“A malevolent and impotent attack on the Shakspeare MSS. having appeared, on the eve of representation of the play of Vortigern, evidently intended to injure the interest of the proprietor of the MSS., Mr. Ireland feels it impossible, within the short space of time that intervenes between the publishing and the representation, to produce an answer to the most illiberal and unfounded assertions in Mr. Malone’s “Inquiry”; he is, therefore, induced to request, that the play of Vortigern may be heard with that candour that has ever distinguished a British audience.
“The Play is now at the Press, and will, in a very few days, be laid before the public.”
If, however, an active enemy was found in the person of Mr. Malone, another equally implacable, and enabled to strike a more deadly blow, as regarded the success of my play, appeared in the person of Mr. Kemble, then acting manager of Drury Lane Theatre; who, in that capacity, was of course empowered to direct his whole influence against the piece, of which he did not fail to take advantage, as will appear from my father’s preface subjoined, which accompanied the original edition of Vortigern. Indeed, so notorious was Mr. Kemble’s conduct, in opposition to the interests of the theatre, that, after the termination of the play, Mr. Sheridan, in the green-room, very unceremoniously gave Mr. Kemble to understand, “that he had nothing to do with his (Mr. Kemble’s) private opinions respecting the validity or spuriousness of the manuscripts; that he appeared there as a servant of the theatre, whose bounden duty it should have been to exert himself for the purpose of insuring success, instead of invidiously toiling to damn a production, which might have brought thousands to the treasury of that establishment.” To this address, delivered in my presence, Mr. Kemble uttered not one word in reply.
Six-and-thirty years have now transpired since the drama of Vortigern and Rowena was performed, (on Saturday, the second day of April, 1796). If may be worthy of remark, that the strenuous efforts of the acting manager, Mr. J. P. Kemble, were not wanting to procure its representation on the Friday night preceding, in order to pass upon the audience the compliment of Fools All! This was, however, overruled, by the decided opposition of my father; although he found it necessary to interpose the authority of Mr. Sheridan for that purpose. Finding himself thus foiled, in the grand attempt at producing Vortigern on April Fool night, that the after-piece might carry a sting in its tail, Mr. Kemble announced My Grandmother for the farce, intending that all the bearings of that production should be applied by the audience to the subject of the Shaksperian papers. This was not all: leagued with Malone, and the sworn opponents, in defiance of the duty he owed to the theatre, Mr. Kemble had recourse to every expedient prior to, as well as on the night of, representation, in order to crush the play; for which purpose he particularly selected the following line:—
“And when this solemn mockery is o’er,”
that having been the preconcerted signal when the opponents of the papers were to manifest their disapprobation. Having, in the course of his part, arrived at the anxiously expected line, he delivered it in an exceedingly pointed manner; when, of course, a deafening clamour reigned throughout one of the most crowded houses ever recollected in theatrical history, which lasted for several minutes. Upon a hearing being at length obtained, instead of taking up the following line of the speech in rotation, Mr. Kemble reiterated the above line with an expression the most pointedly sarcastic and acrimonious it is possible to conceive. The result was, from that moment so deafening became the uproar produced by conflicting applause and disapproval, that not one syllable more of the play was rendered intelligible. The speech, of which the above line forms a part, will be found towards the close of the second scene of act the fifth, being the last scene but one of the drama; prior to which, no hostility had been manifested. Indeed, so decided was the applause, that many of the performers appeared confident of the success of the play; among whom, in particular, was the late inimitable Mrs. Jordan, personating the character of Flavia in my drama, with whom I remained in close conversation during a considerable portion of the performance, that lady uniformly persisting in offering her congratulations on the success that awaited the drama, of which “I had been the fortunate discoverer.”—[How little did I then imagine, that the lapse of a few short years would behold me following that neglected, but unmatched Thalia of the British stage, to her last long home in the cemetery of St. Cloud; where her remains now moulder, with scarcely a memento to designate the spot that enshrouds them.]
Notwithstanding the pointed hostility manifested by Mr. Kemble, in every stage of this business, it would be the height of injustice not to mention the strenuous exertions, for the success of the piece, manifested by Messrs. Bensley, Barrymore, Caulfield, and King, with Mesdames Powel and Jordan. Those, however, who have any recollection of such walking automatons as Benson and Phillimore being made to figure in my tragedy, can form a shrewd surmise of what the acting manager intended should prove the result of the performance. Added to this, the late Mr. Dignum was purposely placed by Mr. Kemble in a subordinate part, wherein, speaking of the sounding of trumpets, he had to exclaim, “Let them bellow on!” which words were uttered with such a nasal and tin-kettle twang, that no muscles, save those of adamant, could have resisted the powerful incentive to laughter.
Having brought the subject of the representation of Vortigern to a close, I shall now enter upon that portion of my preface which comes closest to my own feelings; and if, in the progress of my remarks, I may at times appear somewhat instigated by a sentiment of vindictiveness, let me entreat the reader to commune with himself, and to inquire what would be the state of his mind, after suffering thirty-six years incessant persecution and obloquy, for the commission of an act intended only to please a parent, and which, in reality, has injured no one but its author, and that being he so fondly strove to gratify.
Some time after the appearance of Malone’s long expected “Investigation,” Mr. Chalmers published, first his “Apology for the Believers,” and then a “Supplemental Apology”; wherein, though advocating the untenable side of the question, he displayed a far greater depth of antiquarian research, and scholastic reasoning, than his opponent; in short, there is scarcely one position laid down by Malone, which is not most satisfactorily refuted by Chalmers. At the commencement of this warfare, as to whether the manuscripts were genuine or not, the state of my poor father’s mind was pitiable in the extreme; he as firmly crediting the originality of the papers, as I was aware of their fabrication.
For myself I can conscientiously assert, that this warfare affected me no further, than as creating uneasiness in the mind of my suffering parent: but when insinuations began to be directed against his character, which were ultimately converted into the following bonâ fide assertions—“That the youthful period of my life precluding all possibility of the papers being mine, the whole must of necessity have been fabricated by my father, who had made me the vehicle of introducing them to the public”—I must candidly confess the equanimity of my temper no longer remained unruffled. Never was a creature more basely calumniated, or subjected to more unmerited contumely. It is not because I am speaking of a parent, that I make this declaration; had Mr. Ireland been a mere acquaintance, it would be no more than my duty thus to exonerate, and once more proclaim aloud to the world his entire innocence. Not only was he a total stranger to every proceeding of mine, as regarded the composition of the papers; but, from principle, totally incapable of having even connived, much less have been himself the fabricator. There existed, in my father’s character, a marked tenacity respecting adherence to truth; and it was the thorough knowledge of his rigid principles on that head that long deterred me from making an ample confession of the fact, so much did I apprehend from the effects of his indignation, if made acquainted with the real nature of the whole transaction.