sought every opportunity of cultivating his friendship, and Cumberland reaped the harvest of his panegyric in the production of his future dramas under the superintendance of Garrick.

But, if the epilogue gained one friend, the prologue made many enemies. It was written in a style of conscious superiority which excited very general displeasure; and it contained an attack upon contemporary dramatists which no one should make who consults his own peace, with whatever pretensions to pre-eminence he may think himself graced. After upbraiding them with gleaning from novels, pilfering from periodical publications, and purloining from French writers, he ventured to insinuate, in the following lines, that his play had none of these vices, but was composed of original and indigenous materials.

"Not so our bard, to night he bids me say,
You shall receive and judge an English play:
From no man's jest he draws felonious praise,
Nor from his neighbour's garden crops his bays:
From his own breast the filial story flows,
And the free scene no foreign master knows:
Nor only tenders he his work as new:

He hopes 'tis good, or would not give it you."

There was neither poetry nor prudence in these lines and when Cumberland, in his Memoirs, strove to vindicate them by an appeal to the lofty independence which characterised Johnson's prologue to his Irene, he should have remembered the mighty chasm which separated him from the

man whose authority he would produce as his own justification. I do not however think, that even the arrogance of Johnson is to be applauded: it was characteristic of the writer, but it was an example which does not deserve to be followed. In a situation where success confessedly does not always follow merit, and where the decision that is delivered can be revoked by no appeal, it is surely more prudent to conciliate than to dare our judges and as no man loves to be bullied even into justice, I suspect an author does not much advance his interest who proudly claims, as his right, what caprice may withhold or may give, and what he can obtain from no other dispensers of public honours than those whom he would intimidate into an acknowledgement of his merits. There is something in arrogance, however supported by ability, which is sure to offend: and though a haughty candidate for renown may snatch the laurel without deigning to solicit it, he will wear it with less complacent pride, and less good will from mankind, than the modest suitor whose hopes are proudly turned towards success, but whose humility teaches him to value it as a gift best bestowed, when bestowed with the concurrent assent of his contemporaries.

N

CHAP. VIII.

Cumberland the original of SHERIDAN'S SIR FRETFUL PLAGIARY.-MISS SEWARD'S opinion of Cumberland's MEMOIRS.-Censure of her LETTERS, recently published.—Instances of her vanity, affectation, and vitiated phraseology. -Mr. WALTER SCOTT's Portrait.-Mr. SouTHEY's Poem of MA DOC neglected by the present generation.-The Rev. Mr. FELLOWES' sagacity, aided by the sagacity of Mr. SCOTT.Cumberland writes the WEST INDIAN.-Account of some adventures which happened to him in Ireland.

CUMBERLAND repeatedly reminds his readers that he has written a greater number of plays than any other English author: the remark may be true: but a prolific pen must not be confounded with a vigorous one. It is from the quality of the product that we judge of the soil, not from the quantity. To produce much betokens fertility; but to produce well, is a proof of something better than fecundity.

In the 269th page of the first volume of his Memoirs, he enters into a laboured vindication of himself from all envy towards other authors, and from all unfair modes of exalting or upholding his own reputation. He refers, explicitly, to a report which had been circulated respecting his endeavours to decry the merits of The School for Scandal at its first appearance; and he affirms

that he offered his accuser positive proof of his being at Bath during the first run of that very superior comedy. The gentleman (a reviewer) was convinced, he says, of his innocence, but had no opportunity of testifying his conviction to the world: of course the accusation remains uncontradicted except in the avowal of Cumberland himself.

The anecdote, as I have heard it stated, was this. When Sheridan produced his School for Scandal, Cumberland, who sat in a conspicuous part of the theatre, preserved an inflexible rigidity of muscle as often as the audience were testifying their approbation by repeated bursts of laughter, and he frequently expressed his surprise that they should laugh at what had not the power even to make him smile. There are social traitors in every circle, and one such soon conveyed the sarcasm to Sheridan, who coolly and wittily replied that it was something ungracious in Cumberland not to laugh at his comedy, when he had lately laughed at one of his tragedies from the beginning to the end. This was no doubt soon re-echoed in the ears of Cumberland; and thus began that hostility which led to Sheridan's severe exposure of his opponent in Sir Fretful Plagiary*.

This anecdote I have retained, because it is commonly believed, and is related with all the confidence of truth. But it proceeds upon an erro neous supposition. Cumberland produced his first tragedy, (The Battle of Hastings) in 1778;-The School for Scandal was acted in 1776. If Cum.

This is one account. There is another which states the provocation to have been given by Cumberland in his farce of the Note of Hand, or a Trip to Newmarket, in which some satire is levelled against the late Charles Fox, the Duke of Devonshire, and others, who were the heads of that party under whose banners Sheridan had enlisted himself. To retaliate the satire, he projected and exhibited Sir Fretful. Which of these relations is true, or whether either of them has any right to be believed I cannot tell. The question can be satisfactorily answered only by one man.

It has been a very generally received opinion, however, that Sir Fretful Plagiary was intended for Cumberland: and so true was the resemblance, I have been told, that one of his sons being present at the representation immediately recognised his father. The late Miss Seward, indeed, draws an inference, even from his Memoirs, which I confess appears to me unwarranted by the general tenor of that work.

berland therefore did not laugh at Sheridan's comedy, it is most certain that Sheridan could not then have laughed at his tragedy. If we suppose, however, that Cumberland was not present at the representation of the School for Scandal, till some time after its first appearance, (which will agree with his own account), and that his solemnity was exhibited when he did see it (probably after the production of the Battle of Hastings), then Sheridan, without any violation of chronology, might have uttered the retort mentioned in the text, and have avenged himself by drawing the character of Sir Fretful the ensuing year (1779), when the Critic was first performed. Or, we may apply this inference to the supposition that the tacit censure of Cumberland was not conveyed to Sheridan till long after the period of its expression.