Event Comment: LLondon Daily Post and General Advertiser announces The Intriguing Chambermaid. Receipts: #83

Event Comment: [R+Rylands MS. suggests that the Princesses sent word at 12 o'clock that they would attend. It was too late to advertise the fact.] Receipts: #80

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Containing the Distresses and Death of King Henry VI; the Artful acquisition of the Crown by King Richardv; the Murder of young King Edward V, and his brother in the Tower; The landing of the Earl of Richmond, and the death of King Richard in the memorable Battle of Bosworth Fieldv, being the last that was fought between the Houses of York and Lancaster. With many other Historical passages. [This descriptive passage accompanies all notices of the play this season and will not be recorded here further.

Event Comment: Tragedy reviv'd. As written by Shakespear. The Characters new Dress'd. [See G. W. Stone Jr., Garrick's Handling of Macbeth," pp. 609-28.] An Essay on Acting (London, 1744): In which will be Consider'd the Mimical Behaviour of a Certain Fashionable faulty Actor....A short criticism on His Acting Macbeth. [See especially first part, pp. 1-12, on Acting; second, pp. 12-27, on Garrick as Macbeth.

Event Comment: Mainpiece: As written by Shakespear. With the songs, dances and other decorations. Receipts: #120 (Cross); #120 3s. 6d. (Powel)

Event Comment: Benefit for Wild, prompter. 1st piece: In 3 Acts; Not acted these 7 years [acted 6 May 1797]. 2nd piece [1st time; M. INT 1]. 4th piece: To conclude with a View of the Infernal Regionsv, and a Shower of Firev. Revived under the Direction of Delpini. The Songs, Duets & Chorusses by Reeve. The rest of the Music composed by Gluck. Receipts: #287 (149.4.6; 2.0.0; tickets: 135.15.6)

Event Comment: Music of Afterpiece entirely new Composed by Dibdin. [An adaptation of Goldoni's Il Filosofo di Campagna.] Book of Songs to be had at Theatre (playbill). The Wedg R. a Comic Opera of Two Acts wrote & composed by Mr Dibdin. The Music very pretty--as the Author was kept a Secret The Town fancy'd that is one of Mr Bickerstaff & call'd out to know who was the Author. Mr Garrick inform'd them that he had no power to declare who the Author was but he could assure them that it was not Mr Bickerstaffs this did not Satisfy them at last Mr Dibdin went on & declard himself to be the Author & made an Affidavit of it & then the Farce went on with Applause (Hopkins Diary). [Account of The Wedding Ring in Westminster Magazine for Feb. 1773.] Paid #4 4s. for licensing The Wedding Ring and Alonzo (Treasurer's Book). [Maria Macklin, in a MS letter to her father, 3 Feb. 1773, commented fully on this night's performance: "Written as it was suppos'd by Bickerstaffe. The music by Dibdin. I went with a party into the Gallery to see the event as there was a great riot expected, & indeed never did I see an audience more inflamed. They would not suffer them to begin the piece. At last Mr King came on with a written paper in his hand, which he said he was desir'd to read in the name of the managers. After a great noise they let him read it. He said just before the play began the managers had receiv'd a letter from Mr Dibdin in which he declared that Bickerstaff was not the author of that piece, that he had made oath of it, and was ready to do the same again, but that for very particular reasons the author could not be given up. Then they stopp'd him & roar'd out that the author should be given up then. He continued as loud as he possibly could, reading on that 'but that if Mr Dibdin did not very soon given up the author he never should be suffered to appear again on that stage or any other.' Very luckily that turn'd them as I believe the House would have come down. The piece then began. Before the end of the first act one of Bannister's songs were encor'd. The other party were against it and would not let it go on. They all stood up and insisted that the author should be known then. After some time the house being nothing but confusion, Dibdin was push'd upon the stage ready to drop with fright, and declared that he was the author himself. Then they were as noisy the other way. Made them finish the piece, but how you may guess in a storm. It is like the Padlock, but the songs not so good." (Brander Matthews, Actors and Actresses, extra illustrated, Vol. I. Harvard Theatre Collection.). Westminster Magazine this month included in parallel columns flattering "Characters of Mr Garrick and Mr Colman," the Rival managers. The article especially praised Garrick's acting.] Receipts: #252 3s. 6d

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

Event Comment: Benefit Mills

Event Comment: Benefit Mrs Horton. At the particular Desire of several Persons of Quality

Event Comment: At Miller-Mills-Oates Booth, over against the Hospital Gate

Event Comment: By Command of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales [who were present]. Mainpiece: Written by the late N. Rowe, Esq; Poet-Laureat

Event Comment: At the particular Desire of several Ladies of Quality. Mainpiece: Written by Shakespear. Daily Advertiser, 30 Jan.: In the...London Evening Post of last Saturday, there is a Remark, that the first Comedy and first Farce perform'd under the Act for Licensing Plays, were both damn'd by the Town on Account of the said Act.--Believe it not:--To do the Devil Justice, they were both damn'd because they Both were Most Damnable Things, and on no other Account whatsoever. Yours, Tomo Chachi