within the precincts in question." The question, how far the patents already granted precluded any new grants, was argued. The Chancellor had no doubt on this point, nor had any of the Judges. And it was taken as quite clear that the King had the entire power by law to make whatever changes he thought fit, to revoke those grants altogether, or to grant to either parties rights inconsistent with those granted formerly to the patent theatres. They therefore advised an extension of the Lyceum term. The King acknowledged this communication in an effusive document, saying that it was his own opinion, and that he looked to the good and pleasure of his subjects, and heartily concurred in it. As a speedy result of this pronouncement the term of the Lyceum was extended the following year for two months longer, thus giving it a season of eight months out of the twelve, virtually equivalent to the whole year. The same favour was granted to the Haymarket. And thus at the close, as well as at the beginning, the fate of the theatres was to be settled by the arbitrament of the Crown. It was about this time that Sir E. Bulwer Lytton brought the matter before Parliament, and in 1832 a committee was appointed to investigate the whole question.* Parliamentary action was taken on the report until eleven years later, in 1843, when the Statute of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68, "for regulating theatres," was passed.† * The report of the committee, now difficult to procure, is a most entertaining volume, as all the leading performers were examined, and gave their evidence with much dramatic point and vivacity. The question of the vast size of the patent theatres excited much difference of opinion, some maintaining that it made little difference. This argument, however, could only be based on the fact of a particular attraction having filled the house "from floor to ceiling "—indeed, at many periods during the last twenty years Drury Lane has been so filled. But this was owing to shows and spectacular plays, offering novelty in form, which soon ceased to attract. Charles Kemble, when drawn from his retirement for a few nights, thus filled the house. + By this important enactment it was decreed, after repealing three statutes of James the First, portions of two others of George the Second, that all houses This was really the "liberty of the theatre," which was now at last enfranchised. After some years' experience, a section in the Act which dealt with the saloons or houses which combined the attractions of the tavern with performances, gave rise to a new and very nice question, viz. that of how far music-halls were to go in this respect. That lies out of the province of this work, but by 1866 the music-hall had become so important a social element, that a fresh committee inquired into the point, and after examining many performers, writers, and managers of theatres, recommended that all music-halls and kindred places should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. Thus, the tendency to centralisation seems once again to favour this ancient and honourable control.† Having thus brought my labours down to within living memory, and completed this view of the stage in connection. with social life and manners, I may fitly conclude this retrospect here, and withdraw "behind the scenes. دو "for the performance of stage-plays” must be licensed, except such as hold patents or licence from the Lord Chamberlain or justices. The Chamberlain's power was to extend to London and Westminster, and round the various boroughs and the places where Her Majesty shall occasionally reside. The name of the manager was to be on his bills, and he was to be bound in a bond. There were strict clauses as to plays, prologues, additions to old plays, fees, etc., and the Lord Chamberlain, whenever he shall be of opinion that "it was fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum,” etc., was to have the power of forbidding the performance "anywhere in Great Britain, and either absolutely or for such time as he shall think fit." Pecuniary penalties for actor or manager not exceeding 50l. were fixed; and "stage-play" was defined to include "every tragedy, comedy, farce, opera, burletta, interlude, melodrama, pantomime, or other entertainment of the stage." The justices were to hold special sessions" to consider every application. * 66 I may be allowed to refer the reader interested in this question to another book of my own, "Principles of Comedy and Dramatic Effect," where it is fully dealt with. + Mr. Hertslet also has kindly pointed out to me yet another important recognition of the office, in an Act of 1878, "The Metropolis Management and Building Act," c. 32, where the Board may look after any theatre “defective in its structure," or in danger as regards fire, "with the consent of the Lord Chamberlain as to the theatres under his jurisdiction." APPENDIX A. The Lord Chamberlain's Records. Ir will have been seen by the reader that the system of the stage in England has, during its whole course, and in a very curious way, depended on the action of the Lord Chamberlain and his officers. At this moment, indeed, the duties of the Department entail serious work, and now, the theatres having increased to such an enormous extent, the task of supervision becomes more important than ever. It has been shown in these pages how absolutely essential it is that this control should exist, and that exhibitions on a stage are certain to degenerate into licence when attraction is found to flag. If this duty, moreover, could be allotted to a single department-as it is one of singular delicacy and tact-its being exercised by the sovereign would take off the stiffness and harshness which it might otherwise entail. It is remarkable that this restraint obtains in all leading foreign countries. But the most important parallel is that of France under the Empire, when "the liberty of theatrical industry" was granted by a decree of the Emperor, dated January 6th, 1864. By this all privileges were removed, and anyone was allowed to open and play all pieces, subject to a certain supervision. By a decree of December 30th, 1852, every piece was to be read and approved of by the Minister of the Maison de l'Empereur, or in the country, by the Prefect. Managers and actors continued to be controlled merely by the police. Having been allowed access to the records of the office, which appear not to have been used for any work on the stage, I was astonished to find how completely and thoroughly the control over the theatres and players was exercised down almost to our own day. They are admirably kept and carefully indexed, and are accessible in every way. A few entries to support and supplement the statements in the text will show this very clearly. In January, 1675, a dispute arose between Killigrew and his company as to shares, and a settlement was made by the Lord Chamberlain. In December, 1675, articles for regulating the Royal Theatre, signed by the master and comedians, were presented to the Lord Chamberlain “as their superior officer." In February, 1676, the players having left off playing owing to private disputes, were ordered by the Lord Chamberlain to commence playing again forthwith. In August came an order to forbear playing. In September they were required to obey the Chamberlain during the difference between Mr. Killigrew and his son, and in February, 1677, ordered to obey Mr. Charles Killigrew, the son. In 1678, the actors of both houses, the servants of the Revels, etc., to obey Mr. Killigrew when they play at Court. No actor was to carry away their acting clothes from the house. In 1686, November 29th, we find a complaint of Mrs. Lacy for the unjust detention of 3s. 4d. a day from her by the managers. The parties to appear before the Lord Chamberlain for a decision. On December 27th, 1687, a decision was given in her favour. In 1691, the comedians of both theatres were suspended for an insult to a peer of the realm; after three days the suspension was removed. In 1692, an order issued that only persons of good rank and quality were to be admitted to the Royal Theatre. By indenture between C. Killigrew and D. Davenant, all benefits, privileges, powers, and authorities before mentioned are covenanted to be as one from thenceforth for ever. (See Sir T. Skipwith's answer to Betterton.) About 1690, the actors seem to have quarrelled with the patentees. In 1694, we find a petition of the players, Betterton and others, with articles of pretended grievances against patentees. In 1695, licence to Betterton. On June 14th, 1710, five actors of Drury Lane were suspended for riotous behaviour. On March 5th, 1711, Collier was directed to send in all the accounts of the Opera-house, and the terms of the engagements with the actors, complaints being made by them of non-payment. On April 17th, 1712, a licence was granted to Owen Sweney to form a company at the Opera-house "during the Royal pleasure." On April 17th, regulations were made to prevent the Comedy Company and the Opera Company interfering with each other; while the former was enjoined to pay Sweney 1007. a year towards his expense. In 1709, on November 19th, we find a letter from Sir J. Stanley to Mr. Collier, M.P., telling him that, at the Lord Chamberlain's desire, the Queen will grant him a licence for comedy and tragedy for November 23rd, upon the condition that Mr. Rich and other claimants in the patent are excluded from all share in the management. Collier, it seems, entered into a lease with the landlords of Drury Lane Theatre, and took possession on November 22nd. On December 24th, 1709, regulations for the managers were issued "to submit all agreements with actors to the Chamberlain, all players were to be sworn in; no ladder-dancing or antics were to be introduced on the stage, and all plays to be licensed by the Master of the Revels." In 1711, on November 15th, we have "Queen Anne's signmanual," forbidding persons to stand behind the scenes, and ordering them to pay the established prices; and in 1712, another sign-manual of the same kind. On November 11th, 1713, a licence was granted to Collier, Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and B. Booth to form a company to play comedies, tragedies, and all other theatrical performances (musical entertainments excepted) during pleasure, and revoking all other licences. On the 3rd of November, 1714, by petition Cibber prays that Dogget be ordered to do his usual parts, when they would gladly admit him to an equal share. We here find a most singular incident in the shape of a petition from Mr. Betterton and Mrs. Bracegirdle for a reformation and a new regulation of the theatres. The various privileges granted to Steele were dated as follows: A licence to him and his partners on October 18th, 1714; a petition for patent in January, 1715; the law officer's opinion on January 12th, 1715; and the King's warrant to prepare a bill for patent, January 14th, 1715. (The patent was dated January 19th.) On October 25th, 1718, queries were put to the Attorney-General (and this is significant) as to a claim made by the managers, to be exempt from the Chamberlain's jurisdiction, on the terms. of the patent to Steele. In 1718, on November 15th, Steele received 5147. for presents to his actors and the expenses of seven plays performed at Hampton Court Palace. On January 23rd, 1719, a King's warrant revoked the licence to Steele and his partners of October 18th, on account of great misbehaviour of the comedians "from want of proper management.' All other licences were also revoked. On January 25th, 1719, came a warrant from the Chamberlain prohibiting all performances. On January 27th, 1719, a licence was given to Wilks, Cibber, and Booth " during Royal pleasure." On February 2nd there was caution" to the theatre as to benefit-nights, and "not to raise the prices without leave." On February 15th, an order to the managers to act Mr. Gay's "Pastoral Tragedy." On December 19th, 1719, there 66 a |