CHARACTE R S. 



287 



With the little poetical fi-cight 

 which Jones brought with him from 

 Ireland, he likewise bipught the 

 Eketcli of a tragedy, entitled " The 

 Earl of Essex." Having now leisure 

 to correct it, and money sufficient 

 to keep him from the drudgery- of 

 other pursuits, he sat down to this 

 tragedy, and finished it about the 

 latter end of the season of 1752. It 

 was highly approved of by lord 

 Chesterfield, and warmly recom- 

 mended by him to Colley Gibber, 

 who not only introduced him to tlie 

 manager of Covent-Garden theatre, 

 but continued his regards tor him 

 through life by a thousand acts of 

 friendship and humanity, and even 

 made strong efforts by his interest at 

 court, to have secured to liim the 

 succession of the laurel after his 

 death. 



It v.as rather remarkable, that on 

 the very day that Jones sent the 

 manuscript tragedy of " The Earl 

 of Essex" tothe manager of Covent- 

 Garden theatre, the late Dr. P. 

 Francis sent his tragedy of " Con- 

 Stantine." This rather embarrassed 

 the manager which he should bring 

 out first. Jones's friends (and they 

 were powerful in point of rank and 

 numbers) pleaded the originality of 

 his genius, and the pressure of his 

 circumstances ; but Francis disre- 

 garded these particulars, and insist- 

 ed upon the justice of an equal 

 claim. The manager felt this, and 

 after ruminatin<j for some time to do 

 justice to both, proposed tossing up 

 for the priority. The parties agreed, 

 and whilst the shilling was spinning 

 in the air, Jones, with the coarse- 

 ness of his original education, cried 

 out, "Woman" by the grossest name 

 he could make ur.e of. He v/as suc- 

 cessful, and the doctor turned away 

 in disgust, pretending to be more 



hurt at the indelicacy ofhis rival than 

 at the failure of his own success. 



Francis's " Constantine" came 

 out the next year, and afforded a 

 striking contrast between art and 

 nature' The Scholar's tragedyncar- 

 ly failed, whilst the BricHayer's met 

 v.'ith universal applause. It was 

 brought out in the best part of the 

 season, January, and was played 

 fifteen nights to very great houses, 

 and his benefits were supposed ta 

 bring him in no less than five hun- 

 dred pounds — asum, considering the 

 state of the theatre and audience in 

 those days, which was almost un- 

 precedented. 



The merits of this tragedy were 

 much cried up at that time ; the 

 public had been long taught to ex-, 

 pect it: and as the author had al-' 

 ready published a book of Poems, 

 wherein some of the first names in 

 both kingdoms appeared as subscri- 

 bers, and as he was likewise well- 

 known to be protected and encou- 

 raged by so great a judge and pa- 

 tron of the muses as lord Chester- 

 iield, expectation ran high. This 

 expectation was farther confirmed 

 by overflowing audiences, as John 

 Bull found something so congenial in 

 ■the grotiiid-Jloor pretensions of. a 

 humble bricklayer, that he very 

 freely gave him his praise and pro- 

 tection. 



Banks had written upon this sub- 

 ject before, and Brookes followed 

 in 1761 • The former seems to have 

 morey;n//twthan Jones, andBrookes's, 

 upon the whole, appears to be writ- 

 ten with more po>vers of poetry. 

 But Jones, by catching at the popu- 

 lar character of the Earl of Essex, 

 and introducing those incidents 

 which led to the fall of that unhap- 

 py nobleman, renders it m.ore an 

 Evglish story, and being thus rcn- 



I dered 



