[3] William Cooke, Memoirs of Samuel Foote (London, 1805), I, 72-73.
Although Foote was accused of plagiarism by Murphy and then by others who had not seen the play, the charge was not strictly true. There are general similarities because both plays are based upon the same idea, and, if one looks closely, certain jokes and other bits of dialogue are too alike to be accidental. It is also possible that Crab of Foote's play was developed from certain characteristics of Quicksett. Yet on the whole, Foote's plot, characterization, and dialogue are so distinctly different from Murphy's that Foote can be given credit for writing his own play. The attitudes of both writers towards their objects of satire were entirely different. Foote wrote a wild and whimsical farce where much of the humor is slapstick. Murphy's play is a carefully worked out comedy where extreme behavior of any kind is gently ridiculed.
Despite Foote's desire for secrecy while getting his play ready for production, Murphy would be sure to hear the news as soon as plans were given out for costumes, sets, and rehearsals. His first response to Foote's betrayal of their friendship was to publish anonymously The Spouter: or, the Triple Revenge. This unplayed farce was probably published in late January, a week or two before Foote's play was to be shown. In an understandable but scurrilous rage, Murphy vilified Foote (as Dapperwit) using all the advantages of a once close friendship. In addition to being accused of plagiarism, Foote had all his personal foibles held up to public ridicule. Though an able and often eager controversialist, Foote made no reply but slyly advertised that his play would open 3 February at Covent Garden and would be "a New Farce Sequel to The Englishman in Paris, by the same author." The audience's response to Foote's version justified Murphy's worst apprehensions; it proved to be a brilliant success and was played nineteen times that season.[4]
[4] Stone, II, 524, et passim.
It seems probable that Murphy did not plan to bring out his new play that season because he had already introduced The Apprentice (D.L. 2 January 1756). But he was an irascible man and it was undoubtedly galling to watch Foote reap fame and fortune on his idea. Providing himself some small measure of satisfaction and thinking he had little to lose, Murphy made plans to give the play at least one performance on his benefit night as an actor (he had already been given a benefit as an author) and to alter some parts of the play to expose further Foote's duplicity.
Although he did not act in the play, Murphy spoke the prologue which bemoaned the fate of the dramatist:
Shall he consult his friends?—when once 'tis shown
If some friends like, they make the hint their own.[5]
[5] Literary Magazine (15 March-15 April 1756), I, 29.
Two contemporaries also quote a last minute addition that is not in the manuscript of the play. Foote's Englishman, Buck, probably dressed similarly to Foote who played the role, appears on stage to say: "O Yes! I grant you there has been an imposter about town, who with easy familiarity and assurance, has stolen my writings, &c.; and not only thus treacherously robbed, but impudently dared to assume my very name even to my face; but I am the true Charles Buck, I assure you."[6] The manuscript too makes a reference to Foote's plagiarism when Bob Wildfire and Harry Foxchase ask Jack if he had seen Buck in his travels. This part too is probably a late insertion for it is irrelevant to the plot and the characters.
[6] Cooke, I, 74-75; and Tate Wilkinson, Memoirs of His Own Life (York, 1790), II, 71-72.