210 ] [FB. 



THE DRAMATIC MONOPOLY. 



IT would at first sight appear surprising, that this question should 

 ever arise. The very title of our article, a " Dramatic Monopoly," is 

 in itself an absurdity ; the sole right of judging every effort made in 

 dramatic literature the sole right of appreciating every attempt in the 

 histrionic art, with an almost equal control over the works of our native 

 musical composers, and those of a no less gifted body of painters ! If 

 such a power had been created in a time of literary debasement, and 

 political slavery, it surely could never be allowed to continue in an age 

 of regenerate genius and lynx-eyed freedom. But it is so here, this 

 day, in England. It must then be perpetuated in behalf of some Peri- 

 cles, whose equal judgment and faultless discrimination render him the 

 only arbiter, fit to decide on the productions and the reward of the 

 highest art ? No. On behalf of two trading corporations interested in 

 keeping the reward at the lowest possible rate, and so confident in their 

 patent rights, that they prefer making objects of those whom chance, 

 subserviency, family connection, or aristocratic recommendation may 

 offer, to taking the trouble of assisting the progress of ability, or cheer- 

 ing with hope its diffident aspirators. This is not the language of 

 rhetoric, or the mock feeling of interested advocacy. It is the plain un- 

 varnished truth. Let us take the facts as they are on record in every 

 newspaper of the day. 



Some prosecutor, whose name we presume he will have no objection 

 that we should forget, at the avowed instigation of the proprietors of the 

 Theatres Royal, Drury Lane and Covent Garden, carries on proceedings 

 in the Court of King's Bench, and, by virtue of a statute, long since 

 repealed by common sense and common usage, obtains a verdict against 

 a manager of the name of Chapman, for performing certain pieces, ac- 

 tually purchased by him of the author, and played by actors whose talents 

 found their market in the salaries he paid them. It was decided vir- 

 tually to be against law, that any plays should be bought in London, 

 except such as the larger theatres chose to purchase, even should they 

 themselves refuse such productions when offered ; and that any actor 

 should presume to use the gifts of nature and education for the benefit 

 of any other establishments, even though the monopolists might think 

 proper to dismiss him. 



This was pushing the argument to a sufficient extent of absurdity, but 

 with the usual senselessness of oppression, they forgot that such an ar- 

 gument is a two-edged weapon, and they determined on- trying its use a 

 step or two further. They caused notices to be served on all the minor 

 managers, threatening them with a like fate, unless they might prefer 

 the pleasing alternative of closing their doors. Utterly reckless of the 

 fate of twenty-five hundred individuals directly dependent on the es- 

 tablishments they sought to destroy, and of the losses which must fall 

 upon many thousands more, the patent proprietors determined at one 

 blow to secure their monopoly. The public, these proprietors thought, 

 cared little for those engaged at the minor theatres, and would hardly 

 take the trouble to understand the general question. They were mis- 

 taken on both points. The public viewed, with kindness and sympathy, 

 the honest exertions of so many hundreds, supporting themselves and 

 those dependent on them by honourable exertion ; the public saw with 



