Event Comment: Afterpiece [1st time at a public theatre; C 3, by Elizabeth Craven, Baroness Craven, afterwards Margravine of Anspach, 1st acted privately at the Town-Hall, Newbury, 6 Apr. 1780. Text (G. Riley, 1781) assigns no parts. Prologue by Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Epilogue by Joseph Jekyll (see text)]: With new Dresses, &c. "The Prologue [the first 30 lines and the concluding couplet of which were used by Sheridan as the Prologue to Pizarro (see dl, 24 May 1799)] was so much admired that at the request of the Duchess of Devonshire and several other of the nobility it was respoken after the piece; but as King was absent from the theatre, it was delivered by Palmer" (Town and Country Magazine, May 1780, p. 23 ). "The chief singularity was that [Lady Craven] went to it herself the second night, in form; sat in the middle of the front row of the stage-box, much dressed, with a profusion of white bugles and plumes, to receive the public homage due to her sex and loveliness. The Duchess of Richmond, Lady Harcourt,...Mrs Damer, Lord Craven,...and I were with her. It was amazing to see so young a woman entirely possess herself-but there is such an integrity and frankness in her consciousness of her own beauty and talents, that she speaks of them with a naivete as if she had no property in them, but only wore them as gifts of the gods. Lord Craven on the contrary was quite agitated by his fondness for her and with impatience at the bad performance of the actors, which was wretched indeed, yet the address of the plot, which is the chief merit of the piece, and some lively pencilling carried it off very well, though Parsons murdered the Scotch lord, and Mrs Robinson (who is supposed to be the favourite of the Prince of Wales) thought on nothing but her own charms, or him. There is a very good though endless prologue written by Sheridan and spoken in perfection by King, which was encored (an entire novelty) the first night: and an epilogue that I liked still better and which was full as well delivered by Mrs Abington, written by Mr. Jekyl. The audience, though very civil, missed a fair opportunity of being gallant, for in one of those ----logues, I forget which, the noble authoress was mentioned, and they did not applaud as they ought to have done, especially when she condescended to avow her pretty child and was there looking so very pretty...Yet Lady Craven's tranquillity had nothing displeasing;...and it was tempered by her infinite good nature, which made her make excuses for the actors instead of being provoked at them" (Walpole [28 May 1780], XI, 178-80). Public Advertiser, 14 July 1781: This Day at Noon will be published The Miniature Picture (price not listed). Receipts: #144 9s. (94.9; 48.3; 1.17)

Event Comment: CCatherine Talbot to Elizabeth Carter, 18 April: These oratorios of Handel's are certainly (next to the hooting of owls) the most solemly striking music one can hear....In this last oratorio he has literally introduced guns, and they have a good effect.--Deutsch, Handel, p. 640, who identifies the guns as kettle-drums. But Winton Dean, Handel's Dramatic Oratorios, p. 471, identifies them as the outsize drums from the Tower of London. See Sheridan's The Critic on off-stage gun shots: This hint I took from Handel. Recced of Mr Handell for rent of his 10 Oratorio's #210.--Account Books, Egerton 2268. [Actually there were twelve nights of oratorios.

Event Comment: Paid Lampmen #3 18s.; Tailors #11 2s. 10d.; Mantua Makers #3 14s. 6d.; Carpenters #16 15s. 6d.; Printer [of playbills] #19 5s. 6d. The Hypocrite and Christmas Tale in three Acts was advertised for to-morrow. This Morning at Rehearsal Lacy came and told Sheridan that he could not be off from his Agreement with Mr Langford and Captain Thomson. Sheridan told him, if he did agree, that he would withdraw himself from the Management of the Theatre--accordingly at eight this Evening he sent me with a Letter to Lacy confirming what he told him, and ordered me to receive my orders from Mr L and that he withdrew the Christmas Tale, as he had altered, for a Farce, it was his Property. This put us all into confusion--Sent to Mrs Abington to know if she would play in the Hypocrite, as it was advertised--Her answer was, that she had made her Agreement with Sheridan only, and would play under no other Manager. About twelve at night we got Richard the third settled, and sent Bills accordingly (Hopkins Diary). [For further remarks concerning this situation see 15 Oct.] Receipts: #173 6s

Event Comment: [As afterpiece Public Advertiser announces The Rival Candidates, but see Hopkins Diary, 12 Oct.] The Managers met again to-day, but nothing settled. Hamlet was given out. I saw Mr Sheridan, he told me that Mr Lacy and he had agreed that no Play should be given out, nor any Bills put up, till they had settled this Affair, which was to be done to-Morrow at Mr Wallis's (the Attorney's) where they were all to dine. I waited on Mr Lacy, who agreed to the same, and no Bills or Paragraph were sent to the Papers. All the Business of the Theatre is at a Stand, and no Rehearsal called. Wed. 16th--Mr Sheridan, Dr Ford and Mr Linley dined today by Appointment with Mr Wallis where Mr Lacy was to have met them; about four o'clock he sent a verbal Message that he could not come to Dinner, but would wait upon them in the Evening, and about nine o'clock he came, and everything was settled to the Satisfaction (of them all) and a Paragraph sent to the Papers, and the Hypocrite and Christmas Tale was advertised for Friday, but no Play was to be done on Thursday--Covent Garden did not play on Friday (Hopkins Diary). Public Advertiser, 16 Oct., summarizes the proprietors' dispute: the Drury Lane patent had been purchased [in 1747] by David Garrick and James Lacy. On his death Lacy had devised his half-share to his son, Willoughby Lacy; on his retirement from the stage Garrick had sold his half-share to Sheridan, Ford and Linley. The original agreement between Garrick and Lacy, as recited in a document retained by the attorney Albany Wallis was that, in case of the sale of either share of the patent, or any part of either share, the seller was obligated to offer the first refusal to purchase to the other partner, and that this was to be done only when the theatre was closed for the summer. In selling one half of his share to Robert Langford and to Edward Thompson, Willoughby Lacy was--so argued his three partners--acting illegally: he had not offered to them the first refusal, and he was negotiating the sale at a time when the theatre was open. Public Advertiser, 17 Oct.. prints a statement from Lacy saying that he did not feel himself bound by the original agreement between his father and Garrick, but that, in the interest of the business of the theatre, he had asked Langford and Thompson to withdraw their claim to partnership, to which request they had acceded. Receipts: #130 9s. 6d