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