prietors, turned out of Drury Lane Theatre, which passed into the hands of hissupplanter. In the 'Tatler,' No. 99, a humorous account is given of the remarkable transaction by which the way for Gibber's promotion to the management of Drury Lane was prepared. Mrs. Oldfield having been bought out, Swiney, Wilks, Doggett, and Gibber commenced their management of the Haymarket, which had been altered and reconstructed. Gibber's tact asserted itself, and by the close of the season of 1709-10 he was the virtual manager. Gollier, who had found his speculation less successful than he anticipated, now proposed to revert to the agreement formerly existing between Drury Lane and the Haymarket, by which the managements were fused, and the theatres respectively assigned to drama and opera as before, Gollier himself having the sole direction of the opera. This plan, through the influence he possessed at court, he was able to carry out. At the close of this season, finding that opera had been less productive than drama, he once more brought court influence to bear. Swiney was compelled to return to the opera in the sinking condition in which Gollier had left it, with the result that he was ruined and driven to take refuge in France, and Gollier resumed possession of Drury Lane. Gollier, who had obtained for himself Wilks, Doggett, and Gibber, exclusive of Swiney, a new license for Drury Lane, drove a hard bargrain with his associates, the result being that his pernicious influence was got rid of by an annual payment of 700l. The three actors who were left in command were at their best. As their license was revocable at pleasure, they were compelled to strain their powers to give satisfaction; the result, according to Gibber's account, being that Drury Lane enjoyed a continuous spell of prosperity such as it had not previously known. Bills were paid upon demand, abuses in the theatre were reformed, and double salaries were paid to the actors. Gollier, indeed, as Gibber shows, made a bad bargain by accepting his sinecure, the shares of the three other managers 'being never less than a thousand annually to each of us, till the end of the queen's reign in 1714' (ib. p. 382). This period of prosperity continued lor nearly twenty years. The first change of importance took place upon the death of Queen Anne, when the license had to be renewed. Gibber and his associates, who resented the behaviour of Gollier, applied to have the name of Sir Richard Steele substituted for that of Gollier. Through the influence of the Duke of Marlborough this was granted, and on 18 Oct. 1714 a new license was granted to Steele, Wilks, Gibber, Doggett, and Booth. Thanks to the influence of Steele, the license was exchanged for a patent dated 19 Jan. 1715, which was made out to Steele for his own life and three years subsequently. This patent (which had been applied for in consequence of the younger Ricn, under his fathers patent, having opened the new theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields) Steele, according to promise, at once made over to Gibber, Wilks, and Booth. The circumstances under which Barton Booth [q. v.], who had made a great hit in Addison's 'Gato,' one of the early successes of the associated managers, was, through the influence of Lord Bolingbroke, as is supposed, promoted to a share in the management, and the disputes it caused, are fully chronicled in the 'Apology.' Booth joining the management was the cause of the retirement of Doggett, who, declining further to act in the theatre, insisted upon being paid his full share. Upon the refusal of Gibber and Wilks to acquiesce, proceedings in chancery were instituted, with the residt that Doggett was accorded 600l. for his share, with 15 per cent, interest from the date of the last cense (ib. p. 412). At the same time that Doggett retired, Ghristopher Bullock, Keen, Pack, Leigh, and other actors male and female, seceded to join Rich at Lincoln's Inn Fields. No great difficulty appears to have been experienced in filling their places. In 1719-20 lightning from a clear sky came in the shape of an application from the Duke of Newcastle, as lord chamberlain, to Sir Richard Steele and his associates to resign their patent and accept in exchange a license. This they naturally refused. The answer to their refusal on the part of the duke was, in spite of the patent, to shut up the theatre, which remained closed for three days (25-27 Jan. 1720), when, Gibber, Wilks, and Booth having apparently made submission, it was re-opened. This curious stretch of privilege came two years after the successful resistance of the patentees to the payment of a fee of forty shillings demanded hy the master of the revels for reading plays which were not submitted to him, Steele and his associates considering themselves the sole judges of the plays proper to be acted in their theatre. This resistance to authority, of which Gibber gives a full account, is said to have less influenced the Duke of Newcastle than a quarrel with Steele. In the course of this quarrel, an order to dismiss Gibber is said to have been issued, and to have been obeyed by Steele, Wilks, and Booth; but this is mentioned in the 'Apology.' Steele gives a full account of it in the periodical which, imder the assumed name of Sir John Edgar, he published with the title of 'The Theatre,' and in his
