Event Comment: The United Company. A somewhat puzzling entry in the Reverend Robert Kirk's description of London in 1689 implies a performance of The Committee undertaken but not completed: At a play in Whitehall King Charles, his trage-comedy, when the actors were come to that part of seducing King Charles II, some Williamites in the pit below hissed at it (as if the play had meant the like of King James in Ireland). At this there sprang such huzzas and holloes above applauding that part of the play, that it was in a confusion, and they durst pursue it no further, lest the two parties made violence one upon another. Two or three noblemen were remarked to be forward in the acclamations of joy, and therefore are looked on as Jacobites. The Play's name is The Committee, November 28, 1689 (Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archeological Society, New Series, VI, 655)

Event Comment: Not Acted these Ten Years. Written by Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Written by Sir Robert Howard. At Common Prices

Event Comment: Not Acted these Twenty-Five Years. Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the particular Desire of several Ladies of Quality. Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Mainpiece: Written by the late Sir Robert Howard

Event Comment: Benefit for Watson, Roberts, Wilson and Palmer. Tickets deliver'd by Humphreys will be taken. Paid a cotten Bill #2 11s. 4d. (Treasurer's Book). Receipts: #254 1s. 6d. Charges: #84. Profits to beneficiaries: #170 1s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

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