val theatre in Drury Lane, Rich conceived that this new
privilege would incline the servants to give his house "a good word in
the respective families they belonged to," and, further, that it would
greatly increase the applause awarded to his performances. In this
respect his plan seems to have succeeded very well.

Cibber relates that "it often thundered from the full gallery above,
while the thin pit and boxes below were in the utmost serenity." He
proceeds to add, however, that the privilege, which from custom
ripened into right, became the most disgraceful nuisance that ever
depreciated the theatre. "How often," he exclaims, "have the most
polite audiences in the most affecting scenes of the best plays been
disturbed and insulted by the noise and clamour of these savage
spectators!"

The example set by Rich seems to have been soon followed by other
managers. For many years the right of the footmen to occupy the upper
gallery without payment was unchallenged. In 1737, however, Mr.
Fleetwood, manager of Drury Lane Theatre, announced his determination
to put an end to a privilege which it was generally felt had grown
into a serious nuisance. A threatening letter was sent to him, which
he answered by offering a reward of fifty guineas for the discovery of
its author or authors. The letter is given in full in Malcolm's
"Anecdotes of London," 1810:

"SIR,--We are willing to admonish you before we attempt our
design; and, provided you will use us civil and admit us into
your gallery, which is our property according to Formalities;
and if you think proper to come to a composition this way,
you'll hear no further; and if not, our intention is to join a
body _incognito_, and reduce the playhouse to the ground.--We
are, INDEMNIFIED."

A riot of an alarming nature followed. The footmen, denied admission
to their own gallery, as they regarded it, assembled in a body of
three hundred, and, armed with offensive weapons, broke into the
theatre, and, taking forcible possession of the stage, wounded some
twenty-five persons who had opposed their entrance. Great confusion
prevailed. The Prince and Princess of Wales and other members of the
Royal Family were in the theatre at the time. Colonel Deveil, justice
of the peace, who was also present, after attempting in vain to read
the Riot Act ("he might as well have read Caesar's 'Commentaries,'"
observed a facetious critic), caused some of the ring