uaint the public that, as far as a
contract of this kind can be binding, I am engaged to Mr. Rich to have
it represented upon his theatre."

* * * * *

It cannot be denied that there was adequate ground for the Lord
Chamberlain's _veto_. In "The Beggar's Opera" Gay had beyond all
question lampooned Walpole, and in "Polly" he returned to the attack,
there being no doubt that in the opening scene, Ducat, the West Indian
planter, was intended for the Minister. The production might well have
led to disturbances if both political parties had been represented at
the first performance. Walpole was the least vindictive of men, as
witness his generous attitude towards Sunderland and the other ministers
involved in the scandal of the South Sea "Bubble," but he may well have
thought that Gay was going too far. Gay himself was harmless, but, as
Walpole knew, the author, either consciously or unconsciously, was
acting for the Opposition party; and Walpole, when he thought it worth
while, had a short and effective way with his political enemies.

The prohibition being largely an affair of party, or at least being so
regarded, a battle royal ensued. "Polly" could not be performed in
public, but, there being no censorship of books, it could be printed.
Gay's friends, therefore, decided that the Opera should be published by
subscription. To a man and a woman the Opposition rallied round the
author. The Duchess of Queensberry "touted" for him everywhere, even at
Court. The King at a Drawing-room asked what she was doing. "What must
be agreeable, I am sure," she replied, "to anyone so humane as your
Majesty, for it is an act of charity, and a charity to which I do not
despair of bringing your Majesty to contribute." This, of course, was a
gratuitous piece of impertinence--for the Lord Chamberlain acts as the
official mouthpiece of the Sovereign--and it could not be overlooked.
Another story is: The Duchess was so vehement in her attempt to have the
embargo removed from Gay's play, that she offered to read it to His
Majesty in his closet, that he might be satisfied there was no offence
in it. George II escaped from this dilemma by saying, he should be
delighted to receive her Grace in his closet, but he hoped to amuse her
better than by the literary employment she proposed.[7]

Whatever the true story, the day after the Duchess's interview with the
King (February 27th, 1729), William Stanhope, the Vice-Cha