[ [148] 1733.
[ [149] In leaping from 1717 to 1728, as Cibber does here, he omits to notice much that is of the greatest interest in stage history. Steele's connection with the theatre was of a chequered complexion, and it is curious as well as regrettable that an interested observer like Cibber should have simply ignored the great points which were at issue while Steele was a sharer in the Patent. In order to bridge over the chasm I give a bare record of Steele's transactions in connection with the Patent.
His first authority was a Licence granted to him and his partners, Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and Booth, and dated October 18th, 1714. This was followed by a Patent, in Steele's name alone, for the term of his life, and three years after his death, which bore date January 19th, 1715. Cibber (p. 174) relates that Steele assigned to Wilks, Booth, and himself, equal shares in this Patent. All went smoothly for more than two years, until the appointment of the Duke of Newcastle (April 13th, 1717) as Lord Chamberlain. He seems soon to have begun to interfere in the affairs of the theatre. Steele, in the eighth number of "The Theatre," states that shortly after his appointment the Duke demanded that he should resign his Patent and accept a Licence in its place. This Steele naturally and rightly declined to do, and here the matter rested for many months. With reference to this it is interesting to note that among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is the record of a consultation of the Attorney-General whether Steele's Patent made him independent of the Lord Chamberlain's authority. Unfortunately it is impossible to decide, from the terms of the queries put to the Attorney-General, whether these were caused by aggressive action on Steele's part, or merely by his defence of his rights.
The next molestation was an order, dated December 19th, 1719, addressed to Steele, Wilks, and Booth, ordering them to dismiss Cibber; which they did. His suspension, for it was nothing more, lasted till January 28th, 1720. Steele, in the seventh number of "The Theatre," January 23rd, 1720, alludes to his suspension as then existing, and in No. 12 talks of Cibber's being just restored to the "Begging Bridge," that is, the theatre. The allusion is to an Apologue by Steele ("Reader," No. II.) which Cibber quotes, and applies to Steele, in his Dedication of "Ximena" to him. A peasant had succeeded in barricading, with his whole belongings, a bridge over which an enemy attempted to invade his native country. He kept them back till his countrymen were roused; but when the forces of his friends attacked the enemy, the peasant's property was destroyed in the fray and he was left destitute. He received no compensation, but it was enacted that he and his descendants were alone to have the privilege of begging on this bridge. Cibber applies this fable to the treatment of Steele by the Lord Chamberlain, and there can be no doubt that this Dedication must have caused great offence to that official, and contributed materially to Cibber's suspension, though Steele declared that the attack upon his partner was merely intended as an oblique attack on himself. The author of the "Answer to the Case of Sir Richard Steele," 1720 (Nichols's ed., p. 532), says that Cibber had offended the Duke by an attack on the King and the Ministry in the Dedication of his "Ximena" to Steele. He also says that when the Chamberlain wanted a certain actor to play a part which belonged to one of the managers, Cibber flatly refused to allow him, and was thereupon silenced. (The actor is said to have been Elrington, and the part Torrismond; but I doubt if Elrington was at Drury Lane in 1719-20.) A recent stage historian curiously says that the play which gave offence was "The Nonjuror," which is about as likely as that a man should be accused of high treason because he sang "God Save the Queen!"
Steele then, being made to understand that the attack on Cibber was the beginning of evil directed against himself, wrote to two great Ministers of State, and presented a Petition to the King on January 22nd, 1720, praying to be protected from molestation by the Lord Chamberlain. The result of this action was a revocation of Steele's Licence (not his Patent specially, which is curious) dated January 23rd, 1720; and on the next Monday, the 25th, an Order for Silence was sent to the managers and actors at Drury Lane. The theatre accordingly remained closed Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, January 25th to 27th, 1720, and on the 28th re-opened, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth having made their submission and received a Licence dated the previous day.
On the 4th of March following the actors of Drury Lane were sworn at the Lord Chamberlain's office, "pursuant to an Order occasioned by their acting in obedience to his Majesty's Licence, lately granted, exclusive of a Patent formerly obtained by Sir Richard Steele, Knight." The tenor of the Oath was, that as his Majesty's Servants they should act subservient to the Lord Chamberlain, Vice-Chamberlain, and Gentleman-Usher in Waiting. Whether Steele took any steps to test the legality of this treatment is doubtful; but, on the accession of his friend Walpole to office, he was restored to his position at the head of the theatre. On May 2nd, 1721, Cibber and his partners were ordered to account with Steele for his past and present share of the profits of the theatre, as if all the regulations from which his name had been excluded had never been made. This edict is signed by the Duke of Newcastle, and must, I fancy, have been rather a bitter pill for that nobleman. How Steele subsequently conducted himself, and how much interest he took in the theatre, Cibber very fully relates in the next few pages. After Steele's death a new Patent was granted to Cibber, Wilks, and Booth, as will be related further on. It may be noted here, however, that the date of the new Patent proves conclusively that Steele's grant was never superseded. The new power was dated July 3rd, 1731, but it did not take effect till September 1st, 1732, exactly three years after Steele's death, according to the terms of his original Patent.
[ [150] This is one of Cibber's bad blunders. The Case was heard in 1728. Genest (iii. 208) refers to the St. James's Evening Post's mention of the hearing; and, in the Burney MSS. in the British Museum, a copy of the paragraph is given. It is not, however, a cutting, but a manuscript copy. "Saty. Feb. 17. There was an hearing in the Rolls Chapel in a Cause between Sir Richard Steele, Mr. Cibber, Mr. Wilks, and others belonging to Drury-Lane Theatre, which held five hours—one of which was taken up by a speech of Mr. Wilks, which had so good an effect, that the Cause went against Sir Richard Steele."—St. James's Evening Post, Feb. 17 to Feb. 20, 1728. In its next issue, Feb. 20 to Feb. 22, it corrects the blunder which it had made in attributing Cibber's speech to Wilks.
[ [151] This was in the Dedication to "Ximena." The passage will be found quoted by me in a note on page 163 of this volume.
[ [152] Cibber himself, of course.
[ [153] This Coronation was tacked to the play of "Henry VIII.," which was revived at Drury Lane on 26th October, 1727. Special interest attached to it on account of the recent Coronation of George II.