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

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but A Comparison between the Two Stages (1702) (pp. 21-23) implies that this work preceded Rinaldo and Armida (performed at lif probably in November 1698). The Island Princess was not published until 1699 (the Masque being advertised in the Post Boy, 7-9 Feb. 1698@9, and the Opera in the Flying Post, 7-9 March 1698@9). A Comparison between the Two Stages (1702), pp. 21-22: Sullen: The old House have a Bawble offer'd 'em, made out of Fletcher's Island Princess, sometime after alter'd by Mr Tate, and now erected into an Opera by Motteux: The Actors labour at this like so many Galley Slaves at an Oar, they call in the Fiddle, the Voice, the Painter, and the Carpenter to help 'em; and what neither the Poet nor the Player cou'd do, the Mechanick must do for him:...but as I was saying-the Opera now possesses the Stage, and after a hard struggle, at length it prevail'd, and something more than Charges came in every Night: The Quality, who are always Lovers of good Musick, flock hither, and by almost a total revolt from the other House, give this new Life, and set it in some eminency above the New; this was a sad mortification to the old Stagers in Lincolns-Inn-fields. For a poem, The Confederates; or the first Happy Day of the Island Princess, see Poem on Affairs of State, 1703, II, 248-50