1816. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the poet, dramatist, orator, and
statesman, died. He was the third son of Mr. Thomas Sheridan, celebrated
as an actor, eminent as a lecturer on elocution, and entitled to the
gratitude of the public for his judicious and indefatigable exertions to
improve the system of education in this country. His father, the rev.
Dr. Thomas Sheridan, was a distinguished divine, the ablest
school-master of his time, and the intimate friend of the dean of St.
Patrick. Mr. Thomas Sheridan died at Margate, on the 14th of August,
1788. Mrs. Frances Sheridan, the mother of Richard Brinsley, was the
author of “Sidney Biddulph,” a novel, which has the merit of combining
the purest morality with the most powerful interest. She also wrote
“Nourjahad,” an oriental tale, and the comedies of the “Discovery,” the
“Dupe,” and “A Trip to Bath.” She died at Blois, in France, the 17th of
September, 1766.
Richard Brinsley Sheridan was born in Dorset-street, Dublin, in the
month of October, 1751. He was placed, in his seventh year, under the
tuition of Mr. Samuel Whyte, of Dublin, the friend of their father. He
was placed at Harrow school, after the christmas of 1762. His literary
advancement at this seminary appears to have been at first retarded; and
it was reserved for the late Dr. Parr, who was at that time one of the
sub-preceptors, to discover and call into activity the faculties of
young Sheridan’s mind. His memory was found to be uncommonly retentive,
and his judgment correct; so that when his mind was quickened by
competition, his genius gradually expanded. But to be admired seemed his
only object, and when that end was attained, he relaxed in his
application, and sunk into his former indolence. His last year at Harrow
was spent more in reflecting on the acquirements he had made, and the
eventful scenes of a busy life, which were opening to his view, than in
enlarging the circle of his classical and literary attainments. His
father deemed it unnecessary to send him to the university; and he was,
a short time after his departure from Harrow, entered as a student of
the Middle Temple.
Mr. Sheridan, when about twenty, was peculiarly fond of the society of
men of taste and learning, and soon gave proofs that he was inferior to
none of his companions in wit and argument. At this age he had recourse
to his literary talents for pecuniary supplies, and directed his
attention to the drama; but disgusted with some sketches of comic
character which he drew, he actually destroyed them, and in a moment of
despair renounced every hope of excellence as a dramatic writer. His
views with respect to the cultivation and exertion of his genius in
literary pursuits, or to the study of the profession to which he had
been destined by his father, were all lost in a passion that mastered
his reason. He at once saw and loved Miss Linley, a lady no less
admirable for the elegant accomplishments of her sex and the affecting
simplicity of her conversation, than for the charms of her person and
the fascinating powers of her voice. She was the principal performer in
the oratorios at Drury-lane theatre. The strains which she poured forth
were the happiest combinations of nature and art; but nature
predominated over art. Her accents were so melodious and captivating,
and their passage to the heart so sudden and irresistable, that
“list’ning Envy would have dropped her snakes, and stern-ey’d Fury’s
self have melted” at the sounds.
Her father, Mr. Linley, the late ingenious composer, was not at first
propitious to Mr. Sheridan’s passion, and he had many rivals to overcome
in his attempts to gain the lady’s affections. His perseverance,
however, increased with the difficulties that presented themselves, and
his courage and resolution were displayed in vindicating Miss Linley’s
reputation from a calumnious report, which had been basely thrown out
against it.
Mr. Mathews, a gentleman then well known in the fashionable circles at
Bath, had caused a paragraph to be inserted in a public paper at that
place, and had set out for London. He was closely pursued by Mr.
Sheridan. They met and fought a duel with swords at a tavern in
Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, the house at the north-west corner,
opposite Bedford-court. Mr. Sheridan’s second on the occasion was his
brother, Charles Francis, a late secretary at war in Ireland. Great
courage and skill were displayed on both sides; but Mr. Sheridan having
succeeded in disarming his adversary, compelled him to sign a formal
retraction of the paragraph which had been published. The conqueror
instantly returned to Bath; and thinking that, as the insult had been
publicly given, the apology should have equal notoriety, he caused it to
be published in the same paper. Mr. Mathews soon heard of this
circumstance, and, irritated at his defeat, as well as the use which his
antagonist had made of his apology, repaired to Bath, and called upon
Mr. Sheridan for satisfaction. The parties met on Kingsdown. The victory
was desperately contested, and, after a discharge of pistols, they
fought with swords. They were both wounded, and closing with each other
fell on the ground, where the fight was continued until they were
separated. They received several cuts and contusions in this arduous
struggle for life and honour, and a part of his opponent’s weapon was
left in Mr. Sheridan’s ear. Miss Linley rewarded Mr. Sheridan for the
dangers he had braved in her defence, by accompanying him on a
matrimonial excursion to the continent. The ceremony was again performed
on their return to England, with the consent of her parents; from the
period of her marriage, Mrs. Sheridan never appeared as a public
performer.
Mr. Sheridan, when encumbered with the cares of a family, felt the
necessity of immediate exertion to provide for the pressing calls
inseparable from a domestic establishment, which, if not splendid, was
marked with all the appearance of genteel life.
On finishing his play of the “Rivals,” he presented it to the manager of
Covent-garden theatre, and it was represented on the 17th of January,
1775. In consequence of some slight disapprobation, it was laid aside
for a time, after the first night’s performance. Mr. Sheridan having
made some judicious alterations, both in the progress of the plot and in
the language, it was shortly after brought forward again, and received
in the most favourable manner. His next production was the farce of “St.
Patrick’s Day, or The Scheming Lieutenant.” This was followed by the
comic opera of the “Duenna,” a composition in every respect superior to
the general class of English operas then in fashion. It surpassed even
the “Beggar’s Opera” in attraction and popularity, and was performed
seventy-five nights during the season, while Gay’s singular production
ran only sixty-five.
Mr. Garrick having resolved to retire from the management of Drury-lane
theatre, his share of the patent was sold to Mr. Sheridan, who, in
1776, paid 30,000_l._ for it. He immediately brought out the “Trip to
Scarborough,” altered from Vanburgh’s comedy of the “Relapse.” It was
performed on the 24th of February, 1777. His next production was the
comedy of the “School for Scandal,” which raised his fame to undisputed
preeminence over contemporary dramatic writers, and conferred, in the
opinion of foreign _literati_, a lustre on the British comedy which it
did not previously possess. It was first performed on the 8th of May,
1777.
Early in the following season, he produced the musical piece of “The
Camp.” His “Critic,” written upon the model of the duke of Buckingham’s
“Rehearsal,” came out on the 30th of October, 1787.
On the death of Mr. Garrick, in 1779, Mr. Sheridan wrote the monody to
the memory of Mr. Garrick, recited at Drury-lane theatre by Mrs. Yates.
Notwithstanding the profits which he derived from his pieces, and the
share he had in the theatre, which was very considerable, as he had
obtained Mr. Lacy’s interest in the patent, a property equally valuable
with that of Mr. Garrick, and of course worth, on the lowest
calculation, 30,000_l._, his pecuniary embarrassments had considerably
increased. His domestic establishment was not only very expensive, but
conducted without any kind of economy. The persuasions of Mr. Fox, whose
friendship he had carefully cultivated, operated, with a firm conviction
of his own abilities, in determining him to obtain a seat in the house
of commons, and a general election taking place in 1780, Mr. Sheridan
was returned for Stafford; and though he contented himself at the
commencement of the session with giving a silent vote against the
minister, he was indefatigable without doors in seconding the views of
the whigs under Mr. Fox, against the measures of the ministry. He had a
considerable share in the “Englishman,” a paper opposed to the
administration of lord North; and when the Rockingham party came into
power, in 1782, his exertions were rewarded with the appointment of
under secretary to Mr. Fox, then secretary of state for the foreign
department.
The death of the marquis of Rockingham, and the unexpected elevation of
the earl of Shelburne to the important office of first lord of the
treasury, completely defeated the views of himself and friends and the
ever-memorable coalition having been formed between Mr. Fox and lord
North, Mr. Sheridan was once more called upon to commence literary
hostilities against the new administration. The periodical work of the
“Jesuit” soon appeared, and several very distinguished members of the
party contributed to that production.
At length the coalition having gained a decisive victory over the new
administration, formed by the Shelburne party, Mr. Sheridan was once
more brought into place, in April, 1783, as secretary of the treasury.
Under Mr. Pitt, an entire change took place in men and measures, and on
the trial of an _ex officio_ information against the “Jesuit,” Mr.
Wilkie, who had the courage to conceal the names of the gentlemen by
whom he had been employed, was sentenced to an imprisonment of twelve
months.
Mr. Sheridan’s speech in defence of Mr. Fox’s celebrated East-India Bill
was so masterly, as to induce the public opinion to select him from the
second class of parliamentary speakers. He was viewed as a formidable
opponent by Mr. Pitt, and looked up to with admiration, as a principal
leader of the opposition.
He was rapidly approaching to perfection as an orator, when the
impeachment of Mr. Hastings supplied him with an opportunity of
displaying powers which were then unrivalled. He was one of the managers
of the prosecution, and his speech delivered in the house of commons, in
April, 1787, on the eighth article as stated in the order laid down by
Mr. Burke, relative to “money corruptly and illegally taken,” was
allowed to equal the most argumentative and impassioned orations that
had ever been addressed to the judgment and feelings of the British
parliament. He fixed the uninterrupted attention of the house for
upwards of five hours, confirmed the minds of those who wavered, and
produced co-operation from a quarter which it was supposed would have
been hostile to any further proceeding. In the long examination of Mr.
Middleton, he gave decided proofs of a strong and discriminating mind;
but when, in June, 1788, he summed up the evidence on the charge,
respecting the confinement and imprisonment of the princesses of Oude,
and the seizure of their treasures, his superiority over his colleagues
was established by universal consent. To form a just opinion of this
memorable oration, which occupied the attention of the court and excited
the admiration of the public for several hours, it would be necessary to
have heard Mr. Sheridan himself. It is difficult to select any part of
it as the subject of peculiar encomium. The address with which he
arranged his materials; the art and force with which he anticipated
objections; the unexampled ingenuity with which he commented on the
evidence, and the natural boldness of his imagery, are equally entitled
to panegyric. He combined the three kinds of eloquence. He was clear and
unadorned--diffuse and pathetic--animated and vehement. There was
nothing superfluous--no affected turn--no glittering point--no false
sublimity. Compassion and indignation were alternately excited, and the
wonderful effects related of the eloquence of Greece and Rome were
almost revived.
During the indisposition of his late majesty, Mr. Sheridan took a
leading part in the attempts which were made to declare the prince of
Wales regent, without such restrictions as parliament should think fit
to impose. He contended, that the immediate nomination of the
heir-apparent ought to take place, as a matter of constitutional right.
He was ever the zealous supporter of parliamentary reform, and the
uniform friend of the liberty of the press and of religious toleration;
but he rose superior to the selfish drudgery of a mere partizan, and his
conduct, during the crisis of the naval mutiny, received the thanks of
the minister.
Mrs. Sheridan died in June, 1792, and he had a son by that lady, Mr.
Thomas Sheridan, who inherited much of his father’s talents, but fell a
victim to indulgence. In 1795, Mr. Sheridan married his second wife,
Miss Ogle, youngest daughter of the rev. Dr. Newton Ogle, dean of
Winchester. The issue of this second marriage was also a son.
His conduct as manager and principal proprietor of the first theatre in
the kingdom, and his punctuality in the discharge of the duties
contracted by him in that situation, have rarely been the subject of
praise; but in the legal discussion of the claims of the proprietors of
Drury-lane theatre, in the court of chancery, so far from any imputation
being thrown out against his conduct, it was generally commended; and
the chancellor himself (lord Eldon) spoke in the handsomest terms of Mr.
Sheridan’s _integrity_, though certainly he thought his _prudence_ was,
in some instances, liable to be questioned.
On the formation of the Fox and Grenville administration, after the
death of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Sheridan was appointed treasurer of the navy, and
returned member for Westminster, after a strong opposition on the part
of Mr. Paul. But in the latter years of his life he had not sat in
parliament; where, during the period after his last return, he attended
irregularly, and spoke seldom. One of the wittiest of his closing
efforts in the house, was a speech, in answer to Mr. Yorke, respecting a
discussion on the “Nightly Watch,” which had arisen out of the murder of
the families of Marr and Williamson, at Wapping.
Mr. Sheridan was one of that circle denominated the prince’s friends. So
long as his mind remained unaffected by the pressure of personal
distress and embarrassment, and whilst he could contribute to the
hilarity of the table by his wit, as he had formerly contributed to
forward the interests of the prince by his earnest and unremitted
endeavours, he appears to have been a welcome visitor at
Carlton-house--but this was all. Nor the brilliancy of genius, nor the
master of talent, nor time, nor intellect employed and exhausted in the
service of the prince, obtained for this great man the means of a
peaceful existence, on his cession from public life. In June, 1816, his
constitution was completely broken up, and his speedy dissolution seemed
inevitable.
He died at noon, on Sunday, the 7th of July, 1816. For several weeks
prior to his death he lay under arrest, and it was only by the firmness
and humanity of the two eminent physicians who attended him, Dr. Baillie
and Dr. Bain, that an obdurate attorney was prevented from executing a
threat to remove him from his house to a death-bed in gaol. He enjoyed,
however, to the last moment, the sweetest consolation that the heart can
feel in the affectionate tenderness, sympathy, and attention of his
amiable wife and son. Mrs. Sheridan, though herself labouring under
severe illness watched over him with the most anxious solicitude through
the whole of that protracted suffering, which has parted them for ever.
To these particulars of this extraordinary individual, which are
extracted from a memoir of him that appeared in _The Times_ newspaper,
must be added a passage or two from a celebrated “Estimate of his
Character and Talents” in the same journal.
“Mr. Sheridan in his happiest days never effected any thing by steady
application. He was capable of intense, but not of regular study. When
public duty or private difficulty urged him, he endured the burden as if
asleep under its pressure. At length, when the pain could be no longer
borne, he roused himself with one mighty effort, and burst like a lion
through the toils. There are reasons for believing that his
constitutional indolence began its operation upon his habits at an early
age. His very first dramatic scenes were written by snatches, with
considerable intervals between them. Convivial pleasures had lively
charms for one whose wit was the soul of the table; and the sparkling
glass--the medium of social intercourse--had no small share of his
affection. These were joys to be indulged without effort: as such they
were too well calculated to absorb the time of Mr. Sheridan, and sooner
or later to make large encroachments on his character. His attendance in
parliament became every year more languid--the _vis inertiæ_ more
incurable--the plunges by which his genius had now and then extricated
him in former times less frequent and more feeble. We never witnessed a
contrast much more melancholy than between the brilliant and commanding
talent displayed by Mr. Sheridan throughout the first regency
discussions, and the low scale of nerve, activity, and capacity, to
which he seemed reduced when that subject was more recently agitated in
parliament. But indolence and intemperance must banish reflection, if
not corrected by it; since no man could support the torture of perpetual
self-reproach. Aggravated, we fear, by some such causes, the naturally
careless temper of Mr. Sheridan became ruinous to all his better hopes
and prospects. Without a direct appetite for spending money, he thought
not of checking its expenditure. The economy of time was as much
disregarded as that of money. All the arrangements, punctualities, and
minor obligations of life were forgotten, and the household of Mr.
Sheridan was always in a state of nature. His domestic feelings were
originally kind, and his manners gentle: but the same bad habits
seduced him from the house of commons, and from home; and equally
injured him as an agent of the public good, and as a dispenser of
private happiness. It is painful, it is mortifying, but it is our sacred
duty, to pursue this history to the end. Pecuniary embarrassments often
lead men to shifts and expedients--these exhausted, to others of a less
doubtful colour. Blunted sensibility--renewed excesses--loss of cast in
society--follow each other in melancholy succession, until solitude and
darkness close the scene.
“It has been made a reproach by some persons, in lamenting Mr.
Sheridan’s cruel destiny, that ‘his friends’ had not done more for him.
We freely and conscientiously declare it as our opinion, that had Mr.
Sheridan enjoyed ten receiverships of Cornwall instead of one, he would
not have died in affluence. He never would have attained to comfort or
independence in his fortune. A vain man may become rich, because his
vanity may thirst for only a single mode of gratification; an ambitious
man, a _bon vivant_, a sportsman, may severally control their expenses;
but a man who is inveterately thoughtless of consequences, and callous
to reproof--who knows not when he squanders money, because he feels not
those obligations which constitute or direct its uses--such a man it is
impossible to rescue from destruction. We go further--we profess not to
conjecture to what individuals the above reproach of forgotten
friendships has been applied. If against persons of illustrious rank,
there never was a more unfounded accusation. Mr. Sheridan, throughout
his whole life, stood as high as he ought to have done in the quarters
alluded to. He received the most substantial proofs of kind and anxious
attachment from these personages; and it is to his credit that he was
not insensible to their regard. If the mistaken advocates of Mr.
Sheridan were so much his enemies as to wish he had been raised to some
elevated office, are they not aware that even one month’s active
attendance out of twelve he was at times utterly incapable of giving?
But what friends are blamed for neglecting Mr. Sheridan? What
_friendships_ did he ever form? We more than doubt whether he could
fairly claim the rights of friendship with any leader of the whig
administration. We know that he has publicly asserted Mr. Fox to be his
friend, and that he has dwelt with much eloquence on the sweets and
enjoyments of that connection; but it has never been our fortune to find
out that Mr. Fox had, on any public or private occasion, bound himself
by reciprocal pledges. Evidence against the admission of such ties on
his part may be drawn from the well-known anecdotes of what occurred
within a few days of that statesman’s death. The fact is, that a life of
conviviality and intemperance seldom favours the cultivation of those
better tastes and affections which are necessary to the existence of
intimate friendship. That Mr. Sheridan had as many admirers as
acquaintances, there is no room to doubt; but they admired only his
astonishing powers; there never was a second opinion or feeling as to
the unfortunate use which he made of them.
“Never were such gifts as those which Providence showered upon Mr.
Sheridan so abused--never were talents so miserably perverted. The term
‘greatness’ has been most ridiculously, and, in a moral sense, most
perniciously applied to the character of one who, to speak charitably of
him, was the weakest of men. Had he employed his matchless endowments
with but ordinary judgment, nothing in England, hardly any thing in
Europe, could have eclipsed his name, or obstructed his progress.”
May they who read, and he who writes, reflect, and profit by reflection,
on
The talents lost--the moments run
To waste--the sins of act, of thought,
Ten thousand deeds of folly done,
And countless virtues cherish’d not.
_Bowring._
* * * * *