"The copy which I gave into the hands of Mr. Rich had been seen before by several persons of the greatest distinction and veracity, who will do me the honour and justice to attest it; so that not only by them, but by Mr. Rich and Mr. Steele, I can (against all insinuation or positive affirmation) prove in the most clear and undeniable manner, if occasion required, what I have here upon my own honour and credit asserted. The Introduction, indeed, was not shown to the Lord Chamberlain, which, as I had not then settled, was never transcribed in the playhouse copy.
"It was on Saturday morning, December 7th, 1728, that I waited upon the Lord Chamberlain. I desired to have the honour of reading the Opera to his Grace, but he [pg 98]ordered me to leave it with him, which I did upon expectation of having it returned on the Monday following; but I had it not till Thursday, December 12th, when I received it from his Grace with this answer, 'that it was not allowed to be acted, but commanded to be suppressed.' This was told me in general, without any reason assigned, or any charge against me, of my having given any particular offence.
"Since this prohibition, I have been told, that I am accused, in general terms, of having written many disaffected libels and seditious pamphlets. As it hath ever been my utmost ambition (if that word may be used on this ocasion) to lead a quiet and inoffensive life, I thought my innocence in this particular would never have required a justification; and as this kind of writing is what I have ever detested, and never practised, I am persuaded so groundless a calumny can never be believed but by those who do not know me. But as general aspersions of this sort have been cast upon me, I think myself called upon to declare my principles; and I do, with the strictest truth, affirm that I am as loyal a subject, and as firmly attached to the present happy establishment, as any of those who have the greatest places or pensions. I have been informed too, that, in the following play, I have been charged with writing immoralities; that it is filled with slander, and calumny against particular great persons, and that Majesty itself is endeavoured to be brought into ridicule and contempt.
"As I knew every one of these charges was in every point absolutely false and without the least grounds, at first I was not at all affected by them; but when I found they were still insisted upon, and that particular passages, which were not in the play, were quoted, and propagated to support what had been suggested, I could no longer bear to lie under those false accusations; so, by printing it, I have submitted and given up all present views of profit which might accrue from the stage; which undoubtedly will be some satisfaction to the worthy gentlemen [pg 99]who have treated me with so much candour and humanity, and represented me in such favourable colours.
"But as I am conscious to myself, that my only intention was to lash, in general, the reigning of fashionable vices, and to recommend and set virtue in as amiable light as I could; to justify and vindicate my own character, I thought myself obliged to print the Opera without delay, in the manner I have done.
"As the play was principally designed for representation, I hope, when it is read, it will be considered in that light; and when all that hath been said against it shall appear to be entirely misunderstood or misrepresented; if, some time hence, it should be permitted to appear on the stage, I think it necessary to acquaint the public that, as far as a contract of this kind can be binding, I am engaged to Mr. Rich to have it represented upon his theatre."
It cannot be denied that there was adequate ground for the Lord Chamberlain's veto. In "The Beggar's Opera" Gay had beyond all question lampooned Walpole, and in "Polly" he returned to the attack, there being no doubt that in the opening scene, Ducat, the West Indian planter, was intended for the Minister. The production might well have led to disturbances if both political parties had been represented at the first performance. Walpole was the least vindictive of men, as witness his generous attitude towards Sunderland and the other ministers involved in the scandal of the South Sea "Bubble," but he may well have thought that Gay was going too far. Gay himself was harmless, but, as Walpole knew, the author, either consciously or unconsciously, was acting for the Opposition party; and Walpole, when he thought it worth while, had a short and effective way with his political enemies.
The prohibition being largely an affair of party, or at least being so regarded, a battle royal ensued. "Polly" could not be performed in public, but, there being no censorship of books, it could be printed. Gay's friends, therefore, [pg 100]decided that the Opera should be published by subscription. To a man and a woman the Opposition rallied round the author. The Duchess of Queensberry "touted" for him everywhere, even at Court. The King at a Drawing-room asked what she was doing. "What must be agreeable, I am sure," she replied, "to anyone so humane as your Majesty, for it is an act of charity, and a charity to which I do not despair of bringing your Majesty to contribute." This, of course, was a gratuitous piece of impertinence—for the Lord Chamberlain acts as the official mouthpiece of the Sovereign—and it could not be overlooked. Another story is: The Duchess was so vehement in her attempt to have the embargo removed from Gay's play, that she offered to read it to His Majesty in his closet, that he might be satisfied there was no offence in it. George II escaped from this dilemma by saying, he should be delighted to receive her Grace in his closet, but he hoped to amuse her better than by the literary employment she proposed.[[7]]
Whatever the true story, the day after the Duchess's interview with the King (February 27th, 1729), William Stanhope, the Vice-Chamberlain, carried to the Duchess a verbal message not to come to Court; whereupon she sat down and wrote a letter for him to take to his Majesty. "The Duchess of Queensberry," so ran her reply, "is surprised and well pleased that the King hath given her so agreeable a command as to stay from Court, where she never came for diversion, but to bestow a great civility on the King and Queen; she hopes by such an unprecedented order as this is, that the King will see as few as he wishes at his Court, particularly such as are to think or speak truth. I dare not do otherwise, and ought not, nor could have imagined that it would not have been the very highest compliment that I could possibly pay the King to endeavour to support truth and innocence in his house, particularly when the King and Queen both told me that they had not read Mr. Gay's play. I have certainly [pg 101]done right, then, to stand by my own words rather than his Grace of Grafton's, who hath neither made use of truth, judgment, nor honour, through this whole affair, either for himself or his friends."[[8]] Stanhope read this, and begged the Duchess to reflect before sending it. She consented to write another letter, did so, and handed it to him. He chose the first. The Duke of Queensberry supported his wife, and although the King pressed him to remain, resigned his office of Admiral of Scotland—though Gay wrote to Swift,[[9]] "this he would have done, if the Duchess had not met with this treatment, upon account of ill-usage from the Ministers," and that this incident "hastened him in what he had determined." The affair created an immense sensation in Court circles. "The Duchess of Queensberry is still the talk of the town. She is going to Scotland," Mrs. Pendarves wrote to Mrs. Anne Granville, March 14th, 1729.... "My Lady Hervey told her the other day that 'now she was banished, the Court had lost its chief ornament,' the Duchess replied, 'I am entirely of your mind.' It is thought my Lady Hervey spoke to her with a sneer, if so, her Grace's answer was a very good one."[[10]]