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 ei
ther share of 
the patent, or any part of ei
ther share, 
the seller was obligated to offer 
the first refusal to purchase to 
the o
ther 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 fa
ther 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