Event Comment: The Duke's Company. It is not certain this is the first performance, but it may well have been. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@139, p. 125. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. Pepys, Diary: Sir W. Pen and I to the Duke's house, where a new play. The King and Court there: the house full, and an act begun. And so went to the King's. Downes (p. 28): Sir Martin Marral, The Duke of New-Castle, giving Mr Dryden a bare translation of it, out of a Comedy of the Famous French Poet Monseur Moleire: He adapted the Part purposely for the Mouth of Mr Nokes, and curiously Polishing the whole....All the Parts being very Just and Exactly perform'd, specially Sir Martin and his Man, Mr Smith, and several others since have come very near him, but none Equall'd, nor yet Mr Nokes in Sir Martin: This Comedy was Crown'd with an Excellent Entry. In the Last Act at the Mask, by Mr Priest and Madam Davies; This, and Love in a Tub, got the Company more Money than any preceding Comedy

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This date marks the opening of the new theatre in Dorset Garden. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 31): The new Theatre in Dorset-Garden being Finish'd, and our Company after Sir William's Death, being under the Rule and Dominion of his Widow the Lady Davenant, Mr Betterton and Mr Harris, (Mr Charles Davenant her Son Acting for her) they remov'd from Lincolns-Inn-Fields thither. And on the Ninth Day of November 1671, they open'd their new Theatre with Sir Martin Marral, which continu'd Acting 3 Days together, with a full Audience each Day; notwithstanding it had been Acted 30 Days before in Lincolns-Inn-Fields, and above 4 times at court. [This play is also on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 18: Sir Martin.

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the Gentleman's Journal, February 1692@3 (issued in March) makes clear that it followed Congreve's play: We have had since a Comedy, call'd, The Wary Widow, or Sir Noisy Parrot, by Henry Higden Esq; I send by here the Prologue to it by Sir Charles Sedley, and you are too great an Admirer of Shakespeare, not to assent to the Praises given to the Fruits of his rare Genius (p. 61). The play was announced in the London Gazette, No. 2875, 29 May-June 1693. The music for one song, All hands up aloft, was by Berenclow, and the song appears in D'Urfey, Wit and Mirth, 1699. Dedication, edition of 1693: But now it is forced to beg for your Protection from the malice and severe usage it received from some of my Ill natured Friends, who with a Justice peculiar to themselves, passed sentence upon it unseen or heard and at the representation made it their business to persecute it with a barbarous variety of Noise and Tumult. Gildon, The Life of Mr Thomas Betterton (p. 20): The actors were completely drunk before the end of the third act, and being therefore unable to proceed with this "Pleasant Comedy," they very properly dismissed the audience

Event Comment: Benefit for Miss Younge. Interlude [1st time; M. INT I, by Edward Jerningham]: Interspersed with Music [by James Hook. Text 1st published in Jerningham's Poems, vol. I (J. Robson, 1786)]. Public Advertiser, 20 Feb.: Tickets to be had of Miss Younge at Thelwall's, Silk Mercer, King-street, Covent Garden. Receipts: #222 9s. (80.14; 18.10; 1.19; tickets: 121.6) (charge: #65 17s.)

Event Comment: To the writer of the letter signed Hotspur in the Morning Chronicle 13 Jan. 1774; Sir: I solemnly disavow myself the writer of any anonymous letter in this or any other Newspaper relative to the School for Wives and as to the villainous accusation respecting any personal insult offered me at Liverpool I pronounce it to be a notorious lie. I now call on you to stand forth with your name and your proofs or the world will be convinc'd you are an infamous malignant assassin. Thursday Nt. Jan. 13 1774. James Reddish (Winston MS 10, from Dr Burney News Cuttings). Receipts: #255 12s. 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