We need to go back in time to understand the way theatres were organised in\n18th century England, and just how they developed. To set the scene, as it\nwere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the beginning of the 18th century there were three patent theatres in\nLondon, so called because they were awarded a patent to operate, by King\nCharles II, three months after he was restored to the throne in 1660.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why were these theatres so important?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well, the patents, which were legal documents gave the recipients the legal\nright to build a playhouse and to perform in it. Note, it was the recipient who\nowned the Patent and NOT the theatre. There were cases of individuals\ntransferring their rights under patents from theatre to theatre during the\neighteenth century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first patent granted was to Thomas Killigrew who opened the theatre\nRoyal Drury Lane. The second patent was granted to Sir William Davenant of\nCovent Garden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The owners of these patents now had the legal right to perform plays.\nWithout this legal protection playhouses, which had been suppressed during the\nInterregnum, were liable to harassment and prosecution for harbouring vagrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From Elizabethan times (indeed from the introduction of the Vagrancy Act of\n1563) actors, travelling players-that is \u2018common players wandering abroad\u2019,\ncould be treated as vagrants and subject to prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The actors who performed in the Repertory Company of the patent theatres\nhad, therefore, a privileged position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A permanent home in a repertory company in a theatre sanctioned by the Crown\ngave the actors great protection from this law. And criminal prosecution. Which\nmust have helped their art, if nothing else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patents, also in effect gave these playhouses (or the owners of the\npatent, more correctly!) the sole right to perform plays in the capital. And\ntherefore a monopoly was created, which was likely to prove lucrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patents had to be renewed every 21 years. Sometimes they were revoked or\ntransferred by the courts. During the late 17th century\/early 18th century\nefforts were made by others to break this monopoly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Theatrical Licensing Act of 1737 clarified the legal positions of the\nDrury Lane and Covent Garden theatres, because this Act unequivocally declared\nthat, by virtue of their patents, they were the only theatres under the law who\ncould legally perform plays – by which the Act meant the spoken word and not\noperas. The Kings Opera House in the Haymarket was given a Royal Patent in\n1704, and opera was performed there from that date, throughout the 18th\ncentury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From 1737 Drury Lane and Covent Garden therefore had a monopoly on legalised\ntheatrical activity in the capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You might be interested to note that the Act of 1737 also gave the Lord\nChamberlain the important right to inspect all new plays and to censor them.\nThis practice continued until 1968.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A parallel system grew up in the 18th century where playhouses were\npermitted to exist on the issuing of an annual license from the Lord\nChamberlain. But this was not a permanent arrangement and therefore was not a\npowerful a position as having a royal patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An interesting occurrence broke the monopoly of the two existing London\npatent theatres,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Samuel Foote the actor and playwright tried to circumvent the law by opening\na playhouse and performing plays, but evaded prosecution and the revoking of\nhis license (and a \u00a350 fine) by selling tickets which invited the public to\n“drink a dish of chocolate with him at noon”, and he provided the\nentertainments free of charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He broke his leg whilst out hunting with the Duke of York. It was so badly\ndamaged it had to be amputated, and the Duke of York felt responsible, it was\nhis unruly horse that had caused this tragedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As restitution for his injuries, the Duke persuaded the King to grant Foote\na patent for his theatre, the Little Theatre in the Haymarket, London, which\nhad been operating under one of the Lord Chamberlains annual licenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This patent was limited to the lifetime of Samuel Foote, but no matter. The\nmonopoly had been breached for the first time.
\nBut as mentioned above, the patent theatre\u2019s monopoly on performing plays was\nnot totally broken till the 19th century by the growth of the illegitimate\ntheatre.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
We need to go back in time to understand the way theatres were organised in 18th century England, and just how they developed. To set the scene, as it were. At the beginning of the 18th century there were three … Continue reading