Event Comment: Benefit for Miss Macklin. Mainpiece: Not acted these 3 years. [See 27 Jan. 1770.] Afterpiece: For this night only this season (playbill). Charges #64 5s. Profit to Miss Macklin #19 4s., plus #43 from 172 Box tickets. Paid Whitefield one fourth year's salary due Lady Day last #25. Paid Mr Barber for a suit of regimentals embroider'd with gold, #12 12s. Paid Lowe and Lucas (linnen drapers) #13 19s.; Paid Evans for Spermecita candles as per bill #12. Paid Barrett (wax chandler) #3 4s. (Account Book). [Miss Macklin considered this a poor benefit, and on 6 May 1772 wrote to her father about the troubles she met in getting it underway. Woodward would not play in the farce since it did not belong to the theatre and since he had not be asked before she put his name in the bills. Kniveton labored hard and did quite well as Sir Archy. Ann Pitt so ill she could not do Lady Wrangle, but Mrs Hull sat up two nights, learned the part and acted it creditably (Harvard, Memoirs of Charles Macklin, Vol. II, pt. 2, after p. 55).] Receipts: #83 9s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, although a reference in the text to 1690 suggests that the play may have been produced in that year; but the fact that it was not advertised in the London Gazette until 6-9 April and not entered in the Term Catalogues until May 1691 suggest that it posaibly appeared early in 1691. This play was discussed in Wit for Money, or Poet Stutter; A Dialogue between Smith, Johnson, and Poet Stutter; containing Reflections on some late Plays, and particularly on Love for Money, or The Boarding School. The British Museum copy of this pamphlet has a manuscript date of 23 April 1691. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: The Boarding School; Wrote by Mr Durfy, it took well being justly Acted. Earl of Ailesbury, mid-January 1690@1: My Lady Fenwick was a great intriguer, and had always castles in the air in her imagination to that degree, that I was present at a play where she was brought in. If I mistake not it was The Boarding School, and the famous comic, Mr Lee, in woman's clothes represented her to the life, and so exactly had her features and complexion that one could hardly have distinguished one from the other (Memoirs, [London, 1890], II, 390-91)

Event Comment: Benefit Mills. Tickets of Bradshaw, &c, and at Mill's House in Nassau St. Tickets deliver'd out for The Lady's Last Stake will be taken. We are obliged to change the Play because of the uncertainty of one of the principal Actors coming to perform. Receipts: #120

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, for the play was apparently not printed until 1704. Nevertheless, some details indicate a performance early in the early in the season of 1696-97. In the first place, the presence of Verbruggen in the cast indicates that it must have been acted before 1 Jan. 1696@7, when Verbruggen was permitted to act at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The play also parodies the works of Mrs Manley, whose The Royal Mischief had been staged (probably) in April 1696, and it is likely that the company would emphasize the pertinence of the parody by presenting it soon after the appearance of the original. Although The Female Wits may not have been acted until later in the autumn, it seems likely that it was acted first in the late summer or early autumn. Preface, Edition of 1704: [The] Success of this Play has been such...having been Acted six Days running without intermission....Among the rest, Mr Powel and his Wife excell'd in the Characters they represented, as did Mrs Verbruggen, who play'd the Chief Character....The Lady whose Play is rehears'd, personated one Mrs M-ly [Manley]