Event Comment: The Rose is a New Musical performance of Two Acts by Dr Arne a very dull insipid piece. Mr G. protested against its being perform'd its being perform'd it was hiss'd from the beginning & wd not Suffer it to be given out again, therefore Mr King went on & told them it Should not be perform'd again until it be alter'd (Hopkins Diary). [Macmillan's note from Kemble differs slightly. See critical damnation of The Rose in British Theatre Article in The London Magazine, Dec. 1772.] Book of the Entertainment to be had at the Theatre (playbill). Paid Mr Petit for men's cloaths, #8 8s. CTreasurer's Book). [Reviewer for Town and Country Magazine (Theatre, No. XLI) disappointed with the Rose: "We are told that this precious piece of stuff is the production of an Oxford student; it may be so, of this every auditor is certain, that the collegian who penned it was so entirely lost in the pursuit of some abstruse study, that he has totally forgot grammar, common sense, and even his mother tongue...it was unanimously damn'd."] Receipts: #172 6s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: [Macklin dismissed after this night. See the account in The Genuine Arguments of the Council, with the Opinion of the Court of the King's Bench, &c., By a Citizen of the World, (London, 1774). Extracts in E. R. Page, George Colman, the Elder (New York, 1935). See notes for 23 and 30 Oct. and the subsequent action in note for 20 Nov. He did not return until 18 May 1775. This night was aparently, except for #4 5s. which was not recorded on the books of the theatre until 18 June well after the season closed. Macklin's suit in court against the rioters was judged 24 Feb. 1775. A column and a half account of the trial appeared in the Public Advertiser, Saturday 13 May 1775, giving the testimony of the witnesses accused of starting the riot, the lawyers, and the judge. The accused were Leigh, Miles, James, Aldus, and Clarke. The first four were convicted of a conspiracy and a riot, the last of a riot only. During the Course of the Business Lord Mansfield took Occasion to observe, that the Right of Hissing, and Applauding in a theatre was an unalterable Right, but there was a wide Distinction between expressing the natural Sensations of the Mind as they arose on what was seen and heard, and executing a pre-concerted Desagn, not only to hiss an Actor when he was playing a Part in which he was universally allowed to be excellent, but also to drive him from the theatre, and effect his utter ruin." See also William W. Appleton, Charles Macklin, An Actors Life (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), Chapter X.

Event Comment: Mainpiece: A Comedy [by William Kenrick] never performed before. [The play failed to succeed. Kenrick accounts for the failure in his Preface to the 1773 edition by reference to the Macklin affair (See 23 Oct., 30 Oct. and 18 Nov.) He quotes from the Public Advertiser (22 Nov.): "On Saturday last a new comedy called the Duellist was performed, for the first time, at Covent Garden Theatre. Previous to the curtain being drawn up, the following written handbill was dispersed about the house. 'Mr Macklin has been pursued by a malicious party to such a pitch of rancour, that at last they have succeeded so far in their cursed designs, as to get him discharged this theatre, and thereby have deprived him of the means of a livelihood; therefore if the public have any spirit, they will not suffer the new play to begin till Mr Colman promises that Mr Macklin shall be engaged again.' This handbill found its way into the green-room, and had a very visible effect on the performers, as was plainly evident from their confusion. The piece was received with great marks of approbation, and given out again for Monday, which was attended with some hissing, but that was greatly overpowered by the general applause of the audience. The overture to Thomas and Sally being attended to with silence, the greatest part of the author's friends quitted the theatre; which being taken advantage of by a party in the gallery, a riot ensued, and the entertainment was not suffered to go on till another play was given out for Monday." Kenrick agrees with this account, then analyses several other objections which he dismisses, to wit, in the play (a) too lengthy a satire on lawyers, (b) an indelicate passage in Latin (omitted from the printed version); in the audience, a conspiracy of Garrick and Bickerstaffe against him; and lack of a claque of his own friends to carry through their suport of him. Macklin's name appears on the playroll this night, but only for a accumulated 4 days of pay #8 16s. (Account Book).] Receipts: #221 3s. 6d. (Account Book)

Event Comment: Paid 4 day's salary list at #94 11s. 6d. per diem #378 7s. 4d.; J. French on acct #5 5s. (Treasurer's Book). [From the Westminster Magazine, March, p. 125: "A disturbance on account of Mrs Yates having left the theatre without speaking the Epilogue to Braganza. The House was clamorous and would not give up their right. Mr Vernon endeavoured to appease their fury, by declaring that Mrs Yates being taken with a hoarseness, had left the theatre,' but this excuse the Audience would not accept. Mr Vernon withdrew, and after a short time returned assuring the House that he had sent to Mr Garrick (who was confined to his room with a fit of the stone) but who had directed the messenger immediately to fetch Mrs Yates, and that her husband was then in the theatre. He was directly called for, and instantly came on the stage to know the pleasure of the Audience. They told him bluntly they did not want to see him, but to hear his wife, whose obstinacy and pride had betrayed her into the present insult. He in vain tried to assure them, that his wife's conduct proceeded from a very contrary cause from that which they alledged; and the cause was real illness. As the clamor was universal, Mr Yates quitted the stage; and at length, an hour and a half being spent in tumult, the overture was suffered, and the farce went on, but not in silence." See note, 9 March.] Receipts: #201 19s. (Treasurer's Book)