There cannot, indeed, be a stronger exemplification of the truth, that a want of regularity [Footnote: His improvidence in every thing connected with money was most remarkable. He would frequently be obliged to stop on his journies, for want of the means of getting on, and to remain living expensively at an inn, till a remittance could reach him. His letters to the treasurer of the theatre on these occasions were generally headed with the words “Money-bound.” A friend of his told me, that one morning, while waiting for him in his study, he cast his eyes over the heap of unopened letters that lay upon the table, and, seeing one or two with coronets on the seals, said to Mr. Westley, the treasurer, who was present, “I see we are all treated alike.” Mr. Westley then informed him that he had once found, on looking over this table, a letter which he had himself sent, a few weeks before, to Mr. Sheridan, enclosing a ten-pound note, to release him from some inn, but which Sheridan, having raised the supplies in some other way, had never thought of opening. The prudent treasurer took away the letter, and reserved the enclosure for some future exigence.
Among instances of his inattention to letters, the following is mentioned. Going one day to the banking-house, where he was accustomed to receive his salary, as Receiver of Cornwall, and where they sometimes accommodated him with small sums before the regular time of payment, he asked, with all due humility, whether they could oblige him with the loan of twenty pounds. “Certainly, Sir,” said the clerk,— “would you like any more — fifty, or a hundred?” Sheridan, all smiles and gratitude, answered that a hundred pounds would be of the greatest convenience to him. “Perhaps you would like to take two hundred, or three?” said the clerk. At every increase of the sum, the surprise of the borrower increased. “Have not you then received our letter?” said the clerk; — on which it turned out that, in consequence of the falling in of some fine, a sum of twelve hundred pounds had been lately placed to the credit of the Receiver-General, and that, from not having opened the letter written to apprise him, he had been left in ignorance of his good luck.] becomes, itself, a vice, from the manifold evils to which it leads, than the whole history of Mr. Sheridan’s pecuniary transactions. So far from never paying his debts, as is often asserted of him, he was, in fact, always paying; — but in such a careless and indiscriminate manner, and with so little justice to himself or others, as often to leave the respectable creditor to suffer for his patience, while the fraudulent dun was paid two or three times over. Never examining accounts nor referring to receipts, he seemed as if, (in imitation of his own Charles, preferring generosity to justice,) he wished to make paying as like as possible to giving. Interest, too, with its usual, silent accumulation, swelled every debt; and I have found several instances among his accounts where the interest upon a small sum had been suffered to increase till it outgrew the principal;— “minima pars ipsa puella sui.”
Notwithstanding all this, however, his debts were by no means so considerable as has been supposed. In the year 1808, he empowered Sir R. Berkely, Mr. Peter Moore, and Mr. Frederick Homan, by power of attorney, to examine into his pecuniary affairs and take measures for the discharge of all claims upon him. These gentlemen, on examination, found that his bona fide debts were about ten thousand pounds, while his apparent debts amounted to five or six times as much. Whether from conscientiousness or from pride, however, he would not suffer any of the claims to be contested, but said that the demands were all fair, and must be paid just as they were stated; — though it was well known that many of them had been satisfied more than once. These gentlemen, accordingly, declined to proceed any further with their commission.
On the same false feeling he acted in 1813-14, when the balance due on the sale of his theatrical property was paid him, in a certain number of Shares. When applied to by any creditor, he would give him one of these Shares, and allowing his claim entirely on his own showing, leave him to pay himself out of it, and refund the balance. Thus irregular at all times, even when most wishing to be right, he deprived honesty itself of its merit and advantages; and, where he happened to be just, left it doubtful, (as Locke says of those religious people, who believe right by chance, without examination,) “whether even the luckiness of the accident excused the irregularity of the proceeding.” [Footnote: Chapter on Reason]
The consequence, however, of this continual paying was that the number of his creditors gradually diminished, and that ultimately the amount of his debts was, taking all circumstances into account, by no means considerable. Two years after his death it appeared by a list made up by his Solicitor from claims sent in to him, in consequence of an advertisement in the newspapers, that the bonâ fide debts amounted to about five thousand five hundred pounds.
If, therefore, we consider his pecuniary irregularities in reference to the injury that they inflicted upon others, the quantum of evil for which he is responsible becomes, after all, not so great. There are many persons in the enjoyment of fair characters in the world, who would be happy to have no deeper encroachment upon the property of others to answer for; and who may well wonder by what unlucky management Sheridan could contrive to found so extensive a reputation for bad pay upon so small an amount of debt.
Let it never, too, be forgotten, in estimating this part of his character, that had he been less consistent and disinterested in his public conduct, he might have commanded the means of being independent and respectable in private. He might have died a rich apostate, instead of closing a life of patriotism in beggary. He might, (to use a fine expression of his own,) have ‘hid his head in a coronet,’ instead of earning for it but the barren wreath of public gratitude. While, therefore, we admire the great sacrifice that he made, let us be tolerant to the errors and imprudences which it entailed upon him; and, recollecting how vain it is to look for any thing unalloyed in this world, rest satisfied with the Martyr, without requiring, also, the Saint.
THE END
RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN by William Fraser Rae
From ‘Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 52’
RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN (1751–1816), statesman and dramatist, born 30 Oct. 1751 at 12 Dorset Street, Dublin, was grandson of Thomas Sheridan (1687–1738) , and son of Thomas Sheridan (1719–1788) He received the rudiments of learning from his father, and from the age of seven till eight and a half attended a school in Dublin kept by Samuel Whyte. Then he rejoined his parents, who had migrated to London, and he never revisited his native city. In 1762 he was sent to Harrow school, where he remained till 1768, two years after his mother’s death. Subsequently a private tutor, Lewis Ker, directed his studies in his father’s house in London, while Angelo instructed him in fencing and horsemanship.
At the end of 1770 Sheridan’s father settled in Bath and taught elocution. His children became acquainted with those of Thomas Linley (1732–1795) , a composer and teacher of music, who had given Sheridan’s mother lessons in singing. One of Sheridan’s friends at Harrow was Nathaniel Brassey Halhed , who went to Oxford from Harrow. With him Sheridan carried on a correspondence from Bath. They projected a literary periodical called ‘Hernan’s Miscellany,’ of which the first number was written but not published; and they prepared a metrical version of the epistles of Aristænetus, which appeared in 1771, and in a second edition in 1773. Halhed translated the epistles, and Sheridan revised and edited them. Another volume of translations from the same author which Sheridan undertook never saw the light. A farce called ‘Ixion’ was written by Halhed, recast by Sheridan, and renamed ‘Jupiter.’ It was offered to Garrick and Foote, but not accepted by either. Sheridan wrote two sets of verses, which appeared in the ‘Bath Chronicle’ during 1771; the title of one set was ‘Clio’s Protest, or the Picture Varnished;’ of the other, ‘The Ridotto of Bath,’ which was reprinted and had a large sale.
Sheridan’s letters to Halhed have not been preserved; those from Halhed contain many references to Miss Linley, who sang in oratorios at Oxford, and for whom Halhed expressed great admiration, although he failed to exci
te a corresponding feeling in her. Desiring to escape from the persecution of Major Mathews, an unworthy admirer, Miss Linley appealed to Sheridan to escort her to France, where she hoped to find refuge and repose in a convent. The scheme had the approval and support of Sheridan’s sisters. At the end of March 1772 Sheridan, Miss Linley, and a lady’s maid left Bath for London, where Mr. Ewart, a friend of Mr. Sheridan, gave them a passage to Dunkirk in one of his vessels. Sheridan’s younger sister, Elizabeth, who was in Miss Linley’s confidence as well as her brother’s, gives the following account of what followed: ‘After quitting Dunkirk, Mr. Sheridan was more explicit with Miss Linley as to his views in accompanying her to France. He told her that he could not be content to leave her in a convent unless she consented to a previous marriage, which had all along been the object of his hopes; and she must be aware that, after the step she had taken, she could not appear in England but as his wife. Miss Linley, who really preferred him greatly to any person, was not difficult to persuade, and at a village not far from Calais the marriage ceremony was performed by a priest who was known to be often employed on such occasions.’ This marriage, if contracted as described, was valid; but neither of the parties to it regarded the ceremony as more binding than a betrothal. Her own feelings were subsequently expressed in a letter to him: ‘You are sensible when I left Bath I had not an idea of you but as a friend. It was not your person that gained my affection. No, it was that delicacy, that tender compassion, that interest which you seemed to take in my welfare, that were the motives which induced me to love you’ (Biography of Sheridan, i. 255).
The lady’s father followed the fugitives and took his daughter back to Bath. Meanwhile Mathews had published a letter denouncing Sheridan ‘as a liar and a treacherous scoundrel,’ and on their meeting in London a duel with swords ended with the disarming of Mathews, who was compelled to beg his life and to publish an apology in the ‘Bath Chronicle.’ On 2 July 1772 a second duel was fought, in which Sheridan was seriously wounded. After his recovery, as his father and Mr. Linley both objected to his marrying Miss Linley, he was sent to Waltham Abbey in Essex on 27 Aug. in order that he might continue his studies undisturbed. He remained at Waltham Abbey till April 1773, reading hard and writing many letters to his friends, of whom the chief was Thomas Grenville (1755–1846) He wrote to him: ‘I keep regular hours, use a great deal of exercise, and study very hard. There is a very ingenious man here with whom, besides, I spend two hours every evening in mathematicks, mensuration, astronomy.’ Charles Brinsley, the son of Sheridan by his second marriage, has recorded that his father left behind him ‘six copybooks, each filled with notes and references to mathematics, carefully written by Mr. S. at an early age;’ that is, probably at Waltham Abbey. He told his friend Grenville: ‘I am determined to gain all the knowledge that I can bring within my reach. I will make myself as much master as I can of French and Italian.’ Yet his inclination was for the bar, and he was entered at the Middle Temple on 6 April 1773.
On the 13th of the same month he at length married Miss Linley with her father’s consent. His own father looked upon the union, and wrote about it, as a disgrace. The young couple went to live at East Burnham. In the winter of 1773 they lived with Stephen Storace in London, and in the spring of 1774 took a house in Orchard Street. Sheridan wrote much at this period, a scheme for a training school for children of the nobility and comments on Chesterfield’s ‘Letters’ being among the subjects he treated; but he published nothing with his name. On 17 Nov. 1774 he informed his father-in-law that a comedy by him would be in rehearsal at Covent Garden Theatre in a few days. This comedy was ‘The Rivals,’ and it was performed for the first time on 17 Jan. 1775. It failed, was withdrawn, and then performed in a revised version on 28 Jan. From that date it has remained one of the most popular among modern comedies. A farce, ‘St. Patrick’s Day, or the Scheming Lieutenant,’ was written for the benefit of Mr. Clinch, who had made his mark in the ‘Rivals’ as Sir Lucius O’Trigger, and it was played on 2 May. It was favourably received, and repeated several times at Covent Garden. A comic opera, ‘The Duenna,’ was represented at Covent Garden on 21 Nov. 1775 and on seventy-four other nights during the season, a success which was then unprecedented.
By the end of 1775 Sheridan had become a favourite with playgoers. Before the end of the next year he was manager of Drury Lane Theatre in succession to Garrick, having entered into partnership with Mr. Linley and Dr. Ford, and become the proprietor of Garrick’s share in the theatre, for which Garrick received 35,000l. Two years later the share of Lacy, the partner of Garrick, which was valued at the same sum, was bought by the new proprietors. Mr. Brander Matthews has pointed out, in his introduction to Sheridan’s ‘Comedies’ (p, 31), that the money was chiefly raised on mortgage; that when Sheridan bought one-seventh of the shares in 1776 he only had to find 1,300l. in cash; and that when he became the proprietor in 1778 of the half of the shares, this sum was returned to him.
Drury Lane Theatre was opened under Sheridan’s management on 21 Sept. 1776. A prelude written for the occasion by Colman, containing a neat compliment to Garrick, was then performed. On 16 Jan. 1777 Sheridan gave ‘The Rivals’ for the first time at Drury Lane, and on 24 Feb. ‘A Trip to Scarborough,’ which he had adapted from Vanbrugh’s ‘Relapse;’ but he achieved his crowning triumph as a dramatist on 8 May in that year, when ‘The School for Scandal’ was put on the stage. The play narrowly escaped suppression. Sheridan told the House of Commons on 3 Dec. 1793 that a license for its performance had been refused, and that it was only through his personal influence with Lord Hertford, the lord chamberlain, that the license was granted the day before that fixed for the performance. On 29 Oct. 1779 Sheridan’s farce, ‘The Critic,’ and, on 24 May 1799, his patriotic melodrama, ‘Pizarro,’ were produced at Drury Lane. With ‘Pizarro’ his career as a dramatist ended.
Sheridan had meanwhile become as great a favourite in society and in parliament as among playgoers. In March 1777 he was elected a member of the Literary Club on the motion of Dr. Johnson, and he lived to be one of the oldest of the thirty-five members. Having made the acquaintance of Charles James Fox, he joined him in his efforts for political reform, and desired to enter parliament as his supporter. He failed in his candidature for Honiton, but he was returned for Stafford on 12 Sept. 1780. A letter in his favour from the Duchess of Devonshire proved of great service. On the proposition of Fitzpatrick, he was elected a member of Brooks’s Club on 2 Nov. 1780. Two years before, he had been twice proposed by Fox and rejected, the first time on 28 Nov. the second on 25 Dec. 1778 (candidates’ book, Brooks’s Club).
His first speech in parliament was made on 20 Nov. 1780, in defence of a charge of bribery which Whitworth, his defeated opponent at Stafford, had brought against him, and the speech was both well received and successful in its object. The allegation that he had failed was circulated for the first time by Moore forty-five years after the speech was delivered (cf. Fraser Rae, Biography, i. 359). He became a frequent speaker, and by common consent was soon ranked as highly among parliamentary orators as among dramatic writers. His opposition to the war in America was deemed so effective by the representatives of congress that a thank-offering of 20,000l. was made to him. He wisely and gracefully declined to accept the gift (Moore, Diary, i. 212, 213). In 1782 his marked abilities received more practical recognition. Lord Rockingham, who then became premier for the second time, appointed him under-secretary for foreign affairs. After the death of Rockingham on 1 July, Shelburne was appointed prime minister. Sheridan, with other colleagues in the Rockingham administration, refused to serve under him. But he returned to office on 21 Feb. 1783 as secretary to the treasury when the coalition ministry, with the Duke of Portland as figure-head, was formed. The ministry was dismissed by the king on the 18th of the following December. During the brief interval, Sheridan addressed the house twenty-six times on matters concerning the treasury.
Sheridan made the personal acquaintance of the Prince of Wales a
t Devonshire House soon after he entered parliament, and thenceforth acted as his confidential adviser. He gave advice and drafted documents for the prince in 1788, when the king was suffering from mental disorder, and it was proposed to appoint the prince as regent subject to certain restrictions. With Fox and Lord Loughborough he injudiciously upheld the right of the prince to assume the regency without the sanction of parliament. It was arranged that, should the king not recover and should a whig administration be formed by the regent, the office of treasurer of the navy would be assigned to Sheridan; but the king’s recovery rendered the plan nugatory. Sheridan was conspicuous in the proceedings against Warren Hastings He attended the committee which examined witnesses in connection with charges whereupon to frame an impeachment, and when the articles were settled it fell to him to obtain the assent of the house to the one relating to the begums or princesses of Oude. The speech in which he brought the matter before the house on 7 Feb. 1787 occupied five hours and forty minutes in delivery, and was one of the most memorable in the annals of parliament. When he sat down ‘the whole house — the members, peers, and strangers — involuntarily joined in a tumult of applause, and adopted a mode of expressing their approbation, new and irregular in that house, by loudly and repeatedly clapping their hands’ (Parliamentary Hist. xxv. 294). Pitt moved the adjournment of the debate on the ground that the minds of members were too agitated to discuss the question with coolness and judicially. No full report of the speech has been preserved; the best appeared in the ‘London Chronicle’ for 8 Feb. 1787. The excitement which Sheridan had aroused in the House of Commons spread throughout the nation. Sheridan began his speech as a manager of the impeachment in Westminster Hall on 3 June 1788. The event was the topic of the day. Fifty pounds were cheerfully given for a seat. His speech lasted, not, as Macaulay wrote, ‘two days,’ but for several hours on Tuesday the 3rd, Friday the 6th, Tuesday the 10th, and Friday the 13th of June. Gibbon asserted that Sheridan sank back into Burke’s arms after uttering the concluding words, ‘My lords, I have done.’ Macaulay repeated this story with embellishments, writing that ‘Sheridan contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous admiration’ (Collected Works, vi. 633). Sir Gilbert Elliot, one of the managers who sat beside Sheridan, wrote to his wife, ‘Burke caught him in his arms as he sat down. … I have myself enjoyed that embrace on such an occasion, and know its value’ (Life and Letters, i. 219). Sheridan paid Gibbon a graceful compliment by speaking of ‘his luminous page.’ Moore is responsible for the fiction that Sheridan afterwards said he meant ‘voluminous.’ Dudley Long told Gibbon that Sheridan had spoken about his ‘voluminous pages’ (Sir Gilbert Elliott, Life and Letters, i. 219).
Delphi Complete Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan Page 167
