Event Comment: By permission. Benefit Mrs Gardner. Tickets delivered by Mr Death will be admitted. Boxes 5s. Pit 3s. Gallery 2s. Upper Gallery 1s

Event Comment: Paid Richards (scene painter) as per Bill #25 4s. Paid Mr Gard for performing 14 nights in the Ostrich to 11th inst. inclusive, #1 15s. (Account Book). [Richards possibly Painted the new scene of the Pantheonv added to Harlequin Sorcerer on 6 Jan. Mr Gard continued to receive the standard wage of 2s. 6d. per naght for performing this bird each time Harlequin Sorcerer was put on. No further notation of his payments as they occur in the account books will be made. He was paid usually after about every 12 of 14 performances.] Receipts: #166 6s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: Afterpiece: A Comic Opera altered [by Colman] from Gay. The Music entirely new by Dr Arne. Now acted for the first time in 2 Acts. [The 1776 Edition in Bell's British Theatre lists: Achilles-Mattocks; Peripas-$Reinhold; Lycomedes-$DuBellamy; Diphilus-$Dyer; Ajax-$Dunstall; Ulysses-$Owenson; Diomedes-$Fox; Argytes-$Baker; Deidamia-$Mrs Mattocks; Artemona-$Miss Brown; Philoe-$Miss Valois; Thetis-$Miss Catley. [$Miss Pearce may have played Lesbia).] Paid Banks for the Head of a Figure used in The Fair #1 1s.; Paid Mr Gard for performing 5 nights in the Fair and 3 in the Sorcerer #1. Paid Joseph Besford for performing 5 nights in the Fair 12s. 6d. (Account Book). [Afterpiece unfavorably reviewed in the Westminster Magazine.] Receipts: #149 18s. 6d. (Account Book)

Event Comment: The United Company. There is uncertainty concerning this date; it appears on Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue, and the date may represent the time of his purchase rather than a date of performance. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 141-45. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 39-40): All the preceding Plays, being the chief that were Acted in Dorset-Garden, from November 1671, to the Year 1682; at which time the Patentees of each Company United Patents; and by so Incorporating the Duke's Company were made the King's Company, and immediately remov'd to the Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane. Upon this Union, Mr Hart being the Heart of the Company under Mr Killigrew's Patent never Acted more, by reason of his Malady; being Afflicted with the Stone and Gravel, of which he Dy'd some time after: Having a Sallary of 40 Shillings a Week to the Day of his Death. But the Remnant of that Company; as, Major Mohun, Mr Cartwright, Mr Kynaston, Mr Griffin, Mr Goodman, Mr Duke Watson, Mr Powel, Sr, Mr Wiltshire, Mrs Corey, Mrs Bowtell, Mrs Cook, Mrs Montfort. [Joined the new company]. Note, now Mr Monfort and Mr Carlile, were grown to the Maturity of good Actors. The mixt Company then Reviv'd the several old and Modern Plays, that were the Propriety of Mr Killigrew, as Rule a Wife, and have a Wife: Mr Betterton Acting Michael Perez; Don Leon, Mr Smith, Cacofogo, Mr Cartwright: Margaretta, Mrs Barry: Estiphania, Mrs Cook. Next, @The Scornful Lady.@The Plain Dealer.@The Mock Astrologer.@The Jovial Crew.@The Beggars Bush.@Bartholomew-Fair.@The Moor of Venice.@Rollo.@The Humorous Lieutenant.@The Double Marriage.@ With divers others. George Powell, Preface to The Treacherous Brothers (1690): The Time was, upon the uniting of the Two Theatres, that the Reviveing of the old stock of Plays, so ingrost the study of the House, that the Poets lay dorment; and a new Play cou'd hardly get admittance, amongst the more precious pieces of Antiquity, that then waited to walk the Stage. Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 95-96): I shall content myself with telling you that Mohun and Hart now growing old [for, above thirty Years before this Time, they had severally born the King's Commission of Major and Captain in the Civil Wars), and the younger Actors, as Goodman, Clark, and others, being impatient to get into their Parts, and growing intractable, the Audiences too of both Houses then falling off, the Patentees of each, by the King's Advice, which perhaps amounted to a Command, united their Interests and both Companies into one, exclusive of all others in the Year 1682. This Union was, however, so much in favour of the Duke's Company, that Hart left the Stage upon it, and Mohun survived not long after

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