Event Comment: In a letter to the Daily Post. 4 June, the Patentees of Drury Lane-Mary Wilks, John Ellys, Hester Booth, and John Highmore-stated the cast of the Patentees. The gist of their statement is: (1) They operate under a Patent commencing 1 Sept. 1732 which, by Deaths and Legal Assignments, is the property of the four, with Highmore possessing one half, at an expence of #6,000 and upwards. (2) Several of the Players have threatened to desert the service of the Patentees and have contracted with some of the Trustees (the Sharers) to secure possession of the Theatre. (3) Drury Lane is let upon lease from the Duke of Bedford, granted to Thomas Kynaston and Francis Stanhope, Trustees for the Sharers (commonly called Renters) of Drury Lane at the rent of #50 annually upon a Fine of 1,000 guineas paid for the renewal of the lease. (4) The Players, under the Patentees, have acted at Drury Lane for twenty-one years without any interruption form the Trustees upon the sole contract that the Patentees pay the Trustees #3 12s. each acting night, besides the Liberty of seeing Plays. (5) At the beginning of this Season the manager's office received a letter from a few of the Renters demanding an Advance of Rent. Highmore, being new, was concerned, and asked the managers to take care of the matter; and thereafter the signers (the Patentees) had heard of no further discontent among the Renters. (6) To defend themselves against stories of hardship or complaint by the actors, the Patentees point out that the following weekly salaries had been paid: Colley Cibber #12 12s.; Theophilus Cibber #5; Mills Sr, #1 daily for 200 days certain, and a benefit, clear of all charges; Mills Jr #3; Johnson #5; Miller #5; Harper #4; Griffin #4; Shepard #3; Hallam, for himself and his father, the latter of little or no service, #3; Mrs Heron #5; Mrs Butler #3. For these charges and others, the Patentees stand a daily expence of #49 when the theatre is open. (7) Further, the Patentees paid Cibber Jr his wife's whole salary without her being able to act the greater part of the winter, #9 weekly for the two; Mills Jr, in the same circumstances with his wife, #5 10s. weekly for the two; Miller a salary (amounting to #40) for eight weeks before he acted, and a gratuity of ten guineas; Griffin a present of ten guineas; Harper a present, amount not specified; Mrs Heron an increase form 40s. to #5 weekly, although she refused afterward to play several parts assigned her and acted but seldom

Event Comment: As 11 July. Daily Courant, 13 July: Mr Booth of Drury Lane Playhouse hath sold his Share and Interest in the Stock and Management to John Highmore of Hampton Court

Event Comment: FFog's, 24 March: Colley Cibber, Esq; one of the Patentees of [dl], being now possessed of a more commodious Post, has sold his entire Share of the Cloaths, Scenes, and Patent, to John Highmore, Esq; and at the End of this Season he is, we hear, to quit the Stage

Event Comment: CCraftsman, 9 June: We hear...that the Rebel Players are not yet reduced to their Obedience, but it is thought that They will soon be obliged to surrender at Discretion. In that mean Time, the Publick waits with Impatience to see the Manifesto of their doubty Chief, Mr Theophilus Cibber, which He hath promised in the News-Papers. It is expected that, in this Manifesto, the young Captain will endeavour to prove that the King's Patent, after a solemn Adjudgment in the Court of Chancery, is of no Validity; and that picking a Gentleman's Pocket of Six Thousand Pounds is perfectly consistent with the Principles of Liberty. In the Daily Post, 11 June, Benjamin Griffin, Comedian, published his Humble Appeal to the Publick.The gist of his statement is: (1) Griffin had been under the management of Rich at Lincoln's Inn Fields, without any intention of leaving him, when, at the beginning of the season of 1721, the managers at Drury Lane sent him messages by Thurmond Sr and Shaw, seeking Griffin to treat with them. Griffin at first refused, but Steede, then the prompter of Drury Lane, prevailed upon him. Wilks immediately offered the same conditions Griffin had under Rich: #4 weekly and a benefit before 15 April, at the certain incident charge of #40. Wilks also offered him articles for three years, with a promise of an advance in salary and better terms at that time. (2) No sooner had Griffin agreed than the masters of both companies entered into a private agreement not to receive any one of the other's company, though discharged, without a private agreement to that purpose. (3) At the end of three years, under date of 12 December 1724, R. Castleman, the treasurer of Drury Lane, sent Griffin a note to the effect that the managers were willing to continue him at 10s. nightly (#3 weekly); as Griffin could not return to Rich, he had to accept the reduction in pay as well as a delay of his benefit to May and a payment of #50 for the charges. (4) He remained so until 1729, losing in salary #147 besides the #10 extra benefits. At Norris' illness and death, the managers returned him to #4 weekly but kept the charges at #50. (5) Under date of 4 June 1733, by the signatures of Mary Wilks, Hester Booth, John Highmore, and John Ellys, Griffin received a discharge from Drury Lane and full Liberty to treat with Rich or any one else. He asserts that he had no previous notice and received no reason for his discharge

Event Comment: For a discussion of the Drury Lane problem, see a letter from Hill to Highmore, 5 July 1733, in Hill, Works, I, 188-92. For Hill's intention of bringing on a play in the summer of 1733, see the preface to his Filial Pity, 1760

Event Comment: AA Letter to Mr Garrick on his having purchased a Patent for Drury Lane Play-House published. [Written by one who subscribed himself the Plain Dealer, it pointed out the troubles in store for the young manager from grievances from subordinates, arrogance from other actors (all individualists, no unity) failure from joint managership, grievances from public, and extraordinary expense from costume. He suggests the reasons for Garrick's jumping from actor to manager are vanity and avarice. He indicates Garrick's challenge and sums up the late troubled years of management under Fleetwood and Highmore.