Event Comment: Afterpiece [1st time; MF 2, by William Pearce. Text (T. N. Longman, 1794) has cast for season of 1794-95]: With new Music [by Shield), Scenes [by Richards (Theatre Notebook, Summer, 1965, XIX, 143)] and Dresses. The Music composed by [i.e. compiled from] Baumgarten, Paisiello, Dr Arne, W. Parke, Howard, and Shield. Books of the Songs to be had at the Theatre. Morning Chronicle, 26 Nov. 1794: This Day is published NETLEY ABBEY (1s.). Receipts: #399 5s. 6d. (378/1 1/6; 20/14/0)

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5, by Thomas Holcroft, based partly on The Fashionable Lover, by Richard Cumberland. Authors of Prologue and Epilogue unknown]. The Doors to be opened at 5:30. To begin at 6:30, for the remainder of the Season. Morning Chronicle, 13 May 1795: This Day is published The Deserted Daughter (2s.). Receipts: #210 2s. (205.12.6; 4.9.6)

Event Comment: Christopher Rich's Company. The date of the resumption of playing is not certain, for Cibber (see below) beclouds the issue by referring to Easter-Monday in April, whereas the first Monday following Easter fell on 25 March 1694@5. Nevertheless, Monday 1 April 1695 seems the likely date of the resumption of playing, with Rich's Company ready to perform before the seceding company under Thomas Betterton was fully organized. A new song for Abdelazar, Lucinda is bewitching fair, the music by Henry Purcell and sung by "the Boy" (Jemmy? Bowen), is in Thesaurus Musicus, The Fourth Book, 1695. Cibber, Apology, I, 195: [The Patentees] were not able to take the Field till the Easter-Monday in April following. Their first Attempt was a reviv'd Play call'd Abdelazar, or the Moor's Revenge, poorly written, by Mrs Behn. The House was very full, but whether it was the Play or the Actors that were not approved, the next Day's Audience sunk to nothing. However, we assured that let the Audiences be never so low, our Masters would make good all Deficiencies, and so indeed they did, till towards the End of the Season, when Dues to Ballance came too think upon 'em. [See I, 195-96, for Cibber's account of his Prologue.] A Comparison Between the Two Stages, 1702, p. 7: But in my Opinion, 'twas strange that the general defection of the old Actors which left Drury-lane, and the fondness which the better sort shew'd for 'em at the opening of their Newhouse, and indeed the Novelty it self, had not quite destroy'd those few young ones that remain'd behind. The disproportion was so great at parting, that 'twas almost impossible, in Drury-lane, to muster up a sufficient number to take in all the Parts of any Play; and of them so few were tolerable, that a Play must of necessity be damn'd that had not extraordinary favour from the Audience: No fewer than Sixteen (most of the old standing) went away; and with them the very beauty and vigour of the Stage; they who were left behind being for the most part Learners, Boys and Girls, a very unequal match for them who revolted. According to a statement made in litigation, the company in Drury Lane acted 84 times between 25 March 1694@5 and 7 July 1695; and the Young Actors played 68 times from 6 July 1695 to 10 Oct. 1695 to 10 Oct. 1695. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 308