316 Dramatic Copyright 



In Brussels, within the month, the provisional government have fol- 

 lowed the example, and have established the following ordinances, which 

 would make a good groundwork for our own legislation : 



" Art. 1. That any person may estahlish a public theatre, and cause pieces 

 of every kind to he performed there, hy previously making a declaration of 

 such intention to the municipal authorities of the place. 



" 2. That the representation of a piece cannot be interdicted, the responsi- 

 bility of the authors and actors, however, being at the same time fully recog- 

 nized. 



" 3. That the existing police regulations in this regard be revised without 

 delay ; but that, till then, they shall be executed provisionally, in so far as 

 they are not contrary to the present decree. 



" 4. That every dramatic composition of an author, whether Belgian or 

 foreigner, represented for the first time in any theatre of Belgium, cannot be 

 represented in any public theatre within the extent of the Belgic territory, 

 without the formal and written consent of the author, under pain of confiscation 

 to his profit of the total product of such representations. 



" 5. That the heirs in direct line, descendants of the author, and, in default 

 of these, his surviving widow, shall succeed to the property of his dramatic 

 works, and enjoy the rights and advantages derived therefrom, during the 

 space of ten years after the decease of the author." 



We have certain knowledge, that if regulations in this spirit, giving 

 the author and his family a property in his labours, were to become law 

 in England, there are individuals ready to turn to dramatic literature 

 powers which they have hitherto been restrained from employing in 

 this pursuit, merely from the utter insecurity of their property in their 

 works. We may also ask, why do none of our literary societies, nume- 

 rous and idle as they are, apply themselves to the encouragement of the 

 drama ? Why are no prizes offered for the most successful tragedy or 

 comedy? Why have we Lord Chamberlains, and a crowd of func- 

 tionaries, under whose patronage literature naturally should find some 

 support, yet suffering decay to fall upon its very finest species, that of 

 all others which propagates the genius of a country abroad, and makes 

 it immortal at home ? Why have we dukes and princes forming 

 themselves into clubs and corporations for all sorts of things, yet no 

 Shakspeare Society ; no combination of rank, talent, and wealth, for the 

 encouragement and improvement of the drama of England ? We have 

 no doubt that the feeling of its necessity is so strong, that such a society 

 could be formed within a week. It requires only some man of public 

 name and public activity to begin it ; and we should see it popular, and 

 established without delay. 



It has been stated as an evidence of the absurdity of monopoly in 

 theatrical matters, that in Paris, in 1793, when every man who chose, 

 might open a theatre without consulting patents or personal rights ; all 

 the theatres, twenty-eight in number, were not merely kept alive, but 

 were in remarkable prosperity. But on the accession of Napoleon to 

 the crown, a new arrangement was adopted, the theatres were put under 

 government regulations, and from that time they began to totter. The 

 government advanced large sums to each of the principal theatres, and 

 they only tottered the more ; it at length settled a fixed sum to be 

 annually paid from the treasury for their support, and after a few years 

 of this experiment, almost the whole of them were bankrupts. 



This tells badly for the monopolists. Yet we should seriously regret 

 to see the spirit of vulgar speculation suffered to run riot in those mat- 



