The exception made in favour of new pantomimes was much remarked upon at the time.  It was declared that the effect of the arrangement would be to exalt a worthless class of entertainment at the expense of tragedy and comedy; in order to obtain full prices the managers would be encouraged to produce a succession of pantomimes, to the neglect of works of real dramatic worth.  Further, it was declared that the proceedings of Mr. Fitzpatrick, though professedly in the interests of the public, were, in truth, due to motives of private resentment and malice.  According to Davies, in his “Life of Garrick,” there would seem to be much reason for this charge.  Mr. Fitzpatrick was a gentleman of moderate fortune, constantly attending the theatres, frequenting the coffee-houses about Covent Garden, and dabbling in dramatic criticism.  He had been introduced to Garrick, had been received with much favour by the great actor, and placed on the free list of Drury Lane.  His success somewhat turned his brain.  He began to conceive himself a person of great importance.  He assumed severely critical airs, and published letters in “The Craftsman,” dealing with the players, and especially with Garrick, after a very arrogant and acrimonious fashion.  Garrick took up his pen to reply, and in his poem “The Fribbleriad”—­the hero of which is named Fizgigg—­he rather severely satirised his critic.  Churchill, following suit, to the eighth edition of his “Rosciad” added fifty lines, scourging Mr. Fitzpatrick savagely enough.  The “half-price” disturbance was the method of replying to these attacks of the actor and his friend, which Mr. Fitzpatrick found to be the most suitable and convenient.  Arthur Murphy, however, says for Mr. Fitzpatrick, that he was admired for his talents and amiable manners, and that Churchill caricatured him in the “Rosciad” to gratify the resentment of Garrick.  In any case, however, it would be hard to justify the riot of which Fitzpatrick was certainly the instigator.

In 1817, the experiment was tried at the English Opera House, or Lyceum Theatre, of giving two distinct performances in the evening, in lieu of taking half-price at nine o’clock.  The management alleged that objection had been taken to the length of theatrical performances, which were often made to extend over five hours; that the half-price system did not remedy the evil complained of by those whose habits of life or avocations would not permit their early attendance at the theatre.  “Many persons who would be desirous to witness the early part of a performance, are indisposed to pay the price of a whole evening’s entertainment, for that portion of it only which they can enjoy; and it may reasonably be supposed that thousands who might wish to enter the theatre at a later hour (as at the usual time for second price), are wholly excluded by the certainty of finding the best seats occupied.  Thus numberless persons, from the one or the other cause, are deterred from frequenting the amusements