Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the fact that the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 3130, 7-11 Nov. 1695, suggests that it was acted not later than October 1695, although the first production may have been earlier than that. Part of the music was composed by Henry Purcell: Celia has a thousand charms, sung by Young Bowen; Take not a woman's anger ill, sung by Leveridge; and How happy is she, sung by Miss Cross; all are in Deliciae Musicae, The Third Book, 1696. See also Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XXI (1917), x-xi. Another song, To me you made a thousand vows, set by John Blow, is in Amphion Anglicus, 1700. Dedication, Edition of 1696: I...found so much interrutpion and discouragement from some prejudic'd Gentlemen, who ought to have us'd me better, or, at least, had no reason to use me ill, that I repented I had bestow'd any time upon it....In spite of 'em, my Lord, it was kindly receiv'd, and that too, at a time when the Town was never thinner of Nobility and Gentry

Event Comment: Not acted in 30 years. Principal Characters new Dress'd. Written by Otway (General Advertiser). Mr Woodward did ye part of Malagene in which he took off Mr Foote & would have many of ye Actors but the Audience grew so outragious, that he was forc'd to desist ye 4th & 5th Acts were much hooted, Mr Havard in a part where he says Whir was severely treated, nor could he ever appear after in ye play, but the whole Audience echoed that Word--it was given out again, wch so enrag'd the Audience yt they call'd loudly for Garrick, but as he was not this Night at the House, they pull'd up the Benches, tore down ye King's Arms, & wou'd have done much more mischief had not Mr Lacy qone into the Pit, & talk'd to 'em, what they resented was giving out a piece again after they had damn'd it--the Gallery resented ye Guards being sent in--Mr Lacy was oblig'd to go upon the Stage after & tell 'em I had given out the play again, as ne'er a Manager was present to give other Directions--In his Argument Mr Lacy call'd a Witness in ye pit, saying that Gent: next to ye painter knows I was in ye pit when ye Guards went into the Gallery, so I cou'd not send 'em this painter after ye rout came behind the scenes & was angry for being call'd painter (his name was Hudson) but at length he as well as ye rest was pacified--and we gave out Provok'd Husband (Cross). [See Foote's retaliation in Daily Advertiser, 26 Jan.] Paid Capt. Turber 1!2 year's rent #11 3s. 4d. (Treasurer's Book). Receipts: #140 (Cross); #137 12s. (Treasurer's Book)

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: Paid 6 days salary at #82 16s. 5d. per diem--#496 18s. 6d.; Mrs Abington on cloaths account #2; Mr French on acct #2. Mr D. Garrick's Night. Charges #84 (Treasurer's Book). Profit to D. G. for sixth night of Inst of Garter #115 7s. 6d. Mainpiece: Not acted in 4 years. [See 2 Dec. 1767.] Garrick recovered from his illness (Winston MS 10). [Of the mainpiece: "How the managers could think of shoving Mr Cautherly into the part of Captain Plume, is, to us, a matter of surprize....The part requires elegance, vivacity and the easy deportment of an accomplish'd gentleman. We never remember to have seen this character more completely performed, than by Mr Smith at Covent Garden Theatre (who is everything that criticism can wish) nor much worse, than by Mr Cautherly, who does not possess one requisite for the character, and is the effeminate and insipid School-boy throughout the whole. To this we may add, that he was not perfect, and made a great mistake, by coming in where he should not which oblig'd him to retire again. This was an unpardonable fault, though it was the first time of his appearing in this character."--Theatrical Review, 2 Nov. Of the afterpiece: "We were not a little pleased to observe this evening, that Mr King, in the character of Sir Dingle, omitted the parody on the lines with which the third act of Otway's Orphan concludes. But we think the introducing a chine of roast beef, decorated with a flag, to be carried off in triumph by the rabble, accompanied, from the orchestra with music of the old song of that title is a pitiful addition to the performance, and intended only as a sacrifice to the caprice of the riotous inhabitants of the upper gallery. Had this Entertainment been exhibited at a French theatre it would have had some claim to merit. This seems to be a piece of stage policy, arising from a consciousness, that the whole performance is too contemptible to meet with countenance from any but the sons of riot, for which reason they are brib'd to support it, by this notable trick."--Theatrical Review, 2 Nov.] Receipts: #199 7s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)