BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Heni^S ^^ Sage 1 891 A ^ll^Mll i.5/m^/a.. 5931 Cornell University Library PR 3683.R13Z3 Sheridan whitewashed; 3 1924 013 198 399 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013198399 SHERIDAN WHITEWASHED. SHERIDAN WHITEWASHED AN EXAMINATION OF THE NEW LIFE BY MR. ERASER RAE: WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE LINLEY LETTERS- SAID TO HA VE BEEN FOUND IN BARRELS IN DRURY LANE PERCY JITZGERALD, M.A., F.S.A. Author of ' Lives of the Shehidans LONDON DOWNEY & CO. YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN e> GC CD UJ z o < o ffl < Q LU (/) O a. Q. Z) CO CQl ^ % ^ SHERIDAN WHITEWASHED. Some years ago I wrote a Life of Sheridan in two volumes, published by Mr. Bentley — I might call it a painstaking work, and it contained a good deal of new information. I understood, however, that ' the family,' now represented by the Earl of DufFerin and Ava, was greatly shocked at the picture presented of their ancestor, and considered it so much defamation and sacrilege. It was certainly drawn in unflat- tering lines ; but it really only set forth the long-accepted and popular idea of the careless spendthrift, and of a man of rather lax principle where other people's property was con- cerned. Something would have to be done to set this right and obtain a proper Sheridan. Luckily, a great many years ago, when in Canada, Lord DuiFerin had been attracted by an essay of Mr. Fraser Rae's on Sheridan, which he tells us he read ' with infinite pleasure,' and he determined there and then, ' if ever opportunity occurred, to suggest to that gentleman that he should under- take the duty of writing a " Life," ' This, however, could 6 Sheridan Whitewashed only be successfully attempted under the eye, as it were, of 'the family.' According to Lord DufFerin, all preceding Lives have been failures. Moore's was perfunctory and inaccurate ; in parts there is ' a subacid tone.' Watkins' is *a piece of book-making of the worst type.' Professor Smyth's, Tom Sheridan's tutor, was ' a scandalous sketch ' — ill-humoured, full of ' spiteful libels,' and containing one ' atrocious falsehood.' Subsequent biographers, such as myself and Mrs. Oliphant, had no original material, and eked out their tale with ' idle gossip and injurious inventions.' These reflections of Lord DufFerin, on persons who were discharging their duty with at least as much conscientiousness and independence as the chosen biographer, seem to me in bad taste. Mr. Fraser Rae, following suit, has scattered over his volurnes a long series of attacks, sneers, corrections, etc., on my own humble labours, and the eye becomes at last thoroughly familiar with the perpetually recurring name of ' Mr. Percy Fitzgerald.' This, I think, is to a certain extent compli- mentary ; it is evidence of a certain importance. It was evidently a portion of the programme a -parti pris that the preceding writer should be written down as much as possible, with the result, I think, of a loss of artistic effect, for the reader cares little about such personal matters, which in a Life become excrescences. The feelings of ' the family ' against myself, indeed; found vent in almost grotesque fashion, when they put into their biographer's hands some verses written by a venerable lady, one Mrs. Gore Jones, who, it seems, was a * grand-niece of Sheridan.' Her closing years were disturbed by the portrait Sheridan Whitewashed J ' a recent biographer had given,' and immediately after the perusal she gave vent to her feelings in these lines : ' Enough ; he needs no hand To save his laurels or his fame ; The splendours flashing o'er his grave Reveal the spoiler's shamed It is incredible that a writer should insert such a thing in a serious work ; but it shows the family pressure. Mr. Fraser Rae maunders over his old lady, and wonders would she have been pleased with the way in which he had done his work, etc. Lord DufFerin was further good enough to indicate the proper line to be taken. It did not matter that the public had fixed its estimate of Sheridan, that all the various memoirs of the time, and the later memoirs, overflow with traits and stories in the same unflattering sense ; these things, we are told, ' are sure to accumulate ' — though they have never accumulated round anyone else — round the reputa- tion of a person endowed with Sheridan's gifts * and idio- syncrasies.' Stranger still, ' sober English common-sense has always been suspicious of impecunious brilliancy.' And a very justifiable suspiciousness this is. His en- gaging qualities were, it is true, ' sometimes marred by the foibles and ■peculiarities which are most apt to attract attention and to serve as weapons in the hands of a man's enemies.' His Irish origin also * clogged and embarrassed his every step,' an impediment which does not seem to have stood in the way of Burke, or even, if one might say so, of 8 Sheridan Whitewashed Lord DufFerin himself. He was vulgarly thought to be steeped in debt. Nothing of the kind ; he died only owing a comparative trifle. Then, many people foolishly thought that he was given to drink, and was often drunk. Again, nothing of the kind ; ' two or three glasses were sufficient to overset the delicate poise of his brain! True, there were ' more serious lapses ' in later life — alas ! indiscretions with the ladies ; but this was really owing ' to grief and accumu- lated misfortune,' and, to his great credit, he redeemed himself In this way it has come to pass, he says, that ' an altogether mythical Sheridan ' has been presented to the imagination of the present generation, and also, it might be added, to Sheridan's own generation, and will be to succeeding ones. I say nothing to this rather droll system of vindication ; but it is enough to state that the biographer undertook the task in the most faithful and dutiful spirit. Lord DufFerin, who seems to have read the proofs, has actually gone so far as to prefix a complimentary testimonial of no less than ten pages in length, expressing his perfect approba- tion of the way the work has been done ! Mr. Fraser Rae has defended Sheridan ' with all attainable clearness ' : he at least is not ' obviously dishonest,' like some of his prede- cessors, nor has he ' forgotten to delineate with a tender and loving hand ' Miss Linley's story. He has shown ' inde- fatigable energy.' Then, for the first time, it occurs to the patron that there might be something awkward and one- sided in this sort of treatment, so he earnestly assures us that Mr. Fraser Rae's narrative is ' not to be in any Sheridan Whitewashed 9 way regarded as an apologia. The family know that he is studiously impartial and conscientiously accurate.' Yet, after all, it is evident that there are misgivings as to whether the biographer has exactly brought out all the results that were expected from him. It is easy enough to deny wholesale, to glide over and omit awkward incidents — easier still to abuse the opposite side. Still, somehow, Sheridan remains much as he was. Mr. Fraser Rae has awkwardly allowed many things to escape ; in some he has rather damaged his case. But, as his patron pleads in this hesitating fashion : ' Can any human being, after all, be really resuscitated in this way ? Who can tell what Mary Queen of Scots was like, but still less Sheridan .'' Still, what could be done for Sheridan Mr. Fraser Rae has done.' This, after all, is but mild approbation. ' Repays he my long service with such keen contempt.'"' But ' studiously impartial and conscientiously accurate ' — this is somewhat too much, as we shall see. Thus 'briefed,' our biographer goes to work to clean, repair, plaster up, and whitewash the much - dilapidated figure which, for nigh three-quarters of a century, has stood, like the old statue in Leicester Square, propped up by broomsticks, and covered with mud and dirt. As I have said, we have here a Sheridan who is ludicrously flawless, for everything he did was right. As Lord Palmerston said of Garibaldi's ' lady,' ' We must get Gladstone to explain her away,' so actually the eminent retired statesman has come in to perform this very office, and to give a flattering testimonial to the work. ' A searching and important life of Sheridan,' lo Sheridan Whitewashed he says, and this is quoted as an actual testimonial, ' will be a real addition to history and literature.' Cest immense, but rather too general. The biographer, as in duty bound, is profuse in his grati- tude to the various representatives of the family — to ' the lineal descendant of Sheridan, of his eldest brother and elder sister,' etc. ; but it is to Frampton that he is most bound. ' I can- not exaggerate or adequately express my obligations to Mr. Algernon Sheridan,' etc. And yet he feels that, while vast stores might be expected from this quarter, but little has come — only a few odds and ends, as it were. But this has to be accounted for. ' I deplore to have to announce,' he tells us solemnly, ' that several of the Sheridan papers have been missing for many years from the. muniments at Frampton Court.' The unhappy Moore, it seems, borrowed or * conveyed ' them for his nefarious scheme of ' denigrating ' the great man, and never returned them — at least, such is the inference. He had, it seems, a way of sending them straight to the printer with passages marked, and naturally ' a few went astray.' But ' there is special obligation to Baroness Kinloss, who is now the possessor of the palatial mansion of Stowe,' for the letters to Grenville ; and, it must be said, this is an obligation, for it is a most substantial aid. One wonders how any writer of independence would care to do his work under such conditions. Less well-informed persons, however, may wonder who is this exceptional Mr. Fraser Rae. What has he written, what is his baggage \ The work which so fascinated Lord Duiferin was, it seems, a mere reprint of a review article, or articles, printed some thirty or Sheridan Whitewashed 1 1 forty years ago, entitled • Wilkes, Sheridan, and Fox '; but to his real magnum opus the noble Earl does not allude. The one which prepared him for the grand labour was another biography, the Life of no less a person than the late excellent Thomas Cook, of ' Cook's tourists ' celebrity. Here again he seems to have been invited by the family to undertake the work, and, I believe, did it to their perfect satisfaction. These are modest credentials enough ; but from ' Cook's tourists ' to the brilliant Brinsley is rather a leap. All which seems quite unique : ' the family' and its patron- age, the prefatory ' puffing ' of the biographer in his own book, the constant attacks on that other writer who did not take the family view, the wholesale branding as calumnies, prejudice, ignorance, etc., every story or tradition that was prejudicial to the hero, not to forget the amusing uncon- sciousness that introduces the most damaging particulars, such as the testimony of the second Mrs. Sheridan. I. THE APOCRYPHAL 'LINLEY' LETTERS. But the most curious feature is the reliance through the course of the work on numbers of letters of more than doubtful character, and which, to speak plainly, may reason- ably be suspected of having been fabricated. These are Miss Linley's love-letters, as they may be called, with certain later letters of hers from Crewe Hall, and a few of the Prince Regent's. The astonishing part is that the author, who is a practised writer, should have accepted these compromised 12 Sheridan Whitewashed papers with an almost guileless simplicity, and without attempting to apply to them any of the common tests usual in such cases. Here is their history : Some years ago, when these letters were first brought forward in the English Illustrated Magazine, they were in- troduced with an extraordinary narrative. We were assured that, when Drury Lane was burning, all Sheridan's papers were hurriedly heaped into barrels, and that these barrels were conveyed to cellars in the neighbouring purlieus, where they remained tmtil almost the present time. No authority was given, nor could be given, for this almost ' cock-and-bull story.' But the point is, that any papers coming to us with such a letter of introduction ought to be received with the gravest suspicion. I myself was attracted to the subject, and, in a letter to the tiaily News, and an article in the Saturday Review, exposed the whole deception. I showed that the papers, instead of being found in ' barrels,' came from the ' collection ' of Mr. McHenry, who obtained them from a well-known art dealer, from whom, again, they could be traced to Mr. Lacy's sale in 1877. Here they were described as ' papers relating to R. B. Sheridan and others,' and were sold for the modest sum of ^4 ! The contents of the barrels had thus shrunk into a small packet. Mr. Fraser Rae thinks that these barrel papers ' ought now rightly to be at Frampton Court.' No one, he says oddly, seems to have any qualms of conscience at buying, at auction or otherwise, ' family papers appertaining to the Sheridan family.' Still, as Mr. Augustine Daly so kindly placed at his disposal these very papers, which he had Sheridan Whitewashed 13 obtained from Mr. McHenry, it seems odd that Mr. Fraser Rae, in his devotion to ' the family,' should oddly hint that they ought to be ' magnanimously returned '! But they really ought not to be at Frampton Court, nor, indeed, in any other custody, as I am now about to show. With this awkward story before him, all Mr. Fraser Rae can do is to admit that the barrel story is ' mythical.' He glides over the important fact as to who was actually responsible for the barrel story, telling us cautiously that ' Mr. McHenry refused to suffer the source to be indicated from whence they were taken.' The biographer himself knows what this source is perfectly well, but all he can say is that ' the writer of the article,' who had them from Mr. McHenry, was ' under the im- pression that the documents were preserved in a barrel.' The responsibility for the legend is therefore cast entirely upon the gentleman who furnished the materials to the writer of the article ; but he is unluckily dead. Mr. Fraser Rae, however, can censure the person who dared to make the exposure — myself, that is — and ' who, it seems, has unwisely plumed him- self on having exposed a literary imposture.' We shall see in a moment which of the party it is that has ' unwisely plumed himself,' and where the imposture really comes in. At the very outset, this attempt to palm off a fabri- cated story on the public at once rouses suspicion, and suggests something more, viz., the probability of imposture in the papers themselves, which it would be difficult to rebut. Almost at once we find this presumption supported. For, firstly, among them there was a well-known letter pur- porting to be Miss Linley's own account of her elopement, 14 Sheridan Whitewashed and which appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine. This, it was pointed out long ago by Moore, by myself, and by Mr. Fraser Rae also, as though it were a special discovery of his own, was an admitted fabrication. He tells us with some pride, in his preface, that he had the original ' recently in his temporary custody,' and he even supplies a facsimile of the handwriting. But he is carefiil not to tell us the quarter whence it came into his ' temporary custody,' and for good reason too ; for, in the magazine article, it was introduced to us with the batch of papers found in the barrels ! This fact alone would cast suspicions on its fellows. These two awkward incidents had no effect in shaking the biographer's faith. But to come to details. Let us take one of these letters at random — a short one — and test it by a superficial examination, which the biographer has neglected to do. Moore mentions that Miss Linley fell ill on arriving at Lille and was attended by an English physician, Dr. Dolman. By an extraordinary piece of luck, a prescrip- tion of this gentleman's has been preserved to this hour. ' Dear sir,' it ran, ' It will not be improper to give one of the papers in a glass of wine twice a day, morning and evening. Don't wait supper on me, as my time is not my own. Com- pliments and wishes of health to your lady. I remain, R. D., 15th April, 1772.' It is addressed, ' Monsieur Sherridan, Gentilhomme Anglais, a I'hotel de Bourbon, Sur la grande Place.' Now, first for the direction. Here we have an English doctor who cannot spell the familiar name of Sheridan ! Hotel de Bourbon is not French at all ; Hotel Bourbon is, witness the familiar ' Elysee ' Bourbon, or 'Palais Sheridan Whitewashed 15 Bourbon.' It may be doubted, indeed, if, in those autocratic times, any ' Hotel de Bourbon ' would be tolerated at all. Again, in a provincial town everyone would know where the hotel was, and the direction would run, ' Hotel Bourbon, Grande Place,' not ' sur la Grande Place.' These are trifles, but all betray the fiction. Again, an English doctor in Lille could certainly call ' his time his own ' at least for a supper. But what will be said when we find — that at the very moment this was written the lady was actually under the doctor's own roof ! This can be shown by two letters, one of Sheridan's own, oddly enough dated the same day as the prescription, the other of one of his family. From these it appears that Miss Linley first went to a convent, but that her illness was so serious that the doctor and his wife received her into their house so as to take better care of her. Sheridan in his letter says ' she is recovered, and about to fix herself at the convent.' But this house she never left, and there she was found by her father. So that at this moment the doctor was sending drugs to Sheridan for a patient who was under his, the doctor's, own roof! It is obvious that the prescription was fabricated on the basis of the allusion to the doctor and his wife given in Moore's Life. How likely, too, that the careless Brinsley would have treasured up this precious prescription, bringing it over to Bath, then on to London, and finally to his theatre ! Another evidence of fabrication. There are love-letters of Miss Linley 's, long and numerous — one is of inordinate length — which contain a few specimens of bad spelling, such as ' bright Hevns,' ' milener,' ' no joak,' ' cords ' for ' cards,' 1 6 Sheridan Whitewashed 'auguer' for 'arguer,' 'frose,' 'suspiscions,' and ' half-nacked. These are all. Mr. Fraser Rae later in his work apologizes for the lady, saying that her early education had been neglected, which is not the case. She was an elegant, accom- plished woman. But the miracle is that in the thousands of words written by her in these letters — one alone contains nearly 4,000 words — many of a kind most difficult to spell, and where she was sure to ' come to grief,' she makes no other mistakes! Now, that an ignorant person should perform this feat, and yet talk of being ' nacked ' or ' half-nacked,' is a puzzle that can only be explained in one way, viz., that the manufacturer thought it would be a bit of local colour, and supply an antique look. Again, we have ' S n ' for 'Sheridan,' over and over again, 'The K — ' for 'the King,' • Sir T C ' for ' Sir Thomas Clarges,' ' Miss R ,' ' ' Miss T ,' etc. Now, these profess to be love-letters of the most intimate and confidential sort, and yet we have this odd caution of calling her lover ' my S n,' and his Majesty, ' the K — . ' These cannot be erasures, as no one would erase the word 'Sheridan' by making it 'S n.' Let us turn to the vulgar efflision in which this ' half- nacked ' is intruded. After meeting Mr. Sheridan one night at a party, Miss Linley is supposed to write to him : ' Only think of this bright Hevns. . . . Upon my knees, half-nacked, once more I am going to tire you with my nonsense . . . twelve o'clock . . . why did you run away so soon to-night ? I gave up my cords the moment you left : my sister is very impatient that I don't come into bed, but I feel more happiness in this situation, tho' I am half frose, Sheridan Whitewashed 17 than in the warmest bed in England.' My ' cords ' indeed ! The ' made-up ' character of this stuff is evident : She was on her knees writing ; yet we have the dashes and dots, which should be the marks of erasure, or were introduced by the writer for melodramatic effect, and which are supposed to express an interval or interruption, for we have then ' twelve o'clock.' And all the time her sister is waiting in bed ! These constant blanks are explained by the writer of the magazine article, who had the letters before him, as ' being rendered illegible by the lapse of time.' We can follow clearly enough the way in which these letters have been engendered. In most accounts of Sheridan's life we find certain verses, which he addressed to his mistress on ' a grotto of moss-covered stone.' Here he was 'Horatio,' and she 'Delia.' Accordingly, in one of the letters we have the passage, ' I will call you Horatio — that is the name you gave yourself in that sweet ■poem! Who could know this better than the author.'' The poem was suggested by a lovers' quarrel. Neither had reason to re- mind one another of the incident ; but it had to be explained to the reader. But it is in the substance, style, tone, that we see the spurious character of these papers. No one of true cv\i\caX flair could be taken in by them for a moment. We have only to set one of them beside a genuine letter of Miss Linley's, and are struck by the calm, gentle, colnposed tone of the latter, the air of good sense and good feeling. We never could imagine this elegant creature talking of being ' half-nacked ' (indeed, the most ignorant housemaid in Bath would not spell * naked ' in this way). I 8 Sheridan Whitewashed In all these letters we have the admitted topics and incidents utilized. Thus, Moore mentions that Captain Paumier brought Sheridan a letter from Miss Linley, when he was lying ill of his wounds. We find her, in one of her sham letters, writing, ' I cannot stay to write more, as Mr. P is waiting.' When the news was broken to her of the duel, Moore says that her secret escaped from her, and that she exclaimed, ' My husband !' In one of the doubtful letters we have, ' It is strongly reported that we ' (here is left a mysterious blank which we are supposed to fill up with ' are married '), ' and that I discovered it in my fright when I first heard of your duel.' The Grenville-Sheridan letters supplied by the biographer throw some light on the falsification. In one, Sheridan writes to his friend that he was firmly keeping his promise or oath to his father of never writing to Miss Linley, though he had received a letter from her imploring him to write. These letters of his are full of suffering affection and con- stancy ; yet in the spurious letters we find the lady in a perfect fury, insisting on her letters being returned, abusing him ' like a fish-wife.' ' Think not I am to be terrified by your threats. I know by what means my letters were made ■public. When I found you no longer the man my fond imagination had painted you, when I found myself spoken of with contempt, laughed at, made the sport of your idle hours, and the subject of your wit with every milener s prentice in Bath . . . the remorse and horror which I feel would not permit me to marry one,' etc. Then she says, ' I conjure you to leave me in peace — to cease persecuting me. ... I could never Sheridan Whitewashed 19 be your wife,' the fact being, as the Grenville letters prove, that the lover, instead of ' persecuting ' her, was determined not to write to her at all. * I could never be your wife ' was an odd utterance from one who had married him, and who, in her agitation at the news of the duel, had exclaimed, ' My husband 1' Mr. Fraser Rae quite passes by the fact that he exhibits his model hero as a sort of blackguard, threatening and slandering a poor helpless girl, and making public her letters. She then goes on to boast of her conquests, and the great ' matches ' she might have made but for him. ' Know, then, that before I left Bath, after I had refused Sir T C [Sir Thomas Clarges] and two other gentlemen of fortune on your account,' etc. How unlikely that the refined Linley would remind her lover of such things, or tell him such a falsehood ! The fact was she had not refused the Baronet. Moore mentioned him as one of those who were named in the Bath papers as ' invented admirers ' who were seeking her hand. And Sheridan, as we find from these Grenville letters, had noted the report, with great un- easiness. Now, it came to pass that his friend actually met this Baronet at Oxford, and, at Sheridan's request, asked him about the matter, when he showed the utmost astonish- ment, declared that there was not the least ground for the rumour, and that he was going abroad. Thus confronted by one of his own witnesses, Mr. Fraser Rae can only say that he was telling a falsehood ! Coming to a later period, in another of these letters we have : ' I see Mrs. Siddons is announced. Have you brought her to reasonable terms? Or is it enormous.-' I 20 ' Sheridan Whitewashed want to know, too, why "Cymon" is withdrawn, and how have you managed with the Duke of B d about the Opera?' (Why suppress the Duke's name ?) ' Have you seen anything about Dr. Parr ?' It is easy to trace the fabrication in this process. The writer had evidently looked into Geneste's useful chronicle of the stage, and seen that * Cymon ' was put down only for a single night ; so he naturally concluded it had been withdrav/n. But lower down Geneste adds that it had a great success, and was acted night after night for thirty or forty nights ! ' I want to know, too, why " Cymon" is with- drawn.' We are told that Mrs. Sheridan took a great part in the administration of the theatre, and actually • kept the books,' read plays, etc.; yet here she is at Isleworth, not an hour's distance from town, knows nothing of what was going on, and asks about Mrs. Siddons ! Another proof of this ' faking up ' is the question about the Duke of Bedford and the opera. There was nothing to be done with the Duke or opera ; but the Drury Lane company were at that tinie playing at the Opera House in the Haymarket. The writer probably saw in Kelly's memoirs that the Duke of Bedford wrote to Sheridan to ask his influence in obtain- ing an additional piece of ground at the Pantheon Opera, and this suggested ' how have you managed with the Duke,' etc. Mr. Fraser Rae is so guileless and so trusting that he can- not resist any letter that has at all the air of spuriousness. Thus, he furnishes a letter from the Prince of Wales to Mrs. Sheridan, dated October 12, 1781, 'which proves,' he says, 'that he met Mrs. Sheridan before 1788, and that he Sheridan Whitewashed 21 had been guilty of impoliteness.' The Prince, it seems, writes that he will call upon her to-morrow soon after nine o'clock ' to explain his apparent indifference.' ' He is sorry that it could be supposed that he meant to treat her ill, or in a manner unlike a gentleman.' ' My footman will bring this.' This is written from Windsor, and sent up specially by ' my footman ' ; and the Prince says he will call next morning at the odd hour of nine, before anyone would be up. Now as the lady was either in town, or in the suburbs, Putney, etc., he would have to start at five, six, or seven to make this odd visit ! And ' to explain his apparent indifference ' : as if he — the Prince — could be called to account for such a thing, or that such a trifle would affect him in any way. Other letters of the Prince to Sheridan are given (ii. 247), which also seem to me not to be genuine, and for these reasons : In one we find the Prince writing that he would 'listen to anything from the K — ,' and in other places he uses the same form — ' the K — .' Why should he be afraid to write his father's name at length in a confidential letter .'' And, again, he is made to complain many times that Sheridan had neglected to keep appointments, and that ' he had waited from a quarter past six for him to call.' Mr. Fraser Rae says feebly, ' in this matter Mr. Sheridan was no rQppecter of persons,' and cannot see that it was impossible that, with all his neglect of others, he could treat a Prince in so scandalous a fashion. There were limits beyond which even 'G.P.' would not allow him to go, nor would the latter remonstrate so gently. The writer was, of course, 22 Sheridan Whitewashed turning to account the familiar topic of Sheridan's un- punctuality. Another of these letters is a palpable fabrication. The sensible, fashionable Mrs. Sheridan is shown scampering about from party to party in chase of her husband, who was living in her house, and whom she had seen in the day. And all because she was frantically eager that he should go with her to one particular party ! She writes : ' My Dearest Love, — I shall call at the office [what office ? The theatre, says Mr. Fraser Rae] for the chance of seeing you, tho' I am afraid it will be in vain. But I write again to beg you would come to us in the Evening, for indeed, my dear Shery, I am never so happy as when you partake my amusements ... I shall not, therefore, enjoy this party to-night unless you are of it. We shall not go from Mrs. Nugent's till half- past ten, I dare say. The girls are to come in the coach to me there by ten to go with us, and I shall direct them to call at the H-ouse of Commons for you. If it should be up before, leave word where you are to be, and they shall call for you anywhere else. I don't suppose it is necessary to he drest ; but if the House sits late, and you cannot come at all, at least send me one little kind line by them to make me feel happy for the rest of the night. If by accident the coach should miss you, Mrs. N. lives in Portman Street. God thee bless, my dear one, believe that I love thee, and will love thee for ever.' The absurdity of all this will be seen when it is stated that they had been ten years married ; yet she goes hunting him about ^ from the office ' for the chance of seeing him, to the Sheridan Whitewashed 23 House of Commons and to other houses, sending ' the girls ' after him ; and he is to appear at a fashionable party without being ' drest.' And then he is ' to write one little kind line,' etc. Among other sham letters we have some written in a conjugal dialect or jargon, which is quite unique. Here is one : ' My Dearest, ' I send a little.;?^ only to ask how e do, and to know how e are all going on there, and if e have heard how the K — behaved at the Levee to-day. Pray send me a line to the theatre, for e know what an anxious Poush I am. God thee love, my own one. I love e for ever, let what will happen.' And there are others in the same strain. Now, it is remarkable that in all the genuine accepted letters we have no specimen of this childish prattle. And be it remembered this is all of the same precious tap, drawn from the barrel. Indeed, it is a libel' on this interesting woman to suppose she could write such ' twaddle.' How different her own sensible, composed style in a genuine letter ! It is a dilFerent thing altogether, and a different person : , ' So Mrs. is not happy, poor thing ! I dare say, if the truth were known, he bores her to death. Your very good husbands generally contrive to make you sensible of their merits, somehow or another. ... As you know, poor Dick and I have always been struggling against the stream, 24 Sheridan Whitewashed and shall probably continue to do so till the end of our lives. Yet we would not change sentiments or sensations with for all his estate.' There wrote the real Linley, without 'Poushes' and 'fiffs,' or ' e ' this and that. But note the inconsistencies ! ' The K — ,' as if she dared not put down the august name in full, addressing her own husband. She writes from London, apparently, and yet wants to know how ' the K — behaved at the Levee,' and this precious news is to be sent to her at the theatre. According to another of these too transparent fabrications, we find Mr. Sheridan away in the country — we are to suppose at an election — when his anxious wife writes : ' how rejoiced I shall be to see you again, dear, dear Sheri !' ' Sheri ' indeed ! Everyone knows that he was called ' old Sherry,' but in the accepted letters his wife always addressed him as ' My dear Dick' or 'Dearest Dick.' This letter must have been addressed to the country, for it is in answer ' to the contents of his note,' and yet she tells him in advance that ' you will find us all at Drury Lane if you make haste. We are assembled at this moment in Mr. Younge's room, and they are all eating mutton chops, while I am writing to you, and the carpenters are setting the scene (a bit of local colour !). The absurdity of all this is patent. The wife is eager to meet her husband. Instead of waiting at her own house, she fixes on the theatre as a trysting-place, where ' you will find us all if you make haste.' As the letter had to travel to him, and to reach him, the banquet of mutton chops would have Sheridan Whitewashed 25 been over hours before. And who is this Mr. Younge of the mutton chops? There was a well-known Miss Younge, afterwards Mrs. Pope ; but there was no other Younge to cook mutton chops in his room with the manager's wife. All which is meant to give an idea of bustle and flutter — the idolizing wife panting to meet her husband, sending notes from one house to another, instead of being, as anyone can see who reads her letters, a woman of fashion, moving in her own set, fond of cards, and, above all, tranquil, sensible, com- posed, and reserved. In another of these letters she talks of ' Brompton House,' which she invites her husband to get rid of There was no ' Brompton House ' ; it was ' Cromwell House ' at Brompton. But we have also a genuine letter written by her while Sheridan was away in the throes of his election at Stafford, and which shows how the real Mrs. Sheridan was aifected by such a crisis. It is given by Moore. It will be seen there is nothing of these hysterics, and that it exhibits strong, calm, rational affection. She could write to her ' dearest T3ick' to say they were all ' full of anxiety and fright'; yet she could tell him also that ' we had a very pleasant musical party at Erskine's, where I supped.' She had ' dined with Lady Palmerston ; the Duke of Portland had called,' etc. The woman who was frantically pursuing her husband from party to party would not have taken things so tranquilly when such a crisis was going on at Stafford. Again, we can trate the ' engendure ' of these papers. We shall give an instance. Sheridan had written a poem in many verses on certain Indian birds called avadavats. How 26 Sheridan IVhitewashed natural, then, that Mrs. Sheridan should mention them in a letter ! So we have this in her own infantine dialect : ' Here we are, sir, returned to our cottage, and my avada- vats are very well, and send their duty to you. So how do e do, sir, and what's your history.? as Mrs. C says. Am I to see e eyes to-night, or is there faro or anything going on in town .'' I send George for some books, so send me a fifF if e are at home, but don't keep him. Tom is very well. God thee love, my dearest.' Mr. Fraser Rae, though he gives a facsimile of one letter which is admittedly genuine, supplies another of this very avadavat letter, as though he felt it needed such support. On comparing the two, it seems certain that they are not in the same handwriting. The genuine one, though written from her death-bed, is bold, firm, and round ; this ' avadavat ' letter is quavering, angular, and uncertain. However, this is a matter for experts to settle. 'Am I to see e eyes to-night?' — these fine eyes are often mentioned in memoirs — ' or is ' there faro or anything going on,' etc. There is a peculiar im- becility about this question. Faro and other sorts of gaming ' were always going on ' regularly, as she knew perfectly. I must confess, too, that I do not think much faith is to be put in the letters from Crewe Hall (ii. 123). The biographer tells us nothing of their pedigree, whether they have come out of the barrel or from ' the muniments at Frampton.' ' The covers of most are lost,' he tells us, which is truly unlucky. In another we have: ' I am writing in my bed, Sir.' (In the genuine letters there is a good deal of this ' Sir.') ' I did not know Edwards was going to town till I was quite un- Sheridan Whitewashed 27 dressed, going to bed ' — in fact, half nacked, as usual — ' when he knocked at my door.' She was so angry at not knowing of it before. Now, fancy this man-servant going up to town towards midnight ! She was probably at Hampton Court, we are told, when she wrote the following : ' We ex- pected you [her ' Sheri '] last night, and sat up till two in the morning, and waited dinner till five to-day. Do you really long to see me .'' Dear, dear Sheri, don't be cross ; I cannot love you and be ■perpetually satisfied at such a distance from you.* Now, in Moore's Life, vol. ii., p. 148, we find the genesis of all this, viz., a letter of Mrs. Sheridan's to her ' Dear Lissey,' from Putney. She writes to her sister, ' Dear Mary has been expecting me hourly for the last fort- night \i.e., at Hampton Court.] I propose going there to-night, if Dick returns in any decent time from town.' Here Sheridan is expected; but there is no frantic panting for his arrival. All Is composed and rational, if not in- different : ' if he returns in any decent time.' The biographer tells us that at one time Sheridan actually proposed going to live in the country in Flintshire, where he was to become ' half country gentleman and half farmer,' and his only authority for this odd scheme for so prominent a political man is, apparently, one of these dubious letters. ' Do think of this, my dearest Dick, and let me have a little quiet home here that I can enjoy with comfort. I am going to bed.' It seems this was written from Crewe Hall, and she had gone over to Gresford to examine the new house. Sheri- dan never had an idea of burying himself in the country. In the same letter she is made to ask, ' Have you done any- 28 Sheridan Whitewashed thing in regard to the Prince which you said you would ? If you could ^f/ a friend to relieve you from these ruinous annuities at legal interest, it would make us quite happy.' This, I really think, is proof convincing of fabrication, for the notion that so sensible a woman, who knew her Brinsley, would make so banal a suggestion to him ; as if she did not know that Brinsley himself would have got such a friend to relieve him, if such were to be found, or were fool enough to lend him money ! The phrase, too, ' relieve you from these ruinous annuities at legal interest,' is like nothing she ever wrote, or that a wife would write. We shall be told, of course, that these letters are all in Mrs. Sheridan's handwriting, or, rather, in what appears to be her handwriting. But such imitation has often been suc- cessfully attempted. We have had plenty of these forgeries, the Shelley letters, the Burns papers, and the Thackeray letters. These latter were admirable imitations both in handwriting and matter. A friend of my own detected one by finding the letter of the postal district added before such a thing was introduced. But Mr. Fraser Rae treats all this stuff with solemn respect, appealing to it as proof of the affectionate terms upon which the pair were. His position is certainly a pitiable one, for after what I have just said the matter cannot rest there, and the papers will have to be seriously examined and tested. He has made such abundant use of them, and built so much on them, that once the crazy foundation is removed, the whole figure of the whitewashed Sheridan will come toppling down in ruin. Sheridan Whitewashed 29 It is odd what a family likeness there is in the methods in which such impostures are introduced. Chatterton, the 'marvellous boy,' discovered his in an 'old chest' in St. Mary RedcliiFe. Ireland had an ' old gentleman ' from whom he gradually extracted his papers. The Linley operators had their ' barrels ' lying perdu s in Drury Lane cellars, and soaked with water and begrimed with the dirt of the conflagration. The biographer all through seems to have a hankering after dubious papers of all kinds. Though, in truth, as a fictitious Sheridan is to be put together, it is only natural that fictitious material should be used. Sheridan, we know, was always intending to revise and publish a cor- rected copy of his ' School for Scandal.' There is no surprise, therefore, in hearing that such an amended copy, or a portion of it, has actually turned up ! ' I was fortunate enough,' says Mr. Fraser Rae, ' to find, among a mass of tattered and begrimed papers which had been put aside as worthless, two acts of the comedy which had been prepared by Sheridan for publication. ... It must have been executed by Sheridan late in life, as the dark ink of his pen is in striking contrast to the faded ink of the MS.' Here is only another shape of ' the barrel.' We have the same reserve and mystery which cloaked their production. But where were these papers found.'' To whom did they belong .'' They did not come fi-om the meagre ' muniments at Frarapton Court,' or we should have been told so. Mr. Fraser Rae is quite silent on the point. It is odd, certainly, that the barrel documents were also described as being ' begrimed ' and dirty, as if damaged by water and immured 30 Sheridan Whiteivashed in the cellars. Could they have been a portion of these ? We cannot tell, and can only speculate. In these so-called ' corrections ' ' Sheridan,' we are told, ' did not neglect even the stage directions,' Thus, we have ' Lady Sneerwell discovered at her toilet. ' ' Now,' says Mr. Fraser Rae in his most sapient style, ' no one has ever asked why discovered. Sheridan saw the absurdity of this word, and corrected it to " Room in Lady Sneerwell's house. Lady Sneerwell at her toilet." ' No one, of course, asks why ' discovered,' because everyone, save Mr. Fraser Rae, would know, as Sheridan did well, that it is a familiar stage direction meaning ' discovered by the rising of the curtain.' Again, Snake says that Sir Peter acted ' as a kind of guardian ' to the Surfaces. Our biographer tells us that Sheridan ' saw that he had made a sli'p, as a man is either a guardian or he is not, a kind of one being an absurdity.' There is an absurdity, but it is in this rather childish gloss. Poor Sheridan ! So it becomes ' acted as guardian ' simply. The biographer claims our admiration for these emendations, but which must have come from the hand that made Miss Linley write she was ' half-nacked.' Again, the common text runs : ' Now, in the face of these circumstances, it is utterly unaccountable to me why you, the widow of a city knight, with a good jointure, should not close with the passion of a man of such character as Mr. Surface.' This becomes : ' Now, on the face of these circumstances, which I am sure I state fairly, it seems, etc., why you, a widow — -your own mistress and independent in your fortune, etc., should not close with the addresses, etc' Sheridan Whitewashed 31 These ' corrections ' seem not worth making or reproduc- ing, and are too ridiculous to be Sheridan's, Mr. Fraser Rae, interpreting Sheridan's intentions, then tells us that the speaker would not remind the lady that she was the ' widow of a city knight,' not seeing that this was mentioned as a bona-fide compliment to her importance. Among the barrel papers were some notes on the liabilities of the theatre, and 'a counsel's opinion,' signed Edward Hilliard, Lincoln's Inn Fields, March 27, 1790. This practitioner writes of ' the mortgage belonging to the late Mr. Garrick ' — a phrase no one learned in the law would use, ' held ' being the word. In this odd ' opinion ' he talks of ' the very fair and candid proposal of Mr. Sheridan to do any act which may be advised for the further security of the mortgage money and interest, and for the alleviation and assist- ance of his co-obligees in the bonds ^ ail which is the merest jargon. II. TESTIMONIES TO SHERIDAN'S CHARACTER BY HIS FRIENDS, RELATIONS, AND CONTEMPORARIES. But now let us turn from this doubtful matter to the question of Sheridan ' whitewashed to order,' as he is in these two volumes. I propose now to show briefly that all his calumniators and traducers are of his own household, and of his own society (on whom else can we better call.''), whose testimony we can set against the well-meaning assertions of Lord DufFerin and his biographer. Had I but space and time, a long, long list could be drawn 32 Sheridan Whitewashed up of such witnesses, who can be called to testify to Sheridan's generally bad reputation — a testimony based on their personal dealings with him. His own family cries out against him — his father, his brother, his sister Elizabeth, his first wife, his second wife, his son ' Tom,' his son's tutor, and his son's wife, Mrs. Tom Sheridan ! His friends and subordinates, the Linleys, Mrs. Siddons, and John Kemble, with his actors generally ; Mr. C. Butler, Rogers, Mrs. Canning, Byron, all join in abus- ing him. So do his 'political associates, the Regent, Lord Holland, Lord Grey, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Adam, Mr. Pitt, Mackintosh, Burke, Lord John Townshend, Sir Samuel Romilly, and many more. First, as to his family. His father gave Lord Shelburne ' a very bad character of him,' and said that ' he was not to be trusted.' He had good reason for saying this, as the son had solemnly sworn to him that he would give up his lady-love. What of his first wife, the interesting Linley.'' Mr. Fraser Rae has quite glossed over Sheridan's treatment of her. Mr. Smyth, a much respected person, a Pro- fessor at Oxford, but who, according to the biographer and ' the family,' is a fabricator and liar in omnibus, heard from her friend, Mrs. Canning, that Sheridan would tease his wife until ' she was ready to dash her head against the wall.' She told also of his desertions and infidelities. Moore admits that ' his vanity and passions too often led him to yield to the temptations by which he was surrounded.' Even the episode of his elopement, which has been in- vested with a sort of romance or tone of chivalry, will Sheridan Whitewashed 33 really be found to be a shifty business, with much of that selfishness and trickery which is so unpleasant in a young fellow. Let us see. (i) He began by supplanting his friend Halhed, and his brother Charles, deceiving them almost to the last moment. (2) A friendly merchant in London welcomed and sheltered him, and his aid was secured by the falsehood that he was eloping with a very rich heiress. (3) He was aided also by a son of this gentleman, who was, however, ' greatly vexed at the manner of your drawing for the last £20': so he thus early showed himself crooked in money transactions, (4) The young man's behaviour to his mistress revealed the same trickiness and lack of honour. The excuse for his accompanying her was that his sister was to introduce Miss Linley to some friends at St. Quentin who would shelter her; but when they arrived at Calais he persuaded the helpless creature that she had committed herself too far, and got her to go through a form of marriage, which he knew in those days was practically worthless. (5) Finally, in spite of the marriage contract, he swore to his father that he would throw her over, adding the falsehood that he had ' extricated him- self from this unfortunate connection,' while all the time he was telling another story to a friend. Such was he as a lover. Moore was told by Miss Ogle, the second Mrs. Sheridan's sister, that she had gone over the letters of both his wives, and that ' both series began in the same strain of love and worship, that both seemed gradually alienated by his selfish and vainglorious infidelities and extravagances, till they ended 3 34 Sheridan Whitewashed in disliking him.' She said he was altogether amiable and attractive where his vanity or his passions did not interfere. As to his moral character as a husband, Mr. Fraser Rae furnishes us with a new and startling testimony. There is a general idea of Mrs. Crewe, the noted has bleu, as a brilliant, lively lady of high position and irreproachable character. That she had many admirers, lovers even, and followers, we all know. But no one, until Lord DufFerin's biographer came, ever thought of ' smirching ' her character. Who could think that a person called to vindicate Sheridan quand meme, to show him as very perfect in omnibus, should of a sudden, and without a particle of evidence, declare boldly that he had had an intrigue with this lady ! Such seem incredible. What, Mrs. Crewe, the friend of the staid Hannah More, of Dr. Johnson, and other irreproachable persons ! But what will be said when it is found that the odious scandal is founded on a mere colloquial allusion by Sheridan's own sister, who is made to charge her brother with this infamy ! Mr. Fraser Rae murmurs in faltering style that ' it is better to publish these things than let conjectures run riot.' But no one was conjecturing, and nothing ' running riot ' save Mr. Fraser Rae himself. Then, suddenly struck by the heinousness of such a charge, he pleads, "■ It can be shown that this backsliding did not last long.' Lord DufFerin, who ' passed ' the proofs, seems to adopt it, and becomes particeps criminis, though it actually ' knocks the legs ' from beneath the hobbling case put forward. Elizabeth Sheridan speaks of the business lightly, as Sheridan Whitewashed 35 though it were a mere bagatelle. ' You must know,' she writes, ' that Mrs. Crewe, among other lovers (favoured ones I mean), has had our brother in her train. As his fame and consequence in life have increased, her charms have diminished, and, passion no longer the tie between them, his affection has returned to its proper channel.' The only words here that could be made to support even an ambiguous meaning are ^favoured ones,' but it will be seen that if an evil meaning is to be attached to them, it must be extended to the others of the ' train,' and thus we have Mrs. Crewe as a regular demirep. But the words ' in her train ' show that she was speaking of a band of admirers, of whom Sheridan and some more were 'favoured.' Yet the correct and strict Mrs. Sheridan frequented the society of this betrayer of her domestic peace till the day of her death. It should be mentioned that there is an awkward story of a number of letters addressed to Sheridan by ' fair Cyprians,' and other ladies, and which someone got into his possession for chantage purposes. As these were found in ' the barrels,' I have often had a suspicion that they might have been adapted and fashioned for Miss Linley. The ' half-nacked ' one might very appropriately come from one of these corre- spondents. But, odd to say, Mr. Fraser Rae, who coolly gives away his client in the serious Crewe business, defends him in this more unimportant matter. He had had the papers in his hands, and gravely decides that Sheridan, though indiscreet advances were made to him, showed himself quite correct. Mrs. Siddons, by the way, had told Mr. Rogers that she had, when driving with Mr. Sheridan, to threaten to 36 Sheridan Whitewashed call her footman to turn him out of the carriage, as he was misbehaving. Of course, the biographer does not venture to remember this. Next, as to his second wife. There the biographer triumphantly appeals to Miss Ogle, Sheridan's sister-in-law, for a character, who, he says, enlarged on his merits to Moore, and begged of him not to stint his praises. It is a small point that she was only speaking of his talent, which nobody denies. But what will be said to the biographer who deliberately suppresses the rest of her testimony.'' For she also told Moore that both his wives ' were gradually alienated by his selfish and vainglorious infidelities and extravagances, that they often wished him dead for her sister's sake, who might then recover her health '! Of course, ' the family ' would not accept such a statement. But what shall be said of the biographer's fairness and candour .-' From an almost beseeching letter of his second wife to the treasurer of Drury Lane, we find that her husband would leave this poor lady without a shilling, though he had promised that a certain sum should be sent every month. ' She could not go on longer,' she protested, ' and she would have to raise it.' This was the man who deceived her with his ' flourishings ' about his having ^^ 10,000 a year ! The biographer was entrusted with a long series of letters that passed between Sheridan and this lady. One must at least admire the judicious reserve with which he has made selections from this correspondence, which it is likely, if given in full, would throw a flood of light on Mr. Sheridan's general conduct. She was unreasonably given to complaints Sheridan Whitewashed 37 of his waste and extravagance. At one time she actually talked of leaving him ! But, then, as the apologist says beautifully, 'husband and wife are not always in perfect accord ; yet the pendulum of affection seldom oscillates so greatly,' etc. Thus we have an entirely new moral system to suit the Sheridan case. True affection, usually supposed to be constant, is to oscillate, as it oscillated in that little affair, the ' backsliding ' Mr, S. had with Mrs. Crewe. His wife also accused him, and with good reason, of having misrepresented the state of his affairs when they married. His defence was that ^^30,000 of the theatre money ' had been stolen by the undetected villainy of two lawyers and a banker.' One of his letters to his wife, we are told, fills four quarto pages with explanations in reply to charges, etc. This shows what a serious indictment the lady was able to draw up against him. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have put these letters aside altogether. Of course, she was a disagree- able person. He had to ' remonstrate with her repeatedly for her demands, for another horse,' etc.; but his patience — good man ! — with her ' was exemplary and almost inex- haustible,' and he was ' always kindly when answering her inconsiderate requests.' ' I have broken through the rule of my life,' he once wrote to her ; ' stooped, for the first time, to solicit and accept the pecuniary assistance of private friendship ' — a rotund phrase that might have been used by Mr. Micawber. And in another place he thus extols himself ; ' I have never done a dishonest or a base act. I have never omitted to do a kind, a generous, or a benevolent one when I had the power. But sins of 38 Sheridan Whitewashed omission, senseless credulity, unworthy indolence, all abetted by one vile habit, somewhat palliated by an original infirmity of constitution, but never to be excused,' etc. This honest confession of his ' vile habit,' which was his ruin, was only the two or three glasses which, according to Lord Dufferin, ' overset the delicate poise of his brain ' ! Moore had also some talk with Mrs. Tom Sheridan, who gave her father-in-law this sort of Mrs. Candour testimonial. She spoke of his good nature, but with a qualification — that is, ^ when no object of his own interfered.' Moreover, 'under the alarm of any pressure or inconvenience from want of money, he would not hesitate at any means for procuring it.' What does Lord DufFerin say to this witness from his house- hold — his own grandmother? And what says his son Tom .? He was neglected, his edu- cation scarcely attended to, and when he found friends who were willing to push him forward and provide for him, his father selfishly interposed on the pretext that he must ' preserve his independence,' that is, not allow his own claims to be enfeebled. On two occasions he thus interfered. Lord St. Vincent offered his son Tom the Registrarship at Malta, which ' his unbending consistency,' says his apologist, ' was vindicated by declining.' What is the true history of the transaction, as told by one who ought to know — Mr. Tierney — and which Moore forbore to print.'' Sheridan, indeed, ' magnanimously refused the office,' but, at the same time, begged of Tierney to give him the place for someone else ! Mr. Fraser Rae takes no notice of this. But ' Tom's ' own testimony is the most damaging. ' My Sheridan Whitewashed 39 father,' he said, ' dare not face the compromise which must be made with the creditors [of the theatre]. The funds from which Mrs. Sheridan's jointure were drawn are to be traced, with much beside, which he is endeavouring to conceal.' There is proof of an awkward story of the marriage settlement, too long to enter on here ; and there was a transaction of the purchase of an estate for Sir. W. Geary, also connected with the second Mrs. Sheridan's settlement, all which things the biographer puts aside as untrue. Whatever way we turn, there is the same old story — dishonesty, trickery, shiftiness — and the biographer cannot see, or is not allowed to see, any of these things. But listen to Mrs. Siddons and to her brother, Kemble. ' Very few of the actors are paid,' she writes, ' and all are vowing to withdraw.' And again : ' I can get no money from the theatre. My precious ,^2,000 are swallowed up,' etc. To Kemble, ^^4,000 was due, and it was only by threats of ' striking ' that he could extort ;^50. Yet shortly after, the pair were seen at a party at Lord Abercorn's, arriving in a very elegant chariot and four, with two footmen, though a duchess had only one. Mrs. Sheridan was laden with jewels, and wore a costly shawl, for which her husband boasted that he had given some forty or fifty pounds. And here it may be said that Mr. Fraser Rae's attempt to prove that Sheridan ' owed ' little at his death is quite worth- less. Lord DufFerin, in his introduction to his mother's poems and in his laudation of his biographer, has given his own views of Sheridan's character. These amount to no more than assertions. Something more is required than 40 Sheridan Whitewashed merely to decree that his great-grandfather's character is to be so and so. j^ 5,000, it seems, was the amount of his debts. But no account, of course, is taken of the baffled, unpaid creditors who had given up all hope of recovering their debts in despair, or who were barred by the statute. At the burning of the theatre, we find that enormous sums were owing to the actors, who were compelled to accept a quarter of the amount. The general hopelessness in dealing with this accomplished spendthrift is well illustrated by the anecdote told by Byron, of a visit to his own solicitor, and of his meeting Sheridan there. ' Oh, the usual thing,' said the solicitor ; ' come to stave off proceedings by his wine merchant.' 'What will you do?' he asked. 'Proceed against old Sherry? What would be the use ?' This, in its way, is highly significant. A characteristic incident was Sheridan's attempt to draw John Kemble into the management, already bankrupt, by a roseate description of the enormous profits and.. prosperous state of the property. The receipts were ,£60,000 a year. He would get his own bankers to advance him ^10,000 to put into the concern. Kemble was wise enough to resist this snare. But what does Mr. Eraser Rae say to what Prince Hoare, the dramatist, told to Haydon the painter, that Sheridan announced a benefit for the distressed widow of Storace, the composer, and then swept ofF all the money that was taken at the doors? All libels, falsehoods, of course, will say Mr. Fraser Rae, that 'usually accumulate round the per- sonality of a man of Sheridan's idiosyncrasies.' Sheridan Whitewashed 41 As to Sheridan's treatment of the Linley family, Mr. Eraser Rae makes out that they suiFered nothing at his hands — that, in 1788, Mrs. Linley was in affluent circumstances, and that she died well oiF, with money in the Funds, etc. Her son, William Linle.y, told Mr. Moore a different story. He says Sheridan persuaded the family to part with their shares in the theatre, and which he said were never paid for. He then contrived to get into his own hands the disposal of every- thing, the sale of the private boxes, etc. ' He then,' says Moore, ' told some other stories of Sheridan's trickery in many ways, but seemed to acquit him of low, premeditated deception.' On his second marriage he had to find ^^ 15,000 by way of settlement, and he did. This sum, it was believed, was obtained by the sale of Drury Lane shares. But Miss Ogle told Moore that she had always heard that he had injured — i.e., defrauded — some parties to get the money. One of the Linleys also told him that he had persuaded the Linleys to part with their shares for annuities, which were never paid. On another occasion, we hear of his trying to wheedle old Mrs. Linley out of ;{[400. There was a picture of Mrs. Sheridan, by Gainsborough, which Linley sent to an exhibi- tion, where were some pictures of Sheridan's own. These were all seized by Sheridan's attorney, and Sheridan, in characteristic style, borrowed ;£ioo from the owner to get it back ! With all his attachment to his first wife, he left her picture in Sir Joshua's hands for years, not being able to pay for it. This was the fine ' St. Cecilia.' The painter at last wrote to him, valuing it at ;£500, but offering it to him at 42 Sheridan Whitewashed j^ifo. Sheridan eagerly accepted. It would not be fair to say that the sum was never paid, but it does not seem likely. The defences put forward for Sheridan's impecuniosity are truly comical. One is that, as he never kept receipts, he paid debts several times over. But if this were his general practice, it convicts him of utter indifference to his other creditors, who had to go without. But this, of course, was only an occasional instance. The biographer gives some items to show how cruelly the poor, simple-minded Brinsley was imposed upon by tradesmen — five shillings for cutting his hair, etc. What did the amount matter to him who did not pay, and considered paying debts ' muddling away money '.'' But Lord Dufferin with some scorn declares that ' if you owe large sums to persons of your own degree, as Pitt and Fox did, we should hear little of the matter ; but to with- hold j£5 from your bootmaker is properly counted more dis- creditable than a tardiness in paying ^^ 10,000 to a friend.' Though Lord Dufferin says 'justly considered,' it looks as though his sympathies were with the victim pressed by his bootmaker. The point about Fox and Pitt is ludicrously inapposite. For Sheridan could not get this superior class to trust him with their thousands, while Fox and Pitt, who had their high characters to go on, could. It is remarkable that everyone who had anything to do with Sheridan in matters of money or business had the same story. There was always something crooked or shifty. How is it that he, and he alone, if we are to trust his biographer, should be the subject of such a conspiracy of testimony .? No other public man that we know has suffered in this way. Sheridan Whitewashed 43 Even the good stories, jokes, etc., of which there is such a profusion, are, we are told, all fancifiil, or old Joe Millers, and have been invented and put to his credit, or discredit. One of the most striking pieces of evidence of his reckless extravagance in money matters is that, within only two years of his purchase of the splendid property of Drury Lane Theatre, he made default in the interest money that was due to Garrick. He actually served on the actor a formal notice that it could not be paid. A short time after- wards, on Garrick's death, his widow ordered a magnificent public funeral, and we are told that the undertaker was ruined, not being able to get his money from Mrs. Garrick, who could not get it from the theatre. The biographer seems to have been ' briefed ' to defend everything in his hero, even to his 'rubicund face,' unfairly, assumed to be evidence of drinking habits. The simplest course would be to rely on Lord DufFerin's plea that a couple of glasses only always ' overset the finely-strung texture of his nervous system.' But Mr. Eraser Rae tells us solemnly, 'Those who drink nothing stronger than claret-and- water may have very red faces.' So they may ; but, as he tells us that Sheridan drank a vast deal of claret in the early part of his life, and a great deal of brandy in the later part, the plea is not worth much. . But he has a better card : ' Mr. Malcolm Morris, the eminent dermatologist, who has carefully con- sidered all the facts about Sheridan's constitution, has arrived at the conclusion, which he has kindly allowed me to make public, that Sheridan may have suffered, as even water- drinkers often do, from a disease of the skin called acne 44 Sheridan Whitewashed rosacea.' AH which is certainly very funny, and we must admire the candour of the ' dermatologist,' who, after care- fully studying the case of a person he had never seen, can get no further than a ' may have.' One trustworthy witness, a man of the highest character, a religious and scrupulous man, Mr. Charles Butler — who was even partial to him — reluctantly says : ' None but those who witnessed it can conceive the repeated instances of unfeeling and contemptuous disregard which he showed his friends, by his total want of punctuality in his engagements, and his heedlessness of the inconveniences and losses which it occasioned them.' This is significant enough. Everyone familiar with the political history of the time knows that there were many questionable passages of Sheridan's behaviour, in which he justly or unjustly incurred the suspicion of dislike of his friends, particularly those in which he made himself the tool of the Regent, and was thought to have betrayed his friends. These should be the salient points if ' whitewashing ' was to be at all attempted. In my account all these points are dealt with minutely. But in the ' family ' history we find, to our astonishment, that they are glossed over or put aside loftily. Thus we turn with interest to the curious episode when the Regent, to the disgust of his friends, continued Mr. Percival and the Tories in office. Sheridan was believed to have been the prime mover in this transaction. But Mr. Fraser Rae has not a word to say on the subject beyond that Sheridan ' was blamed ' and disliked by the Whigs ' for their having' been ostracized ' on this occasion. ' He could not have Sheridan Whitewashed 45 served them. Why should he have done so? They had seldom treated him with ordinary courtesy,' etc. This was no doubt Sheridan's own view, but it amounts to no more than this, that he wished to revenge himself. But anyone who has read the memoirs carefully will see that at this time Sheridan was more or less under a cloud. There was a general feeling that he was not to be trusted, and would betray his friends ; that he was the subservient tool of the Prince, and was playing a double game. The author has little or nothing to say upon all these most delicate political intrigues and tracasseries. It was here that Sheridan so completely lost his character. Mr. Gladstone has been introduced to give his approbation to the work, though he does so in rather guarded terms. He considers the book an advance on previous appreciations ; but he rather naively lets it be seen that Sheridan's chief claim to admiration was his having opposed the Union — that ' grand occasion ' he calls it. He is much puzzled by the fact that Sheridan did not ' rise higher on the political ladder.' Again. Both Lord Grey and Lord Holland told Moore that Sheridan had altered the Prince's letter in answer to the address. Here again Mr. Fraser Rae has nothing to say. But it would fill pages to show how innumerable are the omissions. But you can't ' whitewash ' everything, and it may be wiser to leave the besmirched portions as they are, hoping that no one will notice them. George the Fourth gave to Mr. Croker a very long and certainly vivacious account of Sheridan, and of all his dealings with him. It had the usual ' muzziness ' and inaccuracy in . 46 Sheridan Whitewashed detail of the Royal utterances, but in the main it seems true enough. But Mr. Fraser Rae loads both narrator and hearer with the coarsest abuse, though why is not clear, except for the reason that everyone who takes an unfavourable view of Sheridan must be vituperated. There is something unpleasant in the fashion in which Sheridan executed his patron's business. When there was any bit of doubtful or ' dirty work ' to be done, he was at hand. Take the incident of the Fitzherbert marriage, which Fox and others of the party — honourable men — could not be brought to stand up and justify. ' Then, Sheridan must say something,' was the Prince's remark. What a significance in this ! He was secure of his creature ; and accordingly the pliant tool did say something, half ' soft sawder,' but wholly what was wanted. And what says the biographer .'' — ' Sheri- dan's part cannot be praised or envied, but he forfeited more than he gained.' What a defence ! He gained, of course, what he sought, his employer's approval. And in the dis- creditable Chifney incident, which compelled the Prince to withdraw from the turf, it was Sheridan who stood forward to defend him. When the Prince of Wales offered to bring him into Parliament at his own expense, he declined, he told Lord Holland, ' because he wished to preserve his independence.' Yet he ' let out ' to the same nobleman an intrigue he had on foot for inducing the Prince to lend him ^^4,000 with which to secure a borough for himself ' I shall then,' he said, ' only owe him the ^^4,000, which will leave me free as air.' The Prince gave to Mr. Croker an account of a large sum Sheridan Whitewashed 47 that was advanced to buy a borough, and which Sheridan diverted to other purposes. The account is so minutely circumstantial, the name of the solicitor, Cocker, given, etc., and every stage of it so vraisemblable, that it cannot be set aside. How strange, too, that all good, honourable, and re- spected men should have had the same opinion of him. As Mr. Prior tells us, Burke frequently expressed his disgust at Sheridan's profane jests on the Trinity and such subjects. Lord Crewe was so oiFended by his talk that he ceased to ask him to his house. Sir James Mackintosh, a conscientious man, while praising him for his political consistency, declared that nothing could stand against ' his power of dissipation too long continued, and his irregularities of every kind, almost reduced to a system.' What a character! Lord John Townshend, Romilly, Lord Grey, Mr. Grenville, Mr. Adair, are all in the same strain. Mr. Morley talks of his ' reckless lack of principle, and assumption of whatever suited his purpose for the moment.' But these, as Lord DufiFerin assures us, are only the stories * that accumulate round the reputation of every man of genius ' ! His father said, truly enough, that he drew his Joseph Surface from himself; and, curiously enough. Lord Holland took the same view, and with great acuteness explained this phase of Sheridan's character. He set before himself always the highest possible ideal of moral duty ; anything short of this was not worth while aiming at. ' As he found it im- possible to carry this into practice, he contented himself with the most exalted and flourishing sentiments.' Thus, ' prudence 4 48 Sheridan Whitewashed and morality were always on his lips, while his actions were a series of debauchery and libertinism. He at last so deluded himself as to firmly believe that he was a pattern of self- denial and restraint, and the victim of everyone else.' When he appeared before the Privy Council, Lord Eldon took the unusual course of giving him a public rebuke for his extravagance, quoting Johnson's description of Savage : ' Negligence and irregularity long continued make knowledge useless, wit ridiculous, and genius contemptible.' Nothing could be more happily appropriate. But Mr. Fraser Rae can only say that the speaker ' forgot the judge in the partizan.' And now to conclude. In the face of these damaging facts, what must be the judgment of any impartial mind.'' Why, that this ' real Sheridan ' of Lord DufFerin and Mr. Fraser Rae is still no more than the old, real Sheridan we have been so long accustomed to, with all his impecuniosity, his drink, shiftiness, and tricks. The attempted ' white- washing ' amounts to no more than strings of vague asser- tion, indignant protests, and angry abuse of those who take a different view of the matter. And most fitly the fancy portrait was helped out by a batch of what appear to be doubtful or apocryphal letters, originally attempted to be ' foisted ' on the public as having been found in barrels in Drury Lane ! POSTSCRIPT. The principal portion of the above criticism appeared in the Saturday Review, in the shape of two articles dated July 25 and August 8. To the same journal Mr. Eraser Rae addressed a reply, which appeared in the number dated August 29. This vindication seems weak and unsatisfactory, as I shall hope to show. The author passes by most of the serious objections to the genuineness of his papers, and mostly contents himself with assertions that they are genuine. I will take his statements in their order. He begins by a rather gratuitous assumption that he has been charged with wittingly putting forward ' fabricated ' letters. He must be either, he says, an accomplice in a fraud, or the persons who say that the letters are ' fabri- cated' are libelling him. Of course, if the biographer felt himself unable to resist the evidence put forward years ago against the authenticity of the papers, and then offered them to the public as genuine things, he is ' guilty of being an accomplice in a fraud upon the public' But no one stated, nor indeed could know, that he acted under such an impression. The alternative suggested, that anyone who * recklessly or unfoundedly ' states that he ' has included in 50 Sheridan Whitenioashed his biography several,' rather very many, ' letters which are styled, without qualification, fabrications,* is stating some- thing which bears the character of a libel, is nonsense. Mr. Fraser Rae is simply charged with lacking critical instinct ; and he moreover forgets that the genuineness of these papers was impugned years ago in the Saturday Review, in an article of which I was the writer. The biographer does not really seem to understand the compelling force of the argument founded on the fabricated letter containing Miss Linley's account of her flight. This, though printed and published nigh a century ago, was lately reintroduced with the falsehood that they had been found in the MS. with the other ' barrel papers ' — a companionship sufficient to throw suspicion on its fellows. This awkward fact I said Mr. Fraser Rae ignored, and that he had contented himself with saying myste- riously that ' it had recently been in his temporary custody.' He adds that it had appeared in the Athenaum journal, 'and it was not necessary to state in that journal ' that it made a portion of the McHenry papers. That may be ; but it was transferred to, and now makes part of, the biography. A facsimile even is given of the writing, which thus would make it necessary to state that it had come into his temporary custody with the other Daly or McHenry papers. That ' no reader of the Athenaeum has ever reproached him with concealment ' is a matter that does not at all con- cern readers of the biography. It is the same with the other questioned Linley letters. No Sheridan Whitewashed 51 one ever heard of them till they were suddenly printed some years ago in a magazine, when they made their debut with a Munchausen-like story of having been found in cellars. When this legend is exploded, the proprietor ' de- clines to suffer the source from whence the papers were taken to be indicated.' In addition, a long and admittedly forged letter is attempted to be passed off as genuine. Surely here are suspicious elements enough. That the reader may apply for himself the test of com- parison, I have had some lines of the two letters facsimiled — one genuine and in Mrs. Sheridan's writing, the other one of the impeached batch. The first was written when Mrs. Sheridan was on her death-bed ; the second is assumed to have been written some time before, when she was in perfect health. Yet the characters in the latter are angular, quiver- ing, and ' shaky ' ; those of the former round, firm, and even bold. No one, I think, can hesitate in pronouncing that the writings are not the same. The criticism, we are told, contains the statement that ' Sheridan's letters are full of affection and constancy ; yet in her previous letters we find the lady in a perfect fiary.' ' Now,' continues Mr. Fraser Rae, ' the reader who is un- acquainted with my biography will naturally infer that the letters referred to above were addressed to Miss Linley, whereas they were addressed to Mr. Thomas Grenville.' The reader ' who is unacquainted with my biography ' will perhaps be surprised to learn that in the passage in question these letters are distinctly described as ' the Sheridan Grenville letters.' This suppression is hardly fair. There 52 Sheridan Whitewashed is the same disingenuousness — so I must call it — in treating another objection. He tells us that ' the documents are styled " fabrications " without any qualification, and where the chief evidence adduced is " the absurdity " of Mrs. Sheridan, after having been married ten years, ending a note with " God thee bless, my dear one; believe that I love thee, and will love thee for ever." In this strain most of her letters end, and, though the words may be deemed " absurd" by the Saturday, they do not constitute proof of the letters wherein they occur having been fabricated.' Here there is a complete misapprehension. The ' absurdity ' pointed to was Mrs. Sheridan's running insanely about from party to party in chase of her husband, imploring him to come to her, sending * the girls ' after him — all which was unlikely after ten years of married life. There was no allusion at all to the ' God thee bless ' passage. This wild fashion of treating argument is characteristic. But he quotes : ' " We shall be told, of course, that these letters are all in Mrs. Sheridan's handwriting." The Saturday is quite correct in this anticipation ; and as they are in Mrs. Sheridan's handwriting, no other answer could be truthfully given. But, then, it appears that I have been so indiscreet as to supply facsimiles of a genuine letter, as well as of a doubtful one ; and, it is added, " we have no hesitation in saying that any expert, or indeed person of average intelli- gence, who compares them would pronounce the latter to be an imitation." / have not done what is here attributed to me. Both of the letters were printed in 1877 by Miss Matilda Stoker in the English Illustrated Magazine ; both were then Sheridan Whitewashed 53 pronounced spurious ; both are in the collection of Sheridan papers which was made by Mr. McHenry, with the assistance of Mr. Francis Harvey, the well-known bookseller — a col- lection which, as I have already stated, is now the property of Mr, Augustin Daly, and both were penned by Mrs. Sheridan. One of these letters was readdressed by the postmaster, and I have given the facsimile of the cover, which, I venture to maintain, is not a fabrication.' It will be observed how ' smart ' all this is. The natural criticism is made that the holder of the paper will answer that they are in the handwriting : the point of which is the question of genuineness would turn on the handwriting. ' As they are in the handwriting of Mrs. Sheridan,' says Mr. Fraser Rae, 'no other answer could truthfully be given.' (!) The denial, ' I have not done what is here attributed to me,' is but a poorish sort of distinction. The meaning was that he had furnished two facsimiles, which enabled the reader to judge for himself. What is the value of the repeated asseveration that these impeached, papers were once in Mr. McHenry's collection, ' with the assistance of Mr. Francis Harvey,' and are now 'the property of Mr, Augustin Daly;' or how this can throw light on the genuineness of the papers, it is hard to see. The constant appeal to Mr. McHenry and his collection is awkward, for the ' barrel ' story seems to have come from him, and, indeed, his general record might be held to help the case of those who impeach the papers. We are then told of McHenry, ' with the assistance of Mr. Frank Harvey,' Mr. Augustin Daly of New York, Miss Matilda Stoker ; and after overwhelming us with their 54 Sheridan Whitewashed names, he adds solemnly, ' and both (letters) were penned by Mrs. Sheridan.' That is to say, certain persons have possessed them, and the biographer believes they are in Mrs. Sheridan's handwriting ; which is not much, or convincing. To my astonishment, and it must be to that of every reader, the biographer reasserts his astounding statement that Mrs. Sheridan ' kept the books ' (!) of Drury Lane Theatre. He assures us that Moore is his authority, and that ' extant documents ' confirm the prodigy. But the thing is impossible, it being certain that in the case of any large establishment, its book-keeping requires the labours of clerks, and that for their whole time. It seemed unlikely that Moore, who knew the world, would say anything of the kind, and, turning to Moore, we find accordingly that he does say nothing of the kind ! What he says is, that she helped to read the plays sent in, and in other ways, and also in ' calculating the receipts of the house ' — that is, in fore- casting what a piece would bring in, or how much was in the house. Mr. Fraser Rae, perhaps, does not know that the nightly receipt from every department of the house was shown clearly on a printed form, which was made out before the night was over ; showing in clear tabulated form the amount taken for boxes, pit, etc. The manager's wife would, no doubt, go over and compare these forms, but this is not 'keeping the books,' But what will be said to this? A week or two ago, by a strange chance, there was offered to me for purchase the Drury Lane Theatre accounts, nearly two hundred folio volumes, and on examining those marked ' Mr, Sheridan and Mr. Linley,' I found they were written Sheridan Whitewashed 55 in a clerk's ' round-hand.' It may be added that all Mr, Fraser Rae's criticisms upon Sheridan's dramas show the same inexperience, and would not be accepted for a moment by any of our critics. Witness his telling us that Sir Antony is after the model of Squire Western. But the following is curious : ' In the list of personages, Falkland appears without a Christian name, and Captain Absolute addresses him with- out his surname till the end of the play, when he calls him " Jack." This is a slip which no commentator has noted.' Something indeed to plume one's self on, Mr. Fraser Rae's defence of the Dolman letter is extra- ordinary, amounting to a simple assertion that Dr. Dolman did write the letter, and that ' it is no more a forgery than the lines which I pen.' ' It remains true that Dr. Dolman wrote the letter which Dr. Dolman possesses, and that it is no more a forgery than the lines which I now pen.' There is, of course, no answering assertions of this kind. ' By way of proving the spuriousness of the letter, I quoted the following words from a letter by Sheridan : " She is recovered, and about to fix herself at the convent," Sheridan's actual words are : " Miss Linley is now fixing in a convent, where she has been entered some time," This is a much more difficult point, etc. She has been ill, but is now recovered.' Surely in the criticism the sense of the passage is sufficiently conveyed. ' About to fix herself in a convent,' and ' is now fixing in a convent,' is much the same thing, and the objection to the spuriousness of the statement is not removed. Indeed, he seems scarcely to understand the point of the objection founded on the residence in Dolman's house. 5 6 Sheridan Whitewashed It was shown that she could never have quitted the doctor's house during her stay, and that hence he could not have sent a prescription for her to Sheridan from his own house. She became ill on her arrival, and went straight to the doctor's house, and on her recovery proposed to move to the convent : which is the meaning of ' is now fixing in a convent, where she has been entered some time,' i.e., had made an arrange- ment to enter. On Mr. Fraser Rae's view, she must have gone back again to the doctor's house, for, as Moore says, she was found there by her father. In any case, the doctor would have seen her and prescribed for her at his own house, or at the convent. The bad French, or rather no French, and the misspelling of Sheridan's name, the biographer puts aside with the remark that other people did the same thing. I have never once seen Sheridan spelt with two 'r's,' and ' Hotel de Bour- bon ' is as though a Frenchman here were to direct ' Hotel of Victoria,' which he would never do. An Englishman estab- lished in France, and practising there, is told that a stranger requires his services. ' Where is he .''' he will ask. ' At the Hotel Bourbon,' he would be told. He could not by any means mistake the name of a familiar hotel in his own town. And no explanation is given why this solitary souvenir of the expedition — a doctor's letter — should have been trea- sured up, and have escaped destruction for over a hundred and twenty years. How strange that it should be the very doctor named in Moore's life ; and how much stranger still that no other scrap connected with the excursion should have been preserved ! Sheridan Whitewashed $7 How weak Mr. Fraser Rae feels his case in the matter of Miss Linley's bad, or rather execrable spelling, will be seen from a distinction that he makes. He had said that ' her early- education had been neglected,' ' What I actually wrote was,' says the biographer : ' " Her early letters betray an imperfect education " ' — which is much the same thing. He then informs us, giving no authority, that ' she educated herself, till what she wrote ' came to deserve Mr. Fraser Rae's own high praise, ' excellent specimens of familiar and finished prose.' But the point is that the supposed spurious letters are those of an educated person, and, if written ' by a girl of sixteen,' show a surprising com- mand of fluent English. The real wonder is, as I have shown, that a person writing in this fashion, and spelling thousands of difficult words with perfect correctness, should have written such vulgarities as "■ half-nacked ' and ' cords.' Mr. Fraser Rae does not notice this at all, and talks to us of George Sand's mother. The biographer's notions about ' papers ' and the pre- serving of papers seem hazy and confused. When it is objected that he does not mention where particular papers have come from, he tells us that where he has not indicated a place or authority we are to assume ' at least I thought I had made it clear,' that all others — I suppose of whatever description — ' are preserved at Frampton Court.' This odd canon of reference would be confusing in any case, but the fact is no such notification is given. Mr. Fraser Rae is so sensitive in these matters that he assumes that he is charged with bad faith : ' Concealment in this matter would have 58 Sheridan Whitewashed been silly.' It is simply stated that the quarter whence this revised copy of the ' School for Scandal ' came was not named. His notion of what ' papers ' are is a curious one. For ordinary persons, ' papers ' are the letters of correspondents, drafts, diaries, copies of official documents, etc. Such was, no doubt, that vast mass of documents which Mrs. Sheridan found after her husband's death, and which quite over- whelmed her. But these were not the papers in Mr. Fraser Rae's mind. These were ' cards of invitation to dinner,' received in his later years ; drafts of Sheridan's own letters, to which we may add those tickets for drink at the Stafford election, two of -vvhich the biographer actually facsimiles! All which, we are told, ' Sherry ' carefully ' preserved ' — the fact being that he did not 'preserve' these scraps; he preserved nothing, but suffered them, as a careless man does, to accumu- late in drawers and other places. Fancy a busy politician carefully putting aside and treasuring up his dinner cards — it is childish to think so. But here is a curious thing. Miss Matilda Stoker, in her article, supplied a number of characteristic letters and memoranda, which Mr. Fraser Rae has passed over. These are of a highly characteristic kind, and were drawn from the Barrel. Thus, one begins; * Good morning to your Nightcap, Sir, for I suppose e are still in bed, after all your frolicks last night — very well, I love e for all! So, Sir, I had no airing last night. Could get no horse under ten shillings, and I could not afford it e Sheridan Whiteivashed 59 know, with so many calls upon me for everything. So Jen and I took a walk in Mr. Hoare's grounds, but we were soon driven back again by the impudent cows, who would stand across our Path, and frightened me, Sir, as e wasn't with me to creep to^ etc. We may just contrast with this sham prattle one of Mrs. Sheridan's genuine letters : 'And now. Sir, for my journal, which I suppose you expect : Saturday I was at home all day, busy for you, kept Mrs. Reid to dinner, went to the opera, afterwards to Mrs. St. John's, where I lost my money sadly. Sir, eat strawberries and cream for supper, sat between Lord Salisbury and Mrs. Meynell (hope you approve of that. Sir), overheard Lord S. advise Miss Boyle by no means to subscribe to Taylor's opera, as O'Reilly's would certainly have his patent, confess I did not come home till past two, etc' Observe the shrewd sense and attention to business and the pleasant humour. She was incapable of writing the other ' twaddle.' At all events Mr. Fraser Rae forbears to introduce this paper. ' I ask permission to refrain from noticing the succeeding paragraphs in the second article, which have nothing what- ever to do with the authenticity of Miss Linley's letters, which are couched in very offensive language, and which contain statements that any fair-minded reader of my " Biography of Sheridan " must pronounce to be absolutely 6o Sheridan W hit enaa shed unfounded and unjustifiable. I regret, as a contributor to the Saturday in bygone days, and as an admirer now that it has renewed its youth, that any statements so contrary to good manners and good taste should have sullied its columns.' ' Absolutely unfounded and unjustifiable' is a strong whole- sale denial. But why he should ' refrain from noticing ' such grave and damaging imputations is not very clear, unless it be owing to the impossibility of giving a satisfactory answer. It was stated (i) that he had been specially chosen by Lord DufFerin to ' whitewash ' Sheridan, that is, to present such a portrait of him as should be wholly different from the unfavourable view taken by previous biographers. Lord DufFerin admits this fully in his preface. It was stated (2) that the biographer had, instead, succeeded in damaging his hero's reputation in a fashion that no one had attempted before, by charging him with an adulterous intrigue with the virtuous Mrs. Crewe, and on no other foundation than a distortion of a passage in his sister's letter. At page 140 of the second volume Mr. Fraser Rae tells the story, and it will be seen how little his own quotation supports his charge. On looking again at the passage (vol. i., p. 154) referring to Mrs. Lyster, it is only fair to say that a more harmless interpretation may be put on it ; but the expressions are certainly mysterious enough and require explanation. It was also stated (3) that Lord DufFerin had read the proofs — this cannot be disputed — that he had supplied ten Sheridan Whitewashed 6i pages of prefatory panegyric, a most unusual thing, in which he signified that the family were satisfied with what the biographer has done. ' He possesses the confi- dence of Sheridan's descendants, because the family know from his other writings that he is studiously impartial,' etc. He also assures us that Sheridan is drawn ' with all attainable clearness '; that the account of Sheridan's ancestors is 'careful and accurate'; that he has delineated Mrs. Sheridan ' with a tender and loving hand'; that his ' exertions are conscientious'; that whatever 'could be done for Sheridan, he has done.' In other words, he was fair and honest, and showed a pro- found knowledge of the times. When a writer furnishes himself with such testimonials in advance, there is little left to do — save, like one of Sheridan's own characters, write your criticisms yourself. It is surpris- ing that Mr. Fraiser Rae does not see that all this is as unbecoming as it is unusual ; and perhaps we can now under- stand why he ' refrains from noticing the paragraph.' It may be added that the biographer has a fashion of magnifying some communications made to him, which are of the slightest kind : ' To Mr. Gladstone I owe interesting reminiscences of his talks in earlier years with one who knew Sheridan personally.' This promised well, but it is impos- sible to find anything that bears this character. There is no reference in the index, and I have searched these volumes carefully. Again, I had pointed out how unlikely it was that a person at Isleworth, close to London, would not know that Mrs. Siddons was engaged at her own theatre, or what were her 62 Sheridan Whitewashed terms, or should obtain the wrong information that a new play that was running successfully had been withdrawn. By a most apropos discovery Mr. Fraser Rae now finds that he was wrong in placing Mrs. Sheridan at Isleworth — that it was merely ' an inference ' of his own. Yet it was more than an inference, for he stated positively that ' when stopping there with her son, Tom, she wrote to him,' etc. And again, ' she returned to the house at Isleworth.' But now it appears that ' from one of these letters ' (addressed to Mrs. Canning) ' I learn that the letter in question was written at South- ampton.' It is difficult to deal with changes of this kind, but it is likely enough that this is yet another ' inference,' and that Mrs. Canning's letters have no special reference to ' the letter in question,' but simply show that she was at South- ampton about this time. It is curious, however, that my objection on the ground of venue should have been so well supported. But Mr. Fraser Rae's methods of proving people wrong or ' inaccurate ' seem very peculiar. In a biography of Lord Stratford de RedclifFe, who was son of this Mrs. Canning, it is stated that this lady had long been intimate with Miss Linley, and disapproved of her marriage with Sheridan. The biography Mr. Stanley Lane Poole wrote from the family papers, and was likely to know. But Mr. Fraser Rae says his statement is not accurate, and why ? Because ' there is no evidence of Miss Linley making Mrs. Canning's acquaint- ance till after she had been for seven years Mrs. Sheridan.' That is, I suppose, Mr. Fraser Rae has not met with Mrs. Canning's name in his ' papers ' before the" time he mentions. Sheridan Whitewashed 63 As a further defence we are told that Mrs. Sheridan ' knew little about theatrical matters then,' and was actually in a con- sumption. Still, here we find her eager to know a great deal about theatrical matters, inquiring about Mrs. Siddons and the Opera, and the Duke of Bedford, etc. ' I revert,' says the biographer, ' to the references to Moore. In the first article it is written : " Moore states that there had been a serious quarrel between the lovers, and the fabri- cator " (of Miss Linley's letters) " evidently worked upon this hint •" while the following words appear in the second article : " We find the genesis of all this " — in vol. ii., p. 148, of Moore's Life," Now, the evidence of a serious quarrel between the lovers was found by Moore in the letters which the Saturday affirms to have been fabricated after a hint given by him. The fabrications confidently said, in the two articles, to have been produced after Moore's work was published, were in Moore's possession while the work was in preparation,' Further, the biographer altogether forgets what he stated (vol, i., p, 259) that this information, which made Moore write there was a serious misunderstanding, might have been drawn from a lost letter of Mrs. Lefanu's ! Now the reference in the critique to ' the serious quarrel ' is concerned with one of the ' barrelled ' papers, which latter, I contended, had been engendered by the allusion. The origin of this paper was unknown to Mr. McHenry, or to ' Mr. Augustin Daly, of New York, in whose possession it now is,' or to Mr. Fraser Rae himself, and was never heard of until a kw years ago. How, then, could it have been in Moore's 5 64 Sheridan Whitewashed possession, and have been used by him ? The words in the other passage, * the genesis of all this,' etc., belongs to a period many years later, and has nothing to do with the transaction. Looking once more over the supposed Linley letters, I notice many little points which more than ever convince me of their spuriousness. The idea is laboriously insisted on that they were written under the most dramatic conditions — she was hiding from her persecuting father and snatching moments before going to bed — her mother taking away the candle, etc. There is really good ground for believing that the Linleys rather favoured the match, and the father's behaviour in the serious episode of the elopement supports this view. Thus we have one night : ' Eleven o'clock. — Though parted from you so lately, and though I expect to see you again so soon,' etc. . . . ' I teally think Charles suspected something this evening. Deuce take his curious head ! I wish he would not inter- rupt us in our stolen pleasures.' After a mysterious break, noted by dots : ' My father came into the room this moment, and I had just time to stuff the letter behind the glass. 'Tis well he did not take much notice of me, for I was . . . Good-bye, God bless . . . I will . . .' Now these breaks cannot be explained by tears or obliterations. The manu- facturer was clumsily trying to suggest the idea of agitation or interruption. But anyone can see that in real agitation we do write in this incoherent way. The extraordinary thing is that while thus persecuted and shut up, we find her repre- sented as constantly meeting her lover at parties. ' Twelve o'clock. — You unconscionable creature, to make me Sheridan Whitewashed 65 sit up this time of night !' — yet she had just left him. ' Why- did you run away so soon ? Though I could not enjoy your conversation freely,' etc. And again : ' Wednesday night, twelve o'clock.' She had just met him at a party, an hour or two before, and yet writes down the day of the week ! After adding a few rambling ' sentences, forgetting that it was twelve o'clock, she writes that she must go to bed, as it is ' now near one o'clock.' The whole letter could not have taken five minutes to write. It is curious, by the way, that this interesting young woman seems to have been always the prey of fabricators of spurious letters. Moore states that at this very time there appeared in the Bath Chronicle during April, 1773, a sham correspondence between her and Lord Grosvenor : ' The following letters are confidently said to have passed between Lord G r and the celebrated syren, Miss L y.' So we have spurious letters to Lord Grosvenor — a spurious letter on the elopement ; and how probable that some modern manufac- turer, reading of all these attempts, should try his hand. But a most extraordinary criticism on a passage in The Critic shows how unfitted is our biographer to deal with the drama. In The Rehearsal, the fashion of coming on talking about something they had been saying 'off' is the usually satirized, ' Sir, to conclude: ' ' What, before he begins !' which Sheridan reshaped and made more pointed : ' True, gallant Raleigh,' ' What had they been talking before ?' In- credible to say, Mr. Fraser Rae contends that Sheridan intended not to help himself to a ' good thing '—which he did pretty often — but to parody ' one of the ridiculous situa- 66 Sheriaan Whitewashed tions ' — a sblution that ' commentators of recent days have strangely overlooked' — and no wonder. Where is the parody ? He then tells us that Sheridan's contemporaries ' were shrewd enough ' to notice this parody, quoting Adolphus, who surely says that Sheridan's displaced the other, and seemed an imitation instead of ' the original form from which that great wit had drawn his idea.' This proves a parody. And stranger still, he finds fault with nearly all Sheridan's characters for talking in a fashion that was in- appropriate to their situation or position in life. Mr. Fraser Rae's own criticism of Sheridan's pieces is an extraordinary one for a professed panegyrist. He actually finds fault with nearly all for talking in a fashion that was inappropriate to their disposition and position in life. He * picks holes ' in every one of them. But what will be said to this ? ' The very name of Mrs. Malaprop is as happy a thought as any of her incomparable sayings^ that is, it being the fashion to call a dictatorial person ' Absolute,' and a fawning one ' Macsycophant,' and a sentimental girl ' Lan- guish,' Sheridan called his blundering lady by a very obvious name taken from malapropos / We find the biographer oddly enough inviting the opinion of two eminent actors and a musical critic on Sheridan's three dramas. The last, Mr. Sutherland Edwards, is one of our most capable and experienced judges of music. But The Duenna can only be judged as a comedy, for it has never been performed in these latter days ; most of the tunes, too, are popular airs adapted. What could the critic say ? Still, at the top of the page we have this proclamation : ' Opinion Sheridan Whitewashed 67 of Sutherland Edwards ' ; which in a few lines tells us that the piece is quite out of date and will never be played again^ and that one Roechel has reset it. One leading actor is also called in to supply a few lines of just criticism — in which he prophesied their immortality — while Mr. Bancroft recalls the time when he revived the two great comedies. Such an opinion might be anticipated from these admirable per- formers. The biographer says that he cannot understand the objec- tions to the Prince of Wales's letter. It is surely plain enough that it was improbable that such an hour as nine o'clock in the morning would be fixed for a visit to a lady — a call, too, entailing a preparatory journey from Windsor of, say, a couple of hours. Mr. Fraser Rae, however, assures us that this belonged to a series of letters that had been seen by Moore, and that he was afraid to use it. As he gives no details or authorities, I cannot, of course, dispute the state- ment or argue upon it. THE END. SILLING AND SONS, PRINTERS, GUILDFORD.