Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 29.djvu/40

 (cf. Morning Herald, 17 Feb. 1795). Ritson and George Steevens, among the earliest visitors to Norfolk Street, perceived the fraud. Malone, although he declined to call at Ireland's house, was soon convinced of the deceit, and promised to expose it. James Boaden, a former believer, grew sceptical; placed the ‘Oracle,’ of which he was editor, at the disposal of the unbelievers, and published early in 1796 ‘A Letter to George Steevens,’ attacking Ireland. ‘A Comparative View of the Opinions of James Boaden,’ from the pen of Ireland's friend Wyatt, ‘Shakespeare's Manuscripts, by Philalethes’ [i.e. Colonel Francis Webb], and ‘Vortigern under Consideration,’ by W. C. Oulton, were rapidly published in Ireland's behalf in answer to Boaden. Porson ridiculed the business in a translation of ‘Three Children Sliding on the Ice’ into Greek iambics, which he represented as a newly discovered fragment of Sophocles. A pamphlet by F. G. Waldron, entitled ‘Free Reflections,’ was equally contemptuous, and supplied in an appendix a pretended Shakespearean drama, entitled ‘The Virgin Queen.’ The orthography of the papers was unmercifully parodied by the journalists. The ‘Morning Herald’ published in the autumn of 1795 Henry Bate Dudley's mock version of the much-talked-of ‘Vortigern,’ which was still unpublished, and Ireland had to warn the public against mistaking it for the genuine play. Dudley's parody was issued separately in 1796 as ‘Passages on the Great Literary Trial.’

After much negotiation Sheridan in September 1795 had agreed to produce ‘Vortigern’ at Drury Lane. Two hundred and fifty pounds were to be paid at once to Ireland, and half-profits were promised him on each performance after 350l. had been received by the management (cf. agreement in Addit. MS. 30348, ff. 22 sq.). When the piece was sent to the theatre in December Kemble's suspicions were aroused. Delays followed, and Ireland wrote many letters to both Sheridan and Kemble, complaining of their procrastination. At length the piece was cast; the chief actors of the company were allotted parts. Pye wrote a prologue, but it was too dubious in tone to satisfy Ireland, who rejected it in favour of one of Sir James Bland Burges [q. v.]; Robert Merry prepared an epilogue to be spoken by Mrs. Jordan; William Linley wrote music for the songs. When the play was put into rehearsal Mrs. Siddons and Mrs. Palmer resigned their characters, on the specious excuse of ill-health. On the eve of the performance (March 1796) Malone issued his caustic ‘Inquiry into the Authenticity’ of the papers, to which Ireland temporarily replied in a handbill, appealing to the public to give the play a fair hearing. On Saturday, 2 April 1796, the piece was produced. Kemble, who had been prevented by Ireland's complaints from fixing the previous night—April Fool's day—for the event, nevertheless added to the programme the farce entitled ‘My Grandmother,’ and Covent Garden announced for representation a play significantly entitled ‘The Lie of the Day.’ Drury Lane Theatre was crowded. At first all went well, but the audience was in a risible humour, and the baldness of the language soon began to provoke mirth. When, in act v. sc. 2, Kemble had to pronounce the line. And when this solemn mockery is o'er, deafening peals of laughter rang through the house and lasted until the piece was concluded (cf. Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. iii. 492). Barrymore's announcement of a second performance met with a roar of disapprobation. The younger Ireland afterwards commemorated the kindly encouragement which Mrs. Jordan offered him in the green-room, but for Kemble and most of the other actors he expressed the bitterest scorn. Kemble asserted that he did all he could to save the piece (Clubs of London, 1828, ii. 107). The receipts from the first and only performance amounted to 555l. 6s. 6d., of which 102l. 13s. 3d. was paid to the elder Ireland.

The flood of ridicule rose to its full height immediately after this exposure, and both the Irelands were overwhelmed. But the father's faith was not easily shaken. His son at once confessed to his sisters that he was the author of all the papers, but when the story was repeated by them to the elder Ireland he declined to credit it. A committee of believers met at the house in Norfolk Street in April to investigate the history of the papers. William Henry was twice examined, and repeated his story of ‘M. H.’ But finding the situation desperate, he fully admitted the imposture at the end of April to Albany Wallis, the attorney of Norfolk Street, and on 29 May he suddenly left his father's house without communicating his intention to any of the family. Before the end of the year he gave a history of the forgeries in an ‘Authentic Account of the Shakesperian MSS.,’ avowedly written ‘to remove the odium under which his father laboured.’ George Steevens made the unfounded statement that this work was published, by arrangement between father and son, with the sole view of ‘whitewashing the senior culprit’ (, Lit. Ill. vii. 8). This opinion gained ground, and the old man's distress of mind was pitiable. He still refused to believe his son, a lad