PLAYHOUSE. 
664 
were thought of fo little worth, that about this time fir 
Thomas Skipwith, who, Cibber fays, had an equal right 
with Rich, in a frolic, made a prefent of his Ihare to 
Colonel Brett, a gentleman of fortune, who foon after 
forced himfelf into the management, much againfl the 
inclination of his partner. The ill efFeft of two play- 
houfes being open at once, in point of profit, appeared fo 
evident to Mr. Brett, that the firll object he dedicated 
his attention to was a re-union of the two companies; 
and, through the interpofition of the lord chamberlain, 
he eff'edled it in the year 1708. It was then refolved, 
that the theatre in the Haymarket fliould be appropriated 
to Italian operas, and that in Drury-lane to plays. The 
one was given to Swiny, and the other continued with 
Rich and Brett; the latter of whom, conducting the 
bufinefs of it in a different manner from what it had here¬ 
tofore been, brought it once more into fo good a Hate, 
that Sir Thomas Skipwith repented of his generolity, and 
applied to the Court of Chancery to have the property 
he had given away reftored to him. Colonel Brett, of¬ 
fended at this treatment, relinquifhed his claim ; and 
Mr. Rich again poffelfed himfelf of all the powers of the 
patent. 
Inftead of being warned, by the experience of pafl 
times, to avoid the difficulties which a tyrannical and op- 
preflive behaviour to the performers had created, the 
adding manager refumed his former conduct, without 
fearing or apprehending any refiftance to his meafures. 
Another application to the lord chamberlain was thecon- 
fequence; and that officer, who was fuppofed to pofl'efs 
both an abfolute and undefinable authority over the ftage, 
agreed to permit as many of the actors as chofe to engage 
with Swiny, to defert from Drury-lane, and adit in the 
Haymarket. A private treaty was accordingly entered 
into; and Wilks, Dogget, and Cibber, were propofed to 
be managers and joint-fharers with Swiny in conduct¬ 
ing the theatre, which for the future was to be ufed both 
as a playhoufe and an opera-houfe. After all the pre¬ 
liminaries were fettled, the lord chamberlain ilfued an 
order, dated 7th of June, 1709, forbidding the patentees 
of Drury-lane to perform any longer; on which thehoufe 
was fhut up. 
The deferters immediately began to alter the Hay¬ 
market theatre, in order to obviate the inconveniences 
of its original conftruclion, and make it fit for the repre- 
fentation of dramatic performances. They began to adit 
in the winter of 1709 ; and their audiences fo much ex-, 
ceeded their expeditions, that they would have had 
every reafon to be content with the change which had 
happened, if the dire&ion of the operas, which this 
feafon began to decline, had not greatly diminifhed their 
profits. On the whole, however, they appear to have re¬ 
ceived more than they had done at Drury-lane, and there¬ 
fore were not difiatisfied with their emancipation from 
the authority of their former governor. 
The power of the chamberlain had always been im¬ 
plicitly acknowledged. Thofe therefore who had any 
concern in the interdicted theatre patiently fubmitted 
to the prohibition, and had recourfe only to fupplications 
in order to procure a revocation of the filencing order. 
As it was put in execution fo late in the feafon, no im¬ 
mediate detriment enfued; and it was generally expect¬ 
ed, that, as the time of adling approached in the follow¬ 
ing winter, the proprietors would be permitted to open 
their houfe. The hummer was taken up in petitions to 
the chamberlain, and appeals to the queen’s jultice and 
humanity, both from the patentees and players. The 
applications, however, were not crowned with fuccefs; 
the order was ftill continued in force, and at the begin- 
ing of the feafon one theatre only was employed. 
As foon as it appeared with certainty that the old ma¬ 
nager would not be able to obtain a recall of the order 
for filencing the patent, one who had fome property in 
the houfe, and who had joined in all the applications to 
be relieved againfl the chamberlain’s mandate, deter¬ 
mined to avail himfelf of his intereft at court, and profit 
by the diftrefs of his partners. This was William 
Collier, efq. a lawyer, of an enterprifing head and a 
jovial heart. He was a member of parliament, and by 
his convivial qualities had become a favourite with the* 
people then in power, and was often admitted to partake 
with them in thofe detached hours of life when bufinefs 
was to give way to pleafure. This gentleman, obferving 
the fituation of theatrical affairs to be defperate in the 
hands of Mr. Rich, applied for and obtained a licenfe to 
take the management of the company left at Drury-lane. 
The late patentee, who Hill continued in the theatre, 
though without the power of ufing it, was not to be re¬ 
moved without compulfion. Mr. Collier, therefore, pro¬ 
cured a leafe of the houfe from the landlords of it, and, 
armed with this authority, took the advantage of a re¬ 
joicing night, the zzd of November, when, with a hired 
rabble, he broke into the premifes, and turned the former 
owner out of poffeffion. 
The fcheme which Mr. Collier had engaged in did not 
profper according to his wifhes ; the profits of the feafon 
were very fmall, and by no means a compenfation for the 
trouble, rifk, and expenfe, which he had been at in feat- 
ing himfelf on the theatrical throne. The joint-fharers 
at the Haymarket had acquired both fame and money; 
he therefore meditated an exchange of theatres with 
them, and, by again employing his influence at court, 
foon effected it. By the agreement which was then en¬ 
tered into between the rival managers, the foie licenfe 
for a£ling plays was vefted in Swiny and his partners ; 
and the performance of operas was to be confined to the 
Haymarket, under the direction of Collier. But Collier 
grew again difiatisfied with his Ration, and propofed 
once more to return to the ftage he had abandoned. The 
fame power which had hitherto fupported him in his 
caprices ftill continued to favour him. Swiny was obliged 
to return to the Haymarket; and Collier, Wilks, Dogget, 
and Cibber, remained at Drury-lane; where, from this 
period, the abilities, induftry, and integrity, of the ma¬ 
nagers, brought their theatre into fo much reputation, 
that it became to them the fource of independence during 
the reft of their lives. On the contrary, at the end of the 
firft feafon, Swiny was ruined at the Haymarket, and 
obliged to banifit himfelf from the kingdom. We are 
not informed who immediately fucceeded Collier in the 
management of the opera-houje, or Haymarket Theatre as 
it was ftill called; but, although Handel was in England, 
the time was not arrived for operas to be a profitable 
concern in England. (See the article Mo sic, vol. xvi. p. 
305.) The houfe was burnt down in 1789, and foon 
after rebuilt in a magnificent ftyle, (fee the article 
London, vol. xiii. p. 121, 569, 70.) fince which time it 
has been a conftant fource of difpute and litigation in the 
Court of Chancery. 
As foon as Collier was re-feated at Drury-lane, he once 
more and finally backed out; that is, agreed to accept a 
certain fum annually in lieu of all claims. In 1712, the 
tragedy of Cato was a&ed, wherein Booth acquired fo 
much reputation, that he was encouraged to folicit for a 
fhare in the management of the theatre, and was gra¬ 
tified in it during the lucceeding year. On his intro¬ 
duction, Dogget, in difguft, retired from the manage-- 
ment, to which he never afterwards returned. 
In the year 1714 Queen Anne died; and, among the 
changes which that event brought about, the management 
of Drury-lane theatre was not too iqccnliderable to 
attract the notice of the court. At the defire of the 
acting managers, Sir Richard Steele procured his name to 
be inferred, inftead of Collier’s in a new licenfe jointly 
with them ; and this connexion lafted many years, 
equally to the advantage of all the parties. In this year, 
the prohibition, which the patent had been long under, 
was removed; and Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre was re¬ 
opened under the direction of Mr. John Rich, foil of the 
former patentee. 
No 
