DKAMATIC MONOPOLY. 



with any of his subjects; for if any one prerogative of the Crown 

 could be held in common with the subject, it would cease to be a prero- 

 gative any longer." (I. 239.) Then who could think of viewing in 

 the jealous light of " prerogative/' thus nicely explained, the pri- 

 vilege of licensing stage-players a privilege which, from the earliest 

 period of their occupation, was exercised at discretion by every noble 

 in the land ? As early as the middle of the sixteenth century, for in- 

 stance, we find more than a score of noblemen, Lord Robert Dudley, 

 the Earl of Leicester, Sir Robert Lane, the Earl of Warwick, the 

 Lord Chamberlain, &c., besides the Queen herself, having their respec- 

 tive companies of players, who performed, " not only at their lords' 

 houses, but publicly in other places under their licence and protection." 

 We gather, from various theatrical records, that from the year 1570 

 to the year 1629, no less than seventeen play-houses had been built ; 

 and that in Shakspeare's time " there were seven principal theatres." 

 These facts are sufficient to shew that the theatrical business, from its 

 first introduction till the renewal of Davenant's patent by Charles II., 

 had never been looked upon as a matter of monopoly, nor of Royal 

 prerogative. But that it is not a matter of Royal prerogative, has 

 been tacitly acknowledged by the simple fact of Mr. Bulwer's bill of 

 last session having been suffered to be introduced into, and passed 

 through the House of Commons, without previously obtaining the 

 Royal assent to the measure. 



III. We come now to consider a few of the particulars connected 

 with the history and title of the patents under which the two great 

 theatres pretend to claim their exclusive privileges. In 1684, the 

 two patents were united, by consent of their respective proprietors, 

 and the two companies played together at Drury Lane, under the 

 title of " The King's Company." The two patents having thus fallen 

 into the hands of the same parties, there is every reason to believe 

 that they never again were separated ; in which case, of course, one 

 of them must have fallen into nonentity by merging into the other. 

 Indeed, that such was always considered the case by all writers upon 

 the subject, appears from the fact that, though the patentees were 

 thus " doubly armed" with Davenant's and Killigrew's patents, the 

 united documents of right were only called " The Patent." 



But though the two companies and the two patents were thus 

 united in 1684, the union, as far as the actors were concerned, did 

 not long continue. For in lt>90, as before hinted, we find Betterton 

 at the head of an association of disaffected actors, applying for and 

 receiving a separate licence, from William III., under which authority 

 they built and opened the theatre in Portugal Street, Lincoln's Inn 

 Fields, with Congreve's celebrated comedy of " Love for Love." In 

 1704, Betterton conveyed his licence to Vanbrugh, who opened the 

 theatre in the Haymarket with it, and Vanbrugh subsequently parted 

 with the same licence to Swiney for a consideration of 51. for each 

 night's performance. Meantime the "Patents" which remained in 

 the hands of the Drury Lane proprietors, at length fell entirely into 

 the hands of the cunning and not over-scrupulous Rich, who, by con- 

 tinued ill-treatment of the actors under his care, at length provoked 

 the indignation of the Lord Chamberlain, who forced him, albeit 



