MONOPOLY. 
ment; the effect on the price of the commodity, which 
his attempts to monopolize it mult necelfarily produce; 
and the great probability that he will be compelled to 
defift from his undertaking, long before he has brought 
it to a dole, from an erroneous calculation of his means: 
it will appear evident that it cannot be the interell of any 
man to rilque his capital in fuch an abfurd and impracti¬ 
cable undertaking. If there fhould be perfons fo blind 
to their own interelts as to begin the attempt, their punilh- 
ment may fafely be left to flow from their own meafures, 
as, long before they can materially, or even in a trifling 
degree, injure the public, they will either open their eyes 
to their own folly, or be incapacitated by their own ruin 
from proceeding in theirenterprife. But though monopoly, 
Unfitly fpeaking, appears thus impracticable, yet there is 
no doubt that the price of commodities may be partially 
and temporarily affeCted by the quantity of capital pof- 
fefl'ed by thofe who have them for lale. It is well known, 
that if the farmer, for inftance, be ftraitened for money, 
he will be compelled to bring his grain to market early 
in the feafon, in a much larger proportion than if his ca¬ 
pital were fufficient to enable him to pay his rent, and 
carry on his agricultural labour, without having recourle 
to this meafure. 
In a monopoly of the colony-trade, no particular body 
of men in the nation are favoured ; the monopoly regards 
the whole nation as contradiftinguiflied from foreigners : 
but, in the monopoly of any trade granted by government 
to a particular body of men, the privilege is granted at 
the expenfe, and to the lols, of the reft of the nation. This 
is the firft and mod ftriking evil, but there are others not 
inferior in magnitude and extent. Not only is a large 
portion of the nation excluded from the means of increaf- 
ing their induftry and confequently their wealth ; but 
they are compelled to purchafe the articles of the mono- 
poly-trade at the monopoly-price, and to lell fuch articles 
as they manufacture for that trade, at the price which the 
holders of the exclufive privilege may choofe to give. 
Nothing fupplies a market fo regularly, or fo cheaply, or 
with goods of fuch good quality, as open and fair com¬ 
petition ; nothing, on the contrary, renders the fupply 
fo irregular, or the goods fo high-priced, or of fuch infe¬ 
rior quality, as monopoly. For thefe and various other 
fubordinate reafons, therefore, a monopoly-trade muft 
be injurious to the nation at large; and it not unfre- 
quently happens that it is conducted with fuch negli¬ 
gence, ignorance, and extravagance, as not to be benefi¬ 
cial to thofe who pofl'efs it. Under certain circumftances, 
when there was little fpirit of enterprife, when individual 
capital was fmall, and, combined with thefe circumftances, 
in cafes where the rilque was great, where great length of 
time w'as neceflary to eftablifh the trade, and where the 
returns, at firft, were flow and trifling, it might have been 
wife and politic to grant exclufive privileges of trade; 
but certainly it cannot be.wife and politic to grant or to 
continue them, under circumftances of an oppofite de- 
fcription. Thus the monopoly of the Eaft-India Com¬ 
pany, upon which we remarked under Letters Patent, 
vol. xii. p. 540. has, lince that article was printed, been 
fet afute, or atleaft narrowed in a certain degree ; though 
we doubt not but the exclufive charter was at firft granted 
for wife reafons. 
The other monopoly to which we there adverted ftill 
fubfifts : we mean, that of the two winter- theatres; as they 
are called, which are kept open for ten months in the 
year. 
An individual is not prohibited from fetting up a cot¬ 
ton or woollen manufactory, left it fhould hurt the inte- 
reft of a manufactory already eftablifhed : and yet the ruin 
of a number of induftrious journeymen has greater claims 
on the attention of the legifiature than that of a company 
of players. What contradiction in the Britifh jurifpru- 
dence ! Afitors are ftyled vagrants, and yet a greater foli- 
citude is taken about their welfare than about any other 
clafs of people. It is illiberal to ftigmatife them with 
Vol. XV. No. 1076. 
693 
opprobrious denominations; but leave them to fhift for 
themfelves. The laws fhould confider the intereft of the 
public, and not that of afitors and managers ; for, how¬ 
ever great the pafiion for the theatre, it muft be allowed 
that we could do without it. Should tailors or Ihoema- 
kers refufe to work from a difguft at any ordinance, we 
fhould be in a dilemma; but,fhould our comedians adopt 
any other profeffion, however their feceflion might be re¬ 
gretted by amateurs, it would caufe no lofs to the ftate. 
Why has the fyftem of travelling improved fo much 
within a century ? Its being left to itfelf. We travel with 
comfort and expedition, becaufe every innkeeper is li- 
cenfed to let poft-horfes, or to fet up ftage-coaches. If 
the poll: here were on the fame footing as in Germany, 
we fhould probably travel here as uncomfortably and 
flowly as there. Let any man open a theatre to act li- 
cenfed plays. Theatrical amufements might be made ob¬ 
jects of taxation; for taxes muft be laid on fomething, 
and no more proper objefit could be found. In France 
they contribute alfo to the poor-rates of the parifh the 
tenth part of the entrance-money: every ticket is ftamped ; 
a five-fhilling ticket is rated at fixpence. This is called 
le droit de Vindigence. The Britifh government has been 
often accufed of encouraging drunkennefs for the benefit 
of the revenue : it could incur no blame by encouraging 
dramatic amufements from motives of charity and finance ; 
and rival managers would endeavour to procure the bell 
performers, and render their theatres as convenient as 
pofllble; as rival innkeepers endeavour to render their 
chaifes comfortable, and to procure excellent horfes. 
But, if the legifiature fhould not judge proper to per¬ 
mit an indefinite number of theatres, it would, though 
not entirely, terminate in part many of the prefent abufes, 
and render an effential fervice to the drama, by licenfing 
more theatres than at prefent. It feems the height of 
abfurdity to pay fuch attention to the patents granted by 
Charles II. London is three times as large as it was in 
his reign ; and, if the population then could fupport two 
theatres, it could at prefent fupport fix. London was 
then the capital of England alone; it has fucceffively be¬ 
come the capital of Great Britain, and of the United King¬ 
dom. Has not the king of the United Kingdom the fame 
right to grant patents that the king of England had ? If 
any attention muft be paid to Charles’s patents, let a 
reafonable interpretation be given to them. Let no new 
theatre be erefiied in thofe parts of the town that were 
built at that period. Charles could as little forefee the 
future grandeur of London, when he granted them, as 
when he gave a tax upon the London coals to a natu¬ 
ral fon. 
All monopolies are againft the natural and conftitutional 
rights of the people; but, neverthelefs, Ihould it be judged 
proper to indemnify thefe patentees, let every proprietor 
of a new theatre affign to them, during a number of years, 
a certain portion of his profits. Though juftice would 
not confirm their claims, liberality might take their cafe 
into confideration, as well as that of the dukes of Rich¬ 
mond and Athol. 
Patents of exciufion are only granted to the moft ufe- 
ful and ingenious inventions for a term of years; and yet 
thefe theatrical patentees, without a fliadow of merit, re¬ 
quire that their monopoly fhould laft for ever. The de- 
lcendants of Shakeipeare, if any are exifting, would be 
prevented by them from reprefenting the productions of 
their anceftor; nay, they would not fuller an author to 
perform his own'drama. Then why refer to the theatri¬ 
cal regulations of Charles II. in whole time the drama 
was allowedly depraved? Is not the drama more in¬ 
debted to Elizabeth, who, when the capital had not a 
quarter of its prefent extent, permitted feven principal 
theatres ? 
Since there are to be no more than two playhoufes, thefe 
two are made fo large, that the fprdators cannot lee, the 
audience cannot hear. The patentees allege, that they 
have built houfes fufficiently large to contain the public; 
8 O but. 
