Samuel Parr. John Tweddell. Thomas Burgess. John Byng. James Brindley. Herbert Croft. Somerset. Isaac Heard, Garter King at Arms. F. Webb. R. Valpy. James Boswell. Lauderdale. Rev. J. Scott. Kinnaird. John Pinkerton. Henry James Pye. Rev. N. Thornbury. John Hewlett, Translator of Mat. Wyatt. John Frank Newton. It is observable that Dr. Warton's name does not appear in this list. Boswell, we may suppose, affixed his at a subsequent visit. Parr, in his notice of the volume containing the forged papers in his "Bibliotheca Parriana," calls it "a great and impudent forgery," and says that he is "almost ashamed to insert this worthless and infamously trickish book " in his catalogue; adding, "Ireland told a lie when he imputed to me the words which Joseph Warton used the very morning I called on Ireland, and was inclined to admit the possibility of genuineness in his papers. In my subsequent conversation I told him my change of opinion. But I thought it not worth while to dispute in print with a detected impostor." To what words does Parr allude? If he means those about the research affording gratification to the literary world, Ireland says that he is uncertain by which of the two they were uttered; and they are, by whomsoever uttered, of little importance. But if he means those about the superiority of the "Profession of Faith" to the Litany, he surely would not have maintained that it was Warton who spurted forth that Johnsonian phraseology. If the 1796.] PORSON AND PARR. 145 words were spoken at all, they must certainly have been spoken by Parr. But even if Parr would have affirmed that they were Warton's, he does not attempt. to deny that he himself proposed the form of certificate, and set his hand to it. Mr. E. H. Barker makes an effort to excuse Dr. Parr's hasty decision by the following peculiar argumentation. "The question was one," he says, "on which Porson was better qualified to give an opinion than Parr, for he was more accustomed to examine old manuscripts; and, though Parr was a great admirer of Shakspeare, yet Porson was much better acquainted with his acknowledged works: now, if Porson entertained any opinion in favour of the genuineness and authenticity of the papers, Parr may be excused for entertaining a stronger opinion in their favour." Yes, Mr. Barker, if Porson did entertain any opinion of their genuineness, a defender of Parr may build as much reasoning upon that opinion of Porson's as he can; but it will be difficult to show that Porson ever even inclined to such opinion. What young Ireland says, who was doubtless ready to swell the number of the deceived as much as possible, is, that Porson, after inspecting the manuscripts, appeared so perfectly well satisfied respecting them, that Mr. Ireland, his father, was emboldened to ask him whether he would be unwilling to write his name among the list of believers in their authenticity," when Porson very drily made the reply that we have already mentioned. Young Ireland does not say that Porson uttered a single word relating to the papers, but merely that he appeared satisfied respecting them, and the satisfaction which he felt was, 66 L it seems, that they were spurious. Mr. Barker's reasoning would seem also to intimate that Porson inspected the papers before Parr, and that Parr, supposing Porson's opinion of them to be favourable, did not hesitate to express an opinion of them still more favourable; but that Porson's inspection of them preceded Parr's is nowhere told or intimated. It was determined to bring "Vortigern and Rowena" on the stage. Sheridan, after much reluctance and hesitation, agreed that it should be acted at Drury Lane, and Kemble, who had never believed in the authenticity of the papers, consented to take the principal part. The terms were, that Sheridan should pay down 3007. for the manuscript, and that the profits of the performance for the first sixty nights should be equally divided between Mr. Samuel Ireland, as trustee for his son, and Sheridan. The transaction led to long conversations between Samuel Ireland and Sheridan, in which Ireland omitted no opportunity of extolling Shakspeare's transcendent genius; and Sheridan one day remarked that, however high Shakspeare might stand in general estimation, he had not, for his part, so lofty an opinion of him, though he allowed him "brilliancy of ideas and penetration of mind." Shortly before the agreement was signed, Sheridan and Richardson went to Mr. Ireland's to inspect the fair copy of the play which had been made from the manuscript in the disguised hand. Sheridan, after perusing some portion, came to a line which, as young Ireland expresses it, "was not strictly poetic;" when, turning to Ireland the father, he exclaimed, "This is rather strange; for, though you are acquainted with 1796.] IRELAND'S PLAY REPRESENTED. 147 my opinion as to Shakspeare, yet, be it as it may, he always wrote poetry." After reading a few pages further, he said, "There are certainly some bold ideas, but they are crude and undigested; one would be led to think that Shakspeare must have been very young when he wrote the play. As to doubting whether it be really his or not, who can possibly look at the papers, and not believe them ancient?" Another account says that Sheridan observed that Shakspeare must have been drunk when he wrote the play. On the first night of the representation, Malone circulated a handbill, stating that he had never believed in the authenticity of the play, and that he was engaged in writing a work which would prove the whole of it a forgery. Samuel Ireland circulated another handbill, declaring that he knew what Malone was doing, and requesting every one to suspend his judgment till the play should be brought on the stage. There was a vast conflux of persons to witness the exhibition. Sir James Bland Burgess wrote the prologue, in which he said, "The favour'd relics of your Shakspeare's hand And Mr. Merry had prepared an epilogue, which was to be spoken by Mrs. Jordan. The piece proceeded, with some slight interruptions, until Kemble, in delivering a passage about death, came to the line, "And when this solemn mockery is o'er," which he delivered with more than necessary slowness, and which seemed to be the signal for a general tumult of opposition among the unbelievers. Kemble waited till the noise had subsided, and then repeated the line in a similar manner, which was but a signal for a renewal of the tumult. Efforts were made to continue the representation, and the play was forced to its termination amid such storms of hisses and outcries as fairly overpowered all attempts at applause from the believers, Mrs. Jordan being hardly allowed to speak her epilogue. Kemble was thought, of course, to have desired the condemnation of the piece; and Sheridan expressed much dissatisfaction with Kemble's acting on the occasion, observing that, as a servant of the theatre, he ought to have done his best for its interests, whether he believed in the genuineness of the manuscripts or not. After the night's performance was at an end, Sheridan and Samuel Ireland divided between them 2067., and the father handed to the son thirty pounds out of the half. The son had also sixty pounds out of the three hundred, clearing in all ninety pounds by his inventions. Whether the father put the rest in his pocket, or whether it went to pay expenses that had been incurred, nobody has related. Barker, a bookseller of Russell Street, who after1 wards published the play, said that if Ireland the father had brought him the manuscript ten days before the representation, he would have given him a thousand guineas for it; but, after the failure, it had very little sale; it appeared too late. The volume in which Malone had threatened to prove the spuriousness of the papers made its appearance in |