Mr. Colman was scarcely gone before Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Woodward came in; and, I have some reason to think, on the same business; as the former immediately exclaimed, "Have you signed it?" Upon my answering in the negative, but acknowledging that the paper was left with me for my consideration, Mr. Rutherford wanted me to show it to him. This I absolutely refused to do; saying, I wondered any gentleman who professed liberal sentiments could advise a breach of trust. He told me that, if he had got hold of it, he would have burnt it, as he was sure two capital performers had signed it, who would not have done so had another paper been presented in their favour. We have here, too, a sketch of the eccentric patronesses of "The Beggar's Opera," whom we have met before. At length the day of my benefit came. The Douglas cause was decided that day in their favour, to the very great mortification of the house of Hamilton. When my two patronesses appeared the applause was great, but, upon the young gentleman's entering, it increased; and the Duchess of Douglas, making more courtesies upon the occasion than her companion thought needful, she leaned over the young gentleman who sat between them, and cried out, "Sit down, Peg!" This had such an effect upon me, who stood on the same side ready to make my appearance, that I burst into such a fit of laughter as prevented me from going on immediately, as I ought to have done. But this was not all. Her grace being in high goodhumour, she kept calling out, occasionally loud enough for me to hear, "Well said, Mary!" "Bravo, Mary!" which, united with the former, was very near turning the said story we were enacting into a tragi-comedy; for it was with the greatest difficulty I could keep my risible faculties in any decorum. The quarrels between the managers were further inflamed by the presence of a stormy personage, who generally brought contention with him. This was Macklin, who at once took part against Colman, joining with gusto in the fray, and, it was said, drawing up the bills in Chancery himself. His cause of dislike was the treatment of his daughter, who had declined a part for not having time given her to study it. The following might find a place in a novel, or have come from the pen of Captain Costigan: SIR, I have been informed that, upon receipt of Miss Macklin's note on Wednesday night, you concluded that it was a note of evasion, and calculated to distress you, and to obstruct the business of Covent Garden Theatre. And I am likewise informed that, the next day, in a spirit of high indignation, you publicly read her note in Mr. Griffin's, the bookseller shop, in Catherine Street, and at the same time made this remarkable comment on it: "That it was evasive and jesuitical, and calculated to injure the play, and that I was privy to and advising in the measure.' The disagreements among the proprietors of Covent Garden have turned that theatre into a den of faction and a forge of falsehood. I do not suppose that the managers or actors of St. Stephen's Chapel, in the most factious and corrupt era, ever produced more slander and falsehood than the theatre of Covent Garden has caused during the short period of your management; or a more malignant spirit, or a greater liar, than the person who writes "The Theatrical Monitor," as I hope to prove in the course of this inquiry; and I must add that, as far as positive evidence and unforced deductions lead to truth, Mr. Colman and Mr. Powell, on this and many occasions relative to me, have been the forgers and propagators of much untruth. But the special accounts of these ingenious forgeries shall, in proper time and place, be laid before the public. At present, sir, I mean to confine my inquiry only to a scandalous report, relative to your conduct towards Miss Macklin and me about "Cyrus." CHAPTER VII. GOLDSMITH. THE year 1765 was remarkable for the foundation of a great benefit society for actors, who, when grown old or otherwise unable to pursue their profession, might reckon on an honourable means of support, which they had purchased, as it were, by contributions made in the more flourishing times. Mrs. Hamilton, a well-known actress, had fallen into a piteous state, and had become literally destitute in the prime of life, and this discovery seemed to have caused universal alarm in the profession. Mr. Thomas Hull, a worthy actor and an officer of Covent Garden, seized the opportunity to propose a scheme, the chief points of which were that it should be confined to the Covent Garden players, that sixpence a week should be contributed, subscriptions invited, and an annual benefit secured. In this way a fund was gathered. When Mr. Garrick returned from abroad and found this step had been taken without consulting him, he was exceedingly angry and much mortified, as it seemed a slight to one who was admitted to be the head of his profession. This institution (said Mathews, in a pleasant speech at one of the dinners) had been founded in the year 1765, and there had been at various times since a dispute as to " who was the founder." Some said that Mattocks was the founder, others that it was Mr. Hull. There had been a kind of what he (Mr. Mathews) would term an amiable dispute amongst the relatives and admirers of Messrs. Hull, Mattocks, and the celebrated Garrick, with whom the idea of a theatrical fund originated. The Covent Garden institution certainly was founded by the two former. Each claimed the merit of the suggestion; and on application for an Act of Parliament they ran a race for the prize-it was nearly a "dead heat; " but Garrick won by gaining the Act of Parliament before Covent Garden. However, from that year up to the year 1815 the society had been supported by the actors, occasionally assisted by other contributors. Fawcett (he added) established the dinners. Being mollified, however, Garrick consented to set on foot a similar institution for his own theatre, which was done in 1766. He entered into the scheme with extraordinary ardour, gave it an annual benefit, performed for it himself, and, as it was calculated, added to its funds by his own hearty exertions no less a sum than 45001.-an instance of co-operation truly magnificent. In May, 1776, when both funds obtained an Act of Parliament, he defrayed the expenses of that for Drury Lane. It was obvious that these two institutions were based on the principle that every actor, to gain its advantages, must be connected for a long term of years with the respective theatres, and this again implied in the latter a regular perseverance and prosperity. This, unfortunately, could not be guaranteed. With the beginning of the century began the growth of the minor theatres; and actors, instead of rising from the ranks in a sort of meritorious progression, began to fall away in search of higher salaries. In this way the supporters became scattered, though the funds were slowly accumulating. It was accordingly felt that the basis should be widened, the whole remodelled, and the local restriction abolished. Accordingly, in 1838, the General Theatrical Fund (afterwards "Royal") was established by a union of the two age old ones, Sheridan Knowles and Elton taking an important part in the transaction. By the new rules the benefits were extended to singers and dancers and prompters, who had practised five years; seven years' subscriptions were necessary before receiving the benefit. A subscriber of twenty-one, who paid about 4s., 8s., or 12s., should become entitled to 40l., 80l., or 120l. annuities, according to the class, up to the of fifty-three and upwards, when the payments of 21. 78. 5d., 4l. 14s. 10d., and 71. 2s. 3d. respectively were necessary to secure the same annuities. If, however, the annuitants were in receipt, from other sources, of means from 90l. to 1401. a year, they were not entitled to receive anything from the fund. In 1853, a charter of incorporation was obtained. In 1791, the stock of the fund stood at 60501.; the receipts at Drury Lane were 6951. 68. 2 d., and the expenditure 5851. 148. 3d. In 1881, at the dinner, when Mr. Irving took the chair, the stock was 13301. and the expenditure was 174417. the receipts being supplemented by dinners and donations. possess an almost complete series of the reports from the very first year, with the notes of the secretaries for toasts and suggestions to the Duke of York. I find the following among these papers. The following memorandums as to theatrical dinners were received from the secretaries of each fund named, taken from their books: I The first Covent Garden Theatrical Fund Dinner took place at Freemasons' Hall, January 30th, 1816. The Duke of York took the chair, supported by the Dukes of Sussex and Kent, etc. The last dinner of the Covent Garden Theatrical Fund took place on May 26th, 1847; the Duke of Cambridge in the chair. The first time ladies sang at C. G. T. F. dinners was in 1824 or 1825, when Miss Paton, Miss Stephens, and Miss Love sang. (Signed) To John Povey. DRINKWATER MEADOWs, Secretary of C. G. T. Fund. |