raphical. 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, e