| Candles (Wax) |
£25 4s |
External |
Paid Do. [Mr Barrett] on Acct. |
Between 1772 and 1791, CG regularly paid a wax chandler named Barrett, who was also a CG renter from about the late 1780s until 1805. The situation is not very clear, because the theatre paid an oil merchant named Barrett in the late 1770s; paid both "Mr: Jno. Barrett Wax Chandler" and "Mr: Barrett Wax Chandler" on 30 June 1783; paid "Mr. Barrett Haymarket his Bills in full" on 1 November 1785, and a day later paid "Mr. Barrett Waxchandler"; then, between 15 November 1787 and 12 April 1788, recurrently paid a Bryant Barrett Esquire for no specified reason. Trade directories around this time name a John B. Barrett, wax chandler to the king (see The General London Guide (1794), p. 112, for that accolade), based at 4 Haymarket, and a Bryant Barrett, wax bleacher, who seems to have moved premises multiple times before settling on Grigsby's Coffee House, or who perhaps operated from multiple premises at the same time. Perhaps CG’s main wax chandler (and the renter) around this time was Bryant Barrett, but it sometimes also transacted with John B. Barrett; indeed, from the 1807-08 season it seems to have begun transacting with a later version of John B. Barrett’s business, Messieurs Barrett and Beaumont. However, it is also possible that John B. Barrett’s full name was John Bryant Barrett, and/or that he was CG’s main wax chandler throughout these years, and/or that John B. and Bryant were relatives and sometimes worked in tandem. In any case, the payments to Bryant Barrett Esquire evidently fit into the pattern of payments to Barrett the wax chandler in the late 1780s, and can therefore be considered payments for wax candles. |
| Unknown |
£17 17s 4d |
Unknown |
Paid Thos. Harris Esqr p [?] Baldwin |
Covent Garden paid a "Baldwin" several times between 4 April 1786 and 6 March 1788, usually in relation to Thomas Harris. These were probably all the same person, the "John Baldwin" sometimes specified, but his identity is unclear; BD vol. 1, p. 236 speculates that it may have been for music copying, but on a tenuous basis, and apparently in awareness of only one of the relevant Covent Garden payments. |