Notes and Queries, Number 12, January 19, 1850. Various

Gay's Beggar's Opera on its first production; it was offered to Colley Cibber at Drury Lane, and refused, and the author took it to Rich, at the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields theatre, by whom it was accepted, but not without hesitation. It ran for 62 nights (not 63 nights, as has been stated in some authorities) in the season of 1727–1728; of these, 32 nights were in succession; and, from the original Account-book of the manager, C.M. Rich, I am enabled to give an exact statement of the money taken at the doors on each night, distinguishing such performances as were for the benefit of the author, viz. the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 15th nights, which put exactly 693l. 13s. 6d. into Gay's pocket. This is a new circumstance in the biography of one of our most fascinating English writers, whether in prose or verse. Rich records that the king, queen, and princesses were present on the 21st repetition, but that was by no means one of the fullest houses. The very bill sold at the doors on the occasion has been preserved, and hereafter may be furnished for the amusement of your readers. It appears, that when the run of the Beggar's Opera was somewhat abruptly terminated by the advance of the season and the benefits of the actors, the "takings," as they were and still are called, were larger than ever. The performances commenced on 29th January, 1728, and that some striking novelty was required at the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields theatre, to improve the prospects of the manager, may be judged from the fact that the new tragedy of Sesostris, brought out on the 17th January, was played for the benefit of its author (John Sturm) on its 6th night to only 58l. 19s., while the house was capable of holding at least 200l.

      In the following statement of the receipts to the Beggar's Opera, I have not thought it necessary to insert the days of the months:—

      Therefore, when the run was interrupted, the attraction of the opera was greater than it had been on any previous night, excepting the 6th, which was one of those set apart for the remuneration of the author, when the receipt was 189l. 11s. The total sum realised by the 32 successive performances was 5351l. 15s., of which, as we have already shown, Gay obtained 693l. 13s 6d. To him it was all clear profit; but from the sum obtained by Rich are, of course, to be deducted the expenses of the company, lights, house-rent, &c.

      The successful career of the piece was checked, as I have said, by the intervention of benefits, and the manager would not allow it to be repeated even for Walker's and Miss Fenton's nights, the Macheath and Polly of the opera; but, in order to connect the latter with it, when Miss Fenton issued her bill for The Beaux's Stratagem, on 29th April, it was headed that it was "for the benefit of Polly." An exception was, however, made in favour of John Rich, the brother of the manager, for whose benefit the Beggar's Opera was played on 26th February, when the receipt was 184l. 15s. Miss Fenton was allowed a second benefit, on the 4th May, in consequence, we may suppose, of her great claims in connection with the Beggar's Opera, and then it was performed to a house containing 155l. 4s. The greatest recorded receipt, in its first season, was on the 13th April, when, for some unexplained cause the audience was so numerous that 198l. 17s. were taken at the doors.

      After this date there appears to have been considerable fluctuation in the profits derived from repetitions of the Beggar's Opera. On the 5th May, the day after Polly Fenton's (her real name was Lavinia) second benefit, the proceeds fell to 78l. 14s., the 50th night produced 69l. 12s., and the 51st only 26l. 1s. 6d. The next night the receipt suddenly rose again to 134l. 13s. 6d., and it continued to range between 53l. and 105l. until the 62nd and last night (19th June), when the sum taken was 98l. 17s. 6d.

      Miss Fenton left the stage at the end of the season, to be made Duchess of Bolton, and in the next season her place, as regards the Beggar's Opera, was taken by Miss Warren, and on 20th September it attracted 75l. 7s.; at the end of November it drew only 23l., yet, on the 11th December, for some reason not stated by the manager, the takings amounted to 112l. 9s. 6d. On January 1st a new experiment was tried with the opera, for it was represented by children, and the Prince of Wales commanded it on one or more of the eight successive performances it thus underwent. On 5th May we find Miss Cantrell taking Miss Warren's character, and in the whole, the Beggar's Opera was acted more than forty times in its second year, 1728–9, including the performances by "Lilliputians" as well as comedians. This is, perhaps, as much of its early history as your readers will care about.

DRAMATICUS.

      NOTES UPON CUNNINGHAM'S HANDBOOK FOR LONDON

      Lady Dacre's Alms-Houses, or Emanuel Hospital.—"Jan. 8. 1772, died, in Emanual Hospital, Mrs. Wyndymore, cousin of Mary, queen of William III., as well as of Queen Anne. Strange revolution of fortune, that the cousin of two queens should, for fifty years, by supported by charity."—MS. Diary, quoted in Collett's Relics of Literature, p. 310.

      Essex Buildings.—"On Thursday next, the 22nd of this instant, November, at the Musick-school in Essex Buildings, over against St. Clement's Church in the Strand, will be continued a concert of vocal and instrumental musick, beginning at five of the clock, every evening. Composed by Mr. Banister."—Lond. Gazette, Nov. 18. 1678. "This famous 'musick-room' was afterwards Paterson's auction-room."—Pennant's Common-place Book.

      St. Antholin's.—In Thorpe's Catalogue of MSS. for 1836 appears for sale, Art. 792., "The Churchwarden's Accounts, from 1615 to 1752, of the Parish of St. Antholin's, London." Again, in the same Catalogue, Art. 793., "The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of St. Antholin's, in London, Accounts from 1638 to 1700 inclusive." Verily these books have been in the hands of "unjust stewards!"

      Clerkenwell.—Names of eminent persons residing in this parish in 1666:—Earl of Carlisle, Earl of Essex, Earl of Aylesbury, Lord Barkely, Lord Townsend, Lord Dellawar, Lady Crofts, Lady Wordham, Sir John Keeling, Sir John Cropley, Sir Edward Bannister, Sir Nicholas Stroude, Sir Gower Barrington, Dr. King, Dr. Sloane. In 1667-8:—Duke of Newcastle, Lord Baltimore, Lady Wright, Lady Mary Dormer, Lady Wyndham, Sir Erasmus Smith, Sir Richard Cliverton, Sir John Burdish, Sir Goddard Nelthorpe, Sir John King, Sir William Bowles, Sir William Boulton.—Extracted from a MS. in the late Mr. Upcott's Collection.

      Tyburn Gallows.—No. 49. Connaught Square, is built on the spot where this celebrated gallows stood; and, in the lease granted by the Bishop of London, this is particularly mentioned.

EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

      SEWERAGE IN ETRURIA

      I have been particularly struck, in reading The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, of George Dennis, by the great disparity there appears between the ancient population of this country and the present.

      The ancient population appears, moreover, to have been located in circumstances not by any means favourable to the health of the people. Those cities surrounded by high walls, and entered by singularly small gateways, must have been very badly ventilated, and very unfavourable to health; and yet it is not reasonable to suppose they could have been so unhealthy then as the author describes the country at present to be. It is hardly possible to imagine so great a people as the Etruscans, the wretched fever-stricken objects the present inhabitants of the Maremna are described to be.

      To what, then, can this great difference be ascribed? The Etruscans appear to have taken very great pains with the drainage of their cities; on many sites the cloaca are the only remains of their former industry and greatness which remain. They were also careful to bury their dead outside their city walls; and it is, no doubt, to these two circumstances, principally, that their increase and greatness, as a people, are to be ascribed. But why do not the present inhabitants avail themselves of the same means to health? Is it that they are idle, or are they too broken spirited and poverty-stricken to unite in any public work? Or has the climate changed?

      Perhaps it was owing to some defect in their civil polity that the ancients were comparatively so easily put down by the Roman power, which might have been the superior civilisation. Possibly the great majority of the people may have been dissatisfied with their rulers, and gladly removed to another place and another form of government. It is even possible,