some friendly bark to transport him over 
 the trackless ocean ; " the latter, " silent and sad, 
 in a state of proscription, idleness, and despair." 
 It was broadly insinuated that " the dog in the 
 manger " at Covent Garden was the cause of 
 the expatriation of some of England's best 
 actors.* 
 
 ^ One of the complaints brought against Kemble was that 
 he was jealous of good actors, and for that reason dismissed 
 all dangerous rivals, reporting to sijectaele rather than risk
 
 238 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 On the 9th of May Mellish again moved the 
 second reading of the bill for a third theatre. 
 Whitbread at once announced " the strongest 
 probability that Drury Lane might be recon- 
 structed," and recommended a further postpone- 
 ment of the motion before the House to the next 
 session, at which time he would agree to pledge 
 himself, as a member of Parliament, to take no 
 active part against the application for a third 
 theatre if Drury Lane Theatre was not, by that 
 time, in the course of building. This was not 
 satisfactory to the champions of the Theatre 
 Bill. What Whitbread had stated was no more 
 definite than what had been presented six weeks 
 before, and even if it were, the essential question 
 remained, — the expediency of a third theatre.^ 
 The debate on this occasion grew more general 
 than usual. Both sides felt that the fio'ht was 
 to a finish. The chairman (Mr. Peter Moore) 
 of the committee to inquire into the affairs of 
 Drury Lane reported that the claims on the the- 
 atre were in a fair way of settlement, and that 
 many of the creditors (including Sheridan) had 
 released the proprietors from all obligations. 
 He further stated that, if more time, say three 
 
 his professional reputation to the dangers of competition. 
 Emigration of actors to America did not begin, however, to 
 any extent, before about 1819. 
 
 ^ See speech of Mr. A. Browne, Cobbett's Parliamentary 
 Debates, vol. 19, 1st Series, col. 1 140.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 239 
 
 months, were allowed them, they could assure 
 the rebuilding of " that noble structure." 
 
 General Tarleton grew sentimental when re- 
 ferring to Sheridan's generosity in contributing 
 the amount due him. As to a third theatre, the 
 General could not see the necessity of it when 
 Kemble had to introduce quadrupeds at Covent 
 Garden in lieu of actors. He intimated that, as 
 it was an age of speculation, the promoters of 
 the bill were " gentlemen speculating in theatres, 
 who never read the poets, and never entered 
 a play-house." Nothing could have been better 
 calculated to fire the enemies of the monopoly 
 than this speech. Mr. Marryatt was instantly 
 on his feet to disavow the charge of speculation. 
 He took occasion, in passing, to call attention 
 to the inconvenience to which the theatre-going 
 public of London were put, from the circum- 
 stance of having only one winter theatre. " If 
 a gentleman," he said, " applied for a box for 
 himself and family, he was informed he could 
 not get one for fourteen days ; and thus taking 
 it on chance for that time, if they wanted to 
 laugh at a Comedy, they were perhaps seated 
 to cry at a Tragedy." It was quite clear to Mr. 
 Marryatt that the charge of speculation was 
 more applicable to the patent manager who 
 manipulated the monopoly for his own private 
 ends. The evil was still further aggravated, he
 
 240 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 declared, by the fact that "some of the very 
 best . . . performers in the country could not 
 procure engagements, as they had been displaced 
 by the quadrupeds which could be obtained at 
 a cheaper rate, and could act on the largest 
 theatre, as 'there was no necessity of watching 
 the expressive turns of their countenances ! " 
 Kemble had but recently introduced elephants 
 at Covent Garden. 
 
 This thrust was too much for Sheridan to re- 
 main quiet under. He replied warmly to the 
 accusations against Kemble, and alleged that 
 quadrupeds had been brought in to satisfy the 
 depraved taste of the town. This, he was confi- 
 dent, was the true explanation ; for he recalled an 
 instance when, against the judgment of his theat- 
 rical advisers, he had given a representation of 
 Joanna Baillie's De Monfort^ and though "this 
 play was brought forward . . . with all the aid of 
 Mr. Kemble and Mrs. Siddons, and the most 
 superb scenery," nevertheless "through the per- 
 verted taste of the public it had failed." 
 
 Sheridan then reviewed the proceedings be- 
 fore the Privy Council in 1810, and expressed 
 his confidence in Parliament that it would never 
 contradict such high authority, nor usurp the 
 prerogative of the Crown. The greatest effect 
 was given to this dramatic speech when refer- 
 ence was made to Whitbread as surety for the
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 241 
 
 speaker's sincerity. The quickness with which 
 Sheridan had caught the current in favor of 
 the areat brewer showed that he had lost none 
 of his former generalship. He sat down amidst 
 the "Hear! Hear! Hear!" of the auditors; 
 and although some further efforts were put for- 
 ward by the supporters of the bill, its doom was 
 sealed. The vote for postponement of the second 
 reading stood 80 to 23 in the affirmative; and 
 postponement to the next session meant that 
 the bill was irrevocably lost. For the spirit 
 which Whitbread infused into the defense of 
 the monopoly, and the sturdy determination 
 manifested on the part of the third theatre pro- 
 jectors to push their bill through Parliament, 
 had given new life to the old concern. Proposals 
 were published for settlement with the creditors 
 of Drury Lane and for the rebuilding of the 
 theatre. And at two general meetings of the sub- 
 scribers (one on the 14th, the other on the 31st, 
 of October, 1811), satisfactory arrangements 
 with all claimants were made. The rebuilding 
 of Drury Lane Theatre before the first of Octo- 
 ber, 1812, was assured, and in less than a year 
 from the first of those meetings. New Drury 
 Lane was opened (October 12, 1812) to the 
 public with " a flourish of trumpets and beating 
 of drums." ^ 
 
 ^ A full report of these proceedings was published in the
 
 242 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 But the ghost of the third theatre would not 
 down. Two weeks after the silencing of the bill, 
 a motion was before the House, preliminary to 
 the introduction of a similar measure at the next 
 session of Parliament. Preparatory to this step 
 the mover (Mr. Taylor) thought it advisable, 
 during the recess, to ascertain the existing state 
 of the stage as well as the privileges exercised 
 by the monopoly over exclusive departments of 
 the drama. The abstract principle upon which 
 this motion and all similar applications for 
 a third theatre were based, was the simple prop- 
 osition that if the instructive amusement of 
 the public was a good thing, then the public 
 should have an unquestionable right to that 
 good, and that no restrictions should be placed 
 on the enjoyment of the right, except on the 
 ground of political expediency, or absolute ne- 
 cessity. The contemplated motion to inquire into 
 theatrical representations was the more neces- 
 sary, because of the growing depravity of taste 
 which had resulted from " the mummeries now 
 exhibiting at some of the theatres." No aim to 
 interfere with the interests of Drury Lane Thea- 
 tre was intended by the motion " to inquire into 
 
 Dramatic Censor, for May, October, and November, 1811, 
 cols. 257-259, 399-403, 416-420. See also Cobbett, Parlia- 
 mentary Debates, \ol. 19, 1st Series, 1140-1147; Gentleman's 
 Magazine, June, 1811; European Magazine, vol. 60, p. 54.
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 243 
 
 and report upon the present state of the Dra- 
 matic and Scenic representation at the Theatres 
 in this metropolis, together with the grounds and 
 nature of the privileges and immunities claimed 
 by the several Theatres, and the restraints im- 
 posed thereby on the amusements of the pub- 
 lic." ^ The new Cerberus, Whitbread, immedi- 
 ately thrust himself into the breach thus made 
 in the patent defenses, showing to the satisfac- 
 tion of the House the evil intent as well as the 
 certain bad consequences of the motion, should 
 it pass. Any attempt to pry into "the abstract 
 merits of any question touching the monopoly 
 must tend to throw cold water upon the present 
 public inclination " towards the rebuilding of 
 Drury Lane Theatre. This had the desired ef- 
 fect, and the motion was withdrawn. 
 
 The importance of this abortive attempt to 
 investigate the state of the drama and the nature 
 of the privileges bestowed on the two patent 
 theatres is not at once apparent. As a matter 
 of fact, it was calculated to reach the root of 
 the theatrical situation by the most direct 
 method. It is the first genuine effort to go be- 
 hind the scenes for the purpose of scrutinizing 
 the claims of the monoply and the alleged abuse 
 of privilege by the patentees. Those interested 
 
 ^ Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, 1st Series, vol. xx, 
 288-290 ; London Chronicle, May 24, 1811.
 
 244 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 in Drury Lane Theatre knew well enough the 
 clanger attending such an examination, and, natu- 
 rally, preferred to keep the question in the back- 
 ground. So long as mere asseveration and con- 
 jecture were the only obstacles, the patentees 
 could rest assured that political influence was 
 a sufficient bulwark. But the motion to investi- 
 gate the real conditions and facts about the 
 great houses was not utterly lost. Twenty years 
 later it reappeared, when it proved to be the 
 beginning of the end. 
 
 Matters rested thus until the beginning of 
 1812, when, on the 7th of February, with a 
 dogged persistence, the third theatre leaders 
 were in Parliament again with a petition. This 
 time the patentees were openly charged with 
 degrading the drama by the introduction of 
 horses, dogs, and an elephant on the stage. 
 Kemble was also accused of professional jealousy 
 which not only lowered the character of the re- 
 presentations at Covent Garden, but also threw 
 the most gifted actors out of employment. The 
 20th of March was set for the second reading 
 of the bill ; and Sheridan being away from the 
 House (owing to illness) on that date, AVhit- 
 bread asked for a postponement of its consider- 
 ation until Sheridan could be present. But 
 delay had been the game for two years, and the 
 petitioners were in no mood for such dilly-dally-
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT 245 
 
 ing methods. Forced on the defensive, Whit- 
 bread pleaded the cause of Drury Lane in the 
 same old strain, and moved a postponement for 
 six months. The grounds that had been tra- 
 versed on both sides, ad nauseam^ were again 
 gone over. But it was evident that the third 
 theatre party were clutching at the last straw, 
 though, in the two years that had intervened 
 since their first effort, they had filled out their 
 ranks in Parliament until their minority was 
 a respectable one at least. The motion to post- 
 pone was carried 58 to 34.^ The Third Theatre 
 Bill was dead. Lord Ossulton tried to revive it 
 the next session, but the single opposition of 
 Whitbread was sufficient to silence it forever, 
 and on the 28th of April, 1813, it was with- 
 drawn from the House of Commons.^ 
 
 The immediate danger to the patents from 
 the third theatre prosecutors was averted. An 
 occasional echo of the contest was heard,^ but 
 the attempt to reach theatrical freedom by way 
 of the Crown or Parliament was, for the time, 
 
 ^ Parliamentary Debates, 1st Series, vol. xxii, pp. 96-101 ; 
 London Chronicle, March 23, 1812 ; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 
 82, pt. 1, pp. 267, 467; European Magazine, vol. 61, p. 225. 
 
 2 European Magazine, vol. 63, p. 523. 
 
 8 See The Pamphleteer, no. iv, pp. 370-395, December, 1813, 
 containing a plea for a third theatre, by Sir James Lawrence ; 
 also Gentleman''s Magazine, March, 1811, proposal for " The 
 Alfred Theatre."
 
 246 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 given up, and the old contest between the winter 
 and the summer theatres was resumed. The pos- 
 sibility of a struggle of an entirely different sort 
 had also made its appearance, and, in time, was 
 destined to accomplish what the bold defenders 
 of the third theatre idea had failed to do. This 
 was the guerrilla warfare between the minors 
 and majors which had first manifested itself in 
 1807, as has been seen. Fostered by a Lord 
 Chamberlain, who, on principle, was opposed to 
 the theatrical monopoly, these lesser establish- 
 ments became more and more the leading factors 
 in the solution of the problem which had puzzled 
 the heads of the promoters of a third theatre in 
 1810-12.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA, AND THE WAR OF 
 ENCROACHMEMTS 
 
 INTIMATELY associated with the struggle 
 for a free stage in London is the history of 
 the establishment of the English opera ; for by 
 the beginning of the nineteenth century the pat- 
 entees had grown envious of every species of 
 entertainment that in any way resembled a the- 
 atrical exhibition. Furthermore, although thus 
 far they had rarely exercised the privilege, their 
 patents secured to them a monopoly of the opera 
 if it secured exclusive privileges in anything ; 
 and the necessity had at last arisen of guard- 
 ing even the unused rights claimed by them. 
 Italian opera had been surrendered by the two 
 patent houses, almost from the founding of Van- 
 brugh's Opera House in the Haymarket (1704), 
 and the terms of settlement provided by the 
 Opera Arrangement of 1792 gave a definite 
 sanction to the monopoly of foreign opera at the 
 King's Theatre. 
 
 In 1791, Dr. Arnold, the musical composer, 
 converted a portion of the building which until
 
 248 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the founding of the Royal Academy (1768) 
 had been used for an art gallery, into a thea- 
 tre, and intended to secure a license to open it, 
 but was thwarted by the patentees. This was 
 the Lyceum. A few years after this (1802) 
 Colonel Greville started his " Eic-Nic Society " 
 in Tottenham Street,* and two years later made 
 pi'oposals to the Lord Chamberlain for the 
 establishment of a theatre for music, in which 
 nothing but English talent should be employed. 
 This fell through, as we have seen, but Gre- 
 ville still nourished his pet scheme for the 
 native opera. Finally, in 1809, he secured from 
 Lord Dartmouth a license for English opera 
 in music, to which privilege, after a short 
 time, dialogue was added, it being understood in 
 the extension of the license that dialogue and 
 music should be used only in so far as both of 
 them should make out an operatic entertainment. 
 Greville was on the point of putting his license 
 into an elaborate execution, by purchasing and 
 fitting up the Pantheon in Oxford Street, when 
 Drury Lane Theatre burnt (February 24, 1809), 
 at which time Arnold secured a license similar 
 to his own.^ 
 
 There is a curious story connected with George 
 
 1 London Chronicle, February 20, 1802. 
 ^ See Brougham's speech before the Privy Council, March 
 26, 1810. Account of Proceedings, p. 86 sq.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 249 
 
 III and the founding of tlie English Opera 
 House. The King was exceedingly fond of mu- 
 sic and a devoted patron of the art. Dr. Arnold 
 was organist to His Majesty, and, in 1809, it 
 occurred to Samuel James Arnold, son of Dr. 
 Arnold, to take advantage of the circumstance 
 to obtain from the Crown permission to open a 
 new theatre for the especial purpose of fostering 
 the English opera. A prospectus was prepared, 
 setting forth the aims of the undertaking, a copy 
 of which had been previously submitted to the 
 Lord Chamberlain. The project pleased the 
 fancy of the King, the license was accordingly 
 issued, and the English opera prepared to launch 
 under the most favorable auspices. As the li- 
 cense was first issued, no limitation, as to season, 
 was contained therein. The zealous Greville at 
 once complained that he had prayed for a privi- 
 lege similar to that in Arnold's license, and that 
 the Lord Chamberlain had promised him that if 
 any person besides the proprietors of Drury Lane 
 and Covent Garden should be invested with the 
 privilege of opening a winter theatre, that 
 person should be Colonel Greville. Thereupon 
 Lord Dartmouth hastily summoned Mr. Arnold 
 and explained that Greville's prior claim had 
 been overlooked in granting Arnold a license 
 for the entire year, at the same time acknowledg- 
 ing the privileges which Arnold's license gave
 
 250 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 him of performing winter and summer. The 
 Lord Chamberlain extricated himself from the 
 dilemma by suggesting that Greville and Arnold 
 divide the privileges of the two licenses between 
 themselves. This advice was followed, Greville 
 choosing the winter season for his operations, 
 leaving the summer months to Arnold.^ 
 
 But the burning of the Drury Lane Theatre 
 materially altered these plans. Owing to this 
 accident, Arnold and Greville deemed it advis- 
 able to join their licenses and open only one 
 opera house, the Pantheon being chosen for 
 the purpose. At this juncture the ready-witted 
 Sheridan nipped the movement in the bud by 
 proposing a union of all three interests. The 
 advantages to all parties concerned were evident : 
 Arnold and Greville would get all the privileges 
 of the Drury Lane license added to their own, in 
 addition to the insurance against persecution by 
 the patentees ; while Sheridan would, for the 
 time, put an effectual stop to the English opera 
 scheme, and also secure a house for his burnt-out 
 company. The three licenses, accordingly, were 
 merged into one, and the Lyceum was opened 
 for the remainder of the winter season of 1809 
 under the three managers. In the agreement 
 
 1 Solicitor-General's speech in behalf of Arnold in 1831, Lon- 
 don Chronicle, January 12, 1831 ; see also Brougham's speech 
 before the Privy Council, 1810.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 251 
 
 arising out of these circumstances the licenses of 
 Arnold and Greville were distinctly recited, and 
 their right to keep open their theatres winter and 
 summer was not denied. Moreover, it should be 
 borne in mind that in the hearing before the 
 Privy Council in the following year (1810), 
 Arnold's rights, instead of being questioned, were 
 wholly admitted, whatever Sheridan's motive in 
 so doing. 
 
 The Drury Lane season — for such it was — 
 at the Lyceum closed on the 12th of June, 1809. 
 Arnold, on the 7th of the month, had made a 
 preliminary announcement that he would open 
 the theatre for a summer season of operas and 
 ballets. A few days later, the following adver- 
 tisement appeared in the public prints : 
 
 " LYCEUM THEATRE 
 
 " The Public are respectfully informed, that 
 the period for which the Drury-lane Company 
 engaged the above Theatre, having expired — the 
 Theatre will, after This Evening be closed for 
 a few days, in order that the new decorations 
 which are prepared may be affixed throughout 
 the house, and in order to enable the Proprietors 
 to make the various alterations which have been 
 proposed to afford the utmost accommodation 
 to the Public within the Theatre, as well as by 
 improved facilities of ingress and egress. After
 
 252 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 which the Theatre (by authority of the Lord 
 Chamberlain), WILL OPEN for the Summer 
 Season with an entirely new COMIC OPERA, 
 and a GRAND BALLET. Particulars of which 
 will be duly announced. A spacious new Lobby 
 will be opened to the Public; and the lower 
 circle of Boxes, enlarged and considerably im- 
 proved, will be appropriated exclusively to Dress 
 Company." 
 
 The date for opening w^as fixed for Jime 19, 
 but on account of the " extensive alterations " in 
 the theatre, this was changed to June 22,* from 
 which it was again postponed to the 26th, when 
 the new venture actually started off with Uj) All 
 JVight, followed by Love in a Tub. The adver- 
 tisement ran, " The Doors to be open at Six 
 o'clock, and begin at Seven precisely. Boxes 
 5s. Pit 3s. Gallery 2s. Upper Gallery Is." The 
 effort was favorably received by the public. 
 The convenient size of the theatre was especially 
 commended, the contrast, in this respect, with 
 the winter houses being remarked, and the effect- 
 iveness of the performance attributed to this. 
 
 The operas permitted to Arnold, at this time, 
 consisted of three acts only and might be per- 
 formed as at the patent houses, except that the 
 dialogue might ^ot be converted into recitative. 
 
 1 See Morning Chronicle for June 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 
 24, 27, 1809 ; London Chronicle, June 27, 1809.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 253 
 
 The after-piece was, at the period under consid- 
 eration, confined to spectacles, ballets, or pieces 
 consisting of songs and recitative. Something 
 of the success attending the first night's perform- 
 ances at the Lyceum was due to the notoriety 
 which the Drury Lane Company had given the 
 place during the previous spring. And that cir- 
 cumstance contained another precedent, the con- 
 sequence of which was unforeseen by Sheridan, 
 namely, the acting of the regular drama. On the 
 opening of Arnold's English Opera House, Sheri- 
 dan intimated that the Lord Chamberlain had 
 exceeded his authority in granting the license. 
 The Covent Garden managers also expostulated 
 against the grant, but the Earl of Dartmouth 
 threatened that if they did not keep quiet on the 
 subject he would extend Arnold's privileges.^ 
 As Arnold's license comprised the summer 
 months only, it would seem that no competition 
 could arise between the Lyceum and the patent 
 houses, but rather with the Little Theatre in the 
 Haymarket. Viewed in another light, there were 
 now two summer theatres instead of one to resist 
 the encroachments of the winter houses, and for 
 the next few years the vicissitudes of the Hay- 
 market and Lyceum, or English Opera House, 
 run parallel and have a common interest. 
 
 ^ Oulton, History of Theatres of London, iii, 93, 94. Oulton's 
 account is contemporaneous.
 
 254 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 The summer season of 1810 opened at the 
 Lyceum on June 4, when Arnold put on the 
 musical farce Hit or 31iss, borrowed from Drury 
 Lane. It is well to note this introduction of the 
 musical yarce, as the victory for free competition 
 in theatricals was ultimately won by the aggre- 
 gate effect of such slight innovations as this. 
 The same year, Colman petitioned the Prince 
 Regent either to oblige the winter theatres to 
 close earlier than usual, or to extend the time 
 of performances at the Haymarket. The latter 
 alternative was granted, and Colman obtained 
 leave to continue to October 15. But the con- 
 cession proved useless. The Haymarket closed 
 at the time specified in the old license (Septem- 
 ber 15), the reason being that "so many obsta- 
 cles now present themselves against the enjoy- 
 ment of the grant." ^ The chief " obstacle " was 
 that Covent Garden opened on the 10th of Sep- 
 tember, and the Haymarket performers were 
 forced to leave Colman on that date in order to 
 renew their articles at the patent house.^ 
 
 Colman now determined to repeat the experi- 
 ment of 1803, of opening his theatre with an 
 independent company. Once more the provinces 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, September 17, 1810. 
 
 2 European Magazine, vol. 58, p. 218. Arnold also applied 
 for and got an extension of his season to October 15. In 1812 
 he ran up to October 9. — Oulton, iii, 142.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 255 
 
 were invaded for recruits, and on the 15tli of 
 May, 1811, the Little Theatre opened despite 
 the patent houses. Some of the actors had never 
 seen service on any stage, but that mattered 
 little in comparison with the main issue. " Yet 
 what can the manager of this Theatre do ? " 
 breaks out the incensed editor of the " Dramatic 
 Censor." " When Foote and the elder Colman 
 had it, they were enabled to open by the middle 
 of May, because that was the period when the 
 winter managers felt it expedient to repose from 
 their dramatic toil ; and then an Edwin, a 
 Parsons, a Palmer, and a Bannister, were glad to 
 enlist under the banners of the minor chief, and 
 sweat and laugh during the summer solstice ! 
 But tempora mutantnr. Power hath become more 
 powerful, and the Winter 5ats have usurped, 
 the cheese of the Muses, and left the mere par- 
 ings to solace the mice in the dog days ! " ^ 
 Nevertheless, the Haymarket continued its per- 
 formances until the 16th of October ; although 
 the last night was "by permission." Elliston, in 
 delivering tlie farewell address, spoke of the 
 season as " an experiment, . . . adopted to save 
 their interests from annihilation." 
 
 In the following year (1812), petition was 
 made, and granted, for an extension of the Hay- 
 
 ^ Dramatic Censor, May, 1811, col. 264, September and 
 October, cols. 3G9, 403.
 
 256 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 market license to seven months. This license 
 was renewed until 1822, when it was reduced to 
 the original term of four months.^ But the new 
 privileges were of little value to the proprietors 
 of the Haymarket Theatre. A series of disgrace- 
 ful rows among the partners, a King's Bench 
 suit which deprived Colman of his personal lib- 
 erty, together with the encroachments of the 
 winter houses, combined to ruin the prospects 
 of the theatre, which was not open for a single 
 night in the summer of 1813. The next season 
 it was opened for a short period only, and, in 
 1815, for two months, not commencing that year 
 until July 17, as Drury Lane continued up to 
 July 13, and Co vent Garden to July 20.^ 
 
 During these years of depression and gloom at 
 the Haymarket, tjie English Opera House had 
 been experiencing a harvest of successes. On 
 the closing night (September 15) of the summer 
 season of 1815, the annual address (delivered 
 by Raymond) referred to the seven successful 
 seasons of the theatre, and announced that the 
 proprietor was making arrangements to build 
 "an entirely new, airy, and commodious theatre," 
 
 1 I give this on the authority of a reported speech of Sir C. 
 Wetherell, made in the Chancellor's Court in 1831 in the case 
 of the Majors vs. the Minors. See Morning Chronicle for Jan- 
 uary 26, 1831. According to Oulton, iii, 242, the Haymarket 
 license was extended to eight months in 1812. 
 
 ^ European Magazine, July and September, 1815.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 257 
 
 to be ready for the opening of the ensuing sum- 
 mer. Splendor was not promised, but comfort, 
 safety, and convenience were. These promises 
 were faithfully redeemed, if the published de- 
 scriptions of the theatre by the architect (Beazley) 
 is a criterion.^ On the site of the old Lyceum in 
 the Strand, the new English Opera House was 
 erected. The work on it was pushed, as Arnold 
 intended to put the already accepted interpreta- 
 tion on his license, to act any season of the year, 
 and, if possible, to open his new theatre about 
 Easter, 1816.^ But the patentees were unable to 
 brook any inroads of this nature. On the 12th 
 of October (1815) the Drury Lane Committee 
 was called together to hear the annual report. 
 The bulk of this is taken up with the financial 
 condition of the concern (which was in no wise 
 flattering, the report showing a deficit of £19,387 
 for the year, with a gross shortage of £68,294). 
 But a point of peculiar interest is contained in 
 the clause calling the attention of the meeting to 
 the announcement of " the proprietor of a Sum- 
 mer Establishment^'' to pursue his speculations 
 to an indefinite extent. The committee reported 
 
 ^ Oulton, iii, 177-183 ; London Examiner, September 17, 
 1815. 
 
 '^ Colonel Greville, on the receipt of some real or imagined 
 slig-ht, had retired from the partnership in 1810, leaving Arnold 
 in undivided possession of the English opera for winter and
 
 258 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 that the Covent Garden and Drury Lane pro- 
 prietors had lost no time in petitioning the 
 Prince Regent (through the Lord Chamberlain) 
 against any invasion of their rights.^ 
 
 In spite of this threatening forecast, Arnold 
 pursued his purpose to open in April. His li- 
 cense was originally issued in February, and, 
 being an annual license, he argued that it was 
 good f I'om February to the next February. The 
 influence of the patentees against him was too 
 great, however, and effectually prevented the 
 operation of his unexpired license. Arnold, 
 therefore, was compelled to issue the following 
 announcement to the public (" Morning Chron- 
 cle," April 2, 1816) : 
 
 " Theatre Royal, English Opera House, 
 March 30th, 1816. 
 
 "Notice is hereby given to all parties inter- 
 ested, that it was the intention of the Propri- 
 etor to have opened the new Theatre on Mon- 
 day the 15th of April next ensuing under the 
 powers of his unexpired License ; but that in 
 consequence of a Petition presented to his Royal 
 Highness the Prince Regent, by the Patentees 
 of the Winter Theatres, he has received from 
 the Right Honorable Lord Chambei'lain an inti- 
 mation that the measure of opening the Theatre, 
 
 1 European Magazine, October, 1815.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH. OPERA 259 
 
 whilst the Petition was yet under consideration, 
 would be opposed by his Lordship. 
 
 " The Proprietor of the English Opera License, 
 with due respect to his Lordship's high author- 
 ity, has therefore considered it proper to delay 
 the opening of the Theatre until further notice." 
 
 After numerous delays, Arnold finally suc- 
 ceeded in gaining the Lord Chamberlain's grant 
 for four months, and, thus restricted, the new 
 Opera House in the Strand was announced 
 to open on the 15th of June (1816). Li the 
 opening address (written by Arnold and delivered 
 by Miss Kelly) j)ointed reference was made to 
 the venom of the patentees, in these lines : 
 
 " Our Humble Edifice triumphant rose 
 In spite of threatening flames ^ and Patent foes ! 
 The Foes who'd stint your pleasure — but in vain, 
 To Covent Garden and to Drury Lane, 
 Who kindly wish to prove, as it appears, 
 Monopolizers of your smiles and tears ! 
 Who love you all so dearly that they swear 
 You shall go nowhere — if you don't go there. 
 Pray, how d' ye like our House ? Is 't snug and easy ? 
 Upon our life we 've done our best to please ye ! 
 You all can hear and see, I hope — Yes — kll ! 
 Those are rare virtues of a House that 's small ! 
 
 ^ Alluding to a conflagration in Exeter Court, where Ar- 
 nold sustained a severe loss to ornaments, interior trappings, 
 etc., which were being made ready for his new theatre. It 
 was in an uninliabited house, and the cause of the fire is 
 unknown.
 
 260 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 For such, are Actors ever bound to pray, 
 
 Where you can see the Stage and hear the Play. 
 
 Where you with ease can mark our real faces, 
 
 Without the aid of glasses or grimaces ! 
 
 And each inflection of the voice is heard. 
 
 Your ears preserved, and our poor lungs are spared !"* 
 
 So bitter was the feeling on the part of the 
 patentees against Arnold's past success and 
 bright prospects at the Lyceum, that the per- 
 formers at Drury Lane were threatened with a 
 forfeiture of their engagements if they returned 
 to the new Lyceum. It was for this reason that 
 Raymond resigned his position as acting-manager 
 at the English Opera House. Kinnaird of the 
 Sub-Committee at Drury Lane was especially 
 vindictive, and seems to have been chiefly re- 
 sponsible for the general quarrel which was pre- 
 cipitated through his endeavors to intimidate his 
 performers into abandoning Arnold's theatre.^ 
 As a consequence of Kinnaird's menaces, most 
 of the jserformers at the Lyceum were new ; 
 Dublin, Edinburgh, and Bath had been brought 
 into requisition to make good the deficiencies 
 caused by resignations. Three, however, of the 
 old performers (Mr. Gattie, Mrs. Orger, and 
 Miss Kelly) disregarded the prohibition of the 
 
 ^ European Magazine, June, 1816; London Chronicle, June 
 17, 1816. 
 
 2 European Magazine, September, 1816.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 261 
 
 patentees, and braved the consequences. The 
 result was a public airing of the dissensions of 
 the managers in a rather fierce, and decidedly 
 ill-tempered, paper war, — the greatest since the 
 early days of the Royalty. 
 
 The quarrel was brought to a head in the 
 autumn, at the time of the opening of the winter 
 houses. On the evening of September 9, 1816, 
 previous to the commencement of the perform- 
 ance of Rich and Poor at the Lyceum, Bartley 
 (successor to Raymond as acting-manager) came 
 forward and read a rather unexpected address 
 of some length from the proprietor, Mr. Arnold. 
 All personal injuries sustained from the opposi- 
 tion of the patentees were passed by, and the 
 grievances of the unoffending performers taken 
 up. These, he declared, " are deprived of the 
 means of obtaining a part of their subsistence, 
 since they are even prohibited from appearing be- 
 fore you at this theatre on the alternate nights, 
 when there are no representations at the others, 
 and when they consequently receive no salary. 
 
 "At the opening of the New English Opera 
 House, this season, the Proprietors of Co vent 
 Garden Theatre prohibited Mr. and Mrs. Liston 
 (who had still a season of their engagement here 
 unexpired) from acting in this place. To this 
 unexampled act of rigour and restriction they 
 were compelled to submit, in apprehension of
 
 262 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the infliction of heavy penalties, or perhaps, dis- 
 missal from that Theatre, although their engage- 
 ment to the Proj)rietors of the English Opera 
 was made three years ago (and acted upon dur- 
 ing two seasons) without the slightest hint of 
 objection on the part of the Covent Garden 
 Proprietors. 
 
 " Some accommodation in regard to Perform- 
 ers was, however, permitted by the Sub-Com- 
 mittee of Drury Lane, because the Proprietors 
 of this Theatre had the power of offering them 
 an equivalent. This equivalent consisted (by a 
 priority of engagement) in the valuable services 
 of a young Lady who never appears upon these 
 or any other boards without receiving the warm- 
 est testimonials of public approbation and es- 
 teem." 
 
 The address then stated that the accommoda- 
 tion alluded to had been withdrawn, and that 
 the Lyceum proprietor had been unable to elicit 
 an answer from the Drury Lane Committee to 
 a proposal to renew the arrangement. Arnold 
 did not accuse the Drury Lane Sub- Committee 
 collectively, but held a single individual respon- 
 sible for the situation. From the person referred 
 to (meaning Kinnaird), Arnold averred that he 
 had received a verbal communication to the effect 
 that none of the Drury Lane performers would 
 be allowed to act at the Lyceum.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 263 
 
 This long recital of complaints was justified 
 by the apology offered to the audience for the 
 non-appearance of Mrs. Orger and Mrs. Harlowe, 
 whose names appeared on the play-bills for the 
 evening, and who, it was alleged, had " received 
 intimation that to perform here would be at their 
 own peril, and would perhaps subject them to 
 such severe penalties as they dare not encounter 
 the risk of incurring." The following letter ad- 
 dressed to the manager was then produced and 
 read to the audience : ^ 
 
 " My DEAR Sir: It is with extreme regret I 
 am compelled to inform you, that Mr. Kinnaird 
 has forbidden my performing any longer at the 
 English Opera; intimating, that, if, neglectful 
 of his injunction, I should appear there this 
 evening, a heavy fine would be exacted. 
 
 " I am, etc., M. A. Orger. 
 
 " Sept. 9, 1816.*' 
 
 The situation was further aggravated by the 
 fact that Drury Lane was closed. While read- 
 ing the communication from Arnold to the 
 public, Bartley was frequently interrupted by 
 applause, and cries of " Shame ! shame ! " But 
 
 ^ An account of this singular performance, together with the 
 text of Arnold's Address, appeared in the Morning Chronicle, 
 September 10, 1816. The succeeding numbers of that journal 
 contain the rest of the correspondence.
 
 264 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the affair was not to end here. On the day 
 following the publication of these proceedings 
 at the Lyceum, Douglas Kinnaird appeared in 
 one of the public prints in vindication of his 
 action in forbidding performers to engage at the 
 English Opera House. In this explanation a 
 letter is quoted from H. Harris of the Covent 
 Garden management, in which is cited precedent 
 against permitting actors of the patent houses 
 engaging at other theatres, even during the re- 
 cess. Referring to the insinuations contained in 
 Mrs. Orger's letter, Kinnaird called that lady's 
 attention to the fact that the only conversation 
 he had had with her on the subject of her per- 
 forming at the Lyceum was on the Friday prior to 
 the Monday of her appearance in the Lyceum bills. 
 The occasion of that conversation was an appli- 
 cation of Mrs. Orger to Kinnaird for permission 
 to continue performing at the Lyceum on the 
 nights when Drury Lane was closed. " This I 
 told you was impossible for me to grant," con- 
 tinues Kinnaird, "as, if we permitted our per- 
 formers to exert their talents against Covent 
 garden theatre, when we were shut, they would 
 do the like by us — and that then the benefits 
 proposed, by our playing alternate nights, would 
 be lost — and we might as well let our perform- 
 ers appear before the public at our theatre every 
 night." Attention is also called to the articles
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 265 
 
 of agreement, " which you and all the performers 
 of the winter theatres signed. The salary given 
 is for the exclusive services of the performers at 
 this theatre. I recollect also explaining to you 
 that the Haymarket received the accommodation 
 till next Saturday [Sept. 14] from old usage 
 aloney In the same issue of the "Morning 
 Chronicle" (September 11, 1816), "A Play-go- 
 ing Man " justifies the attitude of the patentees, 
 first, on the simple grounds of rivalry, and, sec- 
 ondly, because, when actors were engaged at two 
 theatres, at the same time, the "business" was 
 interfered with. 
 
 Arnold returned at once to the attack, de- 
 nouncing Kinnaird's conduct towards the actors 
 as tyrannical and oppi'essive, a course which had 
 not the sanction of the entire Sub-Committee 
 of Drury Lane, but was the individual action of 
 Kinnaird. It was denied that it had been the 
 custom to permit no regularly engaged performer 
 to play at any other theatre after the opening of 
 the winter season, — as Harris had asserted in his 
 letter to Kinnaird. "Formerly, indeed," pursues 
 Arnold, " no such permission was requisite. But 
 during the last eight years, since the winter 
 establishments have protracted their seasons of 
 performances, . . . the performers have . . . 
 been constantly allowed the privilege of acting 
 at the Haymarket Theatre before the closing, and
 
 266 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 after the opening of the winter theatres." Ar- 
 nold's position is sustained by the following 
 interesting extract from Kaymond's " Life of 
 Elliston " (pp. 234, 235) : 
 
 " In the old times, the Hay market Theatre was 
 open some ten days before the close of the winter 
 houses. During these ten days there was but a 
 skeleton company at the former, until the great 
 patentees gave up their flesh and blood, by 
 which it was clothed. Many, and frequently 
 ridiculous, were the shifts to which this anato- 
 mized body was subject, in the short interval. 
 One circumstance occurred, which, at the first 
 blush (and verily it was of a character to raise 
 one), would appear positively impracticable. It 
 was that of Farley acting an important part in 
 the play of Covent Garden, and also at the 
 Haymarket, on the same night ; the two plays^ 
 be it remembered, being the first pieces of the 
 entertainments at both establishments. 
 
 " At Covent Garden the curtain rose at half 
 past six o'clock, and in the Haymarket at seven ; 
 at the former, Farley was cast into one of 
 Macbeth's witches, and at the latter, in the part 
 of Sir Philip Modelove, in the comedy of A 
 Bold Stroke for a Wfe. 
 
 " The dove-tailing of this remarkable night's 
 performance was . . . accomplished " by means of
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 267 
 
 a hackney-coach, furnished with all the necessary 
 habiliments of a dressing-room, and a servant, 
 who assisted the actor to make the alterations 
 for the part next to be represented, as the coach 
 passed back and forth between the playhouses. 
 During one of these trips, for the last scene at 
 Covent Garden, the coach, in turning a corner, 
 upset. " Half witch and half baronet — poor 
 Farley was extricated from that door which for- 
 tune had thrown uppermost, and never actor 
 surely made an appearance to more general 
 applause." 
 
 The wordy warfare between the managers con- 
 tinued for a week, the public occasionally taking 
 sides. On the whole, the facts adduced against 
 the patentees on this occasion were anything 
 but complimentary to their conduct. To admit 
 that they were jealous of the English Opera 
 House, by withdrawing the best performers from 
 it, was to declare that there was no particular 
 distinction attaching to the character of the per- 
 formances at the patent houses ; and that, after 
 all, it was the actor that drew the audience and 
 gave fame to a theatre, whether it were Drury 
 Lane or Saddler's Wells. Herein lay the secret 
 of the encroachments of the winter houses, and 
 the " lifting " of the best actors from the sum- 
 mer theatres. Herein, too, lay a suggestion to 
 the managers of the minor concerns, namely, to
 
 268 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 make their best actors managers and proprietors, 
 so that the patent houses could not buy them 
 off. This largely accounts for the unmolested 
 operations and successes of Foote ; and, when 
 the fact became practically apparent among the 
 minors, it did more towards weakening the 
 monopoly than all the correspondence wars, 
 public addresses, and occasional prologues. 
 
 One other fact was slowly dawning on the 
 minds of the enemies of the theatrical patents, 
 and this contest between the patentees and 
 Arnold served to emphasize its importance: if 
 any sort of winning competition (or, rather, re- 
 taliation) was to be waged with the monopoly, 
 the minors must adopt the tactics of the pat- 
 entees and invade the provinces of the enemy. 
 They must secure extended seasons ; they must 
 pay higher salaries for performers than the 
 winter houses could afford ; they must adapt 
 their exhibitions to meet the demands of pub- 
 lic taste, and at the same time fulfill the legal 
 requirements. These outlines of attack and de- 
 fense were still hazy, but they, or their equiva- 
 lents, were sure to take form as soon as the right 
 man should appear to give them effect. 
 
 Arnold was materially worsted by the crusade 
 carried on against his new Opera House. It was 
 a waste of time for him to urge that the " theat- 
 rical community has undergone a great revolu-
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 269 
 
 tion since the laws were established for the 
 governance " of the patent houses. Everybody 
 knew that. The fact of the monopoly remained, 
 and it was useless to argue the point with the 
 patentees on the abstract principle of benevo- 
 lence and generosity. The Lyceum was com- 
 pelled to close on the 5th of October, owing to 
 the opening of the winter houses. Bartley spoke 
 the final address, in the course of which he 
 stated that " the unexpected limitation, which 
 has been imposed on the licence to this Theatre, 
 has rendered abortive the best exertions of the 
 Proprietor, so far as relates to a fair and just 
 view to his personal advantage, . . . He has 
 had to contend with powerful enemies ; and 
 those enemies have hitherto so far triumphed, 
 as to deprive him of a large portion of talent as 
 well as a large part of the means of encourage- 
 ing and rewarding it." ^ 
 
 Fortuitous circumstances at this time gave 
 the summer theatres a temporary revenge. In 
 April, 1817, owing, for whatever ultimate reason, 
 to the lack of opportunity offered by the Co- 
 vent Garden manager to his talent, Charles 
 Mathews left the winter theatre and engaged at 
 the Little Theatre in the Haymarket for the 
 summer season.^ The following year, adapting 
 
 1 European Magazine and London Review, October, 1816. 
 " Mathews made his first appearance at Drury Lane in
 
 270 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 one of Foote's eccentricities, he made his first 
 appearance " At Home " at the English Opera 
 House (April 2, 1818), and, for forty nights, 
 depending on his sole efforts, he gave to large 
 audiences a " series of entertainments, which 
 succeeded in exciting peals of laughter from the 
 besinning: to the end." This series of mono- 
 logues was of a far higher type of dramatic art, 
 and approached legitimate comedy more closely 
 than did the efforts at mimicry to which 
 the Covent Garden management had confined 
 Mathews. But the interpretation of the regular 
 drama, the exclusive privilege of the patent 
 houses, was invariably based on dialogue, what- 
 ever else entered into the definition. The pat- 
 entees, therefore, had no power to interfere with 
 Mathews's successes. The first season of these 
 entertainments concluded on the 16th of June. 
 The strained relations between the patentees 
 and all others who dared venture on any species 
 of theatrical entertainment may be seen from 
 Mathews's farewell on the closing night : 
 
 " I beg to state distinctly," he said, " that 
 
 1804, with which company he remained until 1812, when, 
 failing to agree with the aeting'-manager (T. Sheridan), he 
 withdrew from Drury Lane, traveled for nine months, re- 
 turned to London (October, 1812), and engaged for five years 
 at Covent Garden. Discontented with the narrow range of 
 characters given him, he broke the engagement as stated 
 above. European Magazine, vol. 73, pp. 283-287.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 271 
 
 while I am advised that my performances are 
 within the strict letter of the law, no fear shall 
 deter me from proceeding-, and that I will 
 resist strenuously and firmly any measures 
 that may be pursued to support an injurious 
 monopoly to my injury ; and that I shall double 
 all the energies of my resistance from the recol- 
 lection that I am contending in the cause of the 
 public, who have no right to be curtailed of 
 their lawful amusements, or to be told by pat- 
 entees, ' if you won't come to laugh with us, we 
 shall take care that you shall not go to laugh 
 elsewhere.' " ^ 
 
 And at the end of the regular summer season 
 at the Opera House (October 5, 1818), the pro- 
 prietor expressed the hope that, " without in- 
 fringing on the supposed rights of patent monop- 
 olies, he may occasionally be enabled to invite 
 you here with such performances and exhibitions 
 as the law alloios" ^ alluding, no doubt, to the 
 "At Home" entertainments. 
 
 The encroachments of the winter houses not 
 only continued but were extended. Drury Lane 
 did not close until the 30th of June in 1818, 
 while Covent Garden kept open until the mid- 
 dle of July.^ At the close of the Haymarket's 
 
 1 European Magazine, June, 1818. 
 
 2 Ibid. vol. 74, p. 355. 
 
 3 London Chronicle, July 16, 17, 1818.
 
 272 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 season in 1817 it was announced that the Little 
 Theatre would, the ensuing year, take advantage 
 of the entire limit of its license (seven months);^ 
 but July 15 (1818) was the earliest date it 
 could open. Each year the old complaint was 
 poured into the public ear concerning "those 
 mightier powers against whose strength our 
 weakness must give way." ^ The contest was 
 rapidly approaching a climax. The season of 
 1819 - 20 at Drury Lane did not end until 
 July 8, and at Covent Garden until the 17th. 
 The former reopened on the 15th of August. 
 The vexation caused to Arnold, of the English 
 Opera House, by this palpable invasion of his 
 interests was too great to be contained. His 
 feeling: of indio-nation found vent in the follow- 
 ing manifesto : 
 
 " THE WINTER THEATRES 
 
 " Since the Patentees of the Winter Theatres 
 incessantly complain of the encroachments of 
 other Theatres ; and appeal by Petition against 
 those that open under the Lord Chamberlain's 
 
 ^ The extended privileges had been in disuse so long that 
 it is doubtful whether it would have been allowed to be exer- 
 cised, even if the winter houses had not, by their encroach- 
 ments, prevented it. This view is sustained by the fact that 
 the seven months privilege was renewed in 1S20. 
 
 2 London Chronicle, September 14, 1819 ; ibid. September 16, 
 1817 ; European Magazine, vol. 72, p. 259 ; ibid. vol. 76, p. 264.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 273 
 
 Licences and by Prosecutions against those that 
 act under the Licences of the Magistrates,* it is 
 time the attention of the Legislature, and of the 
 Publick, should be called to the gradual en- 
 croachments made by these great establishments 
 on their more limited and more defenceless 
 neighbours. 
 
 " In Garrick's time, the Winter Theatres 
 played never more than 150 or 160 nights in 
 the year ; till within the last ten years, they 
 never exceeded an average of 200 nights ; open- 
 ing in the middle of September, and closing 
 early in June. They have now gradually extended 
 their performances from the heginnin(j of Sep- 
 tember to towards the end of July, leaving only 
 an interval of six or seven weeks, when the Town 
 is comparatively empty (and in the dog-days), for 
 the summer Theatres to reap their little scanty 
 harvest. 
 
 " The Theatre Royal Drury Lane has now re- 
 opened in the middle of August, leaving the 
 summer Theatres twenty-one Nights only free 
 from an oppressive coveteousness, which it ap- 
 pears can only be bounded by the ruin of more 
 humble rivals. 
 
 " The attention of the Publick is now respect- 
 
 1 The allusion is to the petition of the patentees against the 
 Olympic and Sans Pareil, 1818. This will be considered in the 
 next chapter.
 
 274 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 fully called to this brief statement ; and their 
 continued patronage earnestly solicited to the 
 Theatre Royal English Opera House, in which 
 the most animated exertions will continue to be 
 made to merit their favour." 
 
 The only effect this had on the ' Great Lessee,' 
 Elliston, who had taken charge of Drury Lane 
 Theatre in 1819, was the following characteristic 
 reply : 
 
 " The Patentees can not condescend to enter 
 into a competition of scurrility, which is only 
 fitted for Minor Theatres — what their powers 
 really are, will be, without any public appeal, 
 legally decided in November next, and any gas- 
 conade can only be supposed to be caused by 
 cunning or poverty." ^ 
 
 Arnold retorted to this in the public prints 
 and in " a new extempore, temporary sketch," 
 entitled Patent Seasons (written by R. B. 
 Peake). The audience showed its sympathy on 
 the side of the summer house, for it " applauded 
 most vociferously " the hits at the winter manager. 
 The dramatic critic in the " London Review " 
 (August, 1820) said of the performance and of 
 the circumstances calling it forth : " As a tem- 
 porary trifle, it well deserved its favourable 
 reception, but we fear, that something even more 
 
 1 European Magazine, July and August, 1820 ; Lady''s Mag- 
 azine, August, 1820.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 275 
 
 than being so satirized or laughed at, must be 
 adopted, to bring the Patent Seasons into a more 
 reasonable compass." 
 
 The "Examiner" (August 27, 1820) treated 
 the matter in a somewhat different way, but, 
 though friendly to Elliston of Drury Lane, it was 
 outspoken on the subject of free competition in 
 theatrical entertainments. " We know not," 
 says the dramatic editor of that weekly, com- 
 menting on the representation of the Patent 
 Seasons, " we know not how the performers feel 
 on such an occasion, but it must surely be a 
 strong sense of the truth of what they are say- 
 ing, which enables them so gravely to say it. 
 It is certainly an awkward business on all sides. 
 Actors, we are afraid, like other agreeable per- 
 sons, get little with the town in general, by 
 showing themselves in the light of sufferers, 
 instead of merry makers. The chance is that 
 want of success is attributed to them rather as 
 a want of merit than anything else. The town, 
 on the other hand, evidently feels less inter- 
 ested in the pathetic part of the representation 
 than in the sarcasms on Mr. Elliston. It crowds 
 to the pit in much the same taste as people 
 crowd around a fight, for the sake of being 
 entertained and excited at the expense of oth- 
 ers. . . . But the right of comj^laint is un- 
 doubted on the part of the Lyceum, if not for
 
 276 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the actual encroachment, for the manner of It. 
 The truth is, that all the theatres, great and 
 small, ought to be allowed to remain open all 
 the year round, and the legislature should be 
 applied to accordingly. We can hardly sup- 
 pose that it would hold out long, against ear- 
 nest and well-put representation." 
 
 There is a possible justification of EUiston's 
 action in opening Drury Lane the middle of 
 August, 1820, Edmund Kean was preparing to 
 come to America for the season of 1820-21, and 
 Elliston conceived the idea of getting him to 
 give a series of " farewell " performances before 
 sailing. Though ostensibly for the benefit of 
 the public, this was a mere ruse used to cover 
 up an " unprecedented and oppressive conduct 
 towards the summer houses." When Kean 
 closed this engagement (September 16), it was 
 indignantly asserted by some that, " we cannot 
 believe that such an experiment will ever be 
 repeated," of keeping the patent theatre oj)en 
 during the summer.* 
 
 The patentees had not yet reached their limit 
 in the matter of encroachments. But if there 
 was ever a theatrical manager who knew, and 
 dared to use, his capabilities in matters of an 
 extreme nature, Robert William Elliston was 
 that manager. The season of 1820-21 closed at 
 1 European Magazine, vol. 78, p. 257.
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 277 
 
 Drury Lane on June 15. On the 27tli of the 
 same month it reopened for " a limited period," 
 for the purpose of producing- the masked festi- 
 vals, the Victory of Waterloo, and the Corona- 
 tion. "On the subject of interfering with the 
 ' little hour ' allotted to the career of the Sum- 
 mer Theatres, by this new arrangement," re- 
 marks the "European Magazine " ' on this pro- 
 cedure, " we cannot but regret that Drury 
 Lane should be thus reopened ; and whatever 
 interest may accrue from it to any party, as 
 a species of monopoly, we most unhesitatingly 
 condemn the principle. We leave all notice of 
 the season's conclusion until we are sure that 
 it is really finished ; and positively and finally 
 at an end." 
 
 The critic was saved the trouble of his " notice," 
 for that season at Drury Lane did not "posi- 
 tively and finally end," but continued straight on 
 through the year. In July, Kean returned to 
 London after his unpleasant experience in Amer- 
 ica, and at once began to perform at Drury 
 Lane (July 23). Not to be behind, Covent 
 Garden entered the contest, and summer and 
 winter houses struggled through the season. 
 Though it was apparent that the motive of the 
 patentees was completely to silence the summer 
 theatres, nevertheless, by a resort to novelty, 
 1 Vol. 79, p. 550; see also vol. 80, pp. 382, 383.
 
 278 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the latter succeeded in keeping their doors open. 
 But the experience was too costly to hazard a 
 repetition. It was time to determine, once for 
 all, whether the English Opera House and the 
 Little Theatre were to be exterminated or to 
 exist independently and in spite of the j)atent 
 houses ; half -existence was no longer endurable. 
 On the closing night at the Haymarket (October 
 14, 1820) the management announced that the 
 next season would open in a new building. The 
 old building, which had stood for just a century, 
 was pulled down to make room for street im- 
 provements. The new Haymarket Theatre was 
 erected on the adjoining lot. On the 4th of the 
 following July, although the new theatre was 
 not yet completed, it opened with an independent 
 company and succeeded in keeping open for 
 four months. At the close of the season (Novem- 
 ber 2), the manager boldly uttered his defiance 
 at the patent houses, and announced his deter- 
 mination " to try his strength with the great 
 Leviathans of the Drama." Now that the winter 
 theatres had become summer ones, Morris, who 
 was now the Haymarket proprietor, published his 
 intention " to enter upon the open field of public 
 competition, prepared to struggle and endure, . . . 
 willing to fight on until he may at last succeed 
 in establishing a company, independent of the 
 large theatres, ... in a theatre honourably
 
 THE RISE OF ENGLISH OPERA 279 
 
 devoted to all the legitimate purposes of the 
 British Drama." 
 
 This address contains some of the most radi- 
 cal advances made thus far in the struggle for 
 supremacy between the patent houses and sum- 
 mer theatres. The threat to turn the tables on 
 the patentees, to enter not only their season but 
 also their exclusive monopoly of the legitimate 
 drama, M^as a daring one, but not without its 
 justification. On the accession of George IV 
 (1820), an application was made (and granted) 
 to extend the Haymarket license to seven months 
 (April 15 to November 15), and the season 
 of 1821 closed with a firm resolve on the part of 
 the Little Theatre manager to take advantage 
 of the privilege.* 
 
 This had the desired effect on the great houses. 
 The following year (1822) a compromise was 
 brought about, in the presence of the Lord 
 Chamberlain (then the Duke of Montrose), con- 
 cerning the respective seasons of the winter and 
 summer theatres. The arrangement provided for 
 a return to the original understanding — that 
 the summer theatres should have the advantag^e 
 of a four months season without interference 
 from the winter houses. Elliston at once offi- 
 cially notified his performers of the agreement, in 
 order that they might renew their connections 
 ^ Examiner, November 4, 1821.
 
 280 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 with the summer theatres.* When the Duke of 
 Devonshire succeeded the Duke of Montrose in 
 the Lord Chamberlainship, an application was 
 made for a renewal of the agreement of 1822, 
 and was denied. This was followed (1832) by 
 a petition for an extended license at the Hay- 
 market, but as this circumstance is bound up 
 with the general movement of the time, I shall 
 reserve it for its proper place. 
 
 Thus ended the long war of encroachments, 
 and the combatants turned their attention to 
 another struggle which had of late years become 
 of paramount importance in the contest for a 
 free stage. This was the fierce competition 
 which had grown up between the majors and 
 minors, and which occupied the public attention 
 from the period reached in our investigation to 
 the close of the struggle. 
 
 1 London Chronicle, April 3, 1822. As the English Opera 
 House was still running' on its four months license, it was not 
 represented in this settlement, though, of course, reaping the 
 benefits of it.
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 
 
 EARLY in the eighteenth century, in the days 
 of Queen Anne, men of rank frequently 
 assembled for amusement at a tavern at the rear 
 of Oxford House in High Street, Marylebone 
 Gardens. The place afterwards fell into disre- 
 pute, and is the scene of Macheath's debauch- 
 eries in the Beggar s Opera. About the year 
 1740 the Gardens were opened for public break- 
 fasts and evening concerts. The entertainments 
 resembled those at Vauxhall, including a varied 
 range of pyrotechnic exhibitions. Among the 
 musical novelties introduced at the Marylebone 
 Gardens was a species which, later, "not only 
 perplexed the sages of the Drama, but posed 
 even the learned in the law," though at that 
 time (when Dr. Arnold was connected with the 
 Gardens) it gave little concern to the patent 
 houses, or any one else,^ 
 
 This was the " burletta," of Italian origin 
 
 1 For aecotints of places of amusement in London in the 
 eighteenth century see Wroth, London Pleasure Gardens of the 
 Eighteenth Century; Boulton, Amusements of Old London; 
 Besant, London in the Eighteenth Century.
 
 282 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 (diminutive of hurla^ mockery), afterwards per- 
 formed at Coveut Garden, and all the minors. 
 Among the various methods adopted by the 
 minor theatres, to evade the limitations placed 
 on their licenses, was to alter, by degrees, the 
 burletta, or musical farce, until it approximated 
 the legitimate drama in presentation, though 
 ' still retaining its original title. So imperceptible 
 were these changes that the monopoly had been 
 almost surrounded and undermined before 
 serious opposition was raised to the burletta ; 
 and by then, precedent had so thoroughly as- 
 sociated that particular sort of entertainment 
 with the lesser establishments, distinguishing 
 them from the guardians of the legitimate drama, 
 that they could not be dispossessed of it after 
 the thing itself had become confused with the 
 regular drama. Furthermore, as we shall see, 
 the patentees, in an evil moment, sanctioned the 
 burletta after it had been metamorphosed into 
 the drama, by bringing on a regular piece under 
 the title of " burletta." 
 
 At the close of the eighteenth century a bur- 
 letta was generally understood to be " a drama in 
 rhyme, which is entirely musical ; a short comic 
 piece, consisting of recitative and singing, wholly 
 accompanied, more or less, by the orchestra." This 
 is the definition given by the younger Colman.* 
 ^ Random Records, i, 46-56.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 283 
 
 The word itself seems to have been coined, and 
 hence the dictionaries of the time are void as to 
 its meaning, or so vague and general in defining 
 it that little light was shed by them when the dif- 
 ficulty arose concerning that particular kind of 
 entertainment. Astley got the burletta added to 
 his amphitheatre license in 1787; and we have 
 seen how a certain jealousy was manifested by 
 the patentees towards Sadler's Wells when the 
 latter (1788) tried to get a legal sanction for its 
 usurped performances. By stealthy advances the 
 burletta so evolved that, by the time a dozen or 
 so of the minors were well under way, it became 
 a most desirable addition to the annual license ; 
 as by that time it had been made to cover every 
 imaginable phase of the drama from the most 
 trivial farce to Macbeth and Hamlet. 
 
 In 1809, two years after the immense impetus 
 given to minor theatres by the licensing of a 
 half-dozen or more, we may learn something of 
 the meaning of a burletta from the following 
 letter respecting one of the minors. The letter is 
 dated August 29, 1809, and is from the Deputy- 
 Chamberlain to Lord Dartmouth, Chamberlain. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Scott, the proprietor of the small thea- 
 tre [Sans Pareil] situate in BuUen Court in the 
 Strand has just called to solicit a renewal of his 
 licence, and humbly hopes that your Lordship
 
 284 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 will see no objection to the introduction of the 
 word ' Burlettas,' which are strict musical pieces 
 without dialogue, and which have hitherto been 
 performed under his joresent licence for music, 
 dancing, song recitative, recitation, and pan- 
 tomime with optical and mechanical exhibition, 
 but which is not, like Mr. Astley, sufficient to 
 authorize him to continue such representation, 
 and is therefore only desirous that the word 
 ' Burletta ' should be inserted, merely for the 
 sake of security, without the smallest intention 
 of extending his performance in the least. "^ 
 
 The repeated assurance that Mr. Scott had 
 no intention of gaining any more privileges, 
 but nevertheless wanted the word put into his 
 license, is significant. The attention of the Lord 
 Chamberlain had to be called by the patentees 
 to the abuse practiced by the managers of the 
 minor theatres in their interpretation of " bur- 
 letta," but that official, feeling his inability to 
 define the species, brought the matter for canvass 
 before the Privy Council. The lawyers, called 
 in to decide the meaning and state the law reg- 
 ulating the burletta, were equally incompetent 
 and timorous. 
 
 As if such a decision — or lack of decision 
 — were not victory enough for the minors 
 (since they were thus left practically to de- 
 
 ^ Historical MSS. Commission. Report XIII*, p. 505.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 285 
 
 fine for themselves the meaning of their annual 
 licenses), Covent Garden gave them another 
 loose to their string by announcing for its own 
 boards Fielding's Tom Thumbs containing dia- 
 logue without music, giving it the title of " bur- 
 letta," thus affording the minors a precedent for 
 interpreting the term in future. The Lord 
 Chamberlain extricated himself from the diffi- 
 culty as best he could ; he simply continued to 
 license the performances known as burlettas on 
 the grounds that they had been licensed, and he 
 had been unable to obtain proof or professional 
 opinion that the performances so licensed were 
 not burlettas. The Duke of Montrose modified 
 this decision somewhat (1827), but left the con- 
 ditions practically unchanged ; he granted li- 
 censes to the minors for the performance " call'd 
 by the manager a Burletta, . . . provided it be, 
 in legal acceptance, a Burletta." The Chamber- 
 lain thus relieved himself of further responsibil- 
 ity in the matter ; the minor manager was still 
 left to define his own powers, and if the pat- 
 entees were dissatisfied with the competition that 
 arose, their attention was called to a recourse in 
 the Courts of Justice. 
 
 By 1833 the mystery attaching to the bur- 
 letta was dispelled, it had become indistinguish- 
 able from the drama. " The question of what is 
 or is not a burletta," writes the editor of the
 
 286 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 "Morning Chronicle" (November 29, 1833), 
 "has now, in practice at least, been settled ; it 
 means a drama, with amusing plot, S23rightly dia- 
 logue, and light sketchy characters, without any 
 music." And it is safe to say that this was a fair 
 definition, taken, as it was, from an examination 
 of a new burletta (by Charles Dance), brought 
 out at the Olympic on the 25th of November, 1833. 
 An amusing illustration will demonstrate the 
 scope assumed by the burletta at this time. In 
 the course of an action in the Queen's Bench, 
 in which Yates of the Adelphi was defendant in 
 a breach of contract suit brought against him by 
 Levy of the Victoria, the question was asked, 
 " What is a burletta ? " Edward Stirling was in 
 the witness chair, and answered, that it was "of 
 French origin, containing necessary singing and 
 music." " Pray," continued the counsel for 
 Levy, " is Mrs. Fitzwilliams an actress or 
 singer ? " " Both," was the answer. " Perhaps 
 you can inform us if it is essential that Ophelia 
 should sing in Hamlet ? " pursued the lawyer. 
 " Pardon me," replied Stirling, " I think Shake- 
 speare settled that question before we were 
 born." 1 
 
 I have given this hasty survey of the progress 
 of the musical farce under the alias of "bur- 
 letta," in order that the difficulties, as they arise 
 
 1 Old Drury Lane, i, 172.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 287 
 
 between the patent theatres and the lesser estab- 
 lishments, may be the better appreciated. Other 
 evasions and perversions were practiced by the 
 minors, such as, for example, the uses which 
 the melodrama were made to serve, as also the 
 opera, operetta, and so forth ; but as these terms 
 need no explanation, I pass them by. The bur- 
 letta was the main loop-hole through which the 
 minors sought escape, though not always suc- 
 cessfully, when pursued by the majors. A series 
 of instances will illustrate. 
 
 In 1771 Charles Hughes built and opened an 
 amphitheatre in Blackf riars-Road to compete with 
 Philip Astley's circus, which started the previous 
 year. Charles Dibdin became a partner with 
 Hughes in 1782, when the name of the place 
 was changed to the Koyal Circus. Here Dibdin 
 originated the " equestrian drama." The man- 
 agement was in all sorts of difficulties from the 
 first, and Dibdin made frequent visits to the 
 King's Bench. In 1805 the Royal Circus burned 
 down, but was rebuilt and opened the following 
 year. At first children were the only (human) 
 actors. Thus far little had occurred to distin- 
 guish the Royal Circus from the species signified 
 by its name. But it was to become one of the 
 prominent minors by means of an alchemy that 
 was soon to alter the whole theatrical situation 
 in London.
 
 288 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1809, — the day 
 before the burning of Drury Lane Theatre, 
 — Robert William Elliston became lessee, for 
 seven years, of the Royal Circus. This trans- 
 action marks the real beginning of the revolution 
 that was to destroy the theatrical monopoly ; 
 for although the movement was in the air, until 
 Elliston brought his genius to bear on the situa- 
 tion, no practical line of action had as yet been 
 laid out. Elliston is a typical example of "the 
 times and the man." A month after the transac- 
 tion referred to above, the new manager an- 
 nounced that the house would open on the 
 ensuing Easter Monday, Pursuant to this ad- 
 vertisement, the newly fitted-up theatre opened 
 with a new prelude, a melodramatic spectacle, 
 entitled Tlie Invisible Avengers. Although Ellis- 
 ton's engagement at the Lyceum (where the 
 burnt-out Drury Lane Company was then per- 
 forming) prevented his appearance at his own 
 theatre before the middle of June, nevertheless 
 the opening of the Royal Circus (renamed the 
 Surrey) was auspicious. The inventive genius of 
 Elliston in arranging novel performances assured 
 success from the outset. Among the great num- 
 ber of skillful methods employed by him atten- 
 tion may be called to his alteration of the Beaux 
 Stratagem into a burletta. " The success of this 
 dramatic transmutation induced a second of a
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 289 
 
 similar nature ; and some weeks subsequently the 
 Bold Stroke for a Wife was adroitly invigor- 
 ated with a decoction of music and mesdames, 
 the joint patentees of the nostrum.''^ The climax, 
 however, of Elliston's audacity was reached when, 
 in September, 1809, he actually transformed 
 Macbeth into a ballet of action, with music, and 
 represented it at his new Surrey Theatre ! ^ It 
 was in allusion to this circumstance that Sheri- 
 dan, when in the Privy Council, 1810, cynically 
 remarked that Elliston had done greater violence 
 to Shakespeare than to the law. 
 
 But so long as Elliston was successful in the 
 popular eye, he took little account of the means 
 employed. The first season at the Surrey proved 
 so successful, that the intrepid manager was in- 
 duced to attempt an enlargement of his privi- 
 leges. It has already been remarked that the 
 licenses hitherto issued to the proprietors of 
 minor theatres did not permit dialogue, except 
 with an accompaniment of music. It was the 
 violation of this provision which caused some 
 of the actors at Palmer's Royalty Theatre to be 
 prosecuted by the patentees. On the 5th of 
 
 ^ For the chief facts connected with Elliston's managership 
 of the Surrey (Royal Circus), I have followed Raymond's 
 Life and Enterprises of Robert William Elliston, Comedian, 
 pp. 156-171. As Raymond knew Elliston well, and had access 
 to his private papers and correspondence, I take it that his 
 book is authoritative.
 
 290 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 March, 1810, Sir Thomas Turton presented a 
 petition to the House of Commons to enable 
 EUiston to exhibit and perform at the Surrey 
 Theatre all such entertainments of music as are 
 commonly called pantomimes and ballets, to- 
 gether with operatic or musical pieces, accom- 
 panied with dialogue. An alteration in the 
 petition was suggested to Turton, to exempt 
 the proprietor of the Royal Circus from certain 
 penalties under the law regulating dramatic 
 exhibitions. It seems altogether probable that 
 this was a scheme to defeat the petition, for the 
 change called for an exemption of Elliston from 
 penalties that might be incurred for breach of 
 existing laws. Turton consented to the altera- 
 tion, and the petition was, of course, defeated. 
 The following year Sir T. Turton was one of 
 the chief defenders of patent rights, and it seems 
 strange that he should have been selected to 
 pilot Elliston's petition through Parliament. 
 
 Soon after the defeat of his petition Elliston 
 addressed the minister (Perceval) on the subject 
 of an extension of privileges at the Royal Circus, 
 and received as answer the opinion that such a 
 request could not be granted, " except upon a 
 ground which would go to alter the whole prin- 
 ciple upon which theatrical entertainments are 
 at present regulated within the metropolis and 
 twenty miles round it." The Surrey, therefore,
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 291 
 
 continued after the order of its first year's per- 
 formances, which usually went off " with the 
 greatest applause " from audiences " of a very 
 respectable description." ^ 
 
 Meantime the Sans Pareil had been added to 
 the list of minors with the burletta clause in its 
 license. Astley's and Sadler's Wells were the 
 other chief competitors of the Surrey at this 
 time. The Tottenham Concert Rooms, which had 
 been the home of Colonel Greville's "Pic-Nic 
 Society," was converted into a circus in 1808, 
 and in 1810 purchased by a pawnbroker by the 
 name of Paul, altered for theatrical purposes, 
 and opened for the first time on the 23d of 
 April of that year, with burletta attractions. 
 This latter venture, however, was a failure, and 
 need not be considered among the minors of 
 importance. 
 
 One other minor of this early period deserves 
 separate notice. This was the Olympic Pavilion, 
 erected by Astley, the circus king and horse- 
 tamer, on a spot in Wych Street where the old 
 Craven House once stood. This latter building 
 — which has its own history — had been con- 
 structed by Lord Craven early in the seventeenth 
 century. It was pulled down in 1805, and the 
 ground leased to Philip Astley. The Amphi- 
 theatre at the foot of Westminster Bridge had 
 1 London Chronicle, April 24, 1810.
 
 292 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 but recently burned down (1803), and the man- 
 ager looked about for a substitute while it was 
 rebuilding, with the result that he secured the 
 Olympic Pavilion. For some time the theatre 
 was quite successful, but this did not long con- 
 tinue and Astley put the place up for sale. 
 
 Now, whenever a theatre in England was for 
 sale during the first quarter of the nineteenth 
 century, there was at least one ready purchaser. 
 This was Robert William Elliston, comedian and 
 theatrical manager, who, at that very time, was 
 negotiating for theatres in Dublin, Birmingham, 
 and Edinburgh. On the eighteenth of March, 
 1813, the managership of the Olympic Pavilion 
 was transferred to Elliston, and on Easter Mon- 
 day (April nineteenth) of the same year, — the 
 usual time for opening the minors, — the new 
 proprietor opened the place under the name of 
 " Little Drury Lane Theatre, " because of its 
 proximity to Old Drury Lane Theatre. The cir- 
 cumstance of this venture soon brought the patent 
 houses down on Elliston. When the latter se- 
 cured the Olympic from Astley, he received a 
 guarantee for the continuance of the license, 
 which, as originally granted, extended through 
 the whole year. It was with this understanding 
 that the theatre was now opened for burlettas and 
 musical pieces. Elliston's ambition for theatrical 
 managership was sufficient to arouse the jealousy
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 293 
 
 of the patentees, while the appropriation of a cir- 
 cus license for theatrical uses incensed them be- 
 yond endurance. They at once memorialized the 
 Lord Chamberlain to the effect that Astley's li- 
 cense permitted him to act at the Pavilion only 
 when the Amphitheatre was closed, that he had 
 promised, at the time his license for the Pavilion 
 was issuing, that he would not violate the arrange- 
 ment therein contained, and, further, that his 
 license was for equestrian exhibitions only. The 
 Lord Chamberlain (Lord Dartmouth) pretended 
 to have overlooked these details in permitting 
 Elliston to open the Olympic. Pressed by the pro- 
 prietors of Covent Garden and Drury Lane, he 
 felt under the necessity of recalling the permis- 
 sion granted to Elliston to act at " Little Drury. " 
 Accordingly, Elliston's operations were brought to 
 a sudden standstill, and the establishment in Wych 
 Street was closed until the following December, 
 when the name " Little Drury Lane Theatre " 
 disappeared, and the " Olympic " was again 
 adopted, — for it would seem that the former 
 title, quite as much as the license granted to 
 Elliston, had aroused the anger of the patentees,* 
 The relative situation of the majors and 
 minors, sketched in the foregoing pai-agraphs, 
 remained unchanged until about 1818 or 1820. 
 The minors had a comfortable, though by no 
 1 Raymond's Life of Elliston, p. 216 ; Belgravia, viii, 402.
 
 294 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 means exalted, existence on their light fare of 
 musical farces, or burlettas, singing, dancing, 
 rope-walking, and the like. However, the Sur- 
 rey and Olympic easily led the others in the 
 character of their performances. Drury Lane 
 Theatre had been saved by the providential 
 appearance and engagement of Edmund Kean, 
 " the little man in the cloaks," while Covent 
 Garden was flourishing on exhibitions, little or 
 nothing above those at the minor establishments. 
 Thus far these smaller concerns can hardly be 
 said to have menaced the patent houses, yet the 
 jealousy of the latter was very apparent at every 
 privilege gained by the former. 
 
 It was at this period in the history of the 
 London theatres that the minors pushed rapidly 
 to the front, and, for the first time, became 
 really inimical to the welfare of the " great 
 houses." The causes may be traced to numer- 
 ous sources, — to be dealt with in another place. 
 At present it is sufficient to enumerate the 
 most important of these causes. The gradual 
 development of the burletta has already been 
 noticed, and to EUiston, more than any one 
 else, was this innovation due, though T. Dibdin 
 of the Surrey also deserves a front rank among 
 minor managers. As the exhibitions of the 
 minors approached the regular drama, the tend- 
 ency was assisted by the decline of the per-
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 295 
 
 formances at the patent theatres, and especially 
 at Covent Garden, where spectacles, melo- 
 dramas, and animal shows banished the legiti- 
 mate drama from their boards. This, of course, 
 brought the majors and minors towards a com- 
 mon ground for competition, while the process 
 emphasized the importance of the smaller con- 
 cerns. The appearance of Sir Walter's novels, 
 and, later, those of Cooper and others, gave an 
 impetus to the movement already begun, as the 
 melodramatic incidents of these works of fiction 
 were immediately dramatized for the stage, and 
 brought out at the patent houses and the minors 
 indiscriminately. It was a time of melodramatic 
 tastes, and the success of the smaller theatres 
 — from which melodrama was not excluded, 
 because it did not belong to the legitimate cate- 
 gory — in bringing these out, drove the " great 
 houses " into the competition for popular favor. 
 Add to this, the main fact to keep sight of, 
 another, namely, that it cost the patent houses 
 more to " dress " a piece for the stage, and we 
 may well understand the disadvantage to which 
 they were put in the competition. Furthermore, 
 the copyright law was no defense, either to 
 dramatic authors or to the patentees ; the 
 minors were free to appropriate any piece they 
 desired, which they did as soon as it had been 
 tried at one of the larffe houses.
 
 296 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Still other causes magnified the situation, 
 among which may be mentioned the mismanage- 
 ment which characterized the patent houses 
 at this time ; the appearance of trans- Atlantic 
 steamships, by which, towards the close of the 
 struggle, actors could seek an asylum on the 
 American side when dissatisfied with the pat- 
 entees, thus depriving the latter of their chief 
 attractions and support ; the accession of a new 
 king (1820), an event usually followed by a 
 clamor for privileges of all sorts ; and, finally, 
 a general stirring of the reform movement, in 
 no sense congenial to the theatrical monopoly. 
 From this on (circa 1818), the newspaper and 
 magazine assume an interest in the theatrical 
 contest, such as had not previously appeared. 
 
 At this time another minor was added to the 
 already considerable list of " irregular " thea- 
 tres. The foundation stone of this new theatre 
 was laid (by proxy), in the fall of 1816, by 
 Prince Leopold of Coburg, husband to the 
 Princess Charlotte, chief patron of the under- 
 taking. In honor of the Prince the new theatre 
 was called the "Coburg." In 1833 (on the 
 occasion of a visit from the Princess) the name 
 was changed to " Victoria." The place was first 
 opened on Saturday evening, May 9, 1818, with 
 a private rehearsal, and, on the following Mon- 
 day evening, it presented to the public The
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 297 
 
 Trial hy Battle^ which ran a number of times 
 and was well received.^ This little theatre was 
 a troublesome competitor from the start, not 
 only of the patent houses, but also of the other 
 minors. 
 
 The main contest, however, at this time, was 
 waged by the Surrey and the Olympic, with T. 
 Dibdin at the head of the former, and EUiston 
 at the latter. On the 23d of January, 1818, " a 
 new grand melo-drama, founded on Mr. Cole- 
 ridge's favourite dramatic Poem, called Zapolya, 
 or The War Wolf," was announced (in the 
 "Morning Chronicle") by the Surrey manager 
 as the attraction for Monday, the 2d of February. 
 A week later (January 30) the advertisement 
 was changed, Zapolya was pushed forward to 
 the 9th of February, and House Warming^ with 
 The Italian Wife, placed for the 2d of Feb- 
 ruary. No reason is given for this alteration in 
 the bills, and the announcement of these plays 
 is printed in ordinary type. Moreover, it was 
 customary at the Surrey to announce coming 
 attractions at least a week in advance of their 
 representation. In the case of Fazio, or The 
 Italian Wife, the advertisement appeared in 
 the daily prints only two days before the per- 
 formance. 
 
 ^ London Chronicle, May 12, 1818 ; Morning Chronicle, May 
 21, 1818 ; European Magazine, May, 1818.
 
 298 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 These proceedings are accounted for by the 
 popularity Fazio was making for itself at the 
 Bath Theatre, where it was first produced on 
 the 6th of January (1818).^ Dibdin, learning 
 of its success, saw the opportunity for increas- 
 ing, the rank of his already favored theatre, 
 and, altering his plans on short notice, repre- 
 sented Fazio as an acting play on the 2d of 
 February.^ The piece did not disappoint the 
 expectations of the Surrey manager; but it 
 aroused the ire of the patentees, for, as given 
 by Dibdin, it belonged really to the regular 
 drama. Besides, the Covent Garden manager 
 contemplated bringing it out himself, and to 
 be thus forestalled in the undertaking was the 
 source of much offense to him. On the 4th 
 of February, however, Covent Garden gave out 
 in capitals the " new tragedy of FAZIO," for 
 " tomorrow evening." Three days later, Dibdin 
 again dared to offer to the j)ublic " (for this night 
 only) the very favourite serious Melo-drama, as 
 originally produced at this Theatre, taken from 
 Mr. Millman's Tragedy of Fazio, called The 
 ITALIAN WIFE." After this, the piece ap- 
 
 ^ Genest, viii, 669. 
 
 ^ The previous season (1817) the Surrey did not close 
 until the 28th of October. It opened again on the 28th of 
 December, " for a short winter season," closing on the 
 2d of March (1818). European Magazine, vol. 72, pp. 458- 
 550.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 299 
 
 peared at Covent Garden twelve times* before 
 the middle of April, and then gave place to 
 more popular attractions. 
 
 This piece of audacity on the part of Dibdin 
 had scarcely been equaled at any of the other 
 minors. The competition between the minor and 
 major on this occasion was unquestionable, and 
 the fact was irritating to the patentees. Elliston, 
 over at the Olympic, was not far behind Dibdin 
 at the Surrey, and, the same year in which the 
 above circumstance occurred, succeeded in bring- 
 ing the large houses down on him with a petition 
 to the Lord Chamberlain. The patentees com- 
 plain that they find "their long established patent 
 rights destroyed, upon the faith of which a mil- 
 lion of money have been embarked in their two 
 theatres," and that they must suffer " certain 
 ruin " if the Olympic and Sans Pareil were al- 
 lowed to continue. The Sans Pareil was probably 
 included in the complaint as a mere blind to 
 cover the enmity of the patentees for the Olympic. 
 Elliston came out with an answer to this memo- 
 rial, in a manner so characteristic as to bear 
 quoting in part. He denied that the minors had 
 commenced the system of encroachments, — these 
 
 1 Viz., Feb. 9, 16, 19, 23, 28, March 2, 5, 9, 27, April 3, 
 10, 15. See Morning Chronicle for dates. Fazio was revived 
 at Covent Garden on the 12th of February, 1831. Morning 
 Chronicle, February 13, 1831.
 
 300 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 tactics had originated with the patentees. " The 
 Patent Theatres have become theatres for the 
 display of the iri^egular drama," said Elliston in 
 his reply. " The encroachment was, in truth, 
 commenced by the Patent Theatres on the Minor 
 Theatres, and not by the Minor Theatres on the 
 Patent Theatres ; and it was in the rage of en- 
 grossing the whole store of stage exhibition, 
 from the deep pathos of tragedy to the highest 
 flights of tight-rope dancing — from the amblings 
 of the poet to the amblings of the riding-horse — 
 from the splendid illusions of the scene-painter to 
 the sloppings of the stage with ' real water ' — 
 from the Attic playfulness of ' Congreve ' to the 
 more congenial playfulness of ' Puss in Boots.'. . . 
 " Posture-masters must be found (for the Mi- 
 nor Theatres), who should writhe themselves into 
 more contortions than Mr. Pack was employed 
 to do on the stage of the Theatre Royal, Drury 
 Lane : dogs must be found who should bark 
 more eloquently than the ' Dog of Montarges ' 
 was engaged to do on the stage of the Theatre 
 Royal, Covent Garden : Children ^ must be 
 found to support the dignity of the Minor Stage, 
 
 ^ The craze for child actors began when Master Betty made 
 his appearance in 1804, and continued to revive, on occasion, 
 as late as 1830, when Master Burke represented Shylock at 
 one of the patent houses. The climax of this folly may be 
 found in an advertisement in June, 1807, when Miss Biddy 
 (four years old) was announced as Caliban !
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 301 
 
 as effectually as ' the dignity ' of ' the great 
 national concern ' of Drury Lane was supported, 
 lately, by the little girl who personated ' Kichard 
 the Third : ' horses must be found to prance, if 
 possible, more classically than those that sus- 
 tained the ' regular ' and ' national drama ' of 
 'Timour the Tartar.' Poor Mr. Astley! (the 
 original proprietor of the Olympic) used to ex- 
 claim pathetically, ' Why do they take my horses? 
 I never tried to engage Mrs. Siddons.' " ^ 
 
 Notwithstanding the burlesque running 
 through this defense, it is, in the main, true 
 to actual conditions, and so forcibly did Elliston 
 impress this fact on the Lord Chamberlain's 
 understanding that he was persuaded to sustain 
 the Olympic manager in his course. The public, 
 too, felt that the action of the patentees was par- 
 ticularly ill-advised at that time. One of their 
 pleas had been that the two minors (Olympic 
 and Sans Pareil) customarily took in X150 night- 
 ly at their doors, thus depriving the two winter 
 houses of " their chance of profit and the means 
 of supporting the dignity of the national drama." 
 This was a weak admission, in view of the fact 
 that the success of the minors was due to their 
 acting plays similar to those at the patent houses,^ 
 
 1 New Monthly Magazine, 1829, pt. i, p. 176 ; Life of Ellis- 
 ton, p. 251. 
 
 2 See letter of "T. B." in Literary Journal, August 29, 1818. It
 
 302 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 and it was on this evidence that EUiston main- 
 tained his position. 
 
 Towards the close of the following year (1819) 
 the patentees again bi-oke out in opposition to 
 the minors, intending utterly to exterminate 
 them. Threats were made of restricting the 
 lesser theatres to the old mummery of dumb 
 show, a taste for which the pubKc had long since 
 outgrown, and which would have been tolerated 
 only in a Bartholomew Fair. The Coburg man- 
 ager (Glossop) retorted to these menaces, and 
 " Dramaticus " defended the minors in a letter 
 to the "Literary Chronicle " (January 22, 1820). 
 The monopoly was fiercely attacked, and the 
 growing jealousy of the patentees was accounted 
 for by the respectability of the minors. It was 
 hoped that, if conviction followed the prosecu- 
 tion of the minors, legislation would result, 
 making future outrages of the kind impossible. 
 
 But the time had passed for annihilating the 
 minors. Neither the strength of the patent 
 houses nor the inclination of public opinion would 
 justify such extreme measures. The patentees 
 might pester the small theatres with persecutions, 
 but the minors were now too numerous and too 
 
 is amusing to observe the change of front EUiston assumed 
 within a year from this time. We have already seen the 
 hauteur which, as lessee of Drury Lane, he displayed towards 
 the minors.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 303 
 
 vigorous to be driven from the field. In 1819 
 the Surrey and the Coburg closed their doors 
 only two weeks, and then only to be refurbished 
 for the Easter performances, opening again on 
 the 12th of April. At the Surrey " the House 
 was well filled, and the curtain fell amidst peals 
 of applause." At the Coburg " the house was 
 crowded to excess, and augured a successful 
 season." Even the amphitheatre "notwithstand- 
 ing the wetness of the night was well filled." Such 
 is the flattering testimony of one of the leading 
 papers of the day.^ The other minors, too, were 
 in the line of progress, commanding the attention 
 of the theatre-going public, and of the critics. 
 "The houses usually designated Minor ^'' com- 
 ments one of the editors of the dramatic column 
 of the " Literary Chronicle " (December 4, 1819), 
 " continue to display an activity which we should 
 like to see imitated by less humble establishments. 
 . . . New pieces have been produced at the Adel- 
 phi^- the Coburg, the East London, and Astley^s 
 theatres, all of which have been successful and 
 continue to attract crowded houses." In one issue 
 of the " London Magazine " (March, 1820) fif- 
 teen columns are devoted to a review of the 
 
 1 London Chronicle, April 13, 1819. 
 
 2 In 1819 Jones and Rodwell leased the Sans Pareil, open- 
 ing it on October IS, under the name of Adelphi. The East 
 London Theatre was the same as the Royalty.
 
 304 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 minors ; and though some severe criticism is 
 passed (on the low order of the audiences at the 
 Coburg, for example), a spirit of praise dom- 
 inates the article. Alluding to the East London 
 Theatre the critic laconically disposes of it in 
 this significant passage : " It is sufficient to ob- 
 serve that Mr. liae is the principal tragic actor 
 there, and Mr. Peter Moore the chief manager. 
 After this, is it to be wondered at that Covent 
 Garden is almost deserted, and that Mr. Ellis- 
 ton cannot yet afford to give up the practice of 
 puffing at the bottom of his play -bills ! " At the 
 Coburg, T. P. Cooke was giving vigor and 
 success to the new establishment by his acting. 
 
 Even Sadler's Wells caught the spirit of the 
 time, erected a respectable new building, ban- 
 ished buffoonery, made an approach to the reg- 
 ular drama, and so improved the character of 
 its dramatis "personae that the old complaint of 
 vitiated taste and bad morals attaching to the 
 establishment was dispelled.^ But the Olympic 
 probably led the minors in competition, taking 
 rank with Covent Garden. " Too much praise, " 
 says one of the periodicals of the time, " cannot 
 be given to the taste and liberality of the new 
 proprietors,- who . . . have at once put their 
 
 ^ Literary Chronicle, September 23, 1820. 
 2 WhenEUiston took Drury Lane Theatre (1819) he leased 
 the Olympic to Messrs. Barlow and Reeve for ten years.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 305 
 
 theatre on an equal footing with their winter 
 rival. In no respect but in size does the Olympic 
 differ from the patent habitation of the Muses ; 
 and how far this is a disadvantage still remains 
 a point of question. We must confess our own 
 prejudices are and have been strongly in favour 
 of Coveut Garden, but the public feeling goes 
 evidently with the smaller houses : the Olympic 
 has been nightly crowded to excess, and people 
 have been regularly dismissed in crowds for 
 want of room."^ 
 
 The Adelphi also deserves special mention 
 as early manifesting a respectability, making it 
 a dangerous rival to the " great houses." Under 
 the management of Jones and Kodwell, the 
 Adelphi was put into condition for attracting 
 public attention, thougli possibly with too much 
 of the tinsel about it to rank it with the Olympic 
 or the Little Theatre in the Haymarket.^ It 
 was under the managership of Terry that the 
 Adelphi pulled away from the majority of the 
 minors, and took its place along with the Olym- 
 pic as a formidable rival of the patent houses.^ 
 Under Yates and Mathews, the Adelphi was 
 finally put in the first rank by public favor. " I 
 trust you do not put the Adelphi on a level with 
 
 ^ Lady^s Magazine, October, 1820. 
 2 See Examiner for October 28, 1821. 
 2 European Magazine, February, 1826.
 
 306 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 its restricted neighbours," complains a "Play- 
 goer" to the " Tatler " (November 17, 1830) for 
 not printing the complete play-bill of that theatre. 
 " Can Covent Garden produce a list of comedians 
 equal to Mathews, Yates, Reeve, Buckstone, and 
 Wilkinson ? " And another enthusiast breaks 
 out, " We must observe, that the acting of Mrs. 
 Yates in a domestic tragedy (as it is termed) 
 called Grace Huntley^ at the Adelphi, is just as 
 near perfection as anything on a stage can be. 
 She is a Garrick in petticoats. . . . " ^ For 
 the ten years following the beginnings of this 
 rapid rise of the minors into prominence, the 
 newspapers and magazines were filled with a 
 marked approval of the tendency, similar to 
 that shown in the few excerpts quoted. 
 
 The patent houses did not seem to decline in 
 proportion to the growing importance of the 
 minors. The Keans and the Kembles had kept 
 the old hulks from sinking ; but the successes 
 of the patent houses during this period were 
 merely temporary. Some good days were yet 
 before the "great houses," but this served only 
 to bring out the decadence which was upon the 
 old establishments. The harbinger of this de- 
 cline may be traced from the beginning of the 
 century, but certainly nowhere more distinctly 
 than in the brilliant recklessness of Elliston's 
 ^ iyTew Monthly Magazine for 1833, pt. iii, p. 351.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 307 
 
 managership of Drury Lane Theatre, — cover- 
 ing the very years when the minors were getting 
 into line for the final conflict. ' ' These thea- 
 tres," says " Tait's " (November, 1832), remark- 
 ing on the minors, " from their number, and 
 supported by the talent consequent on competi- 
 tion, have assumed a position formidable to the 
 patent houses by rivalry in excellence, and im- 
 portant to the public in opening up new chan- 
 nels for the efflux of amusements, ' various yet 
 the same,' and of far more attainable price. 
 Within the last three or four years they have 
 challenged an attention they seldom previously 
 received, and rarely deserved ; and by unceas- 
 ing and well-directed efforts have at length 
 fairly effected a more than equal division in the 
 public patronage. . . . There is at this moment 
 scarcely a minor theatre in London that does 
 not possess one or more stars, persons of estab- 
 lished celebrity either, or of rapidly rising 
 reputation." Liston, Mrs. Orger, and Madame 
 Vestris were at the Olympic ; at the Surrey 
 were Osbaldison and Mrs. West ; Sadler's 
 Wells boasted Mrs. Fitzwilliams ; while the 
 Strand (recently founded by Rayner) was " a 
 practical refutation to the arguments of the 
 monopolists, and a crying rebuke to illiberal 
 licensers." 
 
 This fairly won position was not reached, how-
 
 308 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 ever, without many a tilt with the patentees, 
 who, the nearer they approached their doom, 
 grew the fiercer towards the minors. In 1826 
 the old contest between the winter and summer 
 houses (among which latter were numbered va- 
 rious of the minors) broke out again.' Led on 
 by the Adelphi and Surrey, where tragedy, 
 comedy, opera, farce, and melodrama were pro- 
 duced in giddy succession, the lesser establish- 
 ments bade defiance to the patentees, and courted 
 the penalties of the law regulating theatricals.^ 
 Some of the minor managers became so fearless 
 in the game against the patent houses that they 
 had a special clause inserted in the articles of 
 the actors, guaranteeing the latter against arrest 
 while the " business " of the stage was in prog- 
 ress. In other words, arrangements were se- 
 cured with the officers of the law whereby a writ 
 might wait the pleasure of the actor before being 
 served.^ Various other schemes were adopted 
 for evading the law, while in some instances, as 
 already mentioned, no attempt was made by the 
 managfers to screen themselves from the wrath 
 
 1 In the Wasp for October 21, 1826, there is a sharp bur- 
 lesque on the patentees for their action on this occasion. 
 
 2 New Monthly Magazine, December, 1828, pt. iii, p. 528. 
 Elliston was once more back at the Surrey, whither he went 
 after failing at Dniry Lane in 1826. 
 
 ^ This was related of the Victoria (t. e. Coburg) especially. 
 See New Monthly Magazine, 1836, pt. iii, p. 171.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 309 
 
 of the patentees. Occasionally, however, they 
 went too far in their bold defiance (feeling safe 
 in the protection of public opinion), and made 
 the opportunity too strong an invitation for the 
 patentees to pounce upon them in revenge. 
 
 In 1830 such an opportunity was afforded the 
 patent houses, and they were not long in availing 
 themselves of it. The persecutions begun at this 
 time developed into a crusade against the minors, 
 which scarcely ceased for the next five or six 
 years, and was influential in hastening the down- 
 fall of the established theatres. The first object 
 of attack singled out by the patentees was 
 Chapman, manager of the Tottenham Street 
 Theatre. Information was laid against him by 
 the large theatres, charging him with giving 
 stage entertainments without a license from the 
 Lord Chamberlain. That the charge was true 
 was notorious. An examination of the play-bills 
 suffices to prove that something more than " danc- 
 ing, singing, and dumb shows" wei-e represented 
 at the theatre in Tottenham Street. However, 
 as the result of a technical slip, the patentees 
 were unable to prove what everybody knew to be 
 a fact, and the information against Chapman was 
 dismissed by the Bow Street magistrate. At once 
 mending their case, the monopolists made another 
 trial; but in the opinion of the Justice, they 
 did not mend it aright ; and the Tottenham
 
 310 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 company were free to practice the old offenses 
 over again. ^ 
 
 As a matter of legal justice, there can be no 
 doubt that the patentees were in the right ; but 
 the sympathy of the public was almost wholly 
 opposed to the law, and the police court simply 
 echoed the sentiment of the public when it dis- 
 missed Chapman. The more sober-minded, how- 
 ever, who believed in enforcing law so long 
 as it remained on the statute-books, thought 
 that the patentees had not received fair treat- 
 ment, either from the court or from the assem- 
 bled auditors. The treatment of C. Kemble, of 
 Covent Garden, and his counsel on this occasion 
 was especially rude, the crowd breaking out into 
 jeers and insults against them. But the managers 
 of the great houses were not to be browbeaten 
 after any such fashion. Stinging under defeat 
 and the taint of obloquy, the patentees bided 
 their time for revenge. Meantime the Tottenham 
 Theatre pursued its course in boastful safety. 
 
 For nearly six months the affairs of Chapman 
 continued in a prosperous condition. But on the 
 6th of December (1830) the following adver- 
 tisement of his theatre appeared in the daily 
 papers : " Last night but Five of the present 
 
 ^ New Monthly Magazine, August, 1830 ; London correspond- 
 ent in Edinburgh Literary Journal, July S, December -4, 1830. 
 See also case of Patentees vs. Chapman.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 311 
 
 Company's performing. A full explanation of 
 the causes which have led to this sudden result 
 will be given to the Public in the Bills of Thurs- 
 day next." On the same day announcement was 
 made that the Tottenham Theatre had been 
 leased for twenty-one years by George MacFar- 
 ren, who, it was reported, had secui'ed Winston 
 as manager. On Saturday evening, December 
 11 (1830), the theatre closed.* After the per- 
 formance, W. Vining, in behalf of the proprietors 
 (Melrose and Chapman), explained to the audi- 
 ence the circumstance causing the theatre to be 
 closed. This had been due to an information 
 (the third) laid by the patentees against the man- 
 agers for representing the regular drama in vio- 
 lation of the Licensing Act. This time the pat- 
 entees had been cautious enough to carry their 
 suit to Lord Tenterden of the King's Bench, a 
 man noted for his scrupulous integrity in inter- 
 preting the law. There was but one course open 
 to such a judge, the defendants were found 
 guilty ; and the Tottenham Theatre was closed. 
 This decision was the occasion of an outburst 
 of indignation against the monopoly. The ulti- 
 mate decision, it was declared, would be influ- 
 enced mainly by public opinion — and that was 
 strongly opposed to every species of monopoly. 
 People would not permit their enjoyments to be 
 * Morning Chronicle, under dates.
 
 312 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 restricted because of some antiquated act of 
 Parliament, the operations of which were un- 
 equal. No one would dream of contending, 
 continued the argument in favor of the minors, 
 that some people have a right to the con- 
 venience of a theatre at their door, while 
 others ought to be precluded from such privi- 
 leges. ^ The feeling against the theatrical monop- 
 oly ran so high that a remonstrance meeting 
 was finally called at the Albion Tavern, in the 
 interests of the dramatists and minor manajjers. 
 Serle, the dramatist, delivered an effective 
 speech, and Webster, Rayuer, Davidge, and 
 others, interested in theatrical property outside 
 the patent houses, vented their opinions on the 
 occasion. The result of this discussion took 
 form in a series of resolutions. These called 
 attention to the respectability of the minors ; 
 the injustice of the prosecutions brought against 
 them ; the perverted uses to which the patents 
 had been put, and the changed conditions in the 
 metropolis demanding an abolition of the mo- 
 nopoly ; ending with an appeal to the press to 
 assist the cause of the minors, and a determina- 
 tion to petition King and Parliament for a re- 
 peal of the restrictive laws.^ 
 
 1 Tatler, December 22, 1831. 
 
 2 Tatler, December 26, 1831 ; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 
 ci, pt. 2, Supplement, p. 643 ; Ladies' Museum, January, 1832.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 313 
 
 Much was looked for from the contemplated 
 petition of the minors, not only for the theatres 
 themselves, but for authors as well. For it 
 seemed certain that the claims of the latter to 
 protection must enter into any parliamentary 
 discussion of the state of the drama. Relative 
 to this meeting of the minor managers a writer 
 in the " New Monthly Magazine " for February, 
 1832, says, " That the law must afford these 
 establishments protection is evident ; and from 
 the convenient dimensions of these theatres, . . . 
 it is probable that a revival of the genuine 
 English drama will take place ; by the equity of 
 the legislature may the hope of the dramatist 
 at length be realized." And the belief was 
 expressed that the time was at last at hand to 
 breakdown the monopoly of the "great thea- 
 tres " that had degraded the drama and forced 
 the actor to substitute trickery for talent. But 
 more of this in another place. On leaving the 
 Tottenham Street Theatre, Chapman took ref- 
 uge in a building in Grub (Milton) Sti-eet that 
 had been but the year before (1829) converted 
 from a chapel into a theatre, called the City 
 Theatre (later, the City Pantheon). Bvit the 
 patentees followed him up and compelled him 
 to abandon the business of a manager. 
 
 A number of new minors sprang up about this 
 time. The Pavilion, in the ghetto quarters, was
 
 314 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 opened in 1829 by Wyatt and Farrell. The 
 following year the Garrick was opened in Leman 
 Street, near the site of thq Royalty Theatre and 
 that of the Goodman's Fields, where Garrick 
 had made his debut to a London audience. 
 Braham, the tenor, began his St. James Theatre 
 in 1835, and the City of London Theatre (Norton 
 Folgate) also started that same year. Two years 
 later the Royal Standard was added to the list. 
 But by far the most important of these recruits 
 was Rayner's New Subscription Theatre in the 
 Strand. This theatre had been used, prior to 
 1831, for panoramic exhibitions, but in that 
 year Rayner, the impersonator, converted it 
 into a theatre and opened it on the 25th of Jan- 
 uary, 1832, without the Lord Chamberlain's 
 license. The proprietor attempted to evade the 
 law by the stratagem of selling his tickets of 
 admission at a neighboring chocolate-house, it 
 being understood that the audience should be 
 admitted gratis, after purchasing a ticket as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 This bold ruse was more than the patentees 
 could stand, and, as their blood was already up 
 from the contest with Chapman, they caused 
 informations to be laid against, and warrants to 
 be issued for the arrest of Mrs. AVaylett, and 
 Messrs. Abbot and Keeley for acting at an un- 
 licensed theatre. The change of tactics, from in-
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 315 
 
 forming against the manager of a minor theatre 
 to laying their charges against the actors, had 
 been suggested as a result of their numerous suits 
 against Chapman (and others) before getting a 
 decision in their favor. Furthermore, it occurred 
 to them that the penalty for violating the " for 
 hire, gain, or reward " clause applied as strin- 
 gently to all the actors as to the one manager. 
 Hence more damage would be caused the minors 
 by the course adopted on the present occasion. 
 But no sooner had the patentees taken this step 
 than they saw their blunder, for it was no easy 
 matter to prove that the actors were receiving 
 any benefits from the chocolate-house dodge, or 
 from any other source. 
 
 The announcement that the patentees had de- 
 termined on prosecuting the Strand actors was 
 made at the annual meeting of the Drury Lane 
 Committee, July 7, 1832, but the few members 
 present showed little interest in the warlike 
 proclamation, which grew out of Captain Polhill's 
 plea of his inability to pay the entire amount 
 of the rental due on Drury Lane, owing to the 
 formidable rivalry of the minor theatres.^ There 
 seems to have been a good deal of halting and 
 cross-purpose action on the part of the com- 
 
 ^ This account follows the reports given in the Morning 
 Chronicle for July 9, 16, 23, 1832. Captain Polhill was at this 
 time lessee of Drury Lane Theatre.
 
 316 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 mittee against the Strand actors, for in a short 
 time after the report that a prosecution was in 
 hand it was suddenly given out that the coun- 
 sel for the patentees had found themselves 
 wrong in their course, and that the threatened 
 prosecution had been abandoned. To protect 
 themselves from ridicule, the Drury Lane Com- 
 mittee caused it to be noised about that their 
 menace was only intended for a joke. But every- 
 body knew that the monopolists were in no jocose 
 mood, and it was asserted, by those who pre- 
 tended to know, that the prosecution had been 
 stopped, not because the patentees were afraid 
 they could not convict the Strand actors, but 
 because the query would be forthcoming why 
 they had not resorted to this plain and simple 
 remedy years before, instead of complaining 
 that the law was not sufficient to protect their 
 property. 
 
 Whatever the cause, the Strand prosecution 
 was, for the moment, dropped. In the ensuing 
 autumn (1832), at their regular meeting for 
 licensing theatres, the Middlesex magistrates 
 refused to grant any privileges to the Strand 
 proprietor. Nothing daunted by this rebuff, the 
 manager continued to keep open his theatre after 
 the manner devised at the first,^ until informa- 
 tion was laid against Davenporl; (manager of a 
 
 ^ Lady's Mayazine, November, 1832.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 317 
 
 minor called The Westminster, then but recently- 
 erected in York Street), followed by his convic- 
 tion, when it closed. In the following year Miss 
 Kelly apjjlied for a license to open the Strand, 
 but she also was refused, probably because the 
 committee in Parliament in charge of Bulwer's 
 Dramatic Performance Bill (to be considered in 
 the next chapter) had not included the Strand 
 in its recommended schedule of London theatres. 
 This action of the committee involved not only 
 the Strand Theatre, but also the two other the- 
 atres recently established (the City of London, 
 and the Garrick). This treatment was looked 
 upon as a great injustice ; for although the per- 
 formances at the Strand were not of the hijjhest 
 dramatic order, " surely," says the " Observer," 
 "these are not times for drawing nice distinc- 
 tions ; and everybody will acknov/ledge them to 
 be a vast deal more ' legitimate,' entertaining, 
 and useful, than half the performances at the 
 two soi-disant Patent Theatres during the 
 whole of last season." ^ Unwilling to take chances 
 on the methods pursued by Rayner, Miss Kelly 
 began a series of mono-dramatic entertainments 
 for that summer. 
 
 The precarious tenure on which the Strand 
 was compelled to operate, if at all, caused it to 
 change hands frequently. On the 30th of Sep- 
 1 Quoted in Morning Chronicle, July 1, 1833.
 
 318 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 tember, 1833, it opened under the management 
 of Messrs. Wrench and Kussell. The perform- 
 ance on this occasion began with an address 
 intended to burlesque the struggle between the 
 majors and minors. The competition of the the- 
 atres was described in the language of a sailing 
 match. The inequality of opportunity given the 
 " vessels " was emphasized, and the hits at the 
 patent houses were frequent and pointed.^ The 
 operations of the new managers came to a sud- 
 den standstill, however, within a few weeks after 
 the opening. The official attention of the Lord 
 Chamberlain (Duke of Devonshire) was called 
 to the fact that, notwithstanding the recent con- 
 viction of Davenport in the Court of Common 
 Pleas, the Strand was again open with dramatic 
 entertainments. To avoid prosecution the man- 
 agers were compelled to close their theatre. The 
 "Observer "hastened to explain that "it will be 
 perceived at once that the circumstances con- 
 nected with the Strand Theatre are peculiar, and 
 such as do not belong to any other place of amuse- 
 ment, whether licensed or unlicensed, in the 
 Kingdom. It does not by any means follow that 
 the Duke of Devonshire is to embroil himself 
 with other Minor Theatres in the metropolis, 
 when the law has pointed out a short and clear 
 remedy should parties interested in licensed 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, October 1, 1833.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 319 
 
 houses think it worth while to proceed against 
 them." ' 
 
 Fifty persons were thrown out of employment 
 by the closing of the Strand Theatre. The per- 
 sonal character of Russell, the celerity with which 
 he obeyed the suggestion of the Lord Chamber- 
 lain to discontinue his performances, together 
 with the spirited and honest endeavor he piit 
 forth to give employment to his company of act- 
 ors, merited, and received, the sympathy of the 
 public. Notwithstanding the open lawlessness 
 which had attended the managership of the Strand 
 thus far, the circumstance of the numerous pros- 
 ecutions of the actors and managers was an ulti- 
 mate victory for the minors. 
 
 But the ill-starred Strand was destined to 
 further persecutions by the patentees.^ Early in 
 1835 we find this diatribe against the powers 
 that were : " The Chamberlain, the Mashes, and 
 their myrmidons, common injbrmers, to wit, are 
 arrayed in battle against this neat and well-con- 
 ducted little theatre. The Duke of Devonshire 
 evinced some degree of delicacy in his official 
 capacity, for though he suffered the theatre to be 
 prosecuted, he would neither suffer his name to 
 
 * Quoted in Morning Chronicle, October 21, 1833. 
 
 2 After the closing' of the theatre in 1833 Russell began to 
 give some dramatic monologues, modeled on Mathew's "An- 
 nual." Morning Chronicle, November 26, 1833.
 
 320 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 appear in it or allow the solicitor for the office to 
 conduct the case. . . . Williams and Forrester 
 are summoned to Bow Street on Tuesday next, 
 and we trust their defence will be such as to show 
 clearly to the world the rottenness of the cause 
 against them, and cover their prosecutors with 
 shame. If the actors are convicted, there is not 
 a minor theatre in London that will remain un- 
 attacked." 
 
 After needless delays, the two actors were 
 tried,^ and, following the precedent of the previ- 
 ous Strand cases, there was but one verdict open 
 to the Justices. If Rayner, Davenport, and 
 Russell had been guilty of violating the Licens- 
 ing Act, so had Williams and Forrester. 
 
 It would seem that such a record of misfor- 
 tune from the outset would deter theatrical as- 
 pirants from undertaking the management of 
 the Strand. However, such was not the case. 
 At the beginning of 1836 MacFarren, the 
 actor, gave out that he would open the theatre 
 on the 11th of January. This date was post- 
 poned to the 16th, when the Strand was opened 
 on the plan of an Italian theatre. But it was 
 no sooner open than an order came from the 
 Lord Chamberlain's office commanding that its 
 doors be shut.^ The story of the struggle grows 
 
 1 Examiner, February 15, 22, 1835. 
 ^ Spectator, January 9, 16, 23, 1836.
 
 MAJORS VS. MINORS 321 
 
 monotonous. The opening and closing of the 
 Strand Theatre for the first four years of its 
 existence followed each other in kaleidoscopic 
 succession. Within two weeks after MacFar- 
 ren was driven out, Rayner was once more at 
 the old stand to try his fortune, but succeeded 
 only in adding another victory to the majors.^ 
 Finally, on the accession of the Marquis of Con- 
 yngham to the office of Chamberlain, a license 
 was granted to Rayner for the Strand Theatre, 
 placing it on equal terms with the most favored 
 of the minors, the Adelphi and Olympic.^ Soon 
 after this the management of the Strand passed 
 into the hands of Douglas Jerrold and his son- 
 in-law Hanmiond,^ future lessee of Drury Lane 
 Theatre, under whom it was opened on Monday, 
 April 25, 1836. Jerrold made his first appear- 
 ance as an actor on the initial evening. 
 
 Once more before the downfall of the monop- 
 oly was the Strand to suffer the persecution of 
 the patentees. In the summer of 1840 a por- 
 tion of Hammond's company opened the theatre, 
 but it was suddenly closed in consequence of an 
 information against three of the actors for play- 
 ing for hire without the Lord Chamberlain's 
 license. The charge was not proved, the Bow- 
 
 ^ Fraser's Literary Chronicle, February 6, 1836. 
 
 2 Examiner, March 20, 1836. 
 
 3 Spectator, April 30, 1836.
 
 322 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Street magistrate dismissed the defendants, and 
 the informers were compelled to settle the costs. 
 The company, however, did not recommence 
 their performances at the Strand, the heavy pen- 
 alties seeming to them too hazardyus.^ Mean- 
 time other theatrical events were occurrine: and 
 combining to draw the long struggle for a free 
 stage to a close. 
 
 1 Spectator, August 22, 1840.
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 
 
 THE new school of dramatists now took up 
 the fight in earnest against the theatrical 
 monopoly, primarily in their own interests, but 
 unavoidably involving the fortunes of the minor 
 theatres. Since the "great houses" claimed the 
 exclusive privilege of acting the national drama, 
 the increasing dramatic output was limited to a 
 narrow field of available demand. Furthermore, 
 under the monopoly, which might (and often 
 did) reject good plays, — knowing that they 
 had the whole range to choose from, — the 
 dramatists had no recourse, with their unaccepted 
 plays, to other managers. Carelessness and 
 ignorance too frequently resulted in the exam- 
 ination of dramas under the patent system, with 
 injustice to the talents of aspiring dramatists. 
 Add to these complaints the lack of copyright 
 protection, and the case of the dramatic writers 
 will appear deserving of attention. 
 
 The dramatists and the minors, having a 
 common cause for dissatisfaction, now joined 
 forces against the majors. The remonstrance 
 meeting held towards the close of 1831, as a
 
 324 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 result of the Tottenham Theatre persecutions, 
 was led by Serle, and the resolutions passed at 
 that time were drawn up by him. Out of this 
 preliminary meeting sprang another, held on 
 the 24th of February, 1832, at the City of Lon- 
 don Tavern, for the purpose of memorializing 
 Parliament "against the system of oppression 
 which has so long fettered and discouraged 
 dramatic authors." This time, Mr. Edward 
 Bulwer presided, and, as at the former meeting, 
 the charges against the monopoly were numer- 
 ous and vigorous. " Surely," writes the London 
 correspondent to the " Edinburgh Spectator" 
 (March 3, 1832), "it is but just to require that 
 the court of competition be open to all ; that a 
 fair reading be given before competent judges, 
 and the play, if approved, be submitted to a 
 prompt stage trial ; " and the effort of the 
 dramatists "to emancipate dramatic genius 
 from the monopoly under which it now writhes " 
 is highly commended. Moncrieff gave an illus- 
 tration of the methods employed by the pat- 
 entees in their treatment of the dramatists. He 
 had submitted a play to Covent Garden. After 
 waiting an unusual time for a reply, he finally 
 demanded a return of the piece. After much 
 trouble expended in searching for it, he re- 
 ceived it from the hands of the fireman at the 
 theatre, who had, presumably, been appointed
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 325 
 
 to read and pass judgment on it. It was from 
 the indignity and injustice such as this that the 
 dramatists now determined to free themselves. 
 
 On the 22d of May, 1832, in the House of 
 Commons, Bulwer presented a petition signed 
 by " noblemen, gentlemen, merchants, traders, 
 and others, of London," praying for a repeal of 
 all legislative enactments tending to restrict the 
 performance of the drama in the metropolis. 
 Mr. Bulwer announced his intention of moving 
 a Select Committee to examine into the state of 
 dramatic literature, with a view to founding a 
 bill upon the report. The member (Mr. Hunt) 
 seconding the motion went straight to the point, 
 saying that it was high time the monopoly was 
 abolished. 
 
 The proprietors of Drury Lane and Covent 
 Garden Theatres followed this action with a 
 petition (May 30) praying for a protection of 
 their rights. On the last day of the month 
 Bulwer brought forward his motion to appoint 
 a Select Committee for the purpose stated above. 
 It was thought, at the time, that this was a re- 
 sult of the decision against the minors by the 
 Lord Chancellor, the previous year ; but that 
 formed but a single factor in the case, and 
 the demand for investigating the dramatic 
 situation would have come anyhow. Bulwer 
 prefaced his motion by a long and forcible
 
 326 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 speech, in which he demonstrated that not 
 only had the conditions producing the mo- 
 nopoly ceased long since, but also that the 
 monopoly had not executed the function in- 
 trusted to its care, — the support and dignity of 
 the national drama. In the Restoration period 
 Davenant had been guilty of resorting to scenic 
 display and spectacular exhibitions ; but espe- 
 cially during the period immediately preceding 
 1832 the patent houses had been prolific of 
 amusements of a cheap order. Now, therefore, 
 argued Mr. Bulwer, since the legislature had 
 protected the patent theatres in their vast and 
 exclusive privileges, for the sole purpose of 
 maintaining the national drama, it was the duty 
 of that body to say to the monopoly, "Where 
 are the plays to produce and encourage which 
 we gave you the exclusive privilege ? Where 
 are the immortal tragedies, where are the chaste 
 and brilliant comedies ? You were to preserve 
 the dignity of the drama from being corrupted 
 by mountebank actors and absurd performances ; 
 you have, therefore, we trust, driven jugglers 
 and harlequins from the national stage ; you 
 have admitted no wild beasts ; you have intro- 
 duced no fire-eaters and sword-swallowers ; you 
 have preserved the dignity of the national drama 
 inviolate ; you have left it such as it was when 
 you took it from the hands of Ben Jonson or
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 327 
 
 Shakespeare ; for if you have not done this, 
 then you have not fulfilled that object for vi^hich 
 we took from your brethren those privileges we 
 have intrusted to you." ^ 
 
 It was confidently denied that the objects of 
 the monojioly had been realized ; and to enforce 
 a law to support such a monopoly was a " mon- 
 strous injustice . . . inflicted on the public." 
 Moreover it was absurd to ask the theatre-goers 
 of London to tramp from every quarter of the 
 metropolis to Drury Lane and Covent Garden, 
 and when there, to see, not a tragedy or comedy, 
 but " a very fine scene in a very bad melo-drama 
 — or, perhaps, if they were in eminent luck, a 
 couple of lions and a diorama by way of keeping 
 up the national drama." The size of the patent 
 theatres had been largely responsible, it was 
 admitted, for this state of affairs. If, as the 
 patentees had so frequently declared, the theatres 
 had been enlarged to accommodate the increased 
 population of the metropolis, that fact, as well 
 as the resulting degraded drama, led to one con- 
 clusion : more theatres were needed, and they 
 should be free from the precarious conditions 
 then existing. If it were retorted to this, that 
 the minor theatres were allowed to exist in spite 
 
 ^ Hansard^s Debates, 3d Series, vol. xiii, 239-259 ; Mirror 
 of Parliament, 10th Parliament, 2d Sess., pp. 2154, 2344, 
 2357.
 
 328 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 of their illegality, then the rejoinder was at 
 hand, that the law still existed on the statute- 
 books, making the tenure of the minor manager 
 too uncertain. That law, if enforced, was de- 
 nounced as unjust; if a dead letter, it was a 
 mockery. The law must be defined, demanded 
 Bulwer. The public should know which theatres 
 should exist ; the actors, which plays might be 
 performed. As the law then stood, it was "an 
 iniquitous uncertainty, which, while it rendered 
 the property of the minor theatres so precarious 
 and illegal, frittered away by contraband far 
 more than it would by open rivalry, the property 
 of the great theatres." Endless prosecutions and 
 constant litigations were the products of the 
 laws as they then stood. 
 
 The office of examiner of plays was also at- 
 tacked as a useless and objectionable feature of the 
 dramatic system. Bulwer insisted that " the only 
 true censor of the age was the spirit of the age." 
 The public and the press were thought to be 
 better censors by far than any " ignorant and 
 bungling official " appointed for that purpose. 
 And as to the number of theatres, of that too 
 the public should be the judges. They were not 
 likely to build more than they could support, 
 and they should be permitted to have all they 
 needed. So also no restrictions should be placed 
 on the legitimate drama : it was absurd to sane-
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 329 
 
 tion what is frivolous, and forbid what is great. 
 Bulwer would have the stage free as it was in 
 the days of " Massinger, and Beaumont and 
 Fletcher, Jonson and Shakespeare, when seven- 
 teen theatres were constantly open to a metrop- 
 olis a tenth part of the size of London at present, 
 and a population a hundred degrees less wealthy 
 and intelligent." 
 
 The objections raised to Bulwer's motion were 
 various: "The object of the motion was directly 
 opposed to the Lord Chancellor's opinion (1831) ; 
 it would also interfere with the crown preroga- 
 tive ; a multiplication of theatres would not 
 produce greater performances or greater authors, 
 nor would morals be improved thereby; the 
 question was too large for the Commons to cope 
 with, it should have originated in the Lords, 
 where the crown officers had seats ; the degen- 
 eracy of dramatic exhibitions was due to the 
 illicit rivalry of the minors ; the patent theatres 
 had rights to be defended ; though a proper 
 footing for the minors was loudly called for, 
 the drama should never be taken from the au- 
 thority of the Crown." 
 
 Sir William Brougham agreed with the main 
 arguments of Bulwer, relative to the necessity 
 of amending the statutes regulating theatricals. 
 As the law then stood, he said, every minor 
 theatre within twenty miles of the metropolis
 
 330 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 violated its license when it represented any 
 pieces except burlettas, and every actor in such 
 theatre was liable to a penalty of fifty pounds 
 for each performance. It was notorious that this 
 law was violated with impunity every night. This 
 fact was a sufficient reason for legalizing all 
 those theatres required by public necessity. He 
 (Brougham) had gone carefully into the law on 
 the subject, and was positive that every minor 
 theatre performing the drama, with or without 
 the Chamberlain's license, was liable to an infor- 
 mation. A question had arisen over the definition 
 of a burletta ; Brougham was certain that regu- 
 lar tragedies and comedies were performed at 
 the minor theatres. He had been informed that 
 Othello had been performed as a burletta, which, 
 was accomplished by having a low piauo-forte 
 accompaniment, the musician striking a chord 
 once in five minutes — but always so as to be 
 totally inaudible. This was the extent of the 
 musical element distinguishing Othello from 
 the dialogue of the regular drama. 
 
 Another member (Mr. John Campbell) went 
 farther than this, saying that the minors had 
 ceased to resort even to the subterfuge just men- 
 tioned ; and, he added, " where the laws and the 
 habits of a people are at variance, there is some- 
 thing vicious in the system." Either the law 
 should be made to conform to the habits of a
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 331 
 
 people, or the habits of a people to the law, for 
 the sake of a rational basis. For his part, the 
 speaker thought that free trade was desirable in 
 the matter of public amusements, and that the 
 Government should never interfere except to 
 enforce the observance of decorum, or to protect 
 private character and jjublic morals. As to the 
 patent houses, Campbell declared that they were 
 worse than the minors, and were a reproach to 
 the country. Others took the same view. They 
 suggested that while Parliament was in the 
 business of doing away with monopolies, " they 
 should also put an end to that very injurious and 
 most indefensible one — a theatrical monopoly." 
 The general tendency of the House of Com- 
 mons was decidedly in favor of the. proposed in- 
 vestigation. The motion passed and a committee 
 was appointed with Bulwer as its chairman. The 
 work of the Committee was laborious and search- 
 ing. Its sittings extended over several weeks, and 
 the full text of its examination filled scores 
 of pages. Authors, actors, prompters, managers, 
 were called before it for the purpose of giving 
 evidence. The methods and practices of the 
 patent theatres as regards performances, plays, 
 the prices of admission, the relations of authors 
 and managers, — and every topic relating to the 
 theatrical monopoly, as well as the minors, were 
 all examined with the eye of scrutiny.
 
 332 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 All parties agreed that the laws governing 
 the theatres ought to be revised and placed 
 on an intelligible footing. The patentees held 
 up the inviolableness of their property rights 
 against all infringements, even of Chamber- 
 lain and King ; and Morton, the dramatist, 
 instead of " bearing witness " before the com- 
 mittee, advocated the cause of the patent houses 
 outright. Macready thought that all plays hith- 
 erto produced should be given to the large the- 
 atres, allowing to the minors only those to be 
 produced thereafter. Davidge of the Coburg 
 advocated the abrogation of all law respecting 
 the theatres, and, facetiously comments the 
 " Morning Chronicle " (July 2, 1832), he " seems 
 to act on this opinion." Mr. Place, of Charing- 
 Cross, also was opposed to any legal regulation 
 of the stage ; but this was an extreme position, 
 ill calculated to aid the cause of the minors. 
 Kenney, the dramatist, deposed that he had 
 been tricked out of his 3Iasaniello, for which he 
 had never received a penny from Drury Lane, 
 although the piece had been played there for 
 nearly two hundred nights. For his Irish Am- 
 bassador seventy pounds were still due from the 
 manager of Covent Garden. The monojDoly, he 
 was sure, was the cause of this hardship. 
 
 One of the numerous sensations of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Committee was produced when
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 333 
 
 Sir Richard Birnie and Mr. Hall were examined 
 (July 10, 1832). The latter asserted that, not- 
 withstanding the fact that he had once been 
 overruled in judging in favor of a minor thea- 
 tre in the case of an information brought before 
 him for hearing, in a similar case he would decide 
 again as he had done. Birnie and Hall were 
 the Bow Street magistrates who had refused to 
 convict the Tottenham Theatre performers, on 
 the crround that sufficient evidence had not been 
 produced by the informants to show that the 
 minor theatre had not been licensed. 
 
 Bulwer, of course, and his brother, were for 
 no restraints. Duncombe was for a middle 
 course ; while Sheil, though opposed to the mo- 
 nopoly, doubted the feasibility of legislative 
 remedy. Earl Belfast placed himself on the side 
 of the Lord Chamberlain's authority. Mr. Al- 
 derman Waithman expressed himself for the 
 minors. Rayner thought it a good plan to de- 
 mand of the monopolists their patents, and to see 
 if those documents did not contain a clause to the 
 effect that they were granted " for the advance- 
 ment of our morals — the refinement of taste — • 
 and the improvement of dramatic literature," 
 and if they did contain such an express purpose, 
 then the managers of the large theatres ought 
 to be questioned whether the production of The 
 Dog of Montcirges, Jack the Giant-Killer^ The
 
 334 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Lions of Mysore, " and five hundred other pieces 
 of a similar description " had fostered the high 
 ideals of the patent grants. If the answer were 
 in the negative, then the patents should be de- 
 clared null and void. At any rate, they ought to 
 be restricted by law, never in future to repre- 
 sent melodrama, burlesque, or pantomime.^ 
 
 On August 2, 1832, the Committee had com- 
 pleted its investigation, and were ready to report 
 to the House. The report comprehended eight 
 main divisions, as arranged by Bulwer. The 
 first of these consisted of the plain statement that 
 the Committee had found " a considerable de- 
 cline, both in the literature of the stage, and the 
 Taste of the public for theatrical performances." 
 The enumerated causes of this state of affairs 
 were, the prevailing fashion of late dining, the 
 want of royal encouragement, and the supposed 
 indisposition of some religious sects towards the- 
 atres. These all lay outside of legislative control. 
 But there were additional causes which Govern- 
 ment might consider, such as the uncertain 
 administration of the laws, lack of proper encour- 
 agement to dramatic authorship, and the want of 
 regulation as regards the number and distribu- 
 tion of theatres. 
 
 The second section of the report struck at the 
 
 1 For comments on the Select Committee's investigations, 
 see Morning Chronicle, July 2, 16, 23, 25, 1832.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 335 
 
 root of the evil respecting the licensing of the- 
 atres, — the cause of most of the grievances of 
 the minor theatres, and the years of contention 
 between them and the patentees. It was recom- 
 mended that the sole power of licensing theatres 
 be confined to the Lord Chamberlain ; that the 
 jurisdiction of that official be extended to 
 a distance of twenty miles about London (that 
 being the point at which, by the Act of 28 George 
 III, the authority of the magistrates to license 
 theatres for the regular drama began) ; and that, 
 for the sake of a fair competition, the Lord 
 Chamberlain should continue to license all the 
 theatres then holding licenses from whichever 
 source — magistrates or Lord Chamberlain. The 
 difficulty of defining the " legitimate drama " was 
 admitted, and, to obviate this, the very liberal 
 proposal was made of allowing proprietors and 
 managers of theatres to exhibit " at their option 
 the legitimate drama and all such plays as have 
 received or shall receive the sanction of the cen- 
 sor." This second clause of the report is deserv- 
 ing of attention, as out of it, a decade later, 
 developed the law ending the long struggle. 
 
 In the next place the Committee thought that, 
 since theatres are for the amusement of the pub- 
 lic, the public should have a voice in determining 
 the number. It was, therefore, strongly recom- 
 mended to the House, that whenever a requisi-
 
 336 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 tion, signed by a majority of the inhabitants of 
 any large and populous parish or district, pray- 
 ing for a new theati-e, should be presented to the 
 Lord Chamberlain, that official should be com- 
 pelled to comply with the public wish. In case 
 of any outrageous abuse of privilege, it was 
 suggested that the Chamberlain have recourse 
 to the Home Department for power to suppress 
 the license. Should a manager attempt to act 
 without a license, it was to be deemed 'prima 
 facie evidence that the community was opposed 
 to the theatre. In such emergencies the Lord 
 Chamberlain was to have the silencing power. 
 
 As to the question of licensing plays, it was 
 advised that the office of the censor should exist 
 at the sole discretion of the Lord Chamberlain. 
 This would not only give dignity to, but would 
 also fix responsibility of , the office of examiner 
 of plays. The old system of fees, whereby no 
 distinction was made between the fee for licens- 
 ing a slight song and a complete di'ama, was 
 recommended to be abolished, and a graduated 
 scale substituted.^ 
 
 The Committee did not apprehend that the 
 
 changes proi^osed by them would, if adopted, 
 
 ^ As the fee system stood in 18o2, for a comedy altered to 
 a burletta there would be charged at least six distinct and 
 equal fees by the examiner. — one for the comedy, and one 
 for each of the (required) five songs. This fee system was 
 graduated in l.S^M.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 337^ 
 
 have a depressing effect on the patent theatres ; 
 for, admitting that enormous investments had 
 been made in those establishments on the faith 
 of the continuance of the monopoly, it did not 
 appear that the exclusive privileges had pre- 
 served either the dignity of the drama, or the 
 financial prosperity of the patentees. 
 
 Coming to the question of the ill usage of 
 dramatists as a result of the monopoly, a plea 
 was entered for the better protection of dramatic 
 authors, by legally establishing their rights, as in 
 the case of authors of productions other than 
 dramatic. It was hoped by the Committee that 
 the adoption of this, and the other suggestions of 
 the report, in some legal form, would extend 
 a benefit to actors, who would then have a wider 
 field for their abilities ; to authors, who would 
 have not only a greater demand, but also a 
 greater protection for the products of their gen- 
 ius ; and lastly, to the public, who would become 
 the final recipient of all the promised benefits. 
 
 It was conceded that the report of the Dra- 
 matic Committee could not affect the status of the 
 drama as represented at either of the great or 
 small houses ; because the craze for melodramas 
 and burlettas made that species far more lucra- 
 tive to the managers than the legitimate drama. ^ 
 
 * See Morning Chronicle, August 6, 1832 ; Gentleman's Maga- 
 zine for August, lSo2.
 
 338 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 At the same time, this very fact was damaging 
 to the monopoly, as it stood particularly for the 
 regular drama. Whatever Parliament saw fit to 
 do with the report, it was certainly very dis- 
 tasteful to the patentees ; for their weaknesses 
 had all been laid bare in the course of the in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 Some looked upon the work of the Committee 
 as little short of an audacious imposition. Tait's 
 " Edinburgh Magazine " (August, 1832) thus 
 cynically remarks on the subject : 
 
 " The unhappy Drama (almost ashamed to 
 know herself), a miserable pauper, who has been 
 passed from parish to parish, pressed during 
 the war, and turned adrift in her rags in time of 
 peace ; pelted with mud by the editors of the fif- 
 teen daily and thirteen weekly journals of Lon- 
 don, — now sentenced to the workhouse, and now 
 to the penitentiary, — is at length condemned 
 to the 2)eine forte et dure of a Parliamentary 
 Committee ! Not a farce-writing dunce, not a 
 ninny, not a candle-snuffer, but has been called 
 to speak to her character, and prate away his 
 own ! . . . Certain senators, having premised 
 that there are no dramatic authors extant, insist 
 on bringing in a bill for their protection." 
 
 But the authors had a cause to support, and 
 no amount of adverse criticism was able to 
 dampen their zeal. The same day (August 2)
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 339 
 
 on whicli Bulwer read the report of the Dra- 
 matic Committee, one of the House members 
 (Mr. Shiel) presented a petition from James 
 Sheridan Knowles, praying for protection to 
 dramatic productions. At the same time Bulwer 
 gave notice that, if reelected to Parliament, 
 he would, the next session, move leave to bring 
 in a bill for regulating the claims of dramatic 
 authors.^ 
 
 Pursuant to this announcement, on the 12th of 
 March, 1833, permission was given to the mem- 
 ber from St. Ives to introduce a bill " for licenc- 
 ing theatres, and for the better regulation of 
 dramatic performances in the cities of London 
 and Westminster, and within twenty miles 
 thereof." This was known as the Dramatic Per- 
 formances Bill, and was an outgrowth of that 
 clause in the report of the Committee on Dra- 
 matic Literature, in which it was advised that 
 the sole power of licensing plays be lodged in 
 the Lord Chamberlain. The object of the meas- 
 ure was threefold : to throw open the regular 
 drama to all the then licensed theatres, to defend 
 the inhabitants of any district from the annoy- 
 ances of mere theatrical speculations, and to 
 centralize in the Lord Chamberlain authority 
 over the theatres. 
 
 ^ Mirror of Parliament, 2d Session, 10th Parliament, vol. 
 iv, p. 3519.
 
 340 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 With these objects in view the bill proposed 
 to enact, in the first instance, that any person 
 desirous of obtaining a license for the exhibition 
 of dramatic performances, at any place within the 
 limits of the act, must, at least three months 
 before the annual licensing day at which the 
 application for license was intended to be made, 
 post a notice to that effect on the outer door of 
 the theatre where such performances were pro- 
 posed to be exhibited. Copies of the said notice 
 must be served also on the church- wardens and 
 overseers of the parish, and insertions of the 
 same made once a week for the three months in 
 two daily morning papers. Should a majority of 
 the persons interested in the property contiguous 
 to the theatre petition the Lord Chamberlain two 
 months in advance of the licensing day, against 
 the license thus applied for, the said license 
 should be denied. If no such petition were pre- 
 sented, then the Lord Chamberlain should be 
 under the necessity of issuing the license prayed 
 for.^ However, provision was made for refusal to 
 grant a license, could the act in any way be con- 
 strued to conflict with the common law. Persons 
 applying for a license should be required to 
 
 ^ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, vol. 16, 561- 
 567 ; see also Mirror of Parliament, 1st Session, 11th Parlia- 
 ment, pp. 711-713 ; and Gentlemari's Magazine, vol. 103, pt. 1, 
 p. 261.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 341 
 
 present a certificate, signed by three architects, 
 or surveyors, vouching for the stability and 
 safety of the building intended for theatrical 
 purposes.* It was proposed to give the Lord 
 Chamberlain summary power in cases where un- 
 licensed performances were exhibited, or where 
 proprietors of theatres in any way exceeded the 
 privileges of their licenses. But the Chamberlain 
 was to have no discretionary powers over pro- 
 prietors complying with the provisions of the act, 
 nor, in case a memorial had not been presented 
 within the time specified, against the granting of 
 the license. 
 
 In presenting the bill Bulwer stated that, 
 although the Dramatic Committee had thought 
 the office of examiner of plays a needless one, 
 they had retained it in the proposed bill, fear- 
 ing that any attempt to abolish that office might 
 militate against the bill itself. However, pro- 
 visions were made for a graduated scale of fees. 
 In the debate which followed Mr. Bulwer's 
 speech, the necessity for some such measure as 
 that proposed was very evident ; although some 
 doubts were expressed as to the advisability of 
 attempting the control of public taste by legis- 
 
 ^ This precaution may have been suggested by the then re- 
 cent disaster at the Brunswick (i. e- Royalty) Theatre, which 
 collapsed (February 28, 1828), three days after opening, kill- 
 ing a number of persons.
 
 342 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 lative action. As in 1737, the summary power 
 proposed to be vested in the Lord Chaml)erlain 
 caused some apprehensions. And, too, the attack 
 on the censorship was thought too radical. On 
 the other hand, some would go beyond Bulwer 
 in the movement towards reform ; the censor 
 and chamberlain, it was declared, " had tram- 
 melled the drama until it became as it now was ; 
 fees were demanded here and fees there. . . . 
 There should be a free trade in the drama as 
 well as anything else." One member (War- 
 burton), who held a X500 renter's share in 
 Covent Garden Theatre, thought that the mo- 
 nopoly system was calculated to afford irrational 
 amusement at the dearest rate, and that the 
 object of the bill was to reverse this state of af- 
 fairs. If, continued the same speaker, the exist- 
 ing monopoly claimed the right to be protected 
 in its vested interests, he wished to tell the House 
 that there remained no such interests to be pro- 
 tected ; for those supposed to exist were mort- 
 gaged to treble their value, and, of course, were 
 worthless. For his part, he was willing to sacri- 
 fice his <£500 share in Covent Garden in order to 
 enable the minor theatres to perform the regular 
 drama. 
 
 Opposition to the Dramatic Performances Bill 
 was not wanting, either in or out of the House 
 of Commons. The patentees had the memorial,
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 343 
 
 which they had formerly presented to the Lord 
 Chamberlain against the extension of the licenses 
 of the Haymarket and Lyceum, printed and cir- 
 culated broadcast, in the hope that it might ef- 
 fect the defeat of Bulwer's bill.^ Alfred Bunn, 
 the new lessee of both patent theatres, had two 
 or three interviews with Bulwer for the purpose 
 of prevailing on the latter to amend the bill to 
 the advantage of the established houses, but the 
 " young reformer " could not be dissuaded from 
 his course.^ The patentee then addressed the 
 Crown, and also prepared a memorial to the 
 House of Lords, in the hopes of obstructing the 
 passage of the bill there, should it get through 
 the lower House. 
 
 The press was by no means unanimously 
 friendly to the bill, as presented. It contained 
 certain defects which augured its defeat, and 
 these were early pointed out by the " Observer." 
 For example, one clause in the proposed measure, 
 as first prepared, made it imperative on the Lord 
 Chamberlain to grant a license to an applicant 
 if » dissenting petition were not filed by persons 
 living in the neighborhood; while another por- 
 tion of the bill required that a consenting memo- 
 rial should be lodged with the Lord Chamberlain 
 from persons living near the theatre.^ The " Ob- 
 
 1 Morning Chronicle, Mar. 18, 1883. 2 Bunn, The Stage, i, 111. 
 8 Morning Chronicle, March 25, 1833.
 
 344 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 server," from the start, predicted the failure of 
 the bill, on other grounds. Dissensions arose in 
 the Committee in charge of the measure, one or 
 two of the members threatening to withdraw, for 
 the reason that the schedule of theatres proposed 
 by the bill would make the monopoly stricter 
 than it had been. It was the impression of the 
 advocates of the minors that the schedule was 
 intended to include all the then existing London 
 theatres, whereas it provided only for those that 
 had been licensed. Such an arrangement would 
 debar the Strand, City, and Garrick theatres 
 from legal piotection; and for this reason the 
 bill was violently opposed by some of the Com- 
 mittee. To meet the objections raised to the 
 schedule of theatres proposed by the bill, one 
 of the metropolitan members offered a compro- 
 mise, whereby the Lord Chamberlain should, by 
 the aid of a jury, be enabled to decide whether a 
 theatre was or was not desired by the inhabit- 
 ants of any particular district. But this cumber- 
 some and expensive method was immediately 
 attacked by the papers, and the whole matter 
 was left as originally proposed. 
 
 Relative to licensing the Victoria (Coburg) 
 and the other theatres outside the Chamberlain's 
 jurisdiction, the leading theatrical paper of the 
 day ^ remarks : " What mere folly it seems not 
 
 1 Morning Chronicle, July 1, 1833, quotiug Observer. Miss
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 345 
 
 to give the Lord Chamberlain at once jurisdic- 
 tion there, by which care could be taken that 
 unobjectionable pieces only should be represented. 
 Here is a short and easy remedy, at least for 
 part of the existing evils, without useless and 
 endless discussion about a Bill which never will 
 be passed." 
 
 The bill, which had passed its second reading 
 and been committed on the 30th of May, was 
 reported on the 8th of July. On the 19th of 
 July, Alderman Wood, of the metropolis, suc- 
 ceeded in getting an amendment added, exempt- 
 ing the city of London from the act, on the 
 ground that the mayor and aldermen had previ- 
 ously exercised the power of granting and refus- 
 ing licenses within their jurisdiction.^ On the 
 24th of July Bulwer moved the third reading. 
 One of the members (Mr. Rotch) of the House, 
 in objecting to the bill, used such severe language 
 against the profession of actors as to create a 
 sensation, and brought upon himself a well-de- 
 served opprobrium. A theatre, he declared, 
 served the purpose only of bringing together a 
 set of unfortunate outcasts who had no means 
 of existence, and it was beneath the dignity of 
 
 Kelly, who was at this time planning to open the Strand, at 
 once petitioned Parliament for protection. 
 
 1 Mirror of Parliament, Ist Session, 11th Parliament, pp. 
 2006, 2813, 3188, 3309, 3312, 34G3, 3490.
 
 346 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Parliament to legislate for such a class.* This 
 fierce invective did not prevent the bill from 
 passing the House of Commons, which it did by 
 a vote of 38 to 7. The following day (July 25) 
 Bulwer carried the bill to the House of Lords. 
 
 The minors were elated over the success of 
 their measure in the Commons, and prophesied 
 certain victory in the upper House.^ The Mar- 
 quis of Clanricarde undertook to conduct the 
 bill through the House of Lords, and secured 
 its first reading on the day of its receipt. Notice 
 was given for the second reading to come up in 
 one week. By the appointed day both sides had 
 gathered their strength for the fray. Lord Wyn- 
 ford presented a petition signed by one hundred 
 and sixty persons, "proprietors, managers, per- 
 formers, musicians," and others, interested in the 
 Victoria Theatre. The petition stated that over 
 three hundred persons were employed in and 
 about that theatre, and that none but the works 
 of the best dramatic authors were performed 
 there. They set forth their precarious situation, 
 due to the then existing law laying each of them 
 liable to a fine of fifty pounds for every night 
 they performed. They, therefore, prayed that 
 the bill then before the Lords might pass. In 
 
 ^ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, vol. xix, p. 
 1220. 
 2 Morning Chronicle, July 29, 1833.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 347 
 
 presenting this memorial, Lord Wynford did 
 not deny the truthfulness of the petitioners' 
 complaint, but entertained some doubts as to 
 whether the X50 penalty could be enforced. 
 
 A petition, similar to the foregoing one, bear- 
 ing the signatures of thirteen hundred inhabit- 
 ants of London and Westminster, was read by 
 the Duke of Somerset. Both of these memorials 
 were tabled. Other petitions, favoring the bill, 
 were presented from the minors of the metropo- 
 lis, from actors and authors interested therein, 
 from merchants, traders, and others of London, 
 and from the inhabitants of St. Mary, Lambeth, 
 and the other sections adjacent to the metropo- 
 lis,^ Covent Garden and Drury Lane, of course, 
 petitioned against the bill. 
 
 Something of the ardor which stirred the 
 public in general to promote the Dramatic Per- 
 formances Bill may be appreciated from a single 
 instance. On August 1, the day before the time 
 set for the second reading of the bill in the House 
 of Lords, a public mass meeting was called at the 
 Crown and Anchor to consider the propriety of 
 memorializing Parliament in favor of the measure. 
 A number of notable persons were present at this 
 conference, representing authors, actors, mem- 
 bers of Parliament, and the public in general. 
 Among these were Messrs. Serle, Warde, 
 
 1 Mirror of Parliament, 1st Sess. 11th Pari., pp. 1384, 3490.
 
 348 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 Wrench, Abbott, Egerton, Elton, Farrell, Jerrold, 
 Osbaldiston, Davidge, Keeley, Mitchell, Vining, 
 Bulwer, and many others. The Duke of Som- 
 erset, who was in the chair, opened the meeting 
 with a brief address. Serle made, perhaps, the 
 leading speech of the occasion. He stated that 
 the appeal they were then making to the 
 public was in behalf of three thousand persons 
 whose livelihood was concerned in the issue 
 between the two large theatres and the minors. 
 They were asking for no exclusive privileges, 
 he said, but merely the liberty to exercise their 
 art. The history of the prosecutions of the 
 minor theatres was then entered upon. It was 
 averred that if the large theatres had not per- 
 secuted the minors with such vindictiveness, but 
 had allowed them a degree of liberty, they 
 would have been content with a less measure of 
 justice than they now demanded. Nothing but 
 the utter abolition of the monopoly would now 
 relieve the situation and satisfy those most se- 
 riously affected. 
 
 The oft-repeated assertion, that a multiplicity 
 of theatres would lead to a deterioration of the 
 drama, was denied, and doubts were expressed 
 whether it could possibly be in a worse state. It 
 was a well-known fact that Sheridan Knowles's 
 play. The Wife, and the regular English company 
 of actors had been driven from Covent Garden to
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 349 
 
 make room for foreigners ; * while at the minors 
 Shakesj^erean and other great plays had been 
 acted repeatedly with success. At the Olympic 
 Pavilion Hamlet had drawn large audiences over 
 and over again. Experience of other countries 
 had proven competition to be the cause of im- 
 provement of the drama, and so would it in 
 England, if permitted. Serle then alluded to the 
 treatment which Knowles, Dowton, and Kenney 
 had received at the hands of the patentees, 
 when seeking an opportunity for presenting their 
 productions. 
 
 The charge was denied that the minors were 
 to blame for the embarrassments which had 
 overtaken the patent houses. Drury Lane The- 
 atre, as everybody knew, had been built during 
 " war prices," and values had declined with the 
 return of normal financial conditions.- Drury 
 Lane was not the only concern that had suffered 
 from the same cause. As to " vested rights," it 
 was maintained that a monopoly, existing solely 
 for the benefit of a few, which kept the bread 
 
 ^ This occurred in 1832 under the management of Laporte. 
 
 ^ " Scarcely any description of property has been more seri- 
 ously affected by the general distress than the Public Theatres : 
 even in the Capital they have been severely visited ; but in the 
 Provincial circuits they have been, almost without exception, 
 entirely shut up, or their rents reduced one-third ; some to half 
 their former produce, and others allowed to be used for the 
 payment of taxes and repairs." GentlemarC s Magazine, March, 
 1817, p. 270.
 
 350 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 out of the mouths of thousands, and prevented 
 the public from enjoying rational amusements, 
 had no right to be permitted. Serle closed his 
 speech by reiterating that the drama could live 
 and prosper only when free ; that the exertions 
 then being made were aimed to rescue it from the 
 thralldom of the existing monopoly ; and that 
 if the House of Lords should think fit to reject 
 the bill then before them, nevertheless its pro- 
 moters would in no wise feel that their cause was 
 weakened, but, on the contrary, they would make 
 more extensively known the justice of their de- 
 mands, and " they would knock again and again 
 at the doors of the Parliament till justice was 
 admitted." * 
 
 The sentiments of the meeting were written 
 down in the form of a petition, which was at 
 once forwarded to the House of Lords. On the 
 following day (August 2), as announced, the 
 Marquis of Clanricarde, the original mover of 
 the bill in the Lords, opened the debate for the 
 second reading. The anomalous condition of the 
 laws regulating the theatres was, he said, con- 
 trary to the wishes of the people, injurious to the 
 public morals, and derogatory to the profession 
 of acting. The anomaly consisted in the conflict 
 of the law on the subject and the fact as backed 
 by public opinion. East of Temple Bar, across 
 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, August 2, 1833.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 351 
 
 in Surrey outside of Westminster, theatres, 
 " some of them very good, and others less so," 
 were acting without the license of the Lord 
 Chamberlain, and had no means of obtaining one. 
 The development of this inconsistent state of 
 affairs was significant ; so long as the minor 
 theatres had devoted themselves to a low and 
 vulgar order of amusements — "whilst they were 
 no better than haunts of vice and idleness " — 
 the patent theatres raised not one point of objec- 
 tion ; but the moment the minor concerns became 
 respectable, and made an attempt to give a class 
 of performances " to which the intelligent might 
 resort with advantage," the great patent houses 
 put the arm of law into motion to crush them. 
 That the public had been aroused against this 
 injustice to the minor theatres, to say nothing of 
 the violence to morality, was witnessed by the 
 petitions, favoring the bill, presented to both 
 houses of Parliament, and by the report of the 
 Committee on Dramatic Literature. 
 
 A free competition of the theatres, with pro- 
 tective guards against licentiousness, was needed 
 to alleviate the situation ; and the Dramatic 
 Performances Bill was believed to contain the 
 remedy sought. As the law then stood, there 
 was no power to restrain managers from exhibit- 
 ing performances wholly at variance with de- 
 cency and morality ; for the Chamberlain's power
 
 352 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 in such matters was only permissive, not prevent- 
 ive. As to an indefinite number o£ theatres 
 being fostered by the bill, should it pass, the 
 very opposite was expected from it by its friends, 
 for some of the places then exhibiting would, it 
 was predicted, be sui)pressed by the operations of 
 the act. Indeed, as to the matter of respectability, 
 it was pointed out, the two patent houses them- 
 selves were national disgraces, often guilty of 
 giving exhibitions both " indelicate and disgust- 
 ing." Moreover, it had been a complaint for 
 years that those theatres derived considerable 
 sums every year from certain classes of persons 
 who went there confessedly for purposes im- 
 moral and vicious. 
 
 If it were held by some that the bill ought 
 not to pass because it would be an infringement 
 on the monopoly, the Marquis of Clanricarde 
 desired to tell the Lords that such a position 
 was both " absurd in principle and untenable in 
 law." Did the Lords not know that there were 
 no monopolies, that by the Act of 21 James I, all 
 monopolies w^ere expressly prohibited, and that 
 any attempt on the part of the patentees to exer- 
 cise a monopoly rendered them liable to the penal- 
 ties of a praemunire ? Furthermore, was it not 
 a patent fact that Drury Lane was then, and had 
 been for years, running on the authority of a lim- 
 ited license, and was this not sufficient evidence
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 353 
 
 that the monopoly, as well as the "vested 
 property rights," was a mere fiction ? It seemed 
 absurd to the Marquis to speak of infringing 
 property rights, the value of which was measur- 
 able only in terms of debts and mortgages. 
 
 The Earl of Glengall, who was directly inter- 
 ested in the patent theatres, represented the 
 cause of the patentees and repeated arguments 
 with which we have been made acquainted in the 
 course of these pages. But the most unique turn 
 to the debate on the bill in the House of Lords 
 was given by the Bishop of London, who, in a 
 spirited manner, pronounced a lengthy anathema 
 against the immorality of the stage, not sparing 
 the patent houses. A lamentable picture was 
 drawn by the bishop, in respect of the Garrick 
 Theatre, where " the value of property had de- 
 teriorated, houses could not be let, offences 
 multiplied, and the district alarmed by riots by 
 night." The good prelate was chagrined that a 
 bill should be introduced to increase these places 
 of evil. By some sort of mathematical jugglery 
 he calculated the possibility of two hundred and 
 fifty theatres within a radius of two miles from 
 the General Post Office, in case the bill passed ; 
 nor could the spiritual Lord consent to the sec- 
 ond reading of a bill that promised to multiply 
 dens of iniquity at such a rate.^ 
 
 ^ In 1835 Farrell, proprietor of the Royal Pavilion Theatre
 
 354 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 On the merits of and necessity for the Dra- 
 matic Performances Bill, the House of Lords 
 were almost equally divided, with the deciding 
 majority opposed to it. On the motion for a 
 second reading, the bill was lost, lacking five 
 votes only.* Notwithstanding the prediction of 
 certain wiseacres that Bulwer's bill would fail to 
 work its way through Parliament, its rejection 
 by the House of Lords was a great surprise, 
 even to the enemies of the measure. So confi- 
 dent were some that it would become a law that 
 a canvass had been made to ascertain whether 
 a third theatre project would meet with any 
 great opposition, and several thousand pounds 
 had been subscribed for such a purpose. But the 
 defeat of the bill in nowise daunted its pro- 
 moters. Though the session of Parliament was 
 almost at its close, many were anxious to renew 
 the effort before the prorogation should take 
 place. A number of plans were discussed, only 
 one of which stood any chance of passing without 
 
 in Whitechapel Road, was called before the magistrates at the 
 instigation of the Bishop of London, who complained that two 
 pieces founded on scriptural subjects had been enacted at the 
 Pavilion and Garrick theatres. After investigation the justice 
 dismissed the case. 
 
 1 For the best account of the debates in the House of 
 Lords on the Dramatic Performances Bill I have followed the 
 Mirror of Parliament, 1st Session, 11th Parliament, pp. 3384, 
 3490-3494. See also Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 103, pt. 2, 
 p. 167.
 
 THE DRAMATISTS VS. THE MONOPOLY 355 
 
 strenuous opposition.^ This one was proposed 
 b}'^ Mr. Otley, who wished to introduce a short 
 bill empowering magistrates with discretionary 
 authority in mitigating the fifty pound penalty 
 for acting in an unlicensed theatre. As the law 
 stood, magistrates were powerless to graduate 
 the fine provided by the Licensing Act. How- 
 ever, on the whole, the extreme severity of this 
 provision operated favorably to the actors in 
 the minor theatres, for in 1833, and long before, 
 therie was little disposition in any quarter to 
 carry the old act into effect. 
 
 The minors were greatly opposed to Otley's 
 compromising measure, and nothing came of it. 
 The old order of things continued. But the 
 monopoly had received such a shock from 
 Knowles's attempt to establish a third theatre, 
 from the extension of the privileges of the lead- 
 ing minors, and from the vigorous combined 
 attacks of minors and authors, that it was never 
 to recover from it. It was nearly ten years be- 
 fore the dramatists were to concert again in 
 defense of their rights, but in that period the 
 internal decay of the patent houses, and the 
 external attacks of their foes, made the closing 
 ceremony of pronouncing the doom of the " great 
 theatres " a mere perfunctory legislative act. 
 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, August 5, 12, 1833.
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE LORD chancellor's OPINION ; AND KNOWLES'S 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 
 
 TO the long list of theatrical conflagrations 
 was added that of the New English Opera 
 House on Eebruary 10, 1830.^ Arnold was still 
 the proprietor of that theatre, and, before re- 
 building, he conceived it to be to his interests to 
 obtain an extension of privileges to his license. 
 It will be remembered that the license issued to 
 him in 1809 was claimed by Arnold to be for 
 the year, and that it was afterwards abridged to 
 four months, from June to October. Accord- 
 ingly, in September, 1830, Arnold petitioned 
 the King for a renewal of the original license 
 for English opera. This action caused a tem- 
 pest of agitation among the patentees, who, as 
 was their wont on such occasions, immediately 
 presented counter-petitions praying for protec- 
 tion to their " inviolable patents " and " vested 
 property rights." The storm which these pre- 
 liminaries threatened to brew was directed by 
 the Crown towards the Lord Chancellor's Court ; 
 
 1 For the season of 1830 the Lyceum Company went to 
 the Adelphi, in the Strand ; in 1832 to the Olympic.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 357 
 
 for it seemed certain that the struggle of 1810 
 would be repeated. 
 
 The hearing of Arnold's petition and the 
 counter-claims of the patentees was set for 
 the 11th of January, 1831, at seven o'clock in the 
 evening. The interest taken in the case by the 
 public may be inferred from the opening scene 
 at the court-room, as reported by the " Morning 
 Chronicle " (January 12, 1831) : 
 
 " Upon this occasion there were associated 
 with the Lord Chancellor the Chief Justice of 
 the Common Pleas, the Vice-Chancellor, and Mr. 
 Justice James Parke. As early as six o'clock 
 the doors were beset by an impatient multitude 
 eager for access. ... A favourite few ob- 
 tained admission through the private door. 
 Within a quarter of seven the public entrance 
 was thrown open, when the rush fully equalled 
 any scene of confusion ever witnessed in the pit 
 of a theatre, ... on the first night of a new 
 tragedy." 
 
 A number of noted theatrical persons were 
 present, and the general interest manifested in 
 the case promised to be even greater than that 
 taken in the famous proceedings of 1810 ; for by 
 1831 the feeling against the monopoly had be- 
 come part and parcel of the reform movement. 
 Arnold was represented by the Solicitor-General 
 (Mr. Home), Sir Edward Sugden, and other
 
 358 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 counsel of note. They based the claims of their 
 client on the original license of 1809, and its 
 recognition by Sheridan and the Privy Council ; 
 and especially on the fact that the recent im- 
 portation of foreign opera in competition with 
 native talent rendered it doubly necessary that 
 the season of the English Opera House be 
 extended to coincide with that of the winter 
 theatres, if anything like a fair competition 
 could be hoped for by Mr. Arnold. It was de- 
 nied that the present application contained in it 
 any intent to break the monopol}^ then existing, 
 at least " no further than it had already been 
 done." 
 
 The whole question of crown prerogative was 
 again entered into, but, as the arguments were 
 the same as those given in 1810, they need not 
 be reviewed here. One point, however, empha- 
 sized by the Solicitor-General to the confusion 
 of the patentees, was the invaliditj' of both the 
 patents from the moment of the union in 1682. 
 The argument adduced from this union was 
 that the two patents were at that time incorpo- 
 rated, not only by the permission and suggestion 
 of the Crown, but by Charles II, the grantor of 
 the original patents ; and that this very fact of 
 incorporation obliterated the separate distinction 
 of the patents, — a point in law not to be con- 
 troverted. The incorporation ^;er se of the
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 359 
 
 two patents worked their forfeiture completely. 
 The subsequent action of King William in grant- 
 ing Betterton a license in order to carry out the 
 original intention (of two theatres) supported 
 this view. Moreover, any use of the patents not 
 intended by the original grant worked their for- 
 feiture ; and in this light it was unnecessary to 
 inquire whether succeeding princes could violate 
 the patent grants of Charles II, but simply 
 whether any one could. If it were claimed by 
 the patentees that there had been a revival of 
 the merged patents (in 1792), then which patent 
 had done the reviving, and which one was oper- 
 ative in Betterton's time ? * 
 
 Of all the numerous instances of violating the 
 patents, reviewed by Arnold's counsel in 1831, 
 one other is worthy of mention. When Rich 
 was ejected from Drury Lane Theatre in 1709, 
 Queen Anne signified her willingness to grant 
 a license to any one who would surrender his 
 claims to the patents granted by Charles II. 
 Collier, a shareholder in the Drury Lane patent, 
 complied with this request, submitted to Her 
 Majesty, and received a license to open Drury 
 Lane Theatre. The opponents to the patentees 
 
 ^ It is a curious fact that during the union, though it was 
 Killigrew's patent that became dormant, the united company 
 was known as the Kings's Company, operating under Dave- 
 nant's patent at Drury Lane. Later, Rich opened Covent 
 Gardeu with the same patent.
 
 3G0 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 now claimed that this circumstance was founded 
 on the surrender of the patents to the Crown, 
 at which time the prerogative over theatrical 
 affairs was resumed. It was also pointed out 
 that, if the patents gave a monopoly, Italian 
 opera was also included. In granting O'Reilly 
 a license for Italian opera at the Pantheon 
 (1790), Chancellor Thurlow decided that the 
 King's prerogative in such matters was un- 
 limited. • 
 
 Such an array of precedents against the 
 theory that the theatrical patents were inviola- 
 ble had never before been marshaled. Against 
 these, counsel for the patentees recited all the 
 acts of Parliament, from the " Rogue, Vaga- 
 bond, and Sturdy Beggar " act of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, through the Licensing Act of 1737, to the 
 "Arrangement " of 1792, sanctioned by the King 
 and others high in authority. As to the lapsing 
 of patents on the ground of non-user, Mr. Ar- 
 nold's attention was called to the fact that his 
 own Lyceum license was invalid, as having re- 
 mained unused from 1812 to 1815.^ Finally, 
 the patentees did not rest their claims on the 
 
 ^ Arnold made answer to this that, as he was director of 
 the Drury Lane Company for those three years, it had been 
 hardly the proper thing for him to establish a rival theatre on 
 his license. The allusion is to the period when Sheridan joined 
 his burnt-out Drury Lane Company to that of Arnold at the 
 Lyceum, pending the rebuilding of Drury Lane Theatre.
 
 PETITION FOR A tHIRD THEATRE 361 
 
 patents granted by Charles II, but rather on the 
 historic recognition of the rights of the patent 
 owners, and on the justice inherent in the invio- 
 lability of property investments. And the touch- 
 ing on this phase of the question entailed a 
 recapitulation of the financial calamities of the 
 two patent houses for the previous half-century. 
 It does not seem to have occurred to the pat- 
 entees that these very disasters — at least those 
 due to mismjftiagement — would, sooner or later, 
 be looked at with a different effect from the one 
 aimed at on the present occasion. Alluding to 
 the objections made against monopolies, counsel 
 for the patentees apprehended that, under free 
 competition, the most tyrannous of monopolies 
 would result, for, ultimately, one theatre must 
 succeed in driving all others from the field. 
 Aaron Hill would have added, " or raise them 
 to a higher plane," which was the aim of the 
 opponents to the monopoly. 
 
 A complication at this juncture arose in the 
 proceedings of the Lord Chancellor's Court.^ 
 On the 25th of January, Morris, proprietor of 
 the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, memorial- 
 ized the King to take his theatre into considera- 
 
 ^ The importance of the case required the court to sit a 
 number of times from January 11 to 31. For the proceed- 
 ings see Morning Chronicle, January 12, 14, 19, 25, 26, Febru- 
 ary 1, 1831.
 
 362 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 tion when deciding on Arnold's petition, which 
 was looked upon by the Haymarket manager as 
 nothing more nor less than an attempt to estab- 
 lish a third winter theatre. On the basis of jus- 
 tice and policy Morris thought that his theatre 
 should have precedence over the English Opera 
 House in the matter of a third establishment, 
 inasmuch as the Haymarket had been a truer 
 representative of the legitimate drama. The con- 
 version of the regular drama into an " operatized 
 form " at the English Opera House was charac- 
 terized as " spurious," the representation of which 
 was in violation of the spirit of Arnold's license. 
 Arnold's rejoinder, that the pieces put on at 
 the Lyceum were sanctioned by the Lord Cham- 
 berlain, was unanswerable ; and as to non-user 
 working the forfeiture of a license, that was 
 a two-edged sword on the present occasion. So 
 too might the plea of financial disaster be worked 
 on both sides. But financial success or failure 
 was denied to have anything to do with the con- 
 troversy. The essential point was the question 
 of public benefit. Referring to the attitude of 
 the Haymarket, an attitude presumably taken 
 in support of the monopoly, Arnold's counsel 
 (Sir C. Wetherell) uttered a note of warning to 
 the Little Theatre : " With respect to the com- 
 mon cause which the little theatres had made 
 with the great Moguls, who fought with ele-
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 363 
 
 phants, he could only say that the little poten- 
 tate of the Haymarket and others would soon find 
 that if Mr. Arnold were defeated they would be 
 likewise swallowed up." The persecution of the 
 Tottenham and Strand proprietors followed on 
 the heels of this prediction. 
 
 After due deliberation, the Lord Chancellor 
 advised the King that the crown prerogative can- 
 not be so affected by previous patent grants as 
 to preclude the granting of similar patents; but 
 that, under the circumstances of the case then 
 under consideration, he gave it as his opinion 
 that the new English Opera House should be 
 limited to six months every year, commencing 
 with May and ending with October. To this 
 decision the King added a second, calculated to 
 relieve a much vexed question, relating to the 
 licensing of minor theatres. It was laid down 
 that, thereafter, all minor theatres should re- 
 ceive their licenses from the Lord Chamberlain's 
 office, and not from the magistrates.' This was 
 a step towards reducing the confusion connected 
 with the promiscuous licensing of theatres ; for 
 hitherto managers had generally been able to 
 find some magistrate who could, and would, ex- 
 ercise a liberal interpretation of a variety of 
 laws in the crantins: of licenses for theatrical 
 amusements. But the decision was far from satis- 
 ^ New Monthly Magazine, April, 1831.
 
 364 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 factory in many ways; it added a new confu- 
 sion to tlie Lord Chamberlain's power, for by 
 the Licensing Act that officer's jurisdiction 
 extended no farther than the liberties of West- 
 minster. This conflict of jurisdiction, legalized 
 by statute, had been the source of most of the 
 theatrical rows since the days of John Palmer; 
 and though the attempt to localize responsibil- 
 ity respecting the theatres was a worthy one, it 
 was not calculated to remove the main diffi- 
 culty, — the disparity of protection secured to 
 the patent theatres and the minors. From an 
 immediate outlook the decision in the case of 
 Arnold's petition was unsatisfactory, because of 
 the halfway course adopted in granting a license 
 for six months. Neither party could claim a vic- 
 tory, yet on the whole the effect was dishearten- 
 ing to the minors. 
 
 A year and a half went by, and the new Eng- 
 lish Opera House was not yet completed. In the 
 summer of 1832 both the Italian Opera House 
 (King's Theatre in the Haymarket) and Covent 
 Garden ^ were kept open with a French company, 
 in competition with the two regular summer 
 theatres. In this extremity Morris presented a 
 memorial (July, 1832) to the Lord Chamberlain, 
 
 ^ Covent Garden Theatre and the Italian Opera House were 
 at this time under the sole management of Laporte, who was 
 making the wildest efforts to keep from sinking financially.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 365 
 
 praying for an extension of his season. The Duke 
 of Devonshire withheld an immediate reply, pend- 
 ing the investigation of the Dramatic Committee. 
 However, many weeks passed after the report of 
 that Committee had been made, and Morris had 
 not yet been answered. Some time in September 
 (1832) a rumor got afloat that the licenses of 
 both Morris and Arnold had been extended. This 
 was too uncertain to furnish much relief to the 
 memorialist. When the Haymarket closed its 
 season on the 8th of October it was evident, from 
 the address of the manager to the public on that 
 occasion, that Morris had received no official an- 
 swer to his petition. Finally, about Christmas, 
 it was given out on good authority that the prayer 
 of the Little Theatre had been granted, and that 
 Morris was preparing to open his theatre on the 
 ensuing Easter (1833) for an eight months sea- 
 son.^ The Lyceum was also included in this 
 extension, the privileges to both theatres being 
 granted at the special instance of King William 
 IV. A scruple was at once raised whether this 
 was not a breach of the arrangement made in 
 1822 with the winter houses, relative to the time 
 of opening. This point was dismissed, however, 
 by the summer managers on the ground that no 
 
 ^ For the history of these extensions I have followed the re- 
 ports given by the Morning Chronicle, July 23, Sept. 3, Oct. 9, 
 Dec. 24, 1832, Jan. 28, July 29, 1833.
 
 366 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 such agreement subsisted between thevi and the 
 patentees (Polhill of Drury Lane, and Laporte of 
 Covent Garden).* The latter at once entered a 
 protest with the Lord Chamberlain against the 
 extension of the summer licenses, but to no pur- 
 pose. For the first season (1833), however, 
 Arnold relinquished his privilege of opening at 
 Easter, because he was unable to collect an ade- 
 quate company in so short a time. 
 
 The extension of the licenses of the Hay- 
 market and Lyceum caused rejoicing among 
 playwrights and actors alike, and a correspond- 
 ing dolor among " certain other great people 
 pertaining to certain great patented structures 
 of name needless to tell." ^ It was a step in the 
 abridgment of monopoly, and the herald of 
 certain victory for the j^romoters of free competi- 
 
 ^ The frequent changes in the lesseeship of the patent the- 
 atres during this period in some sense suggests the financial 
 condition of the tottering concerns. EUiston had Drury Lane 
 frona 1819 to 182G. It was then taken hy Stephen Price, an 
 American, who succeeded in holding it for four years before 
 becoming bankrupt. Alexander Lee then risked his chance, 
 remaining less than a year, and was succeeded by Captain Pol- 
 hill in 1831. Two years later Alfred Bunn became the sole 
 lessee of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, staying at the 
 former until 1839. Covent Garden furnishes a similar story. 
 Harris was succeeded in 1821 by C. Kemble ; the latter by 
 Laporte in 1832, then Polhill the same year, Bunn in 1833 ; 
 Pitzball for one day in 1835, then Osbaldiston, and Macready 
 before 1840. 
 
 2 Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, February, 1833.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 367 
 
 tion in theatricals. It mattered little that the new 
 privileges produced no immediately perceptible 
 effect in the success of the two old summer 
 houses ; the essential fact remained, that suc- 
 cessful inroads had been made into the sacred 
 domains of the patent theatres. The other minors 
 at once sought similar favors from the Crown, 
 and not without success. In 1835 Braham, the 
 tenor singer, failing to make satisfactory terms 
 with the Drury Lane patentee, applied for and 
 secured a license for a theatre of his own. Pur- 
 chasing a site in King's Street, in a remarkably 
 short time he erected a new theatre which he 
 styled the St. James. In March, 1887, the St. 
 James, along with the Adelphi and Olympic, 
 had, by royal command, their licenses extended 
 two months beyond the usual term. They were 
 now permitted to take advantage of the Easter- 
 tide, one of the best in the year for the theatrical 
 business. This favor to the three minoi-s was 
 probably brought about by the indefatigable 
 exertions of Madame Vestris, of the Olympic. 
 Taking advantage of a day when her theatre 
 was closed, she posted down to Brighton, where 
 His Majesty " received her with much kindness 
 and condescension." Within a few days from 
 this interview the extension of the three licenses 
 was granted.^ Their season was now practically 
 
 1 Examiner, March 5, 1837.
 
 368 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 coextensive with that of the patent houses, and 
 in the cases of the Adelphi and Olympic the 
 performances were of a competitive nature to 
 those at the " great houses." 
 
 A mere glance at some of the other minor 
 theatres will serve to show the inroads that were 
 constantly being made into the theatrical monop- 
 oly. Thursday, October 19, 1837, was licensing 
 day in Middlesex, when the following list of 
 "musical licenses" was issued, indicating how 
 easy it had become to get around the decision of 
 the King in 1831, that, thereafter, all dramatic 
 licenses should be issued by the Lord Chamber- 
 lain. On the above date licenses were granted 
 to E. Hughes, R. Dixon, and Charlotte Jones, 
 of Sadler's Wells ; John Perry, of the Queen's 
 (i. e., Haymarket) Opera ; John Farrell, at the 
 head of the Royal Pavilion ; R. Gomersall and 
 W. J. Bennett, owners of the Garrick; L. B. 
 Rayner, manager of the New Strand ; Chris. 
 Cookerton, of the Norton Folgate ; and John 
 Braham, proprietor of the Colosseum. Thomas 
 Hamlet was refused a license for his " Queen's 
 Bazaar " in Oxford Street. John Gibson's appli- 
 cation for the Royal Standard was at first 
 denied, on the ground that it was too near the 
 Norton Folgate ; but the question being put, the 
 license was granted by a vote of 13 to 12. " The 
 decision was received with loud plaudits, not-
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 369 
 
 withstanding the efforts of the court to suppress 
 them." 1 
 
 The licenses of the Olympic, Adelphi, and 
 St. James were extended under the chamber- 
 lainship of Lord Conyngham, who succeeded to 
 the office in 1836. One of his first acts had been, 
 as we have seen, to license the Strand Theatre, 
 something which even the magistrates had re- 
 fused to do. As the first effective opposition to 
 the monopoly in the early part of the century 
 had originated in the Lord Chamberlain's office 
 (Lord Dartmouth), so the finishing strokes 
 were to be aided by the King's servant (Lord 
 Conyngham). Whenever the Lord Chamberlain's 
 power had been put to the test, in times past, 
 it had always been with the result that the pat- 
 entees were obedient to his mandates. In this 
 connection an interesting question arose at this 
 time, namely, as to the jurisdiction of the Lord 
 Chamberlain over the theatres on the opposite 
 side of the river, Astley's, Surrey, and Coburg. 
 Opinions were variously stated on both sides of 
 the question, showing the great confusion which 
 still reigned as to just what was and what was 
 not law respecting the theatres.^ While as a 
 
 1 Examiner, October 22, 18-37. 
 
 "^ By the Act of 25 George II (1751) justices of the peace 
 ■were enabled to license music, dancing, and public entertain- 
 ments after five o'clock p. m. From the penalties of this act
 
 370 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 matter of fact there was no doubting the author- 
 ity of the Lord Chamberlain in all matters re- 
 lating to the theatres, " it is not for him," said 
 the " Morning Chronicle " (July 30, 1832), " ' to 
 run amuck ' against the Minors, when the Majors 
 remain perfectly passive, and allow their prop- 
 erty, as they contend, to be injured, when they 
 have the complete remedy in their own hands." 
 As if the natural tendencies of the times — the 
 rise of the minors, altered customs and taste of 
 the people, and the almost universal demand for 
 reform — were not sufficient to insure the speedy 
 dissolution of the old theatrical monopoly, the 
 conduct of the patentees alone, in their manage- 
 ment (or mismanagement) of the " great houses," 
 was hastening the downfall of the patent theatres. 
 EUiston's gilded reign over Drury Lane left him 
 a bankrupt (1826).^ Stephen Price was in the 
 Committee's debt to the amount of <£2000 when 
 he quitted the old concern in 1830. Alexander 
 Lee drew Captain Polhill and his fortune into 
 the sinking ship, leaving him at the end of the 
 
 the patent houses, and the licenses issued by either the Crovrn 
 or Lord Chamberlain, were exempted. This law had come to 
 be interpreted in keeping with the public demands. See 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 ^ After Elliston was forced to surrender Drury Lane, he re- 
 turned to the Surrey, where he waged an incessant and defiant 
 warfare on the patentees. It is significant that the latter made 
 no effort to prosecute Elliston for "infringing patent rights."
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 371 
 
 first year to extricate himself from the ruin as 
 best he might. 
 
 Covent Garden presents no brighter picture. 
 As Drury Lane had once been bid for by a lot- 
 tery agent (Bish, 1826), so Covent Garden now 
 (1832) was "let" to an enterprising foreigner, 
 Monsieur Laporte. To make matters worse the 
 patent houses began the season of 1832-33 in open 
 feud. Laporte commenced the campaign with a 
 flourish of French plays and Paganini concerts, 
 followed by the ballet of Masaniello, a popular 
 pantomime, and the Israelites in Ugypt, given as 
 an oratorio in action, " assisted by the custom- 
 ary accessoires of a theatre," the first attempt 
 of the kind in England. Drury Lane retaliated 
 with Kean and Macready in Othello, a complete 
 corps de ballet " imported from France," a Ger- 
 man company, and Malibran. This competition 
 was too fierce to last long, especially when the 
 contestants were already weary from their strifes 
 with external foes. In March (1833) Laporte 
 succeeded in capturing Kean from Polhill ; the 
 latter threatened an injunction, and at the same 
 time was compelled to close Drury Lane Theatre, 
 since the main attraction, the erstwhile savior 
 of the establishment, was gone.^ But Laporte 
 
 1 Bunn implifes that Kean left Drury Lane because Cap- 
 tain Polhill denied him the loan of £500. The Stage, i, 103. 
 Kean died in May (1833) succeeding these events.
 
 372 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 gained only a temporary victory by the coup. 
 Death had already marked Kean for his own, 
 and during his first appearance at Covent Gar- 
 den he was compelled to leave the stage before 
 reaching the third act of Othello. Both theatres 
 were thus practically stranded.* 
 
 Indeed, long before this stage had been 
 reached, early in the season, after the fruits of 
 his first victory, Laporte sounded a note of 
 alarm by giving out that he intended to keep 
 Covent Garden open for only four nights in the 
 week. He was led to this decision by the poor 
 box receipts, which often fell below £100.- This 
 meant, of course, that the actors were to be put 
 on half-pay, and take chances at that. Another 
 source of anxiety and dissatisfaction to the 
 performers was the disposition to supplant the 
 English actors with foreign troupes. The intro- 
 duction of foreign operas and ballets aroused, 
 also, the advocates of the national drama. Serle 
 had had one of his tragedies returned to him by 
 the Drury Lane management (December, 1832), 
 not because the piece was unworthy, but because 
 Drury Lane was unable to bring it out ; while 
 Knowles and others received even worse treat- 
 ment than this. In self-defense, the authors 
 
 ^ This rivalry between Covent Garden and Drury Lane is 
 related by Bunn, i, 98-106. 
 
 2 Morning Chronicle, October 22, 1832.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 373 
 
 hatched a project, in case the patent houses 
 should banish the English drama from the stage, 
 to establish a theatre " in which the production 
 of English authors might take refuge." Capital- 
 ists were found who actually subscribed a large 
 sum for the erection of a third theatre in the 
 vicinity of Drury Lane and Covent Garden. 
 The plan included the engagement of a half- 
 dozen English authors of reputation (such as 
 Knowles, Kenney, Pool, Serle, Morton, etc.) to 
 contribute regularly to the undertaking.^ But 
 the necessity for carrying these views into exe- 
 cution was cut suddenly short by the extension 
 of the Haymarket license, as related in the first 
 part of this chapter. 
 
 The ruinous rivalry between the old houses now 
 caused a new report to be circulated, more alarm- 
 ing than any hitherto. It was conceived by cer- 
 tain managerial geniuses that the salvation of the 
 patent theatres lay in their union. This was 
 a return to the principle adopted in the time of 
 Charles II (1682) to avoid the utter extermina- 
 tion of both houses. Alfred Bunn, Captain Pol- 
 hill's manager of Drury Lane Theatre, a position 
 which he held under Elliston also, was talked of 
 as the proposed proprietor of the two theatres. 
 Such a venture was at once violently opposed. 
 The proposal was condemned as a total perver- 
 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, January 28, 1833, quoting Observer.
 
 374 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 sion of the original idea of two rival theatres, 
 the competition between which was intended to 
 raise the standard of dramatic productions and 
 stage performances. Viewed from Bunn's side, 
 it was admitted that he showed wisdom iu 
 thinking of taking both houses under his sole 
 control ; but if, as it was reported, he contem- 
 plated running the two theatres with one com- 
 pany, his judgment in that was certainly short- 
 sighted. " Select one house," he was advised by 
 a cynical critic, " say Covent Garden, because 
 we believe in the larger, jam into it all the dig- 
 nity, sentiment, pathos, pantomime, comedy, 
 farce, and interlude to be got ; stuff it like a 
 turkey at Christmas, and shut up Old Drury. 
 As it is, neither house is ever full." ^ 
 
 The talked-of union of the patent houses re- 
 vived the project for a third theatre. A move- 
 ment was set on foot to secure and remodel the 
 Pantheon in Oxford Street and, if possible, to 
 obtain a license for the regular drama. This idea, 
 however, was given up, and the plan of erecting 
 an entirely new theatre was again much talked 
 of, though the recent experience of the " great 
 houses " caused some to doubt the feasibility of 
 a third theatre speculation, — even if they were 
 successful in securing a license.^ 
 
 ^ New Monthly Magazine^ for 1833, pt. iii, p. 350. 
 2 Observer, April 21, 1833, quoted in Morning Chronicle, 
 April 22, 1833.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 375 
 
 The strained relations existing between au- 
 thors and actors, on the one hand, and the 
 patentees, on the other, were aggravated and 
 brought to a hasty climax by the crooked con- 
 duct of Laporte. On the 16th of April (1833) 
 he suddenly closed Covent Garden Theatre, 
 without consent of, or formal notice to, his per- 
 formers. It was announced that the theatre would 
 be closed for a fortnight ; but the actors were 
 suspicious and became at once alert. Of course 
 their salaries ceased the moment the theatre 
 closed. Fearing lest they might be thrown en- 
 tirely out of employment, they put Laporte' s 
 intentions to the test by applying to the Lord 
 Chamberlain for permission to perform at the 
 Olympic during the two weeks interval of the 
 closing of Covent Garden. This request was 
 granted. But although Laporte had offered to 
 release all his performers from their articles at 
 the time he sliut his theatre, he no sooner heard 
 of the contemplated opening of the Olympic by 
 his unemployed actors than he immediately re- 
 solved to recommence operations at Covent Gar- 
 den.* This intention he carried out on the 24th, 
 
 ^ The cause of closing Covent Garden was well known to 
 be the low financial state of the concern. The Opera House, 
 Drury Lane, and the Strand closed the same night (April 16), 
 but in some of the cases this was due to an epidemic of influ- 
 enza among the actors. Morning Chronicle, April 22, 1833.
 
 376 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 a week sooner than expected, when Knowles's 
 new play, Tlie Wife, a Tide of Mantua, was 
 produced. The success o£ this piece promised to 
 save Covent Garden from ruin ; but as the bur- 
 den of the performance fell on a single actress, 
 Ellen Tree, it had to be given up within a week. 
 On April 30 Laporte abandoned the theatre, 
 leaving his actors to finish out the week (four 
 nights) without a manager.* 
 
 Left once more without protection or employ- 
 ment, the actors determined to pursue their 
 original design of going over to the Olympic, 
 and trying their fortune with Knowles's new 
 play. They, therefore, petitioned the Lord 
 Chamberlain for permission to act at the Olym- 
 pic for the remainder of the season, — between 
 sixty and seventy nights. They had hoped to 
 begin at their new quarters on Monday, May 6, 
 but the Lord Chamberlain was tardy in giving 
 his consent. Laporte now began to temporize. 
 Although he had released all his actors, he pro- 
 posed, at this juncture, to his forsaken per- 
 formers " half the emoluments to which they 
 would be entitled if the dramatic speculation 
 had been profitable." But the actors declined to 
 share further in the losses of one who cared so 
 little for their welfare, preferring rather to throw 
 
 1 See Morning Chronicle, April 25, 29, May 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 1833, 
 for an account of these strange proceedings.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 377 
 
 themselves on the mercy of the Lord Chamber- 
 lain. The finesse of Laporte in offering the 
 actors half -pay decided the Duke of Devonshire 
 to grant the privilege of playing at the Olympic 
 only on the condition that the Covent Garden 
 manager had no objection to such a course. As 
 might be expected, this requirement could not 
 be satisfied, and although some of the performers 
 had vowed they would not return to Covent 
 Garden, stern necessity drove them back. The 
 farce was enacted for a few nights more, of car- 
 rying on a losing venture to prevent a circum- 
 stance more dreaded by the patentee. 
 
 On the night of the 3d of May (1833), after 
 the representation of The Wife, which was " ex- 
 cellently performed to a very crowded house," 
 and most enthusiastically received, the audience 
 was dumbfounded and chagrined at the opening 
 sentence of the following address, delivered by 
 Abbott : 
 
 " Ladies and Gentlemen, — To-morrow the 
 play of A Wife, A Tale of Mantua, will be 
 acted for the last time here [cries of O ! No, 
 no!]. The Performers of this Theatre having 
 fortunately obtained a License from the Lord 
 Chamberlain [great applause], propose opening 
 with this popular play [cries of order, and ap- 
 plause], and upon their own responsibility [tre- 
 mendous applause], at the Olympic Theatre
 
 378 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 [applause]. They respectfully yet confidently 
 hope, that by your generous support, you will 
 rescue the legitimate Drama [loud applause] of 
 this country from total destruction. [Loud and 
 lasting applause followed the annunciation.] " ^ 
 The following night, Knowles himself came for- 
 ward amidst thunders of applause, and announced 
 the intention of the company to open the Olym- 
 pic on the ensuing Wednesday (May 8). 
 
 But Laporte persisted in offering half-pay to 
 the actors, thus standing as an effectual obstacle 
 to the granting of the license. Finally, however, 
 a license was promised for the remainder of the 
 season, provided the whole company (about 300) 
 were unanimous in the desire to enter into the 
 undertaking. This condition was immediately 
 complied with, and by the morning of the day 
 announced for the opening, every box and avail- 
 able seat in the Olympic had been taken for the 
 first performance.^ As a counter-movement, La- 
 porte announced his intention of opening the 
 Covent Garden Theatre with a foreign troupe 
 in opposition to the company at the Olympic. 
 
 ' Morning Chronicle, May 4, 1833. 
 
 ^ In passing, it ought to be mentioned that it was due to 
 the liberality of that remarkable woman, Madame Vestris, in 
 offering the Olympic to the Covent Garden Company, that the 
 performers were relieved for the remainder of the season. 
 Yates also tendered the use of the scenery, wardrobe, etc., of 
 the Adelphi.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 379 
 
 This served to bring down the severest criticism 
 from the public, who objected to the use of a 
 house, dedicated to the service of the national 
 drama, for the exhibition of foreign operas. But 
 public opinion could do no more than express 
 itself on the subject, it could not prevent the use 
 of the patents for such purposes. " It is true," 
 lamented the " Morning Chronicle " (May 10, 
 1833), " that as matters now stand it is not in 
 the power of the highest authority in the drama 
 to prevent the practice ; but it is in the power 
 of the public not to patronize it ; and sure we 
 are that this state of things cannot long con- 
 tinue." 
 
 Respecting the union of the patents, all 
 doubts were removed on that score when, on the 
 27th of May (1833), Alfred Bunn published an 
 address, officially announcing himself as sole 
 lessee of the patent houses.^ The fact alone was 
 sufficient to arouse the antagonism of all ene- 
 mies to monopoly, and this feeling was intensi- 
 fied, on the part of the actors at least, by the 
 policy of retrenchment adopted by Bunn. How- 
 ever justified by business principles, no schedule 
 of maximum salaries would be submitted to 
 quietly by performers who had been used to de- 
 manding, and getting, their own terms. The 
 Covent Garden Company, led by Knowles, re- 
 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, i, 107.
 
 380 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 fused to sanction with their assistance the monop- 
 oly as thus sealed. Some of them joined with 
 Abbott and Egerton in a project to secure the 
 Coburg during the summer, and to appeal for 
 a license for a third winter theatre.^ The most 
 alluring bait was held out by Bunn to Knowles, 
 but the latter indignantly refused to consider 
 any overtures, preferring " to stand by his co- 
 mates in exile." ^ 
 
 Bulwer's Dramatic Performances Bill was at 
 this time making its way through the House of 
 Commons, and many looked to it to relieve the 
 distressed condition of authors and actors, 
 brought about by the monopoly. In the mean 
 time preparations went on to open the Coburg 
 with the national drama, and Knowles himself 
 headed a petition for the erection of a third 
 theatre.^ Never in the history of the patents 
 had so many things been doing to work the 
 utter ruin of the monopoly. The most pains- 
 taking and determined attitude was taken by 
 the promoters of the petition. Knowles sought 
 the cooperation of Macready,^ but the actor had 
 thus early learned prudence, and merely took 
 
 1 Morning Chronicle, June 3, 1833. 
 
 2 Bunn, The Stage, i, 115, footnote. 
 
 3 The announcement of this appeared first in the Observer, 
 June 9, 1833. 
 
 * Macready's Diaries under date June 12, 1833.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 381 
 
 the matter under consideration. That the peti- 
 tion might certainly reach the King himself and 
 receive a speedy answer, it was proposed to 
 present it to him in person, on one of his levee 
 days. Other details included the securing of a 
 theatre, ready to be occupied as soon as the 
 petition should be granted. So determined were 
 some of the opponents to the monopoly that 
 they did not scruple to advise that, if the peti- 
 tion were rejected, a third theatre should be 
 started anyhow, legally or illegally. However, a 
 more sober counsel prevailed, and the petitioners 
 bided their time. 
 
 With all their hopes and careful preparations 
 Knowles and his followers did not receive an 
 answer from the King as soon as they had antici- 
 pated. Bunn memorialized the Crown against 
 the petition for a third theatre, and felt his own 
 importance sufficiently to think that he influ- 
 enced the final decision.* It is probable, however, 
 that the King reserved his answer to Kuowles's 
 petition, pending the fate of Bulwer's bill. The 
 latter was defeated in the House of Lords on the 
 2d of August. On the 16th of the same month 
 the petition for a third theatre was denied by 
 the Crown,2 One of the curious circumstances 
 
 ^ For this example of self-sufficiency, see The Stage, i, 122. 
 For Bunn's petition, see ibid. 115-122. 
 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, June 10, August 19, 1833.
 
 382 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 associated with the affair is that the signers 
 of the petition received no official notification of 
 the King' s refusal to grant the request. All 
 that could be gleaned in the matter came through 
 persons connected with the patent houses.^ The 
 petitioners themselves entertained strong doubts 
 of the trustworthiness of the rumored rejection 
 of their petition, for as late as the last of Aug- 
 ust we find Knowles writing from the provinces 
 (where he was playing in the " circuit ") to Lon- 
 don, " in some anxiety " to ascertain the facts in 
 the case. Finally, three weeks after the first 
 report of the King's denial to grant his sanction 
 to the petition, the committee appointed to repre- 
 sent the petitioners received official notice from 
 Mr. T. B. Mash, of the Lord Chamberlain's 
 office, " that under existing circumstances, it 
 is impossible that His Majesty can comply with 
 the prayer of the petition." ^ 
 
 As usual in such events, explanations were 
 numerous, and gratis, why the petition failed to 
 receive the King' s approval. Some thought that 
 it had been injudiciously drawn up, containing, it 
 was alleged, too much argument. It was asserted 
 by others that Knowles failed to secure the 
 
 ^ This arose, no doubt, from a letter -written to Bunn by the 
 Vice-Chamberlain, August 15, 1833. See Bunn, The Stage, i, 
 122. 
 
 2 Morning Chronicle, September 2, 9, 1833, quoting Observer.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 383 
 
 crown sanction to his third theatre project, be- 
 cause, forsooth, he had refused £500 from Bunn 
 for a play, by which refusal he had virtually 
 shown his insincerity as to his protestations re- 
 garding the " national drama." ^ As to Knowles's 
 motive in refusing to be lured by so tempting an 
 inducement as that just alluded to, it ought to 
 be said in his justification, and to his credit, that 
 he spurned the offer for two reasons. In the 
 first place, he would hear of no compromise that 
 did not inclune the Covent Garden actors, — 
 and under Bunn's management there was little 
 hope of this. And in the next place, Knowles was 
 irreconcilably opposed to the union of the patent 
 houses. On this point there is no misunderstand- 
 ing the tone of the following laconic note from 
 Knowles to Bunn, dated September 23, 1833 : 
 
 " As I consider the present monopoly to be an 
 insult to the public, an injury to the actor and 
 the author, and an unwarranted departure from 
 the purpose for which the Patents of Theatres 
 Royal, Drury Lane, and Covent Garden were 
 granted — namely, the maintaining of two dis- 
 tinct and rival companies of comedians, I think 
 
 1 Tait's Edinburgh Magazine for December, 1833, in an 
 article entitled, "The Stage and the Drama." Quoted in the 
 Morning Chronicle for November 29, 1833. It is true that 
 Bunn offered Knowles £500 for a full play, when the regular 
 price was only £300. See The Stage, vol. i, pp. 115-119, foot- 
 note.
 
 384 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 it due to my own respectability to state, in reply 
 to your letter, that no consideration whatever 
 can induce me to connect myself with either of 
 these establishments." ^ 
 
 It is far more probable that the petition of 
 Knowles for a third theatre was rejected on 
 quite other grounds than those alleged. The 
 fact that the answer to the prayer was postponed 
 until after the fate of Bulwer's Dramatic Bill 
 was known is significant. Had that bill passed, 
 Knowles's petition had been needless. Its failure 
 seemed to indicate the temper of Parliament 
 relative to the theatrical situation. Likewise, 
 the opinion of the Lord Chancellor in 1831, in 
 the hearing of Arnold's case for an extension 
 of privileges at the English Opera House, ^au- 
 gured the defeat of the application for a third 
 theatre. Again, the union of the patent houses 
 under Bunn's management was looked on by 
 many as a legitimate experiment made with the 
 object of saving the patent houses from ruin, 
 rather than an attempt to establish a tyran- 
 nical monopoly. The j^roject of a third theatre 
 party, if successful, might frustrate this hope. 
 Moreover, the complaints of Knowles and his 
 followers represented the temporary grievances 
 of a select few, rather than the general cause of 
 a free stage. At any rate, such seems to have 
 ^ Bunn, The Stage, i, 117, footnote.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 385 
 
 been the interpretation placed on the petition 
 by the Lord Chamberlain, as shown by his letter 
 to the patentee, acknowledging the latter's me- 
 morial against a third theatre. 
 
 "I am desired by the Lord Chamberlain," 
 writes the Deputy-Chamberlain to Bunn, " to 
 express a hope you will employ as many of the 
 Covent Garden performers as are deserving, and 
 not confine your selection to the Drury Lane 
 Company."* And, finally, the Duke of Devon- 
 shire was lukewarm, if not openly hostile, 
 towards all attempts to invade the patent rights 
 of the " great theatres." Enough of this attitude 
 has appeared in the prosecutions of the minors 
 to make it unnecessary to dilate further on the 
 point here. 
 
 The " Observer," ^ with its usual cynical acute- 
 ness, consoled the defeated petitioners in the 
 following strain, apropos of Bulwer's rejected 
 bill : " We believe that the advocates for a 
 third theatre now see the uselessness of proceed- 
 ing farther in their enterprise at present, and 
 are content to wait the issue of the experiment 
 about to be tried at the two Winter Theatres. 
 The opinion is, that it must fail, and that the 
 public cannot again be brought to take an inter- 
 est in theatricals, without some fresh and power- 
 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, i, 122. 
 
 2 Morning Chronicle, August 26, 1833.
 
 386 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 f ul excitement. IIow is that to be procured ? 
 New plays we hear of none that have any chance 
 of producing the slightest sensation ; and we 
 know more than one author, formerly in the 
 habit of writing original pieces, who positively 
 refuse to make any attempt in the present state 
 of the stage, declaring that they will not throw 
 away their time and talents. As to actors, from 
 what we have lately seen and heard, we believe 
 that there is scarcely a single new one worth 
 transferring from the provinces." 
 
 " The experiment about to be tried at the 
 Winter Theatres " was not calculated to relieve 
 the situation. The policy, outlined by Bunn in 
 his address, to reduce expenses at all hazards, 
 proved contradictory to the express object of 
 restoring the national drama. " We can conceive 
 of nothing more unjust or base," writes one of 
 the critics on Bunn's combining the two com- 
 panies.^ The maximum salary schedule made it 
 impracticable for the lessee to secure the best 
 talent for the stage. Ellen Tree absolutely re- 
 fused to sign articles at either patent house, but 
 planned a lecture tour in the provinces instead. 
 Later she entered into an engagement with an 
 English company to act Shakesperean plays in 
 Germany. Charles Kean and Wallack were also 
 interested in this project of going to Germany, 
 ^ New Monthly Magazine for 1833, pt. ii, p. 247.
 
 PETITION FOR A THIRD THEATRE 387 
 
 and about the middle of November (1833) the 
 company sailed for Hamburg. Powell came to 
 America and acted here very successfully during 
 the season of 1833-34. Sheridan Knowles, after 
 starring it in the provinces, contemplated a trip 
 to America for the same season, but he after- 
 wards changed his mind and devoted himself as 
 actor and author to the service of the Victoria 
 (Coburg). The next year (1834), however, he 
 carried out his original plan, and came to the 
 United States.^ "We are grieved to hear," 
 breaks out the " Observer " (September 15, 
 1833), "and can scarcely believe, that the exist- 
 ing circumstances of the drama in this country 
 are likely for a time to banish from our shores 
 not only Ellen Tree, but Sheridan Knowles. 
 This indeed looks like the encouragement of our 
 national drama, when almost our only original 
 author is obliged to seek shelter and sustenance 
 in foreign countries ! The Germans have a just 
 admiration of Shakespeare, and will no doubt 
 rejoice in the opportunity of seeing his plays 
 performed by English actors." 
 
 The effort to get relieved from the theatrical 
 monopoly lingered on for a few months. Serle 
 took up the cause after the rejection of Knowles's 
 
 ^ Life of James Sheridan Knowles, p. 118. For the move- 
 ments of the " exiled actors " see also Morning Chronicle for 
 September 23 and November 18, 1833.
 
 388 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 petition, and sought to enlist the leading actors 
 and dramatists. Maeready entered into the plan 
 so far as to suggest, as some security to actors, 
 authors, and the public, a system of graduated 
 prices, based on the quality of the dramatic 
 exhibition, as indicated by the Lord Chamber- 
 lain on the license granted. Wallack furiously 
 attacked the plan, " contending for universal and 
 unrestricted license to act the drama in every 
 street." ^ A compromise was at last reached in a 
 plan which proposed to confine the classic drama 
 to the four large theatres of Westminster, re- 
 stricting the performance of the regular drama 
 elsewhere to a great distance. Maeready was to 
 confer with Arnold and Morris on the subject, 
 and, if they should enter into the proposed plan, 
 all parties were to join in a petition to Parlia- 
 ment.^ But nothing came of this attempt, 
 and the matter was dropped until further de- 
 velopment caused the authors to unite in 
 a final effort to defend themselves against the 
 monopoly. 
 
 1 Macready's Diaries, December 25, 1833. 
 
 2 Ibid. December 31, 1833. From tbe allusion to Arnold 
 and Morris, it appears that Drury Lane, Covent Garden, the 
 English Opera House, and the Little Theatre in the Haymar- 
 ket, were the four theatres included in the plan.
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE END OP THE STRUGGLE 
 
 THE last act of the tragi-comic drama was 
 drawing to a close. The majors had ceased 
 to persecute the minors, and were content to hear 
 of " Macbeth at the Olympic, the School of Scan- 
 dal at the Adelphi, or Hamlet at the Surrey," so 
 long as they could defend themselves within their 
 own stronghold ; for the time had at last arrived 
 when the minor managers invaded the ranks of 
 the patentees, carrjdng off the great actors to 
 "star" at the little houses.* The lesser managers 
 were the better able to do this, as they depended 
 largely on the talents of the leading performer 
 and did not attempt to keep the average high 
 for the whole company. Moreover their highest 
 admission was only 5s., while the boxes at the 
 patent houses were 7s. Kean was Kean at either 
 price. 
 
 The tendency was greatly increased by the 
 attitude of the Marquis of Conyngham, who 
 came into the lord chamberlainship in 1836. 
 From the outset, he was extremely hostile to the 
 monopoly and correspondingly friendly to the 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, i, 48, 49.
 
 390 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 minors. The Haymarket Theatre, that had had 
 its license but recently extended to eight months, 
 was now given a further increase to ten months. 
 The season of 1839 at that theatre amounted 
 to 250 nights. It has already been mentioned 
 that the Strand was now licensed, and that the 
 Lyceum, Adelphi, and Olympic all received an 
 addition of two months to their licenses, while 
 Braham was j)ermitted to open a new theatre, 
 the St. James. Add to these the sanction of the 
 Lord Chamberlain to the Opera Buffa (a minor 
 Italian opera house), the granting of the privi- 
 lege of promenade concerts at the English Opera 
 House, extra favors shown the King's Theatre, 
 and, finally, the restriction of the patent houses 
 to English pieces only, and one may get some 
 notion of Lord Conyngham's policy respecting 
 the theatrical question. It took the greater part 
 of a century for the patentees to learn that the 
 Licensing Act (so much praised by Gibber and 
 the friends of theatrical monopoly at the time of 
 its enactment) might operate against, as well as 
 for, the patent houses. As pointed out by Ches- 
 terfield and others, that act made the Lord 
 Chamberlain the veritable sovereign over the 
 drama and the stage. Such a power might be 
 harmless, or it might be dangerous. For a long 
 period of years its exercise was considered most 
 beneficial by those it happened to protect, — the
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 391 
 
 patentees, and most oppressive by those it 
 sought to exterminate, — the minors. But there 
 was nothing in the provisions of 10 George II to 
 prevent a reversal of the application of the 
 power vested in the Lord Chamberlain. The 
 turn in the lane had been reached at last. 
 
 The operations of the Lord Chamberlain's 
 office to the undoing of the monopoly may best 
 be seen in the Lenten controversy. This ex- 
 tended over a series of years, and forms one of 
 the last spokes in the patentees' wheel of mis- 
 fortune. I select this example for the reason, 
 also, that it clearly illustrates the anomalous 
 condition of the laws regulating the theatres, — 
 one of the main arguments for the abolition of 
 the monopoly. Early in 1831, C. Kemble (as 
 patentee of Covent Garden) applied to the Lord 
 Chamberlain for permission to perform the regu- 
 lar drama on Wednesdays and Fridays during 
 Lent, but was denied the privilege.^ The fol- 
 lowing year no such application was made, as it 
 was thought that the patent theatres could not 
 be kept open profitably. In 1833, however, both 
 the patentees applied for Lenten privileges. 
 The contemplated engagements which Captain 
 Polhill had in view at that time rendered it 
 important to his interests that permission to 
 play during Lent without interruption should be 
 1 Buim says (ii, 194) in January, 1832, but this is a mistake.
 
 392 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 conceded. Without awaiting the Lord Cham- 
 berlain's reply to this request, the Drury Lane 
 manager, on the 25th of February, announced 
 Moses in Egypt for the Wednesday following. 
 The Duke of Devonshire thereupon sent his 
 deputy (T. B. Mash) to learn of Polhill if he 
 did not deem a former communication from the 
 Loi'd Chamberlain sufficient (referring, no doubt, 
 to the negative answer to Kemble's application 
 in 1831). Polhill and his advisers showed con- 
 siderable spirit on the occasion, talked of appeal- 
 ing to the people, and so on ; whereupon a posi- 
 tive command on the subject was issued by the 
 Lord Chamberlain's orders. On the following 
 morning the Drury Lane lessee, accompanied by 
 his manager (Bunn), called on the Duke of 
 Devonshire and besought him to permit for one 
 night the performance as advertised, after which, 
 if anything in it were found objectionable, it 
 would be withdrawn. But to this proposal the 
 Duke gave a peremptory refusal, on the ground 
 that, as the piece announced consisted of danc- 
 ing, it could not be otherwise than objectionable. 
 The matter here ended for a time. The "Ob- 
 server " assumed that the Lord Chamberlain's 
 decision " met with the entire and unqualified 
 approbation of the highest authority." ^ 
 
 The peculiar thing about the circumstance 
 
 ^ Morning Chronicle, January 28, March 4, 1S33.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 393 
 
 relative to the Lenten prohibition is that it ap- 
 plied to the patent theatres only, inasmuch as 
 the Lord Chamberlain's authority, as defined 
 by the Licensing Act, did not extend beyond 
 the liberties of Westminster. " The position in 
 which the patent theatres are placed by the re- 
 cent prohibition," observes the "London Times," 
 " is not a little curious. The term ' monopoly ' 
 in their case has come to imply their not being 
 able to do what the other theatres do. Thus at 
 the Victoria and other minor theatres the course 
 of the drama proceeds as usual, while at the 
 Adelphi a series of entertainments, of which 
 comic humor is the leading feature, are given 
 without interruption ; while at Covent Gar- 
 den a sacred drama, on the story of Jephtha, 
 conveying solemn impressions, from some of 
 Handel's finest music, is prohibited as a profana- 
 tion of this period of fasting and mortification. 
 There is doubt, it seems, where the odium should 
 fix — on the Lord Chamberlain or on the Bishop 
 of London. Let some intelligent Member of 
 Parliament, for common respect to property de- 
 serves it, bring the question before the House of 
 Commons, so that the blame may rest in the 
 right place. The incident is enough to make us 
 the laughing-stock of the whole continent." ^ 
 No further attempt was made by the patentees 
 ^ Quoted by Examiner, February 23, 1834.
 
 394 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 to introduce performances on Wednesdays and 
 Fridays during Lent until 1837, when Bunn 
 proposed to bid defiance to the authority of the 
 Marquis of Conyngham. The opera of Fair 
 Mosamond was presented at Drury Lane on 
 Tuesday, February 28, 1837. The success of 
 the piece induced the manager to advertise it 
 for Thursday and Friday of the same week. On 
 Thursday, March 2, the Lord Chamberlain sent 
 a letter to the Secretary of the Drury Lane 
 Committee, forbidding the theatre to be opened 
 on the following evening. This prohibition was 
 explained on the ground that it was customary to 
 permit only sacred entertainments on the Wed- 
 nesdays and Fridays of Lent. The announce- 
 ment for the Friday performance was recalled 
 accordingly. But Bunn resented this tyrannical 
 use of power, by preparing a petition* to Parlia- 
 ment, in which the facts were stated in respect to 
 the closing of the theatre on the night in ques- 
 tion. The memorial then submits to the House 
 of Commons the partiality displayed in favor of 
 the Adelphi, Strand, and St. James theatres (all 
 of them as much within the jurisdiction of the 
 Lord Chamberlain as Drury Lane), by allowing 
 them to keep open on the evening prohibited to 
 the patent house, and that too " to give a variety 
 of entertainments of a mixed and ribald charac- 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, ii, 198-204.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 395 
 
 ter." In detail the Adelphi was open on the 
 Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent with an act- 
 ress in " the delineation of the passions," with 
 comic singing by different persons. Among the 
 songs on these occasions was "Jim Crow," and 
 other negro melodies. The Bedouin Arabs were 
 also performers at the Adelphi ; and a mono- 
 logue and scenic displays were among the at- 
 tractions. The St. James had been open on the 
 same (Friday) evening with " comic songs," 
 " imitations of the London actors," and a pan- 
 tomime. The Strand had presented " A Wallet 
 of Whims and Waggeries," and a variety of 
 music, dancing, juggling, gymnastic exercises, 
 and scenic views. 
 
 Mr. T. S. Duncombe undertook the support 
 of Bunn's petition. The Lord Chancellor was 
 first approached in the hope that his influence 
 might be secured in behalf of the patentee. 
 From the communications which passed between 
 the Chancellor and Duncombe it appears that 
 the custom of observing Lent had ceased to exist 
 as regarded the minor theatres, but that it had 
 continued at Drury Lane "on account of its 
 having heretofore suited the lessee's convenience 
 to remain closed on those evenings." Duncombe 
 came near voicing the general sentiment on the 
 subject when he declared that, " when we know 
 what is going on in every portion of this metrop-
 
 396 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 olis up to the days now in dispute, all parties 
 consider the restriction attempted to be placed 
 on Drury Lane Tlieatre as a gross jjiece of 
 humbug, and, as I contend, a stretch of power 
 on the part of the Lord Chamberlain's depart- 
 ment unsanctioned by law." ' 
 
 Pending the action of Parliament on his peti- 
 tion the manager of Drury Lane decided to 
 open the theatre on Friday, March 17, in defiance 
 of the Lord Chamberlain's prohibition. The com- 
 munication containing this bold determination 
 was shown to Sir John Russell, then Secretary 
 of the Home Department, and to other members 
 of Government. It was their opinion that if the 
 parties interested in Drury Lane Theatre per- 
 sisted in their intention of opening for per- 
 formances on Wednesdays or Fridays in Lent, 
 "they would expose themselves to all the penal 
 consequences of persons playing without a li- 
 cense ; " and it was clearly intimated that a fur- 
 ther prosecution of the subject by the manager of 
 Drury Lane might endanger his patent. 
 
 The victory on this occasion, as formerly, was 
 unquestionably on the side of the Lord Cham- 
 berlain ; but while the minors enjoyed to their 
 full the situation, the general public was thor- 
 oughly indignant at the Lenten farce, which 
 
 ^ This most interesting episode has not been injured in the 
 relating by Bunn. See The Stage, ii, 194, 215.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 397 
 
 belonged to a bygone age. For once, though 
 the fact produced no material benefits to the 
 patentees, the popular sympathy was on the 
 side of the monopoly. This was due, however, 
 rather to the nature of the controversy than to any 
 respect for patent rights. " There are no Orato- 
 rios this year, — pretenses ' most musical, most 
 melancholy,' for keeping open the two Great 
 Theatres on the nights called ' holy,' " remarks the 
 " Spectator" (February 25) on the Lenten quarrel 
 of 1837, " so that on Wednesday and Friday the 
 two greats are deserted. Co vent Garden looks 
 like the mausoleum of the departed Drama — 
 * the tomb of all the Capulets ; ' and Drury like 
 a great warehouse of stage properties. The sa- 
 credness of these ' holy days,' by the way, is of 
 a very peculiar character ; it is only profaned by 
 dramatic performances at the theatres licensed 
 by the Lord Chamberlain. The medley entertain- 
 ments at the Adelphi, the St. James's, and the 
 New Strand Theatre — which last Webster has 
 engaged for the Lent nights only — bear the same 
 relation to the regular performances on other 
 nights as those evasive esculents, salt fish, pars- 
 nips, and pancakes, do to the flesh and fowl of 
 other days. . . . Really, it is time that these 
 conventional hypocrisies should be done away 
 with. ... A Protestant crusade against salt 
 fish would be a fine thing : the Pope's bull would
 
 398 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 stand no chance against the roast beef of Eng- 
 land." 
 
 In 1839 Bimn made a final attempt to give 
 entertainments on the forbidden evenings. This 
 time the proposed "show" was Van Amburgh's 
 Lions. In an attempt to rid himself of the an- 
 noyance and tyranny of the Lord Chamberlain, 
 the Drury Lane manager and his performers 
 petitioned Parliament, on the 18th of February 
 (1839), to be relieved from the authority of 
 that official during Lent. As on the previous 
 occasion, Duncombe took charge of Bunn's cause 
 in the House, and though objections were raised 
 to the irregularity of presenting a petition with- 
 out first giving formal notice, he succeeded in 
 getting a motion read to address the Queen, sup- 
 plicating Her Majesty to order the Lord Cham- 
 berlain not to restrict theatres in Westminster 
 from exhibiting amusements permitted to other 
 theatres in the country. The motion, however, 
 was lost by a very large majority.^ 
 
 Failing in his effort to get the House to sug- 
 gest the line of duty to the Crown, on the 28th 
 of February, Duncombe contented himself with 
 a motion to commit the sentiment of the mem- 
 bers to the resolution, "That it is the opinion of 
 this House that during Lent no greater restric- 
 
 ^ The vote stood 70 to 160. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 
 3d Series, vol. 45, cols. 577-583.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 399 
 
 tions should be passed upon theatrical entertain- 
 ments within the city of Westminster than are 
 placed upon the like amusements at the same 
 period in every other part of the metropolis." In 
 presenting this resolution, Duncombe created 
 much amusement for the House, at the expense of 
 ministers and other high officials of state and 
 church, by showing up the absurdity of the 
 Lenten theory in the light of actual practice.^ 
 Relative to the theatrical controversy there was 
 but one rational conclusion : to leave the West- 
 minster theatres at the caprice of the Lord 
 Chamberlain, in reference to Lent, was a piece 
 of manifest injustice. 
 
 Lord John Russell was the main opponent to the 
 motion. He stated that, after the question came 
 before the House on the 18th of February, he 
 had conferred with the Bishop of London, who 
 gave as his opinion that the Westminster theatres 
 ought to close on the Wednesdays and Fridays 
 during Lent, out of respect to the established 
 religion of the country. Lord John then re- 
 viewed the legislative acts which had led to the 
 anomalous condition of th'e theatres respecting 
 Lent. The Licensing Act gave the Lord Cham- 
 
 1 The debates on Duncombe' s motion of 28th of February 
 are reported by Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, 
 vol. 45, columns 1020-1045. Bunn {The Stage, vol. iii, ch. 4, 
 especially pp. 128-152) gives a very complete account of the 
 proceedings in and out of Parliament.
 
 400 THE STRUGGLE FOR A -FREE STAGE 
 
 berlain jurisdiction over theatrical entertain- 
 ments in Westminster, and ever since the 
 enactment of that law (and for the matter of 
 that, long before), the custom of observing Lent 
 in that portion of the metropolis had been prac- 
 ticed. By another act of Parliament the power 
 to license theatres outside of Westminster, within 
 a radius of twenty miles from London, was 
 vested in the magistrates. While it had turned 
 out that those places of entertainment outside 
 of Westminster had been exhibiting perform- 
 ances on " holy days," nevertheless, they were 
 constantly liable to severe penalties for being 
 illegally established. If managers within the 
 jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain complained 
 of the hardship of being compelled to close on 
 Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, their 
 attention was called to the provision in their 
 licenses restricting them on the days in question. 
 Furthermore the antiquity of the custom would 
 seem a sufficient reason for the observance. Lord 
 John acknowledged the lack of uniformity in the 
 practice of the custom, but maintained that the 
 rest of the metropolis should conform to West- 
 minster rather than the latter should follow the 
 rest of the city in abolishing the convention. 
 
 The majority of the House disagreed with the 
 Secretary of the Home Department. It was 
 declared an absurdity and an injustice to insist
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 401 
 
 on a religious observance anywhere, if not every- 
 where, in the Kingdom ; and it was denounced 
 as sheer hypocrisy to maintain one religious 
 law for the rich and another for the poor. Some 
 went so far as to assert that the whole Lenten 
 farce was of Popish origin, and no part of the 
 Protestant forms. That part of Sir John's speech 
 r^ferring to the Bishop's advice was pooh-poohed ; 
 the members knew all that before, and they 
 knew also that the voice of the people would 
 support the motion before the House, in spite of 
 the Bishop's testimony, and in spite of the Gov- 
 ernment's attitude (as represented by Lord John 
 Russell). The time had passed for making Eng- 
 lish people look upon Wednesdays and Fridays 
 as different from the other days in Lent. The 
 debate on the resolution grew exceedingly warm. 
 The position of the Government seemed at utter 
 variance with the popular mind. The Chancel- 
 lor of the Exchequer (Mr. T. S. Rice) joined 
 Lord John Russell in his opposition to the meas- 
 ure ; while D'Israeli, of course, supported the 
 motion. But party lines were by no means fol- 
 lowed in the debate, and when the House divided 
 it was found that the resolution had a majority 
 of 20, the vote standing 92 to 72. 
 
 Supported by this action of the House of Com- 
 mons Bunn announced the opera of Farinelli 
 at Drury Lane for Friday, the 8th of March
 
 402 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 (1839). But to .the patentee's unbounded sur- 
 prise and chagrin an interdiction came from 
 the Lord Chamberlain's office (March C) for- 
 bidding the performance. And this time the 
 command was " by direction of Her Majesty's 
 Ministers." * The quarrel was taken up immedi- 
 ately by the public prints, and the whole trans- 
 action on the part of the Lord Chamberlain wa^ 
 characterized as trumpery.- On the same day of 
 this prohibition Duncombe called for the cor- 
 respondence between the Lord Chamberlain and 
 the Drury Lane manager on the subject,^ and 
 five days later (March 11) brought in another 
 motion to the effect that the House had learned 
 " with regret and surprise " that Her Majesty's 
 Ministers had seen fit " to interfere with the 
 wholly unfettered discretion which the legislature 
 had been pleased to vest in the Lord Chamber- 
 lain, ... by directing that officer . . . so as to 
 defeat the manifest object of a resolution of this 
 Commons House of Parliament." In discussing 
 this motion Duncombe charged the Ministers 
 with directing the actions of the Lord Chamber- 
 lain in closing the theatres, and that by so doing 
 they had not only infringed the prerogative of 
 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, iii, 140. 
 
 2 See Morning Chronicle for February 27, 1839. Article 
 quoted by Bunn, iii, 141-14-5. 
 
 ^ Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, vol. 45, col. 
 1318.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 403 
 
 the Crown, but also " had been most disrespectful 
 to the House of Commons." 
 
 Lord John Russell did not deny that he and 
 other members of the Cabinet had advised the 
 Lord Chamberlain in what he had done, because 
 they had not deemed a mere resolution of Par- 
 liament superior to the laws of the land. Fur- 
 thermore, taking into consideration the contra- 
 diction of sentiment shown in the two votes 
 taken in the House (the first on the 18th, the 
 second on the 28th of February), he saw no 
 reason to suppose that the resolution embodied 
 the deliberate opinion of the members. The 
 contradiction of the existing theatrical laws in 
 the metropolis was admitted, but the discrepancy 
 was placed to the blame of the minors, and not 
 the majors, in violating the statutes. At this 
 point, it is interesting to note that Sir John 
 Russell stated that it was the purpose of the 
 Government to correct the deficient laws regu- 
 lating theatres in London, either by introducing 
 a bill, or by providing, in some of the police 
 measures then before the House, for magistrates 
 to have the power to grant licenses for theatrical 
 entertainments, as well as for music and dancing. 
 On this phase of the subject he gave it as his 
 sincere opinion that " the power of procuring 
 good and respectable theatrical entertainments 
 slionld extend throughout the metropolis." ^ 
 ^ Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, vol. 46, 229-243.
 
 404 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 By this strategic move toward conciliation, 
 satisfying, in a degree, Duncombe's insistence 
 on some definite promise that the regulations 
 respecting Lent should be removed the following 
 year, the motion was prevented from passing. 
 But the airing of the Lenten controversy made 
 clear the necessity of some immediate regulation 
 whereby favor should be shown impartially to 
 majors and minors. 
 
 The Lenten restrictions were not the only 
 indignities which the " inviolable patents " had 
 to suffer at the hands of the Lord Chamberlain. 
 The character of the performances themselves 
 was limited to the English tongue. In May, 
 1837, Bunn secured Madame Pasta for a few 
 nights in Italian opera, but the announcement 
 was met with a mandate from the Chamberlain's 
 office forbidding everything at Drury Lane ex- 
 cept English entertainments. This order referred 
 to the "Opera Arrangement " of 1792, by which 
 no Italian operas were to be given at either of 
 the patent houses, but only at the King's The- 
 atre.^ It was retorted that by that arrangement 
 the Opera House was to be opened on Tuesdays 
 and Saturdays only, and that recently the 
 Chamberlain had violated the treaty of 1792 by 
 
 ^ On the accession of Victoria to the throne (1837), the 
 Opera House in the Haymarket became " The Queen's 
 Theatre," or " Her Majesty's."
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 405 
 
 permitting the Italian Opera House to be open 
 " week after week " for six nights in the week, 
 and, in addition, to give six successive morning 
 concerts, besides German and French operas, 
 French plays, and even English performances. 
 But it was useless to point out to the Marquis 
 of Conyngham that "arrangements " and "laws " 
 and "settlements" had been broken time and 
 again by all parties, and hence were dead let- 
 ters ; that official was determined to be his own 
 interpreter of these things. 
 
 No longer able to endure the galling yoke of 
 Lord Conyngham's tyranny, the Drury Lane 
 manager, in his extremity, dared even to ap- 
 proach Windsor Castle. But instead of getting 
 an audience from His Majesty, he received a note 
 instead, which coolly stated that if Mr. Bunn's 
 visit was with reference to the theatre, he must 
 carry his affair to the Lord Chamberlain. Bunn, 
 it should be remembered, was, in a sense, a 
 member of the King's household, since he be- 
 longed to the corps of gentlemen-at-arms. Never- 
 theless the sovereign took such umbrage at the 
 circumstance that he remarked that " if Mr. 
 Bunn attempted to interfere with His Majesty's 
 prerogative in regard to the patent theatres, he 
 should be under the necessity of requiring him 
 to leave the corps of gentlemen-at-arms." ^ 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, ii, 222-229.
 
 406 THE STRUQGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 This prohibition respecting Madame Pasta 
 came at the very time when tlie licenses of the 
 leading minors under the Loi-d Chamberlain's 
 jurisdiction were extended, and, for this reason, 
 operated as a double hardship on the patent- 
 ees. The House of Commons was appealed to, 
 through T. S. Duncombe and Sir Benjamin Hall, 
 to amend the Licensing Act; but the bill was 
 so modified in the House of Lords as to increase 
 rather than duninish the Lord Chamberlain's 
 power. Before final action could be taken on the 
 measure His Majesty died, and Parliament was 
 dissolved. 
 
 The antagonism of the Lord Chamberlain to 
 the patent theatre found a new opportunity for 
 exhibiting itself at the close of the season of 
 1836-37. The twenty-one year license issued to 
 the Drury Lane Committee in September, 1816, 
 had just expired. When Bunn proposed to open 
 Drury Lane in the autumn of 1837 he received 
 a message from the Chamberlain's office demand- 
 ing on what authority he based his actions. In 
 answer the Drury Lane manager brought for- 
 ward the Killigrew patent, which had been pur- 
 chased, finally, from the Covent Garden pro- 
 prietors December 13, 1813, as already related. 
 This was the first time since the old parchment 
 had gone to sleep in 1682 that it was claimed to 
 be of active worth (with the possible exception
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 407 
 
 of the brief period wheu John Rich controlled 
 Covent Garden and Lincoln's-Inn-Fields). And 
 it was the first time since the days of Charles II 
 that it was positively known (by the general 
 public) to be in existence/ Its reappearance 
 came too late to be of any material benefit to its 
 owners, while the circumstance was in no sense 
 calculated to relieve the strained relations be- 
 tween the patentee and the Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 One more illustration will serve to make clear 
 the widening breach between the patent theatre 
 and the office which had so long defended the 
 monopoly of amusements. In 1838, M. Spontini 
 contemplated a series of German operas to be 
 given in London the following year, and, as he 
 afterwards claimed, got a promise from the Lord 
 Chamberlain to issue him a license for that pur- 
 pose. In the first year (1833) of Bunn's lessee^ 
 ship at the patent house Spontini had been in- 
 troduced so successfully in opera at Drury Lane 
 that Bunn now (1839) conceived the plan of as- 
 suming the responsibility of the German opera 
 venture, and arranged with Spontini accordingly. 
 As the latter required an advance payment of 
 his salary (,£1000) the Drury Lane manager, 
 
 1 The Stage, ii, 280-81. Bunn attributes the animosity of 
 Lord Conyngham to this circumstance, since, by the appearance 
 of the " dormant patent," the annual fee of £100 to the Lord 
 Chamberlain ceased. The Stage, iii, 92.
 
 408 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 although feeling protected by his patent, thought 
 to make assurance doubly sure by sounding the 
 Lord Chamberlain on the subject of the German 
 opera. That official requested Bunn to put his 
 case in writing. As Bunn was at that time lessee 
 of the English Opera House also, he deemed it 
 wise to apply for the opera license at that the- 
 atre, and not run the risk of compromising his 
 patent rights at Drury Lane by tacitly admitting 
 the superior power of a license to his patent. 
 But, as it turned out, he had as well saved his 
 shrewdness for some other occasion ; for he was 
 notified in unequivocal terms that the Lord 
 Chamberlain " had decided not to grant a license 
 for German Opera," and that " only English 
 entertainments of the stage were sanctioned at 
 the Theatres Koyal, Drury Lane and Covent 
 Garden."' 
 
 In defense of his rights the Drury Lane man- 
 ager asserted that the Lord Chamberlain had 
 exceeded his power in attempting to close a play- 
 house on the ground that it had no license to 
 represent a particular piece, since, it was claimed, 
 the Act of 10 George II gave to that official of 
 the King's household authority only to pro- 
 hibit plays, making no mention of licensing 
 them. For example, the opera of Fair Rosa- 
 mond was not licensed on its first representation 
 
 1 Bunn, The Stage, iii, 79-93.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 409 
 
 (February 28, 1837), — the Chamberlain had 
 stated merely that he did not prohibit it. '^ But 
 Bunn must have known that this was a mere 
 quibble over terms, and that the practice of a 
 hundred years was strongly against him. The fact 
 is, that so long as the Lord Chamberlain exer- 
 cised his authority to the disadvantage of the 
 minors, and to the consequent favor of the patent 
 houses, the monopoly made no complaint of tyr- 
 anny ; but as soon as the tables were turned the 
 injustice of the situation was quickly appreciated 
 by the patentees. 
 
 It is a relief to hasten to the end. The truth 
 must be told ; the monopoly in theatrical amuse- 
 ments had run its natural course ; " the wheel had 
 turned full circle." The old Killigrew patent that 
 had been dubbed " dormant " had, in reality, 
 " died and made no sign ; " and the contentions for 
 the decade (1832-1842) were merely over the 
 details of the funeral. The patentees were the 
 first to realize the hopelessness of their situation. 
 For long they had maintained successfully that 
 the grants of Charles II to Killigrew and Dave- 
 nant conferred upon the holders of those docu- 
 ments a monopoly of the drama, limiting all other 
 houses of theatrical amusements to a narrow 
 range of performances. The reverse of this had 
 now come to pass ; and the resistance of Man- 
 1 The Stage, ii, 196.
 
 410 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 affer Bunn to the altered state of affairs in the 
 theatrical kingdom only served to confirm the 
 change. The struggle had been a long one, and 
 iu the main disheartening ; but the dawn of the 
 new century brought a gleam of hope to the strug- 
 gle for a liberated stage. Reformation along 
 many lines filled the air, and a free theatre for the 
 regular drama came in on the crest of the wave 
 of the general movement. 
 
 As usual in such cases, the fact was assured 
 before legislation gave the final stamp of recog- 
 nition. The end was prefaced also by a petition 
 from nearly all the leading dramatic authors pray- 
 ing for a law to protect their profession . In the dis- 
 cussion in the House of Commons on this petition 
 Lord Mahon took occasion to review the existing 
 conditions of the drama and the stage. The 
 mischief to the dramatic art, it was declared, 
 had resulted from the legislation on the subject. 
 The penalty provided b}" the Act of 10 George 
 II had been, said Lord Mahon, a dead letter 
 from the day of its enactment ; for at first the 
 actors were too poor to pay the fine, and later 
 they defied it. It was this contradiction of law 
 and practice that had produced the state of 
 affairs they were importuned to correct. If it 
 "were asked, what need w^as there for modifying 
 the laws, since the minors had invaded with 
 impunity the sacred precincts of the patent
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 411 
 
 monopoly ? it was answered, that so long as the 
 laws might be enforced the safety of the drama 
 was endangered, and the position of the actor 
 made precarious ; for " nearly every actor who 
 trod the boards of our theatres was performing 
 under the risk of a penalty of ,£50 a-night." In 
 like manner, theatres, unless sanctioned by a 
 license from the Lord Chamberlain, were held 
 to be illegal in courts of law ; in consequence of 
 which anomalous condition contracts of authors, 
 actors, and othei's with managers of unlicensed 
 theatres were made always with the possibility 
 of being declared null and void. Herein lay 
 a new argument in favor of a legally free stage. 
 Supplementing and abetting this evil was that 
 of the monopoly, repugnant to the sentiments of 
 the public, and to the interests of the monopo- 
 lists also. If the argument were raised that the 
 patent theatres were necessary for the encourage- 
 ment and defense of dramatic genius. Lord 
 Mahon desired to call attention to the facts, 
 namely, that " nearly all the best dramas pro- 
 duced since the establishment of the patents had 
 been brought forward irregularly or unwillingly. 
 Johnson forced Goldsmith's She Stoo^JS to Con- 
 quer into the theatre. Tobin died regretting 
 that he could not succeed in having the Honey- 
 moon performed. Lillo produced George Barn- 
 well in an irregular theatre after it had been
 
 412 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 rejected by the holders of the patents. Douglas 
 was cast back on Home's hands. Fielding was 
 introduced as a dramatist to the public at an 
 unlicensed house, and Mrs. Inchbald's comedy 
 had lain two years neglected when by a trifling 
 accident she was able to obtain the manager's 
 approval." While the public was thus not served 
 by the monopoly, the managers of the patent 
 houses fared no better. Statistics were produced 
 showing that " the monopolists were reaping 
 only bankruptcy and ruin." ^ 
 
 As a result of this petition from the dramatists 
 the House ordered returns of copies of any com- 
 munications that had been addressed to the Sec- 
 retary of State for the Home Department, in the 
 course of the year, complaining of the laws regu- 
 lating the drama. On the 26th of the following 
 July (1843) a bill was brought in known as the 
 Theatre Regulation Bill. The speed with which 
 this was carried through both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment shows the ripeness of the time for settling 
 the theatrical controversies of a century. If peti- 
 tions were presented against the measure, or if 
 objections were raised to it in debate, they were 
 all for the purpose of making sure that the vexed 
 question should be settled forever ; for all par- 
 
 ^ Parliamentary Debates, 3d Series, vol. Ixiv, cols. 791-800. 
 The petition of the dramatic authors was presented to the 
 House of Commons by Lord Mahon in June, 1842.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 413 
 
 ties were finally agreed that the incongruous and 
 unjust theatrical regulations were no longer to be 
 borne. Five days after its first reading the bill 
 was read a second time without debate in the 
 House of Commons (July 31) ; and on the 4th 
 of August it was considered by the Committee of 
 the whole House. 
 
 The low state of the national drama was ad- 
 mitted by all those who spoke on the measure. 
 Sir J. Graham made the assertion that the chief 
 plays of the country were to be seen at the Hay- 
 market Theatre only. The patent theatres were 
 closed for such a period of the year that but 
 for the Haymarket it might be said that Shake- 
 speare's plays could not be represented in London 
 for several months in the year. As far back as 
 1833 we read the following in the "New Monthly 
 Magazine " ^ relative to the Haymarket : " We 
 recommend a visit to this theatre to all who have 
 a liking for the old comedy. It is the only place 
 where we can get a glimpse even of its skirts." 
 In 1835 the "Examiner" (July 26) speaks 
 thus of The Rivals at the same theatre : " We 
 have seen it better played in all its parts, but we 
 never saw it go off better. . . . We must say 
 generally of the entertainments of this theatre 
 that they are deserving -of every support. It is 
 the only theatre now where we catch a glimpse 
 1 New Monthly Magazine, pt. ii, p. 518.
 
 414 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 of the good old comedy." And again on August 
 16, 1835, to the same effect. 
 
 Duncotnbe testified that he thought the Regu- 
 lation Bill would operate to the benefit of the 
 patent houses. Indeed, he said, he happened to 
 know that Drury Lane Theatre had been leased 
 in consequence of the introduction of the bill.* 
 Mr. Duncombe had made a canvass of authors, 
 actors, and managers, and all had concurred in 
 the opinion that the conflicting and injurious 
 laws ought to be altered. In discussing the 
 clause in the bill relative to the question of what 
 licenses the Lord Chamberlain should be em- 
 powered to grant, the speaker thought it ought 
 to include the counties of Middlesex and Surrey. 
 Otherwise the vitiating principle then in prac- 
 tice might recur, and the measure would fall 
 short of its intended purpose. The objection 
 raised to this suggestion was that, by inserting 
 such a clause, the magistrates of the two counties 
 named would be placed on a different legal basis 
 
 ^ The allusion is to Bunn. At the close of the season 1835- 
 1830 the union of the two houses was broken, Bunn giving 
 up Covent Garden. After the disgraceful squabbles between 
 Bunn and Macready (April-May, lSo6), the latter went over 
 to Covent Garden and became its lessee the following year, in 
 opposition to Drury Lane. Bunn remained at Drury Lane 
 until 1839, when he left it, a bankrupt. On the passage of the 
 Theatre Regulation Bill, he again, for a short time, assumed 
 control of Drury Lane.
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 415 
 
 from the justices of the rest of the Kingdom. 
 The amendment was therefore passed by. 
 
 The bill was reported on the 5th of August, 
 passed its third reading without debate on the Tth, 
 and on the same day was carried to the House of 
 Lords and read the first time. Three days later 
 it went through the second reading, followed on 
 the 11th by consideration in the Lords' Com- 
 mittee. Lord Beaumont moved to strike out the 
 clause providing for Shakespeare's plays to be 
 represented, and the Earl of Glengall brought 
 up the antiquated argument of "inviolable 
 patents." Arnold, of the Lyceum, petitioned to 
 know whether it was the intention of the bill to 
 allow the minors to play the regular drama when 
 they pleased, and if so, whether the English 
 Opera House would be included among the 
 minors ; if not, he opposed the bill. This petition 
 brought on a request from the representative of 
 the patent interests (Earl Glengall) for the 
 privilege of the patent houses to act Italian 
 opera. To this the Marquis of Clanricarde 
 retorted facetiously that he looked upon the bill 
 merely as a police measure, to exclude from 
 amusements all that might be offensive to public 
 decency and morals, adding that it was no part 
 of the Lord Chamberlain's duties to say whether 
 the language of a performance should be Eng- 
 lish, Irish, Iroquois, or Italian.
 
 416 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 There was no real objection to the spirit of 
 the bill, only everybody wanted to make sure 
 that his individual interests were included under 
 the protective wings of the measure. They had 
 so long been vexed by narrow and contradictory 
 laws that they could not afPord to take chances 
 now. Some thought that the only change made 
 in the Lord Chamberlain's power by the bill was 
 an extension of it to a radius of twenty miles. 
 The general construction, however, placed upon 
 the measure by the Lords, as by the Commons, 
 was that the Chamberlain's duty was the defense 
 of morals, and that, otherwise, managers should 
 be left free. 
 
 On the 15th of August the bill came up for 
 its final reading. One objection only was raised 
 to it as originally prepared, namely, to that 
 clause empowering the Lord Chamberlain to 
 prohibit, at his pleasure, the representation of 
 any play whatever in any theatre in his juris- 
 diction. This was thought to invest that official 
 with a power too inclusive, and hence too dan- 
 gerous. Two main benefits were intended by all 
 parties concerned : the protection of public peace 
 and morality, and the widest possible freedom 
 to the drama in every quarter. The power pro- 
 posed to be given to the Lord Chamberlain 
 would assuredly do away with the confusion at- 
 tending the operation of the laws as they then
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 417 
 
 existed, — but it might also operate to limit the 
 legitimate freedom of the stage. Lord Campbell 
 moved, therefore^ to amend the clause in ques- 
 tion by introducing it in the following words : 
 
 " Be it enacted, that for the preservation of 
 good manners, decorum, and of the public peace, 
 it shall be lawful for the Lord Chamberlain, for 
 the time being," etc. (the remainder of the 
 clause to be left intact). 
 
 It was at once objected that the amendment 
 turned the restriction to the opposite extreme. 
 As a middle course, the Lord Chancellor pro- 
 posed this alteration in the wording of the 
 beginning of the clause : " Whenever in the 
 opinion of the Lord Chamberlain it was neces- 
 sary for the promotion of good manners and 
 decorum, or of the public peace, to forbid the 
 performance of any stage play, farce, etc." As 
 thus amended, and with this slight and single 
 alteration, the Theatre Regulation Bill was read 
 a third time in the House of Lords (August 15), 
 returned to the Lower House for final approval, 
 and passed to Her Majesty for the royal assent, 
 which was given on Tuesday, August 22, 1843.^ 
 
 At last the theatrical monopoly had been le- 
 gally destroyed, though, except for its general 
 
 ^ For the history of this bill see Hansard's Parliamentary 
 Debates, 3d Series, Ixx, 1350; Ixxi, 7, 232, 233, 296, 313, 471, 
 544, 545, 588, 589, 689, 690, 987.
 
 418 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 attitude of the dog in the manger, it had been a 
 monopoly only in name for many years. Except- 
 ing Macready's noble attempt to revive the 
 Shakesperean drama at Covent Garden in 1837- 
 1838, the patent houses had sunk to the level of 
 their minor rivals. Had the wise counsel of the 
 editor of the " Prompter " been followed in 1735, 
 to restrict the minors to the legitimate drama, 
 the false position which the patent houses had 
 been forced to assume for the last fifty years of 
 their existence would have been reversed, and, 
 though" the monopoly was sure to fall sooner or 
 later, the patentees might have enjoyed the last 
 years of their " exclusive privileges " in some 
 degree of comfort. But it was too late to change 
 the history of theatrical monopoly in London. 
 " The ' Patent ' monopoly has finished its work," 
 writes the "Spectator" (June 10, 1843) in the 
 style of an obituary notice prepared in advance. 
 "The 'legitimate drama,' for the support of 
 which the two great theatres were endowed with 
 exclusive privileges, has ceased to exist — at least 
 in so far as they are concerned. The degenerate 
 successor of the elder dramatists, that at the 
 Restoration was confined to the fostering care 
 of these two dry nurses, has been overlaid by 
 their huge, overgrown bulk ; they treated it 
 like a spoiled child, surfeited it with sweet- 
 meats, bedizened it with fine clothes, and amused
 
 THE END OF THE STRUGGLE 419 
 
 it with all sorts of toys, including a Noah's Ark 
 full of animals ; but while its hireling guardians 
 became bloated with pampering, and ostentatious 
 with importance, their puny charge dwindled 
 away to a shadow, until it could not be recognized 
 as the offspring of that healthy and vigorous 
 stock which produced a Shakespeare. In a 
 word, the ' legitimate di-ama ' has fallen a victim 
 to protection. Mr. Macready, its fast and best 
 friend, tried every effort to revive it ; but in 
 vain." 
 
 It might be supposed that, with the barriers 
 finally down, the old fear apprehended so often 
 by the patentees in the event of a free stage 
 would be realized, namely, the rise of theatres 
 in every street. Sufficient evidence has appeared 
 in the course of this narrative to show that 
 London was not famishing for places of theatrical 
 amusements in 1843. The last one built before 
 the enactment of the law just considered was 
 The Princess, in 1840 ; and, strange as it may 
 seem, London was not to have an addition to 
 her long list of playhouses for over twenty years. 
 In that period both of the old patent houses 
 were to sink to the low level toward which they 
 had been surely drifting since the early part of 
 the century ; and one of them, Covent Garden, 
 was to be again visited by fire (1856). 
 
 It might be surmised, also, that with the
 
 420 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 legitimate drama open to all comers, the com- 
 petition for public favor in that species of 
 theatrical amusement would begin at once on 
 the passage of the Theatre Regulation Bill, and 
 be so fierce as to force all the weaklings to the 
 wall. But in this also we are disappointed in 
 our guess. The law caused no alteration what- 
 ever in theatrical conditions : it only provided 
 for possibilities. Some few, indeed, did under- 
 take the championship of the Elizabethan 
 drama, but in a short time felt under the neces- 
 sity of falling back into the old tendencies. 
 Wallack, at the opening of the season of 1843- 
 44, tried to give the plays of Shakespeare a 
 "local habitation" at Covent Garden; but after 
 an experience of two weeks' performances to 
 empty benches he was compelled to abandon the 
 project.^ One thing, however, the law of 1843 
 did accomplish : it put to rest the interminable 
 quarrels of the majors and minors, and wiped 
 out the blot of theatrical monopoly. 
 
 ^ TVallack blamed (correctly, probably) his actors for the 
 failure to revive Shakespeare's plays. Spectator, October 21, 
 1843.
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
 
 FROM a survey of the struggle from 1660 
 to 1843, to free the English stage from the 
 patent monopoly granted by Charles II, it will 
 appear a much easier task to point out the 
 causes of the downfall of the patent houses than to 
 explain why the theatrical monopoly was permit- 
 ted to exist so long. It was a graft so utterly for- 
 eign to the England of the nineteenth century, 
 if not, indeed, of the eighteenth century, as to 
 challenge our wonder why it was not lopped off 
 a hundred years and more before it was finally 
 abolished. It may be that the inert temper of 
 the English people, the mere habit of permit- 
 ting an old institution to continue, in some de- 
 gree accounts for the old age of the monopoly 
 in theatrical amusements. But a careful analy- 
 sis of the facts related in the foregoing chapters 
 will, I think, go a long way towards clearing up 
 the phenomenon. An examination of the lead- 
 ing theatrical events connected with our subject 
 will disclose six main periods, each of which 
 stands for a more or less distinct significance in 
 the development of the idea of theatrical mo-
 
 422 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 nopoly ; though of course these divisions overlap 
 and intermingle. In making this epochal analy- 
 sis, I would emphasize the most general tenden- 
 cies only. 
 
 In the first place, it will appear that, from the 
 granting of the patents to Killigrew and Dave- 
 nant to about 1720, the ruling sovereigns of 
 the realm never thought for a moment that the 
 grants of Charles II in anywise limited the crown 
 prerogative over public amusements. Charles 
 himself was the first to exercise his authority 
 without regard to his former patent grants, when 
 he united the patents in 1682. William III was 
 advised by his counselors that one King cannot 
 bind a succeeding Prince in the matter of grant- 
 ing theatrical privileges ; and as a result of this 
 opinion, Betterton and his followers received a 
 license from the Crown to establish a company 
 of comedians independent of the patent house. 
 Northey and Pemberton, in 1704-05, sustained 
 this decision; and we have seen how Queen 
 Anne exercised her prerogative to a degree equal 
 to that of the second Charles himself, — licens- 
 ing Swiney and Collier, silencing Eich, and 
 even sanctioning his ejection from the Drury 
 Lane Theatre. George I was no less certain of 
 his power in the matter. He granted a patent 
 to Steele, reissued a license to Cibber, Doggett, 
 and Wilkes, permitted John Rich to open
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 423 
 
 Lincoln's-Inn-Fields Theatre, prevented Colley 
 Gibber from performing, revoked Steele's patent, 
 and disbanded the company of comedians at 
 Drury Lane. Every one of the four sovereigns, 
 during this period of fifty years, exercised the 
 ci"own prerogative over public amusements at 
 will, and to its full extent, as occasion demanded. 
 Furthermore, with the single exception of Sir 
 Richard Steele, no question was raised as to the 
 authority of the Crown in theatrical matters. 
 
 In 1720 it is safe to say that the English 
 King had no doubt that he possessed the same 
 legal control over the patents granted by Charles 
 II as that which the Merrie Monarch had exer- 
 cised. So thoroughly was this fact established 
 that for years no occasion arose demanding an 
 application of the crown prerogative over the 
 patent theatres. It seems to have been an object 
 of the three sovereigns succeeding Charles II to 
 crush the spirit of exclusive privileges in public 
 amusements, and to keep the whole matter well 
 imder the control of the Lord Chamberlain. 
 This thoroughly accomplished, that which so 
 often happens under similar circumstances hap- 
 pened then: the power fell into disuse as soon 
 as there was no occasion for its exercise. In the 
 place of it sprang up independent (that is, imll- 
 censed) theatres, which were tolerated rather 
 than sanctioned by Government. These were
 
 424 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the Haymarket and Goodman's Fields ; and 
 there can be no better proof that the patentees 
 regarded their patents inferior and subject to 
 the crown prerogative than the quiet submission 
 to this new competition. It was only when the 
 liberty permitted to the unlicensed theatres was 
 degraded into scurrilous attacks on Government, 
 and insults to public decency and morals, that a 
 readjustment and a redefinition of the theatrical 
 situation was demanded. The Licensing Act of 
 1737 was the result. As has already been ex- 
 plained, this aimed at a legal, i. e., a parlia- 
 mentary, recognition of the authority of the 
 Crown over public amusements, as it had been 
 practiced by Charles II, Anne, and the first 
 George. But in the expression of what was in 
 reality an established fact in the common law, 
 namely, the absolute authority of the Crown over 
 theatrical amusements, the Government com- 
 mitted itself to a practical recognition of the 
 exclusiveness of the grants of Charles II. In 
 this consisted the real illiberality of the act, 
 though at the time its opponents feared the 
 effects of the absolute power secured to the Lord 
 Chamberlain. As a matter of fact, it was this 
 unlimited power, sanctioned by law, in the hands 
 of the Lord Chamberlain, that was to bring 
 about the final abolition of the monopoly. The 
 period, then, from 1720 to 1737, ending in the
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 425 
 
 passage of the Licensing Act, has two meanings, 
 diametrically opposed to each other. Legally — 
 and in the long run, in reality — it emphasized 
 the necessity and the fact of the absolute au- 
 thority of the Crown over theatricals, — such as 
 had been exercised from 1660 to 1720. In its 
 immediate effects it was a violent reversal of the 
 policy maintained by the monarchs from Charles 
 II to George I, for it gave a legal recognition — 
 the first thus far — to the patent theatres, and 
 destroyed all other competition. 
 
 1720 should have been the natural end of the 
 monopoly granted by Charles II, but the oppor- 
 tunity went by, and the Licensing Act did what 
 even Charles II could not do, — it sealed the ex- 
 clusive privileges in theatricals, and laid the 
 foundation of an illiberal policy on the part of 
 Government, and a century's struggle for a free 
 stage. The practices and ari-ogant spirit of the 
 patentees after 1737 clearly show the Licensing 
 Act to be the real birth of theatrical monopoly 
 • in England. 
 
 From 1737 to 1787, the third period in our 
 investigation, the monopoly is distinguished by 
 an absolutism scarcely approached by any other 
 period of equal length during its existence. If 
 the half -century from 1660 to 1720 marks the 
 constant buffeting of the patentees at the will of 
 the Crown, the fact is offset by the domination
 
 426 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 of the monopoly over theatrical affairs in London 
 for the fifty years succeedinj^ the enactment of the 
 Licensing Act. That the Act of 1737 was largely 
 responsible for this turn of affairs can be no 
 better illustrated than by a comparison of the 
 revolts of 1733 and 1743 — one before the pass- 
 age of the act in question, the other after. The 
 former, though led by the disreputable Theophi- 
 lus Gibber, was a complete victory for the actors 
 over the patentees, as shown by the decision in 
 the Harper case, which caused the immediate 
 ruin of the patentee, Highmore, who was in all 
 legal justice in the right. The revolt of 1743 
 was led by no less respectable and influential 
 persons than Macklin and Garrick ; but the 
 Licensing Act was so sufficient a protection to 
 the patentee, Fleetwood, that Garrick, in the in- 
 terests of prudence, was impelled to beat a hasty 
 retreat, and even the vindictive and indomitable 
 Macklin was forced into ultimate submission. 
 The pusillanimous Theophilus Gibber was si- 
 lenced wnth a threat, whereas, ten years before, 
 he had flaunted his impudence with impunity. 
 So soon had been reversed the theatrical affairs 
 of London, by the interpretation of a law to 
 meet the interests of private individuals. But it 
 should not be lost sight of that there was another 
 possible construction to be placed on that act. 
 The period from 1737 to 1787 was one of com-
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 427 
 
 parative security to the monopoly, and the one 
 during which it was really established. Few 
 attempts were made during this half-century to 
 perform the legitimate drama outside the two 
 patent theatres, and when such performances 
 were given they were usually if not always " by 
 permission " of the patentees. While the acci- 
 dent of Foote's patent at the Little Theatre in 
 the Haymarket was, for the moment, a return to 
 the crown authority, showing conclusively that the 
 power to grant theatrical patents was located 
 precisely where it was in the time of Charles II, 
 nevertheless it should be observed that in Foote's 
 case the patent was granted only for the lifetime 
 of the patentee, and that it was reduced to an 
 annual license when transferred to Column in 
 1777 ; also that the monopolists were first con- 
 sulted before the patent was granted to Foote, 
 the result of which was that the season at the 
 Haymarket was limited to the four summer 
 months. To consider what might have happened 
 in case the patentees had refused to give their 
 consent to the granting of Foote's patent can 
 result in nothing more than speculation. Certain 
 it is, however, that they saw the error they had 
 fallen into in opening their safeguards to any 
 sort of competition, a mistake which they tried 
 to rectify by inaugurating the war of encroach- 
 ment on the season of the summer theatre.
 
 428 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 This third stage of the history of the patents 
 ends and the fourth begins with the wild attempt 
 of John Palmer to establish the Koyalty Theatre 
 (1787). This was the first great practical test of 
 the efficacy of the Licensing Act in defending 
 the interests of the theatrical monopoly ; and we 
 have seen how satisfactory its operation was to 
 the patentees. This circumstance also brings 
 out the importance of a new element in theat- 
 rical history, which was to develop into greater 
 and greater prominence in the struggle against 
 the monopoly — namely, the conflict of anomalous 
 theatrical legislation — the acts of 10 George II 
 (Licensing Act) and that of 25 George II 
 (empowering magistrates to license musical 
 performances, etc.). What the outcome of this 
 episode might have been had some one with a 
 character and reputation less shadowy than that 
 of Palmer been at the head of the Royalty 
 scheme, or had some one less watchful and 
 with less political influence than Sheridan been 
 back of the patent houses, is also a matter of 
 conjecture ; but it is probable that the result 
 would have remained unchanged, inasmuch as 
 the monopoly had a half-century of established 
 precedent in its favor. 
 
 At any rate the Royalty attempt stands for 
 the awakening of a tendency which dominated 
 the period from 1787 to 1810 — the movement
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 429 
 
 for the establishment of a third theatre for the 
 representation of the national drama under the 
 protection of Government. This movement had 
 its culmination in the famous proceedings be- 
 fore the Privy Council in 1810, on the petition 
 for a third theatre. This climax was approached 
 by certain preliminary efforts, such as the at- 
 tempts of Colonel Greville from 1802 onwards, 
 proposals for joint-stock companies, and sub- 
 scription theatres of various kinds, as well as 
 plans for a national theatre, English opera, and 
 so forth. The attempt to establish a third the- 
 atre in London in 1810 was the first approach to 
 the breaking down of the monopoly by way of 
 crown sanction, just as the efforts in Parliament 
 in 1811 and 1812 were the first endeavors to 
 reach the same result by means of legislative 
 action. The outcome of this attempt to establish 
 a third theatre seemed to fix more firmly than 
 ever the habit of suffering the theatrical mo- 
 nopoly. But it would be rash to say that the 
 findings of the Privy Council on that occasion, 
 and the rejection of the bill by Parliament in 
 1811 and 1812, had the effect of more firmly 
 establishing the monopoly itself. The very op- 
 posite is nearer the truth ; for in the discussions 
 and arguments which were brought out at that 
 time, the weaknesses and questionable practices 
 of the patentees were laid bare, and " exclusive
 
 430 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 privilege " in theatricals received a shock from 
 which it never fully recovered. The proceedings 
 in the Council and in Parliament did show, how- 
 ever, that the monopoly was not to be destroyed 
 by means of any third theatre scheme — a plan 
 which at best could relieve the situation only 
 temporarily. Furthermore, had all the most fa- 
 vorable conditions imaginable been ripe for such 
 a movement, it is scarcely likely that it would 
 succeed in the King's Council ; for if the Crown 
 possessed the power to grant the petition prayed 
 for by the third theatre promoters, then it is 
 altogether likely that the Crown would reserve 
 that power to be exercised by its "own will 
 and mere motion," as it had done on former 
 occasions. 
 
 However, a set of influences had long been 
 at work undermining the monopoly, and these 
 came out into strong relief during the period 
 from 1810 to about 1832. The conflicting legis- 
 lative acts regulating the theatres have already 
 been mentioned. These were aggravated by the 
 rise and development of the minor theatres, 
 those that were prohibited from representing 
 the legitimate national drama. These minor es- 
 tablishments began to creep into existence about 
 the outskirts of London, especially on the Sur- 
 rey side, back in the eighteenth century, at the 
 very time when the patent houses were so secure
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 431 
 
 within the stronghold of the Licensing Act. 
 These minors sprang up nnder the provisions of 
 the Act of 25 George II, for the licensing of music 
 houses and for regulating places of public amuse- 
 ment. So long as Government, represented by 
 Chamberlains such as the Earl of Salisbury, — 
 who, it should be remembered, served in that ca- 
 pacity from 1783 to 1804, — was friendly to the 
 patent monopoly, there was little to fear by the 
 latter. At such times — which include nearly 
 three quarters of a century after the passage 
 of the Licensing Act — the laws were almost 
 invariably interpreted as existing for the protec- 
 tion of the patent theatres. But so soon as a 
 Lord Chamberlain should be found sufficiently 
 independent to shake himself free from the iner- 
 tia, the doom of the monopoly was struck. Such 
 a Chamberlain was Lord Dartmouth ( 1804- 
 1812), who, though he did not openly attack 
 the patent privileges, permitted the undercur- 
 rents already at work to take their course. 
 
 As a result, therefore, of this leniency of Lord 
 Dartmouth the minor theatres multiplied with 
 such rapidity and vigor as to become firmly 
 rooted before the end of his reign. Their rise to 
 an important place as a factor in the struggle 
 for a free stage is the main characteristic of the 
 period under review (1810-1832). It has been 
 pointed out at length how the manipulation of
 
 432 THE STRUGGLE FOR A FREE STAGE 
 
 the species of entertainment known as "burletta" 
 (falling originally under the Act of 25 George 
 II, permitting musical performances) gradually 
 opened the door of competition to the minors. 
 This process was hastened by the lowering of 
 theatrical representations at the patent houses, 
 so that by 1820 there was little difference be- 
 tween the performances at the best of the minors 
 and the average melodramatic spectacle at the 
 " great houses ;" while by 1832 the minors were 
 as certainly established as if there had been 
 a special law legalizing their existence. Had a 
 Lord Chamberlain with the views of the Earl of 
 Dartmouth appeared in the eighteenth century, 
 there is reason to presume that the struggle 
 might have been materially shortened. The pe- 
 riod from 1810 to 1832 is in many respects the 
 most important in the long history of the patent 
 monopoly ; for it was a practical proof of the 
 weakness of a concern that had to be supported 
 by extraneous means and not by merit alone. 
 
 Finally, the period from 1832 to 1843 is char- 
 acterized not so much by the destruction of the 
 theatrical monopoly as by the strife over the 
 method by which it should be silenced. The union 
 of the two patents in 1833 was the signal for attacks 
 from every quarter upon the two old theatrical con- 
 cerns. The third theatre project was revived by 
 Knowles — but it is safe to say that that particu-
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 433 
 
 lar scheme of relief from the monopoly had been 
 finally disposed of in 1810. Bulwer had, the year 
 before ( 1832 ), caused the practices of the patent- 
 ees to be scrutinized in the Select Committee on 
 Dramatic Literature, and it has been shown how 
 this investigation was followed up in 1833 by 
 the introduction of the Dramatic Performances 
 Bill. Why that measure failed has already been 
 discussed. During all these furious attacks on 
 the monopoly the patentees were carrying on a 
 suicidal warfare against the minors, to whose 
 rescue the Marquis of Conyngham stepped in, 
 and, by his incessant zeal against the patent 
 houses, promised to end the work begun by 
 Lord Dartmouth. For a time it seemed that no 
 outside force would be needed to exterminate 
 the monopoly, for the contests between the pat- 
 ent houses themselves threatened to destroy them 
 both ; while the Lenten prohibitions were thrown 
 in to make assurance doubly sure. After the 
 noise of the final conflict had ceased, which had 
 raged for the decade (1832-1842) between the 
 monopoly on the one side, and authors, actors, 
 the minors, and the general public on the other. 
 Parliament came in (1843) and, with an echo of 
 the reform movement, gave legislative sanction 
 to the verdict that the monopoly had died a 
 natural death.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 [Note. — In the following, no attempt is made to give more 
 than a list of those titles which were found most useful in the 
 preparation of this work, and especially those which, hitherto, 
 have not been published in connection with theatrical history. 
 A complete bibliography of the general subject is, probably, 
 too great a task for one to accomplish. The most satisfactory 
 compilation thus far is Mr. R. W. Lowe's " A Bibliographical 
 Account of English Theatrical Literature." New York and 
 London, 1888,] 
 
 An Account of the Proceedings before His Majes- 
 ty's Most Hon. Privy Council, upon a Petition for a 
 Third Theatre in the Metropolis; with the Arguments of 
 Counsel, and Copies of all the Petitions and Documents. 
 Pp. 117 -|- Appendices A-S. London, 1810. 
 
 Baker, David Erskine. 
 
 Biographia Dramatica, or, A Companion to the Play- 
 house : containing Historical and Critical Memoirs, 
 and Original Anecdotes, of British and Irish Dramatic 
 Writers, from the commencement of our Theatrical 
 Exhibitions ; amongst whom are some of the most 
 celebrated Actors. Also an Alphabetical Account of 
 their works, the Dates when printed, and occasional 
 Observations on their Merits. Together with an intro- 
 ductory View of the Rise and Progress of the British 
 Stage. A New Edition. Carefully corrected; greatly 
 enlarged; and continued from 1764 to 1782. 2 vol- 
 umes. Dublin, 1782. 
 
 Baker, H. Barton. 
 
 The London Stage: its History and Traditions from 
 1576 to 1903. 2 volumes. London, 1904. 
 
 Bedford, Arthur, M.A. 
 
 A Sermon preached in the Parish Church in St. Bu-
 
 438 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 tolph's, Aldgate, in the City of London, on Sunday, the 
 Thirtieth Day of November, in the Year of Our Lord 
 1729. Occasioned by the Erecting of a Play-House in 
 the Neighborhood. Pp. 40. London, 1730. 
 
 Besant, Sir Walter. 
 
 London in the Eighteenth Century, London, 1902. 
 
 Betterton, Thomas. 
 See Lowe, R. W. 
 
 BlOGRAPHIA DrAMATICA. 
 
 See Baker, David Erskine. 
 
 Bland, Miss. 
 See Jordan, Mrs. 
 
 BoADEN, James. 
 
 Memoirs of Mrs. Siddons. Interspersed with Anec- 
 dotes of Authors and Actors. 2 volumes. London, 
 
 1827. 
 
 Memoirs of John Philip Kemble. London, 1825. 
 
 The Life of Mrs. Jordan. London, 1831. 
 
 Private Correspondence of David Garrick. London, 
 1831-32. 
 
 BouLTON, William B. 
 
 The Amusements of Old London. Being a Survey of 
 the Sports and Pastimes, Tea Gardens and Parks, Play- 
 houses and otlier diversions of the People of London 
 from the 17th to the beginning of the 19th century. 
 Twelve colored illustrations. 2 volumes. London, 1901. 
 
 BuLWER, Edward, Lord Lytton. 
 See Report on Dramatic Literature. 
 
 BuNN, Alfred. 
 
 The Stage. Both before and behind the Curtain. From 
 Observations taken on the Spot. 3 volumes. London, 
 1840.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 439 
 
 The Buskin and Sock ; being controversial Letters 
 between Mr. Thomas Sheridan, Tragedian, and Mr. 
 Theophilus Gibber, Comedian; Just published in 
 Dublin. Pp. 56. London (reprint), 1743. 
 
 The Gase between the Managers of the Two The- 
 atres, AND their Principal Actors, fairly stated 
 and submitted to the Town. London, 1743. 
 
 Chetwood, W. R. 
 
 A General History of the Stage, from its Origin in 
 Greece down to the Present Time. With the Memoirs 
 of most of the principal Performers that have appeared 
 on the English and Irish Stage for these last Fifty 
 Years. With Notes, Antient, Modern, Foreign, Do- 
 mestic, Serious, Comic, Moral, Merry, Historical, and 
 Geographical, containing many Theatrical Anecdotes ; 
 also several Pieces of Poetry never before published. 
 Collected and Digested by W. R. Chetwood, Twenty 
 Years Prompter to His Majesty's Company of Come- 
 dians at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane, Loudon. 
 London, 1749. 
 
 Gibber, Colley. 
 
 An Apology for the Life of Colley Gibber, Comedian, 
 and late Patentee of the Theatre-Royal. With an 
 Historical View of the Stage during his Own Time, 
 Written by Himself. The Third Edition. To which is 
 now added, A Short Account of the Rise and Progress 
 of the English Stage: Also, A Dialogue on Old Plays, 
 and Old Players. London, 1750. 
 
 Gibber, Susannah Maria. 
 
 An Account of the Life of the Celebrated Mrs. Susan- 
 nah Maria Gibber, with interesting and amusing An- 
 ecdotes. Also the two remarkable and romantic Trials 
 between Theophilus Gibber and William Sloper. 
 London, 1887. 
 
 Gibber, Theophilus. 
 
 An Apology for the Life of Mr. T — G — , Comedian.
 
 440 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Being a Proper Sequel to the Apology for the Life of 
 Mr. CoUey Gibber, Comedian. With an Historical 
 View of the Stage to the Present Year. Supposed to 
 be written by Himself. In the Stile and Manner of the 
 Poet Laureat. London, 1740. 
 
 See The Buskin and Sock. 
 
 A Lick at a Liar ; or, Calumny Detected. Being an 
 
 Occasional Letter to a Friend from Theophilus Cibber, 
 
 Comedian. Pp. 23. With an Advertisement. London, 
 
 1752. 
 
 A Serio-Gomic Apology for Part of the Life of Mr. 
 Theophilus Cibber, Comedian. Written by Himself. 
 In which is contained, A Prologue, an Epilogue, and 
 a Poem, wrote on the Play of Romeo and Juliet being 
 first revived in 1744; Also some Addresses to the Pub- 
 lick, on different Occasions; Likewise original Letters 
 that passed between the late Sir Thomas De Veil, and 
 Mr. Theo. Cibber, (Relating to the Stage Act) On a 
 stop being put to the playing at the Haymarket. Inter- 
 spersed with Memoirs and Anecdotes concerning the 
 Stage Management and Theatrical Revolutions, in the 
 Years 1744, 1745, and 1746, &c. And cursory Obser- 
 vations on some Principal Performers; Particularly 
 Mr. Quin, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Delane, Mrs. Woffington, 
 Mrs. Ward, and Miss Bellamy; Mr. Garrick, Mr. Barry, 
 Mrs. Cibber, Mrs. Clive, Mrs. Pritchard, and others. 
 Pp. 71-108. n. p., n. d., [London, 1746J. 
 
 CoLMAN, George, The Younger. 
 
 Random Records. 2 volumes. London, 1830. 
 
 The Conduct of the Stage considered. Being a 
 short Historical Account of its Origin, Progress, vari- 
 ous Aspects and Treatment in the Pagan, Jewish, and 
 Christian World. Together with the Arguments urg'd 
 against it, by Learned Heathens, and by Christians, 
 both Antient and Modern. With short Remarks upon 
 the Origin and pernicious Consequences of Masquer- 
 ades. Pp. 43. London, 1721.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 441 
 
 Considerations on the Past and Present State of 
 THE Stage ; with Reference to the late Contests at 
 Covent Garden ; to which is added a Plan for a new 
 Theatre for the purpose of HEARING Plays. To the 
 Right Honourable George, Earl of Dartmouth, Lord 
 Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household. Pp. 54 -|- 
 Appendices A and B. Loudon, 1809. 
 
 Cooke, William. 
 
 Memoirs of Charles Macklin, Comedian, with the 
 Dramatic Characters, Manners, Anecdotes, &c., of the 
 Age in which he lived: forming an History of the Stage 
 during almost the Whole of the last Century. And 
 a Chronological List of all the Parts played by Him. 
 2d edition. London, 1806. 
 
 See Foote, Samuel. 
 
 The Covent Garden Journal. Compiled by John 
 Joseph Stockdale. 2 volumes. London, 1810. 
 
 Cumberland, Richard. 
 
 Memoirs of Richard Cumberland. Written by himself. 
 New York, 1806. 
 
 The Minor Theatre. 16 volumes. London, n. d. Con- 
 tains copies of the plays which were acted at the 
 minor theatres iu London. 
 
 Da vies, Thomas. 
 
 Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick, Esq. Inter- 
 spersed with Characters and Anecdotes of his Theat- 
 rical Contemporaries. The Whole forming a History 
 of the Stage, which includes a Period of Thirty-Six 
 Years. From the last London edition. Boston, 1818. 
 The Dedication bears date of April 22, 1780. 
 
 Dialogues on the Drama, between " Smith and John- 
 son." In "Morning Chronicle," beginning September 
 22, 1830. . 
 
 Dibdin, Mr. [Charles.] 
 
 A Complete History of the Stage. 5 volumes. London, 
 [1800.]
 
 442 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 DiBDiN, Charles, Jr. 
 
 History and Illustrations of the London Theatres : 
 comprising an account of the Origin and Progress of 
 the Drama in England ; with historical and descriptive 
 accounts of the Theatres Royal, Covent Garden, Drury 
 Lane, Haymarket, English Opera House, and Royal 
 Amphitheatre. London, 1826. 
 
 DiBDiN, Thomas. 
 
 The Reminiscences of Thomas Dibdin^ of the Theatres 
 Royal, Covent Garden, Drury Lane, Haymarket, &c., 
 and Author of the Cabinet, &c. London, 1827. 
 
 Dickens, Charles. 
 
 See Mathews, Charles James. 
 
 Doran, Dr. [John.] 
 
 Annals of the English Stage, from Thomas Betterton 
 to Edmund Keau. Actors — Authors — Audiences. 
 2 volumes. New York, 1865. 
 
 DowNEs, John. 
 
 Roscius Anglicanus, or, an Historical Review of the 
 Stage from 1660 to 1706. A Fac-simile Reprint of the 
 Rare Original of 1708. With an Historical Preface by 
 Joseph Knight. London, 1886. 
 
 " Dramaticus." 
 
 An impartial View of the Stage, from the days of 
 Garrick and Rich to the Present Period ; of the 
 Causes of its degenerated and declining State, and 
 shewing the necessity of a Reform in the System, as 
 the only means of giving stability to the present Prop- 
 erty of the two Winter Theatres. London, 1816. 
 
 Ebers, John. 
 
 Seven Years of the King's Theatre. London, 1828. 
 
 Egan, Pierce. 
 
 Life in London. Illustrated by colored Drawings by 
 George Cruikshank. London, 1821. 
 
 Life of an Actor. The Poetical Descriptions by T.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 443 
 
 Greenwood. Embellished with Twenty-Seven Charac- 
 teristic Scenes, etched by Theodore Lane. London, 
 1892. The Dedication (to E. Kean) bears date of 
 December 18, 1824. 
 
 Ellistox, Robert William. 
 See Raymond, George. 
 
 Farren, William. 
 
 A Full and Accurate Account of the Destruction of the 
 Brunswick Theatre, with the Statements of . . . Wil- 
 liam and Percy Farren. London, 1828. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Percy. 
 
 A New History of the English Stage, from the Restora- 
 tion to the Liberty of the Theatres, in Connection with 
 the Patent Houses. From Original Papers in the Lord 
 Chamberlain's Office, the State Paper Office, and other 
 Sources. 2 volumes. London, 1882. 
 
 FoOTE, Samuel. 
 
 Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Samuel Foote 
 Esq. ; the English Aristophanes : to which are added 
 the bon-mots, repartees, and good things said by that 
 great wit and excentrical genius. London, n. d. [1777.] 
 
 Memoirs of Samuel Foote. With a Collection of his 
 genuine Bon-mots, Anecdotes, Opinions, &c., mostly 
 original. And three dramatic pieces, not published in 
 his works. By William Cooke, Esq. London, 1805. 
 
 Garrick, David. 
 
 Mr. Garrick's Answer to Mr. Macklin's Case. [Lon- 
 don, 1743.] 
 
 Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick. See Boaden, 
 James ; Davies, Thomas ; Knight, Joseph. 
 
 Genest, John. 
 
 Some Account of the English Stage from the Restora- 
 tion in 1660 to 1830. 10 volumes, Bath, 1832. 
 
 GiLDON, Charles. 
 
 A Comparison between the Two Stages, with an Ex-
 
 4M BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 amen of the Generous Conqueror ; and some Critical 
 Remarks on The Funeral, or Grief Alamode, The False 
 Friend, Tamerlane^ and others. In Dialogue. London, 
 1702. 
 
 Hawkins, F. W. 
 See Kean, Edmund. 
 
 Hazlitt, William. 
 
 A View of the English Stage ; or, a Series of Dra- 
 matic Criticisms. London, 1818. 
 
 Hill, Aaron. 
 
 See Newspapers and Periodicals, " The Prompter." 
 
 Howard, Frederick, Earl of Carlisle. 
 
 Thoughts upon the Present Condition of the Stage, and 
 upon the Construction of a New Theatre. A new edi- 
 tion, with additions. Pp. 47 -f- Appendix. London, 
 1809. 
 
 Hunt, John. 
 
 Critical Essays on the Performers of the London The- 
 atres ; including General Observations on the Practice 
 and Genius of the Stage. By the Author of the The- 
 atrical Criticisms in the weekly paper called the News. 
 London, 1809. 
 
 An Impartial Examen of the Present Contests be- 
 tween THE Town and the Manager of the The- 
 atre. With some Proposals for accommodating the 
 present Misunderstanding between the Town and Man- 
 ager. Offered to the Consideration of Both Parties. 
 By Mr. Neither-side. Pp. 24. London, 1744. 
 
 The Intelligencer. 
 
 (A collection of 19 pamphlets. No. 3 is " A "Vindica- 
 tion of Mr. Gay, and the Beggar's Opera.") London, 
 1729. (Printed in Dublin.) 
 
 Jackman, Isaac. 
 
 Royal and Royalty Theatres. London, 1787.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 445 
 
 Jackson, Randle. 
 
 See An Account of the Proceedings before His Majesty's 
 most Hon. Privy Council, etc. 
 
 Jordan, Mrs. 
 
 Public and Private Life of that Celebrated Actress, 
 Miss Bland, Otherwise Mrs. Ford, or, Mrs. Jordan ; 
 Late mistress of H. R. H., the D. of Clarence ; now 
 King William IV, founder of the Fitzclarence Family ; 
 Delineating the Vicissitudes attending on her Early 
 Life ; The Splendour of her noon-tide Blaze, as Mis- 
 tress of the Royal Duke ; and her untimely Dissolu- 
 tion at St. Cloud, near Paris, resulting from a broken 
 Heart. Accompanied by numerous Remarks and An- 
 ecdotes of illustrious and fashionable Characters. 
 By a confidential Friend of the Departed. London, n. d. 
 
 Kean, Edmund. 
 
 The Life of Edmund Kean. From Published and 
 Original Sources. By F. W. Hawkins. 2 volumes. 
 London, 1869. 
 
 The Life of Edmund Kean, English Tragedian ; with 
 Critical Remarks on his Theatrical Performances. By 
 Sheridan Knowles, Esq. London, 1833. 
 
 Kemble, John Philip. 
 See Boaden, James. 
 
 KiRKMAN, James Thomas. 
 
 Memoirs of the Life of Charles Macklin, Esq. ; princi- 
 pally compiled from his own Papers and Memoran- 
 dums ; which contains his Criticisms on and Characters 
 and Anecdotes of Betterton, Booth, Wilks, Cibber, 
 Garrick, Barry, Mossop, Sheridan, Foote, Quin, and 
 most of his Contemporaries. 2 volumes. London, 1799. 
 
 Knight, Joseph. 
 
 David Garrick. With etched Portrait from the Gains- 
 borough Painting. London, 1894. 
 
 See Downes, John. 
 
 Knowles, James Sheridan. 
 
 See Knowles, Richard Brinsley ; and Kean, Edmund.
 
 446 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Knowles, Richard Brinsley. 
 
 The Life of James Sheridan Knowles, by his son Rich- 
 ard Brinsley Knowles. Privately printed for James 
 McHenry. London, 1872. 
 
 Lawrence, James, Knight of Malta. 
 
 Dramatic Emancipation, or Strictures on the State of 
 the Theatres, and the consequent Degeneration of the 
 Drama ; On the Partiality and Injustice of the London 
 Managers ; On Many Theatrical Regulations ; And on 
 the Regulations on the Continent for the Security of 
 Literary and Dramatic Property. Particularly Deserv- 
 ing the Attention of the Subscribers for a Third The- 
 atre. Original, 1813. (Printed in the " Pamphleteer " 
 for December, 1813, ii, 370-395.) 
 
 Lowe, R. W. 
 
 Thomas Betterton. London, 1891. 
 
 Macarthy, Eugene. 
 
 A Letter to the King, on the Question now at issue be- 
 tween the Major and Minor Theatres. London, 1832. 
 
 Macklin, Charles. 
 
 See Cooke, William ; and Kirkman, James Thomas. 
 Reply to Mr. Garrick's Answer. To which is prefix'd, 
 All the Papers, which have publickly appeared, in re- 
 gard to this Important Dispute. Pp. 36. London, 1743. 
 
 Macready, Willlam Charles. 
 
 Macready's Reminiscences, and Selections from his 
 Diaries and Letters. Edited by Sir Frederick Pol- 
 lock. New York, 1875. 
 
 Ma LONE, Edmond. 
 
 An Historical Account of the English Stage. (In Vol. 
 I of " The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare.") 
 London, 1790. 
 
 Mathews, Charles James. 
 
 The Life of Charles James Mathews. Chiefly Auto- 
 biographical, with Selections from his Correspondence
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 447 
 
 and Speeches. Edited by Charles Dickens. With 
 Portrait. 2 volumes. London, 1879. 
 
 The National Drama, or the Histrionic War of Majors 
 and Minors. With folding caricature Frontispiece. 
 London, 1833. 
 
 Newspapers and Periodicals. 
 See post, p. 452. 
 
 O'Keefe, John. 
 
 Recollections of the Life of John O'Keefe. Written by 
 himself. 2 volumes. London, 1826. 
 
 OULTON, W. C. 
 
 A History of the Theatres of London, containing an 
 Annual Register of New Pieces, Revivals, Pantomimes, 
 &c. With Occasional Notes and Anecdotes. Being a 
 Continuation of Victor's & Oulton's Histories. From 
 the Year 1795 to 1817 inclusive. 3 volumes. London, 
 1818. 
 
 History of the Theatres of London : containing an An- 
 nual Register of all the new and revived Tragedies, 
 Comedies, Operas, Farces, Pantomimes, &c., that has 
 been performed at the Theatres-Royal, in London 
 from the Year 1771 to 1795. With occasional Notes 
 and Anecdotes. 2 volumes. London, 1796. 
 
 Pepys, Samuel. 
 
 Diary. January 1, 1660-May 31, 1669. First edited by 
 Lord Braybrooke, 1825. 
 
 Place, Francis. 
 
 A Brief Examination of the Dramatic Patents. (Ex- 
 tracted from the " Monthly Magazine " for March, 
 1834.) London, 1834. 
 
 Pollock, Sir Frederick. 
 
 See Macready, William Charles. 
 
 The Present State of the Stage in Great Britain 
 and Ireland, and the theatrical Character of the
 
 448 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 principal Performers in both Kingdoms, impartially 
 considered. Pp. 55. London, 1753. 
 
 A Proposal for the Better Regulation of the 
 Stage, with some Remarks on the State of the Theatre 
 among the Antient Greeks and Romans. (Dedicated 
 to "The Managers of Both Houses.") London, 1732. 
 
 QuiN, James. 
 
 The Life of Mr. James Quin Considered. With the his- 
 tory of the Stage from his commencing actor to his retreat 
 to Bath. Illustrated with many curious and interest- 
 ing anecdotes of several persons of distinction, litera- 
 ture, and gallantry. To which is added a supplement 
 of original facts and anecdotes, arranged from authen- 
 tic sources. Together with his trial for the murder of 
 Mr. Bowen. (A reprint from the edition of 1766.) 
 London, 1887. 
 
 Ralph, J. 
 
 The Case of our Present Theatrical Disputes, Fairly 
 Stated. In which is contained, a succinct Account of 
 the Rise, Progress, and Declension of the Antient 
 Stage ; A Comprehensive View of the Management of 
 the Italian, Spanish, French, and Dutch Theatres, with 
 some free Remarks upon our own. Pp. 64. London, 
 1743. 
 
 Raymond, George. 
 
 The Life and Enterprises of Robert William Elliston, 
 Comedian. Illustrated by George Cruikshank and 
 " Phiz." (Portrait of Elliston, and 5 full-page illustra- 
 tions.) London, 1857. 
 
 Report on Dramatic Literature, with the minutes of 
 the evidence. Folded sheet. Pp. 250. London, 1832. 
 
 A Review of the Present Contest between the 
 Managers of the Winter Theatres, the Little 
 Theatre in the Haymarket, and the Royalty 
 Theatre in Well-Close Square. To which are 
 added several authentic papers. London, 1787.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 449 
 
 Reynolds, Frederick. 
 
 The Life and Times of Frederick Reynolds. Written 
 by himself. 2 volumes. London, 1826. 
 
 Sheridan, Richard Brinsley. 
 
 See Account of Proceedings before . . . Privy Council, 
 1810. 
 
 Sheridan, Thomas. 
 See Buskin and Sock. 
 
 SiDDONs, Mrs. 
 
 Memoirs of Mrs. Siddons. By James Boaden. 2 vol- 
 umes. London, 1827. 
 
 Steele, Sir Richard. 
 
 The State of the Case between the Lord Chamberlain 
 of His Majesty's Household and the Governor of the 
 Royal Company of Comedians. With Opinions of 
 Pemberton, Northey, and Parker, concerning the The- 
 atre. Pp. 31. London, 1720. 
 
 The State of the Case between the Lord Chamberlain 
 of His Majesty's Household, and Sir Richard Steele, 
 as represented by that Knight, Restated, In Vindication 
 of King George, and the most noble the Duke of New- 
 castle. With a true Copy of King Charles's Patent, to 
 Sir William D'Avenant, for erecting a Play-house, &c. 
 London, 1720. 
 
 Sterling, Edward. 
 
 Old Drury Lane. Fifty Years Recollections of Author, 
 Actor, and Manager. 2 volumes. London, 1881. 
 
 Stockdale, John Joseph. 
 See Covent Garden Journal. 
 
 Taylor, W. 
 
 A Concise Statement of Transactions and Circum- 
 stances Respecting the King's Theatre in the Haymar- 
 ket. By Mr. Taylor, the Proprietor. Together with 
 the Official Correspondence upon the same Subject be- 
 tween the Rt. Hon. The Lord Chamberlain and Earl 
 Cholmondeley, &c. Pp. 46. London, 1791.
 
 450 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Theatrical Biography : or, Memoirs of the Principal 
 Actors of the Three Theatres Royal, Drury Lane, Co- 
 vent Garden, Haymarket. 2 volumes. London, 1772. 
 
 Theatrical Correspondence in Death. An Epistle 
 from Mrs. Oldfield, in the Shades, to Mrs. Br — ceg — 
 die, upon Earth ; containing, A Dialogue between the 
 most Eminent Players in the Shades, Upon the Late 
 Stage Desertion. Pp. 24. London, 1743. 
 
 Theatrical Monopoly : being an Address to the Pub- 
 lic on the alarming Coalition of the Managers of the 
 Winter Theatres. London, 1779. 
 
 Third Theatre. 
 
 See An Account of the Proceedings before . . . the 
 Privy Council, 1810. 
 
 Thornbury, Walter. 
 
 London Theatres and London Actors. In "Belgravia," 
 January, 1869-February, 1870. 
 
 TOMLINS, F. G. 
 
 A Brief View of the English Drama, from the earliest 
 Period to the Present Time ; with Suggestions for alle- 
 viating the present Condition of the Art and its Pro- 
 fessors. London, 1840. 
 
 Major and Minor Theatres. A concise View of the 
 Question, as regards the Public, the Patentees, and the 
 Profession, with Remarks on the Decline of the Drama, 
 and the means of its Restoration. To which is added 
 the Petition now lying for signature. By one of the 
 Public. London, 1832. 
 
 Past and Present State OF Dramatic Art and Lit- 
 erature. 2d edition, London, 1839. 
 
 A Very Plain State of the Case ; or, The Royalty 
 Theatre Versus The Theatre Royal. (In refutation 
 of "A Review of the Present Contest, etc.," q.v. At- 
 tributed to George Colman, the Younger.) London, 
 1787.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 451 
 
 Vestris, Madame. 
 
 Memoirs of the Life, Public and Private Adventures, of 
 Madame Vestris : of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 
 Covent Garden, Olympic and Haymarket, with inter- 
 esting and amusing Anecdotes of celebrated Characters 
 in the fashionable World, detailing an interesting vari- 
 ety of singularly curious and amusing Scenes, as per- 
 formed before and behind the Curtain. To which is 
 added the amorous Confessions of Madame Vestris, 
 carefully selected by Charles Mallory W — m — e, Esq., 
 from a series of Letters written by Madame to Hand- 
 some Jack, in which will be found most curious Anec- 
 dotes of many eminent roues and debauchees of the 
 day ; with various others of public notoriety. London, 
 1839. 
 
 Victor, Benjamin. 
 
 The History of the Theatres of London and Dublin. 
 From the Year 1730 to the Present Time. To which is 
 added an Annual Register of all the Plays, &c., per- 
 formed at the Theatres-Royal in London, from the Year 
 1712. With Occasional Notes and Anecdotes. By 
 Mr. Victor, Late one of the Managers of the Theatre- 
 Royal in Dublin. 2 volumes. London, 1761. 
 
 The History of the Theatres of London and Dublin, 
 &c. Being a Continuation of the Annual Register of 
 the new Tragedies, Comedies, Farces, Pantomimes, &c., 
 that have been performed from the Year 1760 to the 
 Present Time. London, 1771. 
 
 Waters, E. 
 
 The Opera Glass : exhibiting all the curious proceed- 
 ings of the King's Theatre ; together with the original 
 letters and papers, which have passed between the 
 present proprietors, since the death of Francis Goold, 
 Esq., joint proprietor with Mr. Taylor in the above 
 .property. London, 1808. 
 
 A Statement of Matters, Relative to the King's Theatre. 
 Pp. 27. Loudon, 1818.
 
 452 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Williams, J. M. 
 
 See Newspapers and Periodicals, " Dramatic Censor." 
 
 Williams, Michael. 
 
 Some London Theatres, Past and Present. (A com- 
 pilation from magazine articles.) London, 1883. 
 
 Wright, James. 
 
 Historia Histrionica. A Dialogue of Old Plays and Old 
 Players. (In Dodsley's Collection of Old Plays.) 
 London, 1699. 
 
 Wroth, Warwick, assisted by Arthur Edgar Wroth. 
 
 The London Pleasure Gardens of the 18th Century. 
 
 London and New York, 1896. 
 Wyndhajvi, Henry Saxe. 
 
 Annals of Covent Garden Theatre. London, 1906. 
 
 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS 
 
 The Annual Register, or a View of the History, Poli- 
 ticks, and Literature for the Year (1758- ). The An- 
 nual Register was commenced by R. Dodsley, and con- 
 tinued by his house down to 1790, when the stock and 
 copyright were sold. Since then, it has appeared in 
 numerous editions and with the imprint of various pub- 
 lishers. Some of these editions are made up from all 
 the preceding editions. The seventh edition, together 
 with the New Series, which began in 1863, is complete 
 and continuous. Since 1838 the word " Literature " 
 has not appeared in the title, and in 1863 the sub-title 
 was changed to " A Review of Public Events at Home 
 and Abroad." Since 1790 the Annual Register has 
 been published simultaneously from the houses of the 
 various owners of the stock. 
 
 Belgravia, a London Magazine. London, November, 
 1866- . In progress. 
 
 The Britannic Magazine ; or, Entertaining Repository 
 of Heroic Adventures. 12 volumes. London, 1793- 
 1807.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 453 
 
 The British Magazine and Review : or, Universal 
 Miscellany of Arts, Sciences, Literature, History, 
 Biography, Entertainment, Poetry, Politics, Manners, 
 Amusements, and Intelligence Foreign and Domestic. 
 London, July, 1782-December, 1783. 
 
 The Cabinet ; or. Monthly Report of Polite Literature. 
 6 volumes, with 42 plates. London, 1807-1808. 
 
 The Country Journal ; or. The Craftsman. By 
 Caleb D'Anvers, of Gray's-Inn, Esq. 14 volumes. 
 London. Weekly. Original dates, December 5, 1726- 
 April 17, 1736. See Gray's-Inn Journal. 
 
 The Country Literary Chronicle and Weekly Re- 
 view. See Literary Chronicle. 
 
 The Craftsman. See The Country Journal. 
 
 The Daily Courant. 7 fol, volumes. No. 1, March 
 11, 1702. Flourished for over thirty years. I'he first 
 London daily. 
 
 The Daily Universal Register. See The Times. 
 
 The Dramatic Censor ; or, critical and biographical il- 
 lustration of the British Stage. For the Year 1811. 
 Involving a correct register of every night's perform- 
 ances at our Metropolitan theatres, and published with 
 a view to sustain the morality and dignity of the 
 drama. Edited by J. M. Williams, LL.D. 1 volume. 
 Columns 1^93. London, 1812. 
 
 The Dramatic Censor : or. Critical Companion. 2 
 volumes. London, 1770. 
 
 The Dramatic Censor ; or, Weekly Theatrical Report. 
 Comprising a Complete Chronicle of the British Stage, 
 and a Regular Series of Theatrical Criticisms, in every 
 Part of the Drama. By Thomas Dutton, A.M. 2 
 volumes, 26 numbers. London, January 4-June 28, 
 1800. Two mora volumes were added in 1801, when 
 the title was changed to " The Dramatic Censor ; or, 
 Monthly Epitome of Taste, Fashion, and Manners."
 
 454 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Thk Edinburgh Literary Journal ; or, Weekly Reg- 
 ister of Criticism and Belles Lettres. 6 volumes. 
 Edinburgh, November 15, 1828-January 14, 1832. 
 
 The Edinburgh Spectator, A Journal of Literature 
 and the Fine Arts. Semi-weekly. 10 numbers. Edin- 
 burgh, February 15-April 7, 1832. 
 
 The Examiner : A Sunday paper, on politics, domestic 
 economy, and theatricals. London, 1808-1836. 4to 
 down to 1830, fol. since 1830. 
 
 The European Magazine and London Review. By 
 the Philological Society of London. 87 volumes. Lon- 
 don, 1782-1825. After vol. 50, " Philological Society " 
 does not appear on title-page. In September, 1825, a 
 New Series was commenced and continued to July, 
 1826, when The European Magazine was united with 
 The Monthly Magazine, q. v. 
 
 Fog's Weekly Journal. London, September 28, 1728- 
 January 1, 1732. Fog's Journal was a continuation of 
 Mist's Weekly Journal (q. v.), a Tory paper, started in 
 1716, in opposition to Read's Weekly Journal, which 
 was conducted in the interests of the Whigs. Defoe 
 was connected with Mist's Journal for a number of 
 years. 
 
 Eraser's Literary Chronicle, and Register of British 
 and Foreign Literature, Science and the Fine Arts. 
 Complete in One Volume. Containing Reviews of New 
 Books, together with various original Articles, Poetry, 
 the Drama, Fine Arts, &c., &c., &c. Weekly. London, 
 December 5, 1835-May 28, 1836. 
 
 Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country. Monthly, 
 80 volumes. London, 1830-1869. New Series, volumes 
 1-26, 1870-1882. 
 
 The General Magazine and Impartial Review. In- 
 cluding a History of the present times, and an account 
 of new Publications, interspersed with original and se-
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 455 
 
 lected Tales, Essays, Biography, Poetry, &c., &c., &c., 
 with a Monthly Chronicle of Events. London, June, 
 1787-December, 1792. 
 
 The Gentleman's Magazine ; or. Monthly Intelli- 
 gencer. Vol. I, No. 1, January, 1731. In progress. 
 
 Gold's London Magazine, See The Theatrical In- 
 quisitor. 
 
 Gkay's-Inn Journal. By A. Murphy. Weekly. Lon- 
 don, September 29, 1753-September 21, 1754. From 
 a manuscript note prefixed to the copy in the British 
 Museum we learn that " This volume contains the last 
 62 numbers of the Grai/s-Inn Journal, all that were 
 printed in this size. The preceding numbers were pub- 
 lished in The Craftsman." 
 
 Grub-Street Journal. Weekly. 400 numbers in 2 
 volumes. London, January 8, 1730-August 25, 1737. 
 The Grub-Street Journal was started by a Non-Juring 
 clergyman by the name of Russel. In 1737 it became 
 The Literary Courier, under which title it had a long 
 career. 
 
 The Lady's Magazine ; or. Entertaining Companion for 
 the Fair Sex. Appropriated solely to their Use and 
 Amusement. Monthly. 50 volumes. London, Au- 
 gust, 1770-December, 1819. New Series, 10 volumes, 
 January, 1820-December, 1829. See Lady's Monthly 
 Museum. 
 
 The Lady's Monthly Museum ; or. Polite Repository 
 of Amusement and Instruction ; being an assemblage 
 of whatever can attend to please the fancy, interest the 
 mind, or exalt the character, of the British Fair. Lon- 
 don, July, 1798-June, 1806. New Series, 1807-1811. 
 Continued as 
 
 The Ladies' Monthly Museum, etc. Improved Se- 
 ries. 1817-1828. 
 
 Continued as 
 The Ladies' Museum, 1829, 1830. New and Improved
 
 456 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Series, 1831, 1832. Incorporated with The Lady's 
 Magazine, (q. v.), 1832, and 
 
 Continued as 
 The Lady's Magazine and Museum of Belles Let- 
 TREs. Improved Series, enlarged, 1832-1837. United 
 with The Court Magazine and Monthly Critic and 
 
 Continued as 
 The Court Magazine and Monthly Critic, and La- 
 dies' Magazine and Museum of the Belles Let- 
 tres. London, 1838-1847. Volume 27 of The Court 
 Magazine contains a statement that The Ladies' Maga- 
 zine was first published in 1756. 
 
 The Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review : 
 Forming an Analysis and General Repository of Litera- 
 ture, Philosophy, Science, Arts, History, the Drama, 
 Morals, Manners, and Amusements. London, 1819- 
 1828. New Series, May-July, 1828, which became in- 
 corporated with The Athenseum. 
 
 The Literary Courier of Grub-Street. See Grub- 
 Street Journal. 
 
 Lloyd's Evening Post. Monday, Wednesday, Friday. 
 London, Vol. I, No. 1, July 22, 1757 ; Vol. XL VI, No. 
 3591, June 28, 1780. 
 
 The London Chronicle. To be continued every Tues- 
 day, Thursday and Saturday. Vol. I, No. 1, January 
 1, 1757; Vol. CXXXI, July 15, 1822. Afterwards 
 united with The London Packet. 
 
 The London Magazine and Monthly Intelligencer. 
 London, 1732-1783. From 1735 to 1746 the title was 
 " The London Magazine and Monthly Chronologer." 
 
 The London Magazine. Monthly, 1820-1824. New 
 Series, 1825-1828. Third Series, 1828-1829. January- 
 August, 1825, title appeared as " London Magazine 
 and Review."
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 457 
 
 The London Packet. See London Chronicle. 
 
 Mist's Weekly Journal ; or, Saturday Post. Lon- 
 don, 1716-1728. In the latter year, after an almost 
 incessant persecution by the Whig Government, Mist 
 was under the necessity of abandoning the name of his 
 journal, and of reducing its tone. The name was 
 changed to " Fog's Weekly Journal," q. v. 
 
 The Monthly Magazine, and British Register. 
 London, 1796-1826. 
 
 Continued as 
 The Monthly Magazine : or, British Register of Lit- 
 erature, Sciences, and the Belles Lettres. New Series, 
 1826-1834. 
 
 Continued as 
 The Monthly Magazine of Politics, Literature, 
 AND THE Belles Lettres. 1835-1838. 
 Continued as 
 The Monthly Magazine. 1839-1843. 
 
 The Monthly Visitor, and Entertaining Pocket Com- 
 panion. By a Society of Gentlemen. London, Janu- 
 ary, 1797-April, 1803. After January, 1801, the title 
 became " The Monthly Visitor, and New Family 
 Magazine." 
 
 The Morning Chronicle. Daily. Loudon, 1768-1854. 
 
 The Morning Herald. Daily. London, 1780-1869. 
 
 The Morning Post. Daily. London, 1772-1803. 
 
 The New Monthly Magazine and Uni\tersal Reg- 
 ister. London, 1814-1820. 
 
 Continued as 
 The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Jour- 
 nal. 1821-1836. 
 
 Continued as 
 The New Monthly Magazine and Humourist. 
 1837-1871.
 
 458 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Continued as 
 The New Monthly Magazine. New Series, 1872- 
 1879. New Third Series, 1879-1881. New Series, 
 1882-1884. 
 
 The Pamphleteer. Respectfully dedicated to Both 
 Houses of Parliament. To be continued occasionally, 
 at an average of four or five annually. London, 1813- 
 1826. 
 
 The Prompter. Tuesday and Friday. 173 numbers. 
 No. I, Tuesday, March 12, 1734 ; No. CLXXIII, Fri- 
 day, July 2, 1736. In 1784 E. Malone wrote on the 
 fly-leaf of his copy of The Prompter (now the property 
 of the Yale University Library) : " I have never seen 
 another copy of this work. This paper was written by 
 Aaron Hill, Esquire. He was occasionally assisted by 
 Wni. Popple, who was buried at Hampstead, Feb. 13, 
 1764. This Mr. Popple was Governor of Bermudas 
 [or rather perhaps his brother]." The British Museum 
 has a complete copy of The Prompter, with the excep- 
 tion of Nos. 138 and 158 which are wanting. 
 
 The Spectator. [By Addison, Steele, and others.] 
 Innumerable editions. Original edition, daily, London, 
 1711-1714. 
 
 The Spectator. A weekly Journal of News, Politics, 
 Literature, and Science. London, 1828- 
 
 Tait's Edinburgh Magazine. 1st Series, 4 vols., 
 1832-1834 ; 2d Series, 28 vols., 1834-1861. In June, 
 1834, Johnston's Edinburgh Magazine was incorporated 
 with Tait's. 
 
 The Tatler. The Lucubrations of Isaac Bickerstaff 
 Esq. [i. e. Steele, Addison, and others]. 271 numbers. 
 Weekly. London, April 12, 1709-January 2, 1710. 
 
 The Tatler. A daily Journal of Literature and the 
 Stage. 3 volumes. London, September 4, 1830-De- 
 cember 31, 1831.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 459 
 
 The Theatre. To be continued every Tuesday and 
 Saturday. By Sir John Edgar [i. e. Sir Richard 
 Steele]. 27 numbers. London, Saturday, January 2, 
 1720-Saturday, April 2, 1720. No. 28 was added by 
 Steele in his own name. The Theatre was published 
 by Steele in defense of his rights, at the time when the 
 Crown revoked his patent. 
 
 The Theatre. By Sir Richard Steele ; to which are 
 added the Anti-Theatre ; The Character of Sir John 
 Edgar ; Steele's Case with the Lord Chamberlain ; The 
 Crisis of Property ; with the Sequel, Two Pasquins, 
 &c., &c. Illustrated with Literary and Historical An- 
 ecdotes. By John Nichols. London, 1791. 
 
 The Theatrical Examiner ; or, critical remarks on 
 the daily performances, with bills of the plays. Lon- 
 don, 1823-1828. 
 
 The Theatrical Gazette ; or. Nightly Reflector of the 
 Theatres Royal, Covent Garden and Drury Lane. 
 London, 1818. 
 
 The Theatrical Inquisitor ; or, Literary Mirror. By 
 Cerberus. 16 volumes. London, 1812-1820. New 
 Series, 1 volume, 1821. Discontinued in 1821 and 
 combined with Gold's London Magazine. 
 
 The Theatrical Observer. Daily. London, 1821- 
 1876. 
 
 The Times. Begun January 1, 1785, as "The Daily 
 Universal Register." On January 1, 1788, the title 
 was changed to "The Times Universal Register." 
 London, 1785- 
 
 Town-Talk. In a series of Letters to a Lady in the 
 Country. To be published every Saturday. [By R, 
 Steele.] 9 numbers. London, December 17, 1715- 
 February 13, 1715-16. No. 6 contains copy of Steele's 
 theatrical patent.
 
 460 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 The Town and Country Magazine; or, Universal Re- 
 pository of Knowledge, Instruction, and Entertainment. 
 Monthly. London, 1769-1791. 
 
 The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and 
 Pleasure. Monthly. London, 1747-1803. 
 
 Continued as 
 The Universal Magazine. New Series, 1804-1814. 
 
 Continued as 
 The New Universal Magazine. 1814, 1815. 
 
 The Universal Museum ; or, Gentlemen's & Ladies' 
 Polite Magazine of History, Politicks and Literature. 
 Monthly. London, 1762-1764. 
 
 Continued as 
 The Universal Museum and Complete Magazine of 
 Knowledge and Pleasure. 1765-1770. 
 
 The AVasp. A Literary Satire. Containing an exposd 
 of some of the most notorious literary and theatrical 
 quacks of the day, etc. Weekly. 12 numbers. Lon- 
 don, Saturday, September 30-Saturday, December 16, 
 1826. 
 
 The Weekly Journal ; or, Saturday's Post. See 
 Fog's and Mist's.
 
 INDEX
 
 INDEX 
 
 Abbott, arrested for acting at unli- 
 censed theatre, 314 ; supports Bul- 
 wer's bill, 348 ; delivers address 
 on behalf of actors, 377 ; resists 
 union of patents under Bunn, 3S8. 
 
 Adam, counsel for patentees, argu- 
 ments of, against third theatre, 
 205-207. 
 
 Adolphus, counsel for Arnold and 
 Greville in third theatre contest, 
 216. 
 
 All '« Well That Ends Well, revived 
 by Giffard. 76 n. 
 
 Anne, Queen of England, closes 
 Drury Lane Theatre, 12 ; report 
 of attorney to, regarding patent 
 theatres, 13 ; licenses Collier to 
 act at Drury Lane, 13 f., 422 ; Va- 
 grant Act of, 37 ; legal aspects of 
 her ejectment of Rich from Drury 
 Lane, 359. 
 
 Anstruther, M. P., speaks against 
 Palmer's Royalty bill, 119. 
 
 Arnold, Dr., fails to secure musical 
 license, 163 ra., 248 ; establishes 
 Lyceum, 248 ; manager of Maryle- 
 bone Gardens, 281. 
 
 Arnold, S. J., granted license for 
 English opera, 197 m., 249 ; peti- 
 tions for third theatre, 214 ; ques- 
 tion of season at English Opera 
 House settled, 250 ; joins Greville 
 and Sheridan at Lyceum, 250 ; an- 
 nounces opening of Lyceum, 251 ; 
 appeals to public against paten- 
 tees, 258 ; sustains loss by fire, 
 259 ; opens new Opera House, 259 ; 
 his license reduced to four 
 months, 259 ; denounces conduct 
 of Kinnaird, 261 f.,265 ; defeated 
 by patentees, 268 ; issues mani- 
 festo against patentees, 272 f. ; 
 petitions for extension of license, 
 356 ; gets license extended, 365 ; 
 petitions for regular drama at 
 Lyceum, 415. See also Lyceum. 
 
 Astley, P., resists Sadler's Wells 
 Bill, 135 ; character of perform- 
 ances at his Ampliitheatre, 165 ; 
 gets burletta added "to license. 
 
 283 ; builds Olympic Pavilion, 
 291 ; his Amphitheatre burns, 292 ; 
 leases Olympic, 292 ; sells to El- 
 liston, 292; complains of paten- 
 tees, 301. 
 As You Like It, Royalty Theatre 
 opened with, l64. 
 
 Baillie, Joanna, her De Monfort 
 fails at Drury Lane, 240. 
 
 Bannister, Charles, Sr., convicted 
 for acting at Royalty Theatre, 
 114; cripples Haymarket by act- 
 ing at Drury Lane, 157 ; among 
 leading actors at Haymarket, 
 255. 
 
 Barlow and Reeve, lease Olympic 
 Pavilion, 304 n. 
 
 Barnard, Sir John, mover of bill to 
 regulate playhouses, 55 f. ; his bill 
 objected to by actors, 58 ; with- 
 draws bill, 59 ; aids patentees in 
 opposing minors, 76. 
 
 Barry, S., arouses jealousy of paten- 
 tees, 90 ; employed at Drury 
 Lane, 91. 
 
 Barry, Mrs. E., joins Betterton's re- 
 volt, 7. 
 
 Bartley, succeeds Raymond at Ly- 
 ceum, 261 ; reads Arnold's com- 
 plaints to public, 263 ; delivers 
 final address at Lyceum, 269. 
 
 Beard, succeeds J. Rich at Covent 
 Garden, 91, 143 ; disposes of pat- 
 ent, 91. 
 
 Beaumont and Fletcher, 329. 
 
 Beaumont, Lord, moves amendment 
 to Regulation BiU, 415. 
 
 Beaux Strntagem, The, converted 
 into burletta, 288. 
 
 Bedford, A., opposes Goodman's 
 Fields Theatre, 26 f . 
 
 Bedford, Duke of, 147, 149. 
 
 Beggar'' s Opera, The, marks begin- 
 ning df dramatic satire, 48 ; when 
 first acted, 50 ; opposition to, 27, 
 50 ; success of, 50 and n. 3; scene 
 of, 281. 
 
 Belfast, Earl of, supports Chamber- 
 lain's authority, 333.
 
 464 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Bennett, W. J., licensed at the Gar- 
 rick, 368. 
 
 Betterton, Thomas, revolts against 
 monopoly, 7 ; starts new theatre, 
 8; significance of revolt, 9, 11; 
 causes of failure of revolt, 11; 
 contrasted with revolt of 17011, 12; 
 legal meaning of revolt reviewed, 
 359, 42J. 
 
 Birnie and Hall, JJ. P., refuse to 
 convict minor actors, 309, 333. 
 
 Bisho)) of London, attacks immoral- 
 ity of stage, 353 ; causes arrest of 
 Farrell, 353;;.; his attitude re- 
 garding Lent, 393, 399, 401. 
 
 Bold Stroke fur a Wife, yl, 266 ; con- 
 verted into burletta, 28!3. 
 
 Blackstone, Sir W., his definition of 
 monopoly, 208 f. 
 
 Booth, Barton, joins Wilks and Gib- 
 ber in management of Drury 
 Lane, 15, 57 ; named in Steele's 
 patent, 16 ; is satirized, 52. 
 
 Bracegirdle, Mrs., joins Betterton's 
 revolt, 7. 
 
 Braham, J., encourages English op- 
 era, 162; is licensed at St. James 
 Tlieatre, 314, 367, 390; licensed 
 at Colosseum, 368. 
 
 Brett, Capt., shareholder in Drury 
 Lane patent, 12. 
 
 Brooke, Henry, his Gustava Vasa 
 interdicted, 72. 
 
 Brooke, R., J. P., refuses to convict 
 actors for playing at Royalty, 114. 
 
 Brougham, Sir Wm., counsel for 
 Arnold and Greville before Privy 
 Council, 218; supports Bulwer's 
 investigation of the monopoly, 
 329. 
 
 Browne, A., speaks on Theatre Bill, 
 238 and Ji. 
 
 Buckstone, the actor, 306. 
 
 Bulwer, Edward, Lord Lytton, his 
 Dramatic Perfermances Bill, 317, 
 339-354, 380 f ; leads remonstrance 
 against monopoly, 324 ; his ar- 
 raignment of the monopoly, 326 f , 
 433 ; his Select Committee, debate 
 on, 325-334, report on, 334-339. 
 
 Bunn, A., unites patents, 343, 366 n, 
 373, 379 ; opposes Bulwer's bill, 
 343 ; petitions against third thea- 
 tre, 381 ; Knowles's letter to, 383; 
 letter of Chamberlain to, 385 ; de- 
 feated in Lenten controversy, 392, 
 394, 396, 398, 401 ; restricted by 
 Chamberlain, 404, 406, 408; ap- 
 peals to Parliament, 406 ; fails, 
 414 n. 
 
 Burletta, its origin, 281 ; its import- 
 
 ance to the minors, 282, 283, 287, 
 288, 290, 291 ; Colman's defini- 
 tion of, 282 ; letter to Lord Cham- 
 berlain respecting, 283 ; evolu- 
 tion of, 283, 286, 288, 289, 294, 
 3:i0, 389 ; EUiston's interpretation 
 of, 288 f., 292; Tom Thumb en- 
 acted as, at Covent Garden, 285. 
 Busy Body, The, 88. 
 
 Calista, prohibited by Lord Cham- 
 berlain, 59. 
 
 Campbell, Sir John, speaks against 
 the monopoly, 330 f.; moves 
 amendment of Regulation BiU, 
 417. 
 
 Carlisle, Lord, letter of Charles 
 Howard to on Playhouse Bill, 55. 
 
 Catalini, Madame, forced to cancel 
 engagement at Covent Garden, 
 177. 
 
 Chapman, persecuted by patentees, 
 309, 311, 313. 
 
 Charke, Mrs. C, 80, 88. 
 
 Charles II, grants monopoly to Kil- 
 ligrew and Davenant, 1,3; causes 
 union of 1682, 5 ; story related of, 
 64. 
 
 Charlotte, Princess, 296. 
 
 Chesterfield, Lord, opposes Licens- 
 ing Act, 65 f., 390. 
 
 Chetwood, W. R., his Generoxu 
 Freemason, 23 ; his History of the 
 Stage, quoted, 29, n. 1, 30, 50, n. 3. 
 
 Chetwj-nd, W., first licenser of plays 
 under Licensing Act, 71. 
 
 Cibber, CoUey, his Apologt/ quoted, 
 5, 6, 8, 15, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42, 46, 
 67 f.; leading actor at Drury Lane, 
 15; shareholder in Steele's patent, 
 16 ; prohibited from performing at 
 Drury Lane, 16, 423 ; sells Drury 
 Lane patent to Highmore, 34; 
 conduct of during revolt of 1733, 
 35 f.; his discussion of Harper's 
 case, 38 f.; liis alterations of 
 Shakespeare's plays satirized by 
 Fielding, 43 ; attacks Fielding, 
 in the Apologi/, 46 f .; failure of his 
 Loi-e in a Riddle, 50; his manage- 
 ment of Drury Lane criticised, 51 ; 
 discusses Licensing Act, 07 f. 
 
 Cibber, Theophilus, leads revolt of 
 1733, 34 f.: in revolt of 1743, 79; 
 silenced by patentees, 80 ; opens 
 Little Theatre, 87. 
 
 Clanricarde, Marquis of, his debate 
 on Bulwer's bill, 346, 352 f.; and 
 on Regulation Bill, 415. 
 
 Clarges, Sir Thomas, magistrate, 
 decides against patentees, 38.
 
 INDEX 
 
 465 
 
 Coke, Sir E., cited in playing-card 
 case, 203. 
 
 Coleridge, S. T., his Zapolya, 297. 
 
 Collier, W., ousts C. Rich from 
 Drury Lane Theatre, 13 ; licensed 
 by Queen Anne, 14, 422. 
 
 Colman, George, the elder, pur- 
 chases share in Covent Garden, 
 91 ; sells interest in Covent Gar- 
 den, and buys Foote's patent, 93, 
 142 ; his tenure at HajTnarket, 93, 
 427 ; resists encroachments of 
 patentees, 94 f., 151 ; brings out 
 The Miser at Haymarket, 9C; 
 leagues with patentees against 
 Palmer, 103 f., 105, 107 ; time of 
 opening Haymarket, 255 ; death 
 of, 150, n. 
 
 Colman, George, the younger, his 
 Random Records quoted, 93, 95 ; 
 succeeds to management of Little 
 Theatre, 150, n.; appeals to public 
 against encroachments of paten- 
 tees, 150, 152 f.; defeated by pat- 
 entees, 151, 157, 254 ; writes Ellis- 
 ton respecting plans, 15G ; disposes 
 of main interest in Haymarket, 
 158 and n.\ secures new privileges 
 at Haymarket, 254; financial dif- 
 ficulties of, 256. 
 
 Congreve, William, aids Betterton's 
 revolt, 8. 
 
 Conyngham, Lord Chamberlain, 
 hostile to the monopoly, 369, 391, 
 433 ; favors minors, 390 ; restricts 
 the monopoly, 394, 398, 402, 404, 
 406. See also Lenten Controversy. 
 
 Cooke, T. P., his acting praised, 
 304. 
 
 Cookerton, C, licensed at the Nor- 
 ton Folgate, 368. 
 
 Cooper, James Fenimore, his ro- 
 mances dramatized, 295. 
 
 Cope, Col., writes letter about Li- 
 censing Act, 63 f. 
 
 Comeille, Death of Aefiilles, 23. 
 
 Covent Garden Theatre, built, 3 ; 
 Duke of York first patron of, 4 ; 
 music and scenery introduced at, 
 5 ; patent united with Drury 
 Lane, 5 ; rebuilt, 32 ; sold to 
 Colman el al., 91 ; managers of, 
 disagree, 92 ; Colman succeeded by 
 Harris, 93, 97 w.; low order of per- 
 formances at, 5, 53, 106, 176, 181, 
 2.'?9, 295 ; immorality fostered by, 
 186 f., 188, 229, n. 2 ; statistics of, 
 91, 97 n., 142, 176 ?j., 366 n., 414 
 n. ; enlarged, 150 ; bums, rebuilt, 
 175 ; management of cause of " O. 
 P." riots, 176 f.; size of, criti- 
 
 cised, 181, 205; enacts Tom 
 ?'/«w«6a8burletta.,285 ; competes 
 with minors, 297 f. ; at war with 
 Drury Lane, 371 f. ; is restricted 
 by Lord Chamberlain, 391 f.; fi- 
 nancial condition of, 3G6 ra., 412 ; 
 burns, 419. See also Monopoly, 
 Patentees, Majors and Minors. 
 
 Cumberland, R., joins third theatre 
 party, 192. 
 
 Curwood, his arguments against the 
 monopoly , 202-205. 
 
 Dance, Charles, playwright, 286. 
 
 Dancer, Mrs. (Mrs. S. Barry), 90. 
 
 Dartmouth, Earl of. Lord Chamber- 
 lain, unfriendly to the monopoly, 
 160 f. ; encourages minor theatres, 
 166 f., 431 ; refuses to interfere 
 in "O. P." riots, 189; prevents 
 use of "dormant patent," 234; 
 grants licenses to Arnold and Gre- 
 ville, 248 ; authority of, ques- 
 tioned by Sheridan, 253 ; aids 
 minors in the burletta conflict, 
 284 f . ; forced by patentees to re- 
 tract license to Elliston, 293. 
 
 Davenant, Sir W., granted theatri- 
 cal patent, 1,3; introduces music 
 and scenery at Covent Garden, 5 ; 
 his heirs dispose of patent, 10. 
 See also Monopoly, and Covent 
 Garden Theatre. 
 
 Davenport, convicted for violating 
 monopoly, 317. 
 
 Davidge, manager of the Coburg, 
 joins minors against majors, 312 ; 
 advocates free trade in theatre, 
 332 ; supports Bulwer's bill, 348. 
 
 DeCamp, actor, 157. 
 
 Delpini, humorist, 102. 
 
 De Monfort, fails at Drury Lane, 
 240. 
 
 Devonshire, Duke of. Lord Cham- 
 berlain, 87, ICO ; refuses to renew 
 agreement between majors and 
 minors, 280 ; closes Strand The- 
 atre, 318 ; takes hand in Lenten 
 controversy, 391 f. 
 
 Dibdin, Charles, his History of the 
 Stage quoted, 42, 48 ; builds the 
 Sans Souci, 165 ; originates eques- 
 trian drama, 287. 
 
 Dibdin, Thomas, declines share in 
 Haymarket, 158 n.\ leading minor 
 manager, 294 ; competes with Co- 
 vent Garden, 297 f. 
 
 D'Israeli, B., opposes Lenten re- 
 strictions, 401. 
 
 Dixon, R., licensed at Sadler's Wells, 
 368.
 
 466 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Dixon, scene-painter, paints scenes 
 for Royalty Theatre, Wi. 
 
 Doggett, T., shareliolder in Drury 
 Laue, 15 ; discarded for Booth, 15. 
 
 Dormant Patent, 143, 144 n., 147, 
 148, 1G8, 1(;0, 172, 173, 213, 2'20, 
 221, 234,400, 4<)7n., 409. 
 
 Dorset, Earl of. Lord Chamberlain, 
 espouses Betterton's cause, 7. 
 
 Douglas, rejected by patentees, 412. 
 
 Downes, John, his Ruscius Anglica- 
 nu.i quoted, 7. 
 
 Dowton, dramatist, ill-treated by 
 patentees, 349. 
 
 Dramatic Censor for 1811, 14 n., 
 228, 237. See uIho Williams, J. 
 
 Dramatic Performances Bill, 339- 
 3.'>4. 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 roy<il theatre, 90, 93, 103 
 n.; Foote sells to Golinan, 93; 
 unable to compete with patent 
 houses, 95 f.; joins patent houses 
 against Royalty Theatre, 103 ; 
 opposes encroachments of patent- 
 ees, 150, 157, 254 f.; sold to Mor- 
 ris and Winston, 158 ; has license 
 extended, 254, 256, 279, 305, 390 ; 
 reduced to four months, 250 ; 
 pulled down, rebuilt, 278; the 
 leading minor, 305, 413. 
 
 Lord Chamberlain, aids Betterton's 
 revolt, 7 ; sides with actors 
 against Rich, 12 ; order of to C. 
 Rich, 12 ; forbids Gibber to per- 
 form at Drury Lane, 16 ; recalls 
 Steele's patent, 16 ; theatres 
 brought under jurisdiction of, 18 ; 
 refuses to interfere in revolt of 
 1733, 36 ; prohibits PoUy, 51 ; 
 prohibits Calista, 59 ; arbitrary 
 authority of, opposed, 59 ; powers 
 of, defined by Licensing Act, 63 ; 
 declines to aid revolt of 1743, 77 ; 
 issues summer license to T. Gib- 
 ber, 87 ; powers of, at close of 18th 
 century, 139; functions of, as in- 
 terpreted by patentees, 170 ; au- 
 thority of, questioned, 33, 59, 253, 
 404 ; sides with patentees, 258 ; 
 arranges compromise between 
 majors and minors, 279 ; unable 
 to define "burletta," 284; sus- 
 tains EUiston against patentees, 
 301 ; compels Strand Theatre to 
 close, 318 ; Bulwer's recommenda- 
 tion respecting, 335 ; question of 
 jurisdiction of, 344 f., 369 ; em- 
 powered by Crown to license 
 minors, 363 ; hastens downfall of
 
 470 
 
 INDEX 
 
 monopoly, IGO f., 165 f., 1G9 f., 
 
 246, 369, 377, 391-404, 406, 408 ; 
 autliority of, reviewed, 160, 170, 
 f., 369, 423 f., 431 f. 
 
 Lord Chancellor's decision, 1831, 
 356-364. 
 
 Lore for Love, 8, 9. 
 
 Lyceum Theatre, founding of, 248 ; 
 character of first performances 
 at, 252 f . ; distinction given to, by 
 Drury Lane company, 253; suc- 
 cess of, 256 ; rebuilt as New Eng- 
 lish Opera House, 257 ; opposed 
 by patentees, 258 f. ; burns, 356 
 and n ; has season extended, 363, 
 365, 390. 
 
 Macbeth, 223, 266, 283, 289, 389. 
 
 MacFarren, G., 311 ; opens Strand 
 Theatre, 320 ; persecuted by pat- 
 entees, 320. 
 
 Macklin, Charles, in revolt of 1733, 
 36 ; acting-manager of Drury Lane 
 Theatre, 77 ; revolts from Drury 
 Lane and opens Little Theatre, 
 78; quarrels with Garrick, 78 ; 
 submits to patentees, 79. 
 
 Mackworth, Sir H., supports Sad- 
 ler's Wells Bill, 131. 
 
 Macready, William Charles, father 
 of, manager of Royalty Theatre, 
 122 ; his views on the monopoly, 
 332 ; leases Covent Garden The- 
 atre, 366 7). ; acts with Kean in 
 Othello, 371 ; his prudence, 380 ; 
 quarrels with Buun, 414 n. ; at- 
 tempts to revive Shakesperean 
 plays, 418, 419. 
 
 Mahon, Lord, reviews condition of 
 the drama, 410 ; presents petition 
 of authors, 412 n. 
 
 Mainwariug, M. P., mover of Sad- 
 ler's Wells BiU, 131. 
 
 Majors and Minors, war between, 
 167, 246, 254 f., 260 f., 271, 274, 
 284, 288, 292 f., 297, 299, 302, 304, 
 308, 309, 311, 314, 317, 318, 319, 
 320, 321, 339-354, 356 f., 389. 
 
 Malibi-an, plays at Drury Lane, 371. 
 
 Mar/orio, a satire on Pasquui, 43. 
 
 Marryatt, M. P., accuses Kemble of 
 lowering public taste, 239. 
 
 Mary, Queen of England, death 
 of, 8. 
 
 MasanieUo, 332, 371. 
 
 Mash, T. B., Deputy-Chamberlain, 
 collects precedents of Lord Cham- 
 berlain's authority, 171 and n. ; 
 letter of, to Lord Dartmouth re- 
 specting Slieridan's methods, 215 ; 
 letter of, respecting burlettas, 283 
 
 f. ; is criticised, 319; delivers 
 decision on Knowles's petition, 
 382 ; his part in Lenten contro- 
 versy, 392. 
 
 Massiuger, Philip, 329. 
 
 Mathews, Charles, 156, n. 2 ; brief 
 account of, 269, /;. 2 ; his " At 
 H(;me " performances, 270 f. ; 
 raises standard of Adelphi, 305. 
 
 Mellish, M. P., supports tliird 
 theatre movement, 232, 238. 
 
 Melrose, manager of Tottenham 
 Theatre, persecuted, 311. See also 
 Chapman. 
 
 Mexborough, Lord, 88. 
 
 Mills, Wm., leading actor at Drury 
 Lane, 10 ; arrested under Vagrant 
 Act, 37 f 
 
 Milmau, Henry H., hisFazio, 297 f 
 
 Minor Tlieatres, definition of, 21, 
 134 n. ; first appearance of, 21 f ; 
 question of crown prerogative 
 over, 33 ; Aaron Hill's views re- 
 specting, 67 ; the leading minors, 
 21 f., 24 f., 98 f., 165, 166,^94, 297 ; 
 character of performances at, 165, 
 2.52, 281 , 389, 397; see also Burletta; 
 become leading factor in struggle, 
 246, 284 ; immense growth of, 166, 
 291, 296, 313 f., 317, 368 ; per- 
 formances at, commended, 303 f., 
 307, 349, 411, 413 ; petition Par- 
 liament against the monopoly, 
 313 ; persecuted by monopoly, see 
 Majors and Minors ; decision re- 
 specting licensing of, 363 ; secure 
 extension of licenses, 365 f. ; final 
 victory of, over monopoly, 389, 
 393 f ., 397, 406, 409, 430 f . See also 
 Burletta, Majors and Minors, War 
 of Encroachments. 
 
 Mitchell, favors Bulwer's bill, 348. 
 
 Mohun, Maj., among leading actors 
 at Drury Lane, 5. 
 
 Moncrietf , the dramatist, complains 
 of treatment by monopoly, 324. 
 
 Monopoly, theatrical, granted to 
 Killigrew and Davenant, 1 f . ; real 
 beginning of, 6 ; purchased by 
 C. Rich, 10; attitude of Crown to- 
 wards, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18 f., 422 ; op- 
 position to, 7, 12, 16, 34 f., 41, 52, 
 54, 58, 81 f., 85 f.,105, 109,113, 132, 
 152, 179, 180 n., 223, 259, 302, 307, 
 311 f., 319, 325 f., 332, 335, 348, 352, 
 358 f., 373, 41 1,422 ; legal opinions 
 respecting, 8, 13, 17, 37, 38, 79, 
 167, 196, 198, 202 f., 224, 358 f., 
 363 f., 422 f.; defeated in Harper 
 case, 38 ; victory of, over revolt- 
 ers, 86 ; lowers dramatic art, 51 f.,
 
 INDEX 
 
 471 
 
 60, 106, 159, 176, 181, 205, 229. 
 237, 239, 244, 295, 300 f., 326, 333, 
 337,342, 351, 387, 411 ; exempt 
 from act of 25 George II, 126 ; 
 later history of, 141 f. ; discussed, 
 19, 33, 94, ISO, 208, 228, 4.:2 ; 
 baaed on original patents, 18, 169, 
 179, 196 f., 221, 223, 358,406,409 ; 
 opposes Royalty Theatre, 103 f. ; 
 aided by Fox, 131 ; cause of con- 
 tlictiug legislation, 140 ; accused 
 of fostering immorality, 136, 177, 
 186, 188. 205, 229 and n. 2, 351 ; 
 Blackstone's definition of, 208 ; 
 precedents in support of, 360 ; 
 steps in downfall of, 141, 160 f., 
 166, 174,175, 196 f., 227,234, 246, 
 207, 288, 294 f., 297, 301, 305f., 312, 
 315, 331, 349, 361, 364 71., 365 f., 
 366 n., 369 f., 375, 389, 394, 405, 
 412-420, 433 ; temporarily saved, 
 235 f. ; history of, reviewed, 422- 
 433. 
 
 Montrose, Duke of, brings about 
 compromise between majors and 
 minors, 279 ; licenses burletta, 
 285. 
 
 Moore, P., reports condition of 
 Drury Lane, 238 ; manager of E. 
 London Theatre, 304. 
 
 Morris, with Winston, purchases 
 Little Tlieatre, 158 ; defies paten- 
 tees, 278 ; gets license extended, 
 279 ; forces patentees to compro- 
 mise, 279 , petitions for privileges, 
 361 f., 364 ; his license extended 
 to eight months, 365. 
 
 Morton, J. M., dramatist, advocates 
 cause of monopoly, 332 ; ranked 
 among leading dramatists, 373. 
 
 Murphy, A., opens Drury Lane for 
 summer season, 88 ; writes ad- 
 dress for Palmer, 104. 
 
 Newcastle, Duke of, Lord Chamber- 
 lain, prohibits Colley Gibber from 
 acting, 16 ; revokes Steele's li- 
 cense, 16 f. 
 
 Norfolk, Duke of, favors third the- 
 atre, 227 n. 
 
 Northey, Sir E.,- delivers opinion 
 respectmg legality of the patents, 
 17, 422. 
 
 Odell, Thomas, builds Goodman's 
 Fields Theatre, 25 f.; his theatre 
 is silenced, 28 ; begins new thea- 
 tre, 28 ; is made deputy-licenser, 
 70 n. ^ 
 
 Oldfield, Mrs. Anne, leading actress 
 at Drury Lane, 10. 
 
 Opera House in Haymarket, built 
 by Vanbrugh, 10 ; used for Italian 
 opera, 11; transfeired to Swiuey, 
 10 ; used by Barry and Dancer for 
 regular drama, 90 ; statistics con- 
 cerning, 142 n.; purchased by Tay- 
 lor, 145; burns, 145, 214; rebuilt, 
 146; occupied by Drury Lane 
 company, 146 , threatened by pat- 
 entees, 169. 
 
 " O. P." riots, history of, 175 f. 
 
 O'Reilly, manager of Pantheon, his 
 difficulties over Italian opera, 
 145 f. 
 
 Orger, Mrs. M. A., is forbidden by 
 patentees to act at L3'ceum, 260; 
 publishes letter in self-defense, 
 263 ; acts at Olympic, 307. 
 
 Osbaldison, acts at Surrey, 307 ; 
 supports Bulwer's bill, 348 ; man- 
 ager of Covent Garden Theatre, 
 366 n. 
 
 Ossulton, Lord, favors third theatre, 
 245. 
 
 Othd/o, 78, 330, 371, 372. 
 
 Otley, M. P., proposes compromise 
 bill, 355. 
 
 Otway, Thomas, 53, 159. 
 
 Outline for a General Opera Ar- 
 rangement, history of, 147 f.; 
 motives of patentees for, 168, 172 ; 
 in evidence before Pi-ivy Council, 
 220 ; it reappears, 404. 
 
 Palmer, John, brief account of, 98 
 f.; projects Royalty Theatre, 99 ; 
 opposed by patentees, 103 f.; his 
 authority to open theatre ques- 
 tioned, 102, 104, 108; forced to 
 close theatre, 106 ; his lack of 
 foresight, 110; a characteristic 
 address of. 111 ; reopens the Roy 
 alty, 112 ; success of, arouses jeal- 
 ousy of patentees, 113; gains 
 public sympathy, 115; crooked 
 conduct of, 116 f.; appeals to Par- 
 liament, 118, 132 ; returns to Lit- 
 tle Theatre, 119, 255; and to 
 Drury Lane, 120 ; his self-decep- 
 tion accounted for, 124 f. ; his 
 methods scored by Sheridan, 128; 
 a leading comedian at the Hay- 
 market, 255 ; significance of his 
 attempt to open the Royalty, 120 
 f., 127, 428. 
 
 Palmer, R., convicted as a vagrant, 
 114; at odds with Haymarket 
 manager, 157, 163. 
 
 Pantheon, opened by O'Reilly, 145 ; 
 burns, 146 ; Greville tries to se- 
 cure, for English opera, 101.
 
 472 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Parke, Justice James, associate 
 counsel in Lord Chancellor's 
 court, 357. 
 
 Parker, Sir T., delivers opinion re- 
 specting legality of patents, 17. 
 
 Parsons, comedian at Haymarket, 
 2.'^,-). 
 
 PitJiquin, brought out at Little The- 
 atre, 43 ; cause.sof its success, fiO. 
 
 Pasta, Madame, prevented by Lord 
 Chamberlain from performing at 
 Drury Lane, 404, 40G. 
 
 Patent Theatres, see Covent Gar- 
 den, Drury Lane, Monopoly, 
 Patentees. 
 
 Patentees, early methods of, 7 ; 
 some account of, to 1733, 10 f., 34 ; 
 employ Vagrant Act against Mills 
 and Giffard, 37 : favor Licensing 
 Act, GG ; threaten Giffard and 
 Garrick, 74 f. ; charged with abus- 
 ing privileges, &? f., 188, 228, 243, 
 312, 324 ; consent of, necessary 
 for acting regular drama, 86, 93, 
 94, 108, 255 ; satirized by Foote, 
 91 f. ; encroach on summer season, 
 95 f. ; instances of illiberality 
 of, 83 f., 93, 96, 105, 109, 113, 150, 
 156, 237, 258, 200 f., 289, 301, 309, 
 316 f., 319, 337, 349, 351, 372, 387, 
 41 1 f . ; gain victory over Palmer, 
 119, 127; defeat Sadler's Wells 
 Bill, 128 f. ; tactics of, against 
 summer theatres, 157; cause Col- 
 man's ruin, 158 ; alarmed at 
 growth of minors, 107 f. ; claim 
 right to interpret Licensing Act, 
 170 ; oppose third theatre move- 
 ment, 196-246; rights of, dis- 
 cussed by Perceval, 213 ; wage 
 war on minors, see Majors and 
 Minors; suicidal war among, 371 
 f. ; defeat Knowles's petition, 
 382 ; worsted in Lenten contro- 
 versy, 391-404 ; reject famous 
 plays, 411 f. 
 
 Peake, R. B., his Patent Seasons, 
 274. 
 
 Pemberton, F., delivers opinion re- 
 garding legality of patents, 17, 
 422. 
 
 Perceval, S., Prime Minister, his 
 opinion respecting validity of 
 original patents, 21 2 f . ; rejects 
 Elliston's petition for extension of 
 privileges, 290. 
 
 Perry, J., licensed at Queen's 
 Opera, 308. 
 
 Place, Francis, opposes stage regu- 
 lation, 332. 
 
 Plague 0/ Riches, The, 73 and n. 
 
 Polhill, Capt., leases Drury Lane 
 Theatre, 315 n. ; reports financial 
 condition of theatre, 315 ; leases 
 Covent Garden Theatre, 300 )i. , 
 fails, 370 ; is denied license dur- 
 ing Lent, 391. 
 
 P<j//y, prohibited, .50, 59. 
 
 Pool, the dramatist, 373. 
 
 Pope, the actor, dismissed from Co- 
 vent Garden, 237. 
 
 Potter, H., builds Little Theatre in 
 Haymarket, 22. 
 
 Powell, G., shareholder in Covent 
 Garden, 91 ; death of, 143. 
 
 Powell, W., plays in America, 387. 
 
 Price, S., leases Drury Lane Thea- 
 tre, 300 re.; fails, 370. 
 
 Prince of Wales, 147, 149, 168, 215. 
 
 Privy Council, members of, in 1810, 
 195 ; proceedings before, for third 
 theatre, 193-224. 
 
 Pulteny, scores Walpole, 64 ; op- 
 poses Licensing Act, 65 f . 
 
 Quick, the actor, 106, 109. 
 Quin, James, Life of, quoted, 42 n., 
 40,50. 
 
 Rae, tragedian at E. London Thea- 
 tre, 304. 
 
 Ralph, J., discusses condition of 
 stage, 44, 82. 
 
 Raymond, George, delivers annual 
 address at Lyceum, 256 ; resigns 
 position at Lyceum, 200 ; describes 
 trials of an actor, 266; his Life 
 nf ElHslon, 289 ra. 
 
 Raymond, James Grant, actor at 
 Haymarket, 103. 
 
 Rayner, L. B., founds Strand Thea- 
 tre, 307 ; joins crusade against the 
 monopoly, 312; driven out by pat- 
 entees, 315 f.; reopens and closes 
 tlie Strand, 321 ; favors investiga- 
 tion of monopoly, 333 ; victory of, 
 over monopoly, 308. 
 
 Reeve, leases Olympic, 304 n.; acts 
 at the Adelphi, 300. See also Bar- 
 low. 
 
 Relapse, The, 8. 
 
 Revolts of actors : Betterton's re- 
 volt, 7f.; revolt of 1709, 12 f.; 
 revolt of 1733, 35 f., 41 ; revolt of 
 1743, 77 f., 426; revolt of 1833, 
 375 f. See also Betterton, T. Gib- 
 ber, Fleetwood, Garrick, High- 
 more, Laporte, Macklin. 
 
 Rice, T. S., sustains Lord Russell 
 in Lenten controversy, 401 ; moves 
 amendment to Regulation Bill, 
 417.
 
 INDEX 
 
 473 
 
 Rich, Christopher, unites patents, 
 10 f.; his character as a manager, 
 7, 10 f.; ejected from Drury Lane 
 Theatre, 12 f.; buys Lincoln's Inn 
 Fields Theatre, 15; his apprecia- 
 tion of the monopoly, 18 f.; death 
 of, 16. 
 
 Rich, John, inherits theatrical pat- 
 ents, 13, 16 ; opens Liucohi's Inn 
 Fields Theatre under " dormant 
 patent," 10, 407, 422; builds new 
 Covent Garden Theatre, 32 ; his 
 Marforio, 43, his management of 
 Covent Garden Theatre criticised, 
 51 ; death of, 91. 
 
 Riclinrd Third, 75, 222, 301. 
 
 Richardson, Sarah, petitions against 
 third theatre, 203. 
 
 Richmond, Duke of, opposes pat- 
 entees, 136. 
 
 Rivals, The, 413. 
 
 Robinson, James, and William, JJ. 
 P., dismiss Royalty prisoners, 114. 
 
 Rodwell, 303, 305. See Jones and 
 Rodwell. 
 
 Rotch, M. P., belittles actors, 345. 
 
 Royal Circus, proprietors of, peti- 
 tion for privileges, 133, 1G5 ; char- 
 acter of performances at, 165, 288; 
 some account of, 287 f.; renamed 
 The Surrey, 288. 
 
 Royalty Theatre, projected and 
 
 ■ built, 99 f.; description of, 101; 
 opening of, 103 f.; the first practi- 
 cal defiance of Licensing Act, 110; 
 compelled to close, 106 ; reopened 
 as a minor, 112 ; arrest of actors, 
 114; victory of patentees over, 
 119; significance of, 120 f., 127; 
 charged with fostering immoral- 
 ity, 136 ; final history of, 121 f. 
 
 Russell, Strand manager, persecuted 
 by patentees, 318, 320. See also 
 Wrench . 
 
 Russell, Sir John, opposes patentees 
 in Lenten controversy, 396, 399 f., 
 401, 403, 
 
 Rutherford, shareholder in Covent 
 Garden patent, 91. 
 
 Sadler's Wells, 112 ; disreputable 
 character of, 125 ; applies for 
 special bill, 127, 283 ; accused of 
 infringing monopoly, 130 ; bill de- 
 feated, 131 ; panic at, 185, ». 2 ; a 
 leading minor, 165 ; improved con- 
 ditions at, 304. 
 
 Salisbury, Marquis of. Lord Cham- 
 berlain, 147 f., IGO, 168, 431. 
 
 Satire, its effect on the stage, 21, 
 22 f. ; as applied by Fielding, 42 f .; 
 
 committee appointed to investi- 
 gate, 44 ; Beggar's Opera, the 
 beginning of, on stage, 49; climax 
 of, reached in Fielding's satires, 
 49, 60 ; abuse of, the immediate 
 cause of Licensing Act, 44 f., 62 
 and 71. 2, 74. 
 
 School for Scandal, The, 116, 389. 
 
 Scott, proprietor of the Sans Pareil, 
 applies for burletta license, 283. 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter, his romances 
 dramatized, 295. 
 
 Sentimenta/ Comedy, The, 92. 
 
 Serle, T. J., leads remonstrance 
 against the monopoly, 312, 324 ; 
 speaks in defense of authors, 348 ; 
 Hi-treated by patentees, 372 ; 
 ranked among leading dramatists, 
 373 ; supports third tlieatre move- 
 ment, 373, 387 f. 
 
 Shakespeare, 5, 53, 74, 90, 159, 181, 
 286, 289, 329, 349, 387, 415, 418, 
 419, 420. See also the individual 
 plays. 
 
 Shell, M. P., doubts eflBcacy of leg- 
 islative control of stage, 333 ; 
 presents Knowles's petition for 
 protection to dramatists, 339. 
 
 Sheldon, Wm., represents Pantheon 
 in Opera Arrangement, 147. 
 
 Sheridan. R. B , succeeds to man- 
 agement of Drury Lane, 97 n. , 127; 
 defeats Sadler's Wells Bill, 131 ; 
 rebuilds Drury Lane Theati'e, 141 
 f.; beset by difficulties, 143 f.; 
 displays shrewdness in Opera Ar- 
 rangement, 147 f. ; his motive in 
 securing the " dormant patent," 
 172 ; chief opponent to third the- 
 atre movement, 193 f.; petitions 
 against third theatre, 200 ; pre- 
 vents Greville from establishing 
 theatre, 213, 214 n., 215, 250; a 
 sample of his methods, 215 ; 
 claims monopoly under patent, 
 218, 221 ; description of, in Privy 
 Council, 222 ; petitions Parliament 
 for rebuilding Drury Lane, 226 ; 
 defends Kemble, 240 ; his finesse, 
 235, 238, 240, 250. 
 
 Sheridan, T., buys share in Drury 
 Lane, 97 n. ; goes to Spain for 
 health, 222. 
 
 Siddons, Mrs., plays De 3f or: fori, 
 240; referred to, by Astley, 301. 
 
 Smith, T., Lord Mayor, heads pe- 
 tition for third theatre, 192 and n. 
 
 Sodojn and Onan, a satire on Foote, 
 112 n. 
 
 Somerset, Duke of, favors Bulwer's 
 bill, 347, 348.
 
 474 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Spontini, M., prevemted by Lord 
 Cliumberlain from performing in 
 foreign opera at patent liouueB, 
 407 f. 
 
 Staples, magistrate, convicts Roy- 
 alty actors, 1 14. 
 
 Steele, Sir li,, contests action of 
 Crown revoking patent, 16 f.; a 
 review of bis case, 18 f. 
 
 Sterling, E., an incident related of, 
 280. 
 
 Sugden, Sir E., counsel for Arnold 
 in third theatre proceedings, 357. 
 
 Swiney, O., succeeds Vanbnigh at 
 Opera House, 10 ; absconds, 15. 
 
 Tarleton, Gen., speaks against third 
 theatre bill, 23'J. 
 
 Taylor, M. A., mover of Royalty 
 Bill, 118, lo'J ; moves to enquire 
 into the monopoly, 242. 
 
 Taylor, W., buys King's Theatre 
 (Opera House), 145 ; his condict 
 with O'Reilly over Italian opera, 
 14() f. ; legal aspects involved in 
 conflict, 360 ; secures monopoly 
 of Italian opera, 148. 
 
 Tenterden, Lord, gives decision 
 against minors, 311. 
 
 Terry, improves character of the 
 Adelphi, 305. 
 
 Theatrical booths, 21 and n. 
 
 Theatrical legislation, conflicts in, 
 124 f. ; explanation of, demanded, 
 131,329; attempts at regulating, 
 127 f. ; summarized, 138 f., 399 f. ; 
 cause of injustice, 328, 330, 335, 
 344, 350, 351, 403, 410 ; partial re- 
 lief from, secured, 3G3 ; correction 
 of, promised, 403 ; amendment of, 
 demanded, 410, 414 ; reviewed, 
 428. 
 
 Theatre Regulation Bill, history of, 
 412-420. 
 
 Third Theatre, germ of, 54 ; plans 
 of, submitted, 189 ; proceedings 
 before Privy Council for, 193-224 , 
 House of Commons petitioned for, 
 229 ; parliamentary proceedings 
 respecting, 229-245 ; promoters 
 of, accused of speculating, 239 ; 
 bill for erecting, defeated by 
 Whitbread, 236, 238, 241, 245; 
 renewed efforts for, 244, 245 ; 
 Kiiowles's attempt to establish, 
 355, 380-388 ; attempts of actors 
 to establish, 225, 376 f., 380; ac- 
 tion of authors respecting, 347 f., 
 372 f., 374, 380, 387 f. ; failure of 
 movement discussed, 384, 385, 
 428 f. 
 
 Thomson, James, his Edward and 
 Kleaiiora prohibited, 72. 
 
 Thurlow, Chancellor, legal opinion 
 on King's prerogative, 'MV). 
 
 Tobin, J., his Uoiwymoon rejected, 
 411. 
 
 Tom Tlmmb, first appearance of, 
 23 , as a burletta, 285. 
 
 Tree, Ellen, chief actress at Covent 
 Garden, 376 ; declines to engage 
 at patent house, 386 ; goes to Ger- 
 many to act, 387. 
 
 Turtou, Sir T., supports Elliston's 
 petition for privileges at the Sur- 
 rey, 290. 
 
 Vnhapi»j Penitent, The, 9, n. 
 
 Union of 1682, 5; the real beginning 
 of theatrical monopoly, 6 f.; bro- 
 ken by Betterton's revolt, 7 f. 
 
 Union of 1708, 10 f. 
 
 Vagrant act of 12 Anne, employed 
 by patentees, 37 ; falls into disuse, 
 69 ; revived by Licensing Act, 69 ; 
 used against Palmer, 103, 113; 
 descended from Sturdy Beggar 
 Act, 124; patentees threatened 
 with, 396. 
 
 Vanbrugh, Sir John, builds Opera 
 House in Haymarket, 10; trans- 
 fers Betterton's company to Hay- 
 market, 10 ; abdication of, 10. 
 
 VenUe Preserved, 74, 90. 
 
 Vestris, Madame, leading actress at 
 Olympic, 307 ; secures extension 
 of licenses for minors, 367 ; aids 
 actors against Laporte, 378, n. 2. 
 
 Victor, Benjamin, his History of the 
 Theatres quoted, 35 n., 39 f., 41 n., 
 42 n., 48. 73?!., dissents from Gib- 
 ber's opinion of Harper's trial, 39 f . 
 
 Vining, W. , represents proprietors of 
 Tottenham Theatre, 311 ; favors 
 Bulwer'8 bill, 348. 
 
 Waithman, alderman, sides with 
 minors, 333. 
 
 Waldron, comedian, 15G. 
 
 Wallack, advocates a free stage, 
 388; attempts to revive Shake- 
 speare's plays, 420 and n. 
 
 Walpole, Horace, mentioned in 
 Cope's letter to Weston, 63. 
 
 Walpole, Sir R., satirized by Field- 
 ing, 43 ; suspected of dictating 
 The Golden Rump, 44 ; his politi- 
 cal methods criticised, 49 ; seconds 
 Barnard's Bill, 56; has Licensing 
 Act passed, 63 f.; severely criti- 
 cised by Pulteny, 64.
 
 INDEX 
 
 475 
 
 ■War of encroachments, 93, 95, 97, 
 104, 150 f ., 15'i, 157, IW, -^54, 267 f., 
 274 f., 280, 308, 3G4, 305, 3<J0. 
 
 Warburton, M. P., condemns the 
 monopoly, 342. 
 
 Warde, favors Bulwer's bill, 347. 
 
 Warren, counsel for third theatre 
 projectors, arguments of, l'JO-202, 
 216-218. 
 
 Waylett, Mrs., prosecuted for act- 
 ing in minor theatre, 314. 
 
 Webster, joins crusade against the 
 monopoly, 312; opens the Strand 
 during Lent, 397. 
 
 West, Mrs., leading actress at the 
 Surrey, 307. 
 
 Weston, E., letter to, concerning 
 the Licensing Act, 63 f. 
 
 Wetherell, Sir C, counsel in case of 
 Majors vs. Minors, 256, n. 1, 362, 
 
 Whitbread, S., defeats third theatre 
 project, 235 f., 238, 241, 243 f. 
 
 White, 6., claims interest in " dor- 
 mant patent," 143; petitions 
 Crown for protection to share in 
 patent, 220. 
 
 Wilkinson, Tate, actor, 306. 
 
 Wilks, R., actor at Drury Lane, 10; 
 shareholder in patents, 15, 57 ; 
 named in Steele's patent, 16; is 
 satirized, 51. 
 
 WiUiam III, issues license to Better- 
 ton, 8, 422. 
 
 William IV, establishes authority of 
 Chamberlain to license minors, 
 363 ; extends licenses of minors, 
 365 f., 367; death of, 406. 
 
 Williams and Forrester, convicted 
 for violating Liceneing Act, 320. 
 
 Williams, John, editor "Dramatic 
 Censor," compared with Aaron 
 Hill, 228; wages war on monopoly, 
 228; opposes Drury Lane Rebuild- 
 ing Act, 237. 
 
 Winnington, Lord, criticised by Pul- 
 teny, 64. 
 
 Winston, purchases interest in Little 
 Theatre, 158 ; manager of Totten- 
 ham Theatre, 311. 
 
 Winter''s Tale, revived by Giffard, 
 76 71. 
 
 Wood, alderman, amends Bulwer's 
 bill, 345. 
 
 Wrench, compelled to close Strand 
 Theatre, 318 ; supports Bulwer's 
 bill, 348. See also Russell. 
 
 Wright, Sir S., magistrate, aids pat- 
 entees against Palmer, 109. 
 
 Wroughtou, joint proprietor of Sad- 
 ler's Wells, 128. 
 
 Wyatt and Farrell, open Royal Pa- 
 vilion, 314. 
 
 Wynford, Lord, presents petition 
 favoring Bulwer's bill, 346. 
 
 Yates, E., defendant in contract 
 suit, 286; improves character of 
 the Adelphi, 305 ; aids actors 
 against Laporte, 378, n. 2. 
 
 Yates, Mrs., her acting of Grace 
 Huntley praised, 306. 
 
 Yonge, Sir W., criticised by Pul- 
 teny, 64. 
 
 York, Duke of, chief patron of Co- 
 vent Garden Theatre, 4; secures 
 patent for Foote, 89.
 
 (3tbe RilJcrislDe prt?^ 
 
 Electrotyped and i>rinted by H . O. Houghton &= Co. 
 Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
 
 3 1210 00500 3981