In November, 1744, when Mr. Fleetwood was manager of Drury Lane, he was charged by the public with raising his charges too capriciously, without the excuse of having presented his patrons with a new or a costly entertainment.  Thereupon ensued a disturbance in the theatre, and Mr. Fleetwood was required by the audience to give an immediate explanation of his conduct.  The manager pleaded that not being an actor he was exempt from the necessity of appearing on the stage publicly before the audience; but he gave notice, through one of his players, that he was willing to confer with any persons might be deputed to meet him in his own room.  A deputation accordingly went from the pit to confer with the manager, and the house waited patiently their return.  The result of the consultation was stated in a note to the playbill of the following day (Saturday): 

“Whenever a pantomime or farce shall be advertised, the advanced prices shall be returned to those who do not choose to stay; and, on Thursday next, will be published the manager’s reasons for his conduct in the present dispute.”

This arrangement was very far from giving satisfaction, however, and the disturbance was renewed the next night.  A country gentleman, who had distinguished himself by the warmth and violence of his expressions of disapproval, was forcibly removed by the constables from the upper boxes and carried before a magistrate, who, however, it would seem, declined to entertain the charge against the offender.  The theatre was closed for two or three nights, and a notice appeared in the playbills:  “The great damage occasioned by the disturbances makes it impossible to perform.”  The manager published an address to the public in The General Advertiser, setting forth a statement of the case and justifying his conduct.

He reminded the public that the extraordinary disturbances which had lately occurred greatly affected their diversions as well as his property.  He apprehended that the reasons of complaint assigned were, “the exhibition of pantomimes, advanced prices, and insults on the audience.”  As to the first charge, he submitted that, however distasteful pantomimes might be to the delicacy of some judgments, yet they were suited to the taste of many others; and as the playhouse might be considered as the general mart of pleasure, it was only from the variety of entertainment the different desires of the public could be supplied.  He urged that the receipts of the house were sufficient evidence that without the occasional performance of pantomimes he could not afford to produce plays of a higher class.  With regard to the advance in prices, he hoped he should be thought justified in that measure, when the great increase in his expenses was considered.  Further, he conceived he should be no longer the subject of the displeasure of the public, since he had complied with the demand that the advanced prices should be returned to those who