« ZurückWeiter »
'Twere better they began
On the new invented plan,
And with telegraphs transmitted us the plot The new large houses soon found the necessity oi returning to that 'magnificence of spectacle of which my father speaks: they introduced white oxen, horses, elephants, both real and sham : and the song above quoted, ends thus :
“But the house here's so small
That we've no need to bawl,
So we hope you'll think fit
To hear the actors a bit
Let your Otways and Drydens go drown !
In such a case,
In 1807, after George Colman the Younger had worked hard at some dramatic compositions, he had resolved to pass one entire week in luxurious sloth, when, on the first morning of his sacrifice, in walked Jack Bannister with a huge manuscript under his left arm ! "This," he said, “consisted of loose materials for an entertainment with which he meant'to skir the country,' under the title of Bannister's Budget ; but unless Colman reduced the chaos into some order for him, and that instantly, he should lose his tide, and with it his emoluments for the season.” Colman could but drudge through the work for his old companion; and he concocted the crudities by polishing, expunging, adding, in short, almost re-writing them, so as to complete the toil at the week's end, and away went Jack Bannister into the country with his Budget.
Several months afterwards, he returned to town, called upon Colman, and told him so great had been his success, that, in consequence of the gain which had accrued to him through his (Colman's) means; and as he considered the Budget to be an annual income for years, he must insist upon cancelling a bond which Colman had given him for money lent. He accordingly wrote from Shrewsbury:
“For fear of accidents, I think it necessary to inform you that Fladgate, your attorney, is in possession of your bond to me for 7001. As I consider it fully discharged, it is proper you should have this acknowledgment under my hand.
"J. B." Colman says: “In the Budget I have so much altered some of the songs, that they might almost be called my
I do not arrogate to myself the merit of having improved them so much as Sir John Cutler mended his stockings, till he darned them into silk; and if I plead guilty of having had a hand in the texture, let the primary manufacturers remember, that I have left enough of their own stuff to convict them as partakers of the crime."
COLMAN AT CARLTON HOUSE. In the autumn of 1811, the Duke of York obtained leave (from the King's Bench) for Colman to dine at Carlton House. He accompanied the Duke thither; and on his walking through the apartments with him, Colman remarked, “ What excellent lodgings! I have nothing like them in the King's Bench!” After dinner, he exclaimed, “Eh! why this is wine; pray do tell me who that fine-looking fellow is at the head of the table.” The good-natured Duke said, “ Hush, George, you'll get into a scrape. “No, no,” said Colman, in a louder voice, “I am come out to enjoy myself ; I want to know who that fine, square-shouldered, magnificent-looking, agreeable fellow is at the head of the table.” “Be quiet, George,” interrupted the Duke, “ you know it is the Prince." “ Why, then," continued Colman, still louder, “he is your elder brother. I declare, he don't look half your age. Well! I remember the time when he sang a good song ; and as I am out for a lark for only one day, if he is the same good fellow that he used to be, he would not refuse an old play fellow."
The Prince laughed, and sang. magnificent voice !” exclaimed Colman. “I have heard nothing to be compared to it for years. Such expression, too! I'll be damned if I don't
engage him for my theatre.” It would appear that this freak gave no offence to the Royal host; for Colman was ever treated with kindness by George the Fourth. Mr. Peake, who relates the above anecdote in his Memoirs of the Colman Family, informs us, in a note, that it was communicated to him by an accomplished nobleman who was an eye-witness of the scene.
" What a
COLMAN AND CAPTAIN MORRIS, ETC. Moore, in his Diary, has these notes on Colman.
“ Linley describes Colman at the Beefsteak Club quite drunk, making extraordinary noise while Captain Morris was singing, which disconcerted the latter (who, strange to say, is a very grave, steady person) considerably.” It was this gravity that Morris preserved amidst his rackety companions, which enabled “the Old Bard ” to reach the patriarchal age of 93.*
“Oct. 9, 1818: In the evening read Colman's little Comedy of Ways and Means. Some comical things in it: Curse Cupid, he has not a halfpenny to buy him breeches.' 'Always threatening to break my neck: one would think we servants had a neck to spare, like the Swan (with Two Necks) in Lad-lane.'"
THEATRICAL COSTUME. Costume was an economical arrangement in theatres of old. When Colman the Younger produced the Poor Gentleman at Covent-garden, in 1801, Mrs. Mattocks acted the part of Lucretia MacTab in the same dress which she had worn many years previously, as Lucinda, in Love in a Village, with no further alteration of it than her having grown
fatter or thinner might require. The gown was what is called a sack, with a petticoat over a large hoop. The unlearned in theatricals should be told that Lucinda is a very young spinster, and Lucretia a very old-fashioned old-maid.
* Captain Morris passed his green old age at Brockham Lodge, near Dorking, which had been lent to him by the Duke of Norfolk. The Bard is interred at Betchworth, in which parish the hamlet of Brockham is situate : his grave is near the east end of the church, in the burialground; it is simply marked by a head and foot stone, the former being thus inscribed :
Sacred to the memory of Charles Morris, Esq., of London, and Brockham Lodge, in this Parish ; who died on the 11th day of July, 1838, aged 93 years.
He must have outlived all his boon companions, so that not one of those who would have emptied a flagon upon his head, was left to place a memorial upon his grave !
SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE AT SHEEN AND MOOR
PARK.-(Pages 6–7.) SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE appears to have retired to Sheen in 1671, and there devoted himself to gardening, the improvement of his house, and to literary pursuits. He was, however, again summoned to public life in 1674: he was then appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the Hague ; he returned to England at the peace of Nimeguen in 1679, and again retired to Sheen, which he finally quitted in 1786 for Moor Park, which estate he had just purchased. It is often stated, but erroneously, that William III. visited Temple at Sheen,* which he had quitted two years before the King's arrival in England; and in which year (1688) Swift was first introduced to Temple. Sheen has long been noted for raising asparagus; and Swift's giddiness is said to have been occasioned by a surfeit of Sheen pippins ; but the Royal visits must have been paid at Moor Park, and Swift's attendance upon the King, and the lesson in eating, not cutting (as most versions of the anecdote state) asparagus (see page 7), belong to the time of Temple's residence at Moor Park, and not at Sheen.
THE VANHOMRIGHS.—(Page 41.) A Correspondent of the Atheneum, No. 1601, July 3, 1858, has jotted down these notes about the Vanhomrighs :
According to Walter Scott and others, Bartholomew Vanhomrigh was a Dutchman, who came into Ireland with King William, and therefore in 1690. But a Vanhomery, or Vanhomrigh, was an alderman of
* In the Ambulator, 12th edit. 1820, p. 284, this mistake occurs ; and Dr. Evans, in Richmond and its' Vicinity, 1825, in describing Temple Grove, erroneously states that King William often visited Temple here, and here saw Swift.
Dublin before 1690; and Vanhomrigh, the father of Vanessa, appointed a Commissioner of the Irish Revenue in 1692, and in 1697 Mayor of Dublin, was, I think, the same person.
" In the List of Claims on the forfeited estates, entered at Chichester House, Dublin, 1701,” is the following :—"No. 2018, Barthol. Van Homrigh, Esq. (assignment of Bond and Judgement for 4001.), Bond dated 15 May, 1688, to Francis Chantril, and Judgement, 4th James 2nd, and assigned to Claimant, 14 Aug., 1693.” This bond was secured on the estate of “Christopher, late Lord Slane." The claim was disallowed. We also learn from Monck Mason's History of St. Patrick's that not many months before his decease, Bartholomew Vanhomrigh bought about 240 acres in the county of Kildare, part of the forfeited estate of the Earl of Tyrconnel, and 1132 acres in the county of Cork, which had been the property of the Earl of Clancarthy. In 1711 an act was applied for to vest “the estate, late of Bartholomew Vanhomrigh, Esq., deceased, lying and being in the kingdom of Ireland, in Trustees to be sold.” It appears from the List given with the “Statutes at Large” that this act did pass; and no doubt Swift referred to the consequences, when he informed Mrs. Johnson [Stella] on the 11th of August, 1711, "the eldest daughter (Hester] is come of age, and going to Ireland to look after the fortune, and get it in her own hands.” Scott, who unfortunately took the absurd marrying story, and the rival story on trust, calls this intimation “ominous.” Very ominous, certainly, seeing that Swift remained in London, and continued to reside there until June, 1713,very ominous, considering that the act itself, as will appear, declares that Miss Vanhomrigh, at that very time, 1711, was "in prospect of marriage.” We get a little insight into the family history from this Act. It sets forth the Will, or part of the Will of the father, Bartholomew Vanhomrigh, from which we learn that it was dated the 2nd of June, 1701, and that he “soon after died.” That he bequeathed to Hester his wife, a share of his property equal to the share of each of his children, and directs that the value of this, her share, be invested, and the interest paid to her during her life, with leave, by her will, to dispose of 5001. To his daughter Hester he bequeaths 2501. sterling, to be paid on the day of her marriage, or age of twenty-one, which should first happen ; and if she marry, then one equal part or share of said estate, the 2501. to be reckoned as part, and deducting what should have been expended in maintenance and education of said Hester. To his daughter Mary, same as to Hester. To his son Ginkell (except as to the 2501.) one equal share, &c., on attaining twenty-one, and to his son Bartholomew the same, with the same exceptions. The executors were his wife, John Pierson of Dublin, brewer, and Mr. Peter Partington of Dublin, gent. The Bill further states that Bartholomew Vanhomrigh died, leaving issue Ginkell (since deceased), under twenty-one and unmarried, Bartholomew, Hester, and Mary. That Hester bad attained the age of twenty-one, “and is in prospect of marriage.” That Bartholomew is but of the age of nineteen, and Mary but of fifteen. Therefore the property cannot be sold without an Act of Parliament. That the property is dispersed in several counties in Ireland, and all parties concerned residing, or intending to reside, in Great Britain, are desirous that the same should be sold, and the produce brought into this kingdom, and that the survivors shall “divide the money raised” by such sale