Event Comment: Never acted. [See Genest's comment (IV, 618) derived from Cumberland and the London Magazine-its appeal to the fashionable circles, its damnation at first performance because of the hanging of Harlequin in full view, and its modification thereafter. See 18 June and Horace Walpole to George Montagu [Arlington Street] July 28, 1761: I came to town yesterday through clouds of dust to see The Wishes, and went ac- [I, 381] tually feeling for Mr Bentley, and full of the emotions he must be suffering. What do [you] think in a house crowded was the first thing I saw! Mr and Madam Bentley perked up in the front boxes and acting audience at his own play--no, all the impudence of false patriotism never came up to it! Did one ever hear of an author that had couraee to see his own first night in public? I don't believe Fielding or Foote himself ever did--and this was the modest bashful Mr Bentley, that died at the thought of being known for an author, even by his own acquaintance! In the stage-box was Lady Bute, Lord Halifax and Lord Melcomb-I must say the two last entertained the house as much as the play-your King was prompter, and called out to the actors every minute to speak louder-the other went backwards and forwards behind the scenes, fetched the actors into the box, and was busier than Harlequin. The curious prologue was not spoken, the whole very ill-acted. It turned out just what I remembered it, the good parts extremely good, the rest very flat and vulgar-the genteel dialogue I believe might be written by Mrs Hannah. The audience was extremely fair. The first act they bore with patience, though it promised very ill-the second is admirable and was much applauded-so was the third-the fourth woeful-the beginning of the fifth it seemed expiring, but was revived by a delightful burlesque of the ancient chorus-which was followed by two dismal scenes, at which people yawned-but were awakened on a sudden by Harlequin's being drawn up to a gibbet nobody knew why or wherefore-this raised a prodigious and continued hiss, Harlequin all the while suspended in the air-at last they were suffered to finish the play, but nobody attended to the conclusion-modesty and his lady all the while sat with the utmost indifference-I suppose Lord Melcombe had fallen asleep [p. 382] before he came to this scene and had never read it. The epilogue was about the King and new Queen, and ended with a personal satire on Garrick-not very kind on his own stage-to add to the judge of this conduct, Cumberland two days ago published a pamphlet to abuse him. It was given out for tonight with more claps than hisses, but I think it will not do unless they reduce it to three acts." [p. 383]. Correspondence with George Montagu. Ed. W. S. Lewis & Ralph Brown. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), I, 381-83] Note: (I, 381n): Bentley's play of The Wishes or Harlequin's Mouth Opened, was offered to Garrick and Rich the beginning of 1761, but wasrefused by both. His nephew Cumberland showed it to Lord Melcomb, who carried it to Lord Bute, with a compliment in verse to that Lord by Mr Cumberland. Lord Bute showed it to the King, who sent Bentley #200 and ordered the new summer company to play [it]. There was a prologue, flattering the King and Lord Bute which Foote refused to act. Two days before it was played, Cumberland wrote an anonymous pamphlet, addressed to Mr Bentley, and abusing Garrick, who had refused to act Cumberland's tragedy of Cicero's banishment, which he printed this year [1761], unacted. The Wishes were played for the first time July 27th, 1761; the 2d 3d and part of the 4th, acts were much applauded, but the conclusion extremely hissed. The Epilogue concluded with a satire on Garrick. It was acted five nights. About the same time he wrote a tragedy called Philodamus, which he was to read to Garrick, but the latter was so angry at their treatment of him, that he declared against seeing Mr Bentley" (MS account by HW of Bentley's writings, in the collection of Lord Waldegrave at Chewton Priory)

Event Comment: Benefit Reinhold and Mrs Furnival (General Advertiser). This day agreement was signed between Lacy and Garrick as new partners in the patent for Drury Lane theatre. The total present liabilities of the theatre, including the mortgage to Green and Amber, the mortgage to Hutchinson Meure, with the arrears due to actors and tradesmen, were calculated at about #12,000. It was besides burdened with an annuity to Calthorpe of #300, and another of #500 to Fleetwood. Of this #12,000 Garrick, helped by his friends found eight. Each party was to draw #500 a year as manager, and Garrick was to received besides #500 a year salary for his acting; but was restrained from playing at any other house, except on terms of dividing profits with his fellow manager.--Fitzgerald, Life of Garrick, p. 112

Event Comment: A great deal of Hissing by some Gentlemen in the Pit--at ye beginning of the 4th Act an apple thrown at Mrs Pritchard, Mr Garrick call'd for by ye pit--one Gent: got up, & said they insisted upon another play for Monday--Mr Garrick said as they had met with no obstruction since ye first Night, the Author's property was concern'd & desir'd it might be play'd Monday and Tuesday, the last being ye Author's night, & wou'd give out another play for Wednesday--Several in ye House approving this--they consented & at ye end of ye play, Mr Garrick gave out Gil Blas for Monday & Tuesday & Romeo & Juliet for Wed.:--before this at ye end of ye 1st Act, & beginning of ye Second the performance, that Night had been interrupted with Groans, Hisses etc. from ye Pit (Cross). Receipts: #140 (Cross)

Event Comment: Leon, Mr Garrick (Cross Diary). Mr Garrick never Played better (MacMillan). Garrick from ill health did not act till 24 May (Winston MS 10)

Event Comment: Paid Mr Chapman for horsekeeping [for Jubilee] #12 6s. (Treasurer's Book). [Published this month A Letter to David Garrick, Esq. on his conduct as Principal Manager and Actor at Drury Lane. Printed for S. Bladon. Accuses Garrick of controlling the press, save for two papers, and thus getting more favourbale treatment than his position and actions deserve. "You are a mere actor. You affect to feel where you do not, and imitate tones, looks and gestures, while your heart is at ease. This should heighten our opinion of you as an artist, whatever we might think of you as a man. I believe you are not generally judged of in this manner. It is not difficult to impose on the world." The author (David Williams?) deprecates Garrick's supposed handling of the actors of his company, and desires to see more Shakespeare. Suggests Garricks' acting perfection lies in the extreme, in exaggerated gesture, and sudden bursts of passion." Suggests he is getting old and should try his hand at Shylock.] Receipts: #271 (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: Doors open at 5 o'clock. Play to begin at 6 o'clock. Prices: Boxes 5s. Pit 3s. Gallery 2s. Upper Gallery 1s. Places to be had of Mr Johnston at the Stage door. [Customary note, repeated.] Rec'd Mrs Groath's one year's rent to Xmas last #3; Paid Renters #8 (Treasurer's Book). This regular expenditure was made nightly for the 189 acting nights of the season, as well as for the 11 nights on which Oratorio's were given in the Spring. The total amount came to #1600. No further note will be made of this item this season. The Westminster Magazine this month, reiterated its doleful cry "that the stage is on its decline." In a long article on "Stage Effect, or Dramatic Cookery," it concluded that our "Theatrical managers and even our Theatrical Critics seem to have resolved all the merit of dramatic composition into stage trick, and rest their criterion of Dramatic Genius on the knowledge of what they are pleased to call Stage effect." The "Theatre" article for the month remarked upon the boldness of Garrick's opening with the Beggar's Opera, "notwithstanding he was requested by the Bench of Justices at Bow-Street, to suppress it, as they were of opinion it had done a great deal of mischief among the low class of people." Lloyd's Evening Post, 17 Sept., included extracts from letters against playing the Beggar's Opera, "because every performance makes from one two twenty thieves." Sir John Fielding and his associates had addressed a letter to Garrick requesting him not to perform the opera for the same reason. The Morning Chronicle, 23 Sept., praised Garrick for not complying with the Justices' request. Wm Augustus Miles published a Letter to Sir John Fielding occasioned by his extraordinary Request to Mr Garrick for the suppression of the Beggar's Opera (44 pp.). In this he vindicated the moral effect of the opera.] Receipts: #158 (Treasurer's Book). [Note: For perform ance at hay 18 and 20 September, see Season of 1772-1773, p. 1740

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Abington. Mainpiece: By Particular Desire. Garrick's last time of performing Archer . Pit and Boxes will be laid together. Ladies and Gentlemen most earnestly requested to come early (playbill). Mrs Abington having wrote to Mr Garrick that she intended to quit the Stage at the End of the Season never to return to it again, he very kindly play'd for her Benefit (Hopkins Diary). Tickets deliver'd for Much Ado will be taken. Attempted to get into Drury Lane Theatre to see Mr Garrick in the character of Archer, but the crowd was so great that after suffering thumps, squeezes and almost suffocation for two hours, I was oblig'd to retire without effecting it (Hampden, Journal). Receipts: #129 19s. 6d. Charges: #65 7s. 6d. Profits to Mrs Abington: #64 12s. (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