PR 
 
 *-;5 
 
®0mrfl 
 
 Uttirmitg J 
 
 ^itatJg 
 
 FROM THE INCOME OF THE | 
 
 FISKE 
 
 ENDOWMENT 
 THE BEQUEST OP 
 
 FUND 
 
 L,ibrarian 
 
 of the University i 
 
 [868.1883 
 
 M-i^.m 
 
 1905 
 
 jM^Mil. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR 3683.G79 
 
 Thomas Linley, Richard Brinsley Sheridan 
 
 3 1924 013 198 332 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013198332 
 
THOMAS LINLEY, 
 EICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN, 
 
 AND 
 
 THOMAS MATHEWS, 
 
 THEIR CONNECTION WITH BATH. 
 
 BY 
 
 EMANUEL GREEN, F.RS.L. 
 
 Three Papers read hefore the Bath Antiquarian Field Club in 
 December, 1902, and Janwtry and Ftbruary, 1903. 
 
 BATH: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE HEBALD OFFICE, NORTH GATE. 
 
 1903, 
 
 (^ 
 
 cc- 
 
THOMAS LINLEY. 
 
THOMAS LINLEY : HIS CONNECTION WITH BATH. 
 
 "Thomas Linley and his family were for a time so prominently 
 associated with Bath as skilled musicians, and from other public 
 circumstances which will be alluded tO: they attracted also so 
 much notice, such a wide interest outside' Bath, that some local 
 record of them should be available. Of what has been already 
 said about them much is by no means exact. There has been 
 too of I en a : — 
 
 Mis quoting, mis dating, 
 Mis placing, mis stating, 
 At war with truth, reason, and fact. 
 
 If, therefore, these notes should sometimes seem rather 
 minute, it must be understood that they are so with purpose 
 aforethought but without malice ; criticism and correction are 
 especial points intended. 
 
 Thomas Linley, says the " Dictionary of National Biography," 
 "was born at Wells in 1732, the son of a carpenter. Being sent 
 to do carpentering work at Badminton, the seat of the duke of 
 Beaufort, he derived so much pleasure from listening to the 
 playing and singing of Thomas Chilcot, the organist of Bath 
 Abbey church, that he determined to become a musician," and 
 so he presently studied under Chilcot at Bath. 
 
 This account just varies from another which tells that he was 
 the son of a carpenter and was originally intended to follow his 
 father's business. Being however one day at work at Badminton, 
 the seat of the duke of Beaufort, he was overheard to sing by 
 Mr. Chilcot, at that time organist at Bath, who was so much 
 delighted with his voice that he prevailed with his father to allow 
 him to quit the trade and study music* 
 
 'Musical Biography," Vol. 2, p. 210. 
 
A few thoughts must be given to these stories. First an estate 
 like Badminton would hardly require a carpenter from Wells, such 
 mechanics being usually regularly employed. Then a carpenter 
 to be sent out on day work would be at least twenty-one years old, 
 hardly a time to throw up an already acquired trade skill to begin 
 a new and difficult study. Further if he came from Wells, a 
 place where he cou'd every day hear 
 
 Godless boys God's glory squall — 
 neither singing nor the organ could have been new to him. The 
 writer of the first notice evidently writing without considering his 
 words, from some tradition but without personal or local know- 
 ledge, seems to have had no idea of the relative positions of Bath, 
 Wells and Badminton. Yet had he kaiown enough to have 
 avoided confusing the fattier, who was a carpenter, with the son 
 Thomas who never was so, there is, as will be seen, just a sub- 
 stratum of truth in the Story. Another form of the story, modern, 
 but not new, says that Chilcot noticed a little boy of musical 
 taste and took him as a pupil. He came from Wells, &c.* From 
 the omission of a few necessary words this reads as if little boys 
 easily wandered alone from Wells to Bath to be casually noticed 
 and picked up. 
 
 Whilst the above accounts make the birthplace Wells, another 
 makes it Gloucester,! and yet another, a very recent one, gives 
 the rather wide guess that he came from Yorkshire. He had at 
 least in the last county plenty of room for a start. This statement 
 should not have been written, it simply helps to confound con- 
 fusion. If the writer did not know he could not tell and should 
 have acknowledged that position or have said nothing. The last 
 account makes him born at Bath in 1725, but repeats that he 
 became a pupil of Chilcot, &c.t 
 
 * " Fitzgerald's Lives of the Sheridans," 1886. 
 
 t Tinsley's Magazine, Vol. xxxix. p. 134, 1886, 
 
 X "Biographical Diet, of Musicians." By Thos. Baker, 1900. 
 
Dismissing all former accounts and guesses, the origin of the 
 family may be given and all doubt settled. The carpenter then came 
 from Badminton and he brought with him three children, Thomas, 
 Isabella, and William. To clear the way somewhat, Isabella the 
 daughter of William and Maria Lingley, as the name is spelled in 
 the register, was baptized at Badminton 9th October, 1737. 
 She married in the Abbey church, Bath, one Richard Philpot, 
 17 th October, 1764. 
 
 William, the youngest of the three, son of William and Maria 
 Linley, spelled now without the g, was baptized at Badminton 
 29th July, 1744. Nothing more can be told of him. As this 
 youngest child was baptized at Badminton in 1 744 it would have 
 been soon after that date that Linley the father, the carpenter, 
 moved to Bath, just when by reason of much building there 
 must have been a great demand for mechanics of all sorts. 
 He continued his business at Bath and was alive there in 
 1770 with a somewhat improved status. In 1772, 26th 
 November, an advertisement relating to St. Margaret's chapel 
 announced that a plan of the pews in the new chapel being 
 now settled and the prices thereof, those disposed to take 
 seats should apply to Mr. William Linley, Clerk of the Works at 
 the chapel, or at his house in the Market Place.* He is found 
 as a ratepayer for some years after this. In 1773 he purchased 
 and was living in his own house in Belmont Row, rated at ^£'70 
 per annum,t and in 1779 and until 1792 he paid poor rate for the 
 same house. He was buried at Walcot 26th October, 1792, 
 and was soon followed by Mrs. Maria Linley, who was buried in 
 the same grave 22nd December, 1792. 
 
 There now remains the eldest of the three children, Thomas 
 our musician, who was baptized at Badminton, the son of William 
 and Maria Lingley, with the g, 20th January, 1733. 
 
 Thus he would be at the time his father probably came to Bath 
 
 * Bath Chronicle, p. i, col. 3. t Water Rents. 
 
between eleven and twelve years old. From all the notes and 
 and notices of Thomas printed during his life it is clear that he 
 was early acquainted with Chilcot and as his first start 
 was engaged to him in the humble station of errand boy. 
 He soon showed such a tendency to and fondness for 
 music that Chilcot was attracted to the boy and encouraged 
 and indulged him in his hobby. Eventually he took him as an 
 apprentice, behaved well to him and taught him thoroughly all 
 the rudiments and practice of the art.* No indentures are on 
 record, so the exact time served cannot be given. In 
 March, 1752, Thomas Chilcot paid six- shillings for Freedom 
 fees.t An early, rapid, and extraordinary proficiency brought 
 Chilcot some profit for a time, but as soon as he could 
 the pupil left the master, got engaged in the public rooms 
 at Bath, and so " played into his oWn pocket." He next 
 started as a teacher, and in this position became at once promptly 
 recognised as having great ability and skill for the work. He was- 
 thus successful and established and well known by the time he 
 was twenty. He is reported to have gone abroad and completed 
 his musical education under one Paradies or Paradisi, but he 
 could have had neither the means nor the opportunity for doing so. 
 
 With this first knowledge of this extraordinary young man, his 
 own family and after career may next be traced. 
 
 As showing his early prosperity he married very young, when 
 about nineteen, but as in such cases the man usually goes to the 
 bride's home for that occasion, it is too often barely possible 
 without some guide to find notice of the event. Two sons 
 presently get the name of Thurston, thus suggesting a possibility ;, 
 but at the moment the actual record has not been met with. 
 From this young couple the next great interest now arises. They 
 are said generally to have had seven children, three sons and four 
 
 * The Craftsman, loth October, 1772. 
 + "Chamberlain's Accts.," Vol. 48. 
 
daughters, but in fact they had twelve, seven sons and five 
 daughters. The production of evidence for the first time will 
 prevent all doubt. 
 
 1753. 12 March was baptized in the Abbey church, Bath, George 
 Frederick, son of Thomas and Mary Linley. 
 
 '754- 25 Sept. was baptized at St. JVIichael's, Bath, Elizabeth Anne 
 (presently to be the heroine of this story). 
 
 1756. II June, Thomas was baptized in St. James's church, Bath. 
 
 1758. 10 Feb., Mary was baptized in St. James's. 
 
 1 759- 15 May, Thurston, a son, was baptized, in St. James's. 
 
 1760. 23 June, Samuel was baptized in St. James's. 
 
 1761. 8 Sept., William Cary was baptized privately and brought to 
 
 St. James's to be received. 
 1 763. 10 Oct., Maria was baptized in St. James's, 
 1765. 22 Aug., Osias Thurston was baptized in the Abbey church, 
 
 the son of Thomas and Mary of St. James's. 
 1767. 17 Feb., Jane Nash and Charlotte, a twin, daughters of Thomas 
 
 and Mary Linley of St. James's parish, were brought to 
 
 church, having been privately baptized. 
 1771. 27 Feb., William was baptized in St. James's, 
 
 It must be noticed that the first two,» George Frederick and 
 Elizabeth Anne, were baptized in different churches, and so 
 would be born in the respective parishes, thus suggesting that 
 with very modest means the young couple had then an unsettled 
 domicile. The others all show fixture in the parish of St. James's, 
 where their residence was No. 5,Pierpoint Street.* All these children, 
 even as children, became accomplished musicians. Endowed all of 
 them with great musical talents, to these talents the father compelled 
 the most assiduous and stringent attention. On one occasion the 
 whole family, " down to the seven year olds," appeared together 
 at the New Rooms. The household, now notorious, was dubbed 
 a nest of linnets. The latest mention of this little story changes 
 the birds to nightingales, thus destroyiilg the point, the pretty 
 play upon the name. 
 
 Peach. " Historic Houses,' 
 
The careers of these children, and then of the parents of this 
 second generation, may now be traced. 
 
 George Frederick, so named after Handel, died an infant. 
 
 Elizabeth Anne early showed a specially marked genius for 
 music, which her father strongly fostered. Under his skilled and 
 qualified and interested guidance her voice was most carefully 
 cultivated, and so successfully, that when only twelve years of 
 age, about 1766, the poor child was put forward as a public 
 singer in the Rooms at Bath, and, too, with an immediate 
 success. She married Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and the 
 remainder of her story may be told with his. She died at the 
 Bristol Hot Wells 28th June, 1792, and was buried in the 
 cathedral at Wells. There is a portrait of her as St. Cecilia at 
 Bowood by Sir Joshua Reynolds ; there is another portrait by 
 Gainsborough at Delaprd Abbey, and another with her sister 
 Mary, by Gainsborough, in the Dulwich Gallery. 
 
 Thomas, the next son, became early a very skilled violinist, 
 and performed in public when only eight years old. In 1773, 
 when only seventeen, he became solo violinist at Bath, and 
 promised to become great in his profession. He then went to 
 Italy according to the fashion of the day to study under Tartini, 
 or as one account says, under Nardini, who had himself been a 
 pupil of Tartini. On his return he took ujp the leadership of the 
 orchestra at Bath, his father being then in London, He was thus 
 his father's pride and hope, but alas, he was drowned when away 
 on a visit by the upsetting of a boat, 5th August, 1778. There 
 was published in 1778 : — 
 
 A Monody (after the manner of Milton's Lycidas) on the 
 death of Mr. Linley who was drowned August the 5th, 1778, 
 in a canal at Grimsthorpe in Lincolnshire the seat of his 
 gi'ace the duke of Lancaster. 
 
 ^This tells us from Milton : — 
 
 He must not flote upon his watery bier 
 Unwept, and welter in the parching wind, 
 Without the meed of some melodious tear. 
 
7 
 
 From the Monody the following few lines are extracted : — 
 You knew Linlceua ! ah who knewi him not ? 
 Once, once the pride and treasure of these plains, 
 The blithest, sweetest of arcadian swains. 
 
 Eolus, that blustering god had oft with envy heard 
 The praises justly given to young Linloeus, 
 He oft had heard the soft melodious sounds 
 Which from his lyre his dextrous fingers swept. 
 He felt their magic power, and wept. 
 And much his hated rival's lyre he fear'd, 
 No sooner therefore did he see the boat 
 Then — a rude wind — upon his skiff he laid 
 And thus avenged his blasted fame. 
 
 Or how disturb the peace of such a pair, 
 He best of men, she fairest of the fair,* 
 More for their virtues thin their rank rever'd. 
 By nobles, vassals, artists, all belov'd. 
 And e'en to royalty itself endear'd. 
 
 Each son of genius on Britannia's -plains 
 Laments the loss of young Linloeuis' strains. 
 
 There is a portrait of him, with his sister Mary, by 
 Gainsborough, at Knole in Kent, and another also by Gainsborough 
 in the Dulwich Gallery. 
 
 M.\RY married Richard Tickell, a political pamphleteer and a 
 dramatist, who is said to have been born at Bath about 
 1751.1 There is a portrait of him by- Gainsborough. She 
 died at the Hot Wells 27th July, 1787, aged 29, and was 
 buried at Wells, " where she enjoyed happiness and poverty the 
 first year of her marriage."| There is a portrait of her by 
 Romney,§ and, as above, by Gainsborough at Knole, and another 
 with her sister Elizabeth in the Dulwich Gallery, also by Gains- 
 
 * His sister Elizabeth. 1" Miirch, "Bath Celebrities,'' p. 317. 
 J Rae, Vol, 2, p. 26. § Romney. By Sir Herb. Maxwell. 
 
borough : and a crayon by Sir Thos. Lawrence. She left a 
 daughter, who became the mother of John Arthur Roebuck.* 
 
 In error, from similarity of name, this Richard Tickell is 
 sometimes supposed to have been the: proprietor of a once 
 advertised Ethereal Anodyne Spirit, but the owner of this was 
 William Tickell, a surgeon and chemist who lived in Queen 
 Square, Bath. 
 
 Thurston, the first of the name, died in 1763, and was buried 
 in St. James's church, 13th May. 
 
 Samuel by the time he was 19 displayed great musical genius 
 on the oboe, but having the offer, he abandoned music as a pro- 
 fession, entered the navy as a midshipmafi, and sailed on a short 
 cruise in the Thunderer, 74 guns, Capt. \Valsingham. On his 
 return he obtained leave and visited his family in London, where 
 he Avas seized with malignant fever and died. It is curious that 
 had he survived and joined his ship death would have still come 
 to him as the Thunderer sailing again, never returned, was never 
 heard of more. There is a portrait of him by Gainsborough in 
 the Dulwich Gallery. 
 
 William Gary died in 1762, and wasi buried in St. James's 
 9th October. 
 
 Maria continued a musical career, and it seems strange that 
 she has received no separate biographical notice. She witnessed 
 a marriage in Bath Abbey church 31st October, 1782. She died 
 unmarried, aged only 21. The Bath Chronicle 9th September, 
 178^, says :— tMonday, died after a few days' illness Miss 
 Maria Linley, second d^-ughter of Mr. Linley, one of the 
 patentees of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. But as the 
 Chronicle was published on thursday the 9th, monday would 
 be the 6th, which is not correct, as she died on the 5th. 
 The Gentliman's Magazine^ giving the date 5th September, 
 says : — Died at Bath of an inflammatory fever Miss Linley, 
 
 * " Diet. Nat. Biog." t P. 3, col. 3. 
 
daughter of Mr. Linley, manager of Drury Lane Theatre. 
 Her death "is a loss almost irreparable to the musical world. 
 Those who remember her performance atf the oratorios will join 
 in this opinion. The union of a sweet voice, correct judgment, 
 extensive compass, and above all beauty of mind and person, 
 distinguished the much lamented maid, and her character will 
 be dear while memory holds a seat in this distracted globe."* 
 Another account says she died of a brain fever at her father's 
 house at Bath, I sth September, 1784.! Again the date was the 
 5th, and further, as her father had at this time no residence at Bath, 
 her death must have been at the house of her grandfather in 
 Belmont. She was buried at Walcot nth September. In the 
 same grave, in 1792, were buried the grandfather and grand- 
 mother, the three in one, Maria being there first in order of date. 
 The grave was No. 26, Row 15 north, Maria in 1784 was 
 No. 722, and in 1792 William was No. 2469, and his wife 
 No. 2493, showing presumably the burials in those eight years. 
 Not a trace or mark can now be found to'show the spot, and this 
 has been the case for many years. Theire is a crayon portrait at 
 Dulwich said to be Maria, by Sir Thos. Lawrence. 
 
 Some pretty poems on Maria help the story and confirm the 
 date of death. The first appeared in the Bath Chronicle of the 
 gth September, and corrects the above -noted date error in the 
 .same issue. The title runs : — 
 
 Om the Death of the Lovely and Much Lamented 
 * * * September 5, 1784. 
 
 If beauty, wit, and innocence could charm 
 And set aside the monarch's stern decree 
 
 These dear Maria had unnerv'd his arm 
 Or turned averse his fatal shaft from thee. 
 
 *Vol. 54, p. 717, +"Dict. Nat. Biog.' 
 
No more thy strains shall charm our listening ear ; 
 
 But we for thee no longer ought repine 
 Since God commands thee from our converse here 
 
 To celebrate His praise in strains divine. 
 Dear blessed saint ! regard with pitying eye 
 
 The heartfelt sorrows of thy weeping friend 
 Teach him, like thee to live, — like thee to die 
 
 Then share with thee those joys which ne'er shall end. 
 
 A week later, l6th September, there appeared some more 
 lines :— * 
 
 On the Death of the late Miss M. Lixlev. 
 Arcadian nymphs and college swains 
 
 Your rustic mirth give o'er 
 And in soft plaintive dying strains 
 
 Maria's loss deplore. 
 
 Oh ! she was gentle as the dove, 
 
 Mild as the opening spring, 
 Replete with innocence and love 
 
 But fate hath dipt her wing. 
 
 The nightingale will drop a tear 
 
 His mistress to bewail 
 And cease to charm the ravish'd ear 
 
 At news of the sad tale. 
 
 Oh, no ! he envied her sweet note 
 
 And feels a conscious pride, 
 He yet will swell his little throat 
 
 And grieve not that she died. 
 Soft hallelujahs will inspire 
 
 Her true seraphic lays 
 She's mingled with the heavenfy choir 
 
 To chant her Maker's praise. 
 
 Tliere is one other poem of similar intention which may be 
 
 * Bath Chronide^ p. 3, col. 2. 
 
noticed, as it is with fair certainty unknown. It was written by 
 Charles Leftley, a friend of her brother William, and is entitled^ 
 
 A Dirge 
 
 On the much lamented Death of the 
 
 Beautiful Maria Lini,ev.* 
 
 Larded all with sweet flowers 
 
 She bewept to the grave did go 
 With true — love showers. 
 
 — Shakespeare. 
 
 Underneath this ebon shade 
 
 Mark'd by a rudely sculptured stone 
 
 The lov'd Maria low is laid ; 
 Soft be the turf she rests upon. 
 
 These flowers that grow around her tomb 
 
 All bear a paler hue 
 And die almost before they bloom ; 
 
 Their sympathy so true. 
 
 The pensive powers who haunt the grove 
 
 Shall here their vigils keep 
 Chaunt their wild requiems o'er my love 
 
 And soothe her lasting sleep. 
 
 Pity for her shall touch the string 
 
 And breath her softest sigh 
 And here her holy strains shall sing 
 
 Of heaven taught melody. 
 
 For she was sweet as opening buds 
 
 Mild as the hours of May 
 Bright as the sunbeam on the floods 
 
 And constant as the day. 
 
 'The Cabinet," Vol. i, p. 65. 
 
Friend of my youth ! for thee my tears 
 
 Spontaneously shall flow 
 And memory through a length -of years 
 
 Shall nurse the sighs of woe. 
 
 For thee when autumn flows around 
 
 An offering sad I'll pay 
 Deck with fresh wreaths thy hallow'd ground 
 
 And mourn the fatal day. 
 
 On thee amid life's varied part 
 My tenderest thoughts shall rest 
 
 Bemoan'd while love can warm my heart 
 Or friendship cheer my breast. 
 
 OsiAs Thurston, called in the " Dictionary of National 
 Biography" the eldest son, matriculated at Christ Church college 
 Oxford 19th March, 1785, became B.A. in 1789, took orders and 
 was beneficed in Norfolk. * In 1 8 1 6 he resigned his preferments and 
 became Organist Fellow, then so called, of Dulwich College, where 
 he died in i83r, aged 65 it is there said, but he was born in 1765. 
 He was the second son who had the name of Thurston, and this 
 with his unusual first name attracts attention. Among the out rate- 
 payers of Bath for 1779 appears in Lapsdown Road, Horasha 
 Thurston, and so again ini78o. Ini785heis gone, but in the Bath 
 Journal 5th July, 1790, is an advertisement that Mr. H. Thurston, 
 of 3, Burton Street, will sell by auction, &c. The use of two 
 such unusual forenames seems to suggest: there must have been 
 a family connection, and possibly through the mother. By his 
 v?ill proved 29 March, 1831,1- he left all his estate real and 
 personal to his brother William absolutely. There is a portrait 
 of him at Dulwich College, and a crayon by Sir Thos. Lawrence 
 in the Dulwich Gallery. 
 
 * Foster, " Alumni Oxonienses." + Tebbs, 162. 
 
13 
 
 Jane married Charles Ward, the secretary at Drury Lane 
 Theatre. There is a crayon portrait of her at Dulwich, by Sir 
 Thos. Lawrence. 
 
 Charlotte died young, 
 
 William, the youngest, entered St. Paul's School, London, in 
 1785, his age being there recorded as fourteen, He afterwards 
 joined the Civil Service of the East India Company, retiring in 
 1796. He was a musical composer and from time to time visited 
 Bath, being a joint proprietor of St. Margaret's chapel, where his 
 anthems were performed. He wrote the rhymnerl epitaph on the 
 Linley tablet now in the cloisters of Wells cathedral, and he 
 printed, in 18 19, a small volume which bears an unusually 
 descriptive title : — 
 
 "Sonnets and Odes, by William Linley esq. late in the Civil 
 Service of the East India Company, and the late Charles Leftley 
 parliamentary reporter to the Times newspaper, both educated at 
 St. Paul's School." 
 
 This is the same Charles Leftley who wrote the Dirge on 
 Maria. He died in 1797, aged 27. WilUam died in London 
 6th May, 1835, aged 64, and is buried in St. Paul's, Covent 
 Garden, where a tablet on the north wall within, towards the east 
 and above that of his mother records the fact. There is a portrait 
 of him in the Dulwich Gallery as a pretty youth by Sir Thos. 
 Lawrence. There is another somewhere, in later life, by Lonsdale. 
 This has been engraved. 
 
 And now comes the last eventful history, that of the parents. 
 From the time of his daughter Elizabeth's successful debut, until 
 1772, Linley's income was thus suddenly very largely increased, 
 and his career generally marvellously assisted by this especially 
 gifted child. He with the harpsichord, his sons with violin and 
 'cello, and the daughters with their voices made up this attractive 
 and celebrated family. So, then, with conducting oratorios, a 
 style of music wherein his family especially excelled, and com- 
 posing and playing his own compositions in Bath and elsewhere 
 
T4 
 
 on demand, he was a busy man. He became widely acknow- 
 ledged a master in his profession, equally well versed in the 
 theory as in the practice of music,* and especially proficient 
 on the harpsichord. So prosperous were his affairs and so 
 altered was his social status that he mo\ied residentially to the 
 Crescent. This move has never been credited, but by good 
 fortune the diary of John Wilkes, Alderman Wilkes, settles the 
 point. Being at Bath, Wilkes enters under 3rd January, 1772 
 — Breakfasted with Mr., the two Miss Linleys, Rollestone, and 
 Miles Andrews, at Mr. Linley's house in the Crescent. So, for 
 the first time this doubt is cleared. Wilkes was much struck 
 with Elizabeth, who he thought the most modest, pleasing, and 
 delicate flower he had t seen for a long t^ime, superior to all the 
 handsome things he had heard of her. But, alas, as the damsel 
 developed into womanhood all this prosperity was spoiled by the 
 bobbing around of that often nuisance, the amorous male, and 
 eventually Elizabeth eloped with young Richard Brinsley Sheridan. 
 This sad act broke up the prosperous Bath home, and largely 
 tended through disappointment and a constant lasting regret to 
 break up the life if not the heart of the father, who was thus, for 
 a second time, deprived of hLs dearest solace just " in the pride of 
 genius and the meridian of celebrity." A few months after this 
 event, in 1772, Linley left Bath for London. Some connection 
 with Bath, however, was necessarily kept up for a time as the 
 concerts and other work required attention and his house in the 
 Crescent would be on hand. In London he and his family 
 were soon engaged in the oratorios at Drury Lane, and in 
 1774 he took over their management. In 1776 he bought a 
 .share in the Drury Lane patent and so in the business of 
 the theatre and musical composition he spent his life. To 
 his family grief and regrets he here added financial troubles, 
 caused chiefly by the carelessness and erratic conduct of his 
 
 * " Rees Enqrclopaedia." t Almon. " Memoir of Wilkes," 
 
partner Sheridan. In the end he sank into imbecility. He died, says 
 one account,* on the i8th November, 1795 ; whilst another 
 accountt puts the event on the 19th November, suddenly, in 
 Southampton Street, Covent Garden. The obituary notice gives 
 us the contemporary opinion that as a musician his works were 
 not distinguished by any striking marks of original genius, but 
 they showed uniformly, taste, feeling, and a.full knowledge of the 
 musical art. He did not astonish by sublime effects, but his 
 compositions always soothed and charmed by delicacy, simplicity and 
 tenderness. Two pieces of his music (i) " The Royal Merchant," 
 a comic opera; the other "Elegies for Three Voices," with 
 accompaniment for a harpsichord and violoncello, have been 
 dated respectively 1768 and 1770. If these supposed dates be 
 correct these pieces would have been published during his life at 
 Bath, but the dates being only approximate, and there being 
 no notice of local publishing, this must remain a doubt. His 
 publishing seems to have begun in London. His remains, says 
 one account,! were interred, November 29th, in the vault in A^'■ells 
 cloisters with his daughters, Mrs. Sheridan and Mrs. Tickell. 
 There are two errors here, one of them, considering after events, 
 requiring special notice. The _ interment, according to the 
 cathedral register, was on the 28th, and then again it was not in 
 the cloisters but in the cathedral. Strangely enough the 
 memorial tablet duly erected by the family, and now to be seen 
 on the east wall of the cloisters, helps aetually to confirm this 
 error. It reads : — 
 
 Near this place are deposited the remains of Thomas 
 Linley esq. who departed this life November 19 1795 aged 
 63, together with those of two of his daughters and his 
 granddaughter : Elizabeth Ann wife of R. B. Sheridan, 
 esq. Maiy wife of Richard TickfeU esq. : Mary infant 
 daughter of the former. 
 
 * European Magazine, t Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 65, p. 973. 
 X Gentleman's Magazine, p. 1052. 
 
i6 
 
 The lines following or beneath this inscription were, as aforesaid, 
 written by his son William and were first printed in the European 
 Magazine for October, 1796.* 
 
 The latest writer who has touched on this subject, who 
 should have been more exact, writes of^— the tablet and graves 
 in the cathedral — thus continuing confusion, as both statements 
 arie wrong. The interments were not in graves and the tablet is 
 not in the cathedral. But as a fact, to make all clear, the tablet 
 was originally on the north wall of the north aisle, just westward 
 of the north door. It was removed, with others, during the 
 "restoration" in 1850, and was then placed where it now is — 
 where, as aforesaid, it tells an untruth, as its " place " is not near 
 the Linley vault. An addition should be made to it notifying 
 that it had been removed from the north aisle. Whether there 
 was originally an incised stone on the floor over the vault, 
 " restoration" does not record ; if there were, it was " restored " 
 away, and the wall being bared by the removal of the tablet, 
 no place evidence could be seen or detected. The 
 site was lost, after only fifty-five years, but some little 
 search soon brings it back. Phelps, in his "History of 
 Somerset,"! 1839, writing of the cathedral, says : — " Near the 
 north door is a handsome monument bearing the following 
 inscription, &c., i.e., to Thomas Linley, &:*c. As the north door 
 has two sides this notice is of only partial service. Another 
 account, 1825,! is clearer, as it tells that :—" On the west side 
 of the north entrance into the nave " is a handsome marble 
 monument to the memory of Thomas Linley, &c. "With one 
 more record comes the one piece of information wanted, and all 
 is clear. Britton, in his " History of the Cathedral," 1 847, says : — 
 On the north wall of the north aisle near the northern entrance 
 is a marble slab commemorating Thomas Linley, &c. The 
 
 * Vol. 30, p. 275. -I- Vol. i, p. 86. 
 J Davis J., "Concise Hist, of C.athedral." 
 
I? 
 
 family vault is immediately beneath,* Had he written 
 like Davis as above, on the west side of instead of 
 "near" the northern entrance, his note would have con- 
 tained full and exact information. On the late visit of the 
 late lord Dufferin, a descendant from the Elizabeth commem- 
 orated, the vault site was looked up, and ^\^th the assistance of the 
 above guides and of at least one old inhabitant who could recall 
 seeing the tablet in its original place, the spot was determined. 
 By direction of lord Dufferin an incised stone has been placed on 
 the floor over the vault, and on removing the pavement for this 
 purpose, the crown of the vault was clearly seen. The newly 
 incised slab bears : — 
 
 Here lie the remains' of 
 Thomas Linley Esq. 
 who died November 19th 1795 
 aged 63 
 together with those of his two daughters 
 and granddaughter 
 Elizabeth Ann Sheridan 
 wife of Richard Brinsley Sheridan 
 who died July 7th 1792 
 aged 38 
 Mary Tickell, 
 wife of Richard Tickell 
 who died August 2nd 1787 
 aged 29 
 and 
 Mary infant daughter of th^ former 
 who died November 26th 1793. 
 
 It must be noted unfortunately that the dates of death given 
 on this slab, excepting that of Thomas, are really the dates of 
 burial extracted from the cathedral register, thtis adding one 
 more error curiosity to this story. There is also one more as the 
 
 *Biitton J., p. 127. 
 
i8 
 
 register records that Elizabeth daughter of Richard Brinsley 
 Sheridan and Mary his wife was buried November 26th, 1793, 
 whereas it was Mary who was the daughter buried and EUzabeth 
 who was the wife. 
 
 No statement can be found, no reason has been given why 
 Wells became the place of sepulture. The children from Bath 
 during their earliest childhood seem to have spent some time now 
 and again with an aunt at Wells, but whose name is not otherwise 
 given. This must have been Isabella, the only aunt, but no trace 
 of her or her husband has been found at Wells. When Elizabeth 
 died, herself very famous at the time, and also as wife of Richard 
 Sheridan some influence may have been used ; and it may be 
 imagined further, between the lines, that Linley had a strong 
 personal wish towards Wells. The fact that he had secured a 
 family vault there and that he was himself brought so far to be 
 placed in it seems to show a strong predetermination on his part. It 
 is to be regretted that Bath was not chosen, being the native place 
 of the children, the starting point of his own career, and where so 
 much prosperous time had been spent, and besides he would 
 ha:ve been within a fane equally worthy and with surroundings 
 and associations much more suitable. Although by reading the 
 obituary notices and generally, the impression is conveyed that 
 Thomas Linley died rather in financial difficulties, this was not so. 
 During his residence at Bath he had purchased house 
 property there and he had also an interest in St. Margaret's 
 chapel. These properties it would .seem were probably 
 sold to meet the purchase cost for the theatre. He also 
 bought estate at Didmarton a village^ adjoining Badminton. 
 By his will dated August, 1788, and proved ist April, 1796,* 
 in which he describes himself as of Norfolk Street, formerly of St. 
 Clement Danes, late of St. Paul's Covent Garden, he gave his 
 harpsichord and all his printed and manuscript musical books to 
 
 * Harris, 195. 
 
WILLIAM LLN'LKY. 
 
19 
 
 Elizabeth, and his other music interests to Osias and William. Some 
 of these manuscripts are now in the British Museum. To 
 Osias he left his property at Didmarton, and failing issue after him to 
 William, The picture of Mrs. Sheridan and' Mrs. Tickell he left to 
 R. B. Sheridan. This is now in the Dulwich Gallery. One hundred 
 pounds each went to his other daughters, and the residue with his 
 interest in Drury Lane Theatre to be equally divided after his 
 wife's death, but the theatre interest to be kept in or sold only to 
 one of the family as long as possible. To his wife he left an 
 annuity of ;^3oo a year. There is a portrait of him by Gains- 
 borough in the Dulwich Gallery. The wife, of whom there are 
 two portraits at Dulwich College, whose life business in London 
 had been the care of the theatre wardrobe, survived him, and 
 died in the forenoon of the i8th January, 1820, aged about 93 
 says one account,* but another account tells more clearly that : — 
 " Mrs. Linley, relict of the celebrated Mr. Linley, died yesterday 
 morning (18th January) at her house in Southampton Street, in 
 the 93rd year of her age. She was the njother of the first Mrs. 
 Sheridan, "t These immediate accounts are clear enough, the 
 second of them appearing especially exact. But here comes again 
 a very curious but not the final descrepancy. A tablet, erected 
 may be some time after her death, but erected by her own 
 children, and yet still on the north wall -wjithin St. Paul's, Covent 
 Garden, tells that she was aged 91. It records that : — 
 
 Near this place are deposited the remains of Mary Linley 
 widow of Thomas Linley esq. late of this parish who 
 departed this life on the iSth January 1820 aged 91. This 
 tablet erected by her sons Osias Thurston and William. 
 
 This is on the west side of the wall space between the second 
 and third windows counting from the west The floor is boarded 
 over so that any slab if there cannot be seen. 
 
 * Tinus, 19th January, cpl. r. 
 + Morning Post, 19th January, p. 3., col. 3. 
 
Recording this tablet, the latest Sheridan biography * says it is 
 in St. Paul's, Bloomsbury, a place no one could find, Bloomsbury 
 for such a purpose having as much to do with Covent Garden as 
 it has with Bath. 
 
 Osias, Jane, and William survived, and of these William the 
 last died in 1835. By his willf dated 1832 William left his 
 property to be divided equally between his nieces Elizabeth Ann 
 Tickell and Mary Esther Ward, but as Mary Esther predeceased 
 him, by a codicil he left all to Elizabeth. Besides his farm and 
 lands called Oldbury in Didmarton and his share in Drury Lane 
 theatre he bequeathed to her his leasehold house in Fountain 
 Buildings, Bath (it was No. io)t and his share in St. Margaret's 
 chapel, Bath. He bequeathed also to her the portrait of himself, 
 seen now in full manhood, by Lonsdale.- An engraving of this 
 forms the frontispiece to his " Eight Glees,'' published about 1830. 
 Other family portraits, including his father "in a white coat," by 
 Gainsborough, he bequeathed to Dulwich College, where, as above 
 noted, they now are. His tablet in St. Paul's, Covent Garden, 
 records him as the last of this family of genius. 
 
 * Rae, Vol. 2, p. 8. t Gloster ^69. J "British Directory.'^ 
 
RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN: HIS CONNECTION 
 WITH BATH. 
 
 Just when Thomas Linley had become prosperous and 
 prominent, there came upon the scene another family, destined 
 greatly to influence his after life. Mr. Thomas Sheridan, an 
 Irishman, himself an actor, but " respefctable " only as such, 
 having come to grief and loss over a theatrical speculation in 
 Dublin, adopted the teaching of oratory and elocution as another 
 means of livelihood, claiming that a knowledge of such accom- 
 plishments should form part of a gentleman's education. 
 Following out this plan, in 1758 he, with his family, moved from 
 Dublin to the wider field of London,* determined to give lectures 
 so to attract notice and pupils. Previous to this he had designed 
 the production of an English dictionary, and in connection with 
 this work he published a pamphlet entiled :• — ■ 
 
 A dissertation on the causes of tlxa difficulties which occur 
 in learning the English tongue ; with a scheme for publish- 
 ing an English grammar and dictionary upon a plan entirely 
 new, the object of which shall be to' facilitate the attainment 
 of the English tongue and establish a perpetual standard of 
 pronunciation. Addressed to a noble lord. 
 
 This now scarce pamphlet has some local interest as it was 
 reprinted at Bath in 1856, at the Pitman Phonetic Press t As 
 Mr. Sheridan's means were nil, by the influence of Mr. Wedder- 
 burn, afterwards Lord Loughborough,! who had been a pupil, 
 and through Lord Bute § the noble lord to whom the above 
 pamphlet was dedicated, he was granted a pension, in 1762, of 
 _;^2oo a year under the pretence of monetary assistance for the 
 
 La Belle Assembled." Vol. 29. f fhonetic Journal, Vol. 15. 
 J "The Cabinet," Vol. 4. § "Die. Nat. Biog." 
 
dictionary. Always extravagant, stinting nothing of the exterior 
 of a gentleman, he now, aided by this grant, for "47 years lived 
 upon his wits."* 
 
 In 1763, at Christmas time, Mr. Sheridan, with Mrs. Sheridan, 
 went to Bristol on a lecturing tour, and coming from Bristol the 
 beginning of 1764, both visited Bath. During this visit Mrs. 
 Sheridan made the acquaintance of Sarah Fielding, who lived in a 
 small house between Bath and Batheaston;t and she visited 
 Allen, at Prior Park. She also took lessons in singing from 
 Linley, and so commenced an acquaintance which was presently 
 to be renewed. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan gave his lectures at Foote's theatre in London, 
 " a miscellaneous species of amusement, consisting of recitations, 
 singing and music," under the high sounding name of " An Attic 
 Evening's Entertainment." J Foote quickly burlesqued these 
 lectures in a farce called, " The Orators." Herein a soap boiler 
 being , ambitious to join the City Council, his wife tells him he 
 must first learn to make speeches, when just opportunely the master 
 professor of the art of oratory comes to the city with his lectures. 
 Husband and wife attend, and are "told such things about verbs, 
 and nouns, and adverbs and emphasis and accents," that never 
 entered their heads before. As showing the difference in time, 
 during the evening a gentleman in a box cries : — HoUoo ! Snuffers, 
 snuffers, snuffers. Whereupon enter the-— Candle Snuffer — with 
 — Your pleasure, sir. Mr. Sheridan being presently harried by 
 creditors, was obliged to leave London, and taking a circuitous 
 route got to Dover, then over to France and so to Blois. From 
 Blois, after a visit to Paris, he moved to St. Quentin where he 
 purposed leaving his children in the hands of Protestants to whom 
 he had been strongly recommended. § Here Mrs. Sheridan died 
 
 * "The Cabinet," 180S. t Lefanu, "Life of the Sheridans." 
 
 : Watkins' " Life of R. B. Sheridan." 
 
 § "European Maga.," Vol. 32, p.p. 11, 12. 
 
23 
 
 and was allowed burial in a Protestant Cemetery. Writing from 
 Blois, ist August, 1766, he says : — "Mrs. Sheridan has writ a 
 comedy called 'A Trip to Bath,' in which some good judges in 
 England find a great deal of merit." This little thing obtained 
 the sanction of Garrick and Murphy, and through them it was 
 believed that Dr. Johnson perused it and gave his judgment 
 decidedly in its favour. Notwithstanding this high approval it 
 was never acted nor published. Three acts in manuscript are 
 preserved for us, and hereon it must be rioted the title reads, " A 
 Journey to Bath; a Comedy.''* It has always, however, been 
 mentioned, and so is better known, under the first title, "A Trip 
 to Bath." The whole thus preserved is contained in 70 pages, or 
 37 leaves including the title. The scenes are laid in Bath, on 
 the Parade, and in Spring Gardens, and the third act shows the 
 Rooms with different parties at cards, one table to be filled with 
 children at "Lottery Tickets." The influence of this play may 
 perhaps be traced in her son's comedy " The Rivals." The same 
 son wrote another comedy known now as " The School for 
 Scandal," but which in its first state was named " The Slanderers ; 
 A Pump Room Scene, "t This son, known as Richard Brinsley 
 Sheridan, was born in Dublin, says one account, on the 30th 
 October, 1751,! and baptized on the 4th of November in the 
 parish church of St. Mary.§ 
 
 Moore, in his life of him, actually begins his first lines with 
 an error when he says he was born in September, 1751, in Dublin, 
 and baptized on the 4th of the following month, which would be 
 October. Then with one account is gi'vien a literal extract from 
 the registers, as reading: — "Richard Brinsley, son of Thoma 
 and Frances Sheridan, baptized November, 4th, i75i."|| Another 
 account gives it, "as appears from the following extract from the 
 
 * Brit. Mus. : Add MSS. t Eirle's " Balh." 
 
 J L. Sanders' "Life of -Sheridan." § Watljins' " Memoirs of Sheridan.'' 
 
 II " Life of R. B. Sheridan "• (Anon. ). 
 
24 
 
 register of St. Mary's, Dublin" : — ■" Richard Brinsley, son of Mr. 
 and Mrs. Sheridan, baptized 4th November, 1751."* And 
 another, so late as 1886, f gives a similar "extract.'' But the Mr. 
 and Mrs. will not pass as so extracted. These later notices are 
 clearly not extracts but only copied variants from the first. In 
 these researches it is rarely possible to learn the date of birth, but 
 the date of baptism is an authenticated fact, and as this ceremony 
 took place as soon as convenient after the birth, the birth date here 
 late in October would be nearer the truth than one in September. 
 One other account of 1812 says he was born at Quilca, near 
 Djublin, in 1752.! Besides that Quilca is not near Dublin ; it was 
 his father, Thomas, who was born there oil a farm the property of 
 his mother, who was a Miss McPherson.§ Finally, but most 
 remarkable, the latest biography || seems to show that neither of 
 these former statements could have been really literally extracted 
 as in the register as seen and read by the author, the name is 
 entered as Thomas Brinsley, not Richard. In due time, by 
 reason of his father's better position after the pension grant, 
 Richard, as he must be called, was sent to Harrow School, where 
 he was considered careless and indolent, although at times giving 
 evidence of a "quick ingenuity.'' So presently this "elegant 
 sluggard " was sent into the world to do the best he could for 
 himself IT 
 
 In 1770, about October, Mr. Thomas Sheridan, now a widower 
 with daughters and two sons, moved to Bath, his intention being 
 to carry on his business there and lecture on elocution. Here, 
 as being both public entertainers, the earlier acquaintance with 
 Linley was soon renewed, and even business relations commenced ; 
 this baing all made further mutually agreeable by the presence of 
 the young people of both families. What exactly Mr. Sheridan 
 
 * "Authentic Memoirs of R. H. S." t Fitzgerald. 
 
 J " Biographica Dramatica.'' § " Uist. and Biog. Maga.," Vol. 2. 
 
 II "Sheridan,"' a liiography, by W. Fraser Rae. 
 
 H "Life of K. a S.," Lefanu. 
 
25 
 
 did, or intended, towards establishing himself, may best be learned 
 by giving his first advertisement in full. This reads'*' : — 
 
 At Simpson's Concert Room on Saturday next, 24th 
 instant will be the first Attic Entertainment, consisting of 
 reading and singing, the reading pkrt by Mr. Sheridan, the 
 singing by Miss Linley. In three parts. Part i. i. A dis- 
 course on Oratory in which the necessity of that art towards 
 forwarding the perfection of man's nature is shewn in a new 
 light by Mr. Sheridan. 2. A Scotch ballad beginning : I oft 
 have heard Mary say— by Miss Linley. 3. Pope's verses to 
 the memory of an unfortunate lady, by Mr. Sheridan. Part 
 ii. I. Two dialogues between Adam and Eve from the 4th 
 book of Paradise Lost, the first beginning at line 411, and 
 the other at line 508. 2. Elin a Roon, an Irish song by Miss 
 Linley. 3. Milton's Allegro, by Mr. Sheridan. 
 
 Part iii. i. The Hermit from Dr. Goldsmith's Vicar of 
 Wakefield, by Mr. Sheridan. 2. Black eyed Susan an 
 English ballad, by Miss Linley. 3. Dryden's Ode, by Mr. 
 Sheridan. 4. Rosey Bowers, from Purcel, by Miss Linley. 
 The entertainment will be continued on the Thursday and 
 Saturday in the following week and the pieces and songs will 
 be entirely different each day, the particulars of which will 
 be mentioned in the bills previous to each performance. 
 The subscription to be a guinea for which six tickets will be 
 delivered two for each morning or to be used on any of the 
 days in such proportions as the subscribers shall think 
 proper. Three subscription tickets for ladies only will be 
 delivered for half a guinea, single tickets js. each. Subscrip- 
 tions will be received and tickets delivered by the Book- 
 sellers, at the Coffee Houses, and at the Rooms. 
 On the 27th December another advertisementt announced that 
 on monday, the 7th January, 1771, this attic entertainment would 
 be repeated, the reading again by Mr. Sheridan, the singing by 
 Miss Linley, and to be continued on the two foUcwing mondays. 
 
 * aatk Chronicle, 22[ld November, I770, p 3, col. 2. 
 t Balk CkronicU, p. 3, col. 4. 
 
26 
 
 The subscription was a guinea, for which now one gentleman's 
 and two ladies' tickets were issued for each day, or the nine to be 
 used all on one day as the subscriber thought proper. Three 
 tickets to admit either gentlemen or ladies for half a guinea. 
 Single tickets at a "crown'' each. To begin each morning at 
 half past eleven. 
 
 To this there was a note added, that — 
 
 Mr, Sheridan is now ready to receive the commands of 
 such persons as wish to have their children regularly 
 instructed in the art of reading and reciting and in the gram- 
 matical knowledge of the English language upon the terms 
 formerly advertised and by the desire of several gentlemen 
 whose sons have returned home during the holidays he will 
 immediately receive pupils at his own house in Kingsmead 
 Street till a proper place shall be fitted up for their 
 accommodation. 
 
 On the 3rd January, 1771, another advertisement* announced 
 that Mr. Sheridan proposed to give a ne.w course of three attic 
 entertainments. The pieces of composition both in poetry and 
 prose to befor the most part different from those delivered in the 
 former course, as also a variety in the songs. The first entertain- 
 ment was to be on monday, the 7th January, to be continued on 
 the two following mondays. The subscription and time of com- 
 mencement as before. By reason of Mr. Sheridan's sudden indis- 
 position the first for the 7th January was deferred until monday, 
 the 13th (?. 14th), and an advertisementt of the loth January 
 announced that to finish the course in the time first proposed, the 
 second and third would be on the Saturday and monday following. 
 Such subscribers as this alteration may not suit were at liberty to 
 have their subscriptions back. A slight addition to the former 
 notices, requested of the company to come early to prevent 
 interruption, as the entertainment would begin precisely at the 
 time mentioned. 
 
 * Page 3, col. 1. t Bath Chrontcle, p. ^, col. 4. 
 
27 
 
 On the 17th January a final advertisement* gives fuller par- 
 ticulars of the performance at the second entertainment for the 
 19th. It was as before in three parts. Part i, i. Some passages 
 from Milton's Lycidas. 2. A song beginning : One day I heard 
 Mary say. 3. Grey's verses on the distant prospect of Eton 
 College. Part ii. 1. Mallet's Edwin and Emma. 2. The noon- 
 tide air, a song. 3. The two soliloquies, Hamlet and Cato. Part 
 iii. I. A Scotch song, called, Low down i' the broom. 2. A 
 discourse on the powers of oratory with regard to the improve- 
 ment of human nature, 3. Mad Bess, from Purcel. To this 
 there was now an additional note that particular care will be taken 
 to have the room made as warm as possible. 
 
 Notwithstanding the judicious aid and the excellent advertise- 
 ment by the association with the popular Miss Linley this 
 entertainment seems to have been unsuccessful. The programme 
 certainly does not read as very strong. Of Mr. Sheridan it is 
 recorded that he was pedantic, and as a reader was " elaborate, 
 noisy, and sonorous, varying merely his tones," and presumably 
 did not generally attract. Dr. Johnson is credited with the 
 remark that Mr. Sheridan's mode of oratory, if followed, 
 would clear a room. But the programmes give a desired 
 information, some idea of the musical style or practice of Miss 
 Linley which is here seen to be the ballad. On other occasions 
 with her sisters, as a family all were foremost in the oratorio. 
 Mr. Sheridan does not again appear locally prominent. It is only 
 known that he had certainly one pupil, the Hon. George Grenville, 
 afterwards 2nd Earl Temple and 1st Marquess of Buckingham, 
 who boarded with him in 1 7 7 1 as hoping to be cured of a stammer 
 or some difficulty in speech. He came again in 1772 accom- 
 panied, for pleasure only, by his brother Thomas, whose well- 
 known library now graces the British Museum. Mr. Sheridan 
 continued resident at Bath, travelling when required, reading his 
 
 * BaiA Ck7-oniclt, p. 3, col, i. 
 
28 
 
 lectures to subscribers and giving private lessons to pupils, being 
 assisted by his son Charles, and so getting a living " sometimes 
 abundant and sometimes meagre,"* until about October, 1772. 
 
 Miss Linley, on her first appearance in the Bath concert 
 room, was much admired both as a Charming girl and for 
 her voice ; and two years later with a little more develop- 
 ment, when only fourteen she was dubbed "an angel "and was 
 known as the Syren.t Receiving the highest praises everywhere, 
 complimented in private, and applauded in public for her singing ; 
 of her beauty it was written that tenderest sensibility was the 
 character of her countenance, the most perfect proportion that of 
 her frame ; it was impossible to contemplate her without affection,! 
 Her accents were so melodious that listening Envy would have 
 dropped her snakes and stern eyed Fury's self have melted at the 
 sounds. § Pages of this sort of thing could be quoted. Thus 
 'sung by bards," she was soon "fought for by heroes." 
 
 The story of her wooers is a sad one. The life of this young 
 girl in her teens was made unbearable.il Of these troublers three 
 only need be mentioned here. Mr. Walter Long,1I a gentleman of 
 property, declared himself and with every honourable intention. 
 As his income was estimated at ;^io,ooo a year, the parents 
 received the proposal with rapture, but Miss was not so willing, 
 yet, after some pressure consent was nominally obtained, and the 
 usual preparations made for the wedding, when the young lady 
 made excuse and resolutely refused to proceed further. H^ She 
 pleaded that she could not give up her public appearances and yet 
 this very thing, the exhibiting her person for money, was the one 
 thing she most disliked. The difference in age, she was sixteen 
 and he was sixty, was also pleaded. In the end the young lady 
 
 * " Life of Frances Sheridan." + London Magazine, Vol. 27, 
 
 J Ntw Lady's Magazine, Vol. 7- 
 
 § historical and Biagmphical Magazine, Vol. 2. |! Oliphant. 
 
 \ " Sheridan," by an Octogenarian. 
 
 11 " Craftsman," loth Octoberj 1772, p. 4. 
 
29 
 
 so persuaded Mr. Long that he most kindly undertook to bear all 
 the odium of the breaking off, and further paid the father ^^looo 
 as compensation for the temporary loss of his daughter's valuable 
 services during the engagement. Later tjiis .sum by Mr. Long's 
 generosity was extended to _;^3ooo,* which was placed in the 
 father's hands, settled on the young lady to be paid when she 
 became of age. Besides this she had jewels to the value of 
 ;^iooo and other valuable presents, t This episode attracted 
 much public attention, nothing else was talked of at Bath. Great 
 was the envy of the ladies and great the chagrin and disappoint- 
 ment among the young men when the engagement was known.! 
 Foote made the whole the ground of a comedy called " The Maid 
 of Bath," a name by which the damsel was well known, and in 
 the dialogue she appears as Miss Linnef, an adopted play upon 
 her name. Mr. Long is unkindly portrayed, and accused of 
 decamping and changing his mind at the last moment. § He 
 appears as Solomon Flint, an amorous old squire, and the 
 epilogue speaks of him as — 
 
 The rake of sixty, crippled harid and knee, 
 Who sins on claret, and repents on tea. 
 
 This is now seen to be too severe and untrue. Mr. I^ong lived 
 to a good old age.|| Here may be noticed another of the often 
 careless inaccuracies, when in an account 6f Mr. Long it is written 
 that " though the son of a carpenter now living at Bath " he was a 
 man of good fortune.!! Mr. Long was never other than he here 
 appears to be. It was Linley, the father of the young lady, who 
 was the son of a carpenter. 
 
 The younger Sheridan, Richard, who had joined his family 
 early in lyyi^H fresh from his tutor, often met Miss Linley and 
 soon began to be gallant and soon perceived a mutual feeling. 
 
 * "Octogenarian," p. 38. t Lefanii, X ^^atkins. 
 
 § Sa/A Chronicle, 27th June, 1771, p. 3, col. 3. 
 
 I] Stainforth's " Life of Sheridan." H London Rlagazir.e, 1772. 
 
 'JH Sanders. 
 
3° 
 
 These two lovers were very young, he being barely twenty, she 
 seventeen. As the youth had nothing, was without either 
 profession, business, or means, and was trifling away his life in 
 sheer idleness, Prudence, wrote one, might have dictated another 
 choice as if Prudence dictated under sucli circumstances. 
 
 When the engagement with Mr. Long was off, one Nathaniel 
 Halhed, a schoolfellow of Richard Sheridan, and now a student at 
 Oxford, hoped to obtain the notice and favour of the damsel, and 
 some correspondence was carried on with her, Richard being the 
 go-between ; but it happened that expected letters failed from time 
 to time to reach Halhed, and presently just when he received an 
 appointment under the East India Company, he was made to see 
 that he had no chance. So he was quietly choked off Then 
 Charles Sheridan, the elder brother, tried and hoped also, until 
 presently he too surprised found himself superseded when he 
 retired to the country some seven or eight miles from Bath. 
 So in turn he was got rid of The position of the youngsters 
 towards each other becoming known and the prospect being so 
 opposite to the first possibiHty for his daughter, the passion 
 of papa Linley, who had ambitious views, was not the 
 passion of the lovers, and curiously the objection of 
 the youth's papa was equally determined. Both parents 
 protesting strongly all meetings were forbidden and every 
 means used to prevent them. Still as usual meetings did occur. 
 Among the earliest of the family acquaintarjces at Bath was Mr. 
 Thomas Mathews, who, having been in the army, is sometimes 
 called Captain Mathews, who was at this time a rather new 
 resident. Richard Sheridan early became the genial and insepar- 
 able companion of Mathews, and from the- close intimacy between 
 the three families, visits being constantly exchanged at their 
 respective houses, young Sheridan often met his inamorata at 
 Mathew's house.* So commenced the first act in a strange 
 
 * London Magazine, 1772, Vol. 41, 
 
SI 
 
 eventful comedy, almost a tragedy. At this time of social gaiety 
 Sheridan's mind showed that tendency to comedy literature 
 which developed a little later. There happened to be issued 
 at Bath a sketch called "The Bath Picture," by Richard 
 Fitzpatrick, i.e., Miles Peter Andrews, and this, under the 
 signature of Asmodeo, Sheridan answered with " Clio's Protest 
 or the Picture Varnished," the last eight lines in this beginning 
 " Marked you her eye, &c.,'' alluding in praise to Lady Margaret 
 Fordyce, were set to music. Lady Margaret was the sister 
 of Lady Anne Fordyce, the author of "Auld Robin Gray."* 
 This has somewhat a further local interest, as Auld Robin 
 Gray was set to music by Mr. Leeves, rector of Wrmgton. 
 Another little humorous sketch by Sheridan was called "The 
 Ridotto," in style after Anstey, written on the opening of the 
 - new Assembly Rooms, September, 1771. A ridotto was a ' bal 
 pare " or in semi-evening dress. It was first printed in the 
 Ba/A Chronicle, October, 1771, and wals then issued in ballad 
 slip form, price one penny, but although the demand required 
 a large issue, not a copy seems to have survived. It was re-issued 
 in 1773, and later in a work entitled "The New Foundling 
 Hospital for Wit," Vol. I., and has been thus saved to us. It 
 was further re-printed in 1819. 
 
 There was also some sort of joint literary scheme between 
 Sheridan and his friend Halhed at Oxford. The plan advanced 
 so far that Halhed made a translation of a pretended Greek 
 author or writer, who assumed the name of Aristcenetus, which 
 he published in 8vo. in 1771. The title was : — 
 
 " The Love Epistles of Aristcenetus," translated from the Greek 
 into English metre. 
 
 The preface is signed " H.S ,'' which has been supposed to mean 
 Halhed Sheridan, but Sheridan's work was only to read such of 
 the translation that Halhed sent to him. Halhed speaks of the 
 
 * A Lefanu. 
 
32 
 
 work as "my" Aristoenetus. A nominal second edition appeared 
 in 1773, simply a re-issue with a new title i page and the last page 
 re-printed. The thing was a failure, "monkish trash on which 
 the translator had ill-spent his time." 
 
 At this time, too, Sheridan showed that cleverness and ingenuity 
 which had served him so well at Harrow, and which served him 
 constantly through life. Thoughtless of consequences he 
 managed without means to appear in a gtyle of elegance which 
 astonished those who were acquainted with his finances,* and so 
 he managed to associate intimately with Mathews and other gentle- 
 men of fashion and extravagence, men of leisure and of pleasure, 
 and to keep up the tendency of his nation to conviviality, and 
 the social enjoyments of the table and wine, " too early indulged 
 in and in after life too freely pursued." 
 
 But meanwhile the young lady, prominent from her public 
 position, and as the general theme of conversation, was followed 
 by all the young men of fashion at Bath, all proud to be in the list 
 of her admirers.t The poor, penniless lover was consequently 
 always facing the number and wealth of these possible rivals, and 
 watching the temptations to which his lady-love was exposed. His 
 mind was thus kept full of jealous fears and in a perpetual state of 
 unrest, well calculated to develop other national characteristics, 
 the hasty temper and hot quick passion unrestrained by 
 judgment. Mathews, as an early friend of the Linley family, had 
 also become the earlier friend and companion of Miss Linley. 
 Their frequent appearance in public together presently attracted the 
 notice of the censorious, who considered this indiscreet, Mathews 
 being already married, and, in the fashionable set at Bath. Such 
 watchful censors are easily found to-day, but here the position 
 was clearly very difficult, as the young lady being a public 
 character must have been known by sight to everyone, and 
 generally could not move without being watched. As in all such 
 
 * " Imposter Unmasked," by Patricius. t Beau Monde. 
 
33 
 
 cases their being together must have been mutually agreeable. 
 What Linley was for Mathews, Mathews \^as for Linley, and per- 
 haps his presence kept off others not desired. The young damsel 
 too, was certainly unfortunate, being the eldest of her family, with 
 a father severe and exacting and a mother who seems to have been 
 entirely unsympathetic. She thus apparently had absolutely no other 
 male friend. Ladies at this date did not ge out without escort so it 
 does not follow that Mathews and Miss Linley were always alone, 
 but they were often in company together. Bath, too, was not 
 without fame for the invention and circulation of slander, or 
 we should not now be able to read — " The School for Scandal." 
 At first then, insinuations and surmises were circulated, 
 "sharpened by the malice of the women, who envied the pretty 
 warbler both her charms and her popularity " ; " the old ladies 
 condemned in very affecting language," and the young ones chose 
 to " wonder at the laxity of their sister, in walking about with a 
 married man." But besides the spite of thp women there was the 
 jealousy of those men who wished to gain her affection or even 
 some attention, but who were thus barred from approach. What, 
 ever the restless eyes of the censors may have seen or their small 
 minds imagined it must be noted that the general family intimacy 
 continued and was never interrupted. Mathews' attentions were 
 not noticeable, there was nothing to cause suspicion or distrust, 
 nothing was said or noted in either farhily. The young lady 
 herself was entirely ignorant of any gossip and was also quite 
 " innocent of having given cause for it." To quote a note of the 
 time which well shows the exact position; — " the censorious were 
 very anxious for virtue without knowing whether it was in danger."* 
 Now comes the curious error upon which the future story 
 rests, Mathews when he learned of the gossip and the remarks 
 made about him, instead of withdrawing or taking care even for 
 the damsel's sake, did exactly the wrong thing. Either proud of 
 
 * Craftsman, loth October, 1772. 
 
34 
 
 the position or treating the gossip with* contempt, he fanned 
 eth notoriety by increasing his courteous attentions in proportion 
 as the matter attracted notice.* This at last raised the fiend of 
 jealousy in the breast of young Sheridan, who with youthful 
 ardour and a feeling of being privileged, ventured to protest and 
 expostulate with his friend hoping he would modify his conduct. 
 Thus originated the difference between these two which produced 
 such notoriety for both and for Bath in connection with them. 
 Seized by this jealous frenzy, in a state of captious unsatisfied 
 temper and ill-directed imagination, every action, every attention 
 or courtesy to the young lady became mystified into a terror, 
 the lover's "days were hours of care, his nights of watchfulness.'' 
 Having got rid in former time of his friend Halhed and after him 
 of his own brother, he could no longer brook even the semblance 
 of a rival in the young girl's mind, so he proceeded to get rid of 
 Mathews by making him odious first in her eyes and 
 then trying to do the same in the eyes of all Bath. 
 Using his opportunities he put the story in its worst form 
 before Miss Linley, who became greatly depressed at this 
 new trouble. Mathews, her only male friend, was thus got 
 rid of in turn, and the young lady was consequently entirely 
 isolated. Taking advantage of her hatred of her profession and 
 her equally hated bondage to her father, the youth now persuaded 
 her that flight alone would save her from these troubles. She 
 did not consult her father, we are told, feaaring his anger ; so he 
 was another kept out of the way. It happened, too, just now 
 that Mr. Sheridan the papa was called away to Ireland, so he 
 also was out of the way, when the son seized the opportunity of 
 persuading the girl to elope, t The affair being thus determined 
 and arranged, to give confidence at the start, young Sheridan 
 engaged a woman servant to act " propriety '' as a third party, 
 and whilst she waited in a post chaise in Walcot Street on the 
 
 ♦ Watkins. t Watkins. 
 
35 
 
 London road the "bold" protector conducted the young lady 
 in a chair from her house in the Crescent and off they went. The 
 London Chronicle of Tuesday, 24th Mateh, 1772, under date 
 from Bath, 23rd March, says — on Wednesday (i.e., i8th March) : 
 " The eldest Miss Linley, of this city, justly celebrated for her 
 musical abilities, set off with Mr. Sheridan, jun., on a matrimonial 
 excursion to Scotland." Such would be the first impression with 
 everyone. This affair again brings up thoughts of cleverness on 
 one side or easiness in business matters on the other, or 
 how did this extravagant youth without any apparent means 
 manage to plan thus and start with post horses and , a 
 servant for London and beyond. In connection with this point 
 it has never been remembered that the young lady could hardly 
 have been without means, as besides her important earnings from 
 which she may have had pocket money, she had in her own right 
 the money investment settled by Mr, Long. On arriving in 
 London the runaways spent a night with a friend, Mr. Ewart, a 
 brandy merchant. From here Sheridan seems to have written to 
 Bath and giving his route plan, which, howdver, as may be expected, 
 he did not follow. Leaving the propriety duenna behind, aided 
 by Mr. Ewart's shipping interest the couple next crossed to Dunkirk. 
 From here they proceeded to Lille where the young lady was 
 deposited or got herself deposited as a boarder in a convent. 
 
 Thus so far this story is told, from contemporary sources, 
 for the first time; told just as Bath must have known it 
 at the time. With this knowledge of cause or causes 
 the way in which it has been since told will be better 
 understood. 
 
 Sheridan died in 1816, when some short notices of 
 his life appeared, and in 181 7 Dr. Watkins published a fuller 
 account. A more extended biography being thought necessary 
 the material collected was handed to Tho.mas Moore to edit and 
 his work, published in 1825, became the accepted authority on 
 the subject. But it must be distinctly rem mbered and under- 
 
stood lliiil lu: (lid nol wrili^ this IJiiUi pari of his story froiii 
 coiilcinporjiry oi- uutlu'iilic dociliiii'iils, liilL ijiihlislit'd, iiimosl in 
 its i;iitiivty, u long jiccoiinl sont IVoiu Mis. 1 Iciii'y I-clhnii, wlii> 
 WHS I'liitlu!!- Shuiidan's sislcr lOli/.idnah, wrillon froiii iitlcniplcd 
 ruviviul rocollcrlioiis over 50 ycius after' tin: cvriils, luid liy ii 
 lady nearly 70, wlio was ImiI 11 girl of only 13 oi' i.; ;it tlu^ linn;. 
 
 Rci^cnlly itIlhouKli Shcridiin liiis hiu.'H long (lend mid loiij^' 
 forgotten, luiotliur biognt|)hy liiis lioldly iippi'iu-rd wherein 
 this liolami letter is .•igniii fully nsed and relied npon.* 
 Moore, using (he nurrulive often alinosl: word for word [)rinls 
 without inverli^d eoniniiis, thus giving 11 greiiter iippein'iUK^e 
 of originality to his hook. The last work very pro|)erly uses 
 these marks, thus enabling the reader to well distinguish the m-w 
 and the old, Hoth these issues nuist now be glanced at, 
 I'lrst a new form is given to the elopement as we are now 
 told th.at Miss Link7, terrified at the iittentions of MiiIIk^vs, 
 <:0)isalted the Misses Sheridan, and they, in lin'n ecjnHulled their 
 brother, and that Miss Linley had conceived Ihc! idea, of r(;tiring 
 to a (umvent in l''r;uice luitil nhr. canie ol' age, niea,ning to 
 indemnify her father with part of her eompen.salion money. 
 Sheridan chose to a.cce[)l the idm, and oflcrerl lo be her iTindiictor 
 ■'as a friend without .any desire to take advalilagi: as a, lover,"! thUH 
 ap[)earing aci:ording lo his sister's estimate as It Inislird " a.dvisor " 
 and "protector " (uilirely willuall guile. tl is difliciill to n;a,lise 
 this convent story as luring supported by any a,dviser, a,n imagined 
 retreat for four yeiu's in a place the young girl had never sei^n and 
 of which slie <:oulil kmw noMiing, and further Ih.al the fa,lh(;r 
 would not be ei|ually a,ngry luid K[)oil all ci|iially here an at 
 honir;, and then that the youth was taking this diHinturestiMl 
 trouble simply to wait for four years somewhere outside wlien he 
 could do that as well or better al hiaiie. I!ul mo it was, Having 
 the idea the, yi;nng girl was workeil upon: as if ciurying lail her 
 
 *' Kiic. t Moi.rc, 
 
37 
 
 own plan, and the youth accepted it as suiting his, to get away, 
 to make a start, and let the result follow. Then, it may be 
 remembered, that the four advisers in council were — Miss 
 Linley, herself just seventeen. Miss Sheridan about the same 
 age, and her sister, the writer of the letter with this story, only 
 thirteen, and the penniless lover-brothef, the chief actor and 
 worker, but twenty. Yet the biographies write glibly of these 
 events, without explanation, as if these young things were fully 
 grown and had some little common sease, almost as if the affair 
 were blameless and a worthy example f<5r others. As soon as 
 they were well abroad the chivalrous and disinterested protecter 
 became " more explicit " mildly writes the lady sister, 
 "degenerated into a mere selfi.sh lover" as Moore plainly 
 puts it, and so pressed the usual argument that after the step 
 they had taken she could not possibly appear again in England but 
 as ^his wife, or as the latest biography elaborates it, " the same 
 eloquence which had been used to persuade her to leave Bath 
 w^as employed to persuade her to become his wife in order 
 to silence the tongue of scandal." Accordingly, continues the 
 same, but without the slightest evidence, "they were married 
 by a priest well-known for such occasioris." It can be said 
 with equal certainty that they were not Dr. Watkins, in 1817, 
 says distinctly there was no marriage at this time and this will be 
 borne out by facts. Whatever may have exactly happened the 
 poor young girl was strong enough to resist all blarney, and on 
 reaching Lille carried out her plan and got herself deposited as 
 a boarder in a convent, and so at once was safe from further 
 persistence Here in a place so stra,nge and new and in a 
 foreign unknown country she became ill naturally enough and 
 so next, passed first to the profes-sional care and then to the 
 house and protection of an English medico resident at Lille. 
 
 As soon as the elopement was discovered the landlord of the 
 house in which the Sheridans lived went off at break of day to 
 inform Charles Sheridan at his retreat in the country, Mr. 
 
38 
 
 Sheridan, as already stated, being away. A great stir too arose in 
 Bath. Mathews busied himself to find out where the fugitives 
 had gone, and called naturally enough on the Sheridans as being 
 most likely to know. Here Charles Sheridan agreed with him in 
 condemning his brother's conduct and both used the strongest 
 language about him, not only did these two agree, but Sheridan's 
 father presently agreed with them, and was, perhaps, more severe. 
 In the course of their chat, Charles, we are told, " unguardedly '' 
 dropped these expressions of displeasure. As all his expressions 
 must have been of the same tenor why " unguardedly," is not 
 clear, Sheridan left behind him letters against Mathews charging 
 him with designing the seduction of Miss Linley, thus throwing 
 the blame of the elopement upon him and claiming for himself 
 the virtuous roll of saving the girl from the snares of vice and 
 dissimulation. Whilst the whereabouts was unknown Mathews 
 constantly called on the Sheridans, or as Lefanu puts it rather 
 sharply — he never ceased for the four or five weeks the youngsters 
 were absent — to haunt the family with inquiries, rumours, and 
 other disturbing visitations.* In the new biography this sentence 
 is echoed and becomes — this incomprehensible man continued to 
 plague the Sheridans with visits and inquiries, t Why should this 
 or the man be considered incomprehensible. In such 
 a case it may be concluded that others also must have 
 made inquiry. Mathews, the intimate friend of Mr, Linley 
 and the familiar of the lost girl, was angry enough as 
 any other would be, and was certainly the first to be justified in 
 his anxiety. Lefanu's account makes this conduct as of the worst 
 as " almost avowing in his rage the unprincipled design " which 
 this elopement had frustrated.! The "almost" here must be noted 
 in this pretty insinuation. In the last version this is improved, 
 the " almost " is dropped and then we are told as if a fact— he 
 was outrageous and made no scruple of avowing his passion and 
 
 * Moore 53. t Rae 173. t Moore 53. 
 
39 
 
 hopes of success but for this intervention. Yet there is not one 
 tittle of evidence shown for such an assertion. Then in the 
 course of elaboration the story descends to " He is said." He 
 " is said " to have added the menace of niining her character if 
 she refused him.* So we have the usual scandal comer with 
 "They say," "They do say," "It is whispered," "It is said," 
 and so X)n. Yet this gossip is printed .and reprinted and so 
 re^asserted for acceptance as fact without further consideration 
 or thought. 
 
 But all this time neither of the biographies has given a thought 
 to Mr. Linle)'. What must have been the father's state when he 
 learned of this affair? Struck dumb with anguish, as he must 
 have been at the thought that his universally beloved child, his 
 own ambition, was gone, and gone, too, for what, who could say. 
 Doubt, grief, and horror must have been his, and it may well be 
 imagined and hoped that others must have been as sadly pained 
 and shocked as was Mathews. Gone with this extravagant and 
 useless youth, who had worked this against the declared wishes of 
 both fathers, as utterly regardless of consequences as the worst of 
 men could have been, a pretended adviser and protector, who had 
 taken this young girl from her home in the midst of panegyric and 
 applause, in the heighth of her prosperity and renown, broken and 
 half ruined her father by thus depriving him of his daughter and 
 of the ready resources her skill brought him, and taken her foreign 
 he knew not whither. Mathews, Mr. Linley 's intimate friend, against 
 whom so far he knew no ill and had no ill-feeling, came with 
 his sympathy and rage, and the reiterated question between them 
 must have been — where are they ? It was to get an answer to 
 thi-s question that Mathews busied himself, and yet even for this 
 blame is thrown upon him. Soon the prejudicial report or charge 
 against Mathews left behind or circulated by young Sheridan 
 reached Mr. Linley and he, accepting it, thereupon refused to 
 
 * Moore 48. 
 
40 
 
 see his old friend. " So, so, all over the town already." Vexed and 
 hurt now here, as much as he was before enraged, Mathews as a 
 defence and a challenge against these tales publicly contradicted 
 all by the following advertisement,* which will give clearly the 
 position from the other side : — 
 
 Bath, Wednesday, April 8, 1772. 
 
 Mr. Richard S having attempted in a letter left behind 
 
 him for that purpose to account for his scandalous method of running 
 away from this place by insinuations derogating from 7ny character 
 and that of a young lady innocent as far-as relates to me or my 
 knowledge, since which he has neither taken any notice of letters or 
 even informed his own family of the place where he has hid himself 
 I can no longer think he deserves the treatment of a gentleman, and 
 therefore shall trouble myself no further about him than in this public 
 method to post him as a L (iar) and a treacherous S ("coundrelj. And 
 as I am convinced there have been many malevolent incendiaries 
 concerned in the propogation of this infamous lie, if any of theui, 
 unprotected by age, infirmities or profession.viWX dare to acknowledge 
 the part they have acted, and affirm to, what they have of, me, they 
 may depend on receiving the proper reward of their villainy in the 
 most public manner. The world will be candid enough to judge 
 properly (I make no doubt) of z.ny private abu^e on this subject for 
 the future, as nobody can defend himself from an accusation he is 
 ignorant of. 
 
 Thomas Mathews 
 
 This announcement {i.e., the advertisement) says the last 
 biography " was alike comical and absurd. Mathews arrogated 
 to himself the right of debauching Miss^ Linley, and he treated 
 as an enemy the young man who had thwarted him."t The 
 comical thing here must be rather in this: paragraph, as Mathews 
 is not seen or shown as arrogating anything of the sort. As 
 Sheridan was gone, address not known, the advertisement seems 
 the only means at hand for self-vindication and for a public 
 
 * Bath Chronicle, gth April, 1772, p. 3, col. 3. 
 + Rae, Vol. i., p. 174. 
 
41 
 
 repudiation of what Mathews considered the slander clearly left 
 behind him. Then as to the " young mari " he was treated as an 
 enemy simply because he had taken off this young girl to her ruin, 
 perhaps, as many then thought and as many would think to-day, 
 and had left behind an abusive letter and circulated an " infamous 
 lie.'' It is actually further argued that by thus showing his anger 
 Mathews acknowledged his defeat. How any such thought can be 
 so read it is impossible to see. Such writing o'erleaps itself. The 
 feeling raised against Mathews was for a time apparently very 
 strong, and a better way of meeting it than this advertisement 
 does not seem possible. Further* a letter to Sheridan is given, 
 ■dated 22nd March, 1772. No reference is made as to its 
 whereabouts nor is the address noticed, but it is from one W.B., 
 and evidently in reply to another from London from Sheridan, 
 but Sheridan could not have received this in London. Now 
 that herein the exact date of the elopferaent is given, viz., i8th 
 March, it can be better understood. It says, " the morning after 
 you left,'' this would be presumably the 19th, "Mathews came 
 to me with many oaths ; his present situation and feelings (i.e. 
 on the 22nd) are not to be envied, but bad as he is the town has 
 so little charity for him they make him worse perhaps than he 
 deserves." So here it must be noted that this particular friend, 
 obliged necessarily to write in an acceptable tone about Mathews, 
 does not care to endorse the position as being deserved. In a 
 further conversation with Mathews the writer ventured to 
 suggest that he should leave Bath. This last suggestion is, 
 perhaps, about as absurd as any could be as a means of meeting 
 slander, as it would certainly have shown cowardice and weakness 
 indeed. Instead of leaving Mathews inserted the advertisement, 
 its cause being thus made clear. 
 
 The convent game being now over Sheridan presently wrote to 
 his brother (isth April) that he hoped he had not been 
 
 * Rae, Vol. i., p. 171.' 
 
42 
 
 uneasy lest anything should tempt him to depart ftom the 
 honour and consistency which engaged him from the first ; but 
 the brother was not altogether with him on this point, as he wrote 
 to his uncle— the circumstances might allow of their being 
 dubious. There is also a letter extant from Mr. Sheridan " which 
 shows his lack of charity,"* whatever that may mean, and so' 
 it is not printed " inasmuch as he puts a much harsher con- 
 struction on his younger son's conduct than the elder had 
 done." Father and brother then were at least agreed with 
 Mathews about this most reprehensible affair, and the father 
 could write as harshly as the brother had " unguardedly " 
 spoken. " As letters had been sent to Bath from Lille, 
 Mr. Linley could not be ignorant where his daughter was. 
 to be fourtd.' t This insinuation is not very kindly. Mr. 
 Linley would not have rested a moment had he known where 
 the girl was. He did not know as no letter had been 
 received or sent from Lille. If the whereabouts was 
 known why did Mathews " haunt " the Sheridans with 
 inquiries for some weeks? It was not until the 15th April 
 that Sheridan wrote, and we are told Mr. Linley arrived 
 at Lille a few days after the " despatch " of the letter. 
 Whilst Mr. Linley here clearly did not rest when he knew the 
 whereabouts, so it must be remarked he would not start after 
 the despatch, but after the delivery or receipt of the letter. 
 Supposing it took four days it would be delivered on 
 the 19th, just a month after the elopement. Money must 
 have been getting short. Then Mr. Linley starting perhaps 
 on the 20th would arrive at Lille about the 24th. On 
 his arrival, restraining all show of anger and avoiding further 
 rupture or opposition he did the amiable, and so after spending 
 one night at Lille he departed with the lost one, and would be in 
 Bath perhaps by the 30th April. Here inust be noticed some 
 
 B 
 
 * Rae Vol. i., 185. + Rae, p. 171. 
 
43 
 
 curious statements on this small business. Arriving at Lille, 
 says Moore, Mr. Linley found the fugitives and took both back, 
 "they set off amicably together," or as Mrs H. Lefanu, from 
 whom this is taken, writes — " The whole party set out together 
 the next day " Then again* we are told Sheridan arrived at 
 Bath (whither he travelled with Miss Linley and her father), &c. 
 Mrs. H. Lefanu goes one better, she writes — on arrival from the 
 Continent Sheridan found Mathews was in London, &c., he left 
 Miss Linley with her father at the hotel, and with pistols went to- 
 Mathews, who was surprised and alarmed at seeing him. This is. 
 too much even for the last biographer, who felt bound to remark 
 that Mathews could hardly have been surprised as he must have 
 expected something of the sort sooner or later. Dr. VVatkin's 
 account, written fortunately without the aid of Lefanu, says more 
 truly, the damsel was " conveyed to England by her father, followed 
 by her lover." Thus Mrs. Lefanu is wron'g, they did not return 
 together nor did they proceed to Bath together. The next 
 narrative will explain and clear these points and show the value 
 of Mrs. Lefanu's facts. 
 
 Here, then, Sheridan can tell his own story. He sayst he 
 arrived in London at nine o'clock at night {i.e., on friday, ist 
 May). He had spent the previous night at Canterbury, and 
 there is no mention of anybody being with him. He had learned 
 that Mathews had spoken disrespectfully of him during his- 
 absence, and now about ten o'clock, hearing that Mathews was 
 in town he resolved, with national impetuosity, to call upon him that 
 night. What he did for the next two hours is not in evidence, 
 but at half-past twelve at night he appeared at the house in 
 Crutched Friars where Mathews was lodging, pistols in pocket, 
 to demand satisfaction. It is here Mrs. Lefanu makes out that 
 he was surprised and alarmed. Surprised he might well be, 
 but alarmed certainly not. As the door was locked, the house 
 
 * Moore. t Rae, p. 179. Moore, p, 54. 
 
44 
 
 closed, as might be expected, the landlord refused admittance at 
 such a time. Presently, however, Mathews came down to the 
 door, and after some words retired again, but as the noise 
 continued Mathews dressed and came down again, and so now 
 ■at two o'clock in the morning the determined young man was 
 admitted. To his great surprise, so contrary to his own inten- 
 tions, Mathews received him courteously and to his further 
 surprise evidently, as the words are in italics in his account, he 
 asked him to " sit down." So these two were together, the 
 pistols visible in Sheridan's pocket, until Mathews by diplomacy 
 eventually pacified him, but it was seven o'clock in the morning 
 before he got rid. In the course of this long interview, Mathews 
 seems to have told the story of his own strong words and 
 condemnation, and that Sheridan's brother, and another at Bath 
 not named, had also spoken equally strpng about him. With 
 this idea the young man's wrath was turned on his brother, and 
 he hastened off at once to Bath — post-chaise of no consequence — 
 and arrived there the same evening. Mathews is even accused* 
 of having treasured up this against the brother to be used 
 when required, as if such opportunity could have been 
 imagined or foreseen. No accusation seems too foolish if 
 against this man. Then Mrs. H. Lefanu writes that " he 
 did not hesitate to assert that Charles was privy to 
 the advertisement,'' but again this does not appear by the 
 advertisement or anywhere in fact. When the brothers met in 
 Bath a high quarrel at once ensued, but it would be about the 
 strong words spoken in condemnation of Richard's conduct. 
 After a long altercation the advertisement seems to have been 
 produced — " Dick coming here saw the advertisement for the 
 first time," wrote Charles. Charles could well and safely deny 
 having had any part in this, but it at once diverted Richard's 
 wrath again to Mathews, his brother was forgiven, peace ensued 
 
 *Rae. 
 
45 
 
 between them, and Charles adopting diplojmacy agreed even to be 
 the bearer of a challenge to Mathews. The two brothers now 
 joined the family circle to the relief of all, and passed a short 
 evening very amicably. This passed on Sunday night, says the 
 last biography, relying as usual on Mrs. H. Lefanu, who is again 
 wrong, as it was on Saturday night (2nd May). As soon as all 
 had retired the two young men left the house, Richard having 
 been in Bath, as by his own account, but three hours, and again 
 there was a post-chaise back to town. Before he left Bath he 
 wrote a letter at the Parade Coffee House to Mr. Wade, dated 
 Saturday, 12 o'clock, 2nd May, 1772, " the evening before his 
 second duel,"* says Moore, but it was t!wo evenings before the 
 first — in which is a full account from his own point of view of the 
 Crutched Friars meeting. Arriving in town (on Sunday, 3rd May) 
 the young men were driven to Mr. Brereton's lodgings, "from whom 
 a message was despatched to Mathews."t This is Mrs. H. 
 Lefanu again, and reads as if Mr. Brereton sent or took the 
 message, but Charles himself tells that " t*he same evening " after 
 their arrival (sunday, 3rd May) he carried the challenge to 
 Mathews to meet in Hyde Park next day. Ever ready to accuse 
 and blacken Mathews, Richard chose to associate him with the 
 house being closed and the denial of entry in Crutched Friars, 
 and reported his conduct as the most craven and dastardly 
 conceivable. An Irish song says of a neighbour : — 
 
 If you choose to call at his door 
 And find that he isn't within 
 He affronts you, the son of a whore, 
 Ogh — make a round hole in h^s skin. 
 
 Looking now reasonably at this extraordinary freak neither 
 lodgers nor landlords expect to be raided after midnight by a 
 heated, angry and armed man. The wildest act of the wildest 
 man in the wild west could hardly have intent more madly 
 
 * Moore, p. 54. t Rae, p. 178. 
 
46 
 
 outrageous. A duellist expects a different mode to this. 
 Mathews clearly did right and diplomatised very patiently for five 
 hours, thus avoiding increased anger and serious trouble. He 
 could not wish to shoot or be shot in such a way. Charles in his 
 mission remembering the " dastardly" conduct as told him by his 
 brother had a notion of getting some concession from Mathews, 
 but after two hours altercation he tells that he would " make no 
 concessions." Just so. The position now was altogether 
 ■different from the night attack on Crutched Friars. A demand 
 for a duel brought in due form was duly accepted. 
 
 ^Accordingly Sheridan, with Mr. Ewart for his second, 
 Mathews with Captain Knight, met irj Hyde Park next day, 
 monday, the 4th May, 1772, about six p.m., and one account 
 says they fought there, but after wandering for some time no 
 acceptable or suitable place could be fixed upon, so they returned 
 through the streets and sought a tavern, but either their appear- 
 ance or manner caused suspicion and they were more than once 
 refused. In the end they met at the Castle Tavern, then at the 
 north-west corner of Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, opposite 
 Bedford Court.* Bedford Court stands where it did and over 
 against it is still the north-west corner of Henrietta Street where 
 it joins Bedford Street, but the old houses are gone, the street is 
 modern but lately rebuilt. In a first-floor room in this confined 
 space in semi-darkness, by candle light, the two at once engaged 
 with swords and soon Sheridan, unexpectedly making a rush in — 
 contrary to rule — surprised and disarmed Mathews, and so was 
 able to compel him to beg his life and give a written apology. 
 The apology as printed in the Bath Chronicle, 7th May, 
 1772,1 reads : — 
 
 " Being convinced that the expressions I made use of to Mr. 
 Sheridan'.s disadvantage were the efifects: of passion and misrepre- 
 
 * '' Authentic Memoirs," &c. t P. 3, col. i. 
 
47 
 
 sentation, I retract what I have said to that gentleman's 
 disadvantage, and particularly beg his pardon for my advertise- 
 ment in the Bath Chronicle.'' 
 
 Thomas Mathews. 
 
 With this Sheridan hastened back to Bath the same night, 
 taking no bed rest, to get it inserted in the Bath Chronicle as 
 a counter or set off to the advertisement. Even in this small 
 matter criticism becomes curious. First the statement that they 
 fought in Hyde Park was followed by a: newspaper report that 
 on Saturday morning (2nd May) Th — s. M — th — s, Esq., and 
 Mr. Sh — r— d — n met in Crutched Friars and came to an 
 immediate decision of their well-known quarrel when the latter 
 was run through the body and carried to Mr. E — s,* Thames 
 
 Street, where it appears the wound is not mortal. Mr. M is 
 
 gone to France with Capt K — ^t,t his second. Then the Bath 
 Chronicle of 7th May announced — " We can with authority 
 contradict the account in the London Evening Post of last night X 
 of a duel between Mr. M — t — ws and Mr. S — r — n as to the time 
 (Saturday, 2nd May) and event («>., place and result) of their 
 meeting, Mr. Sheridan being at this place on Saturday, and both 
 these gentlemen being here at present."§ It must be noticed that 
 the writer of this paragraph alludes to the; Evening Post of " last 
 night," that was tuesday, the sth May, so he was writing the 
 paragraph on the 6th for the Chronicle issue on the 7th. He also 
 only denies the time and event, simply that there had been no fight 
 in Crutched Friars, nor on Saturday the 2nd May, as Sheridan 
 was at Bath on that day. In fact, he had just posted down. 
 The meeting in Crutched Friars was on the night of friday, ist 
 May, the duel in the tavern was on monday evening, the 4th 
 May. The two papers mixed somewhat two different events. 
 The Evening News was rather too elaborate for the Crutched Friars 
 
 * E wart's. t Knight. 
 J Tuesday, sth May, 1772, p. 4, Col. 3. § Chronicle., 7th May. 
 
48 
 
 event, and could not have had a report of the actual duel in time, 
 whilst the Chronicle had the advantage of having the two accounts 
 in hand and chose to be mysterious. 
 
 Next for other accounts, One says* that Sheridan's second 
 was his brother Charles, who held candles in his hands, as it was 
 now dark. The Gentleman's Magazine in 1816, at the time of 
 Sheridan's death, from which the above account is probably taken, 
 says the same, as also does the Times on the same event. Mrs. H. 
 Lefanu says that Mr. Brereton was the second, and that Charles- 
 Sheridan remained at Mr. Brereton's lodgings, and so was not 
 even present. Sheridan's own account says it was Mr. Ewart 
 who took up lights in his hand. Which of these accounts can be 
 accepted ? As Sheridan twice makes Mr. Ewart his second, and 
 he certainly ought to know, Mrs. Lefanu is wrong again. Soon 
 after the fight Mathews also returned to BatJi and gave his 
 account of the affair, differing from what Sheridan had reported. 
 Sheridan at once contradicted boldly, Mathews he declared 
 "misrepresented the whole transaction." The matter being 
 officially investigated a statement was drawn up by Mr. Brereton, 
 and agreed to and signed by Capt. Knight as correct, and was so 
 acknowledged by Mr. Brereton, so that Sheridan gained nothing 
 here, his statement was rejected and not found acceptable. But 
 the feeling was agamst Mathews about his defeat ; it was 
 considered ungentlemanlike and unpardonable. Being thus 
 obliged to leave Bath, he retired into Wales. 
 
 On arriving in England poor Mr. Linley determined to face the 
 trouble and take his now soiled daughter to Bath again, hoping to 
 stop the "wicked" suggestions going about, and here she was 
 when Mathews left. Besides that every lover has a tendency to 
 become a poet ; at this date writing poetry was a pastime and 
 fashionable amusement for those not in love. It was now in the 
 
 * Oliphant. 
 
49 
 
 merry month of May, after a stolen meeting in a grotto, that 
 Sheridan wrote the well-known lines : — 
 
 Uncouth is this moss-covered grotto of stone, 
 
 And damp is the shade of the dew-dripping tree. 
 Yet I this rude grotto with rapture will own 
 And welcome, thy damps are refreshing to me. 
 
 The poem consists of twelve verses, of which the above is the 
 first. It can be gathered from other verses that the young couple 
 had a tiff Jealous, as usual, he seems to have protested, but the 
 young lady was not to be lectured, so he sullen, and both vexed, 
 they did not leave the grotto together ; — 
 
 And tell me, thou willow, with leaves dripping dew, 
 Did Laura seem vexed when Horatio was gone. 
 
 In 1777 Mrs. Sheridan, as she then had become, was at Bath on 
 a visit to her father, says Moore, but it would be to her grandfather, 
 when Sheridan again addressed her in poetic form : — ■ 
 But where does Laura pass the lonely hours. 
 Does she still haunt the grot and willow tree ? 
 
 And still addressing Laura he writes :— 
 
 Once on a blossomed crowned day. 
 Of mirth inspiring May, 
 Silvio beneath the willow's sober shade, 
 In sullen contemplation laid. 
 
 By this allusion the time or date of this grotto poem is made 
 clear. 
 
 ^Chafing under the social coldness Mathews was, or chose to 
 feel, insulted by the insertion of his apology in the newspapers. 
 Supported in this by Mr. Barnett, who considered his position 
 somewhat unmerited, he suddenly returned to Bath at the end of 
 June to demand the usual satisfaction, and at once sent Sheridan 
 strongly worded letters requiring a signed paper certifying the 
 propriety of his conduct in the late duel ; or satisfaction. The 
 challenge was accepted. The second meeting which ensued, 
 4 
 
so 
 
 being a local event and of an extraordinary character, has added 
 much local colour and interest to this story. Mrs. Henry Lefanu 
 wrote that this duel occurred on Claverton Down, and this Moore 
 accepted and has handed down without thought or investigation, 
 notwithstanding that he had before him documents, which he 
 quotes, telling a different tale. Everyone in Bath knows 
 Claverton Down, as it is always in evidence, and this lady writer, 
 writing after years had elapsed, remembered this name, 
 perhaps did not know more or did not think of historical 
 exactness. So, then, thanks to Mjs. Lefanu, we have 
 the well-known story of the fight on Claverton Down, and 
 that Sheridan wounded was carried to the White Hart 
 Hotel. Very lately there has been a further addition to the story, 
 which happens to be really delightful. Here we are told that 
 after the meeting " Sheridan was taken to the nearest place of 
 succour, which happened to be the White Hart Inn, the inn that 
 still stands at the foot of Widcombe Hill. It is erroneously 
 supposed he was brought to the old White Hart of Pickwick 
 and Sam Weller fame, that stood on the site of the present Grand 
 Hotel."* Thus boldly all previous writers are flatly contradicted, 
 and this without giving any authority or reference, apparently 
 only because there happens to be a White. Hart Inn at the foot 
 of Widcombe Hill. It happens also, and very unfortunately for 
 this new discovery, that the Claverton Down story is all untrue. 
 The duel took place on Kingsdown. 
 
 First, as to the question of the actaal day for the event 
 Moore is responsible again for the present error. He 
 writes — " The Bath Chronicle on the day after the duel, 
 July and, &c. " — ^and thus causing the date of the duel 
 to be read as the 2nd July. The proper form for the 
 reference would have been — " The Bath Chronicle of the 2nd 
 July, the day after the duel, &c.," and all would have been clear, 
 
 * Meehan's " Memorable Houses," p. 25. 
 
SI 
 
 as the Chronicle of Thursday, the 2nd July, published early In the 
 morning could not contain news of that morning, it must have 
 gone to press sometime late on Wednesday. The duel took 
 place then on the ist July, not the 2nd, as usually stated. 
 Gathering now the facts, the combatants and their seconds met 
 ■at the White Hart Hotel, where chaises were to be ready at three 
 o'clock in the morning of Wednesday, the ist July, 1772*; they 
 next drove to the top of Kingsdown, where at four o'clock they 
 encountered. It was agreed that each might have a friend as 
 his second, but it was further specially agreed that neither 
 ■second was to interfere under any circumstances " whatever 
 might be the consequences. "t Sheridan's friend was a Mr. or 
 Captain Paumier ; Mathews had Mr. Barnett. Thus the 
 intention is clear this fight was for both a life struggle, one 
 was to die. Arrived on the top of Kingsdown a fierce fight 
 commenced, which for " intense animosity and frantic violence " 
 has hardly been paralleled.! Mathews had a conviction that 
 Sheridan would rush him as before, and he proposed that pistols 
 should be used ; but this Sheridan declined, drew and called on 
 Mathews to do so. At first Sheridan was baffled, and Mathews 
 had the advantage. Then, again, forgetting rule, Sheridan 
 attempted his first plan, rushed on Mathews, § closed, and both 
 stumbling both fell, and the swords of both were broken in 
 the fall. Sheridan, the first to make the move, at first was 
 uppermost, or as Mr. Sheridan . papa wrote— at first my son 
 had the advantage, having thrown Mathews down,|| but 
 Mathews, seven or eight years the elder, and so the 
 heavier man, getting the top could not be removed. 
 Whilst struggling thus, both hacked at each other with the 
 piece or hilt end of the sword which he had retained, 
 Sheridan's being the shorter piece coulH not be very effective, 
 
 * Chronicle. t Craftsman, loth October, 1772. 
 % Octogenarian. § Lefanu. Rae, p. 197. || Rae, p. 204. 
 
52 
 
 anxi Mathews' piece longer was too long to be effectually used^ 
 as swords are not sharp for cutting towards the hilt. Presently 
 Mathews, being able to reach out, got hold of a pointed end, thus 
 gaining a useful weapon, and, first having offered Sheridan his life, 
 which he refused, he presently stabbed and' pinned him through the 
 ear and neck. Finding that resistance ceased he exclaimed, " I 
 have done for him " — rose, and being Himself not much hurt, 
 chiefly* a wound in the left part of the belly, entered one of 
 the chaises in waiting, with four horses, and drove off, 
 accompanied by his second, for London, t and so presently 
 he crossed to France, there to await until the great storm 
 raised by the affair had subsided.! Sheridan, who had 
 received besides his ear wound three or four other wounds in 
 his face, breast and sides,§ and with his hand cut, was assisted 
 to his chaise,|| showing hardly a sign of life, and driven off 
 rapidly, accompanied in turn by his own second, to the White 
 Hart Hotel — a painful ride for a man in a state of collapse. SO' 
 ended this most unmanly struggle. Two surgeons, Mr. Sharpe, 
 and Mr. Ditcher a friend of the family, were sent for and 
 quickly attended, but would not allqw him to be further 
 removed. The next morning his sisters " found the situation 
 from noise and heat so uncomfortable they obtained leave to 
 remove him to his own house.'' As the White Hart Hotel at this 
 date was never asleep, could hardly have been quiet, especially 
 if on the ground floor either by night or .day this removal must 
 have been a great relief On the 7th July a London paper 
 announced that by private letter from Bath had come the 
 information the general opinion of the faculty was that Mr. 
 Sheridan would not recover from the wounds he received 
 in the duel^; but, two days later, on the 9th July, it was 
 
 * Moore. t '' Historical and Biographical Magazine," 
 
 X General Evening Post, 4th July, 1772. 
 § Chronicle. |] Moore. IT General Evening Post. 
 
53 
 
 announced differently that he was then f?ut of danger.* Some 
 weeks passed, iTnvcver, before his confinement ceased. 
 
 JjL-fore considering the general reportii on this duel, another 
 oxamjjle of the curi<jus differences in a story may be noted as 
 in part it relates to Mr. Ditcher. During the first residence 
 of the Shcridans in Henrietta Street, London, a daughter Anne 
 I'^lizabeth, their last child, was born, " who married Mr. 
 Ditcher, a surgeon of Bath ''t Another account says this 
 child was named Anne, after the daughter of Samuel 
 Richardson, who married Mr. Ditcher, surgeon, of Bath.t 
 By the first .statement it would seem that Anne Sheridan 
 was married to Mr. Ditcher, by the other it is not clear 
 whether Mr. Ditcher married Anne Sheridan or Anne 
 Richardson, tjut as Anne .Sheridan would have been hardly 
 old enough this reading must be wrong, and so it must be 
 intended that Anne Richardson was mfirried to Mr. Ditcher. 
 Then, turning to another notice, the latest; the confusion increases 
 as we are told that Samuel Richardson, the novelist, who was a 
 friend of the Sheridans, had daughters Mary and Anne. Mary 
 married, in 1757, Philip Ditcher, a surgeon, of Bath. She died a 
 widow in 1783. Anne died unmarried.§ The deci.sion of the 
 points does not form part of the present purpose, so may be left to 
 anyone interested. But there is still another Bath interest 
 here, as Samuel Richardson married for his second wife 
 JUizabeth, sister of James Leake, the Bath bookseller. She 
 •died 3rd November, 1773, aged 77. 
 
 Some notes or authorities in full may now be quoted to 
 dose the story of the duel. First Mr.s; Lefanu, who is again 
 wrong, writes of this event as some time in June. || The Bath 
 Chronicle published on thursday, the 2nd July, .says — "This 
 .morning at 3 o'clock was fought on Kingsdown, &c." This 
 
 * Chronicle, t " La Belle Assemblee,"* Vol. 29, N.S., p. 48. 
 X I.ctanu. § "Diet. Nat. Biog." || Rae, p. 20c. 
 
54 
 
 morning here refers to the day the paragraph was written,, 
 which was Wednesday, the ist July. The Bath Journal also- 
 gives the place as Kingsdown. For the purpose of having an 
 official accurate account the depositions of the postillions were 
 taken before a magistrate, and these witnesses deposed to being 
 present at a duel on Kingsdown.* Mr. Barnett, one of the 
 seconds, tells that " on quitting our chaises on the top of 
 Kingsdown, &c."t The London papers "record that — " Reports, 
 are arrived from Bath that the son of a celebrated actor, who' 
 though very young had all the romance of honour in his 
 character which is attributed to the heroes of antiquity, fell 
 two days ago in that city defending z; young lady's honour 
 against the aspersions cast upon it by a certain military 
 gentleman."! A London letter, dated from Bath ist July,, 
 says — " On Kingsdown, about four miles from this place, &c."^ 
 Another says the same — " On Kingsdown, &c., .Mathews, not much 
 hurt, is gone off.|| Another letter, dated from Bath, 6th July,. 
 
 says — " We are informed that the last affair between Mr. M 
 
 and Mr. S was not in consequence of any dispute concerning- 
 
 a certain young lady, but was occasioned by Mr. S refusing 
 
 to sign a paper certifying the spirit and propriety of Mr. M 's- 
 
 behaviour on the former encounter. The latter gentleman then, 
 sent a challenge, which was accepted, and they went by 
 agreement to Kingsdown in order to decide their quarrel. 
 After a few passes they fell, &c."1T Another account, given 
 as an extract from a letter from Bath of ist July, says — 
 " Young Sheridan and Capt. Mathews of this town, who lately 
 had an encounter in a tavern in London upon account of 
 the Maid of Bath, have had anothej- this morning upon 
 ' Kingsdown, about four miles from this place. Sheridan is 
 
 * Moore, p. 80. | Moore, p. 65. \ General Evening Post. 
 
 .§ London Evening Post. || Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser. 
 
 TT General Evening Post, 9th July. 
 
ss 
 
 much wounded, but whether mortally is not known."* Yet 
 another extract from a letter from Bafch, ist July — "Young 
 
 S n and Capt. M s had another duel this morning upon 
 
 Kingsdown, about four miles from this place. S n much 
 
 wounded. They hacked at each other rolling on the ground, 
 the seconds standing by quiet spectators, "t This conduct of 
 the seconds, it must be remembered, was in accordance with 
 the previously made determined agreement already mentioned. 
 The Times memoir after Sheridan's death in 1816 and the 
 Gentleman's Magazine t on the same subject both record the 
 event as havmg been on Kmgsdown. Thus these contem- 
 porary accounts agree, and must be more reliable than the 
 recollections or imagination of a lady fifty years after the event, 
 who is the sole authority for the Claverton story, and whose 
 other statements are so often untrue. Moore's life, published 
 in 1825, quotes the depositions of the postillions, yet he seems 
 but carelessly to have read his own story or he could hardly 
 have allowed Claverton Down to have remained. Probably 
 all the ladies of or visitors to Bath know this Down, as it is 
 always before their eyes, but how many knew, or even to-day 
 know, of Kingsdown four miles away. The reason why 
 Kingsdown was chosen is clear enough, as the fight being for 
 life the London road must be available at once for escape. 
 Sheridan in this second affair, unlike Mathews in the first, 
 having refused his life, was considered to have done well and 
 right, according to the views of the tinie ; and Mathews now 
 by his challenge and conduct and success was considered to 
 have wiped off the stain left by his former submission, and so 
 at once he was socially reinstated. There was thus no other 
 feeling against him. 
 
 It happened that at the time of the duel Miss Linley was sing- 
 
 * Bingley's Journal, nth July, 
 t Say's Weekly Journal, i ith July. \ Vol. 86. 
 
56 
 
 ing at Oxford, but learning on her way back to Bath of the fight 
 and the consequent trouble she surprised her companions by 
 exclaiming — " Oh, my husband, my husband." Sheridan, too, as 
 he lay ill trying for an interview "begged it by the tender 
 appellation of husband." No one believed in this little 
 piece of comedy. As previously stated the elopement gave in- 
 creased opportunity for the censorious, and hence a pretended 
 m^irriage story was circulated, as hoping* to benefit or cover the 
 insensate folly of the now soiled damsel. The date given for the 
 marriage was the end of March whilst on their trip to France, but 
 it may be noted that Sheridan writing from France, 15th April, 
 still writes* " Miss Linley " is fixed in a convent. Other efforts 
 were made to the same purpose. A rather ambiguous paragraph 
 of July, just after the duel states — it is now confidently asserted 
 that nothing criminal passed between Mr. S. and the Maid of 
 Bath in their late tour in France, but that Mr. S., the young 
 gentleman said to be killed in a duel with Captain M,, at every 
 place they put up at requested the landlady's company, and took 
 care to have Miss L. constantly provided with a bedfellow.t 
 \Vhatever Sheridan's intentions by this elopement might have 
 been and such folly led to no other thought, it may be taken for 
 certain that — to use a newspaper phrase — he did not effect his 
 purpose. Whether they are married or not, wrote one, their 
 parents have been very industrious in keeping them separate,! and 
 to aid this intention, Miss Linley was now sent away to some 
 relation at Wells. The exact connection with Wells is not traced 
 and there seems to be no record or guide at Wells. It may be 
 suggested that the aunt Isabella, who married Philpot may have 
 been living there, but if so she has left no mark. The young 
 lady wrote to her lover — § it is strongly reported that we are 
 married, — yet she makes no further assertion or allusion in 
 
 * Rae, p. 170, Vol. i. t General Evening Post, 4th July, 1772. 
 I London Magazine. § Rae, pp. 207, 208. 
 
57 
 
 •confirmation, but adding that her father had declared he would 
 rather see her to her grave than see her married to him. Through- 
 out all this trouble there came no insistance, no claim for a marriage 
 from either of the interested couple. When sufficiently recovered, 
 Sheridan in turn was sent away to Wgiltham in Essex, where 
 he arrived on the 27th August, and so" with this removal his 
 connection with Bath ceased. From Waltham he wrote to his 
 sister — remember me to the Lynnites — alluding to a family 
 named Lynn — and to this he adds in brackets — how like Linnets, 
 — alluding here to a play on the Linley name, as a musical house- 
 hold. Soon afterwards, in October, 1772, Mr. Sheridan and 
 his family also quitted Bath and returned to Dublin.* The 
 Sheridan connection with or residence in Bath then it must be 
 distinctly noted was only from say October, 1770, to October, 1772, 
 just barely two years ; and so far as Ridiard is concerned only 
 from early in 1771 to August, 1772. The Linley family, too, 
 the home being broken by these events, also soon moved away to 
 London, where the young lady found professional engagements. 
 Just as after the first duel, conflicting reports were now spread 
 about relating to this second. Mr. Sheridan, sen., naturally took 
 his wounded son's side, accepted his report and, with the feelings 
 of an angry father, chose to con-sider Mathew's conduct " by no 
 means fair and honourable "t ; this is improved by his daughter, 
 Mrs. Lefanu, losing no chance to drop down on Mathews, into 
 "considered him in the light of a murderer," " a vile assassin."! 
 Such words in such a case are meaningless and absurd. Both 
 writers forgot or rather did not know that the fight was unto 
 death, that on no account were the seconds to interfere. Had 
 Mathews killed Sheridan on Kingsdown, it was only what 
 Sheridan would have done to Mathews. It must also be clearly 
 distinguished, as is not quite the case in the biographies that 
 these fatherly and sisterly opinions refer to the effects of the duel 
 
 * Moore. t Moore, !• Rae 206 
 
58 
 
 and in no way refer to or imply any public opinion on the 
 original social scandal which produced it. In the last biography, 
 perhaps detecting the weakness in the great-authority so often used, 
 it is remarked that — Mrs. Lefanu " wrote in good faith and her 
 statement of facts is at once lucid and conclusive. With regard 
 to her opinions or conjectures her testimony cannot have any 
 special weight with any competent critic." Yet when the 
 " lucid and conclusive facts '' are examined they too are found to 
 be nearly all conjecture, and some entirely untrue, only just 
 equal in weight with her opinions. This document should never 
 have been published or accepted as history without close 
 examination. 
 
 Other reports got into circulation reflecting on the veracity of 
 Sheridan, who had been found tripping on the other occasions. 
 This he in turn did not like. As before by reason of the contradic- 
 tions, an official investigation was made, an impartial relation drawn 
 up and deposited with Mr. Wade, and submitted to Mr. Barnett 
 and Captain Paumier, and through Mr. Brereton declared to be 
 true and impartial, " upon the whole as accurate as could be 
 expected.'' Mathews was declared to hav.e discovered as much 
 genuine, cool, and intrepid resolution as man could do. 
 Sheridan was thus again beaten with his denials, his " account 
 did not disprove anything material."* When Sheridan left Bath 
 the old position of the combatants was reversed, Mathews now 
 retained the field. Sheridan, like Mathews before, chafed at 
 his defeat and became irritated at the decisions against him 
 and by reports and gossip not in his favour. Thus from 
 Waltham he wrote asking were there any reports about after 
 I left Bath, to which was answered 4th September, 1772, none 
 had been heard. This did not satisfy, and he seemed deter- 
 mined to stir up another quarrel with somebody. " Let me 
 entreat you to be calm and compose }'our mind," wrote his- 
 
 * Moore p. 65 — 93. 
 
S9 
 
 friend Grenville. He wrote to Capt. Knight (Mathews' second) 
 and gave a copy of the letter to Capt. Paumier (his own second) 
 and he intended sending a copy to Mr. Wade, lest " they " 
 might suppress it, and he wished this fact, with the copy, tO' 
 be shown about.* But his friend Paumier did not apparently 
 act or see matters as he wished, so he in turn came in for 
 insult — " I have written for the last time to Paumier in such 
 a manner as if he has the smallest pretence to honour or 
 feeling will punish him sufficiently for his present mean sacrifice 
 of both "t Some one seems to have kept him supplied with 
 unfavourable news, as under date 8th December, 1772, he wrote 
 that he had an account of the basest, meanest, and most 
 disgraceful piece of treachery that ever disgraced human nature, 
 and then he charges Mathews with bullying Paumier to sign 
 some " infamous falsehoods," which he was told were credited. 
 I shall seek the bottom of this treachery, and if I do not 
 revenge it may I live to deserve it. A friend wrote him 
 again begging him not to suffer himSelf to be too much 
 enraged. A little later he received letters from Bath, which 
 although not quite so satisfactory as he might have wished, 
 yet he learned that what he had been previously told was 
 " misrepresentation highly exaggerated and malicious." This 
 satisfied him somewhat, but on the 4th January, 1773, he was 
 still " very uncertain " about this affair, and was disgusted with 
 the "whole set of them" on "both sides," and shall grow 
 weary of their machinations : "I never now reflect on that 
 place but it puts me out of sorts." Yet he was the first to 
 start the game, and would have liked it well enough had there 
 been but one party, had his own versions been always accepted. 
 All trouble now disappeared, Mathews and his party held the 
 ground, his veracity had never been doubted. 
 
 Moore closed this part of the "Life" with an anecdote which 
 
 * Rae, p. 214. t Rae, p. 244. 
 
6o 
 
 "used to be related by AVoodfall." A statement of Sheridan's 
 conduct in the duels having appeared in one of the Bath papers 
 ■'so false and calumnious" as to require ' immediate answer, he 
 asked Woodfall to insert the " false " statements in his paper, 
 promising a denial or answer to follow. Woodfall, continues the 
 story, " lost not a moment " in transcribing the " calumnious 
 article into his paper," but no answer or* denial ever came. In 
 another work this story reads, — the charges were reprinted in 
 full in The Public Advertiser, but were never refuted.* For 
 such an absolute statement an exact reference should be given. 
 An examination of The Public Advertiser — Woodfall's paper — 
 from September, 1772, to April, 1773, shows no such thing. 
 The only paragraph noted is one on the 19th November, 
 1772, t which, under date Bath, i6th November, says — "Mr. 
 Sheridan, jun., is entirely recovered of his wounds but has 
 lost the use of his right arm from receiving a shot between the 
 bones of the joint." As pistols were not used this is one more 
 of the curiosities of this history. It may be remembered that the 
 .story of what Woodfall "used to say" in 1772, was now being 
 repeated or so attempted in 1825. If there were any founda- 
 tion for the story, it must have materially differed in fact. 
 Next, on the 6th April, 1773; — Mrs. Lefapu, with her usual in- 
 exactness says it was in September, 1772 -f — Sheridan entered as a 
 student in the Middle Temple, and so came again very near his 
 lady love, who was singing often at Drury Lane. An advertise- 
 ment of 19th February, 1773, shows the performance at Drury 
 Lane Theatre of Judas Maccabeus, the principle vocal parts by 
 Miss Linley and Miss Mary Linley, with, at the end of the first 
 act, a " concerto " on the violin by Mr. Thomas Linley. But her 
 position was not as it was before the elopement, her name became 
 associated with more than one, presumably towards marriage, and 
 this caused and revived the old jealousy with Sheridan as they 
 
 * Wiike's Sheridan, &c., by W. F. Rae, g. 153. t P. 4, col. I. 
 
6i 
 
 could not meet, and he presumed to rebuke as before, the result, 
 a quarrel, and now a demand from the damsel for the return of 
 her letters. Thus again showing clearly that as between them- 
 selves there was no idea of a marriage. This last position has 
 some local interest as in the Bath Chronicle, isth April, 1773,* 
 is given a correspondence purporting to be'between the young lady 
 and a noble lord. His letter reads : — 
 
 "Adorable Creature, 
 
 Permit me to assure you in the most tender and 
 affectionate manner that the united force of your charms and 
 iiualifications have made so complete a prisoner of my art (sic) that 
 I despair of its being set at liberty but through your means. 
 
 Under this situation I have it ever to lament that the laws will 
 not permit me to offer you my hand. Here I cannot assist my 
 fate ; but what I can dispose of, my heart and my fortune are 
 entirely at your devotion, thinking myself the happiest of mankind 
 should either be acceptable. 
 
 Lady A who will deliver this and who obligingly vouchsafes 
 
 to be my mediator, will, I flatter myself, urge the sincerity of my 
 heart on this occasion so as to obtain a permission for me to throw 
 myself at your feet to-morrow evening. In momentary expectation 
 
 of which 
 
 I am your devoted admirer, 
 Wednesday evening, 4 o'clock. G R." 
 
 The G r here is given as Grosvenor, Miss Linley's 
 
 letter replies : — 
 
 " My Lord, 
 
 Lest my silence should bear the most distant interpreta- 
 tion of listening to your proposals, I condescend to answer your 
 infamous letter. 
 
 You lament the laws will not permit you to offer me your hand, 
 I lament it too my lord, but on a different principle — to convince 
 your dissipated heart that I have a soul capable of refusing a 
 coronet when the owner is not the object of my affections — depising 
 it when the offer of an unworthy possessor. 
 
 * P. 3, col, 3, 
 
62 
 
 The reception your honourable messenger met with in the 
 execution of her embassy saves me the trouble of replying to the 
 other parts of your letter, and (if you have any feelings left) will 
 explain to you the baseness as well as the inefficacy of your design. 
 
 L v." 
 
 These letters are or were accompanied by the ensuing note 
 to the editor :—" The following letters are confidently said to 
 
 have passed between Lord G r and the celebrated English 
 
 syren MissL y. I send them to you for pubUcation not with any 
 
 view to increase the volume of literary scandal which I am 
 ..sorry to say at present needs no assistance, but with the more 
 laudable intent of setting example for our modern belles by 
 holding out the character of a young woman who, nothwith- 
 standing the solicitations of her profession and the flattering 
 example of higher ' ranks has added incorruptible virtue to a 
 number of the most elegant qualifications. 
 
 Grosvenor Square. Horatio. 
 
 These letters were also printed in The Macaroni. But, 
 notwithstanding the desire of the sender, they do not 
 read and can hardly be accepted as genuine, yet, here 
 re-produced for the first time the tone just helps towards 
 realising the unpleasant position and the surrounding " literary 
 scandal." 
 
 Thomas Grenville wrote — " Why was her fate so cruel, so early 
 to bring upon her the imputation and censure of the world."* 
 
 Under the above circumstances and the persistance of the 
 young people, Mr. Linley at last consented to a union which 
 he saw he could hardly prevent. Mr. Sheridan, however, still 
 persisted in his objection to his son's choice of a lady "whose 
 name had been so much the subject of public discussion." She 
 sang in the Messiah on the 2nd April; and she sang also the 
 Messiah with her sister, on the 6th April in the chapel of the 
 hospital for the maintenance and education of exposed and 
 
 * Rae, p. 223. 
 
63 
 
 •deserted young children in Lamb's Conduit Fields. The charge 
 for admission was los. 6d., and gentlemen were desired to 
 come without swords and the ladies without hoops.* Her 
 last appearance was at a grand concert of vocal and instru- 
 mental music for the benefit of her brother Thomas at 
 the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, on the 12th April; the 
 eve of her marriage. Curiously enough, the contributor 
 evidently not knowing what was about to happen, the same Bath 
 paper in which the above letters appeared announced, t taking care 
 to be emphatic — "We have the best authority to assure the public 
 that Mr. Richard Sheridan, now a student in the Middle Temple, 
 was jesterday married in London to the justly celebrated and 
 admired Miss Linley.'' In this paragraph^ as with others already 
 noticed, the yesterday was the day before it was written, not 
 the day before the Chronicle was published. Considering the 
 doubtful and wild antecedents an absolute confirmation of their 
 marriage has always been wanted. The Gentleman's Magazine,X 
 under marriages, 13th April, gives — " Mr. Sheridan, of the Temple, 
 to the celebrated Miss Linley, of Bath." He had been in the 
 Temple just a week. Another announcement, § putting it under 
 ■date 14th April, says — " The celebrated Miss Linley, so well known 
 in the musical world, to Mr. Sheridan, son of Mr. Sheridan, the 
 actor." The error in date here seems to arise from the printer 
 omitting the figures 13th altogether. As no place for the 
 ceremony has as yet been given complete proof of the event 
 is still wanting. Long afterwards, in 1792, one writer and 
 the only one who ever ventured alluding to Sheridan's life at 
 Bath tells that " there he married the celebrated Miss Linley." || 
 With such a lead necessarily a search had to be made at 
 Bath, a troublesome labour lost, as this was found to be 
 
 * Public Advertiser, 5 April, 1 773, p. 3, col. 2. t Chronicle, p . 3, col. 4. 
 
 \ Vol. 43, p. 202. § London Magazine, Vol. 42, p. 205. 
 
 II New Lady's Magazine, Vol. 7. 
 
64 
 
 another piece of imagination, " our own make." At last,, 
 after continued search, the one little^ word came up and 
 curiously twice in the same day, when the marriage is given 
 under date 13th April, 1773 — "Mr. Sheridan to the celebrated 
 Miss Linley at Marybone church "* The register of Marylebone 
 church accordingly records the marriage now for the first 
 time published — " 13th April, 1773, between Richard Brinsley 
 Sheridan, esq., of the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, in 
 the county of Middlesex, a bachelor, and Elizabeth Ann Linley, 
 of this parish, spinster, a minor, by license, with the consent 
 of the father of the said minor.'' One of the witnesses was 
 Thomas Linley. The writing of the two signatures of the con- 
 tracting parties is so strangely alike both might have been done 
 by one hand. 
 
 What should we think of the ''syren," the "angel" to-day. 
 There is an engraved portrait of her when young published in 
 September, i772,t just after the duel, until now unknown but 
 approved and considered "elegant" at the time. The portrait 
 in the Dulwich Gallery taken later in life after marriage has the 
 advantage of being in oils and by an artist alive to his duties and 
 well skilled in the picturesque But does either impress with a 
 vision of rapturous beauty. May not the notoriety of public 
 life, public advertisement, or public praise, have helped the 
 impression as with many it so often does. Every notice of a 
 woman seems to be in praise of something, even of her "frock," 
 as to publish the contrary may be very wrong. 
 
 At first the young couple went to a cottage in the country and 
 then moved to a house, furnished by Mr. Linley, in Orchard 
 Street, Oxford Roadt better known now as Oxford Street, as 
 Orchard Street is also better known as^ near Portman Square. 
 
 * Town and Country Magazine, p. 223. 
 
 * The Ladfs Magazine, Vol. 4, p. 223. 
 t London Magazine, Vol. 41, p. 406. 
 
 \ "Historical and Biographical Magazine.'' 
 
MISS I.INI.EY. 
 
6s 
 
 Next came the settlement over the ;!{^3,ooo compensation money. 
 Here, considering that the lady was only nineteen, and so had two 
 years' loss to account for, and remembering the loss during the 
 first engagement, Mr. Linley took ;£^i,Soo and the other moiety 
 ;^i,5oo, was handed over to the new housekeepers. This was 
 the first considerable sum Sheridan had ever possessed, and he 
 at once " acted as if the mines of Peru and Potosi had been 
 at his command,"* and proceeded to live gaily until it was gone. 
 Presently necessity compelled some sort of exertion. Sheridan 
 has received lavish praise because his wife did not again appear 
 in public, the credit being placed to his resolution, but it is 
 clear through her life that this was the hated work she wished 
 to escape. She once told her father that if she married she 
 would do so to be free, and her marriage certainly removed 
 her from the parental exactions. It must have been as much 
 her will as his that she thus retired. After her marriage 
 she improved in appearance, the peaceful rest must have been 
 most acceptable. Yet Sheridan found himself in a difficulty 
 as usual never anticipated, as besides that he had notions 
 that it did not become a " gintilmin " to work for money, he 
 considered a public appearance before an audience a degradation, 
 a sentiment in which his wife would be entirely in accord. 
 He was often stung when twitted on: being the son of a 
 player, and once when boasting of a kingly descent another 
 present remarked aside, " He tells the truth for once, the 
 last time I saw his father he was King of Denmark.'' Yet 
 stories were started that they so far altered their resolution 
 that Mrs. Sheridan gave certain concerts both at her own house 
 and at Bath.t Another account said these were private 
 subscription concerts " by which perhaps more was obtained 
 than could have been the case in places of general admission, t 
 
 * " Annual Biography, &c.," Vol. i, p. 146. 
 f " Lady's Monthly Museum," Vol. 23. J A. Lefanu, pp. 402, 403. 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 This was contradicted with the assartion that no money 
 was taken or received, and that the entertainment was 
 simply an ordinary and private return for other social favours 
 received. At one of these concerts given in Orchard Street at 
 which 'were assembled " A host of nobility and gentry " Mrs. 
 Sheridan sang Ellen Aroon, the same she sang at the first 
 Sheridan entertainment at Bath.* No such concerts were 
 given at Bath. 
 
 After what must have been but a poor life, Mrs. Sheridan died 
 at Bristol Hot Wells, 28th June, 1792, at the early age of 38, and 
 was buried with her sister, with " decent funeral pomp " and with 
 .a large and polite attendance, in what became the Linley vault in 
 Wells Cathedral. 
 
 SheridEin under the pressure of necessity at first tried theatrical 
 literature, and afterwards using his opportunities was introduced 
 to the " phrenzy " of politics, and was for a time member for 
 Ilchester. As the boy so was the man, and after ruining "the 
 fairest promise that ever blossomed " by his innate profligacy, 
 neglecting every virtue, he only just escaped death in a debtor's 
 ga.ol. His political life has now no interest especially here, but 
 of his not large contributions to literature, two of his pieces — 
 "The Rivals," and "The School for Scandal "—must live for all 
 time. It happened that on the morning of the day " The School 
 for Scandal '' was produced, Mrs. Sheridan gave birth to a son. 
 The next day a notice of the play, says : — " Yesterday morning 
 Mrs. Sheridan was delivered of a son. The mother and child 
 are likely to do well. In the evening of the same day Mr. 
 Sheridan's muse was delivered of a bantling which is likely to 
 live for ever "t These two pieces being especially based on 
 local scenes and manners, the result of his own knowledge and 
 experiences, will always still further inseparably connect his 
 name with the city of Bath. 
 
 * Parke W. T., Vol. 2, p, 136. 
 t Parke W. T., Musical Memoirs, Vol. i, p. 9. 
 
(Capt.) THOMAS MATHKWS, 
 of Bath. 
 
THOMAS MATHEWS : AND HIS CONNECTION 
 WITH BATH. 
 
 Whilst the two other names already noticed have received 
 biographical attention, of Thomas Mathews no biography has yet 
 'been written, for the reason that next to nothing is known about 
 him and new matter not easily found. Considering how prominent 
 he was in his day and as being a man of known family and 
 property this is somewhat strange. The passing references to 
 him hitherto have been found almost entirely in the biographies 
 ■of the Sheridans. It has thus been gathered that he was 
 •connected with Llandaff and that he had an interest in property 
 in Glamorgan but whereabouts or to what extent has not been 
 known. Having this Welsh tradition in mind, when making 
 a start with these notes, there came up a curious and rather 
 startling incident, as in the registers of Bath abbey church 
 under date 25 Sept 1735 Benjamin Mathews of Llandaff 
 married Rachel Densham of Bath ; arjd in 1744 about the 
 date that our Thomas under notice should have been born, 
 there appears as baptized in the same church, 23 June, Thomas 
 .son of Benjamin and Rachel Mathews., He must be passed 
 however as being another baby. 
 
 Following up the lead to Llandaff and the history of 
 Glamorgan, the Welsh pedigrees are soon found faulty. 
 There were two Mathews families at Llandaff, one at the Court 
 within the town and another at Radyr a, few miles out, so the 
 local accounts get mixed. The Radyr branch was more con- 
 nected with Ireland, having property at Thurles. 
 
 Thomas Mathews of Llandaff Court, who was born in 
 1676, was M.P. 1744, commander of the fleet in the Mediter- 
 ranean, elected elder brother of the Trinity House 1 745 and was 
 
made admiral of the white the same year.* He married 
 twice, his second wife MilHcent Fuller survived him. He died 
 2 Oct 1 751 in Bloomsbury Square, leaving a son Thomas born 
 1 71 1, who became a major in the army. The major married Ann 
 daughter of Robert Knight of Congresbury, whose brother 
 would be the uncle Knight and Captain Knight often previously 
 noticed in the Sheridan story. Returning somewhat, the 
 admiral by his will, proved 28th Oct i7^i,t along and verbose 
 document, evidently showed want of confidence in his son the 
 major and foresaw coming events. From the estate which was put 
 under trust, one of the trustees being John Baynard of the Navy 
 Office, the major was to have ^700 a year for life ; the adrniral's 
 widow an annuity of ^^300 ; and the graiidson, our Thomas, the 
 son of the major, had ;i^i20 a year until he was sixteen 
 and after that ^^400 a year until he was twenty one, and 
 besides, after the death of his grandmother her annuity 
 o^ ^3°° was to be continued to him in like manner for his 
 Hfe : and in 1793 all the trustees being dead administration was 
 granted to him as "residuary legatee for life.'' The major died 
 25 June 1768 in Dean Street,! and in July administration 
 was granted of the goods and chattels and credits of Thomas 
 Mathews esq., of St. George's, Hanover square, widower, to 
 Thomas Mathews esq., the son of the deceased. With the 
 major's death his annuity ceased and so there was nothing to wilL 
 The major who while in the service may have often changed his 
 station resigned the army in 1744. He must have been very little 
 at Llandaff and a slight lead prompts the thought that he must 
 have been in Ireland at the time of his resignation and this 
 happens to be also the time when our Thomas was born. In a 
 little book or skit by Peter Paul Pallet (u. rev. Richard ^\'amer) 
 
 " Getitleman's Magazine, Vol. 21,; p. 477, col. i. 
 t Busby, 288. 
 t Ctntleman' s Magazine, Vol. 38, p. 349 and p, 303. 
 
69 
 
 entitled — Bath characters or sketches from Ufa — published in 
 1807, Tom Rattle is Thomas Mathews. Some one approaches 
 singing, when says — 
 
 Ramrod. Do my ears deceive me or is it my old friend Tom 
 Rattle. 
 
 Rattle. The same in sober truth my dear Ramrod. 
 
 Ramrod. I protest the sight of your phizz is quite a cordial 
 to me, a very opthalmic, a cure for a distempered 
 vision. But prythee Tom, where hast thou con- 
 cealed that comical face of thine these last three 
 years past. From what region dost thou now 
 come. 
 
 Rattle. Surfeited with fiddling and casino, family dinners, 
 monday's lies and every day scandal, with political 
 preachers and preaching politicians, I turned my 
 horses heads one morning towards the mountains 
 of Wales, — then — crossing St. George's channel I 
 landed safely in my own dear country which I 
 had not visited for almost half a century. 
 
 First here he speaks of Ireland as his own country which 
 it could only have been by the chance of birth. Then it was 
 " almost " half a century since he had seen it. If we could 
 take this to mean say forty eight years from the date of this 
 skit, the difference takes us back to 1759 when he would be 
 sixteen, entitled to the larger income and his working life about 
 to begin. He was not baptized at Llandaff. 
 
 Next on the 29th May 1762 Thomas Mathews was com- 
 missioned as ensign in the 86th regiment of foot. In 1765, 
 19 April, he exchanged to the 54th regiment* to rank with 
 the date of his first commission. He left this regiment, 26th 
 July 1766, as ensign Mathews and is not in the army list for 
 1767. Next he appears married, but where or exactly when 
 this event happened, as almost always usual, it is hard to 
 
 * Army List. 
 
70 
 
 discover. He married Diana daughter- of Robert Jones, of 
 Fonmon Castle* in the parish of Penmark in Glamorgan, but 
 he was not married at Penmark. With this marriage he had a 
 further jointure income, thus in the little sketch already noticed 
 by P. P. Pallet — he is made to say he started first towards Wales 
 to court the charms of unsophisticated nature " upon his jointure 
 farms '' in Glamorgan. 
 
 In order of time, the Bath Chronicle of thursday the 4th 
 October 1770, tells us that the season was begun, and that on 
 Saturday the 6th, the theatre would be 6pened, on monday the 
 music would begin at the Pump Room, and on tuesday would 
 be the first ball. Following this the arrival list soon swells 
 and amongst these arrivals during the week, as announced in the 
 Chronicle issue for nth October i77ot are Mr. and Mrs. Mathews. 
 There is so far nothing to connect these with the subject here 
 but presently it will be found with fair probability that it was so. 
 
 Mathews from his general qualifications was soon in the vortex 
 of Bath life, and a well known man. Thus he was early 
 acquainted with the Linley family and would be so in time with 
 the Sheridans who it may be noted must have arrived in Bath 
 about the same date. Then came his association with young 
 Sheridan through 1771, and presently the quarrels of 1772, these 
 being necessarily already told in connection with, as inseparable 
 from, the Sheridan story. 
 
 Examining now the records, the contemporary idea of the 
 trouble, was not that which has been later published. The 
 General Evening Post of 4 July 1772, only three days after 
 the second duel, says that Sheridan fell defending a young lady's 
 honour against the aspersions cast upon it by a certain military 
 gentleman. 
 
 A later notice in January 1792, twenty years only after the 
 event,! says, — Among the admirers of Miss Linley was a Mr. 
 
 • Clark G. T., Limbus, &c., p. 216. t P. 3, col. 3. 
 J Historical and Biographical Magaiine, p. 11. 
 
71 
 
 Mathews a gentleman well known in the fashionable circles at 
 Bath. A paragraph inserted in a newspaper was construed to 
 imply a reflection on the intimacy between Mr. Sheridan and 
 Miss Linley and traced through the printer to Mr. Mathews. 
 Mr. Mathews having set out for London was followed by 
 Mr. Sheridan. They met,— they fought a duel with swords in a 
 tavern &c. Mathews ' gave an apology and with this — Sheridan 
 hastened to Bath to make the apology as public as the insult. 
 
 Another account of 1808 shows the same intention, this 
 says — Mr. Mathews one of the distinguished votaries of fashion 
 at Bath had the audacity to insert in a public paper a paragraph 
 reflecting on Miss Linley's character. Sheridan followed him 
 to London and " found Mathews at a tavern in the neighbour- 
 hood of Covent Garden and a duel on the spot was the con- 
 sequence." This was still the prevailing idea and opinion and 
 was repeated when Sheridan died in 1816, the only blame on 
 Mathews was that he had "aspersed the character and libelled" 
 the young lady in a provincial paper. Dr. Watkins in 181 7 puts 
 the matter a little clearer when he says —after the elopement — 
 "some animadversions upon the fugitives in a local paper excited 
 much attention as evidently coming from the pen of one who 
 must have been well acquainted with their affairs and former 
 history." All these allusions, not exactly recording fact, show; 
 the effect of or allude to the advertisement which neither writer 
 troubled to hunt up, but so far it is clear there was no idea or 
 charge that Mathews had behaved offensively in any other way> 
 When the elopement was known — "it was buzzed about in Bath " 
 that Mathews had been privy to it,* but this he promptly denied. 
 Yet this helps to show how little suspicion or thought of injury 
 there could have been against him at the time It was only 
 after the elopement when Sheridan's charge purposely left 
 behind him got into circulation that suck a thought originated. 
 
 ' The Craftsman," 10 Oct., 1772. 
 
The fuuue author of the School for Scandal knew well his work 
 and that in a few days his itor\- would be all over the town. 
 Then came the irritation following the refusal of Mr. Linley to 
 see him after these reports to his prejudice had reached him, 
 which prompted the idea of the ad\trjdsement as the only 
 ready means of a public denial of the slander and with a public 
 accusation of the slanderer. As the thing stands to-day no 
 expressions of denial could be more forcible, nor could there 
 be a shorter or more public way of proclaiming it. Naturally the 
 Sheridans did not Uke it and protested. Athough for a time the 
 stor\- had some effect in the local coterie it took no lasting hold : 
 as the affair became better known and understood the slander 
 died away, and was soon forgotten. The next event is the duel 
 which followed A charge or insinuation when once staned loses 
 nothing by repetition ; and if any man commit a wrong action 
 especially if against the code of honour he will be condemned 
 with but little hesitation. The feeling against Mathews ajter 
 the first duel ran high, his defeat and ha^■ing begged his Ufe and 
 given an apolog\" was considered unpardonable. Some thought 
 this censure in some decree unmerited, but he was consequently 
 obliged to leave Bath and so retired into ^Vales to be " among 
 strangers"* hoping for forgetfulness : but in vain the story followed 
 him. 
 
 Again later, after the second duel, Mr. Sheridan vexed and 
 angry at his son being wounded wrote of Mathews, who had 
 gone to Fntnce, — if he show his head at Bath again he will be 
 shunned as one infected with the plague.t These remarks as 
 met with in the biographies read, or are made to read, as if they 
 referred to the Linley social trouble. This was not the c;ise ; 
 that charge was never to the fore ; the allusions refer entirely to 
 the duels. Mathews left Bath after the first duel because of his 
 " ungentlemanlike "" defeat; and the above allusions of Mr. 
 
 * •' Craftsman," lo Oct. t Kae, 204. 
 
73 
 
 Sheridan after the second duel are entirely his own expressiorLS ; 
 his wish was father to the thought, as from the unusual character 
 •of the fight he considered his son almost murdered. But 
 Mathews on his return had no such experiences, he held his 
 ■own ; and more, his conduct was approved. 
 
 Mrs. Lefanu's narrative, written after Mathews' death puts 
 Mathews always in the worst light. The charge that he had 
 " persecuted Miss Linley with unlawful addresses," or as the latest 
 improvement elaborates it, — he tormented and terrified the gentle 
 Miss Linley with obnoxious and ungentlemanly addresses — has 
 been accepted, and notwithstanding the — "it is said '' — treated as 
 fact and copied and reprinted, without thought or investigation ; 
 without attempted verification. Whilst accepting and using the 
 Lefanu narrative freely and willingly, the latest biographer seems 
 to have had some misgivings as already noticed. The same 
 writer too says of Moore, he was always ready to glean but not 
 particular about the source or authority of his information. Why 
 then use him ? Why should these statements continue to be 
 ■ echoed ? Such testimony is worse than useless, serving only to 
 propagate untruth. Sir said Dr. Johnson; many things that are 
 false are transmitted from book to book and gain credit in the 
 world. 
 
 There appeared later another letter or narrative purporting 
 to be from or by Elizabeth Sheridan (Mrs. H. Lefanu) but 
 which on examination has been declared a forgery. It is 
 an elaboration of Lefanu's published account but stronger 
 in expression as seems to be the general drift of additional 
 work on this subject. Yet this too has been used* as the 
 basis of the story against Mathews. The " Dictionary of 
 National Biography,'' under Sheridan, Elizabeth, mentions this 
 letter as appearing in the Gentleman's Magazine for Oct. 
 1815, and then as noticed as a forgery in the Athenmum 
 
 * Octogenarian. 
 
74 
 
 2o Jany 1895. First it is not in the Gentleman's Magazine s& 
 noted and then there is no Athenceum for the 20 Jany 1895. In 
 the latest Sheridan biography too the date of this letter in one 
 place is given as 2 May 1771 and in another as 1770. The 
 thing appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine for Oct 1825, was 
 reviewed in the Quarterly in March 1826, condemned as a 
 "foolish forgery" in Macmillans Afaoazine for January 1861, 
 and further noticed in the AthencEum of 26th January 1895. It 
 is not noticed by Moore because it was fabricated after his 
 work was published. 
 
 Besides other untruths Mrs. Lefanu's narrative has another 
 fallacy when Mathews for the first and only time is dubbed a 
 major. This helps again to confusion, for this utterly false 
 statement has been copied into the " Diet. Nat. Biog." and 
 incorporated in prominent letters in the head lines of the new 
 biography. A new learner now will be puzzled to know and 
 will have to find out whether he is reading of the father, who- 
 was a major, and who the other major wa,s, and then to find the 
 captain. After the duels, hunting for some notice of Mathews 
 and his antecedents the only note met with tells that — Captain 
 Mathews son of the late Major Mathews has made his escape 
 to France.* Small as this is it helps to show that he was the 
 son of the major and that he was sometimes called .Captain. 
 He has become major solely by effluxion of time, another 
 recollection of Mrs. Lefanu, fifty five years after the events. 
 
 Moore having the Lefanu story before him, and writing 
 generally not without some bias, in conclusion is obliged to record 
 of Mathews and the young lady, — ''all that could be said was 
 that he presumed in public too much on the intimacy and 
 innocent familiarity which her youth and his status permitted." 
 Just so. The latest biography after using at every chance the 
 most opprobrious words and names against Mathews, is obliged 
 
 * General Evening Pott, 4 July, 1772. 
 
75 
 
 also to close the attempted condemnation with — " apparently 
 however nothing worse was thought of Mathews by most of his 
 contemporaries than that he had acted somewhat rashly and 
 in very bad taste."* Just so again ; and it is the contemporary 
 opinion which should be sought and -which must be taken. 
 With the above conclusions of the two biographers and the 
 contemporary opinions herein brought together for the first 
 time, this accusation, the imagination of an interested, scheming 
 and jealous youth endeavouring to cover his own foolish act, must 
 in all fairness be newly weighed. Three times the charges made 
 by this youth against Mathews, after official enquiry, were found to 
 be untrue. It may well be then that this* other was equally so. 
 Besides that Mathews' veracity was never duubted, after the official 
 enquiry which followed the second duel he was declared to have 
 " discovered as much genuine, cool, and intrepid resolution as 
 man could do,"t was forgiven his defeat, and was at once 
 reinstated in society and remained a Valued and prominent 
 social leader in Bath for nearly fifty years. Young Sheridan's 
 attempt to revive the quarrel with somebody or anybody, 
 although ineffectual kept the subject privately somewhat alive 
 until the end of 1772 and the beginning of 1773. The 
 " Mathews party " however was too strong for him, opinion 
 was against him, and so he came to hate the place. 
 
 There is one other insinuation repeated in the latest, which 
 reads, — " Mathews is said to have been rich and married," and — 
 "lived in Bath as a bachelor.'' First r^ote the — is said — this 
 being the sole authority for the statement, — and then, as a 
 bachelor, he must have been without his wife. He clearly did 
 no such thing. There is no warrant bjit this lowest form of 
 gossip for such scandal. 
 
 It is difficult now to follow the remaining social side of the 
 
 * Rae, 174. t Moore, 67. 
 
76 
 
 Bath life, but a few lucky notes will fairly help. John Wilkes 
 being at Bath notes in his diary 
 
 2 Jany 1773. Dined and supped at Captain Mathews, 
 with Captain and Mrs Mathews, Miss Wilkes, Mr and 
 Mrs Brown, Colonel, Mrs and Miss Gould, Captains Rice 
 and Nugent. 
 
 II Jany 1773. Dined at the mtss of Captain Rice in 
 Orange Court with Captains Rice, Mathews, , 
 
 Oliver, Fonnereau, and Day. 
 
 13 Jany 1773. Dined at Dr DelacQui-'s in Prince's Buildings 
 with Mr and Mrs Delacour, Captains jHoward and Mathews. 
 
 14 Jany 1773. Dined and supped 4t Captain Mathews with 
 Mr and Mrs Mathews, Miss Wilkes, Mr Day, Captains Rice 
 and Howard. 
 
 Passing over some years Wilkes was again at Bath for a 
 short visit when he records — 
 
 I May 177S. Dined with Colqnel Whitniore, at Miss 
 Temples in Galloway Buildings, Captain Mathews and 
 Edward Morgan, esq. 
 
 The allusion above to a dinner at Dr. Delacour's is of some 
 further interest for it forms part of an often repeated joke or 
 pleasantry which was even considered wprthy of being included 
 in an edition of " Joe Miller." It is headed 
 
 No Variety. 
 
 ^^'hen Sam Foote was once at Bath he was asked what fare 
 he usually had at Mr. Delacour's table. Sir he replied — we 
 have always a piece of beef, a saddle of mutton, a couple of 
 chicken, and — Captain Mathews.* Fopte was fond of good 
 living. An epigram criticising this habit tells that he kept 
 
 A table so spread, and a cellar so stored. 
 
 With a service of plate too -Foote lives like a lord. 
 
 * "Joe Miller" (Ward, Lock & Co.), Joke 657, p. 145. 
 
 * "Wit and Wisdom or the World's Jest Book," Jest No. 848. 
 
 * " Excerpta of Wit or Railway Companion," p. 252. 
 
77 
 
 From these chance allusions it can be seen that Mathews' 
 presence anywhere was always welcome, was a very " opthalmic 
 cure for distempered vision." 
 
 Besides his social qualifications he has left a much wider 
 repute, more valued and remembered perhaps than all other 
 adventures or duelling squabbles. Bath during this time was 
 the centre or head quarters for the game of whist and in this 
 game Mathews became the leading spirit and authority, being 
 always referred to for many years in all the first circles at Bath 
 on disputed points in the game.* His name is well recalled by 
 all players to-day from his having published a little book entitled 
 — Advice to the young whist player. Tfie first issue in 1804 
 was in part anonymous by An Amateur, now rarely met with. 
 There were twenty numbered editions of this work besides 
 others unnumbered and others printed in- Paris, t In time after 
 Mathews' death it was issued first only with another name as 
 " editor," and then presently as with othbj works was absorbed 
 and the original name lost, but the rules and maxims continued 
 much the same. At the Club established in York Buildings in 
 1790, and in other card rooms it was always placed ready for 
 reference. 
 
 So then time passed on until presently a short obituary notice 
 tells us that in 1820 on April 25! died at his house in Portland 
 Place in this city at the advanced age of 77 Thomas Mathews 
 esq., a gentleman of a very ancient and respectable family in the 
 county of Glamorgan and nearly half a cSntury an inhabitant of 
 Bath where he was well known and estfeemed by an extensive 
 circle of friends, associating with the prevailing wits and cele- 
 brated characters who during that long period visited this 
 fashionable city. The expression " nearly half a century " must 
 
 * Courtney W. P., "Whist, &c." 
 
 t Green E., " Bibliotheca Somfrsetensis." 
 
 J Bath Journal, monday, i May 1820, p. 3, col. 5. 
 
78 
 
 be noted as had he lived to Oct it would have been just half a 
 century since the arrival list announced the coming of Mr. and 
 Mrs. Mathews. The Chronicle of thursday, 4th May,* says — 
 Sunday died at his house in Portland Place, &c. The Chronicle 
 by naming the day as Sunday makes the death on the 30th 
 April, not the 25th as in \ht Journal. Another curious dis- 
 crepancy on what would seem so simple and certain. The 
 will of Thomas Mathews of Bath esqre. dated 13 Dec 1818, 
 proved December 1820, t being short as his estate interest 
 ■ceased with his life, is here given nearly in full : — 
 
 I g-ive and bequeath every thing^ of every kind without 
 the exception of the most trifling article to my wife Diana 
 and appoint her whole and sole executrix, to do therewith 
 as she may please. 
 
 One witness was Charlotte Jones of Fonmon Castle. 
 
 Next, the Chronicle of 4 April 1822,! records the death on 
 " thursday," (i.e. 28 March) at her house in Portland Place in 
 her 83rd year of Diana relict of Thomas Mathews esq. Through 
 the long life of this much esteemed lady she evinced her 
 charitable disposition in continual acts of kindness to the poor 
 and distressed by whom as well as by her immediate connections 
 her death will be sincerely regretted. 
 
 By her will proved 26 Nov 1822,5 she bequeathed legacies, 
 valuable pictures and jewels ; and besides an interest in the 
 house, a thousand pounds to her niece Charlotte ; and whereas I 
 am entitled to considerable arrears of annuity from my late brother 
 Robert in Glamorgan now the possession of my nephew Robert, 
 from this I give to be paid any monies due as advanced to my 
 husband or myself. 
 
 An oval tablet in the Abbey church now inside the west 
 
 * P. 3, col. 3. t Kent, 685. % P- 3j col- 2. 
 § Herschell, 605. 
 
Mrs. (C'ai't.) MATHEWS, 
 of Bath. 
 
79 
 
 front ia the recess between the large wgst doors and the small 
 south west door, rather high, — bears for inscription — 
 
 Sacred to the memory of Miss Harriett Mathews who 
 died June 1768. 
 
 Also of Thomas Mathews esqre grandson of the late 
 Admiral Mathews who died April 23rd 1820 aged "]"]. 
 
 Also of Diana relict of the abovp Thomas Mathews and 
 daughter of Robert Jones of Fonmon Castle in the county 
 of Glamorgan esqre who died 28th March 1822 aged 82. 
 
 Also of Charlotte Jones, 3rd daughter of Robert Jones 
 of Fonmon Castle, Glamorganshire esqre and niece of the 
 above Diana Mathews, who died 29 Dec 1839 aged 62. 
 
 This tablet requires some special remarks. Who Miss Harriett 
 may have been does not appear but Her presence shows an 
 earlier connection with Bath. As to Thomas it must be observed 
 that here as well as elsewhere he is esquire, not even captain. 
 He accepted presumably the courtesy rank but personally never 
 used it. The tablet differs again with the death date of the 23rd 
 April instead of the 25th of ih.t Journal or the 30th of the 
 Chronicle. The fact would seem that both journals got behind 
 with their news. The Chronicle means Sunday week which 
 would be the 23rd and the Journal has adopted a useful 
 misprint. Then the tablet tells that Di^na was a daughter of 
 Robert Jones and that Charlotte was also a daughter of Robert 
 Jones and niece of Diana but how she became niece to Diana 
 is left as a puzzle. By her will proved 27 th January 1840* 
 Charlotte calls herself third sister of Robert Jones, late of 
 Fonmon, and 1 9 Portland Place, now of 9 Edgar buildings. 
 
 There were then three Roberts. Robert i had Robert ii and 
 Diana. Robert ii in turn had Robert iii and daughters, 
 Charlotte being his third daughter and so niece of Diana, and 
 equally third sister to Robert iii. 
 
 * Arden 35. 
 
8o 
 
 The family grave or rather from its size it must be a 
 vault, is in the nave of the Abbey church on the north side, just 
 about two feet, the width of one grave in fact, straight south 
 of the centre of the first or western column. A stone slab 
 now hidden tells that — underneath repo.se the remains of Miss, 
 Harriett Mathews who died June 1768.; also of Thomas &c., 
 and so repeating the tablet. 
 
 ^On the occasion of the late visit of the late, the first, 
 marquess of Dufferin this Mathews story was looked up 
 and information asked for. In connection with this was. 
 announced the discovery in " a castle " in Wales of a 
 portrait which was declared to be that of Captain Mathews.* 
 Another account a week or so later tells that the picture was 
 found in " Llandaff palace '' where Mathers great great grandson 
 resides. Llandaff palace is the residence of the bishop and further 
 as Mathews was childless a sight of his great great grandson would 
 be a great novelty. The pictures were found in Fonmon Castle 
 still the seat of the Jones family. It has always been known 
 that many Mathews family relics were there, but as pictures and 
 especially portraits rarely bear a name, as they all ought to do,, 
 very little usually can be known about them. A visit by chance 
 when reparations and redecorations of some sort were in progress, 
 when the pictures were down, enabled a closer examination 
 which revealed the information written oh the back of two that 
 they were the counterfeit pre.sentments (jf— Captain and Mrs. 
 Mathews of Llandaff and Bath. Then it was desired to know 
 where Mathews lived at Bath and the Chronicle in time announced 
 that success had attended the tracing this actual residence and 
 that an article would shortly appear which will contain new facts 
 &c. The article appeared and the new fact was that Mathews 
 lived at 19 Portland Place,t but as the "proofs are withheld''' 
 said the Herald very properly, " those interested in .such matters. 
 
 * Bath Chronicle i Sept 1898. t Bla^ud j Sept 1898. 
 
8i 
 
 can "form no opinion of the discover)."'* The point is a very 
 small one, hardly of interest, but why should there be any mystery, 
 why should information asked for, if known, be withheld. The 
 address can be easily found in the Bath Directory of the time and 
 is now confirmed by the wills quoted. 
 
 After being entertained to luncheon Idrd Duflferin was dri%en 
 round the cit)', duly \ibited Portland Place, and then passed on 
 to Claverton Down to see the site of ttie duel. Hene a spot 
 " supposed " to be that where was fought the I)u Barry duel was 
 selected and with some little ceremony shown as " probably ' — 
 the "probably" being kept in the back ground — the place for 
 the Mathews-Sheridan one. Yet the duel did not take place 
 there. As all this however was done in good faith the actors 
 therein should they now feel a little sore-or vexed have only to 
 thank Mrs. H. Lefanu for one of her 'Mucid and conclusive" 
 facts. 
 
 * Bath Herald 9 Sept 1898. 
 
SOME WORKS 
 
 BV 
 
 EMANUEL GREEN, F.S.A. 
 
 A History of the Parish and Castle of Nunney. 
 Plates. 8vo. 1877. 
 
 An Historic Doubt Settled. William Strode one of the 
 Five ^Members. William Strode, Colonel in the Parliament 
 Army. 8vo. 1885. 
 
 The Preparations in Somerset against the 
 
 Spanish Armada. Folding front— the Somerset 
 Coast upon Severn. 4to. 1888. 
 
 The Survey and Rentals of the Chantries, 
 Colleges, Free Chapels, Guilds, &c., in 
 Somerset, temp. Edward VI. VoL II, Somerset 
 
 Record Society. 4to. 1888. 
 
 Pedes Finium, commonly called Feet of Fines, 
 
 &C., 1 196-1307. Vol. VI, Somerset Record Society. 
 4to. 1892. 
 
 The March of William of Orange through 
 Somerset, With a Notice of Events, temp. 
 James II. 4to. 1892. 
 
 Pedes Finium for I308-I346. Vol. XII, Somerset 
 Record Society. 4to. 1898. 
 
Bibliotheca Somersetensis. a Catalogue of Books 
 and Pamphlets, &c., relating to or connected with the 
 County of Somerset. With Introduction and Full Index. 
 3 vols., 1678 pp. 4to. 1 90 1. 
 
 Mr. Green is to be congratulated on having undoubtedly 
 produced the best and most thorough county bibliography that has 
 yet been issued ; the Index has been severely tested without 
 detecting a single failure.— 77/^ Athcnaum. 
 
 Pedes Finium, &C., I347-I399. Vol. XVII, Somerset 
 Recoird Society. 4to. 1902. 
 
 Thomas Linley, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and 
 
 Thomas Mathews; their connection with Bath. 
 5 portraits. 8vo. 1903. 
 
 The Union Jack — its History and Development. 
 
 With Coloured Plates. 2nd Edit., with additions. 8vo. 
 1904. 
 
 Li the Press. 
 
 A Certificate of Musters for the Whole County 
 of Somerset, temp. Elizabeth. With the Arms 
 
 and Armour and Names of the Men and Their Parishes. 
 With Introduction and Full Index. Vol. XX^ Somerset 
 Record Society. 
 
 Ill Advanced Preparation. 
 
 The Civil War in Somerset. A History of the Decade 
 
 ending January, 1649. 3 vols., 8vo. 
 
 GEORGE GREGORY, 
 
 5, Argyle Street, Bath. 
 
k