The Case of Mrs. Clive | Page 3

and her actions and
statements in regard to the welfare of Drury Lane and its actors
throughout her career, I believe that Mrs. Clive, although not pleased
with aspects of Highmore's reign, also refused to defect because she felt
that the manager was basically in the right, that her fellow players
would be destitute or at least open to hardship without employment
there, and that the audiences would take offense at such unprofessional
and selfish behavior from their "servants." The "Town," as her own
play The Rehearsal (I.i. 159-170) shows, was always her judge in
matters professional.
Fielding's prologue to his revised _Author's Farce_ (1734), spoken by
Mrs. Clive, compares the settled, prosperous former days at Drury Lane
with those of 1734, when "... _alas! how alter'd is our Case!/ I view
with Tears this poor deserted Place_."[11] With few exceptions, the
"place" continued strangely in decline even with a competent company
and often with a full house. The falling-off continued until the advent
of Garrick, who with Lacy in 1747 co-managed the theater into a new
era.
From the mid-thirties until 1743, Mrs. Clive appears in roles she had
made famous as well as those newly written with her particular talents
in mind. Fielding, turning more and more to political satire and soon to
another literary form, had little need of her services;[12] but others did,
and the years between the licensing act and 1743 find Mrs. Clive in
demand as the affected lady of quality, speaker of humorous epilogues,
performer in Dublin, and singer of such favorites as "Ellen-a-Roon,"
"The Cuckoo," and "The Life of a Beau." This period is also marked by
Mrs. Clive's first professional venture with David Garrick, in his Lethe,
the beginning of a relationship to become one of the most tempestuous
and fruitful in all theater history.
As I intimated at the outset, the licensing act mainly troubled the
London players because of the power of monopoly it invested in

Fleetwood and Rich. Not only were the forums for dramatic
presentation now restricted, but so was professional freedom. The
problem, therefore, was as much philosophical as it was geographical.
From the sixteenth century to 1737, English players had some freedom
(albeit limited) to rebel from intolerable authority and to form their
own company.[13] This freedom, this choice, as Lord Chesterfield
pointed out in his speech against the act, was severely attenuated in
1737, and was to remain so in varying degrees until the monopoly the
act allowed was legislated dead in 1843. But it was a cartel between the
managers that the players most feared, and there is evidence in the
pamphlets growing out of the struggle of 1743 that such a fear was
well-founded.
The playing conditions at Drury Lane in the early forties were not good,
a situation directly attributable to the ineptitude and highhandedness of
Fleetwood (and his treasurer Pierson) and his refusal to pay salaries in
full and on time. The manager's accommodating side-show performers
in his company did not help. Macklin, as Fleetwood's lieutenant, had to
try to pacify actors, workmen, creditors; as actor he commiserated with
the players. With the coming of Garrick from Goodman's Fields to
Drury Lane late in the 1741-1742 season and with a progressively
disgruntled Clive all the principals in the revolt are under
one--leaky--roof.
In light of the number and variety of the published commentary which
accompanied the revolt, perhaps a highlighting of Clive's Case would
be the most efficient way to elucidate some of the major difficulties
involved. After addressing herself to "the Favour of the Publick," with
encouragement from her friends,[14] Mrs. Clive strikes the key note of
her essay: injustice and oppression, specifically seen in the cartel's
threat to "Custom," an iterative word throughout the essay. Mrs. Clive
first speaks of salary, a matter obviously important to her "Liberty and
Livelihood."[15] One writer on the dispute, in a quasi-satirical tract,
denounces the managers in this regard and in so doing echoes Mrs.
Clive: "When there are but two Theatres allowed of, shall the Masters
of those two Houses league together, and oblige the Actors either to
take what Salary or Treatment they graciously vouchsafe to offer them,
and to be parcelled out and confined to this House or t'other, just as
they in their Wisdoms think meet; or else to be banished the Kingdom

for a Livelihood? This is Tyranny with a Vengeance--but perhaps these
generous noble-spirited Masters may intend their Performers a
Compliment in it, and by thus fixing them to one Place, effectually
wipe off that odious Appellation of Vagabonds, which has been
sometimes given them."[16] The licensing act, subsequent cartel, and
mistreatment of players were then not only in the mind of Mrs. Clive.
Treated in most of the arguments for or against the players was salary,
but