Event Comment: Benefit Hallam, Rob. William, and Miss Tynte. Written by Shakespear. Th. Cibber (Lives and Characters, pp. 49-49): I remember, some Years ago, on Mr Giffard's coming from Ireland (then a young Actor) Mr Booth performed the Character of Hotspur one Night, when Mr Giffard played the Part of the Prince of Wales ; Mr Booth knowing Mr Giffard must be naturally prejudiced in favour of Mr Thomas Elrington, to whose Performance in Hotspur he had many times attended with no small Admiration-Mr Booth, piqued on this Occasion, exerted himself in a particular Manner, and played the whole Part with such Fire, and Engergy of Spirit, as rouzed his Auditors to an Extravagance of Applause, and made Mr Giffard confess (as he has often done in my Hearing) that, notwithstanding his Prepossession in favour of Mr Elrington,-Mr Booth, in Power, Spirit, and Judgment, went far beyond him in this Part; as he afterwards, with Admiration confessed,-he did in every other

Event Comment: No Money will be taken behind the scenes, nor any money to be return'd after the Curtain is drawn up. The following Letter, signed A By-Stander was inserted in the London Daily Post and General Advertiser: As I am absolutely unconcerned in all the now subsiding Theatrical Disputes, I hope the following observations upon what happened last Tuesday Night at Drury Lane will not be thought unworthy the Publick attention. The Manager of a theatre is to regard the General sense of the Town, and not any Faction form'd thru pique or resentment; Such a Faction may be Noisy, it may be Insolent, but never can be Considerable enough to force either the Manager or the Publick into their terms. Their outrages are equally insults upon the Understanding of the Town, as they are injuries to the Property of the Manager. Therefore if the Manager shall at any time give way to such proceedings, Then and not till Then, the Publick has a right ot find fault with him. The stage Then becomes a property to the insolence of a few misled people; and all theatrical diversions, which in this and other countries used to be directed by Decency and Publick Approbation are sacrificed to a pitiful Personal Resentment. If the above propositions are undeniable, the following Queries are submitted to the Publick, and the answer to them will determine the Reasonableness of the Tuesday Night Riot: I. Whether the Rioters were not Inconsiderable in their numbers and Circumstances? II: Whether any Gentleman can answer to himself, for doing in a Body, a thing which no Gentleman can justify for doing by himself? III. Whether the Rioters can justify their breaking into the Boxes, and taking possession of the seats, which were taken by many persons of Quality and Distinction, at the same time refusing to pay anything; thereby robbing the Manager of all the money of the Boxes, and most part of the Pit? IV. Whether the Manager ought to suffer in his property for the private quarrel between any two actors, as was the case...? V: Whether if such insolences are not discountenanced in the most effectual manner by the Town, any publick diversion can continue longer than a noisy inconsiderable Cabal pleases? VI. Whether any other motive than a regard to Public Decency would have hindered the Manager and Mr. Garrick's friends (who were treble the number) from treating the rioters as they deserved? I should be glad to see the above questions fairly and impartially answered

Event Comment: On Tuesday last Information was laid before Justice Fielding by a Tradesman in Westminster, that one of his Apprentices had robbed him, in order to equip himself for acting a Play, and that the said Play was to be acted that Evening by several Apprentices, and other idle Persons, at the old Tennis-Court in James St. Upon this the Justice despatched Mr. Welch in the Evening with a Party of Soldiers to apprehend the Persons concerned in the Representation of the Play, which was the Tragedy of Venice Preserved. Jaffier, Pierre, Belvidera, and most of the principal Characters, were taken, and some of them, particularly Belvidera, were brought in their Theatrical attire before the Justice. The Men all appeared to be young Apprentices and the Woman a young Milliner; wherefore the Justice was unwilling to proceed against them as Rogues and Vagabonds, as they are made by the last Vagrant Act; in which case they must have been committed to Bridewell, which might have proved their Ruin; He treated them therefor as guilty of an unlawful assembly, and a common Nuisance; for which they were either bound for their good Behavior, or committed for want of Sureties, and soon after discharged. It was sworn before the Justice that Sunday had been the usual Day of rehearsing their Parts (General Advertiser, 17 Aug.)

Event Comment: TThe London Chronicle for 1758 (p. 455): On Friday the 3rd instant was presented Coriolanus. The two first acts of this play, as it is performed at the above theatre, were written by Shakespear; the three last for the most part by Mr. Thomson. But how a man of Mr Sheridan's knowledge (who first introduc'd it there about four years ago) could think of pounding into one substance two things so heterogeneous in their natures as the productions of those authors, is to me amazing. Mr Smith enters in the first act, after having (as we are to suppose) just overcome the Volsci, to the tune of violins and hautboys; but I am a little afraid the grandeur of his triumph is a little misapplied, considering the early times in which Coriolanus lived, before the Roman empire had arrived to any degree of splendor and magnificence, and was great in virtue only. However it makes a fine show; and Mr Smith, who has an excellent person, by the help of a little burnt cork and a real coat of mail cuts a very martial appearance. I think it was one of the Gracchi, who, when he was speaking to the people, always had a servant behind him in the Rostrum with a pitch-pipe which he touched whenever he found his master's voice rising beyond a certain height; such an instrument as this would, in my opinion, be of service to Mr Smith, for his fault seems to be that of keeping too much at the top of his vioce. Mrs Hamilton in the part of Veturai, especially in the last act, excells herself; and in particular, she repeats that line: "He never can be lost who saves his country," with the genuine spirit of a free-born Englishman. By the unnatural conjunction which is attempted to be made in this tragedy, most of the other characters are robbed of their significance. Those two excellent actors, therefore, Ryan and Sparks, only give us just cause to regret that the parts of Tullus and Volscius are not longer....After the play was presented a Ballad Opera called The Contrivances; in which some good comedians are oblig'd to submit to the drudgery of supporting as contemptible a trifle as ever was acted on the stage

Event Comment: The Journal of Sir Richard Bulstrode (p. 19): This evening is repeated in the great Hall by foure persons of quality the Indian Emper, but the Company is made very private, soe as few attempt to gett in. Jean Chappuzeau, Le Theatre Francois (Paris, 1675), p. 55, states that in 1668 he saw a revival of The Indian Emperor in London. Pepys, Diary: 14 Jan.: They fell to discourse of last night's work at court, where the ladies and Duke of Monmouth and others acted The IndianEmperour; wherein they told me these things most remarkable: that not any woman but the Duchesse of Monmouth and Mrs Cornwallis did any thing but like fools and stocks, but that these two did do most extraordinary well: that not any man did any thing well but Captain O'Bryan, who spoke and did well, but, above all things, did dance most incomparably. That she did sit near the players of the Duke's house; among the rest, Mis Davis, who is the most impertinent slut, she says, in the world; and the more, now the King do show her countenance; and is reckoned his mistress, even to the scorne of the whole world; the King gazing on her, and my Lady Castlemayne being melancholy and out of humour, all the play, not smiling once. The King, it seems, hath given her a ring of #700, which she shews to every body, and owns that the King did give it her; and he hath furnished a house for her in Suffolke Street most richly, which is a most infinite shame. It seems she is bastard of Colonell Howard, my Lord Berkshire, and that he do pimp to her for the King, and hath got her for him; but Pierce says that she is a most homely jade as ever she saw, though she dances beyond any thing in the world

Event Comment: Add. Mss. 36916, folio 128, 2 March 1668@9: The occasion of this [a challenge of the Duke of Buckingham to a duel by Lord Halifax or another friend of Sir William Coventry] there was a new play to be acted on Saturday last called the Country Gentleman, said to be made by the Duke & Sr Robt Howard, wherein tis said that the Earle of Clarendon, Sr Wm Coventry and some other Courtiers are plainly personated, but especially Sr William in the midst of his table of Writings; this he (or some of his relations) would not brooke, but whether he or the Ld Halifax was to fight the Duke is not knowne, but the King hath prevented all; and the play is not acted. [See also Pepys, 4 and 6 March]

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Opera, and there saw Romeo and Juliet, the first time it was ever acted; but it is a play of itself the worst that ever I heard in my life, and the worst acted that ever I saw these people do, and I am resolved to go no more to see the first time of acting, for they were all of them out more or less. Downes (p. 22): Note, There being a Fight and Scuffle in this Play, between the House of Capulet, and House of Paris; Mrs Holden Acting his Wife, enter'd in a Hurry, Crying, O my Dear Count! She Inadvertently left out, O, in the pronuntiation of the Word Count! giving it a Vehement Accent, put the House into such a Laughter, that London Bridge at low-water was silence to it. This Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, was made some time after into a Tragi-comedy, by Mr James Howard, he preserving Romeo and Juliet alive; so that when the Tragedy was Reviv'd again, twas Play'd Alternately, Tragical one Day, and Tragicomical another; for several Days together. [No specific notices are known which would indicate when Howard's version appeared.

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 6-8 July 1699, suggests a first performance not later than June, probably in May 1699

Event Comment: By Particular Desire

Event Comment: By Particular Desire