Chapter XXXVIII: Appendix: 143 (2)

In their bill, dated 4th September 1725, the complainants,[159] after describing the Indenture Quadrupartite of June 3, 1724,[160] the Articles of Agreement of September, 1721,[161] the Indenture between Steele and Woolley of June 17, 1723, and the note to Castleman of July 17, 1723,[162] said that they well hoped they should have had the benefit of the assignment and letter of attorney to Scurlock for the payment of Steele's debts and incumbrances, and that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth would have ordered the treasurer of the theatre to have paid and duly accounted with Scurlock weekly, and for all arrears due to Steele at the time of the assignment, as in all justice and equity they ought to have done, the rather because Woolley had been long since paid the £900 due to him, together with all interest thereupon. But Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, confederating together with Castleman, their treasurer, and with Woolley and others, to defraud the complainants of their just right, and to elude the force of the assignment made by Steele for the benefit of his creditors, refused to come to any account with the complainants touching the profits, pretending that the charges they had been put to in finding clothes, scenes, &c., had been so great that they had made little or no clear profit, and yet they at the same time refused to disclose their expenses; and at other times they pretended that Steele by himself or his agents had from time to time received his full share of the profits; whereas the complainants expressly charged that the profits, over and above all expenses, had been very great, and that neither Steele nor any person acting by his order had received any but a very small and inconsiderable part of his share of the profits since the time of his entering into partnership with Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, and that there was now a very great sum owing to him. And at other times the defendants, and especially Woolley, pretended that the £900 secured for Woolley was not yet paid, and that until that was paid the provisions for the other creditors could not and ought not to take place; but the complainants expressly charged that this £900 was and ought long since to have been paid out of the profits of the fourth part belonging to Steele; and Woolley and the others refused to inform Steele how much had been paid to Woolley. And at other times Wilks, Cibber, and Booth pretended that they, on the 24th January 1719[-20], were, together with Steele, suspended by the Lord Chamberlain from further acting, and that from the time of this suspension (whatever licence they afterwards obtained for proceeding therein), they were not answerable to Steele for any part of the profits; whereas Steele expressly charged that the suspension lasted only two days or thereabouts, neither could the Lord Chamberlain or any other person thereby or otherwise except by due course of law deprive him of his share of the profits, wherein he had a just freehold during his life by the Grant and Letters Patent from His Majesty; and therefore Wilks, Cibber and Booth ought to pay and be accountable to him for his just share as if no such suspension had been. And at other times the defendants pretended that by some provision in the aforesaid Articles of Agreement it was provided that neither of the parties thereto should at any time sell, mortgage, part with or incumber his or their share without the consent in writing of the rest of the said parties, and it was pretended that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth never gave such assent to the assignment made by Steele to Scurlock; whereas Steele and Scurlock declared that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth were well aware of the assignment before it was made, and had copies of it delivered to them severally afterwards, and although they did not give their consent in writing, yet they did not oppose or forbid the same; and if they had, yet the same being for the payment of Steele's creditors, it ought to be supported and made good by the Honourable Court, or at least it could not debar Steele from having an account of his share of the profits. Yet upon these and the like pretences the defendants not only refused to pay Scurlock, on behalf of Steele's creditors, but likewise refused to come to an account with Steele. Sometimes they pretended that they were entitled to a dividend of £10 a piece each week, or some such considerable sum, out of the profits, in consideration of their extraordinary trouble in the management of the theatre and their playing their several parts, previous to and exclusive of the dividend to be made under the Articles between them and Steele, and they had accordingly ever since the date of the said Articles appropriated these sums, regardless of Steele's share or interest. And they pretended to be entitled to the whole of the money given by His Majesty or any of the Royal Family when they were graciously pleased to be present at any performances, and they had kept such moneys; whereas the complainants declared that Steele had a right to his share of all profits whatsoever. And the defendants pretended that they had a right to, and had set aside for their own use, £20 a night or some greater sum under the name of several constant charges, contingencies, and bills, and pretended that Steele had no right to share therein; and Steele charged that in favour of Mrs. Oldfield, Mrs. Porter, and Mrs. Booth, three of the actresses at Drury Lane, on their respective benefit nights the defendants had forborne to deduct the necessary expenses of the house out of the profits of the night, as they ought to have done, but had placed the same to the account of the partnership, whereby Steele had been charged a fourth part of those expenses without any profit whatever; and on the benefit nights allowed to under-officers and others of the theatre, they had deducted each night, which they had shared and divided, without admitting Steele to any share. And sometimes the defendants pretended that Steele had no colour to call them to account touching any of these deductions or allowances to themselves, because he had from time to time passed and allowed these accounts without objection, and agreed to the said deductions, &c.; but this he never did; if he had passed accounts without objection, it was through want of knowledge or oversight. And Wilks, Cibber, and Booth had in other ways defrauded Steele; it was therefore prayed that writs of subpœna be issued to compel them, together with Castleman and Woolley, to answer these premises.

The "joint and several answers" of Wilks, Cibber, Booth, and Castleman are dated October 13, 1725. Long before the Letters Patent to Steele, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth had, as they said, a licence to act at Drury Lane, and were acting there at the Queen's death, and had scenes, &c., there of great value; and a short time after the Queen's death, they, looking upon Steele as a person who had a great acquaintance, and who was fit and able to promote the interest of the theatre, did, for these reasons, and out of friendship and kindness to Steele, invite him to come into a share and benefit of the theatre, for which he seemed very thankful; and it was agreed he should apply for a new licence, which he obtained, and which was afterwards, by agreement with them, changed for a Patent. The application for the Patent was to be in Steele's name only, but upon the express trust that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth should have an equal share in it; and when Steele applied, he informed these defendants that he could not obtain a reference to the Attorney and Solicitor-General for having such a Patent without first having their consent, as they shared with him in the licence; and they thereupon gave their written consent to Steele, to whom a Patent was then granted. And some time afterwards Steele agreed to give them £1200 as a consideration for the fourth part of the scenes, clothes, &c., belonging to them, and did pay to each of them £400, as appears from the receipts. Then came the Articles Quadrupartite of September 1721. By acting under the Letters Patent the defendants had received large sums, which had been entered in books and kept by Richard Castleman, their treasurer and cashier. Divers sums had been paid to great numbers of persons weekly and otherwise, as they were entitled to receive the same; and the accounts had been at sundry times stated and settled by the defendants and Steele, and Steele had received his share; on the 18th June 1723, in particular, he gave his receipt as follows: "Received of Richard Castleman £708 8s. 2d., being so much due to me arising from the profits of the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane, I say received in full to this day, RICHARD STEELE." This was a stated account, and ought not to be ravelled into. From June 18, 1723, to June 25, 1725, divers other considerable sums had been received and paid on account of the theatre; and Steele, or persons lawfully authorised by him, had received his share thereof. On June 25, 1725, Richard Eadnell received of Castleman, by virtue of a letter of attorney executed to him by Steele, £52 10s. 3d., as Eadnell's receipt showed: "I say received for Sir Richard Steel's use ballance due for the year 1725, £471 13s. 2d., being a fourth part of the clear profits," &c.; and these defendants acknowledged that they had each of them received to their own use from the 18th June, 1723, £1 13s. 4d. for every day upon which a play had been acted, exclusive of Steele. This they claimed as a consideration for their acting and the extraordinary charge they were put to in respect thereof, for which they had no allowance in the said accounts; and they said that Steele never made any objection to the same to their knowledge till the filing of this bill. There had been from time to time paid to other actors more than £1 13s. 4d. a day for acting. On the 18th June last the defendants left off acting under the Letters Patent, and so discontinued until the 4th September last, during which interval no profits did or could arise; and since the 4th September they had acted seventeen nights and no more up to the time of putting in this answer, and the clear profits of those seventeen nights could not at present be set forth, because tradesmen's bills were not sent in; but as soon as they could the defendants were ready to account for the same and to share all just allowances. They denied that they had deducted or claimed £10 a week for management or acting, or any sum other than as above mentioned, nor had they set apart or divided among themselves £20 a night or other sum on pretence of incidental charges, &c., exclusive of Steele, nor had they taken to their own use, exclusive of Steele, any part of such bounty money as His Majesty or any members of the Royal Family had given. And they said that Mrs. Oldfield, Mrs. Porter, and Mr. Mills had plays once in every year acted for their respective benefit, without any sums being deducted for the charge of the house, which was the best agreement the defendants could make with them; no other actors had the like privilege of having benefit plays without deduction for the charges of the house; and these defendants denied that they had had any benefit thereby, exclusive of Steele. And they said that, finding by long experience that the profits grew less towards the end of the spring and until June or July, the time of leaving off acting, £5 for every acting night was and had been kept back in order to make up the charges of the house in case the money received should not be sufficient for that purpose,--which often happened about the latter end of the season; but when they left off acting the said sum of £5 was always brought to account, and what remained after the charges were paid was divided among these defendants and Steele equally. And these defendants said that they had great ground to expect that Steele would not, contrary to his own express agreement with them in writing, have sold, parted with, or encumbered his property in the Patent, clothes, scenes, and profits to any one without the defendants' consent in writing, especially because that to accommodate Steele and at his particular request (he being indebted to Edward Minshull, Esq., in the sum of £200, by whom the debt was assigned to Mr. Gery, and by him to Mr. Woolley) these defendants consented and agreed with Steele and Woolley that Castleman should pay to Woolley £200 a year out of Steele's share till the debt, with interest, should be paid. There was now £500 of the debt unpaid, and no interest had been paid. By Articles Quadrupartite, dated 19th September 1721,[163] between Steele, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, reciting the aforesaid Articles, and also that the then Lord Chamberlain did some time since by his order direct that Steele should not be paid his fourth part, Steele did, for himself, his executors, &c., agree that if at any time the King, Lord Chamberlain, or other person authorised by the King should order that Steele be not paid his share, but should direct that Steele's share should be paid to any other person, that Steele's share should cease to be paid to him, and he should be debarred from demanding his share during the continuance of such order; and so with any proportion of Steele's share. Steele had some time since been suspended, but the defendants denied that they ever took advantage thereof. They were strangers to the several demands made by persons named in the complainants' bill as creditors of Steele, and conceived they were in nowise concerned therein. Castleman denied that he refused to let Steele see the books.

Richard Eadnell, of the Inner Temple, Gent., solicitor to Steele and Scurlock, made oath on the 27th October, that on Wednesday the 20th October he applied to Castleman, treasurer at the old playhouse in Drury Lane, on behalf of the complainants, and told him that he had occasion to look in the books of accounts kept for Steele and the defendants, and that he, the deponent, would wait on Castleman for that purpose when convenient. But Castleman said he could show no books or give any information without an order to do so from the other defendants. And on the 21st Eadnell applied to Wilks, Cibber, and Booth, but they utterly refused to give an order to Castleman, saying that no one should inspect the books or papers save Steele himself. Notice was subsequently given to the defendants' solicitor that the Court would be asked to make an order that these books could be examined by Steele or his solicitor;[164] and the order was duly granted. On the 2nd February 1726 Eadnell made oath that by virtue of this order he had looked over the books, and by them it appeared that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth had each received of Castleman £480 10s. (_sic_) for clear profits from the beginning of that season till Saturday, 15th January last, and Castleman had received the like sum of £487 10s. for the use of Steele, out of which he had paid £200 to Woolley, as arranged; but Castleman refused to pay Eadnell the remaining £287 10s. without the consent of Wilks, Cibber, and Booth. Eadnell thereupon applied to them, and gave them a copy of a letter of attorney duly executed by Steele and Scurlock, empowering him to receive and give discharges for such money as should become due to them from the theatre; but Wilks, Cibber, and Booth absolutely refused to direct Castleman to pay Eadnell, unless Eadnell would give them discharges for £30 which they received weekly on pretence of acting exclusive of Steele, and which was now in dispute in that Court. Wilks, Cibber, and Booth had received this £10 apiece weekly over and above the £487 10s. since the commencement of the winter season, and still intended to receive the same, as they informed Eadnell, notwithstanding the same was in dispute. And it appeared that over and above the £487 10s. and the £30 weekly, the sum of £30 a week was kept in the hands of the treasurer under the name of contingencies, in case there should be occasion to advance any money at any time on account of any new performances or otherwise.[165]

The defendants having put in their answer, Steele's counsel obtained leave, on the 12th February, to amend the complainants' bill.[166] The answer of Wilks, Cibber, and Booth to this amended bill is dated 15th June 1726. The defendants said they never refused to disclose to Steele the expenses incurred for scenes, clothes, &c.; those charges were entered in books which Steele could examine, and which they had reason to believe he had often inspected. In accordance with the order of the Court of the 28th October last, Eadnell had often examined the books, and was never denied the same. They submitted, therefore, whether they need do more than refer to the books as regards the particular sums laid out in clothes, scenes, &c. They never denied that Steele might controvert the accounts, but they apprehended he had no reason to do so, for the allowances they demanded were reasonable, and were for the daily and extraordinary labour and expenses in acting their several parts not otherwise charged for. If they had not taken upon themselves to look after and manage the theatre, they and Steele, instead of being gainers, would have lost by it; and if Steele had been as active on his part in the management as they (which he ought to have been by their Agreement), the same would have been an addition to the clear profits of the theatre, at least one fourth part.

In the meantime, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth had commenced a cross action against Steele.[167] In their bill, dated 11th January 1725-26, they said that Swiney and Collier had both constantly attended the business of the theatre, and much benefit had resulted therefrom; Collier solicited persons of quality, and drew audiences to the theatre. When Steele was invited to come into partnership, he faithfully promised to attend the meetings and consultations of the Company, and to write plays and other performances, and to use his utmost endeavour to support the interest thereof; and he did continue to attend the business of the Company until 28th January 1719-20, since when he had altogether absented himself. From that date they had each taken to their own use £1 13s. 4d. a day, and Steele was so conscious that they deserved a much greater sum that he allowed the accounts wherein the same was charged. The scope of this cross bill, therefore, was that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth might be quieted in receiving the said £1 13s. 4d. apiece exclusive of Steele, and might have such allowance as the Court should think reasonable for the expense they were at in clothes, periwigs, laces, and linen, and for their trouble in instructing the actors and overseeing artificers, &c., and might be indemnified in paying the £1200 and interest to Woolley, and be relieved.

Steele's answer to this bill was taken by commission by Alexander and Theophilus Scurlock on June 23, 1726. He denied that on entering into the partnership he promised to attend meetings or instruct young actors, not being qualified or required to appear as an actor; but he believed he did in general promise to write plays, and to promote the interests of the theatre, and this he had done to the utmost of his power, as the managers had often admitted; see, for example, Cibber's dedication to him of _Ximena. The Conscious Lovers_ "brought more money to the House than any play was ever known to do;" and he was at that time preparing, as fast as his health would permit, a new Comedy, which, God willing, he hoped to finish by the next season, the plot of which play was formed for the reformation of the theatre, and restoring the credit and good sense of theatrical entertainments, which he was sadly sensible was never more wanted. He had done and was doing as much as his health would permit. He had entered into an agreement on the 4th September 1721, and then or shortly before, when accounting for his share during the time of the pretended suspension by the Lord Chamberlain, the other managers had urged that they had lost much in 1720 in connection with the South Sea scheme, and that Steele had not borne his share of the cost of scenes; and he then, out of pure friendship and good-will, forgave them £1,200, which he believed was due to him. Steele insisted that he was not obliged to make Wilks, Cibber, and Booth any allowance for their managing and acting, as they were by the Articles obliged to do their duty in consideration of the three fourth parts they received; but he denied that he had pretended they ought not to be allowed for clothes, &c., used on the stage, he being willing to allow his share out of the joint stock; and he believed they had frequently taken out of the joint stock for their own private clothes, which they brought to the joint account; all which Steele allowed without objection. He admitted he asked permission to assign his share, and, being refused, assigned his interest without such consent to Scurlock, and he hoped that what he did through the need of satisfying his creditors would not in equity be a breach of his covenant. He did not know of the deduction of £1 13s. 4d. a day till the beginning of 1724[-5], when he brought his bill to be relieved against it; and he hoped that notwithstanding his signing the receipt of the 18th June 1723, he should be at liberty to call the managers to an account touching the said deduction.

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.

[4] See Appendix.

[5] _Athenæum_, Sep. 20, 1884, article by the present writer.

[6] Public Record Office, Chancery Decrees, 1709 B. p. 320, "Steele v. Rich."

[7] See a paper by the present writer in the _Athenæum_ for Dec. 27, 1890, and the _Life of Steele_, ii. 72-3.

[8] Tonson paid for the copyright £40, "and other valuable considerations"; and he had to institute proceedings to prevent the play being pirated (_Athenæum_, Dec. 5, 1891). As early as March 1, 1772, Lintot has agreed to give Tonson £70 for a half share of Steele's comedy that was to be published.

[9] "Hired mourners at a funeral say and do
A little more than they whose grief is true;
'Tis just so here: false flattery displays
More show of sympathy than honest praise."
CONINGTON.

[10] Isabella, second daughter of the Lord of St. Gravemoer, General of the Forces to the States General, and wife of Arnold Joost van Keppel, Earl of Albemarle, and Colonel of the first troop of Horse Guards.

[11] William Cavendish, fourth Earl of Devonshire; created in 1694 Marquis of Hartington and Duke of Devonshire. The Duke was a Knight of the Garter, and Lord Steward of the Household. He married Mary, second daughter of the first Duke of Ormond, and he died in 1707.

[12] Perhaps the reference is to Charles Montagu, Lord Halifax, who, as Pope says, was "fed with dedications."

[13] "Whether he trains for pleading, or essays
To practice law, or frame some graceful lays."

(Conington's _Horace,_ Ep. I. iii. 23-4, adapted to suit Steele's modification of the original.)

[14] Wilks was CAMPLEY. In the _Tatler_ (No. 182), Steele says: "To beseech gracefully, to approach respectfully, to pity, to mourn, to love, are the places wherein Wilks may be said to shine with the utmost beauty!" He had "a singular talent in representing the graces of nature" and "the easy frankness of a gentleman."

[15] Contemporary writers loudly complained of the neglect of ordinary plays at this time, owing to the importation of French tumblers and rope-dancers, performing animals, and Italian singers. "The town ran mad," says Gildon (_Comparison between the two Stages_), after some of these entertainments. The theatres in Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields tried to outdo each other in every new attempt made by either of them. The "Celebrated Virgin," in a machine, shining in a full zodiac, and "Harlequin and Scaramouch," with plenty of grimaces and table-jumping, were favourite amusements. The cleverest plays would rarely secure a reasonable audience unless they were accompanied by dances, songs, and clowns. Colley Cibber (_Apology_, chap. x), says that Rich paid "extraordinary prices to singers, dancers, and other exotic performers, which were as constantly deducted out of the sinking salaries of his actors." The majority of the people "could more easily apprehend anything they _saw_, than the daintiest things that could be said to them." Rich was only prevented bringing an elephant on to the stage by "the jealousy which so formidable a rival had raised in his dancers," and by the bricklayers assuring him that the safety of the building would be imperilled. The complaint that what pleases is "the skill of carpenter, not player," is exactly what we hear continually at the present day.

[16] An Order of the Lord Chamberlain to the Managers of the Haymarket and Drury Lane Theatres, dated 24 Dec., 1709, directed that all agreements with actors, &c., were to be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain; that all players were to be sworn in; that all new plays, &c., were to be re-licensed by the Master of the Revels; and "that from and after the first day of January next no new Representations be brought upon the Stage which are not Necessary to the better performance of Comedy or Opera, such as ladder-dancing, antic postures, &c., without my leave and approbation first had." (Lord Chamberlain's Records, Warrant Book No. 22, end). See _Tatler_, Nos. 12, 99. The author of a book called _The Antient and Modern Stages surveyed_ (1699), attributed to Dr. James Drake, and written in reply to Collier's _Short View_, says (p. 99): "As for the dancing, which he calls bold, it may in one sense be allowed him; for it must be granted that he that ventures his neck to dance upon the top of a ladder is a very bold fellow."

[17] Pother.

[18] In a letter written in August, 1710, to her future husband, Mr. E. Wortley Montagu, Lady Mary Pierrepoint says: "People talk of being in love just as widows do of affliction. Mr. Steele has observed in one of his plays, 'the most passionate among them have always calmness enough to drive a hard bargain with the upholders.' I never knew a lover that would not willingly secure his interest as well as his mistress; or, if one must be abandoned, had not the prudence (among all his distractions) to consider that a woman was but a woman, and money was a thing of more real merit than the whole sex put together."

[19] See note 35.

[20] In the first edition this speech reads, "Oh that Harriot! To fold these arms about the waist of that beauteous struggling--and at last yielding fair!" In the _Spectator_ (No. 51), Steele condemned the passage as an offence to delicacy and modesty.

[21] Tom's Coffee House, 17, Great Russell Street, Covent Garden, on the north side, over against Button's. See _Guardian_, No. 71.

[22] Richard Lucas, D.D. (1648-1715), wrote, among other things, _The Enquiry after Happiness_, and _Practical Christianity_. The latter, published in 1700, was afterwards referred to in the _Guardian_, No. 63, and there are quotations from both works in Steele's _Ladies' Library_, 1714.

[23] Daniel Purcell composed music for these verses.

[24] Henry Lawes, the friend of Milton, and his associate in the production of _Comus_, died in 1662.

[25] Slippers.

[26] Gildon suggests that this should be "premises"; but the word was not altered in later editions of the play.

[27] It is interesting to compare the ensuing dialogue with similar scenes in Sheridan's _School for Scandal_.

[28] Budgell refers to this scene in a paper in the _Spectator_ (No. 506), on happiness in the married state.

[29] Daniel Purcell composed music for this song.

[30] In the _Lay Monastery_, No. 9 (December 4th, 1713), Blackmore dwelt on the fine touches of humanity in the part of Trusty in this play. He said this passage was too well known on the stage to need transcribing: "This is not only nature, but nature of the most beautiful kind; or, to borrow Plautus's own remark, by the representation of such plays _even good men may be made better_."

[31] These lines are in the spirit of, but are not a quotation from Lee's _Rival Queens, or the Death of Alexander the Great_.

[32] The object of the Act of 1678 (30 Charles II. c. 3), which obliged the dead to be buried in woollen, was to protect homespun goods against foreign linen.

"'Odious! in woollen! 'twould a saint provoke,'
Were the last words that poor Narcissa spoke;
'No, let a charming chintz and Brussels lace
Wrap my cold limbs, and shade my lifeless face;
One would not, sure, be frightful when one's dead--
And--Betty--give this cheek a little red.'"
(POPE, _Moral Essays,_ i. 246-251.)

Pope here alludes, says Carruthers, to Mrs. Oldfield, who acted Narcissa in Cibber's _Love's Last Shift_. She was buried in Westminster Abbey, the corpse being decorated with "a Brussels lace head-dress, a Holland shift, with tucker and double ruffles of the same lace, and a pair of new kid gloves."--See, too, _Tatler_, No. 118.

It is evident that by making a certain payment persons of position could evade the Act; in the Overseers' Rate Books for the Parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, one or two persons in the year are often mentioned as being buried in linen: Thus in the volume for 1702 (p. 147) I found--

"Received for persons buried in linen, contrary to Act of Parliament: For ---- £2 5 0 For the Earl of Macclesfield £2 10 0."

Mr. Austin Dobson has pointed out that if Anne Oldfield really gave the orders alleged by Pope she was only elaborating the words of Steele's widow, which she must have often heard on the stage, as she acted the part of Lady Sharlot in this play.

[33] Genest (_Account of the English Stage_) suggests that the idea of Lady Sharlot's escape was taken from Beaumont and Fletcher's _Knight of the Burning Pestle_, Act V., Sc. III.

[34] Eusden, in a complimentary poem "To the Author of the _Tatler_," printed in Nichols' _Collection of Poems_, iv. 152-4, thus expressed himself:--

"O Charlotte! who thy character can read,
But soon must languish, sigh, and secret bleed?
* * * * *
To wealth, to power, I every wish resign,
If only that dear Charlotte might be mine."

[35] A favourite word with Steele. In the first scene of the play Sable says: "There's a what d'ye call, a crisis." In 1714, Steele wrote a famous pamphlet called _The Crisis_. "Plebian Britons," five lines below, reminds us of his four pamphlets, _The Plebeian_, on the Peerage Bill of 1719.

[36] Steele always maintained in his own political career the honest independent attitude here recommended.

[37] Daniel Purcell, brother of the great musician, Henry Purcell, was appointed organist of Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1686, and of St. Andrew's, Holborn, in 1713. He composed the music for an opera by George Powell, and died in 1717.

[38] "To have known these things is safety to the young."

[39] James, second Duke of Ormond, was in command of the expedition against Spain in 1702, when there were successes at Cadiz, Vigo, etc.; great booty was taken, and many galleons were sunk. Steele alludes below to this "wealth of the Indies." On February 4, 1703, the Duke was made Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

[40] James Butler, first Duke of Ormond. Steele's uncle and guardian, Henry Gascoigne, was the Duke's secretary, and had obtained, through his employer, a place upon the foundation of the Charterhouse for Steele. Four years later (1688) the Duke died, and was succeeded by his grandson.

[41] On the 13th of January, 1704, one week before the publication of this play, the Queen issued an Order for the regulation of the playhouses, prohibiting them from acting anything contrary to religion and good manners (Salmon's _Chronological Historian_).

[42] This line is repeated from Steele's _Procession_, 1695.

[43] _Cliton._ Qu'a de propre la guerre à montrer votre flamme?

_Dorante._ O le beau compliment à charmer une dame,
De lui dire d'abord: "J'apporte à vos beautés
Un cœur nouveau-venu des universités;
Si vous avez besoin de lois et de rubriques,
Je sais le Code entier avec les Authentiques,
Le Digeste nouveau, le vieux, l'Infortiat,
Ce qu'en a dit Jason, Balde, Accurse, Alciat!"
Qu'un si riche discours nous rend considerables!
Qu'on amollit par là de cœurs inexorables!
Qu'un homme à paragraphe est un joli galant!
On s'introduit bien mieux à titre de vaillant:
Tout le secret ne gît qu'en un peu de grimace,
A mentir à propos, jurer de bonne grâce,
Étaler force mots qu'elles n'entendent pas;
Faire sonner Lamboy, Jean de Vert, et Galas;
Nommer quelques châteaux de qui les noms barbares,
Plus ils blessent l'oreille, et plus leur semblent rares;
Avoir toujours en bouche angles, lignes, fossés,
Vedette, contrescarpe, et travaux avancés:
Sans ordre et sans raison, n'importe, on les étonne;
On leur fait admirer les baies qu'on leur donne:
Et tel à la faveur d'un semblable débit,
Passe pour homme illustre, et se met en crédit.
_Le Menteur_, Act I. Scene VI.

[44] This dialogue, down to the exit of Latine, is based upon _Le Menteur,_ I. i.

[45] The four following speeches are a free translation from _Le Menteur_, I. ii.

[46] From _Le Menteur_, I. ii.

[47] The general idea of the ensuing dialogue, down to the exit of the ladies, is taken from _Le Menteur_, I. iii.

[48] The dialogue thus far closely follows _Le Menteur,_ I. iv.

[49] This passage, down to the end of Young Bookwit's description of the feast--"twelve dishes to a course"--is a literal translation from _Le Menteur_, I. v. The whole scene appears again in slightly varied form in Foote's _Liar_.

[50] The rest of the scene with Lovemore and Frederick is from _Le Menteur_, I. v.

[51] The ensuing dialogue is an adaptation from _Le Menteur_, i, vi., down to Latine's mention of lying. The rest is Steele's.

[52] Pontack's was a French eating-house in Abchurch Lane, where the Royal Society held its annual dinners until 1746. Pontack was son of the President of the Parliament of Bordeaux, and gave the name to a famous French claret. Evelyn refers to him in his diary, 13 July, 1683, and 30 Nov., 1694, and Swift, in his Journal, 16 Aug., 1711: "Pontack told us, although his wine was so good, he sold it cheaper than others; he took but seven shillings a flask. Are not these pretty rates?" See, too, the prologue to _Love's Contrivances_, 1703, by Mrs. Centlivre:--

"At Locket's, Brown's, and at Pontack's enquire,
What modish kickshaws the nice beaus desire,
What famed ragouts, what new-invented salad,
Has best pretensions to regale the palate.
If we present you with a medley here,
A hodge-podge dish served up in china-ware,
We hope 'twill please, 'cause like your bills of fare."

Pontack put up a picture of his father's head as a sign (Burn's _Descriptive Catalogue of the London Traders' Tavern, and Coffee-House Tokens_, 1855, p. 13). From a tract called _The Metamorphoses of the Town_, dated 1730, we learn that Pontack's was then the resort of extravagant epicures; in the bill of fare of a "guinea ordinary" are "a ragout of fatted snails," and "chickens not two hours from the shell."

[53] _Geronte._ Il vint hier de Poitiers, mais il sent peu l'école;
Et, si l'on pouvait croire un père à sa parole,
Quelque écolier qu'il soit, je dirais qu'aujourd'hui
Peu de nos gens de cour sont mieux taillés que lui.
(_Le Menteur_, II. ii.)

[54] Presents to servants.

[55] _Clarice._ Ah! bon Dieu! si Dorante avait autant d'appas,
Que d'Alcippe aisément il obtiendrait la place!
(_Le Menteur_, II. ii.)

[56] _Alcippe._ Ah, Clarice! ah, Clarice! inconstante, volage!
(_Le Menteur_, II. iii.)

The idea of the servant remaining in the room is Steele's.

[57] Most of this scene, down to Lovemore's exit, is adapted from _Le Menteur_, II. iii., iv.

[58] Want of merit. See the _Tatler_, No. 69.

[59] There is a similar speech in _Le Menteur_, II. ii.

[60] The New Exchange was on the south side of the Strand, partly on the site of the present Adelphi. It was a very favourite place of resort in Charles II.'s time, and the restoration plays are full of allusions to it. There were four walks, two above and two below stairs. Steele refers to the New Exchange again in the _Spectator_, Nos. 96, 155. It was pulled down in 1737. With the scene here described we may compare Etherege's _She would if she could_, III. i.:--

"_Mrs. Trinckit._ What d'ye buy? what d'ye lack, gentlemen? Gloves, ribbons, and essences; ribbons, gloves, and essences?...

"_Courtall._ Walk a turn or two above, or fool awhile with pretty Mistress Anvil, and scent your eye-brows and periwig with a little essence of oranges, or jessamine."

Similarly in Otway's _Atheist: or the Second Part of the Soldier's Fortune_, II. i., Courtine remarks:--

"Methinks, this place looks as if it were made for lovings. The lights on each hand of the walk look stately; and then the rustling of silk petticoats, the din and the clatter of the pretty little parti-coloured parrots, that hop and flutter from one side to t'other, puts every sense upon its proper office, and sets the wheels of nature finely moving."

[61] Green silk stockings seem to have been introduced by Elizabeth, Countess of Chesterfield. On this matter the curious may consult Grammont (_Memoirs_, 1846, pp. 177-8, 180).

[62] The ensuing dialogue between father and son is adapted from one in _Le Menteur_, II. v. The story is also followed closely by Foote, in the _Liar_, II. iii.

[63] The next four speeches are from _Le Menteur_, II. vi.

[64] In the Duke of Buckingham's _Rehearsal_ (1671), III. ii.

[65] You teach the woods to re-echo the name of the fair Amaryllis (_Virgil, Buc._ I. v).

[66] Richard Leveridge had a deep and powerful bass voice, and he also composed much song music. He died in 1758, aged 88.

[67] _Lucrèce._ Mais parle sous mon nom, c'est à moi de me taire.
(_Le Menteur_, III. v.)

[68] This speech is adapted from one in _Le Menteur_, III. v.

[69] The ensuing dialogue, down to the exit of the ladies, follows generally that in _Le Menteur_, III. v.

[70] The story will be found in Sir Philip Sidney's _Arcadia_. The tale of Argalus and Parthenia was put into verse by Francis Quarles.

[71] Leveridge composed the music for this song.

[72] It is interesting to compare this constable with the Dogberry and Verges of _Much Ado about Nothing_, especially Act IV. Scene ii.

[73] The following dialogue is adapted from _Le Menteur_, V. i. Cf. Foote's _Liar_, II. iv.

[74] Steele himself made experiments in alchemy.

[75] There is a similar scene in Fielding's _Amelia_, Book I., chap. iii., and particulars of the system of garnish may be found in the works of John Howard.

[76] This condemnation of duelling is the first of a long series in Steele's works.

[77] The hearer should ponder over more things than he sees.

[78] When this dedication was written, Addison had recently (December, 1704) published his successful poem, _The Campaign_, and was preparing his _Remarks on Italy_ for the press.

[79] Wilks was Captain Clerimont.

[80] "The next place of resort wherein the servile world are let loose, is at the entrance of Hyde Park, where the gentry are at the Ring" (_Spectator_, No. 88). This favourite drive and promenade was partly destroyed when the Serpentine was formed. The servants gathered round the gate, while their masters and mistresses stared at or ogled each other in the Ring.

[81] White's Chocolate-house, on the west side of St. James's Street, was founded about 1698, and the original building was burnt down in 1733. In the first number of the _Tatler_, Steele announced that "all accounts of gallantry, pleasure, and entertainment, shall be under the article of White's Chocolate-house." See, too, _Spectator_, No. 88, and Hogarth's _Rake's Progress_, Pt. IV. There was much gambling at White's, and Swift calls it "the common rendezvous of infamous sharpers and noble cullies."

[82] _Astræa_ was a French romance by Honoré d'Urfé, translated for the second time in 1657. _Clelia_ was by Madame de Scudery, who lived until 1701. _Cassandra_, by Gautier de Costes, Seigneur de la Calprenède, was translated in 1652. These translations were all in folio; and they are all in the list of a lady's library given by Addison in the _Spectator_, No. 37, together with Steele's _Christian Hero_. Oroondates, in _Cassandra_, was the only son of a Scythian king.

[83] This and another reference to the battle of Blenheim, fought in August, 1704, ought to have been sufficient to prevent writers constantly repeating the statement that the _Tender Husband_ was produced in 1703.

[84] "The _corant_ is a melody or air consisting of three crotchets in a bar, but moving by quavers, in the measure of ¾, with two strains or reprises, each beginning with an odd quaver. Of dance tunes it is said to be the most solemn." "The _bouree_ is supposed to come from Auvergne, in France; it seldom occurs but in compositions of French masters." (Hawkins's _History of Music_, IV. 387-8, 390).

[85] Tony Lumpkin, like Humphry, "boggled a little" at marrying his cousin. See _She Stoops to Conquer,_ Act I., Scene II.:--

"_Tony._ What do you follow me for, cousin Con? I wonder you're not ashamed to be so very engaging.

"_Miss Neville._ I hope, cousin, one may speak to one's own relations, and not be to blame.

"_Tony._ Ay, but I know what sort of a relation you want to make me, though; but it won't do. I tell you, cousin Con, it won't do; so I beg you'll keep your distance; I want no nearer relationship."

[86] Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, in a letter dated Feb. 26, 1711, to her future husband, proposing that their engagement should cease, says that she had foolishly despised women who looked for their happiness in trifles, and thought, as Dryden puts it, that true happiness was to be found in privacy and love. "These notions had corrupted my judgment as much as that of Mrs. Biddy Tipkin's."

[87] Urganda was an enchantress in the Amadis and Palmeria romances.

[88] Musidorus, in Sir P. Sidney's _Arcadia_, is the Prince of Thessaly, and in love with Pamela.

[89] Parthenissa was the heroine of at romance of that name by Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery, the first two parts of which appeared in 1651.