Event Comment: The King's Company. This marks the opening of the new Theatre Royal in Bridges Street, Drury Lane, to which Killigrew moved his company from Vere Street. Downes erroneously gives the opening date as 8 April, a fact which led to the creation of the famous spurious playbill for Bridges Street, Thursday, 8 April 1663. See Montague Summers, The Restoration Theater (London, 1934), p. 15. Pepys, Diary: This day the new Theatre Royal begins to act with scenes the Humorous Lieutenant, but I have not time to see it, nor could stay to see my Lady Jemimah lately come to town, and who was here in the house. Downes (p. 3): Note, this Comedy was Acted Twelve Days Successively

Event Comment: Benefit Michael Lally. Two rows of the Pit will be rail'd in, and added to the boxes, and the stage will be formed into an Amphitheatre, where servants will be allowed to keep places. Ladies are desired to send servants by three. Tickets to be had at Lally's House in Great Russel St., opposite Montague House

Event Comment: On this date, L. C. 5@16, p. 101 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) Nathaniel Lee's The Duke of Guise was banned. John Drummond to Marquis and Duke of Queensberry, 16 July 1682: Ther is a play hear to be acted that maks a great business, for the Duke of Munmuth has complained of it, and they say that notwithstanding it is to be acted sometime nixt weik. They call it the Duke of Guise, but in the play the true story is cheinged to the plott time hear (HMC, Buccleuch-Queensberry MSS., 1903, II 108). Newsletter, 29 July 1682: A play by Mr Dryden, termed the Duke of Guise, wherein the Duke of Monmouth was vilified and great interest being make for the acting thereof, but coming to His Majesty's knowledge is forbid, for though His Majesty be displeased with the Duke yet he will not suffer others to abuse him (HMC, 15th Report, Part VII, 1898, p. 108). Newdigate newsletters, 29 July 1682: A play having been made [by] Mr Dryden termed ye Duke of Guise supposed to Levell att the villifying the Duke of Monmouth & many other protestants & great Interest made for the Acting thereof but bringing to the knowledge of his Matie the same was forbidd for though his Maties pleasure is to be dissatisfyed and angry with the Duke of Monmouth, yet hee is not willing that others should abuse him out of a naturall affection for him (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81)

Event Comment: On this day a quarrel occurred at lif between Henry Killigrew and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, but the play is not named in the various accounts of the affair. For details, see HMC, 12th Report, Part VII, p. 51; and Carl Niemeyer, "Henry Killigrew and the Duke of Buckingham", Review of English Studies, XII (1936), 326-28. Pepys, Diary: 22 July: Creed tells me of the fray between the Duke of Buckingham at the Duke's playhouse the last Saturday (and it is the first day I have heard that they have acted at either the King's or Duke's house this month or six weeks) and Henry Killigrew, whom the Duke of Buckingham did soundly beat and take away his sword, and make a fool of, till the fellow prayed him to spare his life; and I am glad of it; for it seems in this business the Duke of Buckingham did carry nimself very innocently and well

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. 1668@9. Pepys, Diary: I did meet Sir Jeremy Smith, who did tell me that Sir W. Coventry was just now sent to the Tower, about the business of his challenging the Duke of Buckingham, and so was also Harry Saville to the Gate-house....So, meeting with my Lord Bellassis, he told me the particulars of this matter; that it arises about a quarrel which Sir W. Coventry had with the Duke of Buckingham about a design between the Duke and Sir Robert Howard, to bring him into a play [The Rehearsal] at the King's house, which W. Coventry not enduring, did H. Saville send a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, that he had a desire to speak with him. Upon which, the Duke of Buckingham did bid Holmes, his champion ever since my Lord Shrewsbury's business, go to him to know the business; but H. Saville would not tell it to any but himself, and therefore did go presently to the Duke of Buckingham, and told him that his uncle Coventry was a person of honour, and was sensible of his Grace's liberty taken of abusing him, and that he had a desire of satisfaction, and would fight with him. But that here they were interrupted by my Lord Chamberlain's coming in, who was commanded to go to bid the Duke of Buckingham to come to the King, Holmes having discovered it