|
Historical Register for
the Year 1736
-Henry Fielding-
The Stage Licensing Act
The Background and Impact of the Stage Licensing Act of 1737
By Dawn Parry
There are several opinions as to who and what caused the Stage
Licensing Act of 1737. Several critics blame Henry Fielding and his
plays, The Historical Register and Eurydice Hiss'd as
the turning point in Robert Walpole's campaign against the attack of
the ministry. Although, looking at the time line that Walpole started
making his movement towards censorship, this could not be true. Walpole
started his campaign in 1735 with the Barnard's Bill and later with a
revisit to an old bill against rogues and vagabonds. Clearly this
mission of Walpole's was already in progress prior to Fielding
presenting The Historical Register and Eurydice Hiss'd. The final stage in Walpole's campaign, the Stage Licensing Act, may be coincidence to Fielding's blatant partisan plays.
However, it appears that The Golden Rump was the final straw
for Walpole. Henry Giffard, an actor from Dublin, would be the one who
received this piece of work by an unknown author. The material was so
outrageous with its personal attacks on the ministry that he
immediatley handed it over to Walpole. This was just the material
Walpole needed to sway the House of Commons to his side and amend the
Vagrancy Law of 1714.
During this time many other offensives acts were being committed.
"Between the end of January and late May, approximately 100
performances of plays openly hostile to the ministry were staged at
three of London's four theatres--an average of nearly one per night"
(Hume 240). The Daily Post was an active newspaper that looked
for any story that would further inflame the controversy taking place
between the ministry and the theatres. On the 23rd of May, 1737, the Daily post
reported, "A Bill is ordered into Parliament for the suppressing the
great Number of Play Houses so justly complained of, and for the future
no Persons shall presume to Act any Play, &c. without first
obtaining a License from the Lord Chamberlain of his Majestys household
for the time being, any Persons acting without such License to be
deemed Vagrants and Punished as such, according to the Act of the 12th
of Queen Anne" (Hume 243). Even Henry Fielding who for seven years
maintained a relative caution with his work abruptly joined the assault
on Walpole.
Due to all the obvious attacks, Walpole, "announced that he
intended to move an additional clause into the bill that would empower
the government to censor dramatic performances" (Hume 243). With this
thought in mind he renewed his campaign against the London theatre and
those who intended to defy his authority. This new provision that he
proposed would even limit the power of the monarchy over the theatre.
If this bill had passed this would have been under the control of the
Lord Chamberlain and his staff.
Walpole's censorship provision passed in the Commons by 185 to
sixty-three, and the bill as a whole was approved by voice vote" (Hume
243). The bill contained two central provisions that had a drastic
effect upon the playwrights of the eighteenth century.
(1) Any person involved in performing
plays for money, except by the authority of a Royal patent or a licence
from the Lord Chamberlain's "shall be deemed to be Rogue and Vagabond"
and subject to applicable "penalties and punishments"
(2) A "true Copy" of all play,
entertainments, prologues, and epilogues must be submitted to the Lord
Chamberlain two weeks before intended performances for his appproval.
Any company presenting material not so approved is subject to a fine of
50 pounds and loss of its authority to perform.
With the new act in order this restricted the king's power to
grant patent letters for new theatres to be built. Therefore, several
theatres such as the Little Theatre in Haymarket, Lincolns Inn Field
and Goodman's Fields had to close. The only theatres in London were now
Drury Lane ,Covent Garden and The King's Theatre. "Thus a monopoly was
given to Drury Lane and Covent Garden. With no possibility in future of
disaffected players being able to set up an independent company and ply
their trade" (Thomas 207). This not only affected the actors, but the
playwrights were no longer able to seek a fair compensation for their
work. The theatres no longer had the competition between who would run
the most provocative play.
The Stage Licensing Act made it impossible for the playwrights to
earn a living. This forced such persons as Henry Fielding to seek
another profession, novelist. The money he used to earn could no longer
be had due to the new bill. Although, some speculate that his lack of
opposition to the Stage Licensing Act was due to a pay off. It was not
unlike Walpole to bribe a person in order to get what he wanted; nor
would it be unlike Fielding, an astute person, to accept such a payoff
and start another venture.
As an example of how intrusive the Licensing Act was, "Henry
Brooke's Gustavus Vasa was in rehearsal at Drury Lane when an order was
sent from the Lord Chamberlain prohibiting its performance. As a
result, Brooke had his play printed with a preface of his side of the
story and made an astonishing amount,1000 pounds" (Thomas 216). This
only reinforced that money could be made elsewhere. The time of the
dramatic satire based on the farce of ministry was now over. The
aftermath of the Stage Licensing Act changed the way the London theatre
was viewed for more than two hundred years. It was not until 1968 when
the Stage Licensing Act was finally abolished.
|
|