DRAMATIC MONOPOLY. 3. 



the plays, c., gives authority to take and receive of such as come to 

 witness the performances, " such sum or sums of money as was, or 

 then after from time to time, should be accustomed to be given or 

 taken in other play-houses and places for the like plays, scenes, present- 

 ments, and entertainments.'" From this passage, it is evident that the 

 original patent to Davenant by Charles I., so far from granting, or 

 even contemplating an exclusive privilege of performance., distinctly 

 recognized the existence of " other play-houses/' and " for the like 

 plays and entertainments." This patent was, in 1662, surrendered to 

 Charles II. to be cancelled, when that monarch renewed the grant, in 

 stronger but still somewhat equivocal terms. The grant generally 

 runs " for us, our heirs, and successors .;" but in the passage, stating 

 that whereas " divers companies of players have taken upon them to 

 act plays publicly in our said cities of London or Westminster, or the 

 suburbs thereof, without any authority for that purpose/' it is simply 

 stated, that " we do hereby declare our dislike of the same, and will 

 and grant," that only Davenant's and Killigrew's companies, " and 

 none others, shall from henceforth" be allowed to perform ; without 

 any pretence, however, at binding his " heirs and successors" to the 

 exclusiveness of the grant. These words declaring " our dislike" of 

 le other stage performances, were evidently very artfully penned ; 

 for the King, as head of the peace, had doubtless a right to express 

 " is " dislike" of what he might think dangerous or inconvenient to 

 the public quiet ; the restrictive passage, however, has never been 

 attempted to be enforced for the suppression of any unlicensed or 

 licensed stage-performances by the patentees, doubtless for the very 

 good reason that such proceedings would at once bring their virtual 

 monopoly into question, and call down the penal vigour of the statute 

 21, Jac. 1., cap. 3, Certain it is, too, that when Betterton applied to 

 William III. for a separate licence, the lawyers of the day were con-* 

 suited, and they agreed that the grants from Charles II. to Davenant 

 and Killigrew, did not preclude succeeding monarchs from giving 

 similar rights to others ; and a licence was accordingly granted in 1690. 

 We have a later authority to the same effect in Mr. Charles Kemble 

 himself, who conceives that a licence for the legitimate drama granted 

 to another theatre would be a tf breach of the understood compact," 

 though he does not think there would be any legal remedy (a breach 

 of contract without legal remedy !), nor that the grant of Charles II. 

 is binding on his successors. Capt. Forbes also says, it would be no 

 infraction of the law, " but only a violation of good faith." 



II. The next ground of opposition to the enfranchising of the the- 

 atrical trade is alleged to be the infringement of the prerogative of the 

 Crown. How the advocates of this opinion will establish the claim 

 of the Crown to the prerogative of licensing theatrical performances, 

 we are at a loss to conceive. A prerogative, in the words of Black- 

 stone, is " a special pre-eminence, which the King hath, over and 

 above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the common 

 law, in right of his regal dignity." And hence it follows, that it must 

 .be in its nature singular and eccentrical, that it can only be applied 

 to those rights and capacities which the King enjoys alone, in contra- 

 distinction to others, and not to those which he enjoys in common 



