the proprietors with free tickets into the theatre. The number of proprietors was 130. Thus, in addition to the deduction to be made from the receipts as above stated on every occasion when the theatre had extraordinary attraction from extraordinary exertion, novelty, or expense, the managers might be deprived of 130 dollars by the admission of those free of expense, who were most likely to attend and pay for admission.

It appears that the committee had contracted debts for the building on their own responsibility, and now were about to call upon the proprietors to assume them. They therefore wished to present this additional view of advantage from their con

tract.

In a conversation between Mr. Henderson and one of the managers it was objected, that no such diminution of the receipts was contemplated when the agreement with the committee was made; that in consequence of that agreement great loss had been sustained. The free admittance was then talked of as a temporary thing, to cease after a short time. It was objected that if once granted it could not without offence be withdrawn. Here was a lesson. The managers had pro

ceeded upon an

upon an unsigned contract, and one of them risked his mercantile property and credit upon an agreement which, if not fulfilled, would make ruin certain.

On the 13th January, 1798, the writer went, as was usual with him, to see how the new building

was progressing, and his friend Dr. E. H. Smith went with him. We had scarcely entered the lower boxes when Mr. Henderson accosted us from the third row on the opposite side, and we went to him. Mr. Carlisle Pollock (one of the committee), was with him, and was reading a paper. "I have just given Mr. Pollock a piece to read which I have drawn up for publication." He took it from Pollock and gave it to the manager.

In this paper the committee informed the proprietors, or subscribers, that the theatre would be opened; apologized for its not being finished in the style contemplated, and told them that, by a temporary agreement, or arrangement, with the managers, the proprietors would be admitted free of expense with untransferable tickets. The ma

nager returned the paper, with his thumb upon the part respecting the admission tickets, and, Pollock and Smith both attending, he pointedly observed that there had been "no such arrangement or agreement." This was admitted. The manager, in answer to suggestions that such an arrangement would be for the benefit of the lessees, said that on the profits from opening he had relied for relief from debt contracted in consequence of his agreement with the committee; that it was now many months since the agreement; that the idea of granting free tickets had not been suggested; that the terms were publicly known, and no dissatisfaction on the part of the proprietors expressed; that, if the idea of free admission was

suggested by the committee, the subscribers would not be satisfied if the managers did not comply with the demand. Mr. Henderson said that all the subscribers to whom he had mentioned it expected free admission. As Pollock and Henderson both protested that they only wished to devise means for mutual benefit, the parties separated by agreement to meet at the house of Mr. Pollock. A meeting accordingly took place between the managers and the committee, the result of which was, that the proprietors should be admitted free, and a reduction made on the percentage before agreed upon. The first took place, but not the second. This was another step in the down-hill road.

Mr. Cooper returned to Philadelphia, was arrested by the managers of the Chestnut Street theatre, gave bail, and returned to New-York, where his admirers had assured him of a welcome reception.

On the 22d of January, 1798, Mr. Wm. Henderson put into the hands of the New-York managers a memorandum of agreement to be substituted for that which had been acted upon. By this the free tickets to 113 subscribers were to be given. No free admissions were to be given except to performers for themselves, and those as few as possible. The managers were not to cause any scenery or machinery to be made without the consent of the proprietors, and such to be valued and paid for by the proprietors on the occupants' leaving

the house.

No alterations to be made to the scenery and machinery without the consent of the proprietors, and the managers to be answerable for all damage done to either, necessary use and fire excepted. The proprietors reserved to themselves all the rooms in front of the building, except one for a box-office, and finally, stipulated that the agreement should continue in force until such time as the proprietors shall decide “in what mode the debts for which the property is liable shall be paid." Such is a faithful abstract of this most extraordinary proposal of an agreement as a substitute for that which had been made and acted upon, but had not been rendered legal by the forms required.

One of the partners wrote a plain statement of the objections to this proposed substitute. The reader will observe that the agreement by this proposal might be annulled at the pleasure of the proprietors; that the managers could not prepare for a new play or after-piece without the consent of the committee; that authors of plays could not be made free of the house; that neither the friends of the lessees, nor even their families, could have free admission; and in short, that the managers were to consent to annul the agreement on the faith of which they had contracted debts and sustained losses, and so bind themselves as to render the prospect of future success impossible.

Subsequently, the committee professed not to intend their memorandum to convey the meaning

understood by the managers, but said they could not lease the theatre for a definite time. They requested some memorandum before giving possession. One was drawn up, leaving the time for which the theatre was leased undefined, but stating that the first agreement with the committee was for three years and a half, and pledging the committee to use their influence with the proprietors so to continue the occupants. The most objectionable parts of the memorandum as proposed by Mr. Henderson were omitted.

At length, on the 29th of January, 1798, the new theatre was opened in an unfinished state, and with a scanty supply of scenes. The scenery, machinery, and stage, were under the direction of Mr. Charles Ciceri, heretofore mentioned. The landscapes were painted by Mr. Audin, his assistant. The play of the night was As You like It, the farce was The Purse. The house was opened with an address written by Dr. E. H. Smith, and spoken by Mr. Hodgkinson. A prelude was performed, written by Mr. Milne, and called All in a Bustle. The house was overflowing, but such was the confusion, from the press of the crowd, and the want of such precautions as experience would have suggested, that great numbers entered without paying at the doors or delivering tickets. Mr. Cooper, seeing the confusion and the want of energy in one of the box-doorkeepers, took his place, and restored order at one of the entrances. The amount received on this first evening of perform