1832.] The Dramatic Monopoly. 459 



tions on which they were granted have been in every manner violated, 

 so that we sincerely believe a Court of Chancery would annul them. 

 Moreover, they are incompatible with the advancement of the art, for 

 the purpose of advancing which they claim to have been created. The 

 whole, however, of this part of the subject, most ably treated by Mr. 

 Eugene Macarthy, in his speech at the Freemason's Tavern, has been 

 with still more skill and care insisted upon by him in a pamphlet just 

 published, and it is not for us, in an endeavour to amuse and interest, 

 to go twice over beaten ground. 



Among the proprietors of the theatres royal, we believe, there is no 

 more than one actually a member of the profession they claim to mono- 

 polize. That gentleman, and in speaking of so distinguished an orna- 

 ment of the stage, we would use all the delicacy due to his feelings and 

 the respect which his attainments command, has, we imagine, been 

 himself the greatest sufferer by the monopoly of any one exercising his 

 art. The time and assiduity devoted to a hopeless enterprise have been 

 obstacles to his wealth, the irresponsible power of management has 

 proved a snare for his reputation. We have no right or wish to go 

 further into this point than so mere a hint, but we have to deal with him 

 as an exception to a body, the remainder of which have embarked their 

 property as mere speculators, or would claim some honour from their 

 pecuniary advances as patrons. As for the present lessee of Drury Lane 

 Theatre, his vote ought to be secured to the abolitionists, inasmuch as 

 the effect of legally destroying the monopoly must be to lessen a rent 

 paid by him, for a privilege which virtually no longer exists. 



Among the latter class of proprietors, at all events, there should be no 

 hostility to a just settlement of this question, and yet the old adage, that 

 tc Corporations have no honour," may not impossibly be verified in this 

 instance. We have heard an anecdote of a member of committee, whose 

 personal reputation he would doubtless hold dear enough, advising the 

 non-payment of a debt avowedly due to an actor until the law might 

 compel such a settlement. But let us trust to better things. The influential 

 persons interested in the great houses are now appealed to in their 

 solemn office of legislators. To offer an unjust opposition would, as we 

 imagine, be doubly dishonourable and uncandid. They have, if they 

 view the matter rightly, some wrong to repair as well as justice to afford. 

 Without begging the question, we sincerely hope, that it may be argued 

 and decided upon as a conscientious matter of right, and we have no 

 fear of the result. It would be surely libellous to imagine, that it can 

 be decided upon any other view. Let us leave it to those who would 

 spurn the imputation to prove themselves incapable of the reality. 



With the advocacy of the press, with the opinion of the public, with 

 the consciousness of right, can the cause of a noble department of litera- 

 ture be lost in liberal England, in the nineteenth century ? We answer, 

 " No ;" it will not, the advocacy of many a name high in political and 

 literary reputation is already pledged to it. Of the dramatic authors, 

 (we may almost say the actors,) we believe we may assert, that all are 

 favourable to it. Many openly espouse, and none have offered to op- 

 pose it 





