CHAPTER VII.

FLEETWOOD.

THE revolted comedians, before Highmore's departure, appear to have actually engaged to take Drury Lane on their own account. Of this there can be no doubt, as it is set forward in their "case," drawn up when the Licensing Act was proposed:

The case of B. Johnson, J. Mills, T. Cibber, John Harper, B. Griffin, W. Mills, W. Milward, and E. Butter, lessees of the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. They urge that in 1733 they took a lease of the theatre for fifteen years at a rent of 9207., which, with taxes and repairs, make the whole 1000l. a year. They beg to be allowed to perform there.

This led to regular legal proceedings against Fleetwood, for we learn that on March 9th, "This day we had possession of Drury Lane House by law, and Charles Fleetwood, Esq., having bought the patent, all was amicably arranged between him and the old company.

Finally, on the 15th, the Players of the Revels to the King, assisted by sheriff's officers, went in a body to Drury Lane, which was delivered into their possession by Mr. Fleetwood "as a matter of form." They must have been, therefore, in joint possession with the manager,

Fleetwood had but few gifts for management, and looked on his theatre, as Sheridan was to do later, as a mode of providing means for his pleasures. He knew not how to provide actors, and was so destitute of good material that he had to depend on some old veterans for the attractions. One of these was the elder Mills, on whose unequal shoulders had descended the mantle of Booth. He seemed, we are told, "to sink under the weight he had engaged to carry. Being now turned of threescore, he might be literally and truly called the theatrical porter, for the burden of the business lay entirely on him. I have seen the list of his characters, and as that company generally played one hundred and eighty nights, Mills performed at least one hundred and seventy nights every season."

This return of the capital actors to their old and well-accustomed theatre made a very visible difference in the audiences, to the advantage of the new manager, whose unskilfulness in the business of the stage was by that means the longer concealed; but though he was an entire stranger to the art of theatrical navigation, he had cunning enough to look out for a pilot. He selected successively the two most unsuited assistants as stage-managers. “Theophilus Cibber set out with him, his favourite and first minister, but did not long continue in that high office. The manager had sense enough to find that he was an improper and dangerous man. Cibber was therefore displaced for Macklin, a man at that time of seeming humble pretensions, but of capabilities to raise himself to the office of Lord High Cardinal. This minister continued long in the highest favour with the manager, and the business of the theatre was conducted some years under his influence and direction. I well remember there were all the appearances of success, as well as all the usual murmurings and discontents among authors and actors; but I must speak of the particulars of this period from report."

Passing by many incidents of little interest, we now approach what was a critical period for the drama, viz. the year 1737, when "the famous Licensing Act" was passed, the history of which is well known; when four years before, in 1733, a number of the comedians had deserted the patent theatres and set up at the Haymarket. The Chamberlain, when he had given a licence, was indifferent, and bade their opponents seek their remedy at law. But the real cause was the licence indulged in by that broken wit, Fielding, at the Haymarket.

Much as the Licensing Act and the licensers' doings have been objected to-described as an anachronism-it has been shown to have been an absolute necessity as a restraint in reserve. Nor was it ever so necessary as at present, with the amazing quantity of theatres, places of entertainment, and music-halls, the performances being shaded off imperceptibly into more correct and classical plays. With the competition and difficulty of "hitting the public taste," licence of a gross and personal kind would be certain to set in, for which an action at law would be too uncertain and slow a remedy. A modern instance will show how easily this could be developed. One of the wittiest and liveliest dramatic writers of our day, some years ago, brought out a parody, in which three leading statesmen, represented to the life, were shown visiting the Elysian Fields. The effort was most diverting and successful. Nothing in the direction of farce could have excited more genuine fun and merriment. But it is easy to see that that would have been a point of departure. The mine would have been worked, the stage filled with ridiculous pictures of eccentricity, and even inferiority, and as it reached the inferior houses, coarser and grosser portraits would have been exhibited. The censor wisely interposed. The truth is, however, the Licensing Act is really not intended to be worked in the case of orthodox theatres.

In Hamlet's advice to the players, so often quoted, and perhaps the best code of instruction for the player, he says, it will be remembered, that it is all important "you had better have their good report when living than dead." This always seemed extraordinary as viewed by the standard of our time, for the good or bad voucher of the actor was really of no more account than that of any other profession. But how intelligible this becomes when we think of Bayes and his mimicry; of Jo Haines, of Fielding and his political pieces, and above all of Foote, who throve and maintained himself and his theatre on this evil report of others!

That such a name as Fielding, and after him of Foote, should be associated with the Haymarket was sufficient to bring glory to the little theatre. There was a curious likeness in their pieces; both indulging in the same sort of personality, though Fielding specially indulged in ridicule of matter connected with the stage. Some of his pieces portray the life behind the scenes, bringing on manager, prompter, actors, rehearsals, in the style so pleasantly ridiculed in "The Critic." This topic of the stage should always be sacred on the stage, and it is as undignified in the performers who ridicule it as disrespectful to the audience. In private life people are recommended never to tell jests or stories against themselves, the result of which is only a loss of respect. And when prompter and carpenter and "call-boy" come forward in the habit as they lived, and an interior of the green-room is presented, the vacant laugh is indeed produced, and some curiosity is gratified, but it is at the expense of much contempt.

During the vogue of Fielding, which continued from the year 1727 to 1736, he supplied a number of pieces of this character, viz. "Pasquin," "The Historical Register," "Don Quixote in London" (introduced by a satire of this kind), to which might be added "Tom Thumb" and "The Grub

Street Opera," in which authors were ridiculed. In the first class we have the "players," rehearsing, and all the apparatus of the stage introduced. The author is asked for, and it is announced that he was arrested that morning, "and as I heard it was for upwards of 4l., I suppose he will hardly get bail." A woman player grumbling at another getting all the principal parts now, she was "determined to advertise against her, and let the town know how she was injured."

Anyone who reads the pieces of Fielding here alluded to in "The Register," etc., will see that the chief offence was struck direct at the King's ministers and their measures. How this was felt may be conceived from the story told by Davies of Sir Robert going behind the scenes to chastise an actor for some allusion of the kind. The more immediate cause, it has often been said, was the impending production of a piece called "The Golden Rump," which Giffard's manager was said to have artfully brought to the minister. But the whole story is told fully in the mock "Apology" and in the life of C. Cibber.*

Mr. Giffard had removed about this time from Goodman's Fields to Lincoln's Inn Fields house, which he had hired of Mr. Rich; his removal had not answered his end, and his affairs began to grow desperate. At this same time, in a most vile paper, called "Common Sense," there was a libellous production called "The Golden Rump," which the town and the mob were fools enough to think wit and humour. Now as the hitting in with the humour of the multitudinous mob is very advantageous to a theatre, a dramatic piece was wrote on "The Golden Rump" subject, and called "The Golden Rump," which was given Mr. Giffard to be performed; but before it was rehearsed it so happened, no matter how or why, but so it happened, that Mr. Giffard went to Downing Street with this satirical farce in his pocket, which was delivered to a great man

* As this was published in 1741, only three years after the event, and is said to be the work of Fielding himself, or, at least, of someone behind the scenes, it may be accepted as of good authority.