The original cause was before the Court several times in August and October 1726.[168] Leave was given to Wilks, Cibber, and Booth to examine Castleman, a material witness for their case, and in no way concerned in point of interest in the matters in question; and upon application that Castleman should pay Steele £468 4s., which was found to be his share of the clear profits for 1725, it was ordered, by consent, that Castleman should pay Steele £200, subject to the order which should be made upon the hearing of the cause. In December leave was given to Steele and Scurlock to examine Castleman as a witness for them. The "answer of William Woolley, Esqre., one of the Defendants to the Bill of Complaint" of Steele and Scurlock, was not put in until the 20th October 1726.[169] It contains nothing fresh of importance. Woolley said he had received £600 of the £900 due to him from Steele, and that £300 was still due, besides interest; and he urged that he was entitled to his £200 a year in preference to all other creditors mentioned in Steele's bill. On the 21st November, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth obtained leave to amend their bill in the case in which they were complainants; and Alexander and Theophilus Scurlock were again commissioned to take Steele's answer.[170] In this answer to the amended bill, which was not sworn until the 11th May 1727, Steele said it was true that he had declared that Cibber's zeal for the Conscious Lovers was an obliging favour and friendship to him, but he was referring to Cibber's care in instructing the actors, &c. Cibber did make several alterations in the play before it was acted, but to its disadvantage, and therefore he did not pay Cibber anything for his meddling. The piece ran eighteen nights, and brought £2,536 3s. 6d. to the house, but how much was paid for charges and how much to him Steele could not say, save £329 5s. or thereabouts, which he received for three author's benefit nights. He could not set forth particular passages altered by Cibber; if he did, it might run him, in vindication of his own performance, into a sort of criticism very improper, as he apprehended, for the entertainment of that Honourable Court.
In October and November 1727, publication in the original cause was twice enlarged, upon the petition of the defendants, and on the 3rd February 1728, upon the original cause coming before the Court, the defendants' counsel alleged that the counter action was ready for hearing, but that as Steele lived at Carmarthen the plaintiffs in that action had not had time to serve him with a subpœna to hear judgment; and they said that both causes were proper to be heard together. Whereupon it was ordered that the original cause should stand over to the fourth day of causes after the term, and that judgment should then be pronounced in both causes.[171] The combined suits accordingly came to a hearing before Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, on Saturday night, the 17th February 1728, at the Rolls Chapel,[172] when Cibber addressed the Court, acting upon the advice of his counsel, who pointed out that he could speak better upon the question of the business of a manager than the most learned lawyer. Two of the counsel for Steele afterwards held the post of Lord Chancellor, and Cibber professes to have almost broken down with nervousness; but he succeeded, with the help of notes, in making a successful speech of an hour's length, which he has printed at length in the sixteenth chapter of his Apology. He maintained that Steele was as much obliged to do the duty and business of a manager as either Wilks, Booth, or Cibber; and the reason why he had ceased to take any part in the management was, that he was annoyed at his fellow-managers, who had often helped him when he was in want of money, but who found it necessary at last to peremptorily refuse to advance another shilling until it was due to him. After that Steele not only absented himself, but made an assignment of his share, without the consent of the others, in breach of their Agreement, thereby exposing them to the chance of trouble and inconvenience. His absence, too, had led to more than proportionate loss, because his rank, and figure in the world, and the ready access which he had at Court, had been of great service; that was, in fact, the very end and consideration of his share in the profits. Cibber proceeded to argue that he, Wilks, and Booth had been justified in charging £1 13s. 4d. a day for their extraordinary labour, in Steele's absence, by graphically describing the multitude of duties and disagreeable tasks which fell to a manager's lot. Steele had not written plays for nothing, and though, said Cibber, in writing The Conscious Lovers, "he had more assistance from one of the managers than becomes me to enlarge upon, of which evidence has been given upon oath by several of our actors, yet, Sir, he was allowed the full and particular profits of that play as an author, which amounted to three hundred pounds, besides about three hundred more which he received as a joint sharer of the general profits that arose from it." Cibber adds, in another place, that when they told Steele of the salary they meant to take for themselves in future, Steele only remarked that he had no reason to doubt of their doing him justice, and he never complained for nearly three years; indeed it was not until his affairs were put into the hands of lawyers and trustees that his lawyer thought that here was a fair field for an action in Chancery, in which, whatever the result might be, his bill would be paid.
After hearing Cibber, and the counsel on both sides,—the proceedings lasted five hours,—the Master of the Rolls declared that he saw no good cause for breaking through the account dated 18th June 1723, or for varying the allowances of £1 13s. 4d. which had been made at that time to each of the defendants, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth. He therefore ordered that the account dated the 18th June 1723 should stand, and that it should be referred to Mr. Bennett to take an account of the profits of the theatre from that time; the defendants were to produce before the said Master upon oath all books of account, &c., and to be examined as the Master should direct; and in taking the account the Master was to make to the defendants all just allowances. His Honour declared he conceived the allowance of £1 which had been already made to each of the defendants for management every night was a reasonable allowance, and that they ought to have this allowance continued to them until Steele should come into the management of the theatre; but the Master must determine what the defendants respectively deserved for their charges for wigs, lace, and linen, for which Steele admitted by his answer that an allowance should be made; and he was also to take an account of what was due to Woolley for principal and interest on his mortgage, and to tax Woolley's costs in this suit. The Master was also to ascertain what would be coming to Steele for his fourth part of the profits on the balance of the account, and from what was certified as due to Steele, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth should pay to Woolley what was reported due to him in the first place for principal, interest, and costs as aforesaid, and should pay the remainder to Scurlock for the uses mentioned in the deed of assignment from Steele to Scurlock, or to whoever Scurlock should authorise to receive the same; and Wilks, Cibber, and Booth were hereby indemnified for so doing; and they were to continue to pay Steele's fourth part of the growing profits, under such allowances as aforesaid, to Steele or to whoever he should authorise to receive the same. And it was further ordered that Steele and Scurlock's bill against Castleman be dismissed out of the court; and that no costs be paid to either of the said parties, except to Woolley.
The Master's Report is dated July 10, 1728.[173] Mr. Bennett said that the plaintiffs' solicitors having allowed Wilks, Cibber, and Booth 13s. 4d. apiece for every day a play was acted, from the 18th June 1723, as the same had been allowed up to that time, he had taken an account of Steele's fourth part of the profits from the said 18th June to the present time, and found that that fourth part amounted to £2,692 3s. 3d., in discharge whereof he found that the said defendants had paid to Steele or order several sums, amounting to £1,601 3s. 3d., leaving due to Steele £1,091. And the clerk in court for Woolley had admitted that Woolley had been already paid off and discharged all the principal and interest due to him on Steele's account; and the Master had already, by his Report of the 5th instant, taxed Woolley's bill of costs at £29 2s. 10d., which sum he appointed Wilks, Cibber, and Booth to pay Woolley out of the said sum of £1,091 in their hands, and the residue, £1,061 17s. 2d., they were to pay to Scurlock, as directed by the order of the 17th February. On the following day, July 11, 1728, upon motion made by the counsel for the defendants in the original cause, this Report and all contained therein was confirmed by order and decree of the Court.[174]
[NOTES.]
[1] Readers desirous of knowing more about Steele may be referred to Forster's Essay, first printed in the Quarterly Review for 1855; to Mr. Dobson's "Richard Steele," 1886, in the English Worthies series; and to the Life of Richard Steele, 2 vols., 1889, by the present writer. From the last-mentioned work I have occasionally borrowed a phrase or sentence in this Introduction.
[2] See [Appendix].
[3] This is not true. The second edition was corrected and enlarged.