6G3 
PLAYHQUS E. 
the licenfe granted to Thomas Betterton and others, 
upon the lad day of Aprii, 1695, with Congreve’s virgin 
pi ay of Love for Love, which was afted with extra¬ 
ordinary fuccefs during the remainder of the feafon. 
The profperity of the new houfe, however, was of no long 
continuance. After one or two years fuccefs, the 
audiences .began to decline, and it was found that two 
rival theatres were more than the town was able to 
fupport. The old houfe fuffered all the diltrefles which 
obftinacy and ignorance in a manager, at the head of a 
raw unexperienced fet of aftors, could produce. Having 
little judgment to direct him in the conduft of a theatre, 
he not only permitted the beft plays to be mangled by 
the mod defpicable performers, but, by the introduftion 
of tumblers and buffoons, and other extravagancies, 
brought the entertainments of the ftage to the lowed 
degreeof contempt. Butnow cameadroke of cunningas 
Rich imagined, which, whether or not it might benefit him, 
was fure to injure the intered of his adverfaries. He had 
conceived that, as fervants have generally the ear of their 
inaders and miftrefles, if he could ingratiate himfelf with 
thofe he fhould foon fill his boxes, to the defertion of the 
other houfe. Footmen had never before this time been 
admitted into the theatre, except to wait the pleafure of 
their employers, norat all till after the fourth aft of the 
play. Determined therefore to fecure their intered, he 
opened the upper gallery gratis for their reception ; and, 
“ if he did this to get applaufe,” fays Cibber. “ he certain¬ 
ly fucceeded, for it often thundered from the full gallery 
above, while the thin pit and fcanty boxes below were 
in a date of perfedt ferenity.” This fhameful cudom, 
which continued fo long, and was with fuch difficulty 
fliaken off; was the mod flagrant difgrace the theatre ever 
fudained. But he was not content witli this. Conceiv¬ 
ing that fafhionable bucks and fprigs of quality would 
come to the theatre with more readinefs if they could 
get accefs to the aftors and aftreffes, he admitted fuch 
as would pay behind the fcenes; a cudom that druck 
at the very exidence of all decency and decorum, and 
indeed went to render the performance almod impracti¬ 
cable. This, however, Cibber, when he came to be one 
of the managers, contrived as he tells us,’ at the hazard 
of their lives, to abolifh ; “ after which,” fays he, “we 
brought what had before difgraced the theatre into all 
the licenfes of a lobby, into the decencies of a drawing¬ 
room.” 
While the rival theatres were contending againd each 
other with inveterate malice, an enemy to the very tole¬ 
ration of dramatic entertainments appeared, who, with 
confiderable ability, and with all the rigid puritanical 
maxims of a fevere feft, attacked the dage on account of 
its profanenefs and immorality. This was the celebrated 
Jeremy Collier, who, in 1697, publiffied a book, contain¬ 
ing a fevere inveftive againd the afting of plays, the pro¬ 
fligacy of the performers, and the licentioufnefs of the 
poets; and having forne truth and jufliee on his fide, 
the advocates for the theatre found themfelves hard 
prefled to anfwer the charges brought againd their fa¬ 
vourite diversion. It cannot be denied but that many 
authors, and fome in great favour with the public, had 
written in a manner which warranted the cenfure of 
every perfon who profefled the lead regard to propriety 
or decency. Mr. Collier was oppofed by Congreve, 
Vanbrugh, Dryden, Dennis, and others, with wit and 
humour, but without confuting the objeftions which had 
been darted, either againd themfelves individually, or 
againd the dage in general. This controverfy produced 
as much as could be wifhed for from it. Cibber obferves, 
the calling our dramatic writers to this drift account 
“ had a very wholefome effeft upon thofe who writ after 
this time. They were now a great deal more upon their 
guard ; indecencies were no longer wit; and by degrees 
the fair fex came again to fill the boxes on the firlt day 
of a new comedy, without fear or cenfure.” 
The managers, afting under the united patents, had 
hitherto made ufe of both the theatres in Dorfet Garden 
and Drury Lane; but about this time, as we have noticed 
above, the former of thefe houfes was deferred. The 
new Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre was final], and poorly 
fitted up; in fhort, very infufficient for the purpofes of 
profit or fplendour. Thefe confiderations induced fir 
John Vanbrugh to procure fubfcriptions for erefting a 
new and magnificent playhoufe on the weft fide of the 
Haymarket, calculated to do honour to the architect and 
to the nation, and at the fame time produce wealth to 
thofe who were concerned in it. The fum of 3000I. was 
immediately raifed, and the building began under fir 
John’s direftion. On this fcheme being propofed, it was 
agreed that Betterton fhould affign over to Vanbrugh his 
licenfe, and for the future ferve only as an aftor, without 
any concern in the conduft or direftion of the theatre. 
Betterton had now been upon the ftage between forty and 
fifty years, and found the infirmities of age beginning to 
make inroads upon his conftitution ; he was therefore 
defirous of repofe, and to be relieved from the fatigues of 
management. In thedatter part of the year 1704, he per¬ 
formed his part of the agreement, by furrendering to fir 
John Vanbrugh all his right and intereft in the licenfe 
granted to him. The new proprietor affociated himfelf 
with Mr. Congreve ; and, from the joint abilities of fuch 
excellent writers, great expectations were formed. On 
the 9th of April, 1705, the theatre was opened with an 
Italian opera, which did not meet with the fuccefs ex- 
pefted from it. The failure of their firft hope obliged 
the principal manager to exert himfelf; and he accord¬ 
ingly, with that happy facility which accompanied him 
in writing, immediately produced no lefs than four new 
pieces. But thefe were infufficient to bring the theatre 
into reputation. It was foon found, that the architect 
of it was better qualified to fupport the ftage by his 
writings than to conftruft houfes to aft his performances 
in. Every piece reprefented appeared under manifeft dis¬ 
advantage. The edifice was a vaft triumphal piece of 
architecture, wholly unfit for every purpofe of con¬ 
venience; the maffy columns, the gilded cornices, and 
lofty roofs, availed very little, when fcarcely one word 
in ten could be diftinftly heard, for it had not then the 
form it (the opera-houfe) has now. To thefe difadvan- 
tages the fituation might be added ; it had not at that 
time the benefit of a large city, which has fince been 
built in its neighbourhood, and it was too remote from 
the then frequenters of the theatre to be much attended 
by them. All thefe circumftances uniting together, af¬ 
forded fo little profpeft of profit or fuccefs, that, in a few 
months, Mr. Congreve gave up his (hare and intereft 
wholly to Sir John Vanbrugh ; who, at the end of the 
fecond feafon, either finding the gains which arofe from 
the management too few, or the troubles arifing from it 
too many, grew aifo difgufted with his fituation, and 
wilhed to be relieved from if. But of fo little value was 
the theatre confidered at that junfttire, that no perfon 
thought it of confequence enough to apply for it. At 
length it was offered to Mr. Owen Mac Swiny, a mere 
adventurer, without property, who had been employed 
by Mr. Rich as under-manager, and who, with the con¬ 
currence of his principal, agreed for it at the rate of five 
pounds for every afting day, and not to exceed 700I. in 
the year. The new manager entered upon his under¬ 
taking in the latter part of the year 1706, and at the end 
of the firft feafon found that he had confiderably im¬ 
proved his fortune. 
From the time that Mr. Rich got poffeffion of Drury 
Lane Theafre, he had paid no regard to the property of 
any of the parties who had joint interefts with him, but 
proceeded as though he was hole proprietor of it. What¬ 
ever he received lie kept to himfelf, without accounting 
to any of his partners ; and he had continued this mode 
of conduft fo long, that thofe who had any claims on the 
theatre abandoned them, in defpair of ever receiving any 
advantage from them. The concerns of the playhoufe 
were 
