1736 no alteration was allowed in the play as settled, and a clown dare not add the words "roast beef" to a jest. Sir R. Walpole, indeed, with his usual prudence, did not entitle his bill one to prohibit plays not licensed, but a bill to amend the Vagrant Act; and it was carried through the House of Commons in eleven days, and the House of Lords in seven days. By the Act of 1843 every person who shall cause to be acted, or for hire shall act, any new stage-play, or any act, scene, or part of one, until the same shall have been allowed by the Lord Chamberlain, or after it has been disallowed, shall forfeit a sum of 501., and the licence for such theatre shall become absolutely void.1 A stage-play includes nearly every kind of entertainment of the stage, including opera and pantomime. And though mere tumbling is not an operatic performance, yet where there is little else than dancing and pantomime it will be a question of fact, whether it amounts to this description.* And a dialogue between two persons in costumes and characters satisfies the description of entertainment of the stage. 5 But the Lord Chamberlain's allowance was carefully stated to be unnecessary for such theatrical representations as are given in booths or shows, allowed by justices at fairs and feasts.

Regulations as to places where plays are performed. -While the author's right in plays is part of the law of copyright, there are also special laws as to the place where plays are performed which brings them within that division. of the law connected with freedom of speech and the practice of censorship already mentioned, for in all ages the licence of satire and comment indulged in by dramatists has attracted the notice of governments. The theatre has always been one of the places where the public have been accustomed to be indulged with hearing, and having an opportunity of sharing in, free opinions about their rulers and all the events of the period. Cicero said the ancient Greeks allowed the comedians to censure any action and any person by name. And though they did well in wounding some popular and bad characters, still it was better that the censor should do this work rather than poets. And 3 R. v Handy,

1 6 and 7 Vic. c. 68, § 15.

2 Ibid. § 23. 6 T. R. 286. Wigan v Strange, L. R., 1 C. P. 175. v Simpson, 18 C. B., N. S. 680. 6 6 & 7 Vic. c. 68, § 23.

5 Day

certainly after Pericles had governed the State both in peace and war for many years with great reputation, Cicero thought it intolerable that such a man should be abused on the stage in a way, that would not have been tolerated at Rome against such characters as Publius and Cneus Scipio, or Cato. There was also some discredit associated in most countries with the very profession of actors on the stage. In this country similar fears and jealousies of actors prevailed. A statute of James I. imposed a fine of 107. on every person who in a stage-play or pageant "jestingly or profanely spoke or used the holy name of God, Christ Jesus, or the Holy Ghost or Trinity, which are not to be spoken but with fear and reverence."3 Stage-plays were severely treated by the Long Parliament, and all players were ordered to be apprehended as rogues and vagabonds.* And the statute of Anne, as already stated, kept up the same treatment.5

1 August. de Civit. Dei, ex Cicero de Rep. 134.

2 A senator of the Areopagus was expressly prohibited from writing a comedy.-Plut. De glor. Ath. 348. The Spartans forbade all plays, as detracting from the respect due to the laws.-Plut, in Inst. Lac. 239. The Massilians did the same.- -Val. Max., b. ii. c. vi., § 7. Among the Romans the policy of theatres was long doubted, and Scipio Nasica persuaded the Senate to pull one down as a nuisance, and sell the materials.-Liv. in Epit. b. xlviii. Val. Max., b. ii., e. iv. The doctrine at least was so far against theatres, that it was thought, if people would be so foolish as to go to plays, they ought not to be provided with seats but be made to stand. Moreover, the profession of player was deemed truly contemptible and all but infamous by the Romans.-Liv. b. vii., c. ii. Tacit. Ann. b. i., c. lxxiii.; b. iv., c. xiv. The Romans, it is true, allowed the comic poets to make sport of the gods, but they drew the line when magistrates were abused.-August. de Civit. Dei. The civil law also treated players as infamous, and incapable of being witnesses.ff., b. iii., tit. ii., § 1; b. xlviii., tit. ii., § iv. Senators and youths were prohibited from marrying or abducting women connected with theatres. Cod., b. i., tit. iv., § 14; Cod. Theod., b. xv., tit. vii., § 2; Ammian. Marc., xiv. 6; and the children of such forbidden marriages were deemed incapable of inheriting.-Cod., b. v., tit. 27, § i. In the time of Charlemagne, the same character belonged to players.Capit. Car. b. 7. In ancient Scotland Macbeth ordered actors to betake themselves to honest labour, otherwise they were to be yoked to a plough or cart, and made to draw like beasts.-Hect. Boet. fol. 251.

33 Jas. I. c. 21, repealed 1843. 4 1647, Scobell's Acts.

5 BURKE said the old acts against unlicensed players partook of the savage temper of the times. And even in 1777, when a bill was

1

Licences to keep theatres.-When the old statutes were repealed and the laws revised in 1843, it was declared, that while authority to exhibit plays might continue under letters patent from the Crown, the lawful authority within the Parliamentary boundaries of London and Westminster, and the five metropolitan boroughs adjoining, to grant licences for theatres, was the Lord Chamberlain. Such licence is only granted to the actual and responsible manager; the name and place of abode of the manager must be printed on every playbill, and he must give recognisances for a sum, not exceeding 500l., for due observance of rules and payment of penalties. In places other than the metropolis, the justices of the county or borough hold special sessions for granting like licences.2 The Lord Chamberlain and justices can make rules for the management, specifying the hours of closing; and if a riot arise out of a breach of the rules, two justices can order the house to be closed for such time as they think fit.3 Whoever keeps an unlicensed house or place of public resort for public stage performances incurs a penalty of 207. per day. But a person who uses a place only for a few nights is not deemed one who "keeps the place;" and that word refers to habitual use by one having the permanent control. Yet he may be convicted of causing the play to be performed. And even a person, who for a time acts, or causes stage plays to be acted in unlicensed places, incurs a penalty of 101. for every day. And in some booths and tents though a licence cannot be obtained, yet the actors may incur this penalty. There are special powers given to the police in the metropolitan district to enter unlicensed houses or rooms for theatrical entertainments, to proposed which was to authorise the king's licence to a theatre at Birmingham, it was opposed as demoralising, though Fox said it tended to civilise and polish the citizen; and the House of Commons rejected it by a majority in the proportion of three to one.-19 Parl. Hist. 201. Women were first seen on the English stage in 1661.—— 1 Pepys' Diary, 177. It was formerly deemed indecent in them to attempt such an employment.-Prynne's Histr., 414. In Spain it is said that women acted in 1623.-2 Simon D'Ewes Autobiog. Halliwell, 447.

3 Ibid. § 9. • Ibid § 2.

1 6 & 7 Vic. c. 68, § 7. 2 Ibid. § 5. 5 R. Strugnel, L. R., 1 Q. B. 93; 7 B. & S. 124. See Russell v Smith, 7 Fredericks v Payne,

12 Q. B. 217. 6 6 & 7 Vic. c. 68, § 11.

32 L. J., M. C. 78; Tarling v Fredericks, 28 L. T., N. S. 814.

2

which people are admitted for payment, and to take persons found there without lawful excuse; and the keeper and actors are liable to penalties.1 A portable theatre was deemed not subject to this act. If the occupier of the theatre let his company and his scenery to another for a sum of money, he will be liable as one causing the piece to be performed. Nevertheless where a person hires a room to give the representation or performance without the author's consent and therefore unlawfully, the person who lets the room is not the party liable in the penalty unless he takes an active part in the representation. What amounts to a representation of a theatrical or operatic piece depends on the acts done by the performers, and if a jury assist in the decision it will be for the jury to say, if the acts proved amounted to it or not. Where they held, that singing two or three songs out of an opera was a representation of part of the opera, the court would not interfere with such a conclusion.5

Right of public to applaud and hiss plays. It is sometimes thought, that, as theatres are intended for the resort and recreation of the public, there are peculiar privileges if not absolute rights on the part of the public; and that the proprietor of the theatre is much at their mercy and cannot refuse to admit any person who chooses to enter on paying the appropriate price. But this is founded on confusion of ideas. A theatre differs in no respect from a shop or a building where a public meeting is held, or where the public are invited for a particular purpose; and it has been seen how far the exclusion of the public can be carried by the proprietor for the time being of any such place of meeting. In all such cases any one of the public can be turned out with or without reason by the chairman or occupier of the building after request and refusal, provided no more force is used than just enough to get rid of the intruder. So it is in theatres. In one case a person after admission, finding there was no room. in the pit for which he had duly paid, climbed up into the boxes claiming a right to remain there without paying

6

1 2 & 3 Vic. c. 47, § 46. 2 Fredericks v Howie, 1 H. & C. 381. 3 Marsh v Conquest, 17 C. B., N. S. 418. Russell Briant, 8 C. B. 836; Lyons v Knowles, 3 B. & S. 556; 5 B. & S. 751. 5 Planche v Braham, 4 Bing. N. C. 17.

6 See ante, p. 27.

the price of the box, and on refusal to leave the house struck a servant of the theatre, for which he was taken into custody by a constable, and for which imprisonment an action was brought by him. The judge told defendant that when he could get no adequate seat, his only remedy was to leave the theatre and demand back the admission money, but he had no further right. The proprietor can at all times request a person who has paid for admission to leave the building whether he has misconducted himself or not; and the person so requested has no alternative but to leave, and may bring an action for breach of contract and for repayment of his money, but has no other remedy. The imprudence of so excluding a peaceable person is obvious; but the law is bound to regard only the strict rights of the respective parties to the contract, and a guest cannot argue with the master of the building about remaining, when his presence is objected to.

Sometimes an obnoxious actor is hissed systematically and a conspiracy is formed between several persons to do so. This is actionable on the ground that the object being to obstruct another in the exercise of his vocation is in the eye of the law illegal, and is a cause of action against each of the conspirators severally; and they may all be indicted jointly, if the conspiracy can be established.2 And it is no justification that the actor is a person of bad character and lives by threatening to publish libels on persons in order to extort money for suppressing such libels, and so is considered too disreputable to listen to.3 If many join in noisy proceedings, the offence may amount to a riot or to an unlawful assembly, according to the circumstances. It is true, that spectators, while sitting in a

1 Lewis v Arnold, 4 C. & P. 354.

2 Gregory v D. Brunswick, 6 M. & G. 205; Clifford v Brandon, 2 Camp. 358. 3 Ibid.

"I cannot tell upon what grounds many people conceive, they have a right at a theatre to make such prodigious noises as to prevent others from hearing what is going forward on the stage. Theatres are not absolute necessaries of life, and any person may stay away who does not approve of the manner in which they are managed. If the prices of admission are unreasonable, the evil will cure itself. People will not go, and the proprietors will be ruined unless they lower their demands. But the proprietors of theatres have a right to manage their property in their own way, and to fix what prices of admission they think most for their own advantage. The audience have