[228] The interval between the two plays cannot have been quite three years. The first was produced in April, 1695, the second some time in 1697.

[229] Produced early in 1700.

[230] Mrs. Mountfort was now Mrs. Verbruggen.

[231] The passage is:—

[232] In his Preface to "Woman's Wit," Cibber says, "But however a Fort is in a very poor Condition, that (in a Time of General War) has but a Handful of raw young Fellows to maintain it." He also talks of himself and his companions as "an uncertain Company."

[233] Bellchambers has here this note: "Mr. Cibber's usage of the verb regret here, may be said to confirm the censure of Fielding, who urged, in reviewing some other of his inadvertencies, that it was 'needless for a great writer to understand his grammar.'" See note 1 on page 69.

[234] Genest (ii. 65) has the following criticism of Cibber's statement: "There can be no doubt but that the acting at the Theatre Royal was miserably inferiour to what it had been—but perhaps Cibber's account is a little exaggerated—he had evidently a personal dislike to Powell—everything therefore that he says, directly or indirectly, against him must be received with some grains of allowance—Powell seems to have been eager to exhibit himself in some of Betterton's best parts, whereas a more diffident actor would have wished to avoid comparisons—we know from the Spectator that Powell was too apt to tear a passion to tatters, but still he must have been an actor of considerable reputation at this time, or he would not have been cast for several good parts before the division of the Company."

[235] "Old Bachelor," act iv. sc. 4:—

"Fondlewife. Come kiss Nykin once more, and then get you in—So—Get
you in, get you in. By by.

Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky.
Lætitia. By, Nykin.
Fondlewife. By, Cocky, by, by."

[236] Regarding Powell's playing in imitation of Betterton, Chetwood ("History of the Stage," p. 155) says: "Mr. George Powel, a reputable Actor, with many Excellencies, gave out, that he would perform the part of Sir John Falstaff in the manner of that very excellent English Roscius, Mr. Betterton. He certainly hit his Manner, and Tone of Voice, yet to make the Picture more like, he mimic'd the Infirmities of Distemper, old Age, and the afflicting Pains of the Gout, which that great Man was often seiz'd with."

[237]

[238] That is, January, 1696. The cast was:—

"Love's last Shift; or, the Fool in Fashion."
Sir William Wisewoud	Mr. Johnson.
Loveless	Mr. Verbruggen.
Sir Novelty Fashion	Mr. Cibber.
Elder Worthy	Mr. Williams.
Young Worthy	Mr. Horden.
Snap	Mr. Penkethman.
Sly	Mr. Bullock.
Lawyer	Mr. Mills.
Amanda	Mrs. Rogers.
Narcissa	Mrs. Verbruggen.
Hillaria	Mrs. Cibber.
Mrs. Flareit	Mrs. Kent.
Amanda's Woman	Mrs. Lucas.

[239] In the Dedication to this play Cibber says that "Mr. Southern's Good-nature (whose own Works best recommend his Judgment) engaged his Reputation for the Success."

[240] Gildon praises this play highly in the "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 25:—

"Ramble. Ay, marry, that Play was the Philosopher's Stone; I think it did wonders.

Sullen. It did so, and very deservedly; there being few Comedies that came up to't for purity of Plot, Manners and Moral: It's often acted now a daies, and by the help of the Author's own good action, it pleases to this Day."

[241] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 437) says: "So little was hoped from the genius of Cibber, that the critics reproached him with stealing his play. To his censurers he makes a serious defence of himself, in his dedication to Richard Norton, Esq., of Southwick, a gentleman who was so fond of stage-plays and players, that he has been accused of turning his chapel into a theatre. The furious John Dennis, who hated Cibber for obstructing, as he imagined, the progress of his tragedy called the Invader of his Country, in very passionate terms denies his claim to this comedy: 'When the Fool in Fashion was first acted (says the critic) Cibber was hardly twenty years of age—how could he, at the age of twenty, write a comedy with a just design, distinguished characters, and a proper dialogue, who now, at forty, treats us with Hibernian sense and Hibernian English?'"

[242] This same accusation was made against Cibber on other occasions. Dr. Johnson, referring to one of these, said: "There was no reason to believe that the Careless Husband was not written by himself."—Boswell's Johnson, ii. 340.

[243] "The Relapse; or, Virtue in Danger," was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. Cibber's part in it, Lord Foppington, became one of his most famous characters. The "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 32, says: "Oronoko, Æsop, and Relapse are Master-pieces, and subsisted Drury-lane House, the first two or three Years."

[244] "The Provoked Wife" was produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1697; and, as Cibber states, "Æsop" was played at Drury Lane in the same year. It seems (see Prologue to "The Confederacy") that Vanbrugh gave his first three plays as presents to the Companies.

[245] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 12: "In the meantime the Mushrooms in Drury-Lane shoot up from such a desolate Fortune into a considerable Name; and not only grappled with their Rivals, but almost eclipst 'em."

[246] The last performance of this comedy which Genest indexes was at Covent Garden, 14th February, 1763.

[247] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 469) says: "The truth is, Cibber was endured, in this and other tragic parts, on account of his general merit in comedy;" and the author of "The Laureat," p. 41, remarks: "I have often heard him blamed as a Trifler in that Part; he was rarely perfect, and, abating for the Badness of his Voice and the Insignificancy and Meanness of his Action, he did not seem to understand either what he said or what he was about."

[248] "The Laureat," p. 44: "Whatever the Actors appear"d upon the Stage, they were most of them Barbarians off on't, few of them having had the Education, or whose Fortunes could admit them to the Conversation of Gentlemen."

[249] Davies praises Cibber in Fondlewife, saying that he "was much and justly admired and applauded" ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 391); and in the same work (i. 306) he gives an admirable sketch of Cibber as Justice Shallow:—

"Whether he was a copy or an original in Shallow, it is certain no audience was ever more fixed in deep attention, at his first appearance, or more shaken with laughter in the progress of the scene, than at Colley Cibber's exhibition of this ridiculous justice of peace. Some years after he had left the stage, he acted Shallow for his son's benefit. I believe in 1737, when Quin was the Falstaff, and Milward the King. Whether it was owing to the pleasure the spectators felt on seeing their old friend return to them again, though for that night only, after an absence of some years, I know not; but, surely, no actor or audience were better pleased with each other. His manner was so perfectly simple, his look so vacant, when he questioned his cousin Silence about the price of ewes, and lamented, in the same breath, with silly surprise, the death of Old Double, that it will be impossible for any surviving spectator not to smile at the remembrance of it. The want of ideas occasions Shallow to repeat almost every thing he says. Cibber's transition, from asking the price of bullocks, to trite, but grave reflections on mortality, was so natural, and attended with such an unmeaning roll of his small pigs-eyes, accompanied with an important utterance of tick! tick! tick! not much louder than the balance of a watch, that I question if any actor was ever superior in the conception or expression of such solemn insignificancy."

[250] I presume Cibber means 1695. The Company was self-governed from its commencement in 1695, and the disintegration seems to have begun in the next season. See what Cibber says of Dogget's defection a few pages on.

[251] In Lee's tragedy of "Cæsar Borgia," originally played at Dorset Garden in 1680. Borgia was Betterton's part, and was evidently one of those which Powell laid violent hands on.

[252] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is a curious Decision, dated 26 Oct. 1696, regarding this desertion. By it, Dogget, who is stated to have been seduced from Lincoln's Inn Fields, is permitted to act where he likes.

[253] Genest's list of Dogget's characters shows that he was apparently not engaged 1698 to 1700, both inclusive; for the seasons 1706-7 and 1707-8; and for the season 1708-9. This would make the three occasions mentioned by Cibber.

[254] Dryden, in his Address to Granville on his tragedy of "Heroic Love" in 1698, says of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company:—

[255] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 13: "But this [the success of 'Love for Love'] like other things of that kind, being only nine Days wonder, and the Audiences, being in a little time sated with the Novelty of the New-house, return in Shoals to the Old."

[256] Cibber says nothing of his having been a member of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company. But he was, for he writes in his Preface to "Woman's Wit": "during the Time of my writing the two first Acts I was entertain'd at the New Theatre.... In the Middle of my Writing the Third Act, not liking my Station there, I return'd again to the Theatre Royal." Cibber must have joined Betterton, I should think, about the end of 1696. It is curious that he should in his "Apology" have entirely suppressed this incident. It almost suggests that there was something in it of which he was in later years somewhat ashamed.

[257] "Comparison between the two Stages," p. 14: "The Town ... chang'd their Inclinations for the two Houses, as they found 'emselves inclin'd to Comedy or Tragedy: If they desir'd a Tragedy, they went to Lincolns-Inn-Fields; if to Comedy, they flockt to Drury-lane."

[258] Christopher Rich, of whom the "Comparison between the two Stages" says (p. 15): "Critick. In the other House there's an old snarling Lawyer Master and Sovereign; a waspish, ignorant, pettifogger in Law and Poetry; one who understands Poetry no more than Algebra; he wou'd sooner have the Grace of God than do everybody Justice."

[259] This privilege seems to have been granted about 1697 or 1698. It was not abolished till 1737. On 5th May, 1737, footmen having been deprived of their privilege, 300 of them broke into Drury Lane and did great damage. Many were, however, arrested, and no attempt was made to renew hostilities.

[260] Queen Anne issued several Edicts forbidding persons to be admitted behind the scenes, and in the advertisements of both theatres there appeared the announcement, "By Her Majesty's Command no Persons are to be admitted behind the Scenes." Cibber here, no doubt, refers to the Sign Manual of 13 Nov. 1711, a copy of which is among the Chamberlain's Papers.

[261] Cibber is probably incorrect here. It seems certain from the bills that Wilks did not re-appear in London before 1698.

[262] See note on page 235.

[263] "The Laureat," p. 44: "Wilks, in this Part of Palamede, behav'd with a modest Diffidence, and yet maintain'd the Spirit of his Part." The author says, on the same page, that Powel never could appear a Gentleman. "His Conversation, his Manners, his Dress, neither on nor off the Stage, bore any Similitude to that Character."

[264] "The Laureat," p. 44: "I believe he (Wilks) was obliged to fight the Heroic George Powel, as well as one or two others, who were piqued at his being so highly encouraged by the Town, and their Rival, before he cou'd be quiet."

[265] Powell seems to have been at Lincoln's Inn Fields for two seasons, those of 1702 and 1703, and for part of a third, 1703-4. He returned to Drury Lane about June, 1704. For the arbitrary conduct of the Lord Chamberlain, in allowing him to desert to Lincoln's Inn Fields (or the Haymarket), but arresting him when he deserted back again to Drury Lane, see after, in Chap. X.

[266] Cibber is here somewhat in the position of Satan reproving sin, if Davies's statements ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 480) are accurate. He says:—

"This attention to the gaming-table would not, we may be assured, render him [Cibber] fitter for his business of the stage. After many an unlucky run at Tom's Coffee-house [in Russell Street], he has arrived at the playhouse in great tranquillity; and then, humming over an opera-tune, he has walked on the stage not well prepared in the part he was to act. Cibber should not have reprehended Powell so severely for neglect and imperfect representation: I have seen him at fault where it was least expected; in parts which he had acted a hundred times, and particularly in Sir Courtly Nice; but Colley dexterously supplied the deficiency of his memory by prolonging his ceremonious bow to the lady, and drawling out 'Your humble servant, madam,' to an extraordinary length; then taking a pinch of snuff, and strutting deliberately across the stage, he has gravely asked the prompter, what is next?"

[267] "The Laureat," p. 45: "I have known him (Wilks) lay a Wager and win it, that he wou'd repeat the Part of Truewitt in the Silent Woman, which consists of thirty Lengths of Paper, as they call 'em, (that is, one Quarter of a Sheet on both Sides to a Length) without misplacing a single Word, or missing an (and) or an (or)."

[268] Alexander in "The Rival Queens."

[269] In "The Man of the Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter."

[270] Produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 29th January, 1728.

[271] "Love in a Riddle." A Pastoral. Produced at Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729.

Arcas	Mr. Mills.
Ægon	Mr. Harper.
Amyntas	Mr. Williams.
Iphis	Mrs. Thurmond.
Philautus, a conceited Corinthian courtier	Mr. Cibber.
Corydon	Mr. Griffin.
Cimon	Mr. Miller.
Mopsus	Mr. Oates.
Damon	Mr. Ray.
Ianthe, daughter to Arcas	Mrs. Cibber.
Pastora, daughter to Ægon	Mrs. Lindar.
Phillida, daughter to Corydon	Mrs. Raftor.

Mrs. Raftor (at this time Miss was not generally used) was afterwards the famous Mrs. Clive. Chetwood, in his "History of the Stage," 1749 (p. 128), says: "I remember the first night of Love in a Riddle (which was murder'd in the same Year) a Pastoral Opera wrote by the Laureat, which the Hydra-headed Multitude resolv'd to worry without hearing, a Custom with Authors of Merit, when Miss Raftor came on in the part of Phillida, the monstrous Roar subsided. A Person in the Stage-Box, next to my Post, called out to his Companion in the following elegant Style—'Zounds! Tom! take Care! or this charming little Devil will save all.'" Chetwood's "Post" was that of Prompter.

[272] Martial, xiii. 2, 8.

[273] Cibber should have written Catiline.

[274] This second part was called "Polly." In his Preface Gay gives an account of its being vetoed. The prohibition undoubtedly was in revenge for the political satire in "The Beggar's Opera." "Polly" was published by subscription, and probably brought the author more in that way than its production would have done. It was played for the first time at the Haymarket, 19th June, 1777. It is, as Genest says, miserably inferior to the first part.

[275] "Polly" was officially prohibited on 12th December, 1728.

[276] I know only one case in which a new piece is said to have been prohibited because the other house was going to play one on the same subject. This is Swiney's "Quacks; or, Love's the Physician," produced at Drury Lane on 18th March, 1705, after being twice vetoed. Swiney in his Preface gives the above as the reason for the prohibition.

[277] Cibber afterwards formed the best scenes of "Love in a Riddle" into a Ballad Opera, called "Damon and Phillida."

[278] Bellchambers notes that this was probably Mrs. Oldfield. But I think this more than doubtful, for this lady not only was fair, but also, as Touchstone says, "had the gift to know it." It is, of course, impossible to say decidedly to whom Cibber referred; but I fancy that Mrs. Barry is the actress who best fulfils the conditions, though, of course, I must admit that her having been dead for a quarter of a century weakens my case.

[279] A "bite" is what we now term a "sell." In "The Spectator," Nos. 47 and 504, some account of "Biters" is given: "a Race of Men that are perpetually employed in laughing at those Mistakes which are of their own Production."

[280] This is a capital sketch of Christopher Rich.

[281] Cibber's hint of Rich's weakness for the fair sex is corroborated by the "Comparison between the two Stages," page 16: "Critick. He is Monarch of the Stage, tho' he knows not how to govern one Province in his Dominion, but that of Signing, Sealing, and something else, that shall be nameless."

[282] "The Laureat," p. 48: "If Minister Wilks was now alive to hear thee prate thus, Mr. Bayes, I would not give one Half-penny for thy Ears; but if he were alive, thou durst not for thy Ears rattle on in this affected Matchiavilian stile."

[283] Characters in Ben Jonson's "Silent Woman."

[284] "The Laureat," p. 49: "Did you not, by your general Misbehaviour towards Authors and Actors, bring an Odium on your Brother Menagers, as well as yourself; and were not these, with many others, the Reasons, that sometimes gave Occasion to Wilks, to chastise you, with his Tongue only."

[285] See memoir of John Mills at end of second volume.

[286] John Mills, in the advertisement issued by Rich, in 1709, in the course of a dispute with his actors, is stated to have a salary of "£4 a week for himself, and £1 a week for his wife, for little or nothing." This advertisement is quoted by me in Chap. XII. Mills's salary was the same as Betterton's. No doubt Cibber, Wilks, Dogget, and Booth had ultimately larger salaries, but they, of course, were managers as well as actors.

[287] Booth seems to have joined the Lincoln's Inn Fields Company in 1700.

[288] Steele's comedy was produced at Drury Lane in 1702. Cibber played Lord Hardy.

[289] The play was called "Woman's Wit; or, the Lady in Fashion." It was produced at Drury Lane in 1697. It must have been in the early months of that year, for in his Preface Cibber says, to excuse its failure, that it was hurriedly written, and that "rather than lose a Winter" he forced himself to invent a fable. "The Laureat," p. 50, stupidly says that the name of the play was "Perolla and Isadora." The cast was:—

Lord Lovemore	Mr. Harland.
Longville	Mr. Penkethman.
Jack Rakish	Mr. Powel.
Mass Johnny, Lady Manlove's Son, a schoolboy.	Mr. Dogget.
Father Benedic	Mr. Smeaton.
Lady Manlove	Mrs. Powel.
Leonora	Mrs. Knight.
Emilia	Mrs. Rogers.
Olivia	Mrs. Cibber.
Lettice	Mrs. Kent.

[290]

[291]

[292] Pepys (12th June, 1663) records that the Lady Mary Cromwell at the Theatre, "when the House began to fill, put on her vizard, and so kept it on all the play; which of late is become a great fashion among the ladies, which hides their whole face." Very soon, however, ladies gave up the use of the mask, and "Vizard-mask" became a synonym for "Prostitute." In this sense it is frequently used in Dryden's Prologues and Epilogues.

[293] Compare with Cibber's condemnation Genest's opinion of this play. He says (i. 365): "If it be the province of Comedy, not to retail morality to a yawning pit, but to make the audience laugh, and to keep them in good humour, this play must be allowed to be one of the best comedies in the English language."

[294] To "The Pilgrim," revived in 1700, as Cibber states, Dryden's "Secular Masque" was attached. Whether the revival took place before or after Dryden's death (1st May, 1700) is a moot point. See Genest, ii. 179, for an admirable account of the matter. He thinks it probable that the date of production was 25th March, 1700. Cibber is scarcely accurate in stating that "The Pilgrim" was revived for Dryden's benefit. It seems, rather, that Vanbrugh, who revised the play, stipulated that, in consideration of Dryden's writing "The Secular Masque," and also the Prologue and Epilogue, he should have the usual author's third night. The B. M. copy of "The Pilgrim" is dated, in an old handwriting, "Monday, the 5 of May."

[295] Jeremy Collier.

[296] Genest notes (ii. 181) that in the original play the Servant in the 2nd act did not stutter.

[297] Collier's famous work, which was entitled "A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage: together with the sense of Antiquity upon this Argument," was published in 1698. Collier was a Nonjuring clergyman. He was born on 23rd September, 1650, and died in 1726. The circumstance to which Cibber alludes in the second paragraph from the present, was Collier's attending to the scaffold Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, who were executed for complicity in plots against King William in 1696.

[298] The facetious Joe Haines was an actor of great popularity, and seems to have excelled in the delivery of Prologues and Epilogues, especially of those written by himself. He was on the stage from about 1672 to 1700 or 1701, in which latter year (on the 4th of April) he died. He was the original Sparkish in Wycherley's "Country Wife," Lord Plausible in the same author's "Plain Dealer," and Tom Errand in Farquhar's "Constant Couple." Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 284) tells, on Quin's authority, an anecdote of Haines's pretended conversion to Romanism during James the Second's reign. He declared that the Virgin Mary appeared to him in a vision. "Lord Sunderland sent for Joe, and asked him about the truth of his conversion, and whether he had really seen the Virgin?—Yes, my Lord, I assure you it is a fact.—How was it, pray?—Why, as I was lying in my bed, the Virgin appeared to me, and said, Arise, Joe!—You lie, you rogue, said the Earl; for, if it had really been the Virgin herself, she would have said Joseph, if it had been only out of respect to her husband." For an account of Haines, see also Anthony Aston.

[299] "The Laureat" (p. 53) states that soon after the publication of Collier's book, informers were placed in different parts of the theatres, on whose information several players were charged with uttering immoral words. Queen Anne, however, satisfied that the informers were not actuated by zeal for morality, stopped the inquisition. These informers were paid by the Society for the Reformation of Manners.

[300] Congreve's answer to Collier was entitled "Amendments of Mr. Collier's false and imperfect Citations, &c. from the Old Batchelour, Double Dealer, Love for Love, Mourning Bride. By the Author of those Plays." Vanbrugh called his reply, "A Short Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd Wife, from Immorality and Prophaneness. By the Author." Davies says, regarding Congreve ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 401): "Congreve's pride was hurt by Collier's attack on plays which all the world had admired and commended; and no hypocrite showed more rancour and resentment, when unmasked, than this author, so greatly celebrated for sweetness of temper and elegance of manners."

[301] Charles Killigrew, who died in 1725, having held the office of Master of the Revels for over forty years.

[302] Produced at Drury Lane in 1700. For some account of Cibber's playing of Richard, see ante, pp. 139, 140.

[303] Chalmers ("Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Papers," page 535) comments unfavourably on Cibber's method of stating this fact, saying, "Well might Pope cry out, modest Cibber!" But Chalmers is unjust to Colley, who is not expressing his own opinion of his play's importance, but merely reporting the opinion of Killigrew.

[304] Steele's name first appears in a License granted 18th October, 1714. His Patent was dated 19th January, 1715.

[305] Chalmers ("Apology for the Believers," page 536) says: "The patentees sent Colley Cibber, as envoy-extraordinary, to negotiate an amicable settlement with the Sovereign of the Revels. It is amusing to hear, how this flippant negotiator explained his own pretensions, and attempted to invalidate the right of his opponent; as if a subsequent charter, under the great seal, could supersede a preceding grant under the same authority. Charles Killigrew, who was now sixty-five years of age, seems to have been oppressed by the insolent civility of Colley Cibber." But this is an undeserved hit at Cibber, who had suffered the grossest injustice at Killigrew's hands regarding the licensing of "Richard III." See ante, p. 275. The dispute regarding fees must have occurred about 1715.

[306] The Licensing Act of 1737. This Act was passed by Sir Robert Walpole's government, and gave to the Lord Chamberlain the power to prohibit a piece from being acted at all, by making it necessary to have every play licensed. This power, however, had practically been exercised by the Chamberlain before, as in the case of Gay's "Polly," which Cibber has already mentioned. The immediate cause of this Act of 1737 was a piece called "The Golden Rump," which was so full of scurrility against the powers that were, that Giffard, the manager to whom it was submitted, carried it to Walpole. In spite of the opposition of Lord Chesterfield, who delivered a famous speech against it, the Bill was passed, 21st June, 1737. The "Biographia Dramatica" hints plainly that "The Golden Rump" was written at Walpole's instigation to afford an excuse for the Act. Bellchambers has the following note on this passage:—

"The Abbé Le Blanc,{A} who was in England at the time this law passed, has the following remarks upon it in his correspondence:—

"'This act occasioned an universal murmur in the nation, and was openly complained of in the public papers: in all the coffee-houses of London it was treated as an unjust law, and manifestly contrary to the liberties of the people of England. When winter came, and the play-houses were opened, that of Covent-garden began with three new pieces, which had been approved of by the Lord Chamberlain. There was a crowd of spectators present at the first, and among the number myself. The best play in the world would not have succeeded the first night.{B} There was a resolution to damn whatever might appear, the word hiss not being sufficiently expressive for the English. They always say, to damn a piece, to damn an author, &c. and, in reality, the word is not too strong to express the manner in which they receive a play which does not please them. The farce in question was damned indeed, without the least compassion: nor was that all, for the actors were driven off the stage, and happy was it for the author that he did not fall into the hands of this furious assembly.

"'As you are unacquainted with the customs of this country, you cannot easily devise who were the authors of all this disturbance. Perhaps you may think they were schoolboys, apprentices, clerks, or mechanics. No, sir, they were men of a very grave and genteel profession; they were lawyers, and please you; a body of gentlemen, perhaps less honoured, but certainly more feared here than they are in France. Most of them live in colleges,{C} where, conversing always with one another, they mutually preserve a spirit of independency through the body, and with great ease form cabals. These gentlemen, in the stage entertainments of London, behave much like our footboys, in those at a fair. With us, your party-coloured gentry are the most noisy; but here, men of the law have all the sway, if I may be permitted to call so those pretended professors of it, who are rather the organs of chicanery, than the interpreters of justice. At Paris the cabals of the pit are only among young fellows, whose years may excuse their folly, or persons of the meanest education and stamp; here they are the fruit of deliberations in a very grave body of people, who are not less formidable to the minister in place, than to the theatrical writers.

"'The players were not dismayed, but soon after stuck up bills for another new piece: there was the same crowding at Covent-garden, to which I again contributed. I was sure, at least, that if the piece advertised was not performed, I should have the pleasure of beholding some very extraordinary scene acted in the pit.

"'Half an hour before the play was to begin, the spectators gave notice of their dispositions by frightful hisses and outcries, equal, perhaps, to what were ever heard at a Roman amphitheatre. I could not have known, but by my eyes only, that I was among an assembly of beings who thought themselves to be reasonable. The author, who had foreseen this fury of the pit, took care to be armed against it. He knew what people he had to deal with, and, to make them easy, put in his prologue double the usual dose of incense that is offered to their vanity; for there is an established tax of this kind, from which no author is suffered to dispense himself. This author's wise precaution succeeded, and the men that were before so redoubtable grew calm; the charms of flattery, more strong than those of music, deprived them of all their fierceness.

"'You see, sir, that the pit is the same in all countries: it loves to be flattered, under the more genteel name of being complimented. If a man has tolerable address at panegyric, they swallow it greedily, and are easily quelled and intoxicated by the draught. Every one in particular thinks he merits the praise that is given to the whole in general; the illusion operates, and the prologue is good, only because it is artfully directed. Every one saves his own blush by the authority of the multitude he makes a part of, which is, perhaps, the only circumstance in which a man can think himself not obliged to be modest.

"'The author having, by flattery, begun to tame this wild audience, proceeded entirely to reconcile it by the first scene of his performance. Two actors came in, one dressed in the English manner very decently, and the other with black eyebrows, a ribbon of an ell long under his chin, a bag-peruke immoderately powdered, and his nose all bedaubed with snuff. What Englishman could not know a Frenchman by this ridiculous picture! The common people of London think we are indeed such sort of folks, and of their own accord, add to our real follies all that their authors are pleased to give us. But when it was found, that the man thus equipped, being also laced down every seam of his coat, was nothing but a cook, the spectators were equally charmed and surprised. The author had taken care to make him speak all the impertinencies he could devise, and for that reason, all the impertinencies of his farce were excused, and the merit of it immediately decided. There was a long criticism upon our manners, our customs, and above all, upon our cookery. The excellence and virtues of English beef were cried up, and the author maintained, that it was owing to the qualities of its juice, that the English were so courageous, and had such a solidity of understanding, which raised them above all the nations in Europe: he preferred the noble old English pudding beyond all the finest ragouts that were ever invented by the greatest geniuses that France has produced; and all these ingenious strokes were loudly clapped by the audience.

"'The pit, biassed by the abuse that was thrown on the French, forgot that they came to damn the play, and maintain the ancient liberty of the stage. They were friends with the players, and even with the court itself, and contented themselves with the privilege left them, of lashing our nation as much as they pleased, in the room of laughing at the expense of the minister. The license of authors did not seem to be too much restrained, since the court did not hinder them from saying all the ill they could of the French.

"'Intractable as the populace appear in this country, those who know how to take hold of their foibles, may easily carry their point. Thus is the liberty of the stage reduced to just bounds, and yet the English pit makes no farther attempt to oppose the new regulation. The law is executed without the least trouble, all the plays since having been quietly heard, and either succeeded, or not, according to their merit.'"

See article in Mr. Archer's "About the Theatre," p. 101, and Parliamentary Reports, 1832 and 1866.

{A} Mr. Garrick, when in Paris, refused to meet this writer, on account of the irreverence with which he had treated Shakspeare.

{B} The action was interrupted almost as soon as begun, in presence of a numerous assembly, by a cabal who had resolved to overthrow the first effect of this act of parliament, though it had been thought necessary for the regulation of the stage.

{C} Called here Inns of Court, as the two Temples, Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Doctor's Commons, &c.

[307] The theatre in Goodman's Fields was opened in October, 1729, by Thomas Odell, who was afterwards Deputy Licenser under the 1737 Act. Odell, having no theatrical experience, entrusted the management to Henry Giffard. Odell's theatre seems to have been in Leman Street.

[308] I can find no hint that plays were ever stopped at Odell's theatre. There is a pamphlet, published in 1730, with the following title: "A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Richard Brocas, Lord Mayor of London. By a Citizen," which demands the closing of the theatre, but I do not suppose any practical result followed. In 1733 an attempt by the Patentees of Drury Lane and Covent Garden to silence Giffard's Company, then playing at his new theatre in Goodman's Fields, was unsuccessful. This theatre was in Ayliffe Street.

[309] Half of Booth's share of the Patent was purchased by Highmore, who also bought the whole of Cibber's share. Giffard was the purchaser of the remainder of Booth's share.

[310] This was John Harper. Davies ("Life of Garrick," i. 40) says that "The reason of the Patentees fixing on Harper was in consequence of his natural timidity." His trial was on the 20th November, 1733. Harper was a low comedian of some ability, but of no great note.

[311] Cibber again alludes to this in Chap. XIII.

[312] Sir Francis Wronghead is a character in "The Provoked Husband," a country squire who comes to London to seek a place at Court. In Act iv. Sir Francis relates his interview with a certain great man: "Sir Francis, says my lord, pray what sort of a place may you ha' turned your thoughts upon? My lord, says I, beggars must not be chusers; but ony place, says I, about a thousand a-year, will be well enough to be doing with, till something better falls in—for I thowght it would not look well to stond haggling with him at first."

[313] Giffard seems to have retained his sixth part.

[314] Some account of the entire dispute between Highmore and his actors will be found in my Supplement to this book.

[315] This "broken Wit" was Henry Fielding, between whom and Cibber there was war to the knife, Fielding taking every opportunity of mocking at Colley and attacking his works.

Mr. Austin Dobson, in his "Fielding," page 66, writes: "When the Champion was rather more than a year old, Colley Cibber published his famous Apology. To the attacks made upon him by Fielding at different times he had hitherto printed no reply—perhaps he had no opportunity of doing so. But in his eighth chapter, when speaking of the causes which led to the Licensing Act, he takes occasion to refer to his assailant in terms which Fielding must have found exceedingly galling. He carefully abstained from mentioning his name, on the ground that it could do him no good, and was of no importance; but he described him as 'a broken Wit,'" &c.

Mr. Dobson, on page 69, gives his approval to the theory that "Fielding had openly expressed resentment at being described by Cibber as 'a broken wit,' without being mentioned by name."

[316] The use of "channel," meaning "gutter," is obsolete in England; but I am sure that I have heard it used in that sense in Scotland. Shakespeare in "King Henry the Sixth," third part, act ii. sc. 2, has,

"As if a channel should be called the sea."

And in Marlowe's "Edward the Second," act i. sc. 1, occur the lines:—