¹ The London Stage, 1660–1800, Part 3: 1729–1747, ed. Arthur H. Scouten, 2 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961). In the List of References (I:xvii), the entry for this manuscript is conflated with the entry for Egerton 2268, the Covent Garden account book for 1746–47.

² Highfill, Philip H. Jr, Burnim, Kaiman A., and Langhans, Edward A., A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers, and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, 16 vols, in progress (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973-).Google Scholar

³ For information on Haslewood (1769–1833), see the DNB. After his death his reputation became a point of contention among amateur scholars, and as late as 1921 Thom-Drury, G. dedicated A Little Ark (London: P. J. & A. E Dobell)Google Scholar to his memory. Haslewood was more careful than most nineteeneth-century editors. In 1890 Joseph Jacobs. reprinted William Painter's The Palace of Pleasure line for line from the limited edition Haslewood had printed privately in 1813 (reprinted in 3 vols., London: David Nutt, 1890). Jacobs commented that “it is chiefly in the mint and cummin of capitals and italics that we have been able to improve on Haslewood: in all the weightier matters of editing he shows only the minimum of fallibility.”

⁴ Egerton 2267 lists payments to the previous treasurer, Wood, for £40 10s at irregular intervals between mid-November and June (5s per diem for 162 days). Folio 181 of the Smith manuscript shows that Ford was paid more and worked longer, so he had replaced Wood as senior treasurer by the beginning of the 1735–36 season.

⁵ This document is evidently the source for the oft-reprinted record of Handel's payments to Rich this season, published by Husk in 1857 without exact citation and an annoying mystery ever since. See Husk, William Henry, An Account of the Musical Celebrations on St. Cecilia's Day (London, 1857), 67–68.Google Scholar

⁶ Printed from British Library 11791.dd.18 (vol. 3), folios 177–89, with the kind permission of The British Library. Folios 1–169 of this manuscript are a transcription of parts of “Rich's Register.”

⁷ Egerton 2267, folio 165, records a total of only 162 salary payments to Rich. The “full season” Figures include payments for nights when Handel preempted the actors from Covent Garden. For discussion, see Appendix A, below.

⁸ Folger MS Y.d. 135 is an agreement between Rich and Fleetwood, signed 12 December 1735, to split the profits of their respective theatres for the rest of the season. We have no evidence that this agreement was actually carried out. For discussion, see Hume, Robert D., Henry Fielding and the London Theatre, 1716–1737 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 201–202.Google Scholar

⁹ Haslewood continues, “It does not appear that Merlin was acted on those Nights at Covent Garden according to the register kept by C[hristopher] M[osier] Rich, but it may refer to some opening of Lincoln's Inn Fields & that John Rich was alone interested.” However, Merlin was a short title for Edward Phillips' The Royal Chace, or Merlin's Cave, which opened at Covent Garden 23 January and played as recorded. Despite Haslewood's assertion, the pantomime duly appears on folio 145 of the Smith version of “Rich's Register.”

¹⁰ The entry continues: “Memorandum: On Authority of Register of Qhristopher] M[osier] R[ich] they performed seven nights.” Smith's version of “Rich's Register,” folios 144v–145v, lists nineteen performances between 18 December and 20 February, excluded from The London Stage by editorial policy.

¹¹ The entry continues, “Query: If this was the Tavern in Bow Street.”

¹² Roger Bridgwater, Dennis Delane, and John Beard are among the other actors missing.

¹³ The elder Stoppelaer announced his benefit in a letter signed with this name (Grub Street Journal, 29 April 1736).

¹⁴ The Smith copyist failed to mark the end of a quotation that begins with “seven.” Other instances of this problem will not be noted. The passage continues, “It was probably the performance of Alzira, (see close of that season in register of C M. R[ich]) and that the debt due from him was only a proportion.” But Haslewood misread the “Register”: Alzira was part of the 1736 summer season, not that of 1735.

¹⁵ Advertised only on 16 April at Lincoln's Inn Fields, and may have performed only on that day. This salary appears to represent a pension.

¹⁶ This interruption in Hale's tenure at Covent Garden is not noticed in the Biographical Dictionary, 7:19–20.

¹⁷ He owed the company £2 12s rent on Lincoln's Inn Fields for a benefit 19 April (see folio 186 below).

¹⁸ The Biographical Dictionary, 8:133, reports that James lost £41 4s on his benefit, but we believe this figure was merely the amount still owing on the £60 charge. Ticket sales (£126 18s) provided much more than the deficit, and James no doubt got part of the costs from his co-beneficiaries.

¹⁹ Hallam's salary at the rate listed should be £21 10s. Egerton 2267, folio 134, reports the same sum in money at his benefit on 6 April 1736. The coincidence suggests that the original writer reversed the Figures when making up the manuscript Haslewood copied and that the figure for money should be £26 12s 6d.

²⁰ This salary is not noted in the Biographical Dictionary, 7:49–51.

²¹ On 24 May, according to the London Daily Post and General Advertiser, Smith, “being disorder'd in his Senses threw himself out of his Lodging Window… broke his Arm all to shatters, and is so much bruised, that his life is despaired of.” But he probably recovered, or he would not have been paid through 8 June.

²² Those lost include Miss Bincks (paid 8s 4d—folio 189); Mis. Buchanan (probably paid 16s 10s, like Chapman and Mrs. Hallam); perhaps Mile D'Hervigni; Miss Norsa (paid 10s); and Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Stevens, whose salaries are not known.

²³ This salary is not noted in the Biographical Dictionary, 11:147–49.

²⁴ From her position in this list, we deduce that this woman is not a house servant but the performer listed as “Miss Ambrose [fl. 1731–1732]” in the Biographical Dictionary, 1:70–71.

²⁵ Advertised at Covent Garden from 6 March; for discussion see the Biographical Dictionary, 9:114–19;

²⁶ The Biographical Dictionary does not list Menton.

²⁷ The Biographical Dictionary, 11:2–3, does not mention this salary.

²⁸ To save space we have condensed the format of this table and the one for the charwomen that follows.

²⁹ The Smith copyist marks the different spellings of this name.

³⁰ By straightforward calculation a billsetter at 16d for 218 days would make £14 10s 8d; at 17d, £15 & 10d; at 19d, £17 5s 2d. But some billsetters appear also to have held positions on the house staff: see folios 188v–189.

³¹ Both copyists use the old abbreviation “Dr” (debtor) where “debit” is the standard modern usage.

³² The format of this table has been condensed. The Latreille copyist incorrectly records 30 gallery tickets for Sadler (cf. folio 188 below). A memorandum in the Smith manuscript lists the standard benefit prices: Box 5s, Pit 3s, Gallery 2s.

³³ Two Bewleys appear on folio 189 below. John, who made 5s per night, was the stage doorkeeper; William, , who made 2s per night, was a boxkeeper. See the Biographical Dictionary, 2:105.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jones assisted John Bewley at the stage door see folio 189 below.

³⁵ Haslewood speculates that, “It might be the fact that on the other Evenings Royalty carried ready Money.”

³⁶ For “Workmen” the Latreille copyist wrote “Workman,” but as house tailor Grainger would have employed a number of journeymen. (The Biographical Dictionary, 6:300, lists him at Lincoln's Inn Fields in the 1720s, but gives no later record of him.)

³⁷ In differently worded notes both copyists speculate that this was the rector.

³⁸ Haslewood notes, “A few names where Station not mentioned and only a money entry without interest or information, I have omitted.”

³⁹ The Smith copyist asks, “Query: what reason?” The name “Pepusch” is written in a different hand. The Latreille copyist records, “Dr. Pepusch (called Papush)” and puts the entry in quotation marks.

⁴⁰ The fireworks probably enhanced scene 4 of Theobald's, LewisThe Rape of Proserpine (1727)Google Scholar, where “An Earthquake is felt, and part of the Building [the Palace of Ceres] falls; and through the Ruins of the fall'n Palace Mount Ætna appears, and emits Flames. Beneath, a Giant is seen to rise, but is dash'd to pieces by a Thunder-bolt hurld from Jupiur.”

⁴¹ Haslcwood continues, “The above entry copied verbatim. How a deficiency and surplus is formed upon same sum of £50 seems a riddle, unless Rich demanded an advance, as in the case of a benefit, of £50 and sum paid down only £38 17,4 leaving a deficiency of £11 3s.” The Latreille manuscript continues, “Nonsense. If Mr Hazlewood had looked to the dates before making this stupid remark he would have seen that the deficiency arose from the performance and ‘dismiss’ of the previous Season and the surplus from the performance of February 26.1736 ‘by Command of the Princesses.’-F.L” Egerton 2267, folio 109, reports receipts of £112 14s for 26 February 1736. The Latreille copyist records the date on which Popple was paid as IS March 1735/6.

⁴² Both copyists mark the misspelling of Handel's name. For “Kipling” (Handel's treasurer), the Latreille copyist wrote “Ripley,” which another hand has corrected.

⁴³ After this entry the Smith copyist adds “Q. The Author of the life of Garrick?” This query does not appear in the Latreille manuscript.

⁴⁴ In this list the Latreille manuscript differs from Smith's in several minor particulars, such as the spelling of Stoppelaer and the amounts for Walker (£10 13s) and Miss Norsa (£6 4s). The Latreille copyist errs in reading “Mr.” for “Mrs.” Hallam, since the Adam Hallam entry is distinguished by an initial. The “Mr.” Wright on both lists is likelier to have been the popular songstress than a man entitled to sign orders but otherwise unrecorded.

⁴⁵ The Smith copyist marked the pis in Hippisley's name, evidently to contrast it with “Hippesley” on folios 177v and 184v.

⁴⁶ After this entry is a note, “Memorandum: a leaf wanting.” Since the list of orders comes in random sequence, we cannot guess what names or how many are missing. No servants appear on the list as preserved.

⁴⁷ The Latreille copyist skipped the passage on Mr. Este altogether, and along with it a note, “(Leaf wanting),” but in the Galliard entry he gave the £60 total, which was omitted by the Smith copyist. Again, there is no internal evidence to suggest what might have been on the missing leaf.

⁴⁸ According to The London Stage, this benefit was advertised simply for a “Gentlewoman under Misfortunes.” Egerton 2267, folio 156v, reports ready money as £18 18s 6d, but the math requires that the total be 10s less.

⁴⁹ The Latreille copyist records the second date as “July 31.” The table that follows has been condensed from separate lists of tickets handed out, tickets sold, and money turned in. “Mr.” Tubman is probably the woman servant by that name, and ‘Taylor” is probably Mr. Tyler (see folio 182v).

⁵⁰ “13 of 44” is evidently an error, either in the original or by Haslewood. Folio 182r gives “4 Box,” and the cash total proves that figure correct.

⁵¹ Haslewood says, “Eight other servants are named, but the above is sufficient to show the manner of distribution.” Since the missing names can be identified from the wording of their entries in folios 181v–184v, we have supplied them.

⁵² The alleged quotation presumably ends with Daniel French's ‘signature’ at the end of folio 188v. We have not preserved lineation and we have applied our standard editorial policy to the passage.

⁵³ “Tyle” appears to indicate a checking system, since these people are not the regular house staff listed on folio 189 below. The OED cites tyle as an alternate form of tile and gives a backformation related to Freemasonry: ‘To protect (a lodge or meeting) from interruption and intrusion … by placing a Tiler before the door.” Their first example is dated 1762. Their first example of slips to mean theatre benches dates from 1805.

⁵⁴ A bracketed note against the gallery entries says “64 paid in the above.”

⁵⁵ The correct totals are 56 Box, 412 Pit, and 128 Gallery. We cannot explain such wide discrepancies.

⁵⁶ This list matches standard prices in Egerton 2267 for a side drum, daily barbers’ services, and guards. Music ran as low as £3 11s 6d early in the season, but went up to £4 1s 10d after September. Candles were charged at £3 per night. Powell's bill for shifting scenes in a double bill was usually £2 5s. The other costs varied. Egerton 2267, folio 7, identifies the property man as Mr. Burnley.

⁵⁷ The Smith copyist reads “Barr”; the Latreille copyist's “Door” is more plausible.

⁵⁸ Haslewood concludes, “Two or three trifling Entries as to the Servants followed the above which did not appear worth copying.”

⁵⁹ The plan, LC 7/3, folios 161–64, is printed in Nicoll, Allardyce, A History of English Drama, 1660–1900, rev. ed., 6 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952–1959), 2:276–78.Google Scholar See also Milhous, Judith, “The Date and Import of the Financial Plan for a United Theatre Company in P.R.O. LC 7/3,” Maske und Kothurn 21 (1975): 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a Covent Garden paylist from the beginning of the 1760–61 season, see 22 September 1760 in The London Stage, Part 4: 1747–1776, ed. George Winchester Stone, Jr., 3 vols. (1962).

⁶⁰ Relevant figures are preserved in P.R.O. LC 5/204, pp. 62–98, and are printed and analyzed in Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert D., “David Garrick and Box-Office Receipts at Drury Lane in 1742–43,” Philological Quarterly 67 (1988): 32–44.Google Scholar See also the plate in The London Stage, Part 3, opposite 2:966.

⁶¹ Rich returned £200 to the company on account of a deficit: see The London Stage, 25 May 1761.

⁶² Cibber, Colley, Apology for the Life, ed. Lowe, Robert W., 2 vols. (1889; reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1966), 2:203.Google Scholar

⁶³ The Case of Ute Comedians, &c belonging to the Theatre in Goodman's-Fields (a petition against the Barnard Playhouse Bill), printed by Liesenfeld, Vincent J., The Licensing Act 0/1737 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 170.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See The London Stage, Part 5:1776–1800, ed. Charles Beecher Hogan, 3 vols. (1968), 1:xxxiii–xxxv; Trapido, Joel, Langhans, Edward A., and Brandon, James R., An International Dictionary of Theatre Language (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1985)Google Scholar, sv. orders.

⁶⁵ Egerton 2267 lists Harper for performances of The Beggar's Opera at 55 per night. Rich evidently borrowed him from Drury Lane on these occasions. He was advertised for a non-Drury Lane performance only on 14 April 1736, when he performed at Lincoln's Inn Fields in a benefit for Macklin.

⁶⁶ During this season both “Mrs.” and “Mile” Delorme were advertised. According to The London Stage, only on 10 January 1736 were both names listed on the same day, and then in different works. Although the Biographical Dictionary, 4:299–300, treats them as two people, we are not certain that this was the case.

⁶⁷ Galliard is listed only for a benefit on 2 March, not for any salary or group payment. He is the likeliest candidate for bandleader in the Haslewood manuscript, though Short had been bandleader and would be again the next season.

⁶⁸ See note 19, above.

⁶⁹ The London Stage erroneously reports the money total as £100 14s, and fails to note that Egerton 2267, folios 135v–136, attributes the play to “Mr Phillips” (i.e., Edward Phillips). See Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert D., “The Authorship of Marforio (1736),” English Language Nous, 26 (1988), 22–25.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ By analogy from Galliard, we assume that singers paid £60 in charges.

⁷¹ Mrs. Bullock advertised that sciatica in her hip had kept her from taking tickets around town.

⁷² Apparently because they were married, the Mullarts were charged only £50 for the benefit, but he owed £36 15s toward rent from the previous summer. Roberts is also named a beneficiary on 3 May in the Smith version of “Rich's Register,” folio 147. If true, this would affect the figure for the Mullarts’ income.

⁷³ Misreported as £46 3s in The London Stage.

⁷⁴ We are grateful to Kathryn Hume and for advice and criticism.