Event Comment: Benefit for Roberts. No Building on Stage. Tickets sold at the Doors will not be admitted

Event Comment: Benefit for Roberts. Receipts: #23 14s. plus #87 15s. from tickets (Box 116; Pit 295; Gallery 145 (Account Book). Charges: #80 (Account Book)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: By one o'clock to the King's house: a new play, The Duke of Lerma, of Sir Robert Howard's: where the King and Court was; and Knepp and Nell spoke the prologue most excellently, especially Knepp, who spoke beyond any creature I ever heard. The play designed to reproach our King with his mistresses, that I was troubled for it, and expected it should be interrupted; but it ended all well, which salved all. The play a well-writ and good play, only its design I did not like of reproaching the King, but altogether a very good and most serious play

Event Comment: The United Company. A somewhat puzzling entry in the Reverend Robert Kirk's description of London in 1689 implies a performance of The Committee undertaken but not completed: At a play in Whitehall King Charles, his trage-comedy, when the actors were come to that part of seducing King Charles II, some Williamites in the pit below hissed at it (as if the play had meant the like of King James in Ireland). At this there sprang such huzzas and holloes above applauding that part of the play, that it was in a confusion, and they durst pursue it no further, lest the two parties made violence one upon another. Two or three noblemen were remarked to be forward in the acclamations of joy, and therefore are looked on as Jacobites. The Play's name is The Committee, November 28, 1689 (Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archeological Society, New Series, VI, 655)

Event Comment: Not Acted these Ten Years. Written by Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Written by Sir Robert Howard. At Common Prices

Event Comment: Not Acted these Twenty-Five Years. Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the particular Desire of several Ladies of Quality. Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Mainpiece: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Benefit for Watson, Roberts, Wilson and Palmer. Tickets deliver'd by Humphreys will be taken. Paid a cotten Bill #2 11s. 4d. (Treasurer's Book). Receipts: #254 1s. 6d. Charges: #84. Profits to beneficiaries: #170 1s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

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: Mainpiece [1st time; T 5, by William Henry Ireland; incidental music by William Linley. Prologue by Sir James Bland Burges; Epilogue by Robert Merry (see text)]: With new Scenes, Dresses & Decorations. The Scenes designed and excuted by Greenwood and Capon. The Dresses by Johnston, Gay & Miss Rein. Printed slip attached to Kemble playbill: A malevolent and impotent attack on the Shakspeare MSS. [i.e. those forged by W. H. Ireland, of which this play was one] having appeared, on the Eve of representation of Vortigern, evidently intended to injure the interest of the Proprietor of the MSS., Mr Samuel? Ireland [W. H. Ireland's father] feels it impossible, within the short space of time that intervenes between the publishing and the representation, to produce an answer to the most illiberal and unfounded assertions in Mr Malone's enquiry [i.e. Edmond Malone, An Inquiry into the Authenticity of certain Papers attributed to Shakspeare, Queen Elizabeth, and Henry, Earl of Southampton, 1796]. He is therefore induced to request that Vortigern may be heard With that Candour that has ever distinguished a British Audience. The Play is now at the Press, and will in a very few days be laid before the Public. [But it was not issued until 1799 (see below). See also Bernard Grebanier, The Great Shakespeare Forgery, London, 1966.] 4 Apr., states that the first three acts were listened to with patience, but beginning with the fourth act the play was damned, when "one tremendous yell of indignation from the pit burst simultaneously." "At four o'clock the doors of the theatre were besieged; and, a few minutes after they were opened, the pit was crowded solely with gentlemen. Before six not a place was to be found in the boxes, and the passages were filled...The audience betrayed symptoms of impatience early in the representation; but, finding its taste insulted by bloated terms, which heightened the general insipidity, its reason puzzled by discordant images, false ornaments, and abortive efforts to elevate and astonish, pronounced its sentence of condemnation at the conclusion of the play" (Gentleman's Magazine, Apr. 1795, pp. 346-47). "Irelands play of Vortigern I went to. Prologue spoken at 35 minutes past 6 [see 29 Mar.]: Play over at 10. A strong party was evidently made to support it, which clapped without opposition frequently through near 3 acts, when some ridiculous passages caused a laugh, mixed with groans-Kemble requested the audience t o hear the play out abt. the end of 4th act and prevailed.-The Epilogue was spoken by Mrs Jordan who skipped over some lines which claimed the play as Shakespeares. Barrymore attempted to give the Play out for Monday next but was hooted off the stage. Kemble then came on, & after some time, was permitted to say that "School for Scandal would be given," which the House approved by clapping. Sturt of Dorsetshire was in a Stage Box drunk, & exposed himself indecently to support the Play, and when one of the stage attendants attempted to take up the green cloth [i.e. a carpet which, by custom, was laid on the stage during the concluding scene of a tragedy], Sturt seized him roughly by the head. He was slightly pelted with oranges" (Joseph Farington, Diary, 1922, I, 145). Account-Book, 4 Apr.: Paid Ireland his share for the 1st Night of Vortigern #102 13s. 3d. Morning Chronicle, 29 Mar. 1799: This Day is published Vortigern and Henry the Second (4s.). Receipts: #555 6s. 6d. (528.6.0; 26.9.6; 0.11.0)

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Gibbs. 3rd piece [1st time; M. ENT 2, by James Roberts]: End of Act I A Grand View of the British Fleet and the French Prizes entering Portsmouth, and an appropriate Procession. The Piece to conclude with a representation of the Town, &c. of Portsmouth, as illuminated on the glorious occasion. With a Transparency of Earl Howe. [These were included in all subsequent performances.] The selected Musick by Mornington, Handel, Dr Arne, Boyce, Pleyel, &c. A Naval Overture, and the new Musick, by Dr Arnold. The Scenery by Rooker. Books of the Songs to be had at the Theatre. Morning Chronicle, 24 Oct. 1794: This Day is published RULE BRITANNIA! (1s.)

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill retains Palmer as Woodville , but "The curtain was dropped in the middle of the first act, and after a delay of near half an hour, Barrymore informed the audience Palmer was not come to the theatre...and therefore solicited permission for Benson to [act] Woodville, which he had undertaken at a few minutes' notice. Benson (who had played the two first scenes of Vane) agreeable surprised the audience by his representation of Woodville" (Thespian Magazine, June 1793, p. 2). Who continued in the part of Vane (which cannot be doubled with that of Woodville) is not stated. R. Palmer, who acted it on 14 Feb., was indisposed.] Receipts: #175 4s. (117.16; 52.14; 4.14)

Event Comment: [The playbill assigns the Dauphin to Barrymore but, "Benson performed the Dauphin instead of Barrymore" (Thespian Magazine, Nov. 1792, p. 125). It is not stated who acted Duke of Gloster; doubling these two parts is not likely.] Account-Book: Paid The Prince of Wales's Porter for Performances in Cymon [on 31 Dec. 1791, et seq.] #13 10s. Receipts: #169 9s. 6d. (118.6.6; 46.8.0; 4.15.0)

Event Comment: [In 2nd piece the playbill retains Johnstone, but "Bills were distributed in the theatre to inform the audience that Johnstone's indisposition had increased so much as to render him incapable of performing; in consequence of which Benson had, at a few hour's notice, undertaken to study the part of Kilmannock [sic]...He never appeared to stand in need of the prompter's assistance" (Thespian Magazine, Sept. 1793, p. 222). Benson's part as a Muleteer was perhaps omitted.