[ [15] Bellchambers notes here that this order was superfluous, because the prohibition was inserted in the Patents given to Davenant and Killigrew. But, whether superfluous or not, I find from the Records of the Lord Chamberlain's Office that this order was frequently made. On 16th April, 1695, an edict was issued forbidding actors to desert from Betterton's company; on 25th July, 1695, desertions from either company were forbidden; and this latter order was reiterated on 27th May, 1697.
[ [16] I do not know whether it is merely a coincidence, but it is curious that, after Betterton got his License (on 25th March, 1695), an edict was issued that no one was to desert from his company to that of the Theatre Royal; while a general order against any desertion from either company to the other was not issued for more than three months after the first edict. The dates, as given in the Records of the Lord Chamberlain's Office, are 16th April and 25th July respectively. If this were intentional, it would form a curious commentary on Cibber's statement.
[ [17] Genest supposes that this incident occurred about June, 1704. But the Lord Chamberlain's Records of that time contain no note of it, and Cibber's language scarcely bears the interpretation that three years elapsed between Powell's leaving Drury Lane and returning to it, as was the case at that time; for he was at Lincoln's Inn Fields for three seasons, 1702 to 1704. I find, however, a warrant, dated 14th November, 1705, to apprehend Powell for refusing to act his part at the Haymarket, so that the audience had to be dismissed, and for trying to raise a mutiny in the company. He was ordered to be confined in the Porter's Lodge until further notice. On the 24th November Rich was informed that Powell had deserted the Haymarket, and was warned not to engage him. Now these desertions must have followed each other pretty closely, for he was at Drury Lane in the beginning of 1705; at the Haymarket in April of the same year; and about six months later had deserted the latter. The sequel to this difficulty seems to be the silencing of Rich for receiving Powell, on 5th March in the fifth year of Queen Anne's reign, that is, 1707. Unless the transcriber of the Records has made a mistake in the year, Powell was thus suspended for about eighteen months. It will be noticed that Cibber does not say that he was acting the night after his release, but merely that he was behind the scenes.
[ [18] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Records is a copy of a decree suspending all performances at Drury Lane because Powell had been allowed to play. This is dated 3rd May, 1698. His offence was that he had drawn his sword on Colonel Stanhope and young Davenant. The suspension was removed the following day; but on the 19th of the same month Powell was forbidden to be received at either Drury Lane or Dorset Garden.
[ [19] A warrant was issued to apprehend Dogget and take him to the Knight Marshall's Prison, on 23rd November, 1697, his offence being desertion of the company of Drury Lane and Dorset Garden. The Records contain no note as to the termination of the matter; but this is, beyond doubt, the occasion referred to by Cibber.
[ [20] Horace, Epis., i. 6, 68.
[ [21] At Drury Lane, 14th April, 1713.
[ [22] This is a pretty way of putting what Johnson, in his Life of Addison, afterwards stated in the well-known words: "The Whigs applauded every line in which Liberty was mentioned, as a satire on the Tories; and the Tories echoed every clap to show that the satire was unfelt." In the next paragraph Johnson describes the play as "supported by the emulation of factious praise."
[ [23] I confess I do not know Cibber's authority for this statement.
[ [24] "The Laureat" abuses Cibber for this sentence, declaring that he evidently considered "Sophocles" to be the name of a tragedy. But Cibber's method of expression, though curious, does not justify this attack.