DRAMATIC MONOPOLY. 7 



armed with two patents, twice to close his theatre, once in. 1707, and 

 again by order of the Queen, in 1709, from which latter period his 

 double patent lay dormant, or " under prohibition," till the accession 

 of George I., when his son opened the Lincoln's Inn Fields house, 

 with the " Recruiting Officer." 



All this time, however, there had been still two theatres open by 

 licence, viz. the Haymarket, by virtue of Betterton's licence, and 

 Drury Lane, under Collier, who, having in 1710 obtained a licence, 

 and taken a lease of the premises, had forcibly ejected the aforesaid 

 Rich from Drury Lane theatre, with his patents in his pocket. But 

 this is not all. In 1714, that is, on the accession of George I., Sir 

 Richard Steele, by means of his interest at court, obtained a patent 

 for the Drury Lane company, under the title of the " Royal Company 

 of Comedians," with which he kept the theatre open till 1720, when 

 having given offence in certain high quarters, this patent was taken 

 from him, and renewed to Booth, Wilks, and Gibber ; under wh ch 

 .renewed licence, and not under Killigrew's Patent, Drury Lane has 

 been kept open ever since. 



In 1733, Rich, with his two patents, opened Covent Garden theatre ; 

 and in 1766, Mr. Foote obtained a licence for the little theatre in the 

 Haymarket, as a Theatre " Royal" for " all kinds of dramatic per- 

 formances." The old Haymarket licence, that granted originally to 

 Betterton, and afterwards in the hands of Swiney, was in 1792 per- 

 manently restricted to the performance of Italian Operas, whilst the 

 patentees of Covent Garden, and the licensed " Royal Company" of 

 Drury Lane, stipulated and agreed never to use their patents or 

 licences for the performance of Italian Operas. Since that date, the 

 exclusive privileges of the pretended heirs of Davenant and Killigrew 

 have been further infringed by the licences granted by the Lord 

 Chamberlain to the Lyceum, the Adelphi, the Olympic, and other 

 theatres ; and that without any resistance on the part of the pro- 

 prietors of the said infallible patents. But another, and the last point 

 that we shall adduce, as tending to show that the patents have really 

 fallen into disuse, or that their powers have been tacitly waived, is, 

 that in 1809, when Drury Lane theatre was burned down, the com- 

 pany repaired to, and performed at, the Lyceum theatre, " under a 

 licence from the Lord Chamberlain ;" a licence which, if they really 

 did still possess the original patent under which they claim, was 

 quite unnecessary, as it is in that patent distinctly provided that they 

 might act in their own theatre, or in " any other house where they 

 could be best fitted for that purpose." 



From all that has been adduced, it becomes evident : 1st. That 

 Charles II. could not grant patents of monopoly, valid even in his 

 own reign, and much less valid in the reign of William IV., 170 

 years subsequent. 2ndly. That the King's prerogative is not in- 

 fringed by the proposed extension of theatrical licences. And, lastly, 

 That in accordance with these two principles, all the theatres, for the 

 last 150 years, have been open by virtue of temporary licences, or, as 

 in the case of Covent Garden, which still pretends to hold the two 

 patents, by. toleration ; and not by any sort of prescriptive or " vested 

 right," as asserted by the managers of the two large theatres. 



H. O. 



