the two Managers, which made 'em apprehend, that if they
submitted to act under such Agreements, they must be absolutely in the
Managers Power." As the writer of _The Case Between the Managers_ (p.
11) presents it, a conversation between a personified Covent Garden and
Drury Lane would have gone like this: "Well, but, Brother _Drury_, we
can manage that matter [how to keep audiences]--Suppose you and I make a
Cartel; for instance, agree for every other Theatre, and oblige
ourselves by this Cartel to reduce by near one half the Salaries of our
principal Performers--I'gad, we may cramp 'em rarely this way--they must
serve us at any rate we tax their Merit at, for they'll then have no
where else to go to." Drury Lane responds, "D--n me, if that is not
divinely thought--my dear Friend, give me a Kiss."

Late in the summer of 1743, several months before the salary figures
described above, Garrick, Macklin, Clive, and Mrs. Pritchard among the
principal players attempted to obtain another license to set up their
own company in the Haymarket: shades of 1733. They applied to the
Chamberlain Grafton--who denied it, in part perhaps because put out that
Garrick commanded over L500 a year. There was no chance, therefore, to
sidestep the monopoly effected by the licensing act. Leading the
secession, Garrick agreed with his colleagues to stay out until redress
was forthcoming. Redress did not come, the defectors lost, Fleetwood
won. He starved them in not out, Garrick was persuaded to return to
Drury Lane (which he does in early December, 1743) by the entreaties of
several of the destitute seceded players who asked him to accede to
Fleetwood's terms. As Garrick explains to Macklin (see note 2), he did
so because he had the economic welfare of his fellow actors at heart.
Macklin infuriated with him and Clive disappointed in him, both refused
to accept Garrick's decision, and hence became renegade. Macklin,
uninvited back by Fleetwood, admired Olive's decision to have no part in
signing a petition presented to her by her fellow defectors who
understood that the refusal of a separate license dissolved their bond.
Macklin writes in his Reply to _Mr. Garrick's Answer_ (p. 27) that "it
ought to be known that when this Letter was carried to Mrs. Clive, and
her Name to it desired, she had the Honour and Spirit to refuse, upon
any Consideration, to be made so ridiculous a Tool to so base a
Purpose."

Others were not so generous as Macklin. Th