iliiiin 
 
 014 310 179 4 
 
A R E J-QXN D E Tl~~N _ 
 
 TO 
 
 THE REPLIES FROM ENGLAND, ETC. 
 
 TO CERTAIN STATEMENTS CIRCULATED IN THIS COUNTRY RESPECTINO 
 
 "MR. MACREADY." 
 
 TOGETHER WITH AN 
 
 IMPARTIAL HISTORY AND REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 
 LAMENTABLE OCCURRENCES 
 
 ASTOR PLACE OPERA 
 
 HOUSE, 
 
 On the 10 th of Mat, 1849. 
 
 
 BY 
 
 AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY STRINGER & ' 
 
 ro WNSEND 
 
 1849. 
 

 .^,lV\ ' Ji5N>i!!>.NV 
 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849, 
 
 BY STRINGER & TOWNSEND, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York , 
 
 PRINTED BY J. W. BELL, 
 No. 178 Fulton Street. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 The unnecessary sacrifice of human life at the Astor 
 Place Opera House, on the night of the 10th of May, 1849, 
 has prompted the writer to investigate and calmly con- 
 sider the causes, (real and supposed,) which led the City 
 Authorities into the commission of a great crime to at- 
 tain a little end. After an impartial and thorough ex- 
 amination of all the evidence within his reach — all, indeed, 
 that the public have had to form an opinion upon — he has 
 come to the conclusion that the charge, so frequently made, 
 and apparently so universally believed, that Mr. Forrest is 
 the first and original cause of the quarrel between himself and 
 Mr. Macready, and, consequently, remotely, at least, respon- 
 sible for the serious and dreadful calamity that followed it, is 
 utterly without foundation in fact or in truth. The conduct 
 of the City Authorities is a matter which the author had no 
 desire to discuss in connexion with the subject of these pages ; 
 but it is so necessary to a complete history of the whole 
 affair, that he had no alternative but to give all its incidents 
 and consequences a thorough examination. His own opinion 
 is, that by their imprudence, imbecility, and want of courage, 
 and innate contempt for those whom they are pleased to call 
 the •' lower classes," they have disgraced the city that hon- 
 ored them, and written at least one page of its history with 
 the blood of innocence. The chief object of the author is, 
 
to dissipate from the public mind the many grievous errors 
 of opinion now entertained in regard to the real causes of the 
 difficulty between Mr. Fobrest and Mr. Macee.\dy — errors 
 which have been industriously circulated by individuals and 
 presses, notoriously the long and bitter enemies of INIr. 
 FoEKEST. He has been tried and convicted on ex-parte tes- 
 timonv, his accusers, judges, and executioners carefully con- 
 cealing every particle of evidence that would tend to justify 
 or exculpate him. American generosity and magnanimity 
 have been, in too many instances, lavished upon unworthy 
 strangers, even to the shedding of innocent blood, while one 
 of our noblest sons has been denied simple justice. But the 
 author is satisfied that when the merits of this unfortunate 
 affair are understood, those who have hastily condemned will 
 approve the course of Mr. Foekest, and all who have wil- 
 fully misrepresented it, will be precluded from further poi- 
 soning and perverting public sentiment. 
 
 With these views alone this pamplet is submitted to the 
 public, and a carefiil and candid perusal is all that is re- 
 quested by 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 New \oek, June. 1S49. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 
 
 FOUUEST AND lACREADY. 
 
 On the 8th. day of May, 1849, a pamphlet, entitled " The Replies 
 from England, etc., to certain statements circulated in this country 
 respecting Mr. Macready," was published in this city, ostensibly hav- 
 ing for its object the vindication of Mr. Macready, but so written and 
 of such a character, as to prejudice Mr. Forrest in the minds of hia 
 countrymen. The awful and unparalleled tragedy of the night of the 
 10th of May, has given to that production an importance it could not 
 otherwise command, and makes each and every one of the statements 
 it contains worthy of calm consideration, so that, in the end, ample jus- 
 tice may be meted out to the guilty, and full atonement made to the 
 innocent. 
 
 A rule that should govern all criticisms, and one invariably observed 
 and practised by the fair and honest critic, is, to state fully and clearly 
 all the essential facts and points of the argument criticized — a rule, it 
 is much to be regretted, entirely overlooked by the very learned gen- 
 tlemen who concocted the " Replies" of Mr. Macready, from motives of 
 policy, no doubt, for they cannot be charged with ignorance on a point 
 so clear. I have not followed their example, because a bad precedent 
 is never worthy of imitation, but mainly because it is material to the 
 attainment of my object — a just and honest public opinion — that the 
 whole case on both sides should be set forth; and, therefore, the " Re- 
 plies" of Mr. Macready are republished without any alteration or omis- 
 sion. 
 
 It has recently become a common remark, that quarrels among 
 actors, however distinguished they may be, should be considered be- 
 neath the notice of the public. A sufficient answer to that newly- 
 formed opinion is, that the custom of all ages, including the present, 
 since the stage has been patronized, is directly opposed to it, and in 
 favor of those who now assert their right to approve or condemn any 
 
6 
 
 public man, actor, or statesman, who presents himself as a candidate 
 for praise or censure. But there is another and a better ground of jus- 
 tification for those who have participated in the feud between Mr. 
 Forrest and Mr. Macready. Actors, like all public men, are depend- 
 ent on the public for support — but, unlike others, they seek support 
 and fame in foreign lands, and in proportion to their success abroad 
 are they advanced in the esteem and favor of their own countrymen. 
 That they have a right to look for honor and reward in any part of the 
 world, is a proposition too plain to admit of any dispute. It is equally 
 plain that, if an American actor goes to England or any other country, 
 and is there put down., merely because he is an American, the insult 
 becomes in an eminent degree national, and, no matter what may be 
 the desires or opinions of the few who affect to be the leaders of society, 
 the great mass will remember and resent the insult whenever a favor- 
 able opportunity occurs, and more especially will they do it, if the in- 
 stigator thereof be an actor himself, who asks for their money and 
 applause. In a country where actors are made " vagabonds," by act 
 of parliament, the aristocracy of birth, wealth, or talent, may have some 
 excuse for treating them contemptuously : but in this country, where 
 no aristocracy has a legitimate existence, and where intellect and moral 
 worth form the only basis of real excellence, those who despise a man 
 on account of his profession, only exhibit their disposition to counterfeit 
 the manners and customs of classes that have cursed other lands — 
 classes, it may be said, that can never be organized here until our in- 
 stitutions are overthrown and the people deprived of their rights and 
 liberties. The Theatre, after all, is the highest school in which man 
 can study himself; and the man or woman who there portrays and de- 
 lineates with magic power and effect the noblest passions of our nature 
 is fit to rank with the best and greatest of our race. The most pro- 
 found, the mightiest intellects known to the civilized world, have ex- 
 hausted their treasures to make the actor a teacher, and whosoever 
 would decry him in his high and honorable calling, acknowledges at 
 once his own ignorance and bigotry. The fame of a great actor is the 
 property of his country, and when England forgets her Garrick, Kean, 
 and Kemble, it will be time for Americans to refuse justice to Edwin 
 Forrest. 
 
 The quarrel between Forrest and Macready, however, sinks into 
 utter insignificance, when we consider the wholesale murder of men, 
 women, and children, by the order of weak, pusillanimous, and cowardly 
 men, " dressed in a little brief authority." If the " Regulars" of Eng- 
 land, in obedience to the order cf a civil ruler, should shoot down forty 
 or fifty subjects., the press of this country, with but few exceptions, would 
 denounce them as hired assassins; but when our civil authorities se- 
 cretly call out the " military," and order them to fire upon an unarmed 
 populace, thousands of whom were ignorant of the presence of an armed 
 
force until they received the messengers of death — there are not want- 
 ing among us men who applaud the soldiers as heroes and the civil 
 authorities as patriots. I do not condemn the men who fired in obedi- 
 ence to their orders, b1it the brand of infamy is forever fixed upon the 
 names and memories of those who placed a portion of our fellow citizens 
 in a position that compelled them to take the lives of innocent men. 
 Without further taxing the patience of the reader with preliminary 
 observations, I will now proceed to an examination of the causes of the 
 quarrel between Forrest and Macready. 
 { In March, 1846, in Edinburgh, Mr. Macready performed the charac- 
 ter of Hamlet, and made himself liable to censure by introducing in 
 one of the scenes a "fancy dance," himself the harlequin. Mr. For- 
 rest, who was present as a spectator, considered, and justly too, that 
 such a dance was a desecration of the scene, and accordingly mani- 
 fested his disapprobation by hissing Mr. Macready. A few critics, 
 governed by questionable motives, to use a moderate term, attributed 
 Mr. Forrest's conduct, on that occasion, to professional jealousy. The 
 attacks of certain journals published in England and Scotland, elicited 
 from Mr. Forrest a letter, which was published in the London Times. 
 A copy of that letter, as written, is subjoined : 
 
 To the Editor of the Times. 
 
 Sir — Having seen in your journal of the 12 th instant, an article 
 headed " Professional Jealousy," a part of which originally appeared in 
 a print called The Scotsman, published in Edinburgh, I beg leave, 
 through the medium of your columns, to state, that I noticed the said 
 article at the time of its publication, and addressed to the editor of 
 that paper a letter on the subject, which, as I was then in Dumfries, I 
 sent to a friend in Edinburgh, requesting him to obtain its insertion, 
 but was informed by him that the editor of The Scotsman had refused 
 to publish any communication upon the subject. Here, then, I deter- 
 mined to let the matter rest, as I did not, upon mature reflection, deem 
 it worthy of farther attention ; but now, as the matter has assumed a 
 " questionable shape," by the appearance of the article in several 
 highly reputable journals, your own among the number, doubtless sent 
 thither for insertion, from the same malignant motives which governed 
 its writer, I feel called upon, though with much reluctance, to answer it. 
 
 There are two legitimate modes of evincing approbation and disap- 
 probation in the Theatre — one, expressive of approval, by the clapping 
 of hands, and the other by hisses, to mark dissent. And, as well-timed 
 and hearty applause is the first meed of the actor who deserves well, 
 so also is hissing a salutary and wholesome corrective of the abuses of 
 the stage : and it was against one of these abuses that my dissent was 
 given, and not, as was stated, " with a view of expressing his (my) 
 disapproval of the manner in which Mr. Macready gave effect to a 
 particular passage." The truth is, that Mr. A'lacready thought fit to 
 introduce a fancy dance into his performance of Hamlet, which I 
 thought and still think, a desecration of the scene, and at which I 
 evinced that disapprobation for which the pseudo-critic is pleased to 
 term me an " offender" — and this was the only time during the whole 
 
8 
 
 performance that I did so, although the veracious writer evidently 
 seeks, in the article alluded to, to convey a different impression, f 
 must likeveise observe, that I vras by no means " solitary" in this ex- 
 pression of opinion, as similar marks of dissent were shown by several 
 others of the audience. 
 
 That a man may manifest his opinion, after the recognized mode, 
 according to the best of his judgment, when actuated by proper motives 
 and for justifiable ends, is a right which, until now, 1 never heard 
 questioned, and I contend that that right extends equally to an actor 
 as to any other man, in his capacity as a spectator. For, from the na- 
 ture of his studies, he is much better qualified to judge of a theatrical 
 performance, than any soi-disant critic, who has never himself been 
 an actor. 
 
 The writer of the article in The Scotsman, whose zeal has carried 
 him so far beyond his province as to single me out for animadversion, 
 has carefully omitted to notice the fact, that I several times applauded 
 most warmly various points of JVlr. Macready's performance, and I 
 more than once regretted that the audience did not second me in so 
 doing. 
 
 As to the pitiful charge of "professional jealousy," preferred against 
 me, I dismiss it with the contempt it merits, confidently relying upon 
 all those of the profession with whom I have been associated, for a re- 
 futation of the slander. 
 
 I have the honor to remain, sir, yours very respectfully, 
 
 Edwin Forrest. 
 Manchester, March 21, 1846. 
 
 This was the first public manifestation of any real or supposed hos- 
 tility between the two tragedians — if the attempt to hiss down Mr. For- 
 rest on the London boards, in 1845, can be excepted. 
 
 Leaving, for a time, the consideration of other matters, let us now 
 trace Mr. Macready, from his appearance at the Astor Place Opera 
 House, in the month of October, 1848, until his arrival at Boston, after 
 the massacre of the 10th of May. On the 4th of October, 1848, at the 
 conclusion of the performance, Mr. Macready being called for, appear- 
 ed, and delivered the following speech : 
 
 From the N. Y. Herald of Oct. 5, 1848. 
 Ladies and Gentlemen — It is not my custom, on such occasions as the 
 present, to address an audience ; but I am moved to do so by an impulse 
 which I can not resist, and which is strengthened by the judgment 
 just pronounced by a gentleman in the gallery, (referring to somebody 
 who had hissed,) on the performance of the evening. I feel much gra- 
 tified by the kind reception with which you have honored me, and I 
 value it, as well on its own account as because, on my arrival in your 
 country, which, believe me, I always visit with pleasure, some jour- 
 nals in New York asserted that I am superanuated, and am incapable 
 of presenting the impersonation of Shaksperian character — Ladies and 
 gentlemen, I appeal to your judgment. 
 
 On the night of October 25th, in answer to the call of the audience, 
 he delivered the following extraordinary speech : 
 
From the N. Y. Herald, Oct. 26, 1848. 
 " It is, I believe, a custom here, that an actor, on his benefit night, 
 should add to the performances advertised a tribute of his acknowledg- 
 ments for the favor you may have extended to him. May /, without 
 offence, remark, that this is a practice often " more honored in the 
 breach than the observance." The honest artist gives you the best 
 efforts of his mind, if he has one, with no small amount of physical ex- 
 ertion to boot ; and you usually testify to him with sufficient signifi- 
 cance your appreciation of his desert. In ordinary cases, the mutual 
 relation between the player and his audience might well end here. 
 But I have a motive for trespassing further on your patience. There is 
 something, apart from this, for which I would thank you. It cannot be 
 disproved — however the failure of the plan may be quoted in denial of 
 its existence — that a project was on foot to excite on this, my farewell 
 visit to the American stage, a hostile feeling against me with the 
 American public. Your most kind and flattering reception of me has 
 baffled the intentions of my unprovoked antagonists. You have demon- 
 strated that you regard art, however humble its sphere, as banded with 
 no political faction, nor the exclusive product of any particular country. 
 With the same spontaneous feeling that has made the honored names 
 of Irving, Prescott, Bryant, Leslie, Powers, and others, almost " house- 
 hold words" of endearment and adoration in England, you have ex- 
 tended to the laborer of a poorer vineyard, the frank and generous 
 meed of your approval. In this you have only justified my confidence 
 in your liberality, and have given virtual evidence to my would-be-as- 
 sailants of your conviction, that the muse whose province it is to uphold 
 the stage as the noblest picture of human life — "high actions and high 
 passions best describing" — is restricted in her influence neither by soil 
 nor party, but speaks the language of poetry and of nature, through 
 her chosen ministers, the universal heart of man. It is for this, that 
 with sentiments of grateful respect, I am proud to thank you." 
 
 The reader will remember, that both of these speeches were deli- 
 vered during his first engagement, (during the performance of which 
 he met with no opposition or interference worthy of notice,) and nearly 
 one month before he appeared in Philadelphia. The last speech, so 
 uncalled-for, and of such singular character, induced the publication 
 of the article in the Boston Mail, on the 30f/i October, which Mr. Ma- 
 cready's eminent counsel have made the foundation of his " Replies." 
 
 On the 20th of November, 1848, Mr. Macready appeared at the Arch 
 Street Theatre, Philadelphia. An unsuccessful attempt was made to 
 drive him from the stage. Upon being called before the curtain, he 
 addressed the audience as follows : 
 
 From the Philadelphia Ledger, Nov. 21st. 
 " He had understood at New York and Boston, that he was to be met 
 by an organized opposition, but he had abiding confidence in the jus- 
 tice of the American people. [Here the noise and confusion completely 
 drowned his voice, and three cheers were attempted for Forrest and 
 three hearty ones were given for Macready.] He resumed by saying 
 it was the custom in his country never to condemn a man unheard. 
 [Cheers and calls, in which Forrest's name was heard.] Mr. M. said 
 that it had bean said that he entertained hostile feelings towards an 
 
10 
 
 actor in this country, and that he had evinced a feeling of opposition 
 towards him — all which statements, severally and in the aggregate, he 
 declared wholly and entirely unfounded. The actor alluded to had 
 done that towards him, what he was sure no English actor would do, 
 and what he believed no other American actor would do — he had 
 openly hissed him. [Great noise and confusion, hisses and hurras.] 
 That up to the time of that act, he had never entertained towards that 
 actor a feeling of unkindness, nor had he ever shown any since. [Col- 
 lision in boxes, and great uproar all over the house.] When opposition 
 in his country had been organized against a French company, he ac- 
 tively interested himself to allay it. [Here he said something of the 
 disreputable character of those who participate in such outrages, 
 which, amid the tumult, was lost to our ear.] He said he fully appre- 
 ciated the char.icter and feelings of the audience, and, as to his en- 
 gagement, if it was their will, he was willing to give it up at once — 
 [no, no, cheers and hisses] — but that he should retain in his memory 
 the liveliest recollection of the warm and general sentiments of regard 
 shown him, and should speak of the American people, whom he had 
 known and studied for the last twenty years, with the same kind feel- 
 ings that he ever had done." 
 
 This, the third speech delivered by Mr. Macready, before Mr. For- 
 rest had uttered a syllable, called forth from the latter gentleman the 
 following card : , 
 
 From the Pennsylvanian of Nov. 22d. 
 
 We received the following card late last evening. It is a reply to 
 the speech of Mr. Macready, at the Arch Street Theatre, on Monday 
 evening : — 
 
 " Mr. Macready, in his speech last night, to the audience assembled 
 at the Arch Street Theatre, made allusion, I understand, to an ' Ame- 
 rican actor,' who had the temerity, on one occasion, ' openly to hiss 
 him.' This is true, and, by the way, the only truth which I have been 
 enabled to gather from the whole scope of his address. But why say 
 ' an American actor V Why not openly charge me with the act '? for I 
 did it, and publicly avowed it in the Tivies newspaper, of London, and 
 at the same time asserted my right to do so. 
 
 " On the occasion alluded to, Mr. Macready introduced a fancy dance 
 into his performance of Hamlet, which I designated as a pas de 7nouch- 
 oir, and which I hissed, for I thought it a desecration of the scene, and 
 the audience thought so too, for in a few nights afterwards, when Mr. 
 Macready repeated the part of Hamlet with the same ' tom-foolery,' 
 the intelligent audience of Edinburgh greeted-it with a universal hiss. 
 "Mr. Macready is stated to have said last night, that up to the time 
 of this act on my part, he ' had never entertained towards me a feeling 
 of unkindness.' 1 unhesitatingly pronounce this to be a wilful and un- 
 blushing falsehood. I most solemnly aver and do believe that Mr. 
 Macready, instigated by his narrow, envious mind and his selfish fears, 
 did secretly — not openly — suborn several writers for the English press, 
 to write me down. Among them was one Forster, a ' toady' of the 
 eminent tragedian — one who is ever ready to do his dirty work ; and 
 this Forster, at the bidding of his patron, attacked me in print, even be. 
 
11 
 
 fore I had appeared upon the London boards, and continued his abuse 
 of me at every opportunity afterward's. 
 
 " I assert also, and solemnly believe, that Mr. Macready connived, 
 when his friends went to the theatre in London, to hiss me, and did 
 hiss me, with the purpose of driving me from the stage — and all this 
 happened many months before the affair at Edinburgh, to which Mr. 
 Macready refers, and in relation to which he jesuitically remarks, that 
 ' until that act, he never entertained towards me a feeling of unkind- 
 ness.' Pah ! Mr. Macready has no feeling of kindness for any actor 
 who is likely, by his talent, to stand in his way. His whole course as 
 manager and as actor, proves this — there is nothing in him but self — 
 self — self — and his own countrymen, the English actors, know this 
 well. Mr. Macready has a very lively imagination, and often draws 
 upon it for his facts. He said, in a speech at New York, that there 
 also there was an ' organized opposition' to him, which is likewise false. 
 There was no opposition manifested towards him there — for I was in 
 the city at the time, and was careful to watch every movement with 
 regard to such a matter. Many of my friends called upon me when 
 Mr. Macready was announced to perform, and proposed to drive him 
 from the stage for his conduct towards me in London. My advice was 
 — do nothing — let the superannuated driveller alone — to oppose him 
 would be but to make him of some importance. My friends agreed 
 with me it was, at least, the most dignified course to pursue, and it 
 was immediately adopted. With regard to an ' organized opposition to 
 him' in Boston, this is, I believe, equally false ; but, perhaps, in charity 
 to the poor old man, I should impute these ' chimeras dire,' rather to 
 the disturbed state of his guilty conscience, than to any desire upon 
 his part wilfully to misrepresent. 
 
 "Edwin Forrest. 
 " Philadelphia, Nov. 21, 1848." 
 
 On the 23d November, Mr. Macready published the following card 
 in the Philadelphia papers : — 
 
 " To the public of Philadelphia. 
 
 "In a card published in the Public Ledger and other morning papers 
 of this day, Mr. Forrest having avowed himself the author of the state- 
 ments, which Mr. Macready has solemnly pledged his honor to be with- 
 out the least foundation. 
 
 " Mr. Macready cannot be wanting in self-respect so far as to bandy 
 words upon the subject; but, as the circulation of such statements is 
 manifestly calculated to prejudice Mr. Macready in the opinion of the 
 American public, and affect both his professional interests and his esti- 
 mation in society, Mr. Macready respectfully requests the public to 
 suspend their judgment upon the questions, until the'<lecision of a legal 
 tribunal, bsfore which he will immediately take measures to bring it, 
 and before which he will prove his veracity, hitherto unquestioned, 
 shall place the truth beyond doubt. 
 
 "Reluctant as he is to notice further Mr. Forrest's card, Mr. Ma- 
 cready has to observe, that when Mr. Forrest appeared at the Prin- 
 cess's Theatre, in London, he himself was absent some hundred miles 
 from that city, and was ignorant of his engagement until after it had 
 begun ; that not one single notice on Mr. Forrest's acting appeared in 
 the Examiner, during that engagement, (as its files will prove,) Mr. 
 Forster, the distinguished editor, whom Mr. Macready has the honor 
 
12 
 
 to call his friend, having been confined to his bed with a rheumatic fe- 
 ver during the whole period, and some weeks both before and after. 
 
 " For the other aspersions upon Mr. Macready, published in the Bos- 
 ton Mail, and now, as it is understood, avowed by Mr. Forrest, Mr. 
 Macready will, without delay, apply for legal redress. 
 
 "Jones' Hotel, Nov. 22d, 1848." 
 
 And, three days afterwards, he wrote the following letter to the 
 British press : — 
 
 " Jones'' Hotel, Philadelphia, (Penn.,) U. S. America, 
 
 ''Nov. 25, 1848. 
 
 " Sir — An endeavor has been made to excite a popular feeling 
 against me in this country, by the publication of some charges seri- 
 ously affecting my character. I am, in consequence, under the neces- 
 sity of trespassing upon your time, with the request that you will favor 
 me with a direct and unreserved answer to the following questions : — 
 
 "1. Are you aware that I was ever guilty of suborning, or attempt- 
 ing to suborn, any writ r in your establishment to write down Mr. 
 Forrest, the American performer, or any other actor 1 
 
 " 2. Would it be easy, if it were possible, to do so in England 1 
 
 " Do you believe me capable of such an action ? 
 
 " I fear such questions to an English gentleman must seem almost 
 absurd ; but the anxiety I naturally feel to clear my reputation from 
 the imputations cast upon me, compels me earnestly to request, that 
 you will do me the justice of favoring me with your answers. 
 
 " I have the honor to be, sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 "W. C. Macueady. 
 
 " Please to address me, 'Care of David C. Colden, Esq., 28 Laight- 
 street, Hudson Square.' " 
 
 The promise of Mr. Macready, in his card of the 22d Nov., not hav- 
 ing been fulfilled, the following correspondence between Mr. Forrest 
 and his friend, William H. Smith, Esq., Editor of the Pittsburgh Post, 
 was had : — 
 
 Tu Edwin Forrest, Esq. 
 
 " Dear Sir — It is impossible for us, near as we are to Philadelphia, 
 to obtain a concise and connected account of your dispute with Mr. 
 Macready. Occasionally we see a ' card,' sometimes a newspaper 
 comment, and now and then a dramatic criticism, intending to influ- 
 ence the public mind in regard to the matter ; but I am, for my own 
 part, still without any thing like a history of the facts as they 
 occurred. 
 
 " Arduously engaged, as I know you must be, I shall esteem it a fa- 
 vor, if you can find time to furnish me with a brief statement of the 
 affair, in writing, or any general account of it, if you have printed such 
 a document. As the difficulty is the topic of much talk just now, I 
 should like to know the merits of it. 
 
 " Truly yours, 
 
 " William H. Smith. 
 
 "Pittsburgh, Dee. 1, 1848." 
 
13 
 
 "Mi/ dear Sir— I have purposely delayed a reply to your letter, re- 
 questing an account of the dispute between Mr. Macready and myself 
 — a delay suggested by the hope, that he might, perhaps, keep his 
 word, and bring the matter ' immediately,' as he pledged himself to 
 do, before a legal tribunal, for adjustment. 1 regret that, on this oc- 
 casion at least, he has not departed from his usual habit, and ,-poken 
 the truth. Had he pursued his promised course, I should have been 
 saved some trouble, in verbal as well as written explanations, and the 
 public before this, would have been in possession of all the material ne- 
 cessary in the case, to form a just conclusion. I never believed he 
 meant to apply for ' legal redress,' and I said so at the time. Redress 
 for what "? Because I spoke the truths the whole truth., and nothing hut 
 the truth ? 
 
 But, before 1 go into the argument, there is a question of veracity 
 to be settled between Mr. Macready and myself. I affirm and he 
 denies, and, in addition to his denial, he makes several allegations. 
 That t may do no injustice to Mr. Macready, I republish his card : 
 
 "to the public of PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 "In a card published in the Public Ledger and other morning papers 
 of this day, Mr. Forrest having avowed himself the author of the 
 statements, which Mr. Macready has solemnly pledged his honor to be 
 without the least foundation. 
 
 " Mr. Macready cannot be wanting in self-respect so far as to bandy 
 words upon this subject, but as the circulation of such statements is 
 manifestly calculated to prejudice Mr. Macready in the opinion of the 
 American public, and affect both his professional interests and his 
 estimation in society, Mr. Macready respectfully requests the public 
 to suspend their judgment upon the question, until the decision of a 
 legal .tribunal, before which he will immediately take measures to 
 bring it, and before which he will prove his veracity, hitherto unques- 
 tioned, shall place the truth beyond doubt. 
 
 " Reluctant as he is to notice further Mr. Forrest's card, Mr. Macready 
 has to observe, that when Mr. Forrest appeared at the Princess's 
 Theatre in London, he himself was absent some hundred miles from 
 that city, and was ignorant of his engagement until after it had begun ; 
 that not one single notice on Mr. Forrest's acting appeared in the 
 Examiner during that engagement, (as its files will prove,) Mr. Forster, 
 the distinguished editor, whom Mr. Macready has the honor to call 
 his friend, having been confined to his bed with a rheumatic fever 
 during the whole period, and some weeks both before and after. 
 
 "For the other aspersions upon Mr. Macready, published in the 
 Boston Mail, and now, as it is understood, avowed by Mr. Forrest, Mr. 
 Macready will, without delay, apply for legal redress. 
 
 "Jones's Hotel, Nov. 21, 1848." 
 
 The London Times has eulogised this production as " dignified" and 
 " gentlemanly." Gentlemanly, forsooth ! Why it has not the merit of 
 being grammatical : but I will not pause here to consider the style, 
 though something better might have been expected from a graduate 
 of Eton. 
 
 In this card we have some sweeping denials from Mr. Macready, 
 and three allegations at least. Let us examine the allegations and 
 answer them. 
 
 First Allegation : He promises to take immediate measures to 
 bring the question before a legal tribunal, and before which he wiU 
 prove his veracity, hitherto unquestioned. 
 
14 i^ 
 
 Answer : More than three months have elapsed since this pledge 
 was made to the public of Philadelphia, and thus far I have heard no 
 syllable of the suit. 
 
 Is Mr. Macready's veracity unquestioned now 1 
 
 Second Allegation : That not one single notice on Mr. Forresi's 
 acting appeared in the Examiner during that engagement, (as its files 
 will prove.) 
 
 Answer : My engagement at the Princess's Theatre began the 17th 
 of February, 1845, and closed on the 9th of April following. By refer- 
 ring to the files of the Examiner, you will find in that print of the 22d 
 of February, 1845, the following article : 
 
 " Our old acquaintance, Mr. Forrest, the American tragedian, has 
 played Othello at the Princess's Theatre during the past week, and it 
 would seem from the accounts (we did not see the tragedy) with entire 
 abatement of that ' sound and fury' which distinguished his performance 
 nine years ago. ' An you should do it too terribly,^ says that excellent 
 dramatic critic, Peter Quince, ' you would fright the Duchess and the 
 ladies.' According to the Times., the too terrible has subsided into the 
 too tame. But we must venture to think the change a clear improve- 
 ment, and great gain to the audience." 
 
 Here is a single notice in the Examiner, and during my engagement, 
 " as its files will prove," and written too, by Mr. Forster, whom Mr. 
 Macready will not deny, is the " Theatrical Examiner" of that paper. 
 Who but Mr. Forster, the servile creature of Mr. Macready, could 
 display such venom and vulgarity 1 " We did not see the tragedy," 
 says Mr. Forster, and we have Mr. Macready's word that his friend 
 was " confined to his bed by rheumatic fever," and thus from a bed of 
 sickness he sped his shafts steeped in the fevered malignity of his 
 heart, at a performance which he did not see. Is Mr. Macread'ifs 
 veracity unquestioned now 1 
 
 Third Allegation : Mr. Forster, the distinguished editor, whom 
 Mr. Macready has the honor to call his friend, had been confined to 
 his bed with a rheumatic fever during the whole period, (of Mr. For- 
 rest's engagement,) some weeks before and after. 
 
 Answer : Turn to the Examiner of March 1st, 1845, and you will 
 see the following article, as "its files will prove," and published during 
 my engagement also : 
 
 "Our old friend, Mr. Forrest, afforded great amusement to the 
 public, by his performance of Macbeth, on Friday week, at the Prin- 
 cess's. Indeed our best comic actors do not often excite so great a 
 quantity of mirth. The change from an inaudible murmur to a thunder 
 of sound, was enormous; but the grand feature was the combat, in 
 which he stood scraping his sword against that of Macduff. We were 
 at a loss to know what this gesture meant, till an enlightened critic in 
 the gallery shouted out, ' that's right, sharpen it !' Miss Cushman, if 
 she has not the appearance of Lady Macbeth, steered admirably against 
 the injurious influence of such a consort." 
 
 Is Mr. Macready's veracity unquestioned now ? Here his friend 
 Mr. Forster is in the Princess's Theatre, in spite of his rheumatic fever, 
 which still confined him to his bed — excited to mirth, too, by the 
 performance, in spite of the rheumatic fever which still confined him 
 to his bed — enjoying, and with the exception of a single point, on which 
 his brother " critic" in the gallery " enlightens" him — comprehending 
 
15 
 
 the whole exhibition, in spite of his "rheumatic fever which still 
 confined him to his bed." 
 
 And now what becomes of Mr. Macready's veracity 1 And yet this 
 " eminent" individual has solemnly pledged his honor that the state- 
 ments contained in my card, are without the least foundation. 
 
 Junius once remarked, "I will not call you a villian, my Lord, but I 
 will prove you to be one." I will not call you a liar, Mr. Macready, 
 but I have proved you to be one by the very witnesses you summoned 
 in your defence. 
 
 And yet Mr. Macready's card has been called " gentlemanly" and 
 " dignified." Let me instruct the writer in The Times, for he seems 
 to be ignorant of the fact, that the first and most indispensable quality 
 of a gentleman, is an undeviating regard for truth, and that without it 
 the MAN is "scarce half made up." 
 
 "•TSMany have confounded John Forster of the Examiner with John 
 Foster the celebrated Essayist. There is not only a difi'erence in the 
 orthography of the names, but there is an immeasurable difi'erence in 
 the characters of the men. 
 
 John Foster, the Essayist, and eloquent Baptist clergyman, was a 
 man of the purest heart, and of the most exalted intellect. He culti- 
 vated letters, for that they enlarged the sphere of his usefulness, and 
 taught him (to use his own phrase)- "to live along the progression of 
 sublime attainment." Theology and philosophy with him went hand 
 in hand; with a delicate regard for the feelings of others, he practised 
 charity and forbearance to all men. Malice and envy found no harbor 
 in his heart, for it was the instinctive dwelling place of love and 
 honest kindness. His daily conduct was but the embodiment of the 
 divine truths he taught — 
 
 " His life was gentle, and the elements 
 
 So mixed in him, that nature might stand up 
 
 And say to all the world — This was a man !" 
 
 John Forster, whom Mr. Macready "has the honor to call his friend," 
 was cast in a difi'erent mould. A mercenary in literature, a caviller 
 in criticism, and a parasite in his friendship, he brings to his critic's 
 craft pedantry and insolence, in lieu of justice and judgment. Of his 
 dignity, candor, and taste — qualities inseperable from the true critic, 
 you may judge yourself, by the extracts from his pen, quoted in this 
 le^er from the Examiner. He is one of a tribe so admirably described 
 by Leigh Hunt : "Journalists, who will abuse one performer, merely to 
 please another; who, after getting drunk at an actor's table, will come 
 and tell us what power he possesses over their senses, and what a want 
 of solidity there is in that man who never invites them to eat his roast 
 beef." 
 
 This Forster is ambitious to be considered an actor too, and not 
 unfrequently shows himself upon the stage in his favorite character of 
 " Kitely," a part in which he successfully imitates the nature — for he 
 knows no other nature — of his " eminent" friend, even to the absurd 
 peculiarities of speech, attitude, and angularity. Forsters impertur- 
 bable self-conceit, blinds him to the quiet mockings of his cockney 
 beholders, as he struts his brief hour with the utmost complacency ; 
 and afterwards, with unblushing effrontery, he puffs his histrionic 
 efforts, in the very newspaper of which he is known to be the theatrical 
 critzc. Vide London Examiner, Nov. 22d, 1845. 
 
16 
 
 "A would be Satirist, a hired Buffoon, 
 A monthly scribbler of some low lampoon, 
 Condemned to drudge, the meanest of the mean. 
 And furnish falsehoods for a magazine ; 
 Devotes to scandal his congenial mind. 
 Himself a living hbel on mankind !" 
 
 I will resume this subject again, in a few days, and meanwhile 
 remain, 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 EDWIN FORREST. 
 To W. H. Smith, Esq. 
 
 New York, March 29th, 1849. 
 
 My Dear Sir : Having in my last letter disposed for the present of 
 Mr. Macready's card, I shall now proceed to the examination of my 
 own. In that card I said " that I solemnly believed Mr. Macready 
 had suborned several writers of the English press to write me downj 
 and that among them was one Forster, who, even before I had appeared 
 upon the London stage, attacked me, and continued his abuse at every 
 opportunity afterAvards." The truth of this declaration I shall endeavor 
 to prove by circumstantial and other evidence ; premising that when a 
 clique attempts, for selfish ends, to write down one who never offended, 
 they naturally set to work in a way to escape detection, and circum- 
 stantial rather than direct proof is to be relied on. 
 
 My first appearance at Drury Lane Theatre was on the 17th of Octo- 
 ber, 183G. In the Examiner of the previous day, (Sunday,) appeared 
 the following notice, written by John Forster, whom Mr. Macready 
 " has the honor to call his friend.''' 
 
 "An American actor of some celebrity, Mr. Forrest, makes his first 
 appearance at Drury Lane Theatre, on 5londay night, in what the bills 
 call " a new tragedy." The tragedy is not new, but we will forgive 
 the intended deception if it turns out to be good. It was written many 
 years ago, by Dr. Bird, of Philadelphia, and has been played by Mr. For- 
 rest in all parts of the Union. The subject is the revolt of Spartacus, the 
 Roman Gladiator, and it is said to be specially adapted, both in subject 
 and treatment, to the singular physical strength and great energy, which 
 are the characteristics of Mr. Forrest's acting. It implies little for its 
 literary merit to have been written on this principle." 
 
 Here you will perceive the animus of the writer, and that this ai^icle 
 was designated as the text for all his subsequent comments. He (dip- 
 ping his pen in maUce) went to work with a fixed determination to do 
 all in his power to serve his patron, and to defeat, if possible, the tri- 
 umph which afterwards attended me. He does not, to be sure, openly 
 condemn both author and actor before he had heard them, yet by disin- 
 genuous implication he does condemn both. He will "forgive the in- 
 tended deception, " he says, " if the play turns out to be good." A pre- 
 judiced Englishman will never admit that anything '■'■good''' can come 
 from America : and this is particularly true of Mr. Forster, as I shall 
 take occasion hereafter to prove. But why should be italicise the six 
 words, as marked by him in his preliminary notice, if he had not receiv- 
 ed his cue, (doubtless from his " eminent friend,") to make this the 
 groundwork of his attacks, which he afterwards assumed with so much 
 violence ? — Is there any indication in this that he will hear with pa- 
 tience and decide with impartiality % 
 
17 
 
 In the Examiner of October 30th, 1836, Mr. Forster no longer seeks 
 to hide his malignity ; and in a critique on my Othello, by false premi- 
 ses and by deductions not founded in truth, he endeavors to draw con- 
 clusions adverse to my claims as an actor. After remarking that " nation- 
 al politeness-, so to speak, has nothing to do with a question of this sort" — 
 which, being interpreted, means — ^^Mr. Forre't is an American; and 
 although his countrymen treat our actors with kindness and courtesy, that 
 is no reason why I should imitate their example." Mr. Forster then 
 adds : " There is a vicious style in art, which the public taste should 
 be carefully guarded against, and Mr. Forrest is one of its professors.'? 
 ***** * * * 
 
 " The beauty of Othello^s moral attitude in this scene, (the council 
 chamber,) consists in its assured quiet, and, as it were, picturesque dignity. 
 Now Mr. Forrest began the speech with an affected appeal to the excellence of 
 his judges. It was just as Sir James Scarlett used to address his twelve 
 friends of the jury box: 
 
 ' "My very noble and approved good masters !"' 
 
 Comment upon this is unnecessary, for all those who know me, know 
 well that this is but a " weak invention of the enemy." 
 
 Farther on, in the same criticism, Mr. Forster says : " The actor who 
 supposes Othello to be simply a jealous man, has not read Shakspeare ; 
 jealousy is not the grand feature of his passion." What exquisite 
 wisdom in these sentences ! Who ever supposed that any man could be 
 simply a jealous man ? The sentiment of love must of necessity precede 
 that of jealousy. But if jealousy be not the grand feature of Othello's 
 passion, pray what is 1 Mr. Forster, like his " eminent friend," has a 
 convenient knack of saying one thing and meaning another. In this 
 very article you find this sapient critic eating his own proposition. 
 Hear him : 
 
 " Immediately before the grand' passion of the play opens, Shaks- 
 peare has seized an opportunity, in his infinite art and wisdom, to show 
 the weak point through which he means to strike Othello. The scene 
 of his interference in the night brawl of Cypress, betrays a slight bub- 
 bling up of his African blood." 
 
 Where is the grand passion of the play first exhibited % Why, in 
 the third act. And what is the scene immediately before it ? Why, 
 the scene of Othello's interference in the night brawl. The grand pas- 
 sion of the play then is jealousy. Whose jealousy*? Why, Othello's, 
 of course. But it were a great waste of time and your patience to 
 follow this soi-disant critic through all his " quirks and quiddities." 
 Suffice it to say, that in my performance of Othello he found no good 
 whatever. I had the " rigicl and compressed style of Edmund Kean." 
 I had " 710 intellectual comprehension of what I was about .''^ — " I had close- 
 ly watched the performance of Mr. Kean, and had brought from it only 
 the most vulgar and obvious points, certain physical requisites — sound 
 was substituted for sense — when a tender ivord occurred, it was spoken 
 tenderly — where a fierce word, fiercely. Mr. Forrest seemed beyond con- 
 trol. All he said and did, was said and done mechanically.'''' Now this 
 last sentence would apply justly to but one man that ever walked the 
 stage, and that man is Macready. In closing this violent and absurd 
 attack — absurd because its purpose was defeated by its apparent ma- 
 lignity — -Mr. Forster jesuitically remarks : "We have spoken thus of 
 Mr. Forrest with much regret, because we had been led to expect bet- 
 2 
 
18 
 
 ter things of him, and it is always a more grateful task to praise than 
 to blame. But it is a duty we owe to truths {to Macready, he means,) to 
 write what we have written, and the rather as we see the " exaggera- 
 ted tone of praise" (aye! there's the rub!) ''assumed by our daily con- 
 temporaries." 
 
 Mr. Forster would have added to this, had he uttered his thoughts : 
 " and we have spoken thus of Mr. Forrest, for that he has had the 
 temerity to place himself singly and alone against the combined talent 
 of our English stage : Mr. Macready, Mr. Charles Kemble, and Mr. 
 Vandenhoff, who are now acting at Covent Garden Theatre at reduced 
 prices from those charged at Drury Lane, where Mr. Forrest is play- 
 ing, and yet the people throng the avenues to see this Yankee, whilst 
 my Magnus Apollo is acting to comparatively empty benches." 
 
 My success at Drury Lane Theatre worked Mr. Forster into such a 
 fury that his ravings were at last noticed by several of his contempo- 
 raries. The following is cut from the London Constitutional of Wednes- 
 day, November 9th, 1836; who its author is, I never knew, but it is 
 curious to observe how fully and completely some of my charges against 
 Mr. Macready are corroborated, and by an English witness too. 
 
 JhYom the JLondon Constitutional, November 9, 183C. 
 
 THE EXAMINER AND MR. FORREST. 
 
 An evening journal has placed in a just and perspicuous light, some 
 of the obliquities of criticism with which Mr. Forrest has been assail- 
 ed. In selecting the Examiner, our contemporary has fixed on an as- 
 sailant who is but one remove from the most virulent of those who have 
 joined in the discreditable warfare. The writer in the Examiner is 
 not a critic, but a caviller — the very antipodes of Leigh Hunt, who 
 found " good in every thing." He is of the genus iritable — the horse- 
 fly of the drama. The once theatrical writer in the Examiner — 
 (wherefore no longer so "?) — took wifh him, to his task, philosophy and 
 sentiment ; the present, misanthropy and distrust. One sought out 
 and gathered sweets, and rendered them still more sweet; the other 
 hunts after blemishes, and strives to make them repulsive. The critic 
 would have appreciated and sympathized with the high dramatic gen- 
 ius of Mr, Forrest — the caviller, unable to grasp and comprehend a 
 beautiful whole, incapable of measuring but by seconds and syllables, 
 seizes on a single defect, real or assumed, and swells it out by prejudice 
 and acerbity, until it becomes as monstrous as his own conceit. Each 
 after his nature. But we are keeping our readers from the enjoyment 
 we have experienced, in a perusal of the comments of our contem- 
 porary : 
 
 " Mr. Forrest repeated his performance of Lear last night ; but, as 
 we noticed his first appearance in this character at some length, on 
 Saturday, we recur to the subject only for the purpose of answering 
 some objections urged against Mr. Forrest by a Sunday contemporary, 
 who boldly asserts, that his Lear is little, if at all, removed above the 
 level of common place. Our contemporary is often just in his theatri- 
 cal notices, giving reasons " for the faith that is in him ;" but, in the 
 present instance, he appears to write in a headstrong spirit of partizan- 
 sA.2p— just as if he was annoyed that an American actor should claim a 
 first-rate rank in his profession and hear away the palm from Macready. 
 And, as if also, he were desirous to show how completely he is in the 
 right, and the rest of the play-going world in the wrong in their esti- 
 mate of Mr. Forrest. Now, we dislike this perverse, crochetty spirit, 
 
19 
 
 in criticism, and have yet to leara that eccentricity is discrimination, 
 or prejudice profoundness. Our contemporary begias his objecting to 
 Mr. Forrest, that he played Lear, as a " fooli.-ih, fond old man." Well; 
 and this general conception of the character is the right one ; for, in 
 what other way would he personate the Royal dotard, who jjave away 
 kingdoms in return for foolish speeches, and banished an old and tried 
 friend for merely daring to show his disinterestedness'? Elevation of 
 mind and sentiment are not the natural characteristics of Lear ; mis- 
 ery, it is true, takes him out of himself, and for a time lifts him into 
 the world of imagination ; but we find him, in the pauses of the men- 
 tal tempest, consDantly falling back on his original self. The Royal do- 
 tard ; the creature of conventional habit all over ; and no more to be 
 considered a lofty or intellectual personage, ' for the sublime analogy of 
 his sorrows,' as our contemporary sublimely phrases it, than the Duke 
 of Wellington is to be considered an orator, because he once delivered 
 an eloquent and impassioned speech on the horrors of civil war, that 
 took the Lords and the country equally by surprise. Again, our con- 
 temporary insists that Mr. Forrest's sorrows do not issue "out of a great 
 breach in nature," and " assume a privilege of preternatural grandeur" 
 — in other words, that they are not unnatural enough ; not sufficiently 
 stilted or unintelligible, like the objection itself, which recommends the 
 issuing of a "breach" out of a "privilege," a very original objection, 
 truly, and one, happily calculated to disturb what Philosopher Square 
 delighted to call the "fitness of things." 
 
 The critic goes on to observe, that Mr. Forrest's question to Goneril, 
 " Are you my daughter V' — which, by the way, was one of the finest 
 points in his performance — should have had a " hideous and dream- 
 like sound." What quaint, captious hyper-criticism is this ? How was 
 the actor to convey the notion of a dream by a sound ? Was he to do 
 it through the medium of a snore^ or show that he could make his voice 
 " hideous." by roaring like a Westphalia bullock ? A tragedian who 
 should adopt the critic's suggestion, in this passage, instead of deliver- 
 ing the interrogatory in a tone of distrust and heartfelt bitterness, 
 would very soon have leave to absent himself from the boards of an 
 English theatre. But the thing is impossible, and we have George 
 Colman's word for it, that 
 
 " What's impossible, can't be, 
 
 " And never; never comes to pass." 
 " Mr. Forrest," adds our contemporary, " threw himself on his knees 
 for the delivery of the curse, with fine effect. But he should have 
 thrown his head completely back, instead of thrusting it forward." 
 Now, this is sheer, undiluted drivel. Lear was not taking a gargle for 
 a sore throat, but imprecating a curse. He was in the attitude of 
 deep, impassioned prayer, asking from the Deity that which he felt 
 assured would be granted to his invocation. Had he " thrown his head 
 completely back" — we say nothing of the burlesque figure he would 
 have cut in such an attitude — he would, most unquestionably, at his 
 age, and with his physical weakness, have cracked his occiput against 
 the mother earth. " The terrible imprecation," pursues our contem- 
 porary, " was afterwards given to an explosion of rapid and convulsive 
 passion." Of course it was; and if the critic, dismissing his crotchets, 
 and his strenuous desire to be thought to see farther into a mill-stone 
 than other folks, will but condescend to weigh well the thoughts and 
 images of which the curse is made up, he will see that it could not, 
 with propriety, have been given otherwise. Is there no " phrenzy of 
 rage" — no " convulsive passion" m Leafs supplication to " nature," that 
 
20 
 
 she will " suspend her purpose" and " convey sterility" into the " womb" 
 of his own child 1 
 
 If this be not passion exasperated to phrenzy, we know not what is. 
 The critic, however, insists, that the curse " wrought its passage from 
 a heart that was absolutely breaking in the effort," whereas the heart 
 was all energy — not " breaking," but strung, for the time, to the ex- 
 treme point of tension. Our contemporary proceeds to say, " Mr. For- 
 rest's • aye, every inch a King,' was good, though mistaken in its spirit, 
 for these words, we think, do not imply a clinging to the notion of rank, 
 but rather a little satire the other way." Every trait in Lear''s charac- 
 ter disproves this perverse assertion. He is, throughout, the creature 
 of conventional habits. Royalty is his second nature — ever uppermost 
 in his mind, even where disowned and unhoused, a beggar in the 
 storm. His very first causes of complaint against his daughter are, 
 that she had shorn him of his appendages of state, by dismissing five- 
 and-twenty of his train — put his "fellow" in the stocks even in the 
 royal presence, and kept the royal father awaiting the arrival of his 
 child and subject. In fact, allusions to this monarchical dignity, are 
 constant throughout the play, and, in laying due emphasis on these, 
 Mr. Forrest has proved that he rightly apprehends the text of Shak- 
 speare. Our contemporary further objects, that the actor gave these 
 lines : — 
 
 " I tax not you, ye elements, with unkindness, 
 " I never gave you kingdoms, called you daughters, 
 " You owe me no obedience — here I stand your slave ; 
 " A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man," 
 
 in " very tender terms." Our critic will, we suspect, stand "gloriously 
 alone" in this objection. The lines in question breathe the very soul 
 of pathos. The allusion to the " daughters" here is no longer in a 
 frenzied or vindictive spirit, but in one of sad regret — of heartfelt ten- 
 derness — of deep, hopeless despair, in which, however, there is not one 
 particle — not the most distant approach to — anything like fierceness 
 or active energy. We have dwelt, perhaps, on our contemporary's ob- 
 jections at more length than they deserve, but our sole motive for doing 
 so, has been from a principle of fair play. 
 
 We dislike to see an able man attempted to be sacrificed to a crotchet — 
 depreciated in order to suit the purposes of a clique. There are many 
 pedantic critics now living, of the words-catching genus, 
 
 " Who view 
 " In Shakspeare more than Shakspeare knew," 
 
 and who, though apt to be sadly perplexed, by an obvious beauty in 
 the great dramatist, are in raptures with a recondite or a doubtful 
 one, which has escaped all eyes but their own, and our Sunday con- 
 temporary — at least, as regards his present criticism — is evidently one 
 of these. He is great on all S7nall points of criticism ; we protest, there- 
 fore, against his competency to sit in judgment against Mr. Forrest's 
 Lear.'''' 
 
 Expect to hear from me again on this subject, in a few days. 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 Edwin Forrest. 
 
 To Wm. H. Smith, Esq., Pittsburgh. 
 
21 
 
 New York, April 10, 1849. 
 
 My Dear Sir: — I intended, some days since, to indite this letter, but 
 my time has been much more agreeably employed looking after the 
 affairs of my farm, which, at this season of the year, presents to me the 
 most delightful attractions. 
 
 In my preceding letter, I gave you some conclusive English author- 
 ity, that a certain clique existed in London to write me down, and that 
 the writer in the Examiner was the bell-weather of the flock. I am 
 now happy to furnish you with the testimony of one of our own coun- 
 trymen, who, from his intercourse with Albany Fonblanque, Esq.,* and 
 other gentlemen intimately connected with him, had opportunities to 
 know the feelings under which Mr. Forster wrote, and how his feelings 
 were regarded by those who best understood the relation in which Mr. 
 Forster stood to Mr. Maeready. You will perceive that Mr. Forster is 
 not the editor of the Examiner, but is, as I said in a former letter, the 
 "hireling scribbler" of its theatrical and literary articles. 
 
 New York, February 9th, 1849. 
 To Edwin Forrest, Esq., 
 
 Bear Sir : — In reply to your inquiries, I beg to state that during the 
 winter of 1836-37, whilst you were performing at Drury Lane Theatre, 
 in London, I had frequently the pleasure of meeting, at his own house 
 and elsewhere, Mr. Albany Fonblanque, the accomplished editor and 
 proprietor of the Examiner newspaper- as well as various members of 
 his family. Knowing my intimacy with you, both he and they were 
 often in the habit of explaining and apologizing for the coarse abuse, 
 the bitter invectives and spiteful scurrility against your acting and 
 person, that weekly appeared under the theatrical head of the Exam- 
 iner. From frequent conversation with these parties I gathered the 
 following facts : that the theatrical department of said journal had 
 been confided to the exclusive direction of a person by the name of 
 Forster, who had in the main acquitted himself, previously, with abil- 
 ity, discretion, and taste. But that bn your appearance at Drury Lane 
 his course and temper had completely changed, and that instead of 
 treating your performances with the impartiality which had always be- 
 fore characterized the Examiner, he had, to their sincere regret, aban- 
 doned himself to a wholesale system of unsparing detraction and unde- 
 served censure, exceeding the utmost limits of dramatic criticism. 
 Both Mr. Fonblanque and his family testified, over and over again, 
 their undivided approval of your acting, which they evinced by their 
 almost constant presence at the theatre during the whole period of 
 your performances. 
 
 In seeking a solution of this strange contradiction between the opin- 
 ions and the taste of the distinguished editor of the Examiner and one 
 of his employees, whom he found it inconvenient to displace, I discovered 
 that the said Forster was on terms of the closest intimacy with Mr. 
 Maeready, the English actor. From this I was allowed to infer two 
 things : First, That it was to win the favor of his friend and patron, 
 Mr. Maeready, that Forster did his best not only to write down his 
 American rival, but to stir up such opposition as would militate against 
 his (your) success in England : Secondly, That it was at any time in the 
 power of Maeready, by a look or word, to arrest the foul stream of un- 
 manly abuse that was weekly poured out upon you ; for though it was 
 not stated that Mr. Maeready would not commit himself, by issuing 
 
 * The author of "England under Seven Administrations," a gentleman of liberal political senti- 
 ments, and one of the most polished writers of the age. 
 
22 
 
 instructions, in so many words, to his friends, to assail you, yet it is 
 clear to me, from all that was said, as it will be to any one from the 
 circumstances cited, that if it had pleased Mr. Macready to relieve 
 you from the pertinacious and brutal attacks of the most servile of his 
 friends, that it was entirely within the scope of his known influence to 
 do so. I merely desire to add, that I do not take it upon myself to re- 
 peat the words of Mr. Fonblanque and his family at this distant time : 
 but the impressions left on my mind, by repeated conversations with 
 them on this subject, are still fresh and indelible, and for the authen- 
 ticity of which, as related, I pledge my word and honor. 
 Very truly, yours. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to give the name of the writer of this 
 letter, but he is ready, at any moment, should the occasion require it, 
 to make the most solemn attestation to the truth of what he has written. 
 
 Let me now call your attention to another paragraph of my Philadel- 
 phia card, in which I stated that " Mr. Macready has no feeling of 
 kindness for any actor who is likely, by his talents, to stand in his 
 way." In support of this declaration, I give you the following facts, 
 as related to me by Mr. Gustavus V. Brooke, the young and talented 
 Irish tragedian, who, about a year since, made so favorable an impres- 
 sion on a London audience.* When Mr. Macready assumed the man- 
 agement of Covent Garden Theatre, he engaged several of the most 
 prominent young actors in England, with the ostensible purpose ot pa- 
 tronizing native talent. Among these was Mr. Brooke, who, by way 
 of a bait, was promised Othello for his dehnt. and with all the hopeful 
 aspirations of a young and ardent mind, he was on the point of aban- 
 doning the provinces, where he was a leading actor and a deserved fa- 
 vorite, to win in London, as he thought, fame and fortune. At this 
 moment, Mr. Brooke received word from a friendly actor attached to 
 the Covent Garden company, that although the wily manager would 
 give him " Othello" for his opening character, yet at the same time his 
 name was in the cast of the " Merchant of Venice," (to be acted the 
 night following that of his appearance,) for " Salerino," or " Salario," a 
 part which might with safety be entrusted to the meanest capacity in 
 the theatre. 
 
 Mr. Brooke saw at once the deep laid plans to ruin him ; for the 
 "eminent" can " brook no rival near the throne," and he determined 
 to defeat the machinations of his arch enemy, and so broke his engage- 
 ment. Had Mr. Brooke gone to London at this time, he would have 
 shared the fate of others who were "lured to the toils," and who were 
 either " put upon the shelf," or placed in such a position that they could 
 not display their talents, excepting through the medium of a servile 
 imitation of the manager's peculiar style. It is no less strange than 
 true, so general and baneful an influence has Mr. Macready's acting 
 exercised upon the members of his profession in England, that, luith but 
 few exceptions, all the actors in that country are merely the transcripts 
 of his artificial manner. I will not impute to them the bad taste that 
 they adopt it from choice, as I am well aware that all who act with 
 him must of necessity move and speak according to his teachings, and 
 by such means the pernicious habit is confirmed among them. Besides, 
 it is much easier to imitate absurd mannerisms and peculiarities than 
 to spy out the great truths in nature, or "snatch a grace beyond the 
 reach of art." 
 
 * Where is Mr. Brooke now ? Has lie too been sacrificed by the Macready clique, because he 
 was abetter actor than the " eminent." 
 
23 
 
 The non-fulfilment of his engagement at Covent Garden Theatre, 
 rendered Mr. Brooke liable to an action at law ; and the manager, 
 although he did not prosecute the young tragedian for his breach of 
 faith, was most active in his persecution of him. He was constantly 
 threatened with a suit, and hunted through the three kingdoms by an 
 obedient, well-trained hound, calling himself J. T. Serle, whose syco- 
 phancy to the will and pleasure of the "eminent" is so well known in 
 England, that it has won for him the enviable soubriquet of " Macready's 
 door-mat.''' An amusing incident occurred in one of these hunting 
 excursion^. Serle was despatched by his master to seek Mr, Brooke, 
 whom he found fulfiling an engagement at Aberdeen. Serle demanded 
 that the young tragedian should at once accompany him to London, or 
 a.bide the consequences of an immediate arrest. Brooke, having a 
 dread of the law, expressed his willingness to go to London by the 
 steamer, which was to leave Aberdeen that very day. In the mean- 
 time, however, he took pains to ply Serle with bountiful potations of 
 choicest mountain dew, to which he was nothing loth, and by the time 
 the steamer was ready to depart, Serle was in such a delicate state of 
 unconsciousness, that Brooke found no difficulty in quietly walking 
 ashore, while the boat bore the inebriate back to his master in London 
 alone. 
 
 Mr. Macready maintains a position on the London stage, not by his 
 merits as an actor only, but chiefly by the miserable aid of cliques., ever 
 ready to disparage the rising stars, whose brilliancy might eclipse his 
 borrowed light. For this purpose was Charles Kean attacked by 
 Forster and id genus omne. The editor of the Edinburgh Pilot and 
 Chronicle, under -date of March, 1845, makes the following comments 
 on the subject : 
 
 " The Examiner, two years ago, when Charles Kean happened one 
 night to play to a more moderately filled house than usual, triumph- 
 antly took advantage of it, and announced that, ^'- on Friday evening 
 last, Mr. Charles Kean 'performed Hamlet, lohen the house was, as it de- 
 served to be, empty."' To any candid mind, to comment on this must be 
 superfluous. The truth is, that Charles Keans talents having enabled 
 him to maintain the position of a formidable rival to Ajr. Macready, 
 and having hitherto, in London, J\Iacready"s stronghold, drawn better 
 houses, he is, therefore, visited with the direst indignation. He has 
 never been forgiven, because, some years ago, he played at the Hay- 
 market to crowded houses, while Macready, who played on the alter- 
 nate nights, was only able to draw houses two-thirds full. We are no 
 "out-and-out"' admirers of Charles Kean, being by no means blind to 
 his faults, but we want to see fair play. There is room enough on the 
 British stage for both of these actors, and we would like to see a more 
 impartial tone adopted. The bad effects of the present system are ob- 
 vious : criticism is degraded from its high office ; Macready's faults not 
 being fairly pointed out to him, he is not induced to mend them, if he 
 could; — while Kean can hardly be expected to take advice from those 
 who treat him so unjustly. * * '^ * * As an 
 
 instance of how far every thing is made subservient to Macready, in 
 London, we may mention that, when he went to America, it was said 
 Miss Faucit would have nothing to do till his return. We in Scotland, 
 however, know that this great actress has not been idle ; the pupil has 
 far outstripped the tutor, and she has, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and 
 Dublin, earned for herself the reputation of being the most thoroughly 
 finished actress, in the higher walks of the drama, now on the stage. 
 We suspect that the hardest task she had to undergo, was the unlearn- 
 
24 
 
 ing somewhat of Macready's mannerisms, which, being tutored hy him 
 and having for six years constantly played to him, it was almost impos- 
 sible for her to avoid." 
 
 In giving you these extracts from newspapers published on the other 
 side of the water, I seek rather to " define my position" by the concur- 
 rent testimony of Mr. Macready's own countrymen, than by what I 
 could offer from myself. One more extract, and I have done for the 
 present. The following is from the London Sunday Times, of 
 March 12th, 1845, and most decidedly does it corroborate my assertion, 
 that " Mr. Macready has no feeling of kindness for any actor who is 
 likely, by his talents, to stand in his way." 
 
 " Mr. Macready and the Drama.^ — In our article of last wesk, we 
 were in error in saying, that ' Mr. Anderson owed his introduction to 
 the public to Madame Vestris.' His first appearance before a London 
 audience being at Drury Lane, under Mr. iVlacready's management, 
 in the -character of Florizel, in the Winter's Tale. But the fact, that 
 we sought to establish, namely, that, during the time Mr. Macready 
 held the management of Covent Garden and Drury Lane Theatres, 
 'there is not an instance of his having brought forward a tragic 
 actor with generous disregard to his own popularity,' is still more 
 strongly confirmed by the characters which the manager gave to Mr. 
 Anderson during his engagement. Besides Florizel, he was put into 
 Cassio in Othello; Michael m William Tell; and Gower in Henry 4th." 
 
 This was the manner in which the young tragedian was brought 
 forward by the old one. In fact, Mr. Anderson was hardly known to 
 the London public, until he afterwards appeared at Covent Garden 
 Theatre, then under the management of Madame Vestris and Mr. 
 Charles Mathews, in the character of ifwon, in Sheridan Knowles' play 
 of " Love." It was from his performance in this principal part, that 
 Mr. Anderson first established his reputation, as an actor, and not in 
 any characters in which he was permitted to appear at Drury Lane. 
 
 When I have settled some matters about the farm, I shall send you 
 a fourth letter. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Edwin Forrest. 
 W. H. Smith, Esq., Pittsburgh. 
 
 The preceding letters and " cards" are all that have been written 
 for the public by Mr. Forrest and Mr. Macready, and now to make 
 the case complete, it is only necessary to give the " Replies" of Mr. 
 Macready, which are given verbatim, except that the " cards" published 
 in Philadelphia are omitted, because they have been already quoted. 
 
25 
 
 The Replies from England, etc., 
 
 TO CERTAIN STATEMENTS CIRCULATED IN THIS COUNTRY RESPECTING 
 
 MR. MACREADY. 
 
 The following papers, collected as evidence on certain charges made 
 against, and publicly and unequivocally denied by Mr. Macready, were 
 delivered to Mr. W. B. Reed and Mr. Meredith of Philadelphia, in sup- 
 port of an action for libel, which, in proof of his veracity, Mr. Macready 
 desired those gentlemen to conduct for him. 
 
 Mr. Macready, deferring of necessity to the opinion of his legal advis- 
 ers (see letter, pages 19 and 20), had no alternative, under their coun- 
 sel and his own sense of propriety and Belf-respect, but to rely in 
 silence upon the generally expressed disbelief of the said charges; at 
 the same time purposing to leave with his friends the means cf vindi- 
 cating his character, and their own confidence in it (should it hereafter 
 be called in question), he arranged the answers returned to him from 
 England with the intention of printing a certain number of copies for 
 private distribution. 
 
 The outrages of Monday evening make it necessary to give publicity 
 to them, which he does in the exact form in which they were prepared 
 for circulation among his friends. 
 
 New York, May 8th, 1849. 
 
 The following article appeared in the Boston Mail on the morning of 
 Mr. Macready's appearance at the Howard Athenaeum, Boston, Mon- 
 day, Oct.' 30th, 1848. 
 
 I^yom tite Boston Mail, Oct. 30th, 1848. 
 More about McReady — His Abuse of Forrest in Europe — Endeavors to put 
 him down in Paris, London, and Edinburgh — His Intrigue with 
 Bulwer to prevent Forrest playing in Bulwer's Pieces — 
 His Abuse of Americans. 
 Mr. McReady has at length arrived, and next to the grand water 
 celebration will create such excitement, as will emphatically mark the 
 present epoch in time's calendar. He plays this evening at the Howard 
 Athenaeum, and refuses to show himself for less than one dollar a tick- 
 et. This was his price in New York, and with the exception of the 
 first night, resulted in a " beggarly account of empty boxes." We re- 
 peat what we said in a former article, that Mr. Pelby, the enterprising 
 manager of the National Theatre, deserves immortal honors for not ac- 
 ceding to the dictatorial terms of this actor autocrat. Although Mc- 
 Ready saw fit on his opening night in New York, on being called out by 
 some friends, to slur a " certain pen7iy paper,'''' that had " darect'' to ex- 
 press an opinion regarding his talents and conduct, we shall not by any 
 
26 
 
 means give him the retort churlish ; we only pity his ignorance of the 
 institutions of this country, and hope for his own credit's sake that he 
 will not, when he gets home, write a black book about American man- 
 ners, &c., a la Trollope and others, but if he does, that he will spare us 
 in the production of his brain. The reader will no doubt ask, what 
 fault we find with Mr. McReady. Has he not the same right as other 
 men have, to do as he pleases "? We answer yes. He has a right to 
 come to this country in the exercise of his profession ; he has a right to 
 demand a dollar from every person who witnesses his acting, and if 
 manager of Theatres are willing to accede to his arbitrary proposals, 
 he has certainly aright to make them. We complain not of any of 
 these. Our charges against McReady are based upon more impor- 
 tant grounds. It is his conduct in his own country in relation to Mr. 
 Forrest, that we are about investigating; his inhospitality, his crushing 
 influence, his vindictive opposition, and his steadfast determination to ruin 
 the prospects of that gentieinan in England, that we bring to his door. 
 Let him deny them if he can. Every true American takes a pride in 
 that which represents his country's interests, industry, and enterprise, 
 and from the smallest commodity gathered from his soil to the loftiest 
 labors of his genius, his ambition goes with it, and the strong arm of his 
 power will protect it in every clime. Mr. Edwin Forrest Ls titled the 
 American Tragedian — he is justly entitled to that honor— he has ac- 
 quired it by his own labors; from a poor boy in a circus, he has arisen 
 to be a man of fame and wealth, all of which he has lastingly gained 
 by enterprise and talent, and secured both by economy and tempe- 
 rance. 
 
 Every American born man is willing, that Mr. Forrest should wear 
 this title, and when he visited England they were anxiously interested 
 in his success- McReady had previously been in this country, and 
 played engagements in every city, and made a fortune. He was extol- 
 led by the press, and treated as a gentleman by the citizens of every 
 place he visited. But instead of returning this kindness, he acted 
 
 OPENLY TOWARDS Mr. FoRREST AS HIS DETERMINED FOE. We SPEAK BY 
 CARD, AND WRITE UPON THE VERY BEST INFORMTTION, VIZ : THE HIGHEST 
 
 AUTHORITY.* In Paris Mr. McReady and Mr. Forrest met. The lat- 
 ter was anxious to appear on the French boards : but McReady 
 THREW obstacles IN THE WAY, and this was the first time that the two 
 parties were enemies. Mr. Mitchell, the enterprising lessee of St. 
 James Theatre, in London, took an English company of actors to the 
 French capital, with Mr. McReady at the head of the list. McRea- 
 dy was to be the hero — the great attraction of Paris. He failed, how- 
 ever, to draw money to the treasury, and Mr. Mitchell lost a large sum 
 by the speculation, or rather would have lost it, if Louis Philippe had 
 not made him most liberal presents. Mr. Forrest had letters of intro- 
 duction to Mr. Mitchell from his friends in London, but McReady was 
 jealous, least Forrest should prove to be the great star, and he caution- 
 
 * Extract of letter from Mr. Bland, Lyceum, Boston, to Mr. Ryder — 
 
 Boston, Lyceu/it. 
 " Post mark— Boston, Dec. 6th, 
 
 New York, Jan. 24th. 
 " I expostulated with Mr. Bradley, the proprietor of the Mail, as to Ihe insertion of an article 
 abusing Mr. Macready, and his reply was, that he was justified in stating, that Mr. Forrest would 
 endorse all that the arlicle in question stated." 
 
 Extract of letter from Mr. Brougham, Burton's Theatre, New York, to Mr. Ryder — 
 
 " 37 rhambers St., New York, Nov. 29th. 
 
 "Mr. Bradley informed me, that Mr. Thome was his authority for saying, that Mr. Forrest sta- 
 ted in his (Thome's) hearing, that the alle'^ations were true, and if necessary he (Forrest) would 
 substantiate them under his own signature." 
 
27 
 
 EB Mitchell not to allow Fokhestto appear. The result was that 
 Mr. Mitchell refused to see Mr. Fo^REST . _ MnPfi^Hv i^ aT>- 
 
 The parties returned to London The hypocrisy of MclRea^ is ap 
 parent in his note of invitation to Mr. Forrest to ^ine with W Tne 
 latter, knowing the intrigue that had been carried on i^/^"^/!*^;^^ 
 
 McReady and Mitchell, refused, ^^/I^^^^^^^-f^^.^^^r^ecently 
 TO DINE WITH HIM. This is a Very different version to that recently 
 g v:nby™e of McReady's frieni-if friends ^^ ^^-^^-'^^'JZlt 
 las offended because he was not mvited to dine ; as if "f^^^^^^ 
 Mr. Forrest could take offence at such a trifle, '^^^\^,\.fl'^^^J''^^ 
 he was invited to dine with many of the leading ^^^^^^ J^ ^ngland^ 
 but especially of Scotland, where he passed several months as their 
 
 ^'^The next mean act towards Forrest, brought ^^^^V^^-^^gJ^Th JafrT 
 ence of McReady, was when Mr. F. appeared at the Prmcess's Theatre, 
 ^London. Mc^had been endeavoring for a long time to effect an 
 
 ENGAGEMENT WITH SOME LoNDON MANAGER, ^^ ^V'/^f ^"f ff-^JJ^ Ji'' 
 
 success of Forrest stung him, and he resolved to "put him down 
 ^ZTs^M:Ume thlt he or Us fnends actually Mred rn^to ^sr^t^ 
 theatre and Mss Forrest off the stage, and Forrest was consequeny eceived 
 with a shower of hisses before he icas heard ! This mean conduct ua joi- 
 hweduv by the press, by which Forrest was most outrageously assailed, and 
 ZkTrestalonl hut Us country, which ts proud to own Um as one of her 
 
 '' Forrest and McReady next met in Edinburgh, and from t^g city 
 were sent forth the grossest calumnies against Forrest. McReady was 
 playinTat the Theatre Royal in Fam/.^-Forrest was presen . During 
 Kelinningofthe piece' Mr. Forrest applauded several times and 
 as we are informed by an eye-witness, he started the .^PPl^^^^ ^^^^^^ 
 some brilliant effect had been given to a passage, so that tl^^ J^ioie 
 house followed him. But now comes Forrest's great sm— that giant _sm 
 which Mc will never forgive-the sin of hissing McReady for dancing 
 and throwing up his handkerchief across the stage m the Pas de Mou- 
 
 '^^Mr F not only hissed, but the whole house hissed, and yet McReady 
 dared to write to London, that Forrest had singly and alone attempted to 
 hiss Um from the stage. . ,. ^, „„„■„„ o-ma+« 
 
 To show that Mr. Forrest was not alone m this matter, we are able to 
 state, that two weeks afterwards Hamlet was repeated, when the whole 
 house again hissed McReady's dance across the stage . 
 
 Out of this simple incident McReady contrived to create a great deal 
 of sympathy for himself. He is, or was, part proprietor of the London 
 Examiner; or, if not sole owner, he possesses the body and soul of its 
 theatrical critic, Foster, who does all kinds of dirty work for his mas- 
 ter. McReady gave the cue to Foster, and Forrest was denounced by 
 the Examiner, and other papers, in wUch Foster or Mc had any ^nfluence 
 A false coloring was put on this affair, and Mc appeared to the world as 
 a persecuted man, whereas Forrest was the one who met with perse- 
 cution at every corner— in Paris, in London, in Edinburgh, and m Lon- 
 don a second time. ^ • v j j. 
 
 But McReady's persecution did not stop here. Forrest wished to ap- 
 pear in London, in Bulwer's Lady of Lyons, and Richelieu. To do 
 this, permission must be obtained of the author. Forrest addressed a 
 note to Bulwer, asking his terms for the plays. After _ a long delay, 
 Bulwer replied, that he should charge Forrest £2 per night for the use 
 of them, and he must play 40 nights ! Such terms for plays,_ that had 
 in a great measure lost their interest, compelled Forrest to reject them. 
 
28 
 
 It was ascertained that McReady and Bulwer had been much together, 
 and that the former had prevailed on the latter not to allow Forrest 
 the use of his compositions. 
 
 Forrest could not entertain any jealous feelings towards Mac, for Ke 
 drew crowded houses during his engagement at the Princess's Theatre-, 
 whereas McReady had very slim audiences; and on one occasion we know 
 that our own charming actress, Mrs. Barrett, on one of the off-nights, at 
 the time Mc was playing, actually drew more money to the treasury 
 than McReady. 
 
 We have now given a plain statement of facts, and such as cannot 
 be controverted. It proves that actors, like McKeady, Anderson, and 
 others, find it very hard scratching in their own country, and much 
 better pickings here. It is to be hoped, however, that we Americans 
 will finally become awakened to the mercenary motives of such ar- 
 tistes, and when we have any surplus dollars to spend, that we will be 
 generous and just to our own home genius. 
 
 [Here follow the " cards" of Mr. Forrest and Mr. Macready, pub- 
 ished in Philadelphia, in November, and which have been previously 
 quoted.] 
 
 Immediately after publishing the above, Mr. Macready committed 
 to his counsel, Messrs. Reed & Meredith, of Philadelphia, authority to 
 commence such legal proceedings as they might deem advisable ; and, 
 preparatory thereto, he obtained from England the documentary evi- 
 dence now subjoined. 
 
 As regards the charge of suborning the English press, it will be 
 sufficient here to refer to the Times, Globe, Observer, Spectator, Morning 
 Chronicle, Morning Post, Weekly Dispatch, Britannia, &c., &c., of dates 
 Dec. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c., which have indignantly and emphatically de- 
 nied the charge ; many of which denials have already been republished 
 in the American newspapers. 
 
 The following letters are replies to Mr. Macready's applications: — 
 
 [Letter from Albany Fonblanqne, Esq., Secretary of Board of Trade, and Proprietor of the Exami- 
 ner newspaper.] 
 
 48 CoNNAUGHT Square, Dec. 14th, 1848. 
 
 31y Dear Macready — 1 have seen, with disgust inexpressible, the foul 
 attacks upon you, which I know to be void of any particle of truth. 
 
 I cannot, indeed, go so far as to say, that you never attempted to in- 
 fluence the Examiner as to Mr. Forrest; for I am aware that you did 
 attempt to influence it to forbearance towards him, and that you re- 
 peatedly entreated Mr. Forster to be lenient or silent, but Mr. Forster 
 very properly maintained his independent judgment, and would not 
 be induced to swerve from the course he thought just by any private 
 solicitation, however generous the sentiment in which it originated. 
 
 Upon Mr. Forrest's second visit, I am quite confident there was no 
 notice of him whatever in the Examiner,* his pretensions as an actor 
 having been sufficiently disposed of before. 
 
 I earnestly hope that you will not allow yourself to be ruffled by the 
 vile calumnies of which you have sent me samples. Falsehood is your 
 enemies' only weapon. It may set a mob upon your person, it may 
 
 * From this passage, it will be seen that Mr. Fonblanqne himself was under the same impression 
 with Mr. Macready, that no mention had been made in the Examiner of the performances at the 
 Princess's Theatre. In the short paragraphs (not " notices," as that word is used and understood 
 by literary people in England) which, it seems did appear, the writer states, that he did not see the 
 first performance, and it was well known that he was equally unable to attend the second 
 
29 
 
 cause you to be hooted or assailed; but it cannot touch your well- 
 established character, and it will bind your many friends to you more 
 strongly than ever, both here and in America. 
 
 Ever, my dear Macready, faithfully yours, 
 
 A. FONBLANQUE.. 
 
 [Letter from John Mitchell, Esq , Lessee of St. James's Theatre, and Manager of the English com- 
 pany at Paris, 1844-5. 
 
 London, 33 Old Bond Street, Dec. 14th, 1848. 
 
 Dear Mr. Macready — I hasten to reply to your letter, dated Philadel- 
 phia, Nov. 25, which reached me this morning ; and, in order that my 
 answers to your inquiries may not be misunderstood, I deem it advisa- 
 ble to repeat your questions, and to answer them categorically : 
 
 To your 1st Question. 
 
 " Did I throw obstacles of any kind in the way of ]\Ir. Forrest's ap- 
 pearance, under your management, in the Theatre at Paris?" 
 
 My answer is — Decidedly not. 
 
 2d Question. 
 
 "Did I caution you not to allow Mr. Forrest to appear ?" 
 
 Again I answer — Decidedly not. 
 
 3d Question. 
 
 " Was it in consequence of any word of mine, that you refused to see 
 Mr. Forrest ?"' 
 
 jNIy answer again is — Decidedly not. 
 
 Nor did you in any manner, direct or indirect, with me personally, 
 or to my knowledge with any other person, attempt to interfere with, 
 or prevent any arrangement, that ]Mr. Forrest might have desired to 
 make with me for his appearance at Paris. 
 
 I_ heartily sympathize with you, my dear sir, in the anxieties to 
 which you have been subjected, and sincerely hope, that the ample 
 evidence open to you may fully explain, as it must assuredly refute the 
 calumnies directed against you. 
 
 With the most sincere and kind wishes, 
 
 Believe me, my dear sir, yours most faithfully, 
 
 John Mitchell. 
 
 W. C. Macready, Esq. 
 
 [From the High Sheriff, etc. J 
 
 Edinburgh, 16th December, 1848. 
 My Dear Forster — Macready played Hamlet in Edinburgh 
 A on Monday, 2d March, 1846. 
 B " " 9th " " 
 
 C " " 16th " " 
 
 Proof of this — Conference with ]Mr. INIurray, Theatre Royal : inspec- 
 tion of the bound-up play-bills of the theatre, and of the Edinburgh 
 Newspapers. 
 
 A. In reference to this performance, I enclose a copy of the Scots- 
 man Newspaper, 4th March, 1846, containing an account of what took 
 place. 
 
 [Extract from Theatrical ?fotice of Scotsman, 4th March, 1&46.] 
 
 " All parts of the house, except the boxes, (which were respectably 
 filled,) were crowded by an audience loud and enthusiastic in their 
 admiration. 
 
 We feel compelled however, to notice one flagrant exception to the 
 general, or indeed unanimous approbation. A gentleman, occupying 
 
30 
 
 a prominent position in the house, made himself unenviably conspi- 
 cuous by loud and repeated solitary hissing, with the view of express- 
 ing his disapproval of the manner in which Mr. Macready gave effect 
 to a particular passage. We should not have thought it worth while 
 to mention such a circumstance, had it not been reported, (though we 
 scarcely think it credible,) that the offender was a brother actor, and 
 one, loo, who probably considers himself a rival. We must distinctly 
 state, however, that the stigma does not apply to any member of our 
 regular theatrical company." 
 
 Further — 1 know the writer of that statement, and have seen him. 
 His testimony is above all suspicion. He was close to Forrest, when he 
 hissed exactly as it is described. The audience was perfectly tran- 
 quil, and breathlessly silent, at the moment Forrest alone hissed. You 
 know how silent an Edinburgh audience can be. When that hiss was 
 heard, there was an outbreak by the audience for a moment to put 
 down the person whoever he was, whose sibillation so marred the uni- 
 versal feeling of the house. Not one human being hissed Macready 
 on that night except Forrest. 
 
 Again — -1 have seen a gentleman — now the Superintendent of the 
 City Police — whose evidence is likewise beyond the reach of suspicion. 
 He was close to Forrest. " In the house," he says, "you might have 
 heard a pin fall." Forrest alone hissed. There was an instant out- 
 break of the audience against him (Forrest). Nobody hissed that night 
 at Macready except Forrest, who hissed " a decided solitary hissing, 
 as if he did not care a rush for the rest of the audience." 
 
 Once more — I have seen one of the confidential oflacers of the Theatre 
 Royal. He was close to Forrest when he hissed alone, the audience 
 being at the time in profound quiet. Nobody on that night hissed 
 Macready except Forrest. His evidence I have no reason to believe 
 to be in any way less unimpeachable than the testimony already re- 
 ferred to. It was not at first known on the stage luho the liisser was. 
 There is a notion, that Mrs. Leigh (now, I think, acting in London as 
 Mrs. Leigh Murray) first recognised it to be Forrest. At all events, 
 it was stated immediately afterwards, in the Green Room, that Forrest 
 was the hisser. " On this, Macready," says Mr. Murray, " exclaimed, 
 ' No, no, I don't believe it — Forrest is too much of a gentleman to do 
 that.' " 
 
 It is a matter of general notoriety here, that Forrest always avowed 
 that he had hissed on this occasion, and maintained his right to do so 
 — because he had paid money on that evening to get into the theatre, 
 and was therefore entitled, as one of the audience, to give what ex- 
 pression he liked to his feelings. 
 
 It is a fact, that, after Tke Scotsman now sent to you appeared, 
 Forrest, in the theatre, questioned one of the gentlemen connected 
 with that paper, in a very violent way, about the article describing his 
 conduct. As a matter of course, he was not rewarded with any infor- 
 mation on the subject. The facts described remained undenied even 
 by Forrest. 
 
 Certain, therefore, it is, that to say that anybody but Forrest hissed 
 Macready, on 2d March, 1846, is a falsehood. 
 
 B. & C. There is not the most distant shadow of a recollection in 
 the minds of those connected with the theatre, that on either occasion 
 any hissing of any sort occurred. Tke Scotsman., of 11th March, 1846, 
 simply announces, that on Monday, the 9th, Macready "played Ham- 
 let a second time." It is not credible, considering what that paper 
 had stated the week before, that it should have been silent, had any 
 thing, however slight, taken place, either in continuation or illustration 
 
31 
 
 of the scene of the preceding week. Unquestionably, it is a falsehood, 
 that " the whole house hissed Macready" either on the 9th or 16th of 
 March, 1846. 
 
 My uncle, Captain R., saw Hamlet either on the 9th or 16th. There 
 was not a single hiss during the whole performance. 1 have not in my 
 own mind the least doubt, that no hissing was heard either on the 9th 
 or 16th. I have seen a good deal of the Edinburgh Theatre for more 
 years than I shall name, and sure I am, that if '• the whole house" had 
 hissed Macready on the 9th, I, and a very tremendous " whole house" 
 would have been there on the 16th to see for ourselves, what it was, 
 which had elicited in our theatre such an expression of universal con- 
 demnation as never, in my memory, had greeted any actor — far less a 
 Macready. Believe me, there was but one hiss — and one hisser. For- 
 rest was the hisser — Forrest's was the hiss. 
 
 Nee verba volenti 
 Sufficient ; quotiesque aliquos paiat edere questus. 
 Sib Hat ; banc illi vocem Natura relinquit. 
 
 See Ovid, Metam, IV. 575. 
 
 I am, dear Forster, Thine as ever. 
 
 J. Gordon. 
 
 [Letter fromWm. Murray Esq., Proprietor and Manager ot.,tbe Theatre Royal, Edinburgh.] 
 
 Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, 
 
 December 28th, 1848. 
 Sir: 
 
 I never heard of the slightest mark of disapprobation being expressed 
 by the Edinburgh audience towards Mr. Macready during the whole 
 engagement alluded to. On the evening when Mr. Forrest hissed Mr. 
 Macready, it was stated to the latter gentleman in the green-room of 
 the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, that Mr. Forrest had done so; to which 
 Mr. Macready replied, " I cannot believe it, Mr. Forrest is too much 
 the gentleman to adopt such conduct." This was said in my hearing, 
 and I feel it but justice to M. Macready to state it. 
 
 I am, Sir, yours very respectfully, 
 
 W. H. Murray. 
 J. H. Rutherfurd, Esq., 48 Queen Street. 
 
 [Affidavit of Mr. Ryder, Comedian.] 
 
 State of Georgia, 
 Chatham Comity. 
 
 Before me, Edward G. Wilson, a Justice of 
 the Peace in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally ap- 
 peared John Ryder, who, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that 
 Mr. Edwin Forrest (and Mr. Edwin Forrest only) did hiss Mr. William 
 Charles Macready in the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, in the character 
 of Hamlet, on the night of Monday, March 2d, 1846, and that there 
 was not one single hiss from any other person through that evening, 
 nor during any night of Mr. Macready's engagement, nor upon any oc- 
 casion, that I have ever witnessed, while engaged in Mr. Macready's 
 performances, except on the night of Monday, November 20th, 1848, in 
 the Arch Street, Philadelphia. 
 
 J. Ryber. 
 Sworn to before me, this 22d January, 1849. 
 
 Edward G. Wilson, J. P. 
 
32 
 
 * . [Letter of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Bart.] 
 
 Brighton, Nov. 26th, 1848. 
 My Dear Macready : 
 
 I have been truly delighted to hear of the 'warm reception your 
 genius has so deservedly met with from the American public. Here, 
 alas ! how we miss you ! you have carried ojff with you our very Drama. 
 
 In reply to a strange question just put to me relative to Mr. Forrest, 
 I can truly say, that you never directly or indirectly expressed even 
 the remotest wish, that Mr. Forrest should not act in any play of 
 mine — nor was ever such a subject touched upon by either of us. Ill 
 indeed could your generous artist-nature be known to such minds, as 
 Gould for a moment harbor the thought, that you would interpose any 
 obstacle in the way of any actor whomsoever. And if there could be 
 degrees — where the admittance of one mean thought was an impossi- 
 bility — I should say, least of all weuld you have exercised a single hos- 
 tile influence against a native of that brother-land, of which you have 
 always spoken with such affectionate and respectful appreciation. 
 
 Adieu, my dear Macready, and believe in the warm and faithful re- 
 gard which follows you across the Atlantic, — which has grieved with 
 you in the loss you have lately sustained, — and sympathized with you 
 in every triumph of that exquisite and unrivalled intellect, which has 
 thrown new light over the subtlest beauties of Shakspeare, and given 
 to ordinary plays a beauty that no one could detect, till one perceived 
 that the truly great actor is like the poet — a creator. 
 Ever your affectionate friend, 
 
 E. Bulwer Lytton. 
 
 [Letter of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Baronet, in answer to Mr. Macready's interrogatories.] 
 
 Leominister, Dec. 16, 1848. 
 Mt Dear Macready : 
 
 I have already written to you on the points named in yours, received 
 to-day. I hasten to repeat the purport of my replies. 
 
 1st. You never, directly or indirectly, through yourself or others, ex- 
 pressed any wish whatsoever, that Mr. Forrest should not perform in 
 any play of mine ; and it would have been so unlike you to have sought 
 to influence me on such a point, that I should have disbelieved any 
 one, who ventured to report to me, that you had the least disinclina- 
 tion to Mr. Forrest's taking a part in my plays. 
 
 2d. You never had any communication, direct or indirect, with me, 
 or any agent of mine, respecting any application from Mr. Forrest to act 
 in my plays. 
 
 3dly. I not only do not believe you capable of any interference to the 
 prejudice of the interests of another actor upon such a point — but from 
 a long and intimate acquaintance with you, I should have considered it 
 an insult to you, to have ever asked you, if you would object to any 
 actor performing your parts in my plays. It is a proof indeed of that, 
 that I have always unhesitatingly given permission to Mr. Kean to play 
 Claude Melnotte, even at a time when it might be thought that he pit- 
 ted that performance against your own. 
 
 Farthermore — according to the printed statement for the Boston 
 Mail, Oct. 30th, it seems, that I did accord to Mr. Forrest the permis- 
 sion to act the parts of Richelieu and Claude Melnotte for a less sum 
 than I was, and still am, in the habit of receiving for them at a London 
 Theatre ; and a less sum than I should have asked from any manager, 
 with whom you yourself were engaged — viz : 80 guineas for 40 nights ; 
 that is for a full season. My usual terms would be 100 guineas; and 
 
33 
 
 you know well, that my reason for claiming pecuniary terms for the 
 performance of my plays — iW) matter who the actor — is, to set the ex- 
 ample of enforcing my own act of Parliament, f?r the benefit of poorer 
 dramatic authors than myself. I am in the usual habit of leaving it to 
 some friend of literary station, and not to a mere agent; to fix the 
 terms; and I have little doubt, but that, as appears by the Boston 
 Mail, the plays were offered to Mr. Forrest upon more favorable terms 
 than to an English actor, in order that, as an American, he might have 
 full chance of any benefit they could bring him. The sum may seem 
 high in America ; but for performances fewer in number than 40 nights, 
 f shall receive this year a much larger sum from Mr. Phelps, as the mana- 
 ger of a minor metropolitan theatre. 
 
 To the best of my recollection, at the time to which this matter-re- 
 fers, we were not in any personal intercourse with each other. 
 
 I have that confidence in the American public, that I feel perfectly 
 persuaded, it will rally round you, with regret and even shame at bo 
 unworthy a calumny from a part of its population, unhappily misled. 
 I can conceive, that your high sense of honor may be wounded at the 
 mere suspicion of practices so foreign to your nature. In England, the 
 injustice of such attacks seems as ludicrously glaring, as if we had 
 heard a report that the Duke of Wellington had been broken for cow- 
 ardice, or the Archbishop of Canterbury sent to the treadmill for pick- 
 ing pockets. 
 
 Your letter finds me in the bustle of a Parliamentary canvass, and 
 you will excuse so hasty a scrawl from your sincere friend and brother 
 artist, E. B. L. 
 
 [Letter of Mr. Charles Bass, Comedian.] 
 
 No. 5 CAMBJiIDG£ STREET, BoSTON, MaSS., 
 
 November 2oth, 1848. 
 W. C. Maceeadt, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir : — Reading in the Boston papers this morning the contro- 
 versy respecting yourself and Mr. Forrest, I am much gratified by the 
 tenor of your '-Card,-' and feel impelled by a sense of duty to address 
 you, to say, that in any pending legal proceedings if my evidence can 
 have any weight in the affair, it shall be freely at your service. I was 
 in London, when Mr. F. acted his engagement at the Princess's Thea- 
 tre, and, having at that period had a correspondence with you respect- 
 ing an engagement at Covent Garden Theatre, can certify as to your 
 absence at that period from the Metropolis. Upon the termination of my 
 connexion with C. G. T. I had negotiations with Mr. Forrest, who then 
 proposed to open the Odeon Theatre at Paris for English dramatic per- 
 formances, which was broken off in consequence of the insolvency of 
 the proprietor of the Odeon, and not from, any alleged interference on 
 your part, as falsely stated in the Boston Mail. Having been offered 
 by Mr. Forrest the stage management of the Parisian speculation. I 
 was in the frequent habit of calling on him during his engagement at 
 the Princess's Theatre, and on these occasions often heard him speak 
 of the '-shameful treatment" he experienced there, alluding to hisses, 
 disapprobation, &c., which sometimes attended his performance. This 
 
 he invariably ascribed to the underhand influence of Miss , who, 
 
 he said, had brought many letters to literary persons in London, and by 
 them he was crushed, as the means to exalt her. At that time he 
 never said, nor, 1 believe, imagined, you were at all instrumental in 
 opposing his interests ;. on the contrary, 1 have heard him express in 
 London a high sense of your gentlemanly demeanor, of your calling on 
 3 
 
34 
 
 Mm at his lodgings in Regent street, and inviting Hm to a birth-day 
 party at your residence in Clarence Place, when you came from Shef- 
 field to spend that anniversary with your family, &c., &c. > 
 
 I am very reluctant to appear before the public in any way but in 
 the duties of my profession, yet, if any evidence of mine can aid your 
 truthful cause — as I said before — pray use it freely : if you deem it 
 worthless, you will be kind enough to conceal my name in the affair. 
 And with sentiments of entire admiration at the course you have deem- 
 ed it proper to pursue, 
 
 I remain, dear sir, yours respectfully, 
 
 Charles Bass. 
 
 [Letter of Wm. B. Reed, Esq., Counsellor at Law.J 
 
 Philadelphia, May 1st, 1849. 
 
 My Dear Sir : I have forwarded to you the papers that were sent 
 to me from some point on your southern route : you should have had 
 them sooner, but that in your vast western wandering from New Or- 
 leans to New York, it was not easy for me to ascertain your where- 
 abouts. I have read them with great care, and had I before doubted 
 the gross injustice of the attack made upon you, these testimonials 
 would have entirely relieved my mind. They are to me conclusive. 
 
 There is one point on which, in your absence, I have had a little so- 
 licitude. It has, it seems, been made a matter of reproach to you, that 
 you have not sought redress for alleged calumny in the Courts of Jus- 
 tice. If abstaining from such a course be an error, the responsibility 
 of it rests on your professional advisers. Some time, I think, last De- 
 cember, though of the date I am not positive, you consulted Mr. Me- 
 redith and myself on this subject, submitting to us various publications, 
 by which you were aggrieved, and the question what your course 
 should be. Our opinion was, that the publications were " libellous," 
 and that an action would lie. But we could not reconcile it to our 
 sense of duty to you, as a stranger, and one who could not remain here 
 to watch the inevitable delay of litigation,_to advise you' thus to assert 
 your rights. In my own mind, I was entirely satisfied that no one of 
 the attacks made on you could in the end do you the least harm, and 
 there was, therefore, on myjart no hesitation in advising you not to 
 bring a suit. All that has since occurred, satisfies me that I was 
 right. Your discreet and dignified silence under provocation of no 
 ordinary kind, has won and kept you many friends. At any rate, I re- 
 peat, whatever censure belongs to your abstinence from the law, should 
 be borne by your professional advisers. 
 
 What use, if any, you ought to make of the testimonials which were 
 sent you from England, js a question which may be well answered by 
 your New York friends, vrith whom you now have means of frde per- 
 sonal conference. They ought to be shown to all, who take a friendly 
 
 interest m you. 
 
 Mr. Macready. 
 
 Command me in any way, 
 
 and believe me, dear sir, 
 
 faithfully yours, 
 
 William B. Reed. 
 
 The following, published in a few American newspapers, with the 
 remark, " Comment is unnecessary,''^ is extracted from a letter, dated 
 London, addressed to the late Mr. Leggett, and by him printed in the 
 
35 
 
 " Plaindealer." New York, in 1836, and is not an inappropriate accom- 
 paniment to the preceding testimonies : 
 
 " I suppose you saw in the newspapers that a dinner was given to 
 me by the Garriek Club. Charles Kemble and Mr. Macready were 
 there. The latter gentleman has behaved in the handsomest manner 
 to me. Before I arrived in England he had spoken of me in the most 
 flattering terms, and on my arrival he embraced the earliest opportu- 
 nity to call upon me, since which time he has extended to me many 
 delicate courtesies and attentions, all showing the native kindness of 
 his heart, and great refinement and good breeding." 
 
 The imputations on Mr. Macready of "jealousy," "fear," "envy," 
 &c., may stand for what they are worth ; and it perhaps need scarcely 
 be observed, that had he been chargeable with the conduct attempted 
 to be fastened on him, he would have surely subjected himself either 
 to a legal prosecution, or have rendered himself personally responsible 
 for actions so utterly indefensible ; but though the space of nearly a 
 year and a half permitted the choice of these courses, JVIr. Macready 
 heard no word on the subject, and, utterly ignorant of any suspicion of 
 the kind, on his arrival at Boston, September, 1848, was astonished to 
 learn, from newspapers then delivered to him, and from the statements of 
 the New York managers, that there would be opposition to his appear- 
 ance in the theatres of this country ! 
 
 During his professional course here, Mr. Macready has refrained 
 from obtruding himself unnecessarily upon public notice, reposing in 
 his own consciousness, and in the faith his friends have uniformly and 
 steadfastly held in him. He has perseveringly refused to admit the 
 application of the word " quarrel" to the assaults that have been made 
 upon his character ; and, with the approval of his friends, he now, in 
 preparing to leave the United States, places in their hands the evi- 
 dence of the parties mentioned in the accusations advanced against 
 him, to justify their confidence in his undeviating reverence for truth. 
 
 Now that authentic evidence on both sides is before the reader, let 
 us see which of the two disputants deserve censure. Before proceed- 
 ing farther, however, the author will here state, that he is personally 
 unknown to both Forrest and Macready, and in the expression of his 
 opinions is not governed by any other motive than a desire to be useful 
 in aiding the public to form a just estimate of the merits of this con- 
 troversy. 
 
 On the 13th of October, 1844, Mr. Macready, in the " Melodeon," 
 at Boston, delivered what he called a Farewell Speech, from which 
 the following is an extract : — 
 
 " Ladies and Gentlemen. — 
 
 ******** With these sentiments I take my leave 
 for the last time. These words, on ordinary occasions, fall sadly on my 
 ears — but parting from valued friends /orever, these sounds are indeed 
 full of painful emphasis. I again offer you my thanks for your many 
 acts of kindness to me in this country, and my sincere good wishes for 
 your welfare. I bid you farewell." 
 
 Boston Mail, Oct. Uth, 1844. 
 
36 ' 
 
 It is apparent from tlie aboye, that at the time it was uttered, Mr. 
 Macready had determined never to perform in this country again, and 
 having so determined, he, of course, would not, after reaching his 
 native land, be governed in his conduct, with a view to consult the 
 tastes or wishes of Americans, by any selfish motive. While here, 
 during that engagement, he was treated with the utmost kindness by 
 Mr. Forrest — as will appear from English testimony, to be introduced — 
 Mr. F. calling on him, extending to him all the hospitalities of his 
 house, feasting him sumptuously, introducing him to his friends, and 
 visiting the theatre on the nights when he performed, with his family and 
 friends. Not only did he do all this, but Mr. Forrest refused engage- 
 ments in Boston and other cities in which he was requested to perform 
 in opposition to Mr. Macready, and, as the writer has the best reasons 
 to believe, Mr. F.at that time spoke of Mr. M. publicly and privately 
 in the highest terms of praise, both as a man and as an actor. How 
 greatly he was deceived will soon be shown. In 1844 Mr. Forrest 
 visited Europe, and while in France an English manager went there 
 and offered him an engagement in one of the London theatres. The 
 engagement, 1 believe, was entered into, for Mr. F. appeared in the 
 Princess's Theatre on the 17th of February, 1845, when an attempt 
 was made to drive him from the stage. Mr. F. asserts, because he 
 believes, that Macready was the cause of the opposition there made 
 to him, and certainly there are many circumstances which strongly 
 go to prove that he was, at least, connected with it. It must be 
 remembered that Mr. F. had not offended the English, either by word 
 or deed — he had been well received by them during his first visit, and 
 many of their journals, which then proclaimed him to be an actor 
 " second to none;" in '45— endeavored to make him inferior to all. 
 Among them was the London Examiner., the theatrical critic of which 
 was and is notoriously the "friend" and eulogist of Macready. What, 
 then, was the cause of this sudden and unexpected attempt to drive 
 Mr. Forrest from the London boards 1 The London press did not 
 attack him before his appearance — he knew nothing of any intention 
 in any quarter to put him down, until he was greeted with hisses, 
 groans, &c., from a large portion of the audience. It was evident from 
 the number of hisses, and the pertinacy with which they persisted in 
 expressing their disapprobation of Mr. Forrest himself — not of his 
 acting, for they scarcely heard him — that the movement was pre- 
 concerted. The cause of the opposition then made to Forrest can only 
 be accounted for in the jealousy and disappointment of Macready. 
 He had returned from America elated with the success he had met 
 with, but was coldly treated by the managers in England, not one of 
 whom could he make an engagement with for a whole year after his 
 return, while, on the contrary, Forrest was waited upon in France, and 
 engaged to appear in London. This, no matter what may have been 
 his regard for Forrest previously, was sufficient to excite the hostility 
 
37 
 
 of a mind like his ; that he made no effort to sustain Mr. Forrest, if the 
 logic of his (Mr. M.'s) friends here be correct, must be regarded as an 
 evidence of his participation in the disgraceful attempt to drive Mr. F. 
 from the stage. But it is, also, susceptible of proof by the files of the 
 Examine); extracts from vphich may be found in Mr. Forrest's letter of 
 March 12th, '49, that Macready's ' ' friend," Forster, was busily engaged 
 in vrriting against him (Mr. F.) during his engagement in 1845, although 
 he admits in one notice that he had not seen the performance in which 
 he condemns Mr. F.'s acting ! What motive but an improper one 
 could tempt any man to criticise a performance he had not seen 1 — 
 and what feeling could have induced such conduct, except one of 
 hostility to Mr. F., either because he was an American, or the sucess- 
 ful rival of Macready 1 The undisguised hatred of the English for 
 every thing American, and the subsequent conduct of Macready in 
 this country, lead me to believe that Forster only expressed his dislike 
 of Mr. Forrest because he was an American, and obeyed the commands 
 of his " eminent" friend. But we have among us some sapient critics, 
 who contend that the success of Miss Cushman and a few other Ameri- 
 cans in England afford sufficient proof that the English allowed no 
 national feeling to enter into the matter. Who does not know that 
 Miss Cushman never held the first position as an actress in this country, 
 and that the enemies of Forrest in England could easily afford to 
 applaud her while denouncing Forrest, in order to show their impar- 
 tiality? Mios Cushman was under the patronage and protection of 
 Macready — she could not be his rival — Forrest was, and by many was 
 considered his superior, hence her success in London, and the attempt 
 to put him down. And it will be observed that the English press 
 hostile to Mr. Forrest, whenever alluding to his reception in 1845, 
 always with much ingenuity lavish praises upon Miss Cushmr^n, as if 
 the writers believed that her success would be accepted by the Ameri- 
 can people as a full atonement for the attempted disgrace of Mr. 
 Forrest. Englishmen, with all their faults, can hardly be accused of 
 a disposition to vent their national spleen upon a -M-'omaji, and, therefore, 
 they and their apologists here may cease to speak of Miss C.'s success 
 as an evidence of their appreciation of American talent. The reader's 
 attention is particularly called to the following article from the 
 '■'■London Times ;" 
 
 " The emeute at Philadelphia is a fertile subject of discussion in the 
 American papers. Most of them take part against the rioters, but 
 their partizanship is not quite in the right spirit. Though they con- 
 demn the excesses of the enthusiasts, who, in honor of Mr. Forrest, 
 flung half-pence and rotten eggs at Mr. Macready, they still seem to 
 think that there was, after all, great provocation in the reception which 
 Mr. Forrest met with during his visit to this country. The compara- 
 tive failure of Mr. Forrest at the Princess's, where he was eclipsed by 
 his own countrywoman, Miss Cushman, seems to have given rise to the 
 notion that Mr. Macready was, somehow or other, connected with his 
 
38 
 
 (Forrest's) want of success. That Mr. Forrest's exhibitions should 
 have failed from any demerit on the part of the actor himself, seems 
 never to have occurred to the journalists of the United States. As far 
 as we can recollect Mr. Forrest's engagement at the Princess's, he was 
 tolerably successful in several parts, but signally failed in Othello and 
 Macbeth, the latter of which excited a great deal of honest merriment. 
 
 " On the whole, he was considered an actor of great physical power, 
 and with the smallest quantiwi of intellectuality in his performance. He 
 came, was seen, and, like his compatriots, Mr. Marble, Miss Monier, 
 and Mr. J. R. Scott, was forgotten. There was no national feeling in 
 the affair. If people hissed Mr. Forrest, it was simply because they did 
 not like Mr. Forrest, and those same people applauded Miss Cushman to 
 the echo. As for a conspiracy on the part of Mr. Macready's friends 
 to put down Mr. Forrest, or any rivalry between the two actors, the 
 very notion of such a thing only shows a large amount of credulity on 
 the part of the American journalists. Mr. Macready holds a position 
 here as the first tragedian of the day. Mr. Forrest holds here no posi- 
 tion at all ; his name on the bills scarcely excites curiosity. He is an 
 effective melo-dramatic actor, like many others who have come and 
 gone, and will always command a certain amount of applause for that 
 reason, but a man going to the theatre to crush him, would be equally 
 absurd with one going on purpose to extol him. 
 
 " Another grievance seems to be the refusal of Mr. Mitchell to 
 engage Mr. Forrest to act at Paris, which refusal is likewise set down 
 to the account of a dark conspiracy. The people of London, who would 
 have opened their eyes in silent wonderment if Mr. Forrest had been 
 selected as the representative of English histrionic talent, will think 
 that Brother Jonathan is 'poking his fun,' and will hardly credit that 
 such a charge is serious. The last offence committed by Mr. Macready 
 is a statement on the Philadelphia stage — where, be it remembered, 
 he was pelted — that he had been hissed at Edinburgh by 'an Ameri- 
 can actor,' Among the members of the histrionic profession, it is, we 
 believe, a general rule not to express public disapprobation of each 
 other. Mr. Forrest seems to be highly offended because he is not 
 named, and, ambitious for the glory of having been the least courteous ac- 
 tor ever seen in Great Britain, he writes a thing called a ' card,' in which 
 h.e declares that he is the hero in question. This ' card' is one of the 
 very lowest productions in the English language. The placards posted 
 by the dregs of London in the windows of the vilest pot-houses, during 
 the " Monte Cristo row," were courteous productions in comparison. 
 
 " Even the not very delicate stomach of the New York Herald cannot 
 put up with such grossness, and honestly declares that it is 'one of the 
 most brutal, ungentlemanly, disgraceful pronunciamentos that ever 
 emanated from one theatrical man to another.' In answer to this 
 'card' Mr. Macready publishes another, which is quite as dignified as 
 the first is revolting, and avows his determination to take legal pro- 
 ceedings. Through all this disgraceful affair, let it be borne in mind 
 that the American people, as a people, had no part in the attack on 
 Mr. Macready. The better class nobly supported him amid the riot 
 of a noisy faction, and did not choose to show their nationality by 
 declaring themselves the partizans of an indifferent tragic actor, even 
 though he claimed to be a fellow citizen." 
 
 If the above is not a perfect specimen of English prejudice, arrogance, 
 and superciliousness, then there is none in the language. Mark the 
 assertion that — "If people hissed Mr. Forrest, it was simply because 
 they did not like Mr. Forrest .?" They condemned the vmn, not his 
 
39 
 
 acting., although he was not accused of having given offence. "Mr- 
 Forrest holds here no position at all ; his name in the bills scarcely 
 excites curiosity" — says the " Times,^'' although that very paper, during 
 Mr. F.'s first engagement in England, pronounced him, "second to 
 none," as an actor. How shall we account for so great a change of 
 opinion'? Only as before stated, by the jealousy and disappointment 
 of Macready. But, say his friends, Mr. M. has denied ever having 
 interfered in any way to the injury of Blr. Forrest, and he must be 
 believed — he is a gentleman above all reproach. 
 
 In the London Sunday Times, of Jan. 25, 1846, appeared the follow- 
 ing article : — 
 
 " The Double-dealer, A Comedy. — Principal characters : Messrs. 
 Macready, Maddos and Grattan Dawson. The ' eminent' tragedian, as 
 Mr. Maddos has dubbed Mr. Macready, has done some pleasant 
 things in the country, such as interdicting the performances of certain 
 plays for weeks ere his arrival, &c., but the last tale upon town is sur- 
 passingly pleasant. A Mr. Grattan Dawson, (a tragedian,) applied to 
 the Princess's for an engagement. Mr. Maddox informed him, that 
 Mr. Macready had stipulated that no person whatever should be en- 
 gaged to act with him, without his (Mr. Macready's) assent being first 
 obtained. Upon this, a meeting took place. Mr. Macready justly ob- 
 served, that 'he could give no opinion, having never seen Mr. D. act.' 
 On which the latter offered to play one night, or to rehearse before Mr. 
 Macready. The last method was chosen, and Mr. M. was to name a 
 convenient day. Alas ! that day never came. Mr. Dawson, worn with 
 waiting, addressed a letter to Mr. Macready, begging for his decision. 
 He received a most gentlemanly answer, immediately, Mr. M. saying 
 that he was perfectly ready to agree to Mr. D.'s being engaged. On 
 this, the latter, fearing treachery in the camp of the son of Kish, 
 posted off to the Princess's, and rushing to the manager, brandished 
 before his eyes Macready's letter. 'Oh! if that's all,' said Mr. Mad- 
 dox, 'I'll show you his letter to me,' and immediately produced an epis- 
 tle from the eminent tragedian, desiring him 7iot to engage Mr. Grattan 
 Dawson." 
 
 Now, let the reader consider that, in London, Mr. Macready is the 
 autocrat of the stage, his double-dealing with Mr. Dawson, and the 
 tone and temper of the article quoted from the London Times, (not 
 the Sunday Times,) its fulsome flattery of Macready, and unqualified 
 censure of Forrest, and then decide what credence is to be given to 
 Macready's word, and how far we ought to rely upon the repeated as. 
 sertions of others, that he did not interfere with Mr. Forrest. In 
 other parts of England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, Mr. Forrest was 
 well received ; but, in London, where Macready's influence was con- 
 centrated and supreme, an effort was made to drive him from the 
 stage. 
 
 As to the question of veracity between Forrest, on one side, and 
 Macready and his friends on the other, in relation to the hissing in 
 the Edinburgh Theatre, comments are reserved, until we have under 
 consideration the " Replies" from England. 
 
40 
 
 I will now show that Mr. Macready provoked and courted the dif- 
 ficulty with Mr. Forrest. The speech of Mr. M., delivered in the 
 Opera House, on the 4th October, 1848, deserves no especial notice, 
 further than to remark, that he betrayed a sensitiveness in reply to 
 the feeble opposition of a " gentleman in the gallery," not peculiar to 
 a man of good temper or well-balanced mind. His speech, on the 
 night of October 25th, 1848, is one that cannot be passed without com- 
 ment. The three first sentences of that speech, if they have any 
 meaning, mean, that he was offended, because the audience desired 
 to convey to him, after his performance, an assurance of their appro- 
 bation, and that he had determined to correct, or at least rebuke, a 
 custom established by the very people whose money he was then re- 
 ceiving — a custom, he considered, " more honored in the breach than 
 the observance,"— but a custom, nevertheless, and one that he, both 
 prior and subsequent to that occasion, has uncomplainingly observed. 
 The refined, intelligent, and peculiarly patriotic supporters of the 
 Opera House, who, as occasion suits them, speak of an actor as a g;en- 
 tleman and a scholar, or a vagabond, quietly accepted the insult of- 
 fered to their judgment, good taste, and generosity, and perhaps others 
 have no right to condemn their conduct. They are, undoubtedly, the 
 best judges as to the respect merited by their customs and habits. 
 But there are some insults in the speech, so general in their nature 
 and application, that the whole community was bound to resent them. 
 What " motive" could Mr. Macready have had for " trespassing further 
 on their (your) patience '?" He makes it manifest in these words : " It 
 cannot be denied — however the failure of the plan may be quoted in 
 denial of its existence — that a project was on foot to excite on this, my 
 farewell visit to the American stage, a hostile feeling against me with 
 the American public. Your most kind and flattering reception of me, 
 has baffled the intentions of my unprovoked antagonists. You have 
 demonstrated that you regard art, however humble its sphere, as 
 BANDED WITH NO POLITICAL FACTION, nor the exclusivo product of any 
 particular country. ■»**** ■5f -k- -x- * 
 In this you have only justified my confidence in your liberality, and 
 have given virtual evidence to my would-be assailants, of your convic- 
 tion, that the muse, whose province it is to uphold the stage as the 
 noblest picture of human life — ' high actions and high passions best 
 describing' — is restricted in her influence neither by soil nor party." 
 
 In the first place, he charges that a "project was on foot" to "ex- 
 cite a hostile feeling" against him, and impudently says that, although 
 the plan has failed, its existence " cannot be denied." He offers no 
 evidence to prove the truth of his charge, while the " most kind 
 and flattering reception" he met with, should have convinced him that 
 there was no "project on foot" to excite " a hostile feeling against'* 
 him. That same "kind and flattering reception," he says, "has 5a/- 
 fied the intentions of my unprovoked antagonists." 
 
41 
 
 Here is another admission that no effort was made to interfere with 
 him ; and yet, in pursuance of what seems to have been the settled pur- 
 pose of his mind — to provoke the hostility of more than one half of the 
 community — he, gratuitously and impudently, insinuates that those 
 who had set the imaginary "project on foot," and his "unprovoked 
 antagonists," were a "banded political faction." This is the only rea- 
 sonable construction that can be given to his speech — if such be not its 
 meaning, then.it has none. It was a direct, positive and unmitigated^in- 
 sult to some '■'■party,'" and what party could he have had in his "mind's 
 eye" if not the one Mr. Forrest is known to have been a member of 
 from his youth to the present day? His subsequent speeches will 
 prove that he intended this as a challenge to Mr. Forrest and his poli- 
 tical friends. 
 
 In his speech in the Arch Street Theatre, Philadelphia, on the 20th 
 November, (see page 9.) he says he had "understood, at New York and 
 Boston, that he was to be met by an organized opposition ; " and then, 
 determined to make Mr. Forrest responsible for the misconduct of a 
 few persons, he immediately speaks of Mr. Forrest having hissed him 
 in Edinburgh. 
 
 This, as before remarked, is the third speech he d-elivered before Mr. 
 Forrest took any notice of him. Macready and his friends have never 
 adduced one particle of evidence to show that Mr. Forrest had ever 
 contemplated organizing an opposition to him, and yet he and they 
 persisted in attacking him until they excited passions and prejudices 
 which led to the most deplorable and bloody consequences. It could 
 not have been supposed, by either Macready or his friends, that Mr. 
 Forrest would forever quietly submit to be assailed in the city of hia 
 adoption first, and in the city of his birth again, by an actor who had 
 once enjoyed his friendship and the hospitalities of his home. Although 
 Macready only spoke of " an actor in this country," it could not be dis- 
 guised that he referred to Mr. Forrest, and that gentleman had no 
 alternative but to reply in vindication of himself. His reply was in the 
 form of a " Card," (see p. 10,) which has provoked the denunciation of 
 almost every newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic — a denunciation 
 which would not have been so general on this side., if the -merits of the 
 subject had been understood. And here it may be observed that 
 gentlemen of the Press evince much more delicacy and refinement in 
 criticising the language of others engaged in quarrels than they mani- 
 fest in disputes among themselves — for if there is any feature more 
 deserving of condemnation in the conduct of editors, both in England 
 and America, it is the gross personalities in which they indulge them- 
 selves and disgust their readers. There are very many honorable ex- 
 ceptions to whom these remarks will not apply ; but it is a fact, that 
 those most distinguished for coarse abuse, and proverbial for scurrility, 
 have been the most intemperate in their censure of the tone and spirit 
 of Mr. Forrest's " Card." 
 
42 
 
 Mr. Forrest's "Card" was written when he felt and knew ihs.t'hQ 
 had been wantonly and grossly assailed by a man whom he had treated 
 with the utmost kindness ; that in New York and in Philadelphia, that 
 man had, without the slightest cause, accused him in a covert and 
 cowardly manner of having placed himself at the head of an " organ- 
 ized opposition " to excite hostility against him ; he knew himself to be 
 innocent of each and every one of the charges thus made against him; 
 he believed^ and had good reason to hioiv., that when he was in England 
 the last time, that very man had secretly conspired vrith others to 
 drive him from the stage, and he saw him striving to rob him of hia 
 well-earned fame in his own country, is it surprising that he should 
 have retorted in the plain, blunt, strong, and indignant language of 
 one who knew that he had been deeply wronged % If his words are 
 not as dainty as a Chesterfield would use, that does not detract either 
 from their truth or their propriety, under the circumstances •, if he 
 does not resort to Jesuitical sophistry, it is only an evidence that he is 
 not schooled in the science that teaches men to deceive by falsehood, 
 even while they seem to be stating the truth ; if he choosSs to call men 
 and things by their right names, it is clear that he is honest, and seeks 
 not the shelter afforded by vague inuendoes and indirect charges: if 
 his are the bold declarations of honest conviction, he cannot be accused 
 of concealing his opinions, nor as being a man who fears to assume all 
 the responsibility of his acts and expressions. But, after all, in what 
 consists the heinousness of the offence he has been charged with in 
 publishing his "Card"' of November 22 ? He told the truth in lan- 
 guage not dictated by the sickly sentimentality that prevails in cer- 
 tain circles, in which wilful falsehoods are called "mistakes," dishonesty 
 "misfortune," and /rawd "cleverness." In those circles the language 
 of the heart is seldom heard — the head, schooled in deceit and dupli- 
 cityT and taught to believe the whole human race selfish and dishonest, 
 is all that speaks within their narrow limits. The beings who form 
 those circles have but an artificial existence; they know nothing of the 
 great world which they attempt to rule, and of which they form so in- 
 significant a part. That they should censure any act of one who has 
 risen from the ranks of the people — the only legitimate sovereigns of 
 the land — causes no surprise ; but not so the judgment pronounced by 
 the Press, to which the people look as the ever watchful sentinel of 
 their liberties. Many editors have been too hasty in condemning Mr. 
 Forrest's Card ; " they have not duly considered the provocation given 
 him, nor have they made themselves thoroughly acojuainted with the 
 merits of the dispute between the two tragedians ; and it is hoped that 
 when they have taken the trouble to inform themselves on those points, 
 they will do an injured man justice. It is unnecessary now to speak 
 further on this branch of the subject, as Mr. Forrest's letters to W. H. 
 Smith, Esq., as well as other matter to be introduced hereafter, will 
 fully prove the truth of every assertion made in his " Card." 
 
43 
 
 In reply to Mr. Forrest's " Card," Mr. Macready published one on 
 the 23d of November, in which he denied the truth of Mr. F's state- 
 ments, and informed the public that he had determined to appeal to a 
 judicial tribunal, but under the advice of eminent counsel, who doubt- 
 less understood the weakness of his cause, he wisely abstained from so 
 doing. But, in singular contrast with the pledge made in his " Card," 
 that he would look for legal redress, it will be seen (see page 12) that 
 only two days after its publication he addressed a letter to the British 
 Press, soliciting its aid and protection in his difficulties. The "law's 
 delay" would not suit Mr. Macready, and therefore, with a simplicity 
 and ingenuousness — peculiar traits in his character, worthy of the 
 highest commendation — he asked the editors of English newspapers to 
 say whether or not he had ever bribed or suborned them "to write 
 down" Mr. Forrest! They all, of course, answered in the negative; 
 and then his friends and admirers here exclaim, Lo ! what a triumph- 
 ant vindication! But he went further, and asked them "Would it be 
 easy, if it were possible, to do so in England'?" Certainly not, say the 
 English editors ; and jVIr. Macready received the answer he expected, 
 while his American friends are struck dumb with admiration of the 
 purity of the British Press. He might have saved himself the trouble 
 of writing such a letter, for surely no American would dare to believe 
 or insinuate aught against the immaculate purity of the British Press, 
 which has always spoken of our country, people, and institutions, in un- 
 measured terms of praise ! And again : Mr. Macready asks, " Do you 
 believe me capable of such an action 1 " By no means, say his Eng- 
 lish friends ) and then his American friends exultingly proclaim that 
 Edwin Forrest is annihilated ! What a miracle it is that they did not 
 unanimously say, " Yes, Mr. Macready, we have known you for many 
 years to be the professional enemy of Charles Kean, George Vandenhoff, 
 and every other tragedian who has had the temerity to aspire to the 
 highest honors of the Drama, and we also know that you were envious 
 of Mr. Forrest, and used all your influence to injure him when he was 
 last here." 
 
 In the month of December, '48, Mr Macready .filled two engagements 
 in Baltimore, one at the Front Street Theatre, and one at the Holiday 
 Street Theatre. At the conclusion of his engagement at the Front 
 Street Theatre he was called out and delivered a speech, in which he 
 used the following language : 
 
 " Ladies and Gentlemen — You require me to speak to you. The 
 practice of addressing an audience is not customary with me, nor can I 
 say, that it is much in favor with me. ****** 
 But I have an excuse on the present occasion for departing from my 
 general rule, in my desire to render you my earnest thanks for the 
 liberal support you have afforded me under rather peculiar circum- 
 stances. In this you have proved that you recognize the claims of 
 art, irrespective of clime, or race, or faction ; and in this you have 
 
44 
 
 acted in accordance with the maxims of the truest and most perfect 
 civilization." 
 
 It will againbe seen from this speech that even the " liberal support" 
 of the people of Baltimore was not sufficient to prevent him from giving 
 utterance to language which could have no other effect than to excite 
 the hostility of a class against him. Why his repeated allusions to a 
 '■'• faction^'^ if he did not desire to create one in opposition to him. in 
 order that he might gain a triumph by the union of his friends to 
 put it down ? And it must be evident, too, that when he speaks of^ a 
 "faction," he means a political faction, as ho more clearly expressed 
 himself in his first speech in New York. This was given out to be his 
 last appearance in Baltimore, but in a few days he commenced another 
 engagement at the Holiday Street Theatre, and on the 29th December 
 he delivered a speech, from which the following is an extract : 
 
 " My recent engagement at the Front Street Theatre, with the 
 cordial reception there given to me, together with the invitation extend- 
 ed me to return to this city and fill an engagement at this house, 
 where I have also been received by audiences distinguished for their 
 respectability o.nd intelligence, is a sufiEicient reply to the taunts of ray 
 enemies and rcvilers, who have undertaken to herald my "lack of 
 physical ability" and "premature decline." 
 
 This speech, though much less exceptionable than the first delivered 
 in Baltimore, indicates that, no matter how " cordial his reception," he 
 was still bent on provoking his " enemies and revilers" — if any he had. 
 
 After leaving Baltimore Mr. Macready visited and filled engage- 
 ments in several other cities, in all of which he was well received, 
 and in one at least (New Orleans) he was complimented with a public 
 dinner. 
 
 On the 7th day of May, 1849, he commenced an engagement at the 
 Astor Place Opera House, New York. The reception he met with on 
 that night was so graphically described in the N. Y. Herald of the 
 next day, that it is here published entire. The writer was present on 
 that occasion, and can vouch for the faithfulness of the Herald account.. 
 
 THEATRICAL AND MUSICAL. 
 AsToii Place Opera House. — Mr. Macready driven off the Stage. — 
 The announcement that Mr. Macready would appear at this theatre, in 
 the character of Macbeth, attracted a very crowded house, last evening. 
 As soon as the doors were opened, a very large number of persons, 
 altogether of the male sex, entered the theatre, and took their seats 
 in different parts of the house. They were followed by many others, 
 among whom were probably fifty or sixty ladies. Long before the curtain 
 rose,|the house was well filled, the gallery and parquette being quite 
 crowded. It now began to be whispered about, that the reception of Mr. 
 Macready would not be favorable on the part of a portion of the 
 auditory ; and the appearance of Mr. Matsell, the chief of police, and a 
 very strong body of the force under his orders, seemed to strengthen the 
 rumors which were circulated throughout the theatre. The house was, 
 however, perfectly quiet until the curtain rose upon the first scene, 
 when the appearance of Mr. Clarke, who personated the character 
 
45 
 
 of Malcolm, elicited three loud and enthusiastic cheers from 'the par- 
 quette and gallery. From this moment, the cheering, hissing, whistling, 
 and other expressions of feeling began, and not a syllable was heard 
 the remainder of the scene, and the succeeding, till the entrance of 
 Macbeth, passing in dumb show. When Macbeth and Banquo entered 
 in the third scene the uproar was deafening. A perfect torrent of groans 
 and hisses assailed Mr. Macready, and a deluge of assafoetida was dis- 
 charged upon him from the gallery, filling the whole house with its 
 pungent and not particularly fragrant odor. A rotten egg, a la 3Ion- 
 treal, was projected against him, but missing the face of the eminent 
 tragedian, bespattered the stage at his feet. The friends of Mr. 
 Macready, who appeared rather to outnumber those opposed to him, 
 now manifested their feelings by cries of "shame!" "shame!" cheers, 
 and waiving of handkerchiefs, provoking a response in the form of re- 
 newed groans, hisses, and half a dozen rotten potatoes on the part of 
 the others. " Three cheers for Edwin Forrest!" were called for by 
 some one in the pit, and were given with great enthusiasm by those un- 
 friendly to Mr. Macready. Then came the cry of "three cheers for 
 Macready!" responded to with equal enthusiasm by the opposite side 
 ofthe^house. The scene which followed beggars description. Hisses, 
 groans, cheers, yells, screams, all sorts of noises, in the midst of which 
 Mr. Macready still maintained his position in the centre of the stage. 
 "Off!" " off !" shouted one party. "Go on!" "go on!" screamed the 
 other. Mr. Macready approached the lights. He was greeted by 
 roars of ironical laughter, and reiterated hisses and groans. A banner 
 was at this moment exhibited in front of the amphitheatre, bearing on 
 its side, " No apologies — it is too late !" and on the other, " You have 
 ever proved yourself a liar !" The appearance of this banner was the 
 signal for a perfect tornado of uproarious applause, laughter, cheers, 
 and groans, in the midst of. which an old shoe and a cent piece were 
 hurled at Mr. Macready, who picked up the copper coin, and, with a 
 kingly air, put it in his bosom, bowing, at the same time, with mock 
 humility, to the quarter of the gallery from which the visitation had 
 descended. Lady Macbeth, who was represented on this occasion by 
 Mrs. Coleman Pope — a very beautiful and queenly-looking woman — 
 fared little better than her lord. Not a syllable of her part was au- 
 dible. With great calmness, and without the least wavering, how- 
 ever, this lady made a show of going through her part. All on the 
 stage fared alike. It was evident that there was a fixed and settled 
 determination on the part of that portion of the auditory which occupi- 
 ed nearly one third of the parquette, and the greater portion of the 
 gallery, between whom a communication was kept up throughout the 
 evening, by means of signals and exclamations, not to permit the per- 
 formance to proceed. Several of Mr. Macready's friends now became 
 much excited, and shouted to him to "go on," and " not to give up the 
 ship," which elicited tremendous groans, hisses, and ories of " three 
 groans for the codfish aristocracy !" which were responded to with 
 marked enthusiasm. Cries of "down with the English hog!" — "take 
 off the Devonshire bull !" — " remember how Edwin Forrest was used in 
 London !" and similar exclamations, were loud and frequent. Thus 
 passed the whole of the first and second acts, the uproar not ceasing 
 for a moment. When the curtain fell, in the second act, the tumult 
 was fiercer than ever, and it was quite apparent that something still 
 more serious was approaching. Yet the greater portion of the audi- 
 tory opposed to Mr. Macready seemed in excellent humor. They 
 ehaunted snatches of the witches' choruses, and amused themselves by 
 asking repeatedly, " Where's Macready '?" — " Where's Eliza Brown ?" 
 
46 
 
 andotlierjnterrogations of that character. One gentleman in the par- 
 quette, amongst those who were hostile to Mr. Macready, ogled the 
 house through a stupendous eye glass, large enough for a horse collar ; 
 and others threw themselves into a variety of attitudes, more pic- 
 turesque than becoming. " Three cheers for Macready, Nigger Doug- 
 lass, and Pete Williams !" were called for, and given with marked en- 
 thusiasm. At length the curtain rose on the third act ; and, in dumb 
 show, Banquo, advancing to the lights, commenced the soliloquy — 
 
 " Thou hast it, now, King, Cawdor, Glamis, all 
 As the weird women promised," 
 
 but not a syllable was audible. Then Macbeth re-appeared, and the 
 uproar was greater than ever. Smash came a chair from the gallery, 
 nearly grazing the head of one of the members of the orchestra, and 
 strewing the stage with its fragments, within a few feet of Mr. Mac- 
 ready. Mr. Macready bowed and smiled. Another chair falls at his 
 feet, with a crash which resounds all over the house. Some of the la- 
 dies start from their seats, and grow quite pale. The shouts, and 
 groans, and hisses are redoubled. Mr. Macready stands quite unmov- 
 ed — not the slightest tremor visible — not the least bravado, either, in 
 his manner. Another chair is hurled on the stage, and the curtain 
 suddenly falls. The ladies hurry from the boxes ; all but a few, who 
 betray not the slightest alarm. Still the uproar continues. There is 
 loud talking in the lobbies. A great crowd outside thunders at the 
 doors, and threaten to break into the theatre. Mr. Matsell and a 
 strong party of his policemen barricade the entrances. The ladies are 
 hurried out by one of the doors that open in Eighth street, and in a few 
 minutes afterwards, Mr. Macready, in a close carriage, was driven 
 rapidly and safely away. No person on the stage was injured by any 
 of the missiles thrown during the evening, but almost all of the actors 
 received a copious allowance of the foetid liquid which was discharged 
 from the gallery. During the pantomime upon the stage, the Ameri- 
 can actors playing with Macready were frequently warned by the 
 Eeople in the gallery to " go off the stage," or expect similar treatment 
 ereafter. In consequence of these warnings, after the play was sus- 
 pended, Mr. C. W. Clarke appeared in front of the curtain as an apolo- 
 gist ; he remarked that his family was dependant upon his exertions 
 for a maintenance, and he pleaded this fact in justification of himself 
 for having consented to play with Mr. Macready. Mr. Clarke's ex- 
 planation was cordially received. When it was found that the per- 
 formance had been effectually interrupted, and that Mr. Macready 
 had abandoned the effort to proceed with the play, the_ crowd, within 
 and without, began to disperse, and about twenty minutes past ten 
 o'clock, the whole scene was perfectly quiet. It was said that a bottle, 
 filled with gun cotton, having matches attached, was thrown on the 
 stage, but we saw nothing of the kind ; and we were within a few feet 
 of the stage throughout the whole evening. We may also add, that the 
 missiles thrown came from the gallery, and that none of them appeared 
 to be aimed directly at the person of Mr. Macready. The object seem- 
 ed to be to drive him from the stage by every species of contumely, 
 without personal violence, and there could be no doubt that the effort, 
 which was quite successful in its object, was the result of an organized 
 and pre-concerted movement. It is also proper to state, that the la- 
 dies, who came to the theatre, remained to the last ; a few expressing 
 their feelings in favor of Mr. Macready by waving their handker- 
 chiefs ; and we ought to add, that very many of those who were most 
 conspicuous and enthusiastic in favor of Mr. Macready, were American 
 citizens. 
 
47 
 
 There was no disposition manifested by any portion of the audience 
 to do violence to Mr. Macready or any other person ; a more good 
 humored one never assembled in any theatre where an obnoxious actor 
 was to perform. That portion of the press in this city which has al- 
 ways been inimical to Mr. Forrest, on Tuesday, the 8th of May, made 
 the most unfounded charges against him, and endeavored to make him 
 responsible for the conduct of the opponents of Macready on the night 
 previous ; and foremost of all was the " Courier and Enquirer,'' the well 
 known defender of law and order. 
 
 [Prom N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, May Sth.] 
 
 " Reputations established by a single performance, in any depart- 
 ment of public life, are generally short-lived. Mr. Forrest, however, 
 achieved for himself last night a distinction among actors and Ameri- 
 cans, of which no successor will ever be likely to rob him. He is safe 
 forever, not only from rivalry, but from that envy from which it often 
 springs. He succeeded last night in doing, what even his bad acting 
 and unmanly conduct never did before ; he inflicted a thorough and 
 lasting disgrace upon the American character. 
 
 '■Last night, was fixed for Mr. Macready's appearance in Macbeth, at 
 the Opera House in Astor Place. Half an hour or more before the time 
 for the rising of the curtain, the amphitheatre was densely filled, and 
 a large part of the parquette was occupied by rowdies, the object of 
 whose presence was palpable from the beginning. The remainder of 
 the house was filled with a most respectable audience, including a 
 large number of ladies. 
 
 " The performance commenced amidst a good deal of uproar ; and 
 Mr. Macready's appearance was the signal for a demonstration, which 
 continued with increasing violence for about two hours, when the au- 
 dience proper, seeing that there could be no play, left the house in 
 possession of the mob, and the play was stopped. At first hissing, bel- 
 lowing, and groaning, were resorted to. Soon potatoes, &c., were thrown 
 upon the stage. Then a placard was swung over the amphitheatre, 
 upon which was written — ' you have been proved a liar.' And after 
 a while the stage was deluged with rotten eggs, odorous vials and kin- 
 dred missiles, so that Mr. Forrest succeeded in driving away Mr. Mac- 
 ready's audience, though by a process different from any wiuch he finds 
 necessary with his own. 
 
 " The history of the thing is very brief. Mr. Forrest, involved, 
 through his own efforts, in a controversy with Mr. Macready, despairing 
 of winning public sympathy, he seeks revenge on Mr. Macready's per- 
 son — by packing the house and paying rowdies for driving decent 
 people away, by weapons which no one but his friends can resist. In 
 his next letter he will probably claim this as an exhibition of American 
 feeling. He will only thus renew the libels which his conduct has al- 
 ready uttered on the American character. The only disgrace involved 
 rests upon himself, and the poor rowdies who could stoop to be hired by 
 him for so base a purpose. With his peculiar tastes, he will probably 
 enjoy the infamy, and deem it a triumph. The cost of the victory — 
 now that he has reduced his household expenses — he probably will 
 not feel. 
 
 " We should do injustice to our Police if we neglected to add that 
 the Chief was present, with a large force, and magnanimously refused 
 to interfere. Messrs. Niblo and Haclrett could of course do nothing, 
 but allow the mob to have its way. Whether Mr. Forrest will be 
 
48 
 
 permitted to pack the house every night of Mr. Maeready's engage- 
 ment, we are not aware. That his proceedings will diminish the num- 
 ber of his own admirers, it would probably be perilous to predict ; — but 
 their eifect upon the character of his circle of friends, will not be 
 doubtful." 
 
 The best refutation of the calumnies upon the character of Mr. For- 
 rest; contained in the above article, is the following statem^ent in the 
 same paper, on the following day, the 9th : 
 
 "The writer of this paragraph, who is one of the Editors of this pa- 
 per, witnessed the outrages at the Astor Place Opera House on Monday 
 night, which he mentioned yesterday morning. In connecting the 
 name of Mr. Forrest with their perpetration, he spokefrom no knoivledge 
 of facts u'hich would establish any such connection. His statements upon 
 this point were entirely inferential. He had no doubt whatever that 
 the circumstances of Sir. Forrest's controversy with Mr. Macready, 
 and the fact that Mr. Forrest had declared in public that Mr. Mac- 
 ready should never be permitted to appear again upon the stage in 
 this city, warranted the inference which he drew, that the distur- 
 bance on Monday night was of Mv. Forrest's procurement. He makes 
 this explanation, because the paragraph was published without the 
 knowledge of the responsible Editor, who does not deem the facts suf- 
 ficient to warrant the assertion that Mr. Forrest had anything to do 
 with the outrage in question. Had the writer anticipated any such 
 difference of opinion, the paragraph of course would not have been 
 published. R. 
 
 " P. S. — Since the foregoing was written, we have received the fol- 
 lowing letter from Mr. Sedgwick, to which we cheerfully give place ; 
 and only regret that any charge against, or allusion to Mr. Forrest, in 
 connexion with this disgraceful riot, should have been made. It is 
 quite certain that there is no evidence of Mr. Forrest's being a party 
 to the proceeding ; and we are bound to assume that he was not ; and 
 it is also evident that such was our conviction previous to the receipt 
 of Mr. Sedgwick's note, from the fact that the foregoing had been al- 
 ready prepared for publication by our associate, and we so apprised 
 Mr. Sedgwick's messenger, J. W. W." 
 
 No. 56 Wall street, May 8, 1849. 
 To the Proprietor of the Courier and Enquirer : 
 
 " I am desired by INIr. Forrest, to call your attention to the article in 
 your paper of this day's date, in which you hava seen fit to charge him 
 with participation in the disturbances that took place last evening, at 
 the Astor Place Opera House. 
 
 " I am instructed to say, that every charge against Mr. Forrest, 
 contained in the article in question, is absolutely and grossly false, and 
 as the attack is coupled with reflections of a most improper and offen- 
 sive character, I hope that you will see the propriety of retracting and 
 withdrawing the accusation, in the most immediate, direct, and ample 
 manner. 
 
 " The charges which you have made, are of the most serious descrip- 
 tion, and you will, I am satisfied, see the propriety and justice of this 
 demand. I am respectfully. 
 
 Your obd't serv't, 
 
 THEODORE SEDGWICK." 
 
49 
 
 It must be understood that tlie initial " R." in the above, signifies 
 Mr. Raymond, one of the Assistant Editor.? of the Courier, and that 
 " J. W. W." means James Watson Webb. 
 
 In the same paper, on the same day, appeared the following : 
 
 " We give place to the following letter with great pleasure, and take 
 occasion to express an earnest acquiescence in the request which it 
 contains. We trust that Mr. Maeready will not fall into the very se- 
 rious terror, of supposing that the outrages of Monday right are indica- 
 tive in the slightest degree of the feelings entertained towards him by 
 any portion of the American people of whose approbation and esteem he 
 would be at all desirous. Nor do we think it would be strictly just for 
 him to refuse his friends an opportunity of doing whatever may lie in 
 their power to redress the wrongs he then sustained, and to express the 
 sense they entertain of his personal and professional character. It is 
 clear enough that the doings of Monday night were a surprise to every- 
 body but those engaged in them. Nothing of the sort was anticipated 
 by any of Mr. Macready's friends. Such a surprise could not, cf course, 
 occur again. But it will not be until another trial, that Mr. Maeready 
 can have any just ground for deeming the New York public wanting 
 in the courtesy due to a scholar and a gentleman. Mr. Maeready, 
 during his residence in this country, has approved himself both,; and 
 every American who has any regard for justice and for his own charac- 
 ter, is directly interested in rebuking, signally and effectually, the out- 
 rageous treatment to which he has been accidentally exposed. We 
 trust Lt!r. M. will give them the opportunity. 
 
 The following is the letter r 
 To W. (3. Mackeady, Esq, 
 
 Deaii Sir — The undersigned, having heard that the outrage at the 
 Astor Place Opera House, on Monday evening, is likely to have the effect 
 of preventing you from continuing your performances, and from conclu- 
 ding your intended farewell engagement on the American Stage, take 
 this puhlic method of requesting you to reconsider your decision; and 
 of assuring you that the good sense and respect for order prevailing in 
 this community will sustain you on the subsequent nights of your per- 
 formances. 
 
 Ambnise L. Jordan, 
 Edward Sandford, 
 Willis Hall, 
 James Foster, Jr., 
 Duncan C. Pell, 
 Ogden Hoffman, 
 Howard Henderson, 
 Sam'l B. Ruggles, 
 James Collis, 
 Edward S. Gould, 
 Williiim Kent, 
 John VV. Francis, 
 Wessell S. Smith, 
 W. M. Prichard, 
 Berj. D. Silliraanj 
 David Austen, 
 
 M. M. Noah, 
 F. R. Tillou, ' 
 Henry J. Raymond, 
 Washington Irving, 
 Francis B. C'utting, 
 Joseph L. VVliite, 
 Matthew Morgan, 
 David C. Colden, 
 Ogden P. EdwardSj 
 John R. Bartlett, 
 Rich'd Grant White, 
 Evert A. Duyckinck, 
 J. Prescott Hall, 
 Robert L. Dillon, 
 Ralph Lockwood, 
 Wm. C. Barrett, 
 
 David Graham, 
 Edward Curtis, 
 James Brooks, 
 H. W. Field, 
 Jacob Little, 
 J. E. Dekay, 
 Charles A. Davis, 
 Pierre M. Irving, 
 Moses H. Grinnell, 
 Henry A. Stone, 
 George Bruce, 
 J. Beekman Finlay, 
 Denning Duer, 
 Simeon Draper. 
 Herman Melville, 
 Cornelius Mathews." 
 
 This letter was published in most of the city papers. On the morn- 
 ing of the fatal 10th of May the following appeared in the Cottrier: 
 " It will be seen, by the following reply to the letter which we pub- 
 
50 
 
 lished yesterday, that Mr. Macready consents to continue his engage- 
 ment at the Opera House in Astor Place. He •will appear to-night in 
 Macbeth : 
 
 To Washington Irving, William Kent, &c., &c., Esqks. 
 
 Dear Sirs — I have the honor of acknowledging your obliging letter 
 delivered to me this day. 
 
 It is one I find some difficulty in answering. 
 
 Under the unpi'ovoked indignities uffered me in xthe Astor Place 
 Theatre, it was certainly my desire and my fixed purpose, to avail my- 
 self of the legal right thus ofi'ered me, and withdraw at once from my 
 engagement contracted there. 
 
 in leaving this country, which has been endeared to my recollec- 
 tion by long and strong attachments, I should not bave done you the 
 injustice of associating the American character with the ill-deeds of 
 persons, unhappily too frequently to be found in every large commu- 
 nity : and in the same spirit which would preserve me from a hasty 
 and inconsiderate judgment upon the late occurrences, I assent toyour 
 request, honoring and feeling grateful for the sentiment that has dic- 
 tated it. 
 
 I remain, dear sirs, 
 
 Most faithfully yours, 
 
 W. C. Mackeady. 
 
 New York Hotel, May 9, 1819. / 
 
 This letter is in admirable taste, evincing that sense of mortification 
 which any gentleman would naturally feel at such wantonly unjust 
 and insulting treatment as Mr. M. received on Monday night, and yet 
 avoiding the error of attributing it in any degree to ihcse of our citizens 
 vjhose approbation he tcould covet. We cannot doubt that his friends 
 will embrace the opportunity of evincing, by their presence to-night, 
 their sense of his merit as well as their resentment of the ignominy to 
 which he has been subjected." 
 
 The following statement also appeared in the Courier of the lOlh, 
 and requires no comment : 
 
 " We have received the following letter from Mr. Sedgwick in re- 
 ference to the disturbances at the Astor Place Opera House on Mionday 
 night. It will be seen that Mr. Forrest denies having ever 'declared 
 in public that Mr. Macrer.dy should never be permitted to appear 
 again upon the stage in this city.' Under this denial we of course pre- 
 sume that we were misinformed in regard to the matter, and accord- 
 ingly withdraw entirely the inference drawn from the alleged state- 
 ment. 
 
 We cheerfully publish Mr. Sedgwick's letter, and can only renew 
 the expression of regret that the original statement should have been 
 made : 
 
 No. 56 Wall street. May 9th, 1849. 
 
 'To the Proprietor of the Morning Courier and Neiv York Enquirer : 
 
 Your article in the Courier of this morning has been examined by 
 Mr. Forrest with every disposition to accept any satisfactory withdrawal 
 of the charges contained in the article in your paper of the 8th, and 
 any reasonable explanation of the insertion of so erroneous and injurious 
 a statement. 
 
 But your paper of this morning contains an assertion which Mr. For- 
 rest cannot, for a moment, allow to pass uncontradicted. 
 
51 
 
 You state 'as afact^'' in the article to which I refer, '■that Mr. Forrest 
 ' had declared in public that Mr. Macreadij shoidd never he permitted to 
 ' appear again upon the stage in this city,'' and the inference again said 
 to ' be warranted by tl;e fact, is, that the disturbance on Monday night 
 ' was of iVir. Forrest's procurement.' 
 
 A'Ir. Forrest pronounces this assertion to be absolutely false ; and I 
 am instructed to request that you will at once contradict it or give the 
 authority on wliose information the statement is made. 
 I am, respectfully, your ob't serv't, 
 
 Theodore Sedgwick." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that every statement made by the Courier con- 
 necting Mr. Forrest's name with the affair of Monday night, was with- 
 drawn and apologized for by the Editors of that journal. It is well, 
 here, to inform the reader that the "Replies", &c. of Mr. Macready 
 were published on the 9ch of May. 
 
 As the writer desires to review all the documentary evidence herein 
 contained, chronologically, he will now take up Mr. Macready's "Re- 
 plies from England." It cannot have escaped the notice of the reader, 
 that in the preface to the " Replies," it is said that Mr. Macready had 
 determined to " rely in silence upon the generally expressed disbe- 
 lief' of the charges preferred against him, but that "the outrages of 
 Monday evening" made it necessary for him to give publicity to the 
 evidence he had collected to be used in the threatened legal proceed- 
 ing against Mr. Forrest. That preface is dated " May 8, 1849" — the 
 alleged "outrages" were perpetrated on the night of the 7th — and the 
 " Replies" appeared on the 9th — so that if the assertion in the preface 
 be true^ Mr. Macready's budget of " Replies," a pamphlet of twenty-one " 
 pages of closely printed matter, was put into the hands of the printer 
 and delivered by him, ready for sale, to the publishers, in the incredibly 
 short space of one day ! Whoever knows anything about printingjis 
 aware that such a thing cannot be done. But there is not room to 
 doubt that Mr. Macready had his "Replies" in the press when he ap- 
 peared on the 7th of May. The concluding paragraph of the letter 
 from his eminent counsel, Wm. B. Reed, Esq., dated ''May 1st, 1849," 
 is in these words : 
 
 " What use, if any, you ought to make of the testimonials ivhich were 
 sent you from England, is a question, which may be well answered by 
 your New York friends, with whom you now have means of free per- 
 sonal conference. They ought to be shown to all, who take a friendly in- 
 terest in you.''' 
 
 The only just and plain inference, under the circumstances, is that 
 Mr. Macready had give5 his " Replies" to the publisher, to be used 
 either privately among his friends, or, as he undoubtedly anticipated 
 opposition here, for public circulation, if necessary, after his first ap- 
 pearance, so that he would take the public by surprise, when there 
 was neither time nor opportunity to review or refute them. As the 
 
52 
 
 latter is the course he did adopt, it is reasonable to believe that such 
 was his original intention. And here let me say, it is very singular 
 that the talented and usually correct Editor of the National Police Ga- 
 zette — who seems to take no ordinary interest in this subject — should 
 have fallen into so glaring a mistake as to say in his journal of June 2d : 
 " It was not until the morning of that fatal lOth of May that Mr. Mac- 
 ready was enabled to p-ive to the public, for the first time, the replies 
 which he had received from Europe only the day before.^'' This is not 
 the only great mistake that gentleman has committed in his accounts 
 of this affair; but as he has evidently made up his mind to place Mr. 
 Forrest in the same category with professional pugilists and criminals, 
 perhaps it would be but a waste of time and labor to correct them. It 
 is hoped, however, by pointing out this one, he may be induced to seek 
 out and correct others of much more importance. The " general igno- 
 rance" of which he complains, is owing entirely to the bitter, vindic- 
 tive, and apparently malicious statements published by himself and 
 others of the Editorial fraternity. 
 
 It has been observed, no doubt, by the reader, that the eminent 
 counsel of Mr. Macready, with more tact than honesty, made the ar- 
 ticle in the Boston Mail of Oct. 30th, the basis of his "Replies."' That 
 article was published five days after the delivery of Macready's gross- 
 ly insolent speech in the Opera House, and never would have been writ- 
 ten if the taunts and insults of Macready had not been offered, with- 
 out cause, to this community. It was due to Mr. Forrest — it was due 
 to the high pretensions of Mr. Macready, for candor, truth, and fair- 
 dealing — it was due to the high professional standing of Mr. Reed — 
 that the whole case should have been presented to the public ; and 
 therefore, the speeches of Mr. Macready in New York, Philadelphia, 
 and Baltimore, should have been published with his " Replies,'' as they 
 are in this work; so that every reader might judge for himself. The 
 fact that they were all suppressed, is prima facie evidence that they 
 contained within themselves a complete justification of Mr. Forrest. 
 
 But, much as the article in the Mail has been denounced, every ma- 
 terial allegation in it is sustained by testimony, either positive or cir- 
 cumstantial. As the letters from Mr. Macready's friends have refer- 
 ence to all those allegations, the article in the Mail requires no further 
 notice. ' 
 
 The first letter is from A. Fonblanque, proprietor of the Examiner, 
 and has seldom been excelled by the most expert trafficker in words. 
 It was written to prove the truth of Mr. Macready's assertion, that he 
 did not induce Fouster to attack Forrest, during his second visit to 
 England; but the second paragraph of the letter — the only one that 
 has any reference to the " attempt" of Macready to " influence" Fors- 
 ter — relates to Forrest's _^7-si visit to England; as must be evident from 
 a careful perusal of it, and the statement in Mr. Macready's "card." 
 Mr. Fonblanque says : " You repeatedly entreated Mr. Forster to be 
 
53 
 
 lenient or silent, but 3Ir. Forster, very properly, maintained his indepen- 
 dent judgment., and would not be induced to swerve from ihe course he 
 thought just, by any private solicitation, however generous the senti- 
 ment in which it originated." Now compare Mr. Fonblanque's language 
 with that of Maeready's, in his " card" of Nov. 22d, in which he saya 
 "that not one single notice on Mr. Forrest's acting appeared in the 
 Examiner during that engagement, (as its files will prove,) Mr. Fors- 
 ter, the distinguished editor whom Mr. Macready has the honor to call 
 his friend, having been confined to his bed with a rheumatic fever during 
 the whole period and, some iveeks before and after." Is it not evident, now, 
 that Macready never interrogated Mr. Fonblanque as to the influence 
 exerted by him, (Macready,) over Fcrster during Forrest's second visit, 
 to which, the latter gentleman referred in his "card" of Nov. 21st ? 
 And yet the friends of Macready point to this letter as a triumphant 
 vindication of his character from the charge made against him by Mr. 
 Forrest. But to show more clearly that the testimony of Mr. Fon- 
 blanque relates exclusively to the time of Mr. Forrest's first visit, the 
 attention of the reader is called to the third paragraph of his letter, 
 in which he contemptuously says : — " Upon Mr. Forrest's second visit, I 
 am quite confident there was no notice of him whatever in the Exam- 
 iner, his pretensions as an actor having been sufficiently disposed of before.'''' 
 Mr. Forrest, in his first letter to Mr. Smith, (see page 12,) clearly 
 proves that this statement is not true. Appended to this letter, and 
 having reference to the last paragraph quoted, is the following note : 
 
 " From this passage it will be seen, that Mr. Fonblanque himself 
 was under the same impression with Mr. Macready, that no mention 
 had been made in the Examiner of the performances at the Princess's 
 theatre. In the short paragraphs, (not "notices," as that word is used 
 and understood by literary people in England,) which it seems did ap- 
 pear, the writer states that he did not see the first performance, and it 
 was well known that he was equally unable to attend the second." 
 
 An attempt is here made to sustain the veracity of Mr. Maereadj 
 and his friend Fonblanque, by giving a new definition to the word "no- 
 tices." Johnson is acknowledged as high authority among "literary 
 people in England," and he gives the following definition of the word: 
 
 Notice, n. f. {7iotice, Fr. notitia, Lat.) 
 
 1: remark; heed; observation; regard. 
 
 But the example Johnson gives, perhaps, induced Macready to in- 
 vent a definition, as the original might offend his friend Forster. Here 
 it is : " How ready is envy to mingle with the notices which we take of 
 other persons! " — Watts. 
 
 Here is the same author's definition of 
 Remark, n. f. {remarque, Fr.) observation ; note ; notice taken. 
 
 And the example he gives, is equally worthy of Mr. Forster's notice. 
 "He cannot distinguish difficult and noble speculations, from trifling 
 and vulgar remarks.^'— Collier. 
 
 The reader must observe that Mr. Fonblanque does not deny that 
 
54 
 
 forster wrote the "notices" or " short paragraphs which, it seems, did 
 appear," and in the "note" we have the strange admission that he, 
 (Forster.) was unable to attend either of the performances which he 
 criticised. 
 
 Mr. Fonhlanque's letter certainly does not strengthen Mr. Macrea- 
 dy's case, but, on the contrary, the disingenuous attempt made by its 
 author to show that the Examiner did not abuse Mr. Forrest during 
 his second visit, detracts greatly from the merits of Mr. Macready'a 
 defence. But, the best witness for Mr. Macieady, if his assertions be 
 true, has not been produced. Where is John Forster 1 Why have we 
 not a letter from him? VVhy was Mr. Fonblanque used to prove what 
 could only be proved by Forster himself? These are questions for Mr. 
 Macready to answer : we can only, submit, that he should have produ- 
 ced the testimony of his best witness. 
 
 The next letter is from John Mitchell, Esq., lessee of St. James's 
 Theatre, &c., in which he denies that Mr. Macready threw any ob- 
 stacles in the way of Mr. Forrest's appearance in Paris. Mr. Mitchell's 
 statement may be true: but, be that as it may, Mr. Forrest's veracity 
 is not impeached by his (Mr. M's) letter, inasmuch as Mr. Forrest has 
 not, in his card or letters, charged Mr. Macready with having induced 
 Mr. Mitchell not to allow him to appear in Paris. But there is one 
 question put by Mr. Macready to Mr. Mitchell, which should " excite our 
 special wonder." It is : " Was it in consequence of any word of viine 
 that you refused to see Mr. Forrest "?" Mr. Mitchell's answer is — 
 " Decidedly not.''' The fact that Mr. Mitchell refused even to see Mr. 
 Forrest, looks as if some very improper influence had been used to lead 
 him to v/ithhold a courtesy never denied by one gentleman to another, 
 when there is no personal ' misunderstanding between them. Mr. 
 Mitchell neglects, purposely, of cour.se, to saj why he would not allow 
 Mr. Forrest to appear in Paris, and why he refused to see him. Mr. 
 Forrest had letters of introduction to Mr. Mitchell, written by his 
 friends in London, and yet Mr. Mitchell refused to see him. It is well 
 known that Llr. M."s English company, with Macready at its head, 
 failed in Paris. Macready was disappointed, and it surely is not un- 
 reasonable to believe that he would use all his influence to prevent the 
 appearance of the American Tragedian in the capital of that country 
 which has always been the friend of America and Americans. Under 
 any circumstances, however, it is apparent, from Mitchell's own letter, 
 that he did not treat Mr. Forrest as a gentleman would, and that some 
 extraordinary effort must have been made to make him commit so 
 mean an offence. 
 
 The third letter in the "Replies" is from Mr. Gordon, High Sheriff of 
 Edinburgh, who does not state one single fact, or alleged fact, of his 
 own knowledge. A "writer" in the Scotsman — "the Superintendant of 
 the City Police" — "one of the confidential officers of the Theatre 
 Royal" — and his (my) " uncle. Captain R." — are the distinguished and 
 
55 
 
 well-kaowa iadividuals Mr. Gordon quotes to prove that no one bu 
 Mr. Foi-rest hnsed Mr. Macready ia the Edinburgh Theatre. Mr. 
 Gordon says : " There is not the most distant shadow of a recollection 
 in the minds of those Qonnected with the theatre, that on either occa- 
 sion any hissing of any sort occurred.'' The Scotsman of 11th March, 
 184G, simply announces that, on Monday, the 9th, Macready " played 
 Hamlet a second time." Mr. Gordon's letter, it will be noticed, is ad- 
 dressed to Forster, (Macready's friend.) who in all probability collected 
 the testimony contained in the " Replies," but has prudently abstained 
 from appearing before the public himself. Of the temper in which 
 Mr, Gordon wrote the letter under consideration, sufficient will be 
 known from the following translation of the extract he quotes from 
 that elegant author, Ovid: "Nor do words suffice for his wishes; and 
 as often as he attempts to utter his complaints he breaks into a hiss. 
 That mode of expressing himself nature has left to him." This is only 
 another of the many instances in which Englishmen, when speaking 
 of Mr. Forrest, travel out of their way to assail him. 
 
 The fsurth letter is from Mr. Murray, who says : " I never heard of 
 the slightest mark of disapprobation expressed by the Edinburgh audi- 
 ence towards Mr. Macready during the luhole engagement alluded to." 
 
 Immediately after Mr. Murray's letter, follows Mr. Ryder's affidavit, 
 sworn to before a; Justice of the Peace in the State of Georgia, in which 
 he avers, (what Mr. Forrest has always admitted,) that on the 2d 
 March, 184G, Mr. Forrest did hiss Mr. Macready, and then adds, 
 " there was not one single hiss from any other person through that eve- 
 ning, nor during any night of Mr. Maxreadys engagement^'''' &c. This 
 is the evidence relied upon by Mr. Macready to prove that Mr. Forrest 
 stated an untruth, when he said in his " card" that Mr. Macready, on 
 a night subsequent to the 2d of March, when he repeated the part of 
 Hamlet with the same " tom-foolery," was greeted with a universal 
 hiss. 
 
 The following extract from the Edinburgh Weelcly Chronicle, a journal 
 of the highest respectability, will show that Mr. Forrest was correct, 
 and that Mr. Macready's witnesses have remarkably convenient 
 memories : 
 
 Edinburjii Weekly CJironicIe, Mar Ji 14, '4G. 
 
 "Want of space precludes us from noticing the other performances of 
 •Mr. Macready, but we must express our unqualified admiration of his 
 Werner — played on Saturday evening. On Monday he personated 
 Hamlet, when he again introduced the pas de moiichoir ; a few injudi- 
 cious admirers attempted to applaud the harlequinade — which elicited 
 hisseifrom so many of the audience that we fear our contemporary (The 
 Scotsman) will be unable to enjoy the satisfaction of individually stig- 
 matizing the ' offenders.' " 
 
 As a further evidence of the opinions of the Scottish press on this 
 subject, the following from the same journal is published : 
 
56 
 
 21st March, '46. 
 
 We are anxious to be enabled to acquit Mr. Macready of having 
 exercised the personal influence which he appears to possess over a iarg;e 
 portion of the London press, in the case of a most unwarrantable and 
 unfair paragraph which bus appeared in the Times and Exa?ni7ier newa- 
 papers in connection with his appearance here. But circumstances 
 within our knowledge render it difficult to ascribe the paragraph in 
 question to other than his direct or indirect interference and influence. 
 We allude to a prominent quotation which the papers we mention have 
 made, of the statement contained in the ScGtsman''s recent critique upon 
 Mr. Macreadj's Hamlet, which provoked a contradiction and rebuke 
 from us. Had the Times and Examiner contented themselves with 
 simply quoting our contemporary upon the subject, without addition or 
 comment, the surprise and suspicion of interested interference, which 
 we feel, might not have been excited ; although, even then, the long 
 period which elapsed ere the former paper quoted it, and the fact that 
 the latter had quoted another portion of the same critique a week pre- 
 viously, without even noticing the portion to which we refer, would 
 have appeared significant. But when, in addition to these facts, we 
 find the quotation from our contemporary studiously pointed and exag- 
 gerated by certain prefatory remarks and concluding comn^ents, we 
 can have no hesitation in ascribing the paragraph to interested mo- 
 tives and personal interference ; and we know no person except Mr. 
 Macready who could have sufficient interest or influence in the matter 
 to cause its insertion. In order to justify and render clear our state- 
 ment, we reprint the entire paragraph which has appeared in the two 
 London papers mentioned : — 
 
 " Professional Jealousy. — The Scotsman of the 4th instant, after 
 noticing the appearance of Mr. Macready at the Edinburgh Theatre, 
 in the character of 'Hamlet,' and announcing the enthusiastic applause 
 with which he was honored, adds — ' We feel compelled, however, to 
 notice one flagrant exception to the general, or, indeed, unanimous ap- 
 probation. A gentleman, occupying a prominent position in the house, 
 made himself unenviably con.-picuous by loud and repeated solitary 
 hissing, with the view of expressing his disapproval of the manner in 
 which Mr. Macready gave effect to a particular passage. We should 
 not have thought it worth while to mention such a circumstance, had 
 it not been reported, though we scarcely think it credible, that the 
 offender was a brother actor, and one, too, who probably considers him- 
 self a rival. We must distinctly state, however, that the stigma does 
 not apply to any member of our regular theatrical company.' We be- 
 lieve that Mr. Forrest, an American actor, is the party supposed." 
 
 This paragraph appeared in the Times of the 12th instant, and the 
 Examiner of the 14ih ; the latter paper having already, on the 7th in- 
 stant, quoted a passage from the same article in the Scotsman, in praise 
 of Mr. Macready. We might, were we not anxious to compress our re-- 
 marks, satisfactorily show that the Scotsman'" critique could only have 
 been quoted, in the first instance, from that inordinate desire to seize 
 upon every possible opportunity for puffing Mr. Macready which the 
 Examiner uniformly exhibits, and which was never more strikingly or 
 ridiculously exhibited than in its late emphatic welcome of Mr. Ma- 
 cready's return from America, in the words — " to say that Macready 
 has re-appeared, is to say that Sliakspeare has returned to town ."' A few 
 extracts from the Scotsman's critique would abundantly manifest that 
 it was otherwise infinitely below the Examiner's notice; indeed, it in- 
 volves a mass of absurd self-contradictions, and a display of ignorance 
 
57 
 
 of the subject and art of criticism, utterly beneath a paper of the Scots- 
 man's pi-etensions. Supposing, however, that the Exam.iner\s earlier 
 extract from the Scotsmaii''s Gritique may have been justifiable, or at least 
 excusable, its subsequent quotation of a further portion is altogether 
 unjustifiable and inexcusable. Our paper of the 7th inst. (releasing 
 Mr. Forrest from the ungenerous imputation of the ScotsmcDi's critic, 
 and shewing that the latter had been guilty of snppresszo -uer;', and even 
 more direct misrepresentation,) was in the hands of the jExaTJUHer before 
 the subsequent paragraph was quoted from the Times; the Examiner 
 has therefore no excuse for disregarding the explanation by which wo 
 rebutted the accusation against Mr. Forrest, and reprinting that accu- 
 sation with aggravations. The term " professional jealousy" conveys 
 an imputation of motives against Mr. Forrest, which neither the Times 
 nor the Examiner were justified in assuming : and the mention of him 
 as "a» American actor" consummates, at once, the malice and injus- 
 tice of the paragraph, and renders its animus clear. Had the para- 
 graph been fair or disinterested, Mr. Forrest would at least have been 
 designated as " the American Tragedian" — a title to which he is as 
 fairly entitled among us as is Mr. Macready to that of " the British 
 Tragedian," when spoken of among Americans. Had the American 
 critics, during Mr. Macready's transatlantic starring, spoken of him as 
 "Mr. Macready, an English actor," the Times and Examiner had wax- 
 ed extremely indignant ; yet they do not scruple to f^peak thus of the 
 popular tragedian of the American stage. Not content with constantly 
 overrating Mr. Macready, and greeting him upon every occasion with 
 adulation so fulsome as to excite disgust, they lend themselves still fur- 
 ther to the supposed promotion of his interests, by embracing every 
 opportunity to underrate and disparage his rivals. They have repeat- 
 edly done so in the case of Charles Kean and VandenhofF; and they 
 now do so in the case of Mr. Forrest. We trust, however, that too just 
 a sense of the obligations which national hospitality impose, exists 
 among our countrymen on either side of the border, to allow this illibe- 
 ral attack to injure the American Tragedian, in the manner it is evi- 
 dently designed to injure him. Indeed, we have little doubt it will be 
 found to have a directly opposite effect, by so rousing the sympathies 
 of a generous and fair-play loving public in his behalf, as to recoil upon 
 its author. If the English press in Mr. Macready's interest desire to add to 
 his laurels, by quoting the testimony of the Scotch critics on his appear- 
 ance among them, they should pursue a fairer course than that of se- 
 lecting the most puerile of the critiques which have appeared in the 
 Edinburgh journals, simply because it is the most laudatory. We do 
 not complain that our own notices of Mr. Macready's performances have 
 been disregarded, except in the instance affecting Mr. Forrest, which 
 we protest against on account of the injustice thereby manifested to- 
 wards that gentleman. But other criticisms have appeared which 
 should have been quoted, if it were desired to afford Mr. Macready's 
 English admirers a fair criterion of the estimate set upon him in Scot- 
 land. Our contemporaTy, the Caledonian Mercury, has a critique which 
 we will venture to affirm possesses far greater claims (in point of ability 
 and impartiality) to the attention of the English press than that of 
 which they have so eagerly availed themselves. The Mercury's re- 
 marks are too long for us to quote, or we should have great pleasure in 
 laying them before our readers. There is much truth in the judgment 
 they pass upon Mr. Macready, and much that confirms our own reflec- 
 tions upon the conduct of the London press in his behalf. We are glad 
 to perceive the pas de mouchoir scene does not escape censure in our 
 contemporary's strictures upon Hamlet; but, on the contrary, elicits the 
 appropriate designation of "a very antic disposition." 
 
58 
 
 How profoundly — I will not say wilfully — ignorant are all the wit- 
 nesses produced by Mr. Macready, of the fact stated by the Edinburgh 
 Weeklij Chronicle, that he was hissed during his engagement at the 
 Edinburgh theatre for introducing the pas dc mouchoir in Hamlet, on a 
 night after Mr. Forrest hissed him ! Mr. Gordon can safely say any- 
 thing, because the correctness of his statements rest entirely upon the 
 veracity of his "uncle, (Captain R,)"' and others equally well known. 
 
 Mr. Murray, although Proprietor and Manager of the Edinburgh 
 Theatre, and from that fact alone supposed to know how his performers 
 are received, " never heard of the slightest mark of disapprobation 
 being expressed towards Mr. Macready during the whole engagement 
 alluded to." But Mr. Ryder, more daring than the rest, boldly swears 
 that Mr. Macready was not hissed " during any night of his engage- 
 ment." Which are we to believe, the enthusiastic friends, admirers, 
 partizans, and dependents of Mr. Macready, or, the (at the time) pub- 
 lished declarations of a respectable journalist ? This very matter oc- 
 cupied for some time a large share of the attention of the theatrical 
 world, and on both sides of the Atlantic Mr. Forrest's conduct was 
 freely criticized. All that could be said in condemnation of it was said 
 — all that could be done to justify Mr. Macready was done. The 
 British press for a long time censured Mr. Forrest — discussiona_were 
 carried on between journals in Edinburgh and elsewhere — and there- 
 fore it is not credible that either the learned Mr. Gordon, the observant 
 Mr. Murray, (who remembers perfectly what occurred in the " green- 
 room,") or Mr. Affidavit Ryder, could or can be misinformed as to what 
 was said by the Edinburgh Chronicle. A case was to be made out for 
 Mr. Macready, and three important witnesses were required : one to 
 speak from information and belief— another to say he " never heard" 
 of anything derogatory to him — and the third to swear, before a Geor- 
 gia Justice, to whatever was necessary to convict the accused. Such 
 witnesses were easily procured, but it is not so easy to believe them. 
 
 The sixth and seventh letters published in Mr. Macready's "Re- 
 plies," are from Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton. Neither of them deserves 
 much notice. The first is dated November 26th, 1848, and bears evi- 
 dence that Mr. Macready opened a correspondence with Mr. Bulwer 
 Lytton, or some other friend in England, soon, if not immediatety, after 
 his first engagement at the Opera House in this city, upon the subject 
 of the then existing or anticipated difiiculty with Mr. Forrest. This 
 letter (Bulwers) is dated six days only after Mr. Macready's first ap- 
 pearance in Philadelphia, and, of course, many days before the writer 
 could have heard of Mr. Macready's reception in that city ; and yet 
 he undertakes in it to settle a question between the two Tragedians 
 which Mr. Forrest, so far as he (Bulwer) was informed, had not raised. 
 The inference is inevitable, that before he went to Philadelphia, Mr. 
 Macready set to work to arm himself with English weapons to assail 
 Mr. Forrest. 
 
59 
 
 It is difficult to understand why Mr. Macready inserted this letter 
 in his " Replies,"' unless we adopt the charitable supposition that the 
 first paragraph, in which he is charged with a grave crime in these 
 ■words — "you have carried off with you our very drama" — was pleasing 
 to his vanity. It must he a great consolation to Mr. Bulwer Lytton to 
 know that " Shakspeare has returned to town," and that his great 
 English representative h the hero of a bloodier tragedy than the im- 
 mortal bard ever wrote. 
 
 The other letter from Mr. Bulwer Lytton, (the 7th,) although mi^\ 
 longer than that already alluded to, contains but one or two pfi''^-'^ 
 worthy of comment : — In it he denies that Mr. Macready ever atte^ '.'^^- 
 ed to influence him to refuse permission to Mr. Forrest to perfi/fm iST 
 any of his plays.' Now, Mr. Forrest has never made any such charge. 
 The conditions with which Mr. Bulwer granted permission^ to Mr. 
 Forrest are what the latter gentleman complained of, and- not the 
 nightly fee which it is but just an author should receive for the use of 
 his intellectual creations. He required that Mr. Forrest should per- 
 form his plays, {Richelieu and the Lady of Lyons.,) twenty nights within 
 the space of Jive weeks, when his engagement was for only three nights 
 each week. This amounted to a positive prohibition, as'during the whole 
 engagement the plays could only be presented jv/icen times. But, as if 
 anxious to add insult to injury, Mr. Bulwer demanded the payment of 
 his fee in advance, a thing until that time unheard of, even in Eng- 
 land. The affectionate regard expressed by Mr. Bulwer Lytton for his 
 "brother artist" is worthy of the highest admiration, but his allusion to 
 the "Archbishop of Canterbury" provokes an involuntary smile. Thou- 
 sands of poor men are sent to the "tread- mill" and woi'se places, in 
 England, for taking their own; and her penal colonies are settled by 
 patriots who dare to assert the freedom and sovereignty of their native 
 land: but he considers it a "ludicrously glaring" thing to suppose 
 that the "Archbishop of Canterbury" might be " sent to the tread- 
 mill, for picking pockets," when the truth is, that his Grace's revenue 
 is taken by force, from the " pockets" of the masses. 
 
 The eighth and last letter, to be noticed in this singular correspon- 
 dence, is from Mr. Charles Bass, comedian. Mr. B. endeavors to show 
 that the reason why Mr. Forrest did not appear at the Odeon Theatre 
 at Paris, was the insolvency of the proprietor, while it is admitted in 
 Mr. Mitchell's letter, that he (Mitchell) actually refused even to see 
 Mr. Forrest, without assigning any reason for such refusal. Mr. Bass 
 affects great reluctance to appear before the public, in any way save 
 in the duties of his profession, but manifests none when he gives pub- 
 licity to the private conversations, (as he alleges,) which he had with 
 a gentleman in his own house ! Mr. Bass says that he was offered " the 
 stage management of the Parisian speculation," by Mr. Forrest, and if 
 this be true, (but the writer has reliable authority for contradicting 
 it,) he only adds to the enormity of his offence, as his visits to Mr. For- ^ 
 
60 
 
 rest must then have been in a high degree confidential, and the man 
 who voluntarily discloses conversations so held, must be base indeed, 
 and his statements are not worthy of belief. How far Mr. Bass's na- 
 tional prejudices will justify him in volunteering testimony against 
 Mr. Forrest, is a question easily decided, and all men must unite in 
 condemning the indecent haste he exhibits to become an informer. 
 
 As to the extract from Mr. Forrest's letter to Mr. Leggett, in 1836, 
 and published by that gentleman in the Plaindealer-i it only proves 
 h'**^ willing Mr. Forrest was to do justice to Mr, Macready, and how 
 /o^®'^ tly he was deceived as to the character of the man. It must be 
 ^^^'xce in mind too, that when Mr. Forrest was in England, in '36, Mr. 
 Macready intended to visit this country again, and that when Forrest 
 was in England in '45. Macready had bidden us farewell /oi-et'er. He 
 had a m-otive in treating Forrest well during his first visit, and could 
 aflford to be jealous and arrogant during his second. Mr. Macready is 
 not the only Englishman who treated Mr. Forrest with marked difi'er- 
 ence, on the occasions alluded to; and, however much his change of 
 conduct may astonish us, it if thrown entirely in the shade by some 
 portions of the English press. Elsewhere, (pages 37, 38, 39,) the in- 
 consistency of the London Times has been briefly noticed, but after 
 that part of the work was in type, the following articles from that jour- 
 nal were obtained : 
 
 London Times, 25 Oct., 3836. 
 
 Drury Lane. — The announcement of Mr. Forrest's appearance in 
 the character of Othello, had the effect of attracting a very numerous 
 audience to this theatre last night. The part is as fair a test as can 
 be suggested of the powers of the actor who undertakes it, and Mr. 
 Forrest's performance may be justly said to have confirmed the im- 
 pression which bis acting in the Gladiator had created. Of his advan- 
 tages of persoral appearance, which are to an actor a part of his stock 
 in trade, we have before spoken ; andthese advantages were enhanced 
 by the judicious choice of a dress, which, while it suited his figure and 
 the part perfectly, presented a highly picturesque effect. The main 
 characteristic of his performance was the manly and vigorous style 
 which he preserved throughout. Without ever degenerating into 
 mannerism or affectation, he displayed strong feeling, and an accurate 
 perception of the minute and various gradations of passion. His 
 speech to the Senate, which was given with great care, and displayed 
 marks of considerable study, won upon the audience by its frankness 
 and force, and was loudly applauded. The scene in which he quells 
 the night brawl was played with a grave dignity which produced a 
 more striking effect than the more boisterous style in which it is scime- 
 times the custom to act it. The ensuing scenes, that in which lago 
 first infuses into his mind the jealous pangs which drive him to mad- 
 ness, and that in which he breaks out into savage reproaches against 
 his wife, by far the most arduous parts of the performance, was played 
 with great ability. The delivery of the speeches was accurate and 
 forcible, and the by-play, as it is technically called — the external dis- 
 play of the workings of a tortured mind — was admirably executed. 
 The convulsion of face and figure when the poison first enters the heart 
 of the victim, spoke eloquently of the load of "aspia's tongues" which 
 
61 
 
 fill his breast, and produced a powerful impression. The celebrated 
 speech beginning — "I'd rather be a toad"' — waa given with such mov- 
 ing force as to excite two distinct rounds of universal applause. The 
 difficulty in the^cene with Desdemona, where the Moor's rage renders 
 him brutal, seems to consist in preserving the force of the action, 
 without such a display of ferocity as would offend an audience, and 
 perhaps the fear of committing the latter fault threw a constraint over 
 the actor which prevented him from exerting his full powers. In the 
 last scene, too, probably from the same cause, there was too much of 
 tameness. The fault is unquestionably on the right side, and it is not 
 unlikely that when he shall become better acquainted with his audi- 
 ence, (which, from his success of last night, is certain to ensue,) it will 
 disappear. The constraint which we have noticed, and a certain 
 slowness of utterance, to which English ears are not accustomed, were 
 the only qualifications to the praises which it is just to bestow upon a 
 performance, the general merit of which places it deservedly among 
 the very best displays that the stage in this country can boast of. 
 
 It is evident that Mr. Forrest has had the good sense and good taste 
 to study Mr Kean's performance of Othello, decidedly the masterpiece 
 of the most eminent and accomplished actor that our later times have 
 witnessed; but although the source from which Mr. Forrest has drawn 
 some of his happiest eiforts, is thus obvious, he is no mere imitator. 
 On the contrary, he exhibits a genuine and natural sensibility, a vig- 
 orous and true conception of the part, and a power of execution, which 
 is highly original. The applause which was bestowed upon him 
 throughout his performance was warm and universal, and was evi- 
 dently not the result of favor, but a spontaneous acknowledgment of 
 merit of a rare and valuable kind. At the conclusion of the play he 
 was called for, and the announcement of the same performance for 
 Wednesday and Friday was received with such general acclamation, 
 as seems to have settled the question of his becoming a highly popular 
 actor. While bearing testimony to his merit, it would, however, be 
 unjust to omit the praises to which Mr. Wardens performance of lago 
 is justly entitled, ft was a singularly elegant and finished display, re- 
 markable for the skill with which the actor has caught the true spirit 
 of the character, and the propriety with whichit was expressed. Miss 
 Taylor played Desdemona, with a quiet grace and unaff"ected feeling 
 which would make one doubt whether it was the same Miss Taylor 
 whom we have usually seen in such different aspects. Miss Huddart, 
 as Emilia, gave full force to the character, which, though subordinate, 
 requires to be well filled ; and all the other parts were so ably sup- 
 ported, that it is questionable whether, of late days, this tragedy has 
 been, on the whole, so completely and satisfactorily acted throughout. 
 
 London Times, 5th November, 1836.''3 
 
 " Drury Lane. — Mr. Forrest appeared last night in the part of King 
 Lear, a character of a nature so totally different from those in which 
 he has hitherto appeared, that even if he had failed in producing ef- 
 fects as powerful as those which have distinguished his preceding ex- 
 ertions, it would have been neitlier surprising to the audience nor dis- 
 paraging to his own powers. The result has proved that he possesses. 
 in a very eminent degree, that versatility of talent which is one of 
 the most valuable qualifications of an actor. The part of Lear is one 
 which many otherwise eminent actors have found above, or, at least, 
 unsuited to their capacities. Mr. Forrest played it decide.ily better 
 than any thing he has yet played in this country. His conception of 
 the character is accurate, and his execution was uncommonly power- 
 
62 
 
 ful and eftective. If it be, as it cannot be disputed that it is, a test of 
 an actor's skill, that he is able to rivet the attention of the audience, 
 and so to engage their thoughts and sympathies, that they have not 
 leisure even to applaud him on the instant, he may be said to have 
 succeeded most co.i pletely last night. From the beginning of the play 
 to the end, it was obvious that he exercised this power over the spec- 
 tators. While he was speaking, the most profound silence prevailed, 
 and it was not until he had concluded, that the delight of the audience 
 vented itself in loud applause. This was particularly remarkable in 
 his delivery of Lears curse upon his daughters, the effect of which was 
 more powerful than any thing that has lately been done on the stage. 
 It is not, however, upon particular passages that the excellence of the 
 performance depended ; its great merit was, that it was, as a whole, 
 complete and finished. The spirit in which it began was equally sus- 
 tained throiighout, and, as a delineation of character and passion, it wag 
 natural, true, and vigorous, in a very remarkable degree. The mad 
 scenes were admirably played, and the last painful scene, so painful 
 that ii; might well be dispensed with, was given with considerable 
 power. The great accuracy a;Td fidelity with v/hich the decrepitude 
 of the aged monarch was portrayed, was not among the least meritori- 
 ous parts of the performance. The palsied head and quivering limbs 
 "were so correctly given as to prove that the actor's attention has been 
 sedulously devoted to the attempt to make the performance as perfect 
 'as possible. A striking proof of his sense of the propriety of keeping 
 up the illusion he had created, was manifested in his re-appearance, in 
 obedience to the loud and general call of the audience, at the end of 
 the tragedy. He came on, 23reserving the same tottering gait which 
 he had maintained throughout, and bowed his thanks, as much in the 
 guise of Lear as he acted in the drama. This would have been almost 
 ridiculous in any but a very skilful actor ; in him it served to prevent 
 a too sudden dissipation of the dramatic illusion. The play wag an- 
 nounced for repeiition on Monday, with universal approbation. Mr. 
 Bartley"s performance of Kent deserves particular commendation. It 
 is djf&cult to conceive how this part could be better or more naturally 
 acted. The other characters were well sustained, and the whole per- 
 formance was well sustained." 
 
 In 1836, the Times speaks of Mr. Forrest's Othello^ as "a performance, 
 the general merit of which places it, deservedly, among the very best 
 displays that the stage in this country (England) can boast of; " and 
 the same paper, in 1848, speaking of Mr. Forrest's acting in '45, says 
 that he " signally failed in Othello.''' In '36, it says: "The applause 
 which was bestowed upon him throughout the performance, was warm 
 and universal, and was, evidently, not the result of favor, but a spon- 
 taneous acknowledgment of merit of a rare and valuable kind ;" but in 
 '48 it says : " He was considered an actor of great physical power, and 
 with the smallest quantum of intellectuality in his performance." In 
 '36, in commenting on Mr. Forrest's Lear., the Times says : " The result 
 has proved that he (Forrest) possesses, in a very eminent degree, that 
 'oersatilitij of talent, which is one of the most valuable qualifications of 
 an actor. The part of Lear is one which many, otherwise eminent, ac- 
 tors have found above, or at least unsuited, to their capacities. Mr. 
 Fcrrest played it better than any thing he has yet essayed in this coun- 
 
63 
 
 try. His conception of the character is accurate, and his execution 
 was uncommonly poiverful and effective.^'' This, it will be remembered, 
 was written after he had appeared in Othello. In '48, the Times says: 
 "Mr. Forrest holds here no position at all; his name on the bills 
 scarcely excites curiosity. He is an effective melo-dramatic actor," &c. 
 Again, contrast this with what it said in '36 : "If it be, as it cannot be 
 disputed that it is, a test of an actor's skill, that he is able to rivet the 
 attention of the audience, and so to engage their thoughts /and sym- 
 pathies, that they have not leisure even to applaud him on the instant, 
 he may be said to have succeeded most completely last night." 
 
 Can any one believe, for a moment, that the writer in the Times of 
 last year was honest, or even disposed to be so, in the expression of his 
 opinions of Mr. Forrest, either as a man or as an actor "? JNfothing, save 
 the mean, narrow, and contemptible prejudices of an Englishman, 
 against everything American, and the secretly exerted influence of 
 Macready and his friends, could have caused so wide a difference in 
 the tone and temper of the articles published in the Times, at the two " 
 differont period^. As an evidence of the just appreciation of Mr. For- 
 rest's acting, by some English critics during his first visit, the follow- 
 ing article from the London Morning Post is subjoined. 
 
 The London Morning Post of Oct., 1836, says : — 
 
 " His reception was enthusiastic, and had he failed, he could not have 
 attributed the misfortune to coldness of reception. He was greeted 
 from all parts of a very full house. He did not fail. He was emioently 
 successful, and the impression produced by him in Spartacus, the hero 
 of the piece, was such that we doubt whether the same character could 
 be safely ventured upon by any other man now upon the stage, at least 
 in presence of the audience which witnessed die performance that 
 night. He was, indeed, from first to last, a magnanimous — a glorious 
 barbarian. 
 
 * * -x- -X- * -):- * * 
 
 " It was our impression that the play could not have succeeded upon 
 the English stage without the aid of Forrest." 
 
 The same journal of October 25th, 1836, says: — 
 
 "Mr. Forrest, who succeeded in making so great an impression in 
 Spartacus, appeared last night as Othello. The style in which he 
 went through the arduous character of Othello was unequal — some por- 
 tions being, in our estimation, excessively fine, while others were of 
 questionable merit. The celebrated speech to the Senate, for instance 
 had nothing particularly to distinguish it, while, on the other hand, the 
 dialogue with lago, when he first attempts to rouse the jealousy of his 
 master, was marked by ability of the highest order. The first o'lance 
 of suspicion when his mind is set on the train by the cunning excla- 
 mation of lago — the terrible shudder of the soldier of iron sinew, 
 when the belief of Desdemona's infidelity has obtained full possession 
 of him, but not as yet burst forth in wild, incoherent, and uncontrolla- 
 ble passion — the relapse into tenderness, and the timely-expressed 
 conviction of her innocence, were all portrayed in the countenance, 
 and expressed in the delivery of Mr. Forrest with astounding effect! 
 Upon the whole, if his Othello had not all the delicacy and point of 
 Kean, it was nevertheless an able and effective performance, and had 
 
64 
 
 any doubts existed as to his capacity of personating the characters of 
 Shak<peare— they are now dispelled. On the fall of the curtain, Mr. 
 Forrest was called for, and on his appearance loudly cheered. JVIr. 
 Cooper then came forward and announced the repetition of the tragedy 
 for Wednesday and Friday. 
 
 London Morning Post, Nov. 5th. 1836. 
 
 " Drury Lane. — Last night Mr. Forrest made his first appearance at 
 this theatre in the character of King Lear. It is in all respects the 
 most arduous among the leading characters of Shakspeare. We did 
 at first entertain some apprehent^ion tliat the vigorous frame and 
 athletic appearance which, in Spartacus and Othello would, in some 
 degree, contribute to a full delineation of those characters, might have 
 a contrary effect when he came to represent the world-worn sovereign 
 who had determined 
 
 "'To shake all cares and business from his age, 
 And crawl towards death.' 
 
 Mr. Forrest, however, soon dispelled this apprehension, and proved 
 himself not less capable of representing the debility of tottering age, 
 than the strength and vigor of full-blown manhood. From his first ap- 
 pearance upon the throne to make division of his dominions among his 
 children, to the close of the play, he never for a moment seemed to 
 have forgotten that he was a poor old man, eighty years of age and 
 upwards ; or, if upon one or two occasions he may appear to have for- 
 gotten the feebleness natural to age, it was under such violence of ex- 
 citement as may be well supposed to communicate an evanescent vigor 
 to the limbs — when the palsied head shall cease for a moment to shake, 
 and the body to totter. It is an invidious task, when a new actor ap- 
 pears, to enter into comparisons with those who are living, or with those 
 ■who have passed away. Partialities are created towards men whom the 
 public have been long accustomed to see and applaud, the influence 
 of which is not easy to avoid when we come to judge of a stranger. 
 We shall say generally of Mr. Forrest's Lear, that, without one gross 
 fault, it is throughout marked with proofs of just conception and vigor- 
 ous, sometimes trancendant. esecutiun. One point in which he is ex- 
 celled by no man, that is, distinctness of enunciation. His most sub- 
 dued voice reaches all parts of the house with a clearness that leaves 
 not any word unheard. The great efforts to be made by the man who 
 attempts the character, commence early, and were all that the poet 
 had set down for him to be given, exhaustion must come on long before 
 the close. The fourth scene of the first act is a most trying one. The 
 indignation at filial ingratitude, when he calls for his horses to depart; 
 the phrenzied outburst of passion when he exclaims to Goneril, 
 
 " ' Det?sted kite, t!i(iu liest !' 
 
 were given with great effect ; but the greatest triumph achieved by 
 the actor during the night, was in that awful passage when he invokes 
 the curse of heaven upon his children. We have seen as great effects 
 produced upon an audience, but never greater, than upon this occa- 
 sion. When the injured father, falling upon his knees, pours out his 
 curse, 
 
 " ' Hear, nature, hear ! S:o. &e.' 
 
 it was delivered throughout, with an awful, soul-rending earnestness, 
 which made one feel as if the avenging thunders of heaven must soon 
 follow. The house rang with ap-lause from all parts, and it was re- 
 peated, more than once. Had all the rest of the part been a failure, 
 and it was not a failure in any part, this passage alone would leave 
 
65 
 
 an impression on the mind, that Mr. Forrest was a man of first-rate ca- 
 pabilities. The actor was scarcely less successful in the second act, 
 particularly in the fourth scene. When Gloster reminds him of the 
 ' fiery quality' of the duke, his exclamation, 
 
 " ' Vengeance ! plagne ! death ! confasion !' 
 
 was uttered in the loftiest tones of indignation; and the sudden transi* 
 tion to tenderness, when he says 
 
 " ' The king would speak with Cornwall ; the dear father 
 Would with his daughter speak,' 
 
 was affecting even to tears. 
 That fine passage towards the close cf the second act, 
 
 " ' I prithee, daughter, do not make me raad ; 
 I will not trouble thee, my child : farewell :' 
 
 Manifested, in the delivery, a depth of feeling, without which it is im- 
 possible that any person can be an eminent actor. It would be tedious 
 to particularize every passage in which, if the actor was not always 
 great, he was never injudicious. He does nothing, he attempts noth- 
 ing, over which, to say the least of it, good sense does not preside. 
 What is technically called a false reading, may now and again occur. 
 This, however, is but rare, and is redeemed by a freshness of execu- 
 tion, that is highly gratifying, at a time when mere imitation, always 
 cold, however correct it may be, has taken possession of the stage : 
 when the same tones, the same strut and fixture of body, the same 
 grimace, that some successful actor has once adopted, is handed doWh, 
 like an article of faith, from which there must be no dissent, or the 
 punishment is damnation. Mr. Forrest's delineation of the sufferings 
 and of the sorrows, of the madness and of the lucid moments, of the 
 age and the infirmities, of the old king, is not a perfect and finished 
 piece of acting, but where can we find a better ? There never was, 
 and it is vain to hope for, uniformity of excellence, throughout a part 
 of such length. In his hands, one of the greatest characters of our 
 great poet, is not disgraced; on the contrary, his acting communicates 
 to it a certain newness, which makes it more interesting than it is un- 
 der the management of performers who may be greater artists, but 
 who carry too much about them the restraint of the drill, and whose 
 precision of voice, and posture, and movement, produce almost an im- 
 pression of feebleness. Mr. Forrest is spoken of as an imitator of Kean. 
 We are unable to perceive it in any marked degree. But, even admit- 
 ting this, it is not derogatory to his talent, for, to follow such an actor 
 without mere mimic servility, is to follow nature. 
 
 Mr. Forrest was called for by the audience, and appeared, to express 
 his acknowledgments, with the palsied head and tottering frame 
 which he wore during the performance. This appears something like 
 affectation, and it would be well to avoid it. We are not aware that 
 it has been a practice on the London boards. 
 
 There is one circumstance which goes very strongly to justify the 
 assertion of Mr. Forrest, that Macready conspired with others to put 
 him down in England, and it is this : all the journals known to be un- 
 der the influence of Macready, assailed Mr. Forrest, while those more 
 independent, spoke highly of his merits as an actor. In the London 
 Spectator, (to whose columns Forster contributed,) of the 8th of March- 
 1845, appeared the following notice of Mr. Forrest's Lear : 
 5 
 
66 
 
 " Of Mr. Edwin Forrest's coarse caricature of Lear, we caught a 
 glimpse, that more than sufl&ced to show that the actor had no concep- 
 tion of the part. Mr. Forrest's Lear is a roaring pantaloon, with a vig- 
 orous totter, a head nodding as indefatigably as a Chinese image, and 
 lungs of prodigious power. There only wanted the candle-wick mus- 
 tache, to complete the ideal of a choleric despot, in pantomime. His 
 tremors of limb and voice, are violent, and as mechanical as the vi- 
 bration of the tremulous truncheon and sword of sensibility, which he 
 ■wields in Macbeth." 
 
 This notice was written by Forster. In the absence of all other evi- 
 dence, the style and spirit of this scurrilous apology for a critique, 
 mark it as the production of the individual whom " Mr. Macready has 
 the honor to call his friend." Let the reader compare it with the fol- 
 lowing criticism on the same performance, taken from the London Era, 
 a journal that spoke freely, but with a great degree of impartiality, of 
 Mr. Forrest's acting. 
 
 London Era, March 9th, 184.5. 
 
 " We begin to suspect tha,t Mr. Forrest has been 'poking his fun' at 
 us for the last few weeks — if not, he is a very extraordinary personage 
 indeed, and, as Mrs. Malaprop shrewdly observes, he must be ' like 
 Mr. Cerberus, tivo gentlemen at once,'' that is, a very good and a very 
 bad actor. We have been told that ' from the sublime to the ridicu- 
 lous there is but a step,' and, of a verity, this adage can be applied 
 '■doMS toute la force du terme,'' to his impersonation of Shakspeare's mag- 
 nificent conceptions, Lear and Othello. It has fallen to our lot to be as- 
 tonished, occasionally, '■dans ce has monde,^ but we can safely say, we 
 never were more surprised, and, certes, never more agreeably, than on 
 Thursday evening, while witnessing Mr. Forrest's performance ot Lear. 
 We went to the Princess's impressed with the idea, from the previous 
 exhibitions we had witnessed, that Mr. Forrest would be found une- 
 qual to the task of playing this most difficult part, and we will even 
 add, that we conjured up the remembrance of John Kemble, and of 
 Kean, in this beautiful tragedy, and the mental comparison we forced 
 upon ourselves, was anything but favorable to the actor who was about 
 to appear before us as the aged monarch, with a mind mangled by 
 madness ; to convey which harrowing affliction truthfully and forcibly, 
 requires power and discrimination of no mean order. Shall we say it ? 
 We anticipated a dead failure. Now, be it understood, this feeling, 
 or opinion rather, did not arise from prejudice, but from a conviction 
 of Mr. Forrest's inability to accomplish that which he had undertaken. 
 Our critical duty has coerced us to the painful task of pointing out the 
 numerous defects in Mr. Forrest's Othello and Macbeth. The former 
 character, especially, was faulty, alike in conception and delivery ; and 
 having thus impartially conveyed our opinion of his previous perform- 
 ances, we, in the same spirit of candor and good feeling, are bound to 
 award praise and admiration where they are^so justly due. It is with no 
 little pleasure, therefore, that we congratulate Mr. Forrest on the mas- 
 terly and efficient performance of Thursday evening. To say that his 
 Lear is by many degrees superior to his Macbeth, or his Othello, will 
 convey no idea of the surpassing excellence which characterized the 
 touching and heart-rending delivery of Shakspeare's text. A more 
 truthful, feeling, and artistical display of genuine acting we never 
 witnessed ; from the first scene to the last he was the Lear of our im- 
 mortal bard ; and we can scarcely now believe that this is the same 
 
67 
 
 individual who did the Moor and the Thane. It almost appears an im- 
 possibility that the Othello and Macbeth of last week should have been 
 played by the representative of Lear, for fire and water are not less 
 different than the conception, reading, and delivery of the latter to the 
 two former characters. Not a line, look, or gesture, told of Mr. For- 
 rest, but Lear was Lear from the first scene to the la.st. We never saw 
 madness so perfectly portrayed. It was true to nature; painfully so: 
 and to the utter absence of mannerism, affectation, noisy declamation, 
 and striving for effect, may, nay must, be attributed the histrionic tri- 
 umph achieved by Mr. Forrest in this difficult part. By his display of 
 Thursday evening, Mr. Forrest has stamped himself a man of genius. 
 We candidly confess we did not think it was in him, and we were as 
 much electrified as every one in the house. The whole audience, in 
 fact, were taken by surprise ; and the unanimous cheering at the con- 
 clusion of each act, must have convinced Mr. Forrest how fully his per 
 formance was appreciated. He must have been gratified, for the ex ! 
 pressions of delight which greeted him were as heartfelt as they were 
 merited. The imprecation, at the conclusion of the first act, was most 
 impressively and admirably delivered, and drew down thunders of ap- 
 plause from one and all. We never heard this awful curse so power- 
 fully uttered; it was dreadful from its intenseness and reality. Had 
 we space, we could point out numberless excellencies in Mr. Forrest's 
 performance. A more talented exhibition we never wish to see — it is 
 impossible to imagine anything more intellectual — the care and study 
 bestowed upon this part must have been great, and the actor has iden- 
 tified himself most completely with it. It is refreshing, now-a-days, to 
 see one of Shakspeare's plays so brought before us, and we feel exceed- 
 ingly obliged to Mr. Forrest for having reminded us of the palmy days 
 of Kemble and Kean ; and when we add that his Lear is equal in every 
 respect to that of the two mighty tragedians, whose names are hal- 
 lowed by the admirers of genius, we think we can scarcely bestow 
 higher praise. The tragedy of " Lear," in fine, has been got up with 
 great care and excellent scenic effect ; the other characters in this 
 splendid play are most respectably filled. The Cordelia of Mrs. Stir- 
 ling was exceedingly natural, graceful, and touching. She is a charm- 
 ing, as well as a talented actress, and a great acquisition to any man- 
 agement. She was loudly called for at the conclusion of the tragedy, 
 and received a well-merited portion of the applause bestowed on Mr. 
 Forrest." 
 
 Forster could see nothing commendable in Mr. Forrest's representa- 
 tions of Shaksperian characters ; his Macbeth^ Othello., and Lear, were 
 each a gross caricature, in the unprejudiced mind of Mr. JMacready's 
 friend; but other critics, who aspired to be something better than toa- 
 dies, thought differently. 
 
 The London Atheneum of March Ist, 1845, spoke tbas of Mr. Forrest's 
 " Macbeth :" 
 
 <' The materiel must precede cultivation, and alone gives it value. 
 From not considering this, critics fall into many errors. Mr. Forrest's 
 former manner has received considerable modification, and become 
 mellowed with experience. He has learned that repose is the final 
 grace of art, and has thus subdued all natural tendencies to violence, 
 repressing his voice and action, except in the startling crisis of the 
 play, where both, without effort, sprung forth with crushing effect : not 
 because he is an actor who chooses thus to manifest strength, but be- 
 
68 
 
 cause lie is a stroBg man, and has simply liberated Ms energies. All 
 this is merely natural advantage, and must he reckoned among the na- 
 tural qualifications of an actor, unless we hold, that he is best fitted 
 for the stage for whom nature has done the least. There is no art which 
 requires a greater combination of rare qualities, both of mind and per-» 
 son, than the histrionic, when truly, that is, ideally considered. Mr, 
 Forrest's "Macbeth,'' as he now performs it, is a calm and stately, al- 
 most a sculpturesque piece of acting." 
 
 Saunders'' News Letter of the 20th of April, 1846, contains the follow- 
 ing notice of Mr. Forrest's Lear : 
 
 " Theatre Royal. — The Lear of Mr. Forrest is one of the most effee- 
 tive and striking pieces of acting it has been our pleasure to witness, 
 and in it he has made a reputation that is the more to be estimated, aa 
 the character is one so difficult to embody, and it requires great judg- 
 ment to harmonize the antagonist principles of advanced age with its 
 physical weakness, and the vivid, glowing passions, that are awakened 
 by the ingratitude to which the confiding monarch has become a vic- 
 tim. Whatever may be thought of some of the parts in which Mr, 
 Forrest appears, or of the skill with which he sustains them, his Lear 
 stands forth a fine realization of a glorious original ; earnest, but not 
 coarse — passionate, but not boisterous, and true to nature, while hap- 
 pily regulated by a study the result of art. The withering impreca- 
 tion was delivered with a power and solemnity that made one listen 
 with arrested breath, so that not one word should be lost; and, in the 
 closing scene, the advent of death was indicated by some minute evi- 
 dences that showed the observation of the artist." 
 
 Whoever reads closely the criticisms on Mr. Forrest's performances^ 
 must observe the striking difference between those written by Mr. 
 Macready's friends and partizans, and those in journals not specially 
 devoted to his interests. The London Times is notorious for its abuse 
 of the United States, their institutions, the character of their peoplcj 
 and, indeed, of everything that Americans honor and esteem. Its 
 abuse of Mr. Forrest, because he is the greatest histrionic genius of 
 this country, is natural, and would excite neither surprise nor comment, 
 if it had not at one time spoken so favorably of his merits. The Era- 
 miner, the admitted organ of Mr. Macready, in 1845-6, found an able 
 coadjutor in the Times, in the disreputable attempt to injure the pro- 
 fessional character of the recognized representative of the American 
 stage. If Mr. Forrest had ever given offence to England, or to Eng- 
 lishmen assuoh, the course of those and kindred journals would not be 
 without some groxmd of justification ; but, as they do not allege that 
 he committed any offence whatever, the inference is not only reasona- 
 able but inevitable, that they were actuated by national antipathies, 
 and hatred of the man whose ability made him the rival, of the idol 
 they worshipped. In Macready, they beheld the pet of princes and no- 
 bles — the stately but frigid representative of kings — while, in Forrest, 
 they saw the representative of the people — a man, whose native and 
 impassioned eloquence, as the personator of oppressed races, awakened 
 a love of freedom in the breasts of his auditors. Macready was a so?- 
 
69 
 
 ereign on the stage, but an obedient subject in every other place — 
 Forrest was, in fact, a sovereign, never a subject. Macready honored 
 and upheld the usages of aristocratic rule — Forrest was the impersona- 
 tion of all wlio believe in the equality of men, and was truly great in 
 the utterance of every liberal sentiment of the character he repre- 
 sented. Forrest, in Metamora, Spartacus, and Jack Cade, was the foe of 
 tyrants and every species of tyranny, and the teacher of such truths as 
 those characters utter, is not a welcome visiter in the land of standing 
 a,rmies and starving millions. Macready catered for the wealthy few 
 — Forrest spoke to the hearts and understandings of the masses ; in 
 short, as nearly as they could be, one man was of a class and the other 
 of the people. Macready was an Englishman, with all the prejudices 
 peculiar to his country — Forrest was an American, who had risen to 
 eminence from the humblest walk in life, and was known to be the 
 pride of his native land. The two men were antipodes, naturally and 
 professionally. That the aristocrats of England liked one and disliked 
 the other, is not astonishing; but it is humiliating to record the fact, 
 that Americans have united with them in traducing the good name 
 and character of one who has reflected so much honor on their coun- 
 try, both as an actor and a man. American editors have seized with 
 avidity every atom of English testimony calculated to injure Mr. For- 
 rest, and, when that source failed, they have drawn liberally on their 
 fruitful imaginations to invent some damning slander that would blast 
 his fair fame. National pride, honor, candor, truth, justice, all have 
 been sacrificed to pander to the unwholesome tastes of the admirers 
 and imitators of the privileged orders on the other side of the Atlantic. 
 A spurious and tinselled aristocracy here, whose claims to distinction 
 rest on the vices of their ancestors, or their own skill in obtaining the 
 wealth acquired by others, demanded that a victim should be offered 
 up on the altar of exclusiveness, and who so fit as an actor who dared 
 to be a democrat, and never concealed his sympathies for the masses of 
 his fellow men 1 The intellectual man, who hews a pathway to dis- 
 tinction through the prejudices of the wealthy and "well born," must 
 espect, even when in the zenith of his fame, to be assailed by his infe- 
 riors. " The Tarpeiau rock is near the capitol" — the place of execu- 
 tion is near the place of honor and triumph. The man whose native 
 strength and energy of mind enables him to be a leader among his fel- 
 low-men, despite the hostility of a class, is sure of the envy and hatred 
 of all whose pride has been humbled by his success. If Mr. Forrest 
 could boast of a long line of aristocratic ancestors — if he had been nur- 
 tured in the arms of wealth — or if, in his progress from obscurity to re- 
 nown, he had sedulously studied and gratified the tastes and wishes of 
 the self-constituted leaders of society, and manifested a criminal for- 
 getfulness of the obligations resting on him as a man and a republican, 
 those who are now his revilers would be his flatterers, and we would 
 
 '¥•■5. • 
 
70 
 
 never have heard the false charges, (retracted as soon as uttered,) 
 which have been made against him. 
 
 To those who have wilfully suppressed and misrepresented the facts 
 most material to a proper understanding of the difficulty between Mr. 
 Forrest and Mr. Macready, it is useless to speak ; they have resolved 
 to be unjust, and not even the mangled forms of the men, women, and 
 children, who were slaughtered in obedience to their bloody behests, 
 should they rise up and confront them, would change that resolve. 
 But to those who have been misled and deceived, these pages are of- 
 fered as a means of arriving at a just conclusion. 
 
 The candid reader cannot have failed to observe with what unflag- 
 ing zeal Mr. Macready, in this country, assailed Mr. Forrest and his 
 friends — how pertinaciously he attacked him and them in New York 
 and Philadelphia, until longer silence on the part of Mr. Forrest would 
 have been a confession of guilt. There is no proof that Mr. Forrest 
 ever thought of organizing or countenancing any opposition to Macrea- 
 dy ; but, on the contrary, it has been shewn that he deprecated every 
 thing of the kind. His most bitter enemies, who have any regard for 
 their characters, would not now dare to assert, that he was a party to 
 any conspiracy, (if a conspiracy existed at all,) to put down Macready 
 in this country. If Mr. Forrest were deserving of commendation, as an 
 actor, in '36, why was he ridiculed and denounced, in '45-6, by Eng- 
 lish critics ? If the " Garrick Club" deemed him worthy of the com- 
 pliment of a " dinner," in '36, and Macready and Kemble honored the 
 festival by their presence, why does the London Times, of '48, sneer at 
 the idea of Mr. Forrest attempting to represent the English drama 1 
 Why did Bulwer Lytton, the enthusiastic admirer and convenient 
 friend of Macready, refuse to allow Mr. Forrest to appear in plays in 
 which Macready had acquired a high reputation ?- 
 
 The following correspondence will enable the reader to answer the 
 last question : 
 
 " 276 Eegent Street, London, 
 
 " Sir — ^Being desirous of preducing at the Princess's Theatre the 
 plays of •' Richelieu" and the " Lady of Lyons," I take the liberty of 
 addressing you to know if you have any objection to their being repre- 
 sented there, and what would be the author's nightly fee. I have the 
 honor to be, yours, with the highest respect, 
 
 "Edwin Forrest. 
 
 " To Sir E. L. Bulwer, Bart." 
 
 "March 4, 1845. 
 " SiR^I regret that, having invariably declined to allow ihe repre- 
 sentation of my plays, nightly, at any metropolitan theatre, I cannot 
 comply with your request. I could not allow "Richelieu" and the 
 "Lady, of Lyons" to be performed for a less period than ten nights 
 each, upon a payment, beforehand, of fifty guineas for the ttco — and sup- 
 posing that the twenty performances were included within five weeks 
 
71 
 
 — at wMcli time the right of performance (supposing that accident pre- 
 vented the completing the twenty representations) would cease, and 
 return entirely to my disposal. 
 
 " I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " E. B. Lytton. 
 "E. Forrest, Esq."' 
 
 Mr. Bulwer Lytton did not even condescend a reply to Mr. Forrest's 
 letter until nearly ten days after the latter gentleman addressed him. 
 The reader will perceive, from this correspondence, that Bulwer Lyt- 
 ton knelt} it would be impossible for Mr. Forrest to comply with his con- 
 ditions, so that, as has already been said, his consent amounted to an 
 actual prohibition, coupled with an insult. " If circumstances, which 
 lead directly to the door of truth," will satisfy unprejudiced minds that 
 Macready influenced his friend, Forster, to ridicule and vilify Mr. For- 
 rest — his friend, Bulwer Lytton, to insult him, and Mr. Mitchell to re- 
 fuse even to see him, notwithstanding he had letters of introduction — 
 then the correspondence herein contained must satisfy the reader that 
 there did exist in England, among certain literary and theatrical men, 
 a conspiracy to drive Mr. Forrest from the English stage. 
 
 The "Replies" published by Mr. Macready, show conclusively, of 
 themselves, that even gentlemen, aye, English gentlemen, are not over 
 scrupulous in the use of assertions of questionable correctness, to say 
 the least, when one of their countrymen is in want of witnesses. 
 
 In all this matter, not one single act of Mr. Forrest's can be stigma- 
 tized as improper. ' Tis true that his " Card" is not suited to the tastes 
 of those who are more sensitive than sincere ; nor to others who were 
 pre-determined to dislike every thing he said or did. But the great 
 public, whose opinions become a part of history, will say that the pro- 
 vocation he received fully justified Mr. Forrest in retorting, in the 
 clear and unmistakeable language of that card. 
 
 If this subject could be concluded here, the writer would lay down 
 his pen with the consciousness that he had done something towards 
 preserving the good name of a great and good man — and that he had 
 performed that pleasing task honestly, though not ably. But it is his 
 painful duty now to speak of the bloody sequel to this "war of 
 words." 
 
 In order that the reader may judge for himself, a full account of 
 the so-called riot, published in the Herald of the Uth of jNIay, and all 
 the testimony taken before the Coroners jury, are embodied in this 
 work. Without expressing any opinion now, the author asks a careful 
 perusal of those two documents. 
 
72 
 
 OCCURRENCES OF THE 10th OP MAY. 
 
 N. Y. Herald, May 11, 1849. 
 
 It is our painful and melancholy duty to chronicle one of the saddest and most 
 terrible occurrences that ever took place in this city. It is well known that Mr. 
 Macready was driven from the stage of that theatre on Monday evening last, by 
 persons who had attended that establishment for the purpose. On Wednesday, 
 several gentlemen of this city united in writing a note to Mr. Macready, regretting 
 the occurrence, and requesting him to appear again and conclude his engagement, 
 which was to be his last in this country. To this note Mr. Macready replied that 
 he would again perform. Accordingly, bills were issued, and other arrangements 
 made, for his appearance. In the meantime rumors prevailed throughout the city, 
 that the opposition to Mr. Macready's appearance would be persisted in, and that 
 arrangements had been made to carry this determination into effect. The muni- 
 cipal authorities made their arrangements likewise, and it became evident through- 
 out the day that there would be a serious collision between the rioters and the 
 authorities, in the event of the former attempting to carry their threat into execu- 
 tion. During the day, the probability of such a collision was much discussed by 
 all classes of the community, and great and anxious interest felt in the result. 
 
 As early as half-past six o'clock, persons began to assemble around the theatre; 
 and, at about seven, crowds were seen wending their way to the theatre from all 
 parts of the cily. By half-past seven, there were several hundreds in the street, 
 in front of the Opera House, and the rush to get admittance was tremendous. 
 Tickets for a sufficient number to fill the house were soon sold, and the announce- 
 ment made on a placard that no more would be sold. Meantime, the crowd 
 outside was increasing every minute. 
 
 Every avenue to the theatre soon became densely crowded. Astor place was 
 occupied by an immense assemblage, almost all of whom had apparently been at- 
 tracted by curiosity. The portion of the Bowery adjoining the theatre was also 
 crowded, and, in Broadway, which had at that point been opened for the purpose 
 of constructing a sewer, hundreds of persons were seen crowded together on the 
 top of the mound of earth thrown up from the centre of the street. 
 
 The house itself was filled to the dome. A great portion of the assemblage in 
 the theatre consisted of pohcemen, who had been distributed all over the house 
 in detached parties. There was not any appeaiance of an organized party of 
 rioters in the house. When the curtain rose, there was an outburst of hisses, 
 groans, cheers, and miscellaneous sounds, similar to those which interrupted the 
 performance on Monday night. The opening scenes, however, were got through 
 with after a fashion, several persons who hissed and hooted having been seized by 
 ttie police, and immediately conveyed to an apartment underneath the boxes, 
 where they were placed in confinement, under the charge of a posse of the police 
 ofiicers. Macready's appearance was the signal for a great explosion of feeling. 
 Hisses, groans, shouts of derision assailed him, intermingled with loud cries of 
 " Out with him ! Out with him !" Large numbers of the auditory started to 
 their feet, and called on the police to eject the individuals who had expressed 
 their disapprobation, and several arrests were made in the manner as we have 
 described, each arrest being followed by loud cheers and applause all over the 
 house. It was speedily apparent that those unfriendly to Mr. Macready were in 
 the minority 
 
 Thus the play proceeded through the first two acts. There had been a great 
 deal of trepidation behind the scenes, but the heroism with which the actors and 
 actresses sustained themselves on the stage, is worthy of all praise. The manner 
 of Mrs. Pope, the Lady Macbeth of this melancholy night, deserves the most 
 honorable mention. It was, indeed, a trying scene. Mr. Macready repeatedly 
 expressed to Mr. Hackett, his wish to desist, and his desire to avoid any further 
 collision with those Vv^ho were opposed to his appearance ; but, amid the shouts, 
 groans, hisses, and arrests by the police, the play, as we have said, went on, much 
 of it in dumb show, but portions of it without much interruption. It was sup- 
 posed at this moment, that the tumult would be effectually quelled for the distur- 
 bance in the house became less and less, and even some pa,ssages of Mr. 
 Macready's part were heard, with a tolerable degree of order. 
 
73 
 
 The first persons arrested in the parquette were four young men, who were 
 locked up in the temporary prison under the boxes which we have already described. 
 In this apartment was a gas-Ught burmng, and the prisoners, pulling up some 
 shavings and pieces of wood, set fire to them. When the pohcemen opened the 
 door, the place was full of smoke, but the officers speedily extinguished the fire. 
 The prisoners who had attempted this atrocious crime were immediately put in 
 irons. At this moment a shower of stones assailed the windows of the theatre. 
 News then came in from the street, through Captain Tilley, of the 13th ward, 
 that a man, known to be Edward Z. C. Judson, was heading the mob outside, 
 and calling upon them to stone the building. The Chief of Police immediately 
 ordered his arrest, which was promptly effected. In the meantime the assault 
 upon the doors and windows continued. Volley after volley of large paving 
 stones was discharged against the windows. The glass was, of course, in a few 
 moments, all smashed to atoms ; but having been barricaded, the windov/s re- 
 sisted the attack for some minutes ; at last yielding, however, the fragments of 
 glass, and blinds, and barricades being driven with violence into the body of the 
 house, great alarm began to pervade the audience. Rumors of all kinds — that 
 the house was to be fired — that it was to be blown up, and so on, were circulated. 
 The ladies, seven in number, who were present, and who, with a heroism that 
 did infinite credit to their sex, had till this moment preserved their equanimity, 
 now became alarmed, as well they might, and shifted their seats to the part of 
 the house not in the range of any of the windows through which the stones and 
 fragments of glass and wood were now flying. 
 
 At this time, the scene within the house was indeed most exciting. In firont 
 and rear the fierce assaults of the mob, as they thundered at the doors, resounded 
 all over the theatre, whilst the shouts and yells of the assailants were terrific. 
 Inside, however, all was comparatively quiet. The admirable arrangements of 
 the Chief of Police and the Recorder, and the fidelity and intelligence with which 
 their orders were carried out by the force under their command, secured the peace 
 and safety of the interior of the building. We cannot award too much praise to 
 the police force tor the manner in which they arrested the leading rioters in the 
 house, and making sorties among the crowd outside, secured many of the ring- 
 leaders of the mob. 
 
 As the mob increased in magnitude and in the ferocity with which they assailed 
 the building, the cry arose inside, and also outside, among the peaceable citizens 
 attracted by a curiosity, which in such a case, was most culpable — " Where are the 
 military 1 Can nothing be done to disperse the rioters 1 Where's the Mayor 1" 
 Several despatches was sent to the City Hall, where the mihtary were stationed. 
 At length, about nine o'clock, the sound of a troop of cavalry coming up Broad- 
 w;ay was heard ; and in a few minutes afterwards, two troops of cavalry, of the 
 First Division of the State Militia, and a battalion ot the Rational Guards, were 
 seen approaching the scene of the riot. 
 
 APPEARANCE OF THE MILITARY. 
 
 A troop of horse then turned from Broadway into Astor Place, androde through 
 the crowd to the Bowery, receiving showers of stones and other missiles, on their 
 way. The horses became unmanageable, and the troop did not again make its 
 appearance on the ground. In a few minutes afterwards, the National Guard, 
 one of our independent volunteer companies, made their appearance on the 
 ground, and attempted to force a passage through the crowd to the theatre. The 
 mob hissed and hooted at them, and fi.nally attacked them with stones, which 
 were at hand in consequence of the building of a sewer in the neighborhood. The 
 company were at this period thrown into disorder by the attack made upon them, 
 and retired to Broadway, v.'here they rallied, and made another attempt to reach 
 the theatre. They were hissed and pelted as before, with stones, but they suc- 
 ceeded in reaching the desired point. They then endeavored to form in line on 
 the side-walk, and while doing so, five or six of them were felled to the ground 
 by paving stones, and taken into the theatre in a state of insensibiUty. Captain 
 Pond, the Captain of the company, was one of those thus injured. 
 
 The next officer in com.mand, then said to the Sherifli', who was on the ground, 
 that if he did not get orders to fire, he and his men would abandon the streets. 
 
74 
 
 Accordingly that officer directed the company to fire a round over the heads of the 
 people, which was accordingly done, but without effect. The people continued 
 to pelt them with paving stones as before. An order was then given to the com- 
 pany to fire at the crowd, and it was done, two men falling, one shot in the arm, 
 and the other through the right cheek. The first was sent to the hospital, but the 
 other was found to be dead. After the volley, the mob retreated a short distance, 
 but rallied and renewed the attack with greater vigor than before. Paving stones 
 and other missiles were discharged at them in great quantities ; and while the 
 mob was going on, another volley was fired by the military, killing and wounding 
 several more, some of whom were taken by their friends to the drug store, on the 
 corner of Ninth street and Broadway. One young man, named John McKnley, 
 of No. J 47 Third Avenue, was shot through the body, and taken to a public 
 house in the neighborhood. 
 
 After this volley the crowd retreated again, and the military and the pohce 
 took advantage of it to form a line across the street at both ends of Astor Place, so as 
 to prevent any connection between Broadway and the Bowery. Major General 
 Sandford then issued an order for more troops and two brass pieces loaded with 
 grape to be brought to the scene immediately, as it was rumored that the crowd 
 intended to arm themselves and renew the attack. It was at this time half-past 
 eleven o'clock, and the additional troops, consisting of several companies and the 
 artillery, reached the scene of disorder. The cannon loaded with grape were 
 placed in front of the theatre, ready in case of a renewal of the attack. 
 
 SCENES IN BROADWAY. 
 
 At the corner of Broadway and Fourth street, a large concourse of people 
 were seen upholding a comrade who was evidently severely wounded. He was 
 taken to the door of a physician in Broadway, near Bleecker street, but admittance 
 was refused for him, and his friends bore him onward bleeding, but not profusely. 
 A physician seeing that he could not gain admittance to the place above men- 
 tioned, came forward and proffered his services, which were thankfully accepted. 
 The young man was taken into the drug store at the corner of Broadway and 
 Bleecker street, where the volunteer surgeon examined his wound and found that 
 he had received a musket ball in the left leg just under the knee joint. The ball 
 had entered on the inside, gone through the fleshy part of the leg, and its position 
 was discoverable on the outward side of the limb, near the surface. The surgeon 
 called for instruments to extract the ball and probe the wound, but could not 
 obtain them ; the sufferer was, therefore, removed to the house of his employer, 
 131 Greene street. He was an apprentice, about 20 years of age, and his name, 
 as we understand, was Stephen Morris. The surgeon helped to convey him to 
 his employer's house, where his wound was temporarily attended to, and the 
 family physician sent for. 
 
 Passing on up Broadway, we met a solemn procession coming down, preceding, 
 accompanyinir, and following a covered wagon which contained the bodies of 
 five persons, some of whom were senseless, (whether dead or not we could not 
 learn,) and others seriously wounded, but retaining their self-possession. The 
 wagon was drawn along upon the walk by a number of men. This whole scene 
 was solemn in the extreme ; but few words were spoken by the persons who ac- 
 companied the vehicle, and what was said, was uttered in low tones. A Uttle 
 farther up Broadway, we met a crowd of men and boys bearing a dead body on a 
 bier. This had hardly passed, when another crowd came through Fourth street 
 from the Bowery, bearin g on a rude litter a woman , who had been wounded by a shot 
 while she was passing through one of the streets near the scene of the disturbance. 
 Close upon the tracks of those who were carrying the unfortunate woman, eame 
 a man without coat or vest, jumping along through the crowd, half frantic, tossing 
 his hands and swearing vengeance. 
 
 Large assemblages were held at the corners of the streets, and, as one after 
 another of the bodies passed, various exclamations of regret and reproach were 
 used in expression of their feehngs. " Oh, horrible ! horrible !" " shame ! shame !" 
 " great responsibihty resting somewhere," " where will it all endl" and other hke 
 expressions were heard throughout Broadway and the adjacent streets. Every 
 pubUc house, segar shop, and oyster saloon was scon filled with curious persons. 
 
75 
 
 who sought these various places to obtain infon-nation concerning the fearful 
 tragedy which was then being enacted in Astor Place. 
 
 Passing down Broadway, the excitement seemed to increase rather than subside. 
 Around the Hospital gate was congregated a large multitude, and at the corner of 
 Barclay street and Park Place were distinct assemblages, listening to harangues 
 from volunteer orators. 
 
 In the midst of the firing, one of the Harlem railroad cars stopped in the 
 vicinity, for the purpose of allowing an elderly gentleman to get out. As soon as 
 he had put his foot on the step, in the act of descending, he was pierced by a 
 musket ball, and fell dead. It was found that he was shot through the heart. 
 He was removed to the drug store at the corner of Eighth street. 
 
 At one o'clock, A. M., quiet prevailed at the scene of tumult. In the vicinity, 
 however, on the corner of the I5owery and Tenth street, and in other adjacent 
 places there were knots of people, numbering twenty, thirty, and forty respectively, 
 speaking aloud in reference to the catastrophe. Some of those meetings were or- 
 ganized, and speeches were being made, the tenor of which, from the lateness of 
 the hour, we had not time to ascertain. The mihtary were drawn up in the 
 same position as they were previously, a cordon being maintained across Astor 
 Place, at its junction with Broadway, and, at the other end of the junction with 
 the Bowery. The two pieces of ordnance which had been ordered on the ground 
 were directly in front of the theatre. 
 
 From this point we proceeded to the drugstore, on the corner of Broadway and 
 Eighth street, and there ascertained that two of the unfortunate wounded, who 
 were carried there, had died in the course of the night. Learning that several 
 bodies had been removed to the Fifteenth ward station house, we went thither, 
 and there we beheld a frightful and ghastly spectacle. Six fine looking young 
 men laid there in death — one with his brains protruding from a wound in the 
 skull, another shot through the hip, another through the heart, and the remain- 
 der pierced in different parts by musket balls. 
 
 THE SCENE AT THE FIFTEENTH WARD STATION HOUSE. 
 
 This scene was tragical in the extreme. On a bench at the end of the room 
 lay the dead body of a tall, genteel looking man, whose name was ascertained to 
 be George W. Gedney, brother to a broker in Wall street. He had been shot 
 through the brain, in the manner we have already described. Next to him was a 
 man of middle stature, apparently an Irish laborer. He had been shot ia the 
 throat. Beside those victims on the floor lay the body of a young man, named 
 Henry Otten, whose parents reside at the corner of Orchard and Hester streets ; 
 a large sized man, with dark whiskers, name unknown, shot in the right breast ; 
 a thin faced man, apparently a mechanic, shot in the neck ; a man of somewhat 
 similar appearance, shot in the abdomen ; and an elderly man, name unknown, 
 shot in the right cheek, who had been conveyed from the street to the theatre, 
 and thence to the station house. 
 
 Besides these, two unknown men are lying dead at the seventeenth ward station 
 house. A butcher residing in Front street, in the agonies of death, was taken to 
 the drug store at the corner of Eighth street and Third avenue. The ball had 
 passed through his head. At the same store eight of the military were brought 
 in, badly wounded from missiles hurled at them by the mob. A boy named 
 Brown, residing at No. 42 Crosby street, was conveyed home badly wounded in 
 tlie knee. Another boy, mortally wounded, was taken to his home in Tenth 
 street. At twelve o'clock the Coroner was overwhelmed with orders to attend to 
 cases. 
 
 Probably there are other cases of wounded, dying, and dead, which we have not 
 been yet able to ascertain. 
 
 THE SCENE AT THE HOSPITAL. 
 
 The scene at the City Hospital was heart-rending. Body after body of the 
 wounded and dying was conveyed into the building, followed by their sorrowing 
 friends and crowds of spectators. There wete eleven in all. The first man was 
 Stephen Kehoe, a young man of 24 years of age, who had received a ghastly 
 wound in the left eye, the bullet passing through the cheek, and lodging behind 
 
76 
 
 the ear. The wound is not without great danger. The eye, of course, is lost. 
 The second was a youth of about 18 years of age, who was shot in the thigh, the 
 bullet passing right through and fracturing the bone. The third was Edward 
 McCormack, shot through the groin, the bullet fracturing the bone of the pelvis, 
 and passing out at the hip. Conrad Baker was also shot through the thigh, and 
 John Dalzell, between the thigh and groin. This is a dangerous wound. George 
 V. Kay, aged 28, (a native of New Brunswick,) merchant, is wounded in the right 
 lung — supposed to be fatal. George Lincoln, aged 30 years, a native of Massa-T 
 chusetts, and a shoemaker, is wounded in the abdomen — serious. George A. 
 Curtis, printer, 22 years of age, shot through the lungs. James McDonald, a 
 native of Ireland, aged 17, an oysterman, shot through the leg. Mr. Burgett, 
 aged 30, keeper of a refectory in Pearl street, wounded through shoulder and 
 neck — two distinct wounds. 
 
 The next victim was a poor Irish woman, named Bridget Fagan. We found 
 her lying on a mattress, on the floor of one of the female wards, with a frightful 
 gun-shot wound in the right knee. Her husband was on his knees beside her. 
 They had gone out together, after he had returned from his daily labor, to pur- 
 chase a few shirts, and were returning to their humble home, when, unfortunately, 
 they passed directly in range of the fire of the military. Never can we forget the 
 heartfelt pathos with which the poor man remarked that his wife fell out of his 
 arms like a child, when the miUtary fired. We hope her wound is not serious. 
 All the other wounded stated that they had not participated in the disturbance, 
 but were present only from curiosity or accident. This was confirmed to us by 
 several spectators. It is worthy of remark that the majority of the wounds were 
 low. 
 
 THE CORONER'S INQUEST. 
 
 The Coroner on Saturday morning summoned a jury, and the following gentle- 
 men were sworn in as jurors, for the purpose of investigating the cause of death 
 occasioned at the disturbance on Thursday evening last. 
 
 NAMES OF THE JURY. 
 
 1. Jarpes H. Perkins, corner Grand and Centre street, eating house. 
 
 2. L. W. Sammis, shoe dealer, 188 Grand street. 
 
 3. Joseph B. Brewster, hatter, 120 Bowery. 
 
 4. William Banta, hatter, 106 Canal street. 
 
 5. James Cropse]'^, dry goods, 112 Canal street. 
 
 6. Wm. S. Smith, jeweller, 116 Bowery. 
 
 7. E. Renger, clothier, 98 Bowery. 
 
 8. E. C. Robinson, hardware, 148 Bowery. 
 
 9. Elisha Biooks, clothier, 116 Cherry street. 
 
 10. Samuel Raynor, bookseller, 76 Bowery. 
 
 11. Thomas G. Miller, dry goods, 15 Greenwich avenue. 
 
 12. Wm. Ballagh, grocer, 1 Chambers street. 
 
 13. J. C. Baldwin, furniture, 183 Chatham street. 
 
 14. G. W. Dawson, furniture, 183 Chatham street. 
 
 15. 0. H. Wilson, clothier, 120 Chatham street. 
 
 The Coroner then provided five carriages for the purpose of taking the jury to 
 view the bodies which were lying in various parts of the city. At half past nine 
 o'clock the carriages were filled, and the first place visited was the City Hospital. 
 Here it was expected to find one dead body ; but instead of which^ four were 
 lying in the arms of death, three having died the night previous. Dr. V/hittaker, 
 a very skilful surgeon, accompanied the Coroner to view the bodies and examine 
 the wounds. 
 
 George A. Curtis, aged 22 years, born in Chatauque county, printer by trade ; 
 shot through the lungs. 
 
 John McDonald, aged 17 years, born in Ireland ; shot through the breast. 
 
 George Lincoln, aged 25 years, appeared to be a sailor ; shot in the abdomen. 
 
 Thomas Aylwood, aged 19, bom in Hahfax, a clerk. This young man received 
 a musket ball in the thigh near the knee. So severe was the fracture, thatampu- 
 tation was deemed necessary, and, on completion of the operation, the patient 
 died. 
 
77 
 
 The next place visited was 472 Pearl street, where Timothy Bums, 16 3^eai's, a 
 printer, was lying, the ball having passed through the right lung. The room wasi 
 very close and warm, causing the body to be very offensive. 
 
 Henry Otten, 22 years, born in New York, grocer, resided with his father, cor^ 
 ner of Hester and Orchard streets. The ball had passed through his breast. 
 
 George W. Brown, 20 years, born in Boston, clerk. Musket ball passed 
 through his left lung. The body was at 42 Crosby street. 
 
 William Butler, 24 years, born in New York, ship joiner, 97 Sullivan street j 
 ahot through the left side of the head. 
 
 George W. Taylor, 21 years, born in New York, house Carpenter ; shot through 
 the breast ; single man ; boarded at 215 Varick street. 
 
 Owen Burns, 24 years, born in Ireland, a cartman ; shot through the head 5 
 body lay at 31 Charles street, (in the rear ;) single man. 
 
 The Coroner next drove up to the house No. 219 Sullivan glreet, having been 
 informed that John S. Jones was lying dead. On knocking at the door, a good 
 looking young man came, opened it, and walked out on the stoop. The Coroner 
 stated that he came to see the body of John S. Jones. " Well," said the young 
 man, " here I am." " Yes,", said the Coroner, laughing, " but I want to see the; 
 dead Jones." " I am the only Jones here," answered Mr. Jones, " and, as for 
 myself, I feel quite well. There was a young irlan brought here slightly wounded^ 
 but he is doing quite vrell, and in no danger of dying." This incident created 
 quite a laugh. The jury took their seats again in the carriages, and drove to the 
 fifteenth Vizard station house. 
 
 Thomas Bulman, 17 years, born in Ireland, laborer, shot through the neck. 
 
 Neil Gray Melhs, 27 years. The musket ball passed directly through the heart; 
 left a wife and one child; The deceased was a nephew to ex-Alderaian Neil 
 Gray of the 10th ward. 
 
 The Coroner then drove to No. 147 3d avenue, v/here it was said John M<5 
 Kinley was lying dead 5 however, McKinley was not dead, but he was not ex- 
 pected to hve, as the wound was considered fatal, the ball having passed through 
 his abdomen. It was expected he would not survive until this morning. 
 
 Asa F. Collins, 45 years, born in this State, business a house agent. The de- 
 ceased received a ball in the neck, as he was descending from the railroad Car. 
 Mr. Collins owned a small house and lot in 41st street near 3d .ivenue. The 
 scene in this house was most lamentable ; the wife and six children weeping at 
 the sudden affliction, was truly a sorrowful affair, 
 
 Wm. Harman, 15 years, a butcher, was brought to the Bellevue Hospital early 
 on Friday morning, having received a ball in the abdomen ; he hngered until 4 
 o'clock in the afternoon, when death reUeved his earthly suffering. He was a na- 
 tive of St. Johns, New Brunswick. 
 
 Thomas Kearnin, 21 years, born in Ireland, a waiter ; shot in the right cheek, 
 the ball passing into the brain. He was residing with his brother, 196 East 13th 
 street. This man was supposed to have been the first person killed, as he was 
 picked up immediately after the first discharge of musketry, and taken into the 
 Opera House dead. 
 
 Matthew Cahill, 26 years 5 born in Ireland; laborer; a widower ; shot through' 
 the right breast; one child. The body was at the house where the deceased 
 boarded, situated in 12th street, near the 1st avenue. A curious scene v/as here 
 shown. The body was in a cofEn, and on the cofEn was a couple of plates, filled 
 with tobacco, and several short pipes. Around the coffin was seated three moth- 
 erly-looking fat women, with red facesj nursing fat babies, and on a small table 
 were two empty bottles. A funny little Irishman was considerably in hquor, and 
 became very noisy, and yet comical, although on the solemn occasion of death. 
 
 Timothy McGuin, 19 years, laborer. This young man was the support of his 
 aged mother, and received a ball in the left side. The deceased was residing 
 with his mother, in the rear of No. 107 West 13 th street, and died soon after 
 being brought home. On the Coroner calling to view the body, he was informed 
 that it had been taken to Williamsburgh and interred, on a certificate given by 
 Dr. WagstafF. which was supposed to have been done more through ignorance 
 than anything wilful; it will cause much trouble, as the body must be disinterred by 
 the Coroner at Williamsburgh. 
 
78 
 
 George W. Gedney, 34 years, born in New York, a broker, resided at No. 82 
 7th street. The deceased received a musket ball directly through the brain. It 
 appears that on the evening of the riot, Mr. Gedney told his wife he was going 
 out a little ways, and would be back soon ; but, unfortunately, like many others, 
 he went up to the theatre to see the fun, as some termed it, and met his death, as 
 above stated. 
 
 Caleb S. Woodhull, Mayor of the city and county of New York, sworn : — I 
 was iniormed on Thursday last, there was likely to be a disturbance at the the- 
 atre, in Astor Place, and in consequence of which I sent for the Recorder to come 
 to my office at 11 o'clock ; I sent for several gentlemen to be at my office at 11 
 o'clock ; the Recorder, Sheriff, Chief of Police, General Sandford,the Police Jus- 
 tices, and Mr. Niblo ; these attended about 11 o'clock; Mr. Hackett came with 
 Mr. Niblo ; I inquired of Mr. Niblo, the proprietor of the theatre, whether they 
 intended to play at the theatre on Thursday night ; he stated to me that they had 
 put out their bills and proposed to do so ; I then inquired of the gentlemen pre- 
 sent, what probability there was of a disturbance that evening ; some of them 
 thought there would be a disturbance ; the Chief of the Police in particular, said 
 he thought it might be a serious one ; a conversation then passed between those 
 present as to the best means of suppressing it ; I inquired of the Chief if the civil 
 force would be sufficient; he said he thought it would not; I then asked him if the 
 aid of the military would be required; he said he thought it would ; I then put 
 the question to the gentlemen present, whether, under any circumstances, an or- 
 der should be issued ; they all answered in the affirmative, except General Sand- 
 ford ; General Sandford remarked that it was not for him to say whether they 
 should be ordered out or not, it was his business to obey the orders ; the order was 
 then afterwards given and handed to General Bandford's son ; the order was a 
 general order, as to the number to be called out ; myself, Mr. Niblo, and 
 Mr. Hackett, had some conversation respecting the closing the theatre; I 
 stated to Mr. Niblo, as a magistrate, that I thought I had no right to interfere 
 with his establishment, but my private wishes were that he should close his 
 theatre on that night ; they seemed to think they ought not to close, and that 
 the magistracy ought to protect them, and we came to the conclusion, as an al- 
 ternative, to do so ; instructions were given to the Chief of Police and General 
 Sandford to take such measures, and act as occasion required ; I went to the 
 Opera House about nine o'clock in the evening, I went in and inquired for the 
 Recorder and the Chief of Police ; I saw outside immense multitudes of people ; 
 I made myself known at the door and went into the house ; I inquired of the Re- 
 corder, Chief of Police, and Sheriff, what they were doing, the general answer 
 was, there was a large force outside ; they stated that the windows and panels of 
 the doors were broken in ; the miUtary were outside ; it was stated by the Chief 
 of Police that great difficulty was to be entertained as to keeping them from 
 breaking inlo the house, with the force he had ; and he was fearful they would 
 succeed, as his men were doing all they could do ; after I had been there about 15 
 minutes. Gen. Hall stated to me that unless I gave orders for his men to fire, his 
 men would leave the ground; my answer was, not yet General, let us see; he said 
 he had been struck with stones on his head and body, and the blood at this time 
 was running down the left side of his face; he repeated twice or three times that 
 his men would not stand to be stoned to death with arms in their hands ; finally, 
 he stated to me. Mayor you must give the order to fire, or my men will all be 
 killed ; my answer was again, "wait a little:" nothing passed again between the 
 General and myself ; he left me without the order, I did not give the order to fire; 
 there was no proclamation read to the people by me, I was inside; there was no 
 proclamation issued by ;ne that day, I issued none, because I was not sufficiently 
 informed of the state of facts to deem it necessary; the means taken through the 
 day were precautionary ; about twenty minutes after General Hall left me, I no- 
 tified Justice Mountfort that I was going to the New York Hotel, and would re- 
 main there to receive any communication they had to make ; I then left, in com- 
 pany with my brother, and went to the New York Hotel; this was previous to the 
 firing of the mihlary; I remained at the hotel with Governor Fish until after 11 
 o'clock, and then went to my house; the disturbance then appeared to be over. 
 
 The next witness was General Sandford, who, on being sworn in the usual 
 form, testified as follows : 
 
79 
 
 My name is Charles W. Sand ford, and I am Major General commanding the 
 military forces of this county. 
 
 Please state what you know of the subject matter of this inquiry? 
 Between eleven and twelve o'clock, on Thursday last, I received a message from 
 the Mayor, requesting me to attend him in his office. I proceeded there, and 
 found all the magistrates mentioned by the Mayor assembled. The Mayor in- 
 formed me of the object of my being sent for, and he has stated correctly my re- 
 ply, when my opinion was asked. After it was decided to issue the order for the 
 military to turn out, it was understood by the magistrates present, that the effort 
 should be made by the civil authority to preserve the peace, and that the military 
 should not be called out until that eiTort failed. I received in consequence the 
 following order, after I left the Mayor's office: 
 
 Mayor's Office, City Hall, May 10, 1849. 
 Having reason to apprehend a serious riot this evening, which will require more 
 force to preserve the peace than is possessed by the police. Major Genera] Sand- 
 ford is requested to hold a sufficient military force in readiness to meet the appre- 
 hended emergency. 
 
 G. S. WOODHULL, Mayor. 
 
 After receiving the above order, I ordered one regiment to assemble at their 
 drill rooms, and one troop of light artillery, with two si.i-pounders, to assemble 
 at the arsenal, with a small detachment of infantry to protect the pieces. 
 
 Coroner. — What were the names of the companies ordered 1 
 
 I ordered one regiment, consisting of eight companies, numbering three or four 
 hundred men on parade ; bat as the notice v.'as short and late in the day, they 
 numbered only a little over two hundred at mustering. I ordered out also, the 
 seventh regiment or National Guards, as they are known to the public. I went 
 myself in the evening to the artillery drill rooms, and informed the magistrates 
 that I would be there to await their orders. I understood there was to be a large 
 police force at the theatre, which many of the magistrates thought would be suffi- 
 cient to preserve order without the military. The infantry was commanded by 
 Colonel Duryea, who was present when 1 entered the drill rooms. 
 
 In answer to the Coroner, he said — There are eight captains to that regiment, 
 but whether they were all present or not he could not tell — Captain Shumway, 
 Captain Underbill, Captain Pond, Captain Price, and I do not at present recollect 
 what others were there. We remained there until I received a verbal message from 
 the Sheriff, who was at the theatre, the purport of which was, that the mob had 
 attacked the theatre, had driven in the police force, and were assailing the build- 
 ing. He requested me to come up as soon as possible. This was, as well as I 
 can recollect, between eight and nine o'clock in the evening. After receiving the 
 message, I immediately ordered the regiments to get ready to march — to distri- 
 bute their ammunition and move. The ammunition consisted of one thousand 
 rounds of ball cartridge. I at the same time sent orders to the Arsenal Yard for 
 the horse belonging to this regiment, and a small number of horse of another regi- 
 ment assembled there, to come in front of the drill rooms and march with us to 
 the ground. There was no amm.unition given to the horse ; they had nothing 
 but their sabres. The troops were put under march and moved rapidly up Broad- 
 way to Astor Place. I was not aware until I got on the ground, of the amount 
 of the mob, and supposed that a small military force added to the police would be 
 sufficient to maintain order. Before arriving on the ground, I mounted and took 
 charge of the cavalry, which were in advance, consisting of about 40 horsemen, 
 directing the infantry to follow close after us. 1 ordered the tiorse to form a front 
 of from five to ten men on entering Astor Place. They advanced in that order 
 till they got nearly opposite the centre of the Opera House. We were assailed 
 at this point by a shower of stones and brick-bats, by which almost every man 
 was more or less hurt, and the horses rendered almost unmanageble. The men 
 pushed rapidly through Astor Place, and were received throughout the whole dis- 
 tance with a shower of stones, The infantry followed them. There was a 
 dense mob extending the whole distance to the Bowery, and as far as I could see 
 to the Third avenue. The mounted men being conspicuous marks, received most 
 of the stones, and were driven off the ground. I disraoimted, returned through 
 
80 
 
 Ihe mob, and took charge of the infantry, who were halted in line across the open 
 space beyond the theatre, with a dense mob on both sides of them, who were as- 
 sailing them with all sorts of opprobrious epithets, and frequent volley of stones. 
 I ordered Colonel Duryea to form a colamn of divisions for the purpose of first 
 clearing the ground in the rear of the theatre, intending afterwards to go to the 
 front. The column was formed promptly, and moved forward through the mob 
 until stopped by an excavation in the ground, which was not seen, owing to the 
 darkness of the night. We then moved and filed round this broken ground, and 
 cleared the rear of the theatre, by sweeping the mob before us without a charge-^ 
 they retreating before us. I stationed at this time, two bodies of troops at each end 
 of the theatre, ejctending across the street, and sent into the theatre for Mr. Mat- 
 sell and the Sheriff, who came out to me. Mr. Matsell furnished sufHcient police 
 to replace those two lines of the military, and the whole were then put in march 
 round Eighth street and down Broadway by the flank ; the Sheriff at my request 
 accompanying us, we moved down Astor Place, through the mob, and as close to 
 the theatre as we could get. The mob partially retreated towards the middle and 
 opposite side of the street, and commenced an attack on the troops with paving 
 stones. The pavement had been broken up in that neighborhood, for the purpose 
 of laying water pipes and building a sewer as I was informed ; t then ordered the 
 fegiment to be divided, and form in two lines across the street^^— the right wing 
 advancing towards the Bowery, and the left towards Broadway, with a view of 
 driving the mob each way from the front of the theatre. During this period the 
 mob constantly assailed the troops with showers of stones and brickbats, and 
 many of them were seriously hurt. A number of men near me, and Gen. Hall, 
 were struck at the time, and some of them very dangerously injured. After giv- 
 ing this order, I advanced myself towards the middle of the street, by the side of 
 Captain Shumway, who led the first company, and Colonel Duiyea, who was by 
 his side, until we got nearly two-thirds of the way across the street; the Sheriff 
 was just behind. At this time we were assailed by a volley of stones, by which 
 more than two-thirds in the front rank were more or less injured — the Captain, the 
 Colonel, and myself being struck too, eight out of eleven men, constituting the 
 front rank, were more or less injured. At this time' a pistol was fired by some 
 man in the mob, within a very short distance of the troops, by which Captain 
 Shumway was wounded in the leg, and, as I believe. Gen. Hall in the face, al- 
 though I did not hear it till afterwards ; previous to this, the crov/d had been re- 
 peatedly notified by General Hall and myself, and by other persons whose voices I 
 did not recognise, that they must disperse or they would be fired upon. I was 
 partly knocked down at this time, and when I rose, found three or four of the front 
 rank down likewise, and the head of the column forced back towards the Opera 
 House; the shower of stones at this time being incessant, orders were then given 
 by myself and repeated by Colonel Duryea, to charge bayonets; the attempt was 
 made, but the mob was so close upon the troops, pressing upon them, that there 
 was no room for the troops to charge, and some of the men had their muskets 
 seized by the crowd. The troops at this time were forced back to the side-walk; 
 I stated to the Sheriff that it was impossible for us to maintain our position with- 
 out firing. I several times called out to the crowd, that they must hold back, or 
 we would fire. Afterwardsj the Sheriff gave the order to fire. Gen. Hall, who was 
 a short distance from me, exclaimed, " Fire over their heads." The order to lira 
 was repeated by myself and Colonel Duryea, and the men fired over the heads of 
 the mob, against the walls of Mrs. Langdon's house. A shout was then made by 
 the mob, " They have only blank cartridges — give it to them again !" and another 
 volley of stones came instantly. The troops were then ordered by the Colonel 
 and myself, to fire again. General Hall saying, " Fire low," and then for the first 
 time the mob began to give Way. The troops then moved forward and crossed 
 the street, driving the crowd before themj until the troops got near to the corner of 
 Lafayette Place. The mob here ralhed at the corner af Lafayette Place on one 
 side, and at the corner of the theatre and broken ground at the opposite side, and 
 advanced again with fresh showers of stones on the troops. Several of the mili- 
 tary were hurt severely at this second attack, and orders were given to the troops 
 to fire, one-half obliquely to the right, and one-half obliquely to the left, on those 
 two bodies. This was done, and the crowd fell back into Lafayette Place, and 
 beyond the broken ground behind the theatre. There was no firing after this by 
 
81 
 
 the troops, but the mob kept up constant attacks with stones and brickbats. The 
 whole number of military engaged in the conflict was about two hundred and ten, 
 one-half in the line towards Broadway, and the other in the line towards the 
 Bowery. The mob has been variously estimated at from ten to twenty thousand; 
 it was exceedingly dark, the lamps having been put out, as I was informed, and 
 all I could see was a dense mass of people before me ; previous to leaving Eighth 
 street to ro to the front of the theatre with the troops, I sent to the Arsenal to or- 
 der up the hght artillery, and a detachment of the sixth regiment 1o support it ; 
 they arrived on the ground after the firing had ceased; one gnn was stationed 
 facing the Bowery, and the other facing Broadway, the infantry disposed at each 
 end, and some at the rear of the theatre, and notice given to the mob that if they 
 did not disperse they would be fired upon again, and the artillery used if necessary; 
 after this, the mob gradually dispersed and the stoning ceased ; upwards of fifty 
 men of this small military detachment of two hundred and ten men were disabled, 
 and chiefly before any firing by the troops ; I do not believe the troops could have 
 been withdrawn with safety without the order to fire ; it was entirely impossible 
 for them to maintain their position without firing ; I have been upwards of thirty- 
 five years engaged in military duties, have been out on several occasions of mobs, 
 but I never saw one so bad as that of Thursday, and never before had occasion 
 to give an order to fire ; in conclusion, he desired to state, that no one could de- 
 plore the event more than he does. 
 
 At the conclusion of General Sandford's testimony, the Coroner stated that as 
 it would be impossible to finish the investigation that day, he would adjourn the 
 inquest to ten o'clock on Sunday morning, and stated to such persons present as had 
 friends or relatives killed in the riot, that by two o'clock yesterday he would prob- 
 ably be enabled to give them permits fpr interments. 
 
 SUNDAY. 
 
 The inquest was resumed this morning, the first witness examined being. 
 
 John J. V. Westervelt, Sheriff, who testified to the consultation at the Mayor's 
 office similar to the Mayor, to his being requested to swear in deputies, which he 
 did, but he could not say how many. In reference to the riot, he testified that the 
 first disturbances he witnessed were inside the theatre, hallooing, &c., in the par- 
 quette. About an hour after it commenced outside, by pelting the house with 
 stones, breaking the windows, and bursting in the doors. The civil force not being 
 found sufficient, he directed the military to be sent for. On their arrival he had 
 an interview with Generals Sandford and Hall, and accompanied them, the mili- 
 tary being then in 8ih street. General Hall told him, unless the military were 
 allowed to fire, to defend themselves, they could not be kept together, as they 
 were being pelted with stones, and several had been badly injured. He was 
 requested to visit the wounded, which he did, and saw several hurt on the head 
 and in other places. After this the company were ordered to march around into 
 Astor Place, and witness accompanied General Sandford, and was with him until 
 the firing ceased. On arriving in Astor Place the mob were throwing stones at 
 the military and at the Opera House. The General told him, unless the military 
 were allowed to fire their muskets would be taken from them. It was decided to 
 give the people notice that if they did not disperse the military would fire. Notice 
 was given, by requesting them to fall back, which they did not du, and witness 
 gave the order to fire, and the order requested them to fire over the heads of the 
 people. He did not suppose the mob heard the order to fall back, as there was 
 much confusion. General Hall gave the order to fire over their heads distinctly, 
 along the line. After the first firing the people fell back a little, and immediately 
 rushed forward with paving stones, saying that they were blank cartridges. Pre- 
 vious *o the second fire, the Recorder and General Sandford again informed the 
 mob distinctly, that unless they dispersed they would be fired upon ; they were 
 answered by a shower of paving stones and all sorts of opprobious language. The 
 word was again given to fire, and to fire low. After this firing, the people fell 
 back a little further. Stones were thrown again. Then the militia fired again. 
 After this, there was no more firing, and the Astor Place was cleared. Some 
 remained about the building all night. It was impossible to give the people tin^e 
 
83 
 
 to retire between the firing. It was not prudent to give much time because they 
 were rushing at the military and taking their muskets from ihem. 
 
 George W. Matsell, Chief of Pohce, sworn, testified as to the council at the 
 Mayor's office. About 4 o'clock, went to the Opera House with the officers of 
 his force, to make the necessary arrangements. At 1 o'clock, occupied the House 
 with two hundred policemen, and stationed them in different parts of the house, 
 to preserve order ; also placed about 75 policemen in a stable and house opposite • 
 — Langdon's house — and covered the rear of the house with two platoons of 
 police ; an immense crowd had collected ; the platoons consisted of 25 men each ; 
 he gave the commandant of the police in the house, directions to arrest the first 
 person who should commit a palpable breach of the peace, and placed himself 
 where he could be seen, so as to give the word ; also gave orders to talk to the 
 people at every opportunity, and persuade them to be quiet. The play com- 
 menced, the audience applauded, and some hissed ; all sorts of noises were made ; 
 at this time nothing had been done that he considered an overt act. The violence 
 continued to increase, and he requested the Recorder to be sent for. A number 
 of persons came to him and censured him for not suppressing the tumult. The 
 Recorder came, and he asked him if sufficient overt act had been committed to , 
 justify arrests. He decided there was, and that by making two or three arrests 
 the tumult would be quelled. The arrests were made and the lower part of the 
 house was quieted. The disturbance still continued in the upper part of the house. 
 "Witness ordered the amphitheatre to be cleared of all persons who disturbed the 
 peace, which was done. The attack, by throwing stones, &c., outside the house 
 commenced about the time the first arrests were made inside the house. Many 
 stones and brickbats came through the windows into the house — into the body of 
 the building. The ladies that were in the building had been removed to the safe 
 positions. Witness then repaired to the front of the house. "The police were 
 hard pressed by the mob. The 8lh street side was attacked by throwing large 
 stones. The police were driven from the ground. Witness ralhed a body of 
 pohcemen, threw open the large door of the building, rushed upon the crowd, 
 and drove th^m from the rear of the house. The police in the front of the 
 building were driven in, and a number were brought into the building wounded 
 and badly hurt. Already all of them were more or less injured. Many persons 
 asked why the military were not sent for. He was informed the miUtary had 
 been sent for. He then told the police they must rally and hold possession of 
 the building till the mihtary arrived. There was from time to time a severe fight 
 between the police and the people. This continued until the mihtary arrived. 
 Recorder Tallmadge was out in the street talking to the mob. The Sheriff was 
 also out engaged in the same way. The mob were getting the better of them 
 very fast, and they would have been compelled to give up the front of the house 
 altogether. The troops at this time came through Astor Place very slowly. 
 They were badly used, and some of them hurt. After the horsemen had passed 
 about twenty minutes, the infantry arrived. The military were received with 
 volleys of bricks and paving stones, the mob closing in upon them and giving them 
 very Utile space to manoeuvre. A charge was ordered, which was partly executed. 
 The military were falling in their ranks wounded, and being constantly carried 
 into the Opera House. Thought that in ten minutes there would not have been 
 a man left who was in the front rank had not the order been given to fire. After 
 firing the people cried out that they were firing blank cartridges, and became more 
 infuriated than before, and commenced wresting the muskets from the soldiers' 
 hands. The Recorder attempted to address the mob, telhngthem that unless they 
 fell back the mihtary would fire upon them. He did this repeatedly. The last 
 time he was met with an immense volley of stones, and was driven into the rear 
 of the military. After the firing the mob dispersed, and the military and police 
 retained possession of the ground unal morning. After the house was quieted, 
 he saw the Mayor in the house, who gave him directions. This was some time 
 before the military arrived. During the time of the disturbances inside the thea- 
 tre it was set fire to, but was soon put out. It was set fire to under the parquette. 
 Frederick A. Tallmadge, Recorder, testified to the council at the Mayor's 
 office, at which he remarked to Messrs. Niblo and Hackett that he feared if there 
 was a performance they would sustain serious injury to their house, and if they 
 insisted on a performance the conn*" should not be responsible for the injury they 
 
might sustain. They said their handbills were out, and as citizens they had aright 
 to be protected. The Mayor said that he did not believe he had power to close 
 the house, and they were entitled to protection. The Mayor requested him to be 
 present at the Opera House in the evening. About 7 1-2 o'clock he went to the 
 theatre. A multitude had collected. The pohce were stationed in front of the 
 building, and as it became dark the people crowded npon ihem, and it was with 
 difficulty they could retain their position. There was disorder, but no violence at 
 this time. The crowd increased rapidly, and about eight o'clock the doors were 
 closed, and every person prohibited going into the theatre. There was a call for 
 witness, he went in to the house and saw the Chief of Police, who pointed out to 
 him several persons who were disorderly, and threatening Macready, and he or- 
 dered their arrests, which was immediately done, and with the exception of a few 
 irregularities ip the upper part of the house, and after a few arrests, all became 
 quiet and the performance went on. In a few moments the house was assailed 
 and the windows broken by throwing stones into the building from both sides of 
 the house. He rushed out of the house immediately and ordered the police to ar- 
 rest every man that threw a stone, that they could detect ; many arrests were 
 made by the police and attempts made to rescue those who had been arrested. A 
 good deal of violence was then used by s,tones and other means towards the po- 
 lice. He passed on the line of the eastern part of the Opera House, when there 
 was a severe pressure on the police, which became so severe on the Bowery side 
 that the police were driven in. It was utterly impossible to resist. They were as 
 well as the building assailed with stones. Three of them fell by his side. He was 
 struck himself several times, but not severely. He found it was impossible for the 
 civil force to resist. The mob had approached so near the main entrance of the 
 theatre that they commenced breaking in the door with large stones. He rushed 
 into the house, fiading that the pohce had been overcome and could not resist, for 
 the purpose of seeing the Sheriff to have the military ordered. I met the toheriff, 
 and requested they should be sent for, and he sent the order. He tried to raise a 
 force of policemen inside to go out and recall those that were outside, and found 
 the Chief of Police had all the disposable force operating on the north side of the 
 theatre. He several times rushed out and was met with volhes of stones. He 
 was satisfied the police could not resist and directed them to come inside the build- 
 ing. Many of them were injured. These assaults continued until he was in- 
 formed the military had arrived. At this instant a cry was made that the build- 
 ing was on fire. This caused great alarm and consternation. He rushed to the 
 place ; the fire was soon extinguished ; after this he went in the street ; the 
 military was said to be coming ; the military came from towards Broadway, on 
 the side walk ; he called for the commanding officer. General Sandford, and de- 
 sired that he would form lines across the street to sweep the street ; the head of 
 the column was thrown out into the street ; from the darkness of the night it ap- 
 peared that the lines were thrown back by the mob ; at this instant the military 
 were assailed with stones ; he went among the mob, expostulated with them, and 
 assured them they would be fired upon ; General Sandford did the same ; he passed 
 to the east of the building and heard the discharge of fire arms by the infantry ; 
 on looking round he said that they were firing in the air ; he rushed back again 
 to the line of infantry ; he renewed the order to the mob to disperse, that they 
 would be fired upon ; he was met with a volley of stones ; the mihtary was assailed 
 also ; some persons in the mob retreated ; the mob was then fired upon ; I re- 
 turned to the rear ot the line and told the officer in command. General Hall, he 
 believed, to form a line across the street ; while the line was forming, he thought 
 it was General Hall said, you must order us to fire, the men will not stand the 
 attack any longer ; he replied, no, let me address the people ; at this time they 
 had in a measure separated ; he rushed out between and invoked them to disperse 
 or the military would fire upon them ; the Sheriff and Mr. Charles Duane, (who, 
 he must say, did his duty nobly,) accompanied him to the curb-stone ; at this 
 time, when urging the mob to disperse, hei was assailed by a volley of stones, and 
 was injured on his ancle and other parts of his body ; the military were also as- 
 sailed with stones ; the military fired ; this was the last firing, and the mob dis- 
 persed ; he remained at the Opera House till peace and quietness was restored 
 and then left. 
 
84 
 
 Wm. Hall, sworn. Is a Brigadier General, and was with thetioops when the 
 order came to General Sandford to proceed to the Opera House, as it had been 
 assailed by a mob ; General Sandford took the right of ihe cavalry, I took the 
 right of the infantry ; on arriving at the corner of Broadway and Astor Place we 
 found a great crowd of citizens ; the cavalry wheeled into Astor Place ; we followed. 
 The crowd was very great, and we were detained a little behind them ; at this time 
 the noise and confusion were so great it was almost impossible to give a word of com- 
 mand that could be heard at any distance ; the mob called us all sorts of names, 
 and I gave an order lo the men not to show any resentment ; we then marched 
 up Astor Place until we passed the Opeia House ; after we passed the crowd as- 
 sailed us with stones ; at this time we had regained the left of the house ; about 
 half M^ay between the Opera House and Bowery we formed a line across ; this 
 was by order of Colonel Duryea ; I then inquired for General Sandford ; some 
 few minutes elapsed before I saw him, and during this time we were continually 
 assailed with stones ; the horsemen particularly were injured ; I was myself struck 
 several times with stones : about this time some of the officers felt uneasy that 
 the men were injured, and that v.'e were not loaded ; they requested that I should 
 give an order to prime and load ; I hesitated some time, knowing that every 
 cartridge we had was a ball cartridge ; not finding General Sandford at the time 
 I gave an order for them to form a hollow square, so that the troops of horse 
 should be able to flank the square ; we were then facing ihe Opera House, the 
 troops of horse in our rear ; General Sandford at this time came up ; the order 
 was given to have the right flank face to the right and forward march ; when we 
 arrived at the sidewalk the head of the column which was on 8th street, was di- 
 rected to face to the left; we continued our march toward Broadway until we 
 arrived at the Opera House ; previous to this one of our men fell and made 
 a groanina;noise ; I asked him what was the matter; he groaned two or three 
 times, and I had to repeat the question ; he put his hand to the back of his head 
 and said he was struck with a stone ; he had to be taken out of the line into a 
 house ; the infantry were formed in lines to press the people back, both toward 
 the Bo wery and Broadway ; after getting possession of the street, the length of the 
 Opera House, General Sandford told me he intended the police to keep pijssessicn 
 and take the military into Astor Place ; the police took possession ; during 
 this lime we were continually assailed by showers of stones and many were 
 severely hurt ; one of these, as I was informed last night, so seriously that it 
 is impossible for him to recover. I went into the theatre to see the the Mayor; 
 I told him it was impossible for us to maintain our position without the assistance 
 of a magistrnte, as many of our men were knocked down and seriously hurt. The 
 She:iff and Chief of Police came out with me, and a body ot policemen, to take 
 charge of the ground. The battalions were placed in position, then faced to the 
 left. This caused us to face towards Broadway. General Sandford gave the 
 order to march. We passed into Astor Place, the Sheriff with us. In marchmg 
 towards the theatre we took the sidewalk. About the centre of the theatre they 
 ordered us to cross the street, and the head of the column was ordered to face to 
 the right, and cross Astor Place. We intended to take the same position that we 
 had done in 8th street. We were not able to get across the street, in consequence 
 of the numerous concourse of people, and the noise was tremendous. A portion 
 of the military on my right was able to cross the street. Efforts were made to 
 press the people back, and orders were given to them to disperse — that we were 
 loaded, and if they did not disperse we should fire upon them. At this time they 
 were throwing stones. Several of our men were disabled so that they had to be 
 carried from the ground. At this time 1 should think that about one half of the 
 front rank of the first battahon was so injured that they had to leave the ground. 
 Some person gave an order to charge. I found that this was impossible, and 
 ordered them to fall back to the curbstone. About this time some of the mob 
 attempted to wrest the pieces from the hands of the military, but could not suc- 
 ceed ; I tried to form a fine, but was only able to succeed partially ; some person 
 said to me, " why don't you fire ;" I cannot say who it was ; I think it was Ihe 
 Chief of Police ; I made the remark that we had no right to fire on an occasion 
 qke this, unless we had an order from the magistrates ; several of my men, on 
 
 oth sides, were knocked down at this time ; General Sandford was some twelve 
 
85 
 
 feet from me, partially dowTi ; I saw that he had been knocked down in some 
 way ; at this time I was on the right of the column ; the RecoriJer was near by ; 
 the Colonel on my left ; one of the men who had been knocked down and badly 
 hurt said, it was too bad to be hurt and not be able to resent it ; Colonel Duryea 
 made the remark, never mind, boys, stick to your guns ; some person, I think the 
 Recorder, ordered the mob to disperse, as if they did not the military would fire ; 
 the noise and confusirn was so great that I don't think it was heard ten feet from 
 where I stood ; one of the men had his bayonet knocked from his gun, and the 
 rattling of stones against the guns tended to increase the noise; one of the men 
 had his gun rendered useless by a stone striking it with such force as to bend the 
 pan across the barrel ; at this time more than thirty of our men were injured ; the 
 Sheriff, I think, now gave the order to fire ; I was struck on the elbow with a 
 stone, which for a time disabled that arm ; I hesitated about repeatiug the order 
 to fire, in the hope that the mob would disperse, hearing the order to lire, and 
 knowing we were loaded with ball ; the order was g ven again, with a request 
 that we should fire over their heads ; I gave the order " ready," which was re- 
 peated by the Colonel, and, I think, by General Sandford,but do not recollect, as 
 the noise and confusion was very great ; I stepped immediately in front of the 
 line, and directed them to fire at the wall of Mrs. Langdon's house, between the 
 first and second stories ; this I wish to be understood was done by direction of 
 the Sheriff, that we should fire high ; while standinoj there a stone struck me in 
 the small of the back, and knocked tbe breath out of me, and made me stagger, 
 and the effects of which I have felt ever since ; I took post immediately on the 
 right of the column, and about this t me, but at any rate before we had fired, some 
 of the men told me that Captain Shumway was badly hurt in the leg, though we 
 were not at the time aware it was by shot ; he remained with us until he found 
 the blood running into his boot, so as to make his toot very wet ; after we had 
 fired, he went into the Opera House, and his wound being examined, it was found 
 he had been shot in the shin-bone, the ball lodging in the calf; I was also told 
 that Captain Pond had been injured ; he had been hurt very badly in the face with 
 a stone, and was carried into the house ; I was also told that my face was bleed- 
 ing ; I had not felt any stone or pain, more than hke the prick of a pin ; at home, 
 however, a small ball was found in my cheek a little larger than the her.d of a 
 pin ; my cheek bled for more than two hours ; after returning to the he^d of the 
 column, I gave the word fire, which was repeated by the Colonel, and the men 
 fired; the next morning we picked up several balls as flat as pancakes, from 
 hitting against the wall ; as soon as we had fired the mob became worse 
 than ever ; the stones, as large your double fist, came in upon us like showers oi 
 hail ; they made an attempt to rush in upon us ; the Recorder was then upon my 
 right ; the order was then given to us to fire again ; I gave the order to fire low, 
 so as not to hit above the legs ; if blood was to be spilt we were in hopes that life 
 would not be taken ; the hallooing, screaming, and hooting was so great that it 
 was impossible for the third file from me to hear what was said ; several of the 
 miUtary had fallen and been taken off the ground in consequence of hurts from 
 stones, &.C., the mob crying out, they've got leather fiinis and blank cartridges, 
 come on boys ; we were then about 70 strong, only, the other battalion being 
 about a hundred ; after the second fire we regained the width of the street across 
 Astor P»ace, and faced to the Bowery ; the order to fire before the second fire, 
 was given three times before we did fire ; the suspense was such that every man 
 felt horror-struck ; if we had not fired I do not think there would have been a man 
 ef the military standing in five minutes, trom the immense showers of stones, with 
 no place to retreat to ; in facing the Bowery we were still pelted with stones, 
 and the Recorder, I think, told us we should have to fire again ; I requested him 
 to go to the populace and try to persuade them to leave ; the Recorder, and some 
 others whom I do not recollect, went, the Recorder requesting that we would not 
 fire until they should return, to which I replied, there was no danger, we should 
 not fire if we could help it, at all events not until they returned ; they returned in a 
 very few moments, being assailed wiih stones, the Recorder ordering th^m to dis- 
 perse, that the military coiild not retain their position without firing if they did not 
 do so ; when he returned, the crowd not leaving, and three or four of our men 
 being carried off, the order was given to fire; I executed ; the mob immediately 
 
86 
 
 dispersed between us and the Bowery, so that in two minutes there was not a per- 
 son to be seen, though before there had been a dense crowd ; there was still a 
 large crowd in Lafayette Place to the left, and stones were still thrown, and some 
 of our inen knocked down and carried off, and the Recorder said we should be 
 under the necessity of firing again ; some few minutes after the order was given 
 to fire, the right wing to oblique to the right, and the left wing to the left, which 
 was done — there being four distinct firings, and the crowd dispersed, and there 
 was no difficulty after this ; in looking up our line we found that we had lost 
 about fifty men, who had been wounded and had left the line ; the second bat- 
 talion, however, I would remark, which was facing Broadway, had no occasion to 
 fire a single gun, the people thai way being very peaceable ; the rioters generally 
 appeared to be boys some sixteen years or so, and if citizens had kept away there 
 was not enough of them to make a riot, but their presence encouraged the others; 
 I was not aware until afterwards that any body was dead ; perhaps an hour after- 
 wards, hoping the fire was too low. 
 
 In answer to questions from jurors, the witness said they never fired without 
 orders from the Sheriff" or Recorder. They had no right to give orders them- 
 selves. From twenty to thirty minutes before any firing, we went into the theatre 
 and saw the Mayor, and told him that it was impossible to remain and maintain 
 their position without being ab'e to defend themselves. He told them he should 
 be obliged to withdraw the troops unless they had a magistrate with them, that 
 they might be able to defend themselves. The Sheriff then came out to them. 
 The Mayor did not give any orders to fire at all 
 
 At this point, the Coroner said they would take a recess for one hour, and 
 meanwhile he would be glad to see any witness, relatives of those wounded, or 
 otherwise, at his off.ce. On re-assembling a few minutes after 4 o'clock, 
 
 Sylvester L. Wiley, residing at 342 Third Avenue, was sworn. — I was at the 
 Astor Place Opera House on Thursday evening last; I went there at half past 
 6 o'clock ; there were not more than twenty five persons present when I arrived ; 
 I went up through Eighth street and so around through Broadway into Astor 
 Place ; there was no crowd in Eighth street except some fifteen or twenty police- 
 men ; I crossed opposite the Opera House and took a seat on the raihng opposite 
 ■to Mrs. Langdon's house, where I remained until after the first discharge by the 
 infantry ; Mr. Gedney was in front of me when he was shot ; he was standing 
 on the inside of the railing looking on at the disturbance ; he had his right hand 
 in his pocket and a cane in his left, looking on, and having nothing to say except 
 to make rem.arks on what was passing ; he was killed at the first discharge of the 
 muskets ; as soon as I sav/ him lall I got off the railings in the inside ; a gentle- 
 man then had hold of him ; I took hold of his head and found it all bloody, and 
 let go again ; I went to the corner of Lafayette Place about twenty-five feet dis- 
 tant, and called some one to come and help carry out a dead man ; I came back, 
 and two men had raised him up ; I laid his back upon my back with his head and 
 shoulders in front of me, and they carried the rest of his body ; we tried to get 
 him into Mrs. Langdon's house, as we did not know how much he was hurt ; we 
 knocked at the door which was opened by a gentleman who repulsed us, as soon 
 as he sav/ what we wanted, and closed the door as far as he could, but the crowd 
 pressed so that he could not get it quite closed. He sang out for assistance when 
 three or four men came from the back door, one of whom — I am positive it was a 
 pohceman — struck me over the head and knocked my hat off, so that it fell in the 
 hall; 1 called on the crowd to give way, that we could not get in there ; as soon 
 as we could get off, vve took him to the Fifteenth Ward Station House, where he- 
 lay until past twelve o'clock before he was recognized ; the persons who were en- 
 gaged throwing stones were mostly boys, as far as I could see ; there were very 
 few men engaged ; there was no one throwing stones where I stood ; the crowd 
 was so dense that a man could not have thrown one if he had it in his hand. 
 Before the shots were fired I did not hear any order given to disperse ; it might 
 have been given, but there was so much noise it could not have been heard, unless 
 spoken in a very loud voice. I saw several others who were wounded by the 
 same discharge. The following were answers to questions from the jurors ; I 
 stated to the man at the door of Mr. Langdon's house that no one else should 
 come in, but those who v/ere carrying him ; the man who struck me had a pohce- 
 
87 
 
 man's star ; I saw one other wounded, who was carried off to Broadway ; another 
 man was wounded through the Ijand ; he raised his hand, and said yo'j cannot 
 call that a blank discharge ; before this I thought it was a blank discharge ; after 
 the firing the crowd gave way to the right and left ; the soldiers were so near to 
 me that I could feel the heat of the discharge ; I saw one man fire after the rest ; 
 he lowered his piece and looked at or did something to the cock, and then raised 
 it and took deliberate aim about the height of a man's breast, and fired ; between 
 the time of levelling the pieces and the firing off, there was perhaps half a minute 
 elapsed. And during this pause the crowd parted to the right and left so that there 
 wree very few between me and the soldiers ; I went there because a disturbance was 
 expected ; I think it quite likely that I shouted and hooted ; I was very much 
 excited, anS have no doubt I did so; after taking Mr. Gedney to the station 
 house I did not return until about an hour after I went to look for a hack for 
 another man who had been brought to the station house wounded. 
 
 Stephen W. Gaines sworn. I reside at 580 Broadway ; am a counsellor at 
 law. I was at the corner of Lafayette Place and Astor Place on Thursday night ; 
 I arrived there about quarter past eight o'clock ; I was within a picket enclosure, 
 and stood upon a pile of boards that were within a foot of the top of the fence ; 
 from the place where I stood I had a fair view of the Opera House, which was on 
 the opposite side of the street, towards Broadway ; when I got there the space 
 between where I stood and the theatre was filled with people, but not densely 
 crowded at that time ; I saw persons throwing stones at the windows and princi- 
 pal entrance of the Opera House ; these persons were in front, or nearly in front 
 of the OpRra House ; sometimes a single stone, and other times volleys were 
 thrown, principally at the windows above the principal entrance ; about fifty feet 
 of the front of the house was where they were generally thrown, with occasional 
 pauses ; within a short time after my arrival, the space from where I stood to the 
 Bowery became filled with people ; there were no stones thrown from the quarter 
 where I stood ; and there was so few engaged iu stoning the house, that surprise 
 was several times expressed by the spectators about me, that it was permitted, and 
 that the police did not stop it ; about 9 o'clock, or in that neighborhood, I saw 
 the military — first the horse followed by the infantry — come down the street from 
 Br*adway by the Opera House, and taking post in the square towards the Fourth 
 Avenue ; in the neighborhood where I stood the crowd gave way for them ; I 
 saw no opposition made to their passage ; I subsequently, perhaps in about half an 
 hour, saw the infantry making their way towards the Opera House, in the same 
 street towards Broadway ; during this time the crowd seemed to have been unin- 
 terrupted in front of the house ; at the time the military first made their appearance, 
 I attempted to leave, but found the side- walks so crowded I could not get away ; 
 when the military in front of the Opera House fired, I could see the discharges 
 distinctly, as all the lamps were out ; some of them fired nearly perpendicularly, 
 some in a slanting direction, towards Mrs. Laogdon's house, and some horizontally; 
 this was the first discharge ; we had no intimation of their intention to fire where 
 I stood until we saw the flash ; several other volleys were fired subsequently ; we 
 all supposed the first discharge was of blank cartridges ; immediately previous to 
 firing the last volley, which has been testified here to-day, 8th street was nearly 
 cleared in front of where I stood ; most of the people had left the enclosure 
 where I was, and there was perhaps half a dozen on the walk in front of where I 
 stood. I was standing on the pile of boards when the last fire was fired up Astor 
 Place toward the Bowery ; when they were discharged I could distinctly see the 
 line from where they were fired; the middle of 8th street was clear; there was a 
 small collection of people on the corner of Lafayette Place, and another small 
 collection of people on the opposite side, in the position testified to when the 
 oblique firing took place ; this firing was nearly direct upon the spot where I stood, 
 which was the same I occupied at first ; I still supposed they were firing blank 
 cartridges. I stepped back a pace or two to get out of the line of the fire ; 
 another volley, or part of the last, a man on the walk, immediately in front of 
 ■where I was standing before I moved my position, fell ; there were not above 
 six persons near him on the side-walk at the time ; I at first supposed, as did 
 others, that he had fallen intentionally ; he laid upon the ground perhaps half a 
 minute before any person went to his assistance, and the remark was made that 
 
he was shamming shot ; I went, with some three or four others, to his assistance, 
 but we did not discover whether he was really wounded or not until one who had 
 his hand under his back felt the blood running through his fingers ; we took the 
 body to the corner 4ih and Wooster sts., a drug store ; on opening his breast we 
 discovered he wr.s wounded in his stomach ; his shirt was saturated with blood, 
 and some clotted blood, a portion of the contents of his stomach, I did not know 
 which, but thought it was the contents of his stomach ; his name was Henry 
 Otten, and resided at the corner of Hester ^and Orchard ; I understand he died, 
 soon after at the station house ; he was taking no part in the disturbance, nor 
 were any of those in that neighborhood ; after leaving him at the druggists, as he 
 was preparing to sponge the wound, I first learned that oiheis had been shot. 
 
 Jesse G. Haviland, 14 Wooster street, was sworn. — Is a contractor ; was 
 standing at the corner of Astor and Lafayette Places, on a pile of lumber ; there 
 was a crowd of boys, some 200 or 300, throwing stones; about nine, or quarter 
 past, some one sang out the militaiy are coming ; the testimony of the last wit- 
 ness in reference to the firing was correct ; I should think one quarter of the first 
 volley was fired horizontally ; I thought it was blank cartridges ; I thought of 
 wallving the sidewalk in fi-ont of the theatre toward Broadway ; soon after I got 
 down, 1 heard some one say, " here's a dead man ;" I had not gone twenty feet 
 from where I had been standing ; they turned the corner with the body and went 
 into a vacant place in front of Mr. Langdon's ; I then turned to the left and came 
 in contact with a couple of young gentlemen who boarded opposite where I 
 boarded ; we thought the military was coming, as a rush was made, and got into 
 a door way ; we then went down to Fourth street, and saw there Mr. Cornell, 
 who had been shot in the neck, and was dead ; there were but few persons in the 
 middle of the street when the military fired the first time, compared to what there 
 was before ; they had passed away to the Fourth Avenue ; the man I have spoken 
 ot was killed in the first discharge ; I should think there were two hundred or 
 three hundred boys throwing stones, from eight or nine, up to twenty years old. 
 I did not see a man throw a stone. 
 
 Thomas J. Veldern, sworn. — Resides at 133 King street ; is a boatman ; I stood 
 on the corner of Mr. Langdon's house; I first got there about half past 6 o'clock ; 
 a few began to throw stones, but carts and omnibusses had no hesitation in passing 
 through; those throwing stones were half grown boys ; I stood on the southeast 
 corner of Lafayette Place and Astor Place, talking to two Philadelphians, about 
 the riots ihere, until the military came, when there was quite a rush by the boys 
 to which we gave way, but afterwards returned ; I crossed over again to Mrs. 
 Langdon's corner, being ansious to see what was going on; the crowd was thea 
 greater and more noisy, and when the miUtary passed through they rushed back 
 and the storming went on again ; I stood at that corner until the first volley was 
 fiied, and that was the first thing I heard, because of the noise; I saw a man fall 
 out among the people towards the corner; the people near me and I laughed; we 
 thought it was a blank cartridge to scare them; I reached over to see what was 
 going on, but I could not see, but heard a man say, " my God look at this;" by 
 what I heard said, I think he was shot through the heart ; they carried him to- 
 wards the lamp ; this was the first discharge; I then started and ran to the corner 
 of the church down Lafayette Place; I there heard some more shots; I then started 
 for home; I saw them carrving bodies after the last report; was not engaged in the 
 riot, went to look on, would not have been there if I had thought they had been 
 going to use lead. 
 
 Sidney H. Stewart, sworn. — I am clerk of the police at the Halls of Justice; 
 I was present at the disturbances on Thursday night; I went from this place with 
 Justice McGrath and others of the Police, and arrived at the Opera House not 
 far from seven o'clock ; it was soon after the doors were opened, and while the 
 audience were assembUng. The house was then in the possession of the police 
 under the Chief Most of the poHce magistrates were there. 
 
 The understanding between the magistrates and the Chief of Police, Judge 
 Edmonds, the Recorder and some other peisons in authority, of whom quite a 
 number were present, was that no arrests should take place in the house unless 
 there were some actual overt act tending directly to a breach of the peace. That 
 every reasonable indulgence should be allowed, that they might hiss or applaud. 
 
89 
 
 consistent with the maintenance of order. That rule was strictly observed, and 
 during the early part of the evening no arrests nor attempt at arrests were made 
 for merely hissing or applauding. 
 
 In the course of the evening several occurrences in the parquette took place, 
 such as were in the opinion of many present overt acts tending to a breach of the 
 peace ; such as rising {^n their feet, shaking their fists, and using profane and 
 threatening language toward Mr. Macready. This was confined to some twelve 
 or fifteen, or at most twenty persons. Application at this time was made to the 
 Chief of Police for an order to arrest them and remove them from the house. — 
 He delayed giving the order for some time, and finally sent me to the Recorder, 
 to consult as to the propriety of arresting them at that time. I saw the Recorder, 
 and after stating to him the character of their conduct, and he seeing it himself, 
 he considered it expedient that they should be arrested and removed from that 
 part of the house. 
 
 I communicated this to the Chief, and he ordered their arrest. They were ar- 
 rested, every one of them, within five minutes, and ejected from that part of the 
 house, and comparative order was restored. About this time considerable hissing 
 was manifested in the amphitheatre, which was countenanced by a very great deal 
 of applause, causing a perfect tumult. The play was proceeding at this lime, but 
 only a word here and there could be heard. After a time orders were given to ar- 
 rest the disturbers in the amphitheatre, and, in pursuance of orders from the Chief 
 and Recorder, several arrests were made. About this time the house was first as- 
 sailed from the outside, a stone being thrown against one of the upper windows, 
 which was broken. From that time the house continued to be assailed with 
 stones from the outside during the evening. About this time an alarm was given 
 that the theatre was on fire below ; the fire was, however, soon extinguished. — 
 Stones v.'ere then thrown at the doors, both on Astor Place and Eighth street. 
 The door on Eighth street was broken through, and a large stone thrown in. 
 
 At this time I had not been out, but now went outside. Part of the police were 
 ordered out into Eighth street, to protect the door which was broken. The number 
 ordered out was fifteen men. On my going into the street there aipeared to be 
 quite a concourse of people. There was quite a crowd about the door, but not 
 very dense. I could not see how far the crowd extended. Those v^ho were as- 
 sailing the door were mostly boys and young men 15 and 17 years of age. Sev- 
 eral of them weie concerned ia assailing the door. I cannot say how many. 
 Certainly a very small proportion of the whole crowd. The police arrested from six 
 to ten of them and brought them in the house, and the attack on the door in As- 
 tor Place, and the force and press appeared to increase after this. 
 
 There was a large crowd in Astor Place. The w'lole street in front of the 
 theatre, for more than its length, was full of people — not very dense, however, for 
 I could pass in and out among the crowd with ease, though not without danger of 
 being hit with bricks and stunes. 'I'his crowd was not very turbulent. There 
 appeared to be a very large number of them. I should think a very large ma- 
 jority of them were there as spectators. The actors in the disturbances, of whom 
 there did not appear to be many at that time, appeared to be mere lads, perhaps 
 from fifteen to twenty years of age. 
 
 Up to this time, several policemen had been struck, and some of them com- 
 plained of being seriously injured, so that they had to go in the building. Some 
 few arrests were made at this time. I cannot say how many. Thtre might have 
 been 20 in half an hour, or there might have been more. This state of things 
 continued for about half an hour, the mob becoming moie dense, and a >pearing 
 more desirous that something or other should be done, and no particular act was 
 committed excppt throwing the stones. I cannot say how many police were at 
 this time outside the house in Astor Place. I should suppose from 125 to 150 
 men, but that is a mere estimate from my knowledge of how the men were dis- 
 tributed. This force was immediately in front and above the entrance. 
 
 The crowd continued to increase and grew more fearful in aspect, though no 
 particular act was done until the military came. Stones were thrown against the 
 house — scmetimes one, and then a pause, then perhaps half a dozen or a shower. 
 The military arrived and went through towards the Bowery, where they remained 
 a considerable time. I went into the house at this time, came out again. 
 
90 
 
 through 8th street to the Bowery ; I remained some time, and returned to the 
 theatre through Astor Place. I passed into the theatre, and after some five or 
 eight minutes I lieard the reports, but thought, as did others around me, that they 
 were reports of a lot of fire crackers set off by the crowd, like which they 
 sounded. 
 
 I went down into the dress circle of the theatre, and in about two or three 
 minutes after a man was brought in wounded in the arm or shoulder, and this 
 was the first intimation I had had that musketry had been fired. Shortly after 
 this another man was brought in shot dead. I thought the first man had been 
 shot dead, but was told afterwatd that he was only wounded in the arm. Imme- 
 diately after the first round there were several of the military brought in by the 
 pohce — some half dozen to a dozen — some of them quite senseless, and others 
 fainted after they were carried in. 
 
 About this time some of the police were brought in injured, also several of the 
 rioters — mostly young men ; 1 did not hear any declarations to the crowd at any 
 time during the evening that if they did not disperse they would be fired upon ; 
 I think I was not out in company with the Sheriff at all ; I went out with the 
 Recorder, but did not remain with him ; there might have been a hundred procla- 
 mations made and I not have heard them. 
 
 Question by Coroner. — From what you saw of the riot during the evening, 
 what is your opinion as to the necessity for the employment of the military, and 
 could the riot have been suppressed without their aid ot not '? 
 
 Answer. — In answer to that I wish to say that after the milhary were first 
 brought in injured, I was directed by Judge Edmonds to take down the names of 
 such as were brought in. 
 
 By Juror. — How many names did you take ? 
 
 Answer. — Between 30 and 40. 
 
 By Juror. — Alter the firing? 
 
 Answer. — Yes, after the firing. 
 
 By Juror. — Were there none before the firing ? 
 
 Answer. — I did not see any previous to the firing. 
 
 By Coroner. — Now I will ask you the same question. From what you saw 
 previous to the firing, what is your opinion as to the competency of the civil force 
 to have suppressed the riot '? 
 
 Answer. — I am willing to say this, that the firing of the military was caused — 
 
 Coroner, interrupting. — No, Mr. Stewart, I want to know your opinion. 
 
 Answer. — I am unwiUing to have my position with the authorities 
 
 Coroner, interrupting. — Mr. Stewart, we only want your opinion. 
 
 Mr. Stewart was unwilling to answer the question and the Coroner wrote it 
 down. 
 
 One of the jurors asked witness, meanwhile, where he was about five minutes 
 before the firing ; to which Mr. Stewart replied that about five minutes before the 
 firing he went into the house. 
 
 The Coroner again repeated the question as to the opinion of the witness of the 
 capacity of the civil force to suppress the riot without calling in the aid of the 
 military. 
 
 Witness. — I think the mihtary were justified in firing on the ground of self 
 preservation. 
 
 Coroner. — But previous to the firing? 
 
 Witness. — I think there are others more competent to give an opinion. ^ 
 
 Coroner. — Is that the answer. 
 
 Witness. — No, you may take that as a remark. 
 
 After a pause of a minute or two, the witness asked that the question might be 
 read again. He then said : 
 
 " I think the pohce could not have dispersed the mob." 
 
 Coroner. — Now with regard to quelling the riot. 
 
 Witness. — I could hardly answer that without saying how I think it might have 
 been done, and that would reflect upon the authorities, which I do not wish to be 
 supposed to do. I might say that if a different course of policy had been adopted 
 earlier in the evening, different results might have followed. 
 
 The Coroner and some of the jury insisted that he had not answered the ques- 
 tion, and demanded an answer. 
 
91 
 
 Witness said : at the tinrie of the firing the police cnuld not have quelted the- 
 riot, for the assault was directed entirely against the military, and not against the 
 house. That is all I wish to say upon that subject. 
 
 Juror. — I should like to ask Mr. Stewart whether he refers to before or after 
 the firing? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. — Immediately before, for their presence seemed to excite the- 
 mob — that is, the presence of the military. I regard the great error in the whole 
 matter to have been suffering the house to be opened at all. 
 
 By Juror. — Were many of the police brought in injured ? 
 
 Witness. — I did not see any brought in. Some went in. They complained of 
 being hurt in their knees and other parts of their bodies. 
 
 Dennis Ryer sworn. — I resided at 365 Sixth avenue ; I was at the Astor Place 
 Opera House on Thursday evening during the disturbances ; I was formerly assis- 
 tant captain of the 16th ward police. On Thursday evening I was standing on 
 the sidewalk in Astor Place by Mrs. Langdon's house ; I went there about half 
 past si.x o'clock; when I arrived there, there was a number of people on the side- 
 walk by the theatre, and also on the opposite side, an4 the crowd increased during 
 the evening. 
 
 I stood there until after the first firing, which I should think took place about 
 half-past nine o'clock, and the mob increasing. I saw some boys and a few mea. 
 throwing stones. At first they began to throw at the street lamps near the theatre 
 door, and afterwards at the windows of the theatre. When the miUtary first ar- 
 rived there was a company of horse went through ; after they got by the theatre 
 some stones were thrown at them. In a few minutes afterwards the infantry 
 came through. The mob gave way and let them pass, and there were also- 
 brickbats thrown at them. Afterwards there were stones thrown at the theatre, 
 and cheers and groans were given for different persons — cheers for Forrest and 
 groans for Maeready. About half an hour after they had passed the first time^ 
 the horsemen passed through again, and a company of infantry after them. The 
 infantry formed on either side. Some of them directed their fire, I should think, 
 as far as I could see, in the air, and some directly across the street. There were 
 pauses in their firing, and the mob fell back towards Lafayette Place. 
 
 I retreated about ten feet backwards toward the railing, and a ball passed me 
 very close and shot a person by the name of Gedney right behind me ; I went be- 
 hind the railing and took hold of him to raise him up ; this was the first discharge; 
 there were two others persons got over the raihng, and one of them put his hand 
 on his head and appeared to be a little excited, and ran toward the corner crying 
 out that there was a man shot ; I halloed to these persons to come back and help 
 to pick the man up; they came back, and we took him to Langdon's house; they 
 would not admit us, and we took him to the 15th ward station house ; at the 
 time he was shot there were very few persons on the sidewalk or in the street ; 
 while I was in the station house there was a boy brought in shot through the foot, 
 and another person through the stomach ; after I went out I saw a number of 
 others who were carried on boards ; I did not hear any word given to disperse, 
 or that they would be fired upon; there was a lamp post there, and I got up it to 
 see if there was any person throwing stones, as that would give me a good chance 
 so that I could identify them, but I could not see any; I heard a number of persons 
 say, who stood alongside me, and I have said so myself, and say so now, that if 
 the Chief of Pohce had ordered his force to do their duty, at the time the stones 
 commenced to be thrown, they could have dispersed that mob in a few moments; 
 that is, I mean the body of police he had in the Opera House, not his whole force ; 
 after the military arrived it would have been impossible for the police to have dis- 
 persed the mob. 
 
 In answer to a Juror. — I was a pohceman up to February a year ago ; I then. 
 resigned, and kept a public house up to the 1st May; I had been a policeman nine 
 months when I resigned. 
 
 John Clarke!, sworn. — I reside at 17 Watts street ; I am a book-binder; I was 
 at the Opera House on the night of the riot; I was there about 7 o'clock, alone ;. 
 the first part of the evening I stationed myself on the sidewalk, on the south side, 
 near Mrs. Langdon's house; I stood there till half past 8, and then passed to tlie- 
 east of the theatre, where I stood until the miUtary came upon the ground ; the 
 
92 
 
 horse came up and the crowd made way for them and threw some stones at them; 
 shortly afterwards the infantry came, and they made way for them, throwing 
 stones at them, some of which rattled against the mui-kets, and others went over 
 their heads. I saw some boys pick u;i stones and throw them, and one man, 
 whom I told he ought to be ashamed of himself, for he ought to know better. 
 
 I stopped near the military until the order wa? given them to load, and then I 
 passed through Eighth street round the theatre to Broadway, and there I stopped. 
 The military afcervvard drove the people back, and I passed through Broadway 
 into Astor Place on the south side near Broadway. Shortly after the firing com- 
 menced there was a rush of people through the street, and a man fell nearly in 
 front of me, and the men all exclaimed that he had a fit or had been struck with 
 a stone. I went across the street and helped to pick him up and carry him to the 
 corner of Broadwqy and Eighth street, into the drug store. We did not know or 
 think fie was wounded with a musket ball, until after we saw the wound ourselves. 
 No persons thought so; a great many swore vengeance on that ; he was shot 
 through the left lung ; I have heard since his name was Brown ; I do not know 
 that he was engaged in the disturbance; I did not see him before I went to pick 
 him up ; I did not recognise him as having been throwing stones; I was told after- 
 wards by a great many persons who saw him wounded, that he took stones out of 
 Broadway and rushed upon the military; I did not see this ; I saw three other 
 persons wounded in the drug stoie ; one was brought in before and one after this 
 man ; we cr>uld not find a doctor, and got a carriage to talie the wounded to the 
 hospital ; I did not go in the crowd again; I heard a great many say if the miUtary 
 had not been there no lives would have been lost. 
 
 In reply to a Juror. — I did not hear any word given to disperse any more than 
 the police ordering them to fall back ; I think I was near enough to have heard 
 it if it had been given in a loud voice. 
 
 William McKinney. — I am a policeman of the 13th ward ; I arrived at the 
 Opera House I should think about 6 o'clock, in company with Captain Tilley and 
 a platoon ; I had been in the theatre but a very few minutes before we were put 
 om duly in front ; previous to the arrival of the military, for about two hours I 
 should think, stones were thrown ; we were beaten from the door, not into the 
 theatre, but from it, so that the crowd was between us and the door; we were at 
 the curbstone; before we were driven to the curb the stones hit us, whether ihey 
 were thrown at us or the donr I cannot say; afterwards they went over our heads; 
 I was knocked down myself; I endeavored to arrest one of the men who was 
 killed, previous to the arrival of the military, but he was taken away from me, 
 and I was dragged across the street to the curb stone; this man, after he was killed, 
 was taken inside in the Opera House; he was shot; I saw him inside; he was 
 throwing a stone when I arrested him. 
 
 [The man referred to in the testimony of the last witness was Thomas Kearnin, 
 21 years, born in Ireland, a waiter, shot in the right cheek, the ball passing into 
 the brain. He was residing with his brother, 196 East 13th street. This man was 
 supposed to be the first person killed, as he was picked up immediately after the 
 first discharge of musketry, and taken into the Opera House dead.] 
 
 Bernard Manning. — I reside at the corner of 13th street and 1st avenue. I was 
 not at the Opera House thai evening, and know nothing about the disturbance. 
 It appears that this man lives where the man above mentioned -was brought dead, 
 and wished to testify that he had known him for three years, as an honest, sober, 
 steady man. 
 
 The inquest here took a recess for one hour to get dinner. 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 On re-assembling, the following additional testimony was adduced: 
 John Lalor, Clerk of the Third District Police Court, on being sworn, deposed 
 as follows : — I was at the Astor Place Opera House ; I was there when they were 
 throwing stones; I went out with the Recorder and the Chief of Police to drive 
 the mob away from Astor Place, or to quell the riot ; we were driven in three 
 different times, I was struck in the breast with a stone and knocked down after 
 the military came on the ground; many of the police were injured before the miU- 
 tary arrived; after the military arrived, I saw some of them who were injured by 
 qeing struck with stones; at the second firing I was in the street; I heard the Re- 
 
93 
 
 corder say to the crowd that they must disperse, and General Sandfoidsaid to the 
 Recorder that he had received an order from the Sheriff to fire, and before he 
 fired again he must receive an order from the magistrate ; after this I was knocked 
 down; I was a little behind the military. 
 
 John Tilley, Captain of the Thirteenth Ward Police, being sworn, testified as 
 follows : — On the nighi of the riot, I was at the Astor Place Opera House, sta- 
 tioned with a body of policemen; I took charge of the two doors; many persona 
 were congregated there, throwing stones and brickbats; many of the police were 
 hurt, but none who were under my immediate command were injured; when we 
 went out in a body, we drove the rioters back ; at times they would compel us to 
 retreat ; they soon got the best of us; I was in the street when the military ar- 
 rived; stones were thrown at them, aiid many of the military were injured ; I did 
 not hear any notice given for them to disperse ; I was engaged at the door, ar- 
 resting the rioters ; after the first discharge, I went to the Eighth street side, where 
 they were breaking in the door ; the police were injured before the military arrived; 
 this was about as severe a conflict as we had ; the Recorder and others asked me 
 if we could keep them back until the arrival of the military, who had been sent 
 for; I said I thought it was doubtful; it seemed impossible for the police to keep 
 them back. 
 
 Btnjnmin P. Faircbild, Captain of the Eighth Ward Police, examined. — On the 
 night of the riot at the Astor Place, I was on the inside as well as the outside of 
 the building ; I was selected by the Chief as one of his aids to assist in quelling 
 the disturbance; I had about 180 men on the outside; I was present whenthe 
 building was stoned; I was directed by the Chief to report to him when I thought 
 it necessary to send for the military, or when we were unable to maintain our 
 position, but not to do so if possible to do otherwise ; about eight o'clock, I re- 
 ported to him that it was impossible to maintain our position much longer; he told 
 me to go out again and rally the men, and endeavor to hold our position, and 
 that if it was impossible to do so, the military would be sent for ; after this 1 went 
 on the other side in Eighth street, and from one to two hundred boys were throw- 
 ing stones ; after this I went into the theatre^ and found the Chief, Recorder, Gen. 
 Sandford, and the Sheriff, and told them that it was impossible for the pohce to 
 keep the crowd back, unless we were reinforced ; they immediately gave the 
 order for the military ; we then received orders from the Chief to go out in posi- 
 tion until the military arrived ; I then urged the men to hold on for about half an- 
 hour, as the military had been sent for ; some of our men were wounded before the 
 military arrived, but we were still in a line when they came ; I made five arrestsj 
 many arrests where made by others before the military arrived ; when the miliiary 
 arrived, they were received with a volley of stones, some of which took effect 
 upon them ; I think I heard the Sheriff and Recorder say they had best give the 
 order to fire ; I heard no order for the mob to disperse ; when the o^der wasgiveo 
 to fire, I was standing between the company — the line of which was somewhat 
 broken ; at the time they Sred, they were in a line with the building ; immediately 
 after the first fire, one man was brought in dead, and another wh:) was shot 
 through the shoulder ; after the filing I went to the Eighth street side ; I am not 
 positive that General Sandford was present when it was decided ta send for the 
 miliiary. N. G. Mellis, who was shot, I requested previously to go away, as he 
 was engaged in the riot ; I told him that if he did not go away he would be arrested. 
 Captain Henry C. Shumway,*'of the Eighth Division of the National Guards,, 
 sworn. — I was at the Astor Place Opera House on the night of the riot ; I had 
 charge of the Eighth division of the National Guards ; on passing through Astor 
 Place we were assailed by the mob while ^^•e were forming a line across the 
 street ; we were assailed in rear and front by the throwing of stones ; ten or 
 twelve were injured ^ but not seriously ; I was shot in the leg ; I for some time did 
 not know that I was shot ; some one told me that my face was bloody; I then 
 went up stairs with the surgeon ; this ball was not a musket ball, but only a back- 
 shot; if it had been the former, it vi?ould have broken my bones ; 1 did duty after 
 that, and was on duty the whole night ; before the military came I cannot say 
 whether an order was given for the mob to disperse ; there was such a noise that 
 it was impossible to hear, although I heard the order to fire, but in what manner 
 I could not hear ; after this firing the crowd did not entirely disperse ; the firing. 
 
commenced before they were fairly in order ; I heard som-e one say that my lieu- 
 tenant was injured ; it might have been three-quarters of an hour after we arrived 
 'before we fired ; it wa? my company that fired first ; I had my orders from Gen- 
 erals Hall and Sandford ; the division that I commanded had the right ; they fired 
 first ; the military were attacked between the first and second firing ; I think it 
 impossible for the mob to have been dispersed without the aid of the military ; I 
 will say that if the military had not been allowed to fire, as they did, the mob 
 would have annihilated them ; the lieutenant was wounded before the firing. 
 
 John B. Leveredge, resides No 79 E. 13th street, sworn, — I was present at the 
 riot at the Astor Place Opera, nearly opposite the door ; I was then looking for a 
 friend whom I had left some time previous. I was there when the military ar- 
 rived ; they were received with a shower of stones ; heard notice given for the 
 crowd to disperse ; the boys were throwing stones ; I remained in nearly the 
 same position until the military had fired ; a great many people were on the walk 
 when they fired. I saw one man shot ; he was standing with his left hand on 
 my shoulder and his hat in his right hand ; he was shot in the groin ; this was the 
 first fire. He sat down, as I thought, to pick up a stone, but as he did not rise 
 again, 1 looked and saw that he was shot ; as I stooped to pick him up, another 
 man was shot within a few feet of me and his head fell on my shoulder ; at this 
 time the military were forming across the street ; I assisted in taking the man up; 
 we carried him as far as Langdon's corner, and, as many came round them, I 
 left ; I did not know either of these men ; I afterwards saw one of them in 
 Vauxhall Garden ; the other was lying dead in the same place. I sat down on 
 the curb-stone ; I felt sick and soon heard more firing :, I then saw others carry- 
 ing a man who had been shot in the leg; they wished me to assist them ; I en- 
 deavored to do so ; they went down Eighth street, near Broadway, but the police 
 would not let us pass, with the exception of the man that was shot and one or 
 two others ; I do not know who the man was. 
 
 Charles Cook, Assistant Captain of the First Ward Police, sworn. — On 
 Thursday night I was detailed at the Astor Place Opera House. I wassta.ioned on 
 the outside, to protect the building in case of fire. After this I was sent into the 
 street, and while there the crowd attempted to press in the doors, and then threw 
 stones. Many policemen were taken in, said to be wounded. I was present 
 when the mihtary arrived, and also when they fired. I heard a great many police 
 tell the mob, as I did myself, that they had better desist. At this time stones 
 were current ; I saw several of the soldiers drop before they got their position in 
 the street ; before the first fire the military marched partly across the street, and 
 the rioters came so thick that they had to fall back ; I heard some of the military 
 officers say to the mob that if they did not disperse they would be fired on ; I 
 heard no reply, but saw the fire of the guns shortly after ; I heard some of the 
 officers say that they were obliged to fire to save themselves; I went into the 
 house and soon came out ; the Chief then called for the Recorder ; I passed the 
 word into the house and the Recorder came out ; Mr. Matsell asked him to ad- 
 dress the mob, but what the language was I cannot say ; the answer was, " you 
 
 dare not fire, you d d sons of b hs ;" then the Recorder returned ; Mr. 
 
 Matsell asked Gen. Hall to go at them with the point of the bayonet, as that 
 mioht be more effectual than cold lead, but the stones flew so thick and fast that 
 they were prevented ; some one then gave the order to fire, which was executed, 
 and after a quarter of an hour it appeared to be in a great measure quiet. 
 
 John H. Whittaker, a physician, residing at 510 Broadway, being duly affirmed, 
 gays : — I accompanied the Coroner's jury to see the deceased persons ; I made an 
 examination ; the body of John McDonald was found at the New York Hospital; 
 the deceased had been shot in the breast; the ball passed through the left lung ; 
 this wound was sufficient to cause death. The body of George W. Curtis was also 
 found there. The deceased had been shot in the right breast with a ball, passing 
 through the right lung, and came out under the shoulder blade. This wound was 
 sufficient to cause death. Thomas Aylvvood, also at the City Hospital; the de- 
 ceased had been shot in the left thigh, which was a compound fracture ; I saw 
 him after amputation had taksn place ; he died soon after the amputation, 
 from the effects of the injury. George Lincoln, at the New York Hospital ; the 
 deceased hed been shot in the right side of the abdomen, penetrating the intes- 
 
95 
 
 tines ; this wound was sufficient to cause death. The rest of Dr. Whittaker'a 
 testimony was merely a description of the wounds received by the deceased 
 persons. 
 
 The case was then submitted to the jury, who, after a brief consultation, ren- 
 dered the following 
 
 VERDICT : 
 
 That the deceased persons came to their deaths by gun shot wounds, the guns 
 having been fired by the military, by order of the civil authorities of New York, 
 and that the authorities were justified under the existing circumstances in ordering 
 the military to fire upon th" mob ; and we further believe that if a larger number 
 of policemen had been ordered out, the necessity of a resort to the use of the 
 military might have been avoided. 
 
 The occurrences of the 10th of May, and the testimony before the Co- 
 roners Inquest, present these questions : 
 
 1st. Have persons a right to visit a theatre to express their disap- 
 probation of an actor in such a manner as to compel him to abandon 
 the stage '^ 
 
 2d. Was the Mayor of the city sufficiently informed as to the state 
 of the public mind, and the probability of a serious disturbance, on the 
 night of the 10th ? 
 
 3d. Did he adopt proper precautionary measures to prevent a dis- 
 turbance of the peace 1 
 
 4th. Was he right in calling out the military in the manner he did ? 
 
 5th. Was there, at any time, any absolute necessity for ordering the 
 military to fire on the people ? 
 
 6th. Was this affair properly investigated before the Coroner's In- 
 quest 1 
 
 7th. Who should be held accountable for the sacrifice of life at the 
 Astor Place Opera House 1 
 
 As to the first question, perhaps a sufficient answer is to be found in 
 the fact that custom, in this country and in Europe, has established the 
 right of an audience to hiss an obnoxious actor from the stage. The 
 Editor of the Courier ^ Enquirer is no mean authority on such a point 
 as this ; and the reader must, therefore, be glad to know the opinions 
 entertained by that distinguished friend of law and order, as expressed 
 in his journal of May 27th, 1836. The following is an extract from the 
 Democratic Review for June, '49 : 
 
 " In May, 1836, Mr. and Mrs. Wood were engaged as vocalists at 
 the Park Theatre, then under the management of the late E. Simp- 
 son. At that time 'sang also at the same theatre, Mrs. Conduit. It 
 happened that this latter lady had selected Guy Mannering for per- 
 formance on the occasion of her benefit, and Mrs. Wood being also to 
 receive a benefit on the evening previous to that of Mrs. Conduit, with- 
 out knowing that it had already be6n selected by the other lady, fixed 
 upon the same play. The musical critic of the New York Courier and 
 Enquirer, for some reason that did not come before the public, taking 
 sides with Mrs. Conduit, endeavored to force Mrs. Wood to relinquish 
 the play, and published an article offensive to Mr. Wood, who, in com- 
 
96 
 
 pany with another gentleman, went to the office of the Courier, and 
 saw the responsible editor, who promised to make the retraction Mr. 
 Wood demanded. The paper, however, persisted in the attack, and 
 some persons in the theatre hissed Mr. Wood, who then came forward, 
 Btated his case, and appealed to the public justice. On the following 
 morning, May 27th, 1836, a long article appeared in the Courier, by 
 the responsible editor, of which the following is the material portion: 
 " ' Flattered by the success of his falsehoods, he calls for a trial at 
 the Park, and we speak the voice of thousands who have marked hia 
 impudent swaggering in relation to this matter, when we say, let his 
 desire be gratified THIS EVENING. The theatre-going public feel ag- 
 grieved by his impudent falsehoods and ungenerous conduct to Mrs. 
 Conduit, and we, therefore, advise all females to abstain from going to 
 the theatre to-night, while we call upon all those who disapprove of 
 Wood's conduct, as also upon his supporters, to go there and let him 
 learn the precise estimation in which he is held. It is but proper and 
 just that he should be taught his place, and we, at least, are deter- 
 mined to be in attendance and raise our voice against him. 
 
 " ' Of the right of any man to express his disapprobation at the the- 
 atre, there can be no earthly question. To do so is no more a breach 
 of the peace than to applaud ; and we caution the police how they pre- 
 sume to interfere. Let the manager beware how he requests such in- 
 terference, and let him and them bear in mind the scenes which fol- 
 lowed their illegal and unjustifiable opposition to the public will, when 
 it was attempted to force Anderson upon the Park audience. If, on that 
 occasion, the manager had bowed to the public voice, as it was his duty 
 to do, and if the police ofBcers had not presumed to interfere with those 
 who hissed any more than those who applauded: the riots which took 
 place on that occasion would never have occurred. We shall go to the 
 Park to-niuht, and openly express our opposition, and as peaceably as 
 those who go to applaud. Let those who think as we do of the conduct 
 of Mr. W., also repair there ■ and we venture to predict there will be 
 no breach of the peace on their part, and that Mr. Wood will never 
 again be heard by an American audience. 
 
 " ' One word of advice to the manager. Do not permit the house to 
 be packed before the doors are opened ; and do not attempt to interfere 
 after they are opened. 
 
 " ' All who are familiar with the history of theatricals in London are 
 well aware that ,if an actor does anything to offend the public, his op- 
 ponents as well as his friends go to the theatre, and by their opposition 
 and applause, peaceably determine upon his fata. The police do not 
 presume to interfere, and the parties exert their lungs for or against an 
 actor to the full extent of their disposition.' " 
 
 " In accordance with this announcement, the riot took place. The 
 responsible editor of the Courier and his followers appeared. The doors 
 were broken down — the mob rushed in, forced themselves into the 
 boxes, and uproar and confusion prevailed. Missiles of all descriptions 
 were launched upon the stage, and a beam of wood, thrown at Mrs. 
 Wood, was warded off by Mr. Placide, who saved her life thereby. 
 Other missiles followed. The Mayor and authorities were present, but 
 could do nothing ; and after the Woods were withdrawn, the uproar 
 subsided on the singing of the Marseillais by Mr. Richings. On the 
 following morning the Courier contained the iollowing notice : 
 
 " 'As we anticipated, the Park audience drove Mr. Wood from the 
 stage last night, and refused to retire until assured by the manager, 
 Mr. Simpson, that the Woods should not again be allowed to perform.'''' 
 
97 
 
 When the "responsible editor" of the Courier was the hero of a mob 
 raised to drive a lady from the stage, he plead custom in justification 
 of his unmanly conduct, and, true to hiS' nature, bullied the manager, 
 threatened the city authorities, and cautioned the police not to inter- 
 fere ! When an arrogant Englishman^ without the slightest provoca- 
 tion, slandered the favorite actor of America, and insulted a large ma- 
 jority of our citizens, those who, in the exercise of a right until then 
 unquestioned, went to the theatre to rebuke him for his insolence, are 
 denounced by this same editor as rowdies, and 'the Englishman he styles 
 a gentleman and a scholar. To drive Mrs. Wood from the stage, be- 
 cause of a misunderstanding between that lady and Mrs. Conduit, was 
 a triumph in which James Watson Webb gloried ; but to drive Mr. 
 Macready from the stage, after his repeated insults to a whole commu- 
 nity became insufferable, the consistent and chivalrous Editor consi- 
 dered an " outrage." In one case, he warns the police not to interfere 
 — in the other, he assails them for not interfering ! It was a high 
 crime for the police to protect the Park Theatre, Mr. Anderson, and 
 Mxs. Wood ; but he considered it the imperative duty of the Mayor to 
 call out the whole police force, and a large body of military, to protect 
 Mr. Macready and the Opera House, even at the sacrifice of the lives 
 of twenty-five innocent men, women, and children ! In 1836, he de- 
 fied the public authorities — in 1849, he applauds them for having com- 
 mitted the highest crime known to the law. Mrs. Wood, in his judg- 
 ment, committed an unpardonable off"ence in not yielding to the wishes 
 of Mrs. Conduit j but Mr. Macready deserved high honors for assailing 
 Edwin Forrest and his friends. Such are a few of the gross incon- 
 sistencies of which the Editor of the Courier has been guilty. To what 
 can we attribute so great a change in his opinion % He dislikes Mr. 
 Forrest. It is a fact generally known, that the late William Leggett 
 and James Watson Webb were bitter personal enemies. The caustic 
 and powerful pen of Mr. Leggett was often used to expose the political 
 tergiversations and moral delinquency of Mr. Webb. Leggett wag 
 bold, honest, fearless, and independent, and despised a braggart, knave, 
 coward, and timeserver — hence his utter loathing and contempt for 
 Mr. Webb. While Leggett edited the Post-, he never hesitated to hold 
 up in his real character the Editor of the Courier ; and it is well known 
 that Mr. Forrest rendered pecuniary aid to the Post at the time Mr. 
 Leggett was exposing Webb and his corrupt connexion with the U. S. 
 Bank. This is the offence he committed, and for which he has been 
 persecuted by Webb. 
 
 But, to return to a consideration of the right of an audience to hiss 
 an actor from the stage. There is scarcely a city in this country or in 
 Europe where that custom has not prevailed so long as to become a 
 right. In England it has been exercised with more freedom than in 
 
 any other country, and, indeed, actors have been driven from the Eng- 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 lish stage, merely because they were not natives, or had become citi- 
 zens of this country. Thomas A. Cooper was treated with the utmost 
 indignity, on his last visit to London, after he had become a citizen of 
 the United States. In his " address" at Boston, after his return to thia 
 country, he said : " None but a felonious impostor, detected and unmask- 
 ed could deserve the hissings and hootings that pursued me almost 
 throughout, and, at the conclusion of the play, the joyful shouts and 
 exultations that rung over me as over a prostrated enemy." 
 
 An American residing in London at the time, and being in Drury 
 Lane on the above occasion, thus writes : " One would suppose that 
 the galleries were foaming with fury ; and the pit party, which by this 
 time, perhaps, constituted a majority, were laughing and chuckling, 
 with the full conviction that the work was done, ' Though Birnam 
 wood &c.' Here, indeed, the confusion was worse confounded, and I 
 will no longer attempt to describe the indescribable. Opprobrious 
 QjiQS, ' Off, off with the Yankee !' ' Send him back,' &c., — were re- 
 sponses to that part of the audience who called for Mr. C, and applaud- 
 ed him to the end." 
 
 Mr. Booth, who had also become an American citizen, was received 
 in a similar manner, on his last visit ; and it is but a short time since a 
 French company was driven out of England, merely because its mem- 
 bers were natives of France. 
 
 One of the causes of the celebrated " 0. P. Riots" in London, in the 
 year 1809, was that the managers of the Covent Garden Theatre en- 
 waged Madame Catalani, an Italian, to appear on the opening of the 
 new theatre. It is true, that a great portion of the London public was 
 indignant that the old prices had been increased, and that certain parts 
 of the theatre were open only to a select few ; but however much of- 
 fence was justly taken at these inroads upon former customs, it is un- 
 deniable, that the mob, (as it was called,) was stimulated in its anger 
 bv th.e fact that a foreigner had been employed to the exclusion of 
 what it was pleased to call " native talent." To such an extent did 
 they (the mob) make use of this fact, that Mr. Kemble, the manager, 
 ■was compelled, at the conclusion of the first week's campaign, to ap- 
 pear and state that " Catalani's engagement was relinquished." The 
 " 0. P. Riots" continued for sixty-six consecutive nights, and only ter- 
 minated after Mr. Kemble granted every thing demanded by the pub- 
 lic. During the whole of that period, not one single play was perform- 
 
 Q^ missiles of various kinds were thrown at the performers — musical 
 
 instruments of nearly all kinds were played upon by the " 0. P.'s." — 
 speeches were delivered nightly in the theatre by persons opposed to 
 the management — the cushioned seats in the pit and other parts of the 
 house were completely ruined — innumerable fights occurred in the 
 theatre, between the audience and the hired bullies sent there by the 
 manageris— the people in the neighborhood of the theatre, /or more 
 
99 
 
 than two months, were kept in a constant state of alarm, if not terror — 
 and, notwithstanding all this, no military force was called out, and not 
 a single life lost ! And this moh, be it remembered, assumed the right 
 to regulate the price of admission to a theatre, and was not actuated by 
 the better motive, to resent an insult given by an actor. 
 
 It is due to history to state that the police arrested many of the 
 persons who attended Covent Garden Theatre and wore the letters " 0, 
 P." on their hats, or were active in their opposition. Among them was 
 a Mr. Clifford, eminent as a barrister, and distinguished for his liberal 
 opinions. Mr. Clifford and four friends were taken before a magistrate 
 and charged with wearing the letters " 0. P." on their hats, and mak- 
 ing a violent noise and riot in the pit during the performance. Mr. 
 Clifford and his friends avowed the fact, and declared that they had 
 expressed their disapprobation of the performances, but not illegally. 
 The magistrate, without hesitation, ordered them to be discharged (see 
 Covent Garden Journal, vol. i., p. 332.) Mr. Clifford was arrested un- 
 der the express orders of a Mr. Brandon, a servant of the proprietors 
 of the theatre, and after his discharge Mr. Clifford brought an action 
 in the Court of Common Pleas against Brandon, to recover damages for 
 false imprisonment. The object of this action was merely to test the 
 right of a person to disapprove of a performance, by hissing, &c. It 
 was tried before Sir James Mansfield, who, in his charge to the jury, 
 took strong ground against the plaintiff, (Clifford,) but, contrary to his 
 instructions, the jury found for the plaintiff five pounds damages. A 
 portion of the remarks of the celebrated William Cobbett, on this case, 
 are so applicable to the one under consideration, that they are deemed 
 worthy of insertion here. He says : " With respect to Sir James's 
 (Mansfield's) apprehension of great national danger from what is going 
 on at the theatre, I must say, that I do not participate in them. I have 
 seen nothing in any of the accounts that have reached me, that would 
 induce me to suppose that the opposition at the theatre has been at all 
 marked with a mobbish character. We see that scores of the opposi- 
 tionists are seized even in the midst of their companions, and dragged 
 off to the office of the police justices, where neither those justices, nor 
 any of their officers, meet with any insult or hinderance in the execu- 
 tion of their office. They demand bail, they send to prison, and no sort 
 of resistance is made. It is remarkable, too, that, of the wounds said 
 to have been received in the several scuffles, almost the whole have 
 been received by the oppositionists. Scarcely a man on the other side 
 has received a personal injury. Besides, it has been proved, under the 
 hands of very respectable men, that common bruisers had had free ad- 
 missions, not only for themselves, but also to give to others ; and I can- 
 not help thinking, that it will finally be made to appear, that, in mea- 
 sure's 0? force, the managers set the example. I cannot, therefore, see 
 much grounds for Sir James Mansfield's political fears : I cannot see in 
 
100 
 
 the conduct of the ' 0. P'a.' anything that appears to me to threaten 
 the subversion of the Government or even the ruin of the country. We 
 have before heard of the ruin of the country j it is a very common 
 phrase ; it has been apprehended from various and innumerable causes ; 
 but, really, I should not have apprehended it from hissing, hooting, and 
 groaning at the theatre, however often repeated ; I should not have sup- 
 posed, that even the pelting of all the players off the stage, with orange 
 peel and rotten apples, vras any indication of national ruin.'''' — (Covent 
 Garden Theatre, vol. ii. pp. 748, 749.) 
 
 These remarks are commended to the careful attention of those peo- 
 ple, who saw in the refusal of an audience to hear Mr. Macready, the 
 destruction of American liberty. 
 
 In the work just quoted, (vol. i,, p. 95,) we find the charge of Mr. 
 Mainwairing, Chairman of the Sessions, to the Grand Jury, in relation 
 to the breaches of the peace said to have been committed at Covent 
 Garden. As to the right of audiences to express their approbation or 
 disapprobation, he uses this language : " It is said, indeed, that every 
 one at a play-house has a right to express his approbation or disappro- 
 bation ; be it so; certainly, custom has given a sort of sanction to such 
 a practice, and the audience has been in the habit of expressing its 
 approbation or dislike to whatever is brought before it, by clapping of 
 hands, or hissing, or some evident marks of applause or disapprobation, 
 and this custom is always submitted to, and, perhaps, it is found to be 
 the best or easiest way of expressing its sentiments upon such an occa- 
 sion, as it prevents more of discussion and amplification, which might 
 otherwise take place." There can be no question as to the fact, that 
 English audiences have always claimed and exercised this right ; and 
 the history of the Theatre in this country proves that Americans have, 
 in that respect, followed their example, without, until recently, the 
 fear of death. Kean, Anderson, Booth, the Woods, and many others 
 have been compelled to submit to the demands of the public, for some 
 real or fancied wrong they were supposed to have committed j and ne- 
 ver, until the discomfiture of Mr. Macready, was the doctrine assert- 
 ed, that the public have no right to punish an actor, by hissing him off 
 the stage, for any insult he may have offered that public. In the 
 very nature of things, the public must have and exercise that right; 
 there is no other mode by which they can reach an actor, unless all 
 who feel aggrieved should not patronize the theatre in which he per- 
 forms. But, in such cases, this would be no punishment to the actor, 
 because he necessarily has partizans as well as enemies ; and the total 
 absence of the latter would be a triumph for him and his friends, and 
 his and their insolence would increase accordingly. 
 
 In the case of Mr. Macready, we have seen that what is called the 
 wealth, intelligence, refinement, and patriotism of this great city com. 
 feined to sustain him, notwithstanding it waa and is undeniable that he 
 
101 
 
 courted the opposition of a party, by repeatedly and wantonly insulting 
 it. If he had been allowed to perform, in obedience to the request of 
 certain gentlemen, of whom more will be said hereafter, his success 
 would have been certain in a pecuniary sense — for a triumph of the 
 " esclusives" over the^ vulgar people is considered worth paying for : 
 and at the " West End" money is as plenty as patriotism is scarce. 
 
 The inhuman exultations of the aristocracy over the untimely graves 
 of the victims of the 10th of May, afford a sufBcient indication of what 
 would have been their rejoicings if Mr. Macready had been permitted 
 to perform throughout his engagement. The men he- had taunted and 
 provoked would have been held up as arrant cowards before the ser-, 
 ried ranks of superannuated millionaires, their dawdling sons, emanci- 
 pated tape-sellers, and unfortunate authors. And it will be shown 
 hereafter, that Mr. Maeready's friends were so well convinced of the 
 right of an audience either to hear or not hear him, that they actually 
 challenged his enemies to meet them at the Opera House, and have a 
 " trial of strength" — thus acknowledging that the theatre was the only 
 proper place to test the right of Mr. Macready to be heard, as well as 
 the relative strength of both parties. 
 
 Actors — whether justly so or not we need not stop to inquire — ^bear 
 a peculiar relation to the public ; they regard applause as a reward 
 more acceptable than wealth, and public censure as the highest pun- 
 ishment they can suffer ; the public, on the other hand, has always as- 
 sumed and exercised the right to sit in judgment upon the character 
 and claims of the actor, and, as he is dependant solely upon the public 
 for support, any offence he may give is promptly punished. It is a part 
 of the contract he makes vrith the audience, and he has no right to 
 complain if he is required to fulfil it. 
 
 Upon this branch of the subject no more need be said, than to re- 
 mark that, in support of the position the writer has taken, he need 
 only point to the established custom of ancient and modern times, and 
 particularly to the usages in England and the United States. If an 
 actor may insult one-half of a community, to gratify the pride and 
 vanity of the other half — who will, of course, sustain him — then the 
 theatre will become the property of a class, and the stage will lose 
 the high and ennobling influence it now exercises over the minds of 
 men. 
 
 The writer would not deprive the actor of one single right to which 
 he is entitled as a man; but he insists that cases have occurred, and 
 may occur again, which, like Maeready's, demands the immediate and 
 effectual hostility of the masses ; and actors who conduct themselves 
 as he did, should have no rest until they apologised or were driven 
 from the stage. There is no other mode by which society can vindi- 
 cate itself; and it may be regarded as a " fixed fact," that any Eng- 
 lish actor who comes to this country and assails the character of a 
 
102 
 
 political party., without any cause, will be driven from the stage, no 
 matter who may promise to " sustain" him. Such an act would not be 
 tolerated in an American actor, and an Englishman has no ground to 
 expect more favor. 
 
 We now come to the second question : — Was the Mayor of the city 
 sufficiently informed as to the state of the public mind and the proba- 
 bility of a serious disturbance on the night of the 10th of May "? 
 
 In his testimony before the Coroner's Inquest, (see page 78,) the 
 Mayor says, that on Thursday, the 10th of May, he was informed that 
 " there was likely to be a disturbance at the theatre ;" and, in conse- 
 quence of having received such information, he sent for several gentle- 
 men, among whom were the Recorder, Sheriff, Chief of Police, General 
 Sandford, the Police Justices, Mr. Niblo, and Mr. Hackett — the two 
 last-named being the managers of the Opera House. He inquired of 
 those gentlemen what probability there was of a disturbance that 
 night ; some thought there would be one, and the Chief of Police, in 
 particular., thought there would be a serious one. The Chief told him, 
 he says, that the civil force would not be sufficient, and that the aid of 
 the military would be required. All the gentlemen present., except Gen. 
 Sandford, concurred in the opinion that the military should be called 
 out. This, the Mayor's own testimony, must surely convince the read- 
 er, that he was sufficiently informed as to the state of the public mind 
 and the extreme probability of a serious disturbance ; and yet, in the 
 face of all this, he said to the Coroner's Inquest : " There was no pro- 
 clamation issued by me that day. I issued none, because I loas not suffi- 
 ciently informed of the state of facts to deem it necessary .'" He was " suf- 
 ficiently informed" to justify him in calling out the military, but was 
 in too blissful a state of ignorance to think it necessary to inform the 
 people, that he had secretly ordered out a military force to shoot them 
 down, if they dared to assemble, out of curiosity, in the neighborhood of 
 the Opera House ! 
 
 Charles Webb, Esq., Alderman of the 16th Ward, called on the 
 Mayor that morning, and in view of the apprehended disturbance, ad- 
 vised him to close the Opera House, but he replied, that the managers 
 had a right to keep it open, and he would protect them. He was 
 prompt to protect the imaginary rights of two money- loving managers, 
 and to act as High Priest at a bloody feast prepared for a few proud 
 and wealthy aristocrats ; but an angel from Heaven could not have 
 moved him to protect the lives of the people. 
 
 Let us now answer the third question : — " Did he (the Mayor) adopt 
 proper precautionary measures to prevent a disturbance of the peace ?" 
 It is evident from his testimony, and the testimony of the Recorder, 
 Sheriff, Chief of Police, and Gen. Sandford, that the Mayor did nothing 
 but consult those gentlemen, at his office, and left each one full direc- 
 tion to use any means that pleased them to protect the Opera House. 
 
103 
 
 Gen. Sanford ordered out the military, with one thousand rounds of ball 
 cartridye ; and the Chief of Police, with rtme hundred regular police- 
 men at his command, having a due regard for the safety of his men, 
 placed two hundred in the Opera House, and seventy-five in Mrs. Lang- 
 don's house and stable (see page 82.) He " covered the rear of the 
 house with two platoons," consisting of twenty-five men each. His 
 whole force then in the theatre and the noighborhood numbered but 
 325 men ! — about one-third of the force under his command — and tivo 
 hundred and seventy-five of that number were so placed that they could 
 take" no part in preventing the mob, as it is called, from collecting in 
 every street and avenue around the theatre. He took possession of the 
 theatre, he says, at /ottr o''clock in the day, and although the multitude 
 kept continually increasing from about that time, he made no efibrt to 
 prevent its near approach to the theatre, which is so situated that a 
 very small force of resolute men could prevent any mob from coming 
 within one hundred yards of any part of it. Such were the only ar- 
 rangements made to preserve the peace, when, in the language of the 
 Mayor in his order to Gen. Sandford, there was " reason to apprehend a 
 serious riot.'''' But where was his 'honor, the Mayor, while these ar- 
 rangements were being made T Snugly seated in his ofiice or resi- 
 dence, caring not whether the city that gave him the highest honor in 
 its gift should be deluged with the blood of innocence. He did not 
 make his appearance at the theatre until nine o'clock of that fearful 
 night, and then, by his timidity, aye, cowardice, and imbecility, threw 
 obstacles in the way of more efficient men, which were only removed 
 when he " fled for safety and for succor" to the New York Hotel ! He 
 could easily find courage to issue an order to General Sandford to call 
 out a military force, but he, the degenerate descendant of the brave 
 Woodhull, of Revolutionary memory, had neither the moral nor physi- 
 cal courage to take command of that force, or even shew himself in his 
 official character to the citizens, whose lives he put in jeopardy. If he 
 had adopted proper precautionary measures, he would have ordered 
 out all the disposable police force of the city, and, if that were not 
 sufficient, then he should have sworn in special constables to as large 
 a number as were deemed necessary; and, as a last resort, he should 
 have held in reserve a military force strong enough to give any aid re- 
 quired to sustain the civil power. But in no event, where there is suf- 
 ficient time, as there was in this case, can the Mayor be justified in 
 calling out the military, without giving notice, by proclamation, to the 
 citizens that he has done so ; and it is equally his duty to warn all 
 peaceable persons to remain away from the scene of anticipated riot. 
 This is the custom in all civilized countries, and is observed alike under 
 monarchical and despotic governments. Why it should not obtain 
 here is a question not susceptible of an answer. 
 The fourth question : — " Was he right in calling out the military in 
 
104 
 
 the manner lie did," has been partially answered. He was wrong, in 
 as much as he left thousands of citizens, whom he must have known 
 would be attracted by curiosity to the Opera House, liable to be killed 
 before being aware of the presence of a military force. He was wrong, 
 because he did not make any eifort to avail himself of the civil power 
 of the county. He was wrong, because he left that military force al- 
 most exclusively under the control and management of men who have 
 no right to act as a part of the police of the county, unless when some 
 terrible necessity justifies their interference. He was wrong, because 
 he must have known that the American people have been taught to 
 look upon military power as the most odious that can be exercised, and 
 that when it suddenly and unexpectedly obtrudes itself, even by civil 
 command, among an assemblage of the people, it naturally excites, and 
 is certain to meet with, expressions of ridicule, disgust, and horror ; 
 and, if it resorts to force, it will meet with resistance. He was wrong, 
 because, in so doing, he lent the sanction and authority of his high of- 
 fice to gratify the avarice of some and the pride of others, at the risk 
 of sacrificing the lives of good citizens. 
 
 The fifth question : — " Was there, at any time, any absolute necessi- 
 ty for ordering the military to fire on the people ?" is one involving the 
 most weighty considerations in reference to the conduct of our city rul- 
 ers and the rights of American citizens. It has been said that the 
 military deserve no blame for acting as they did : that they only 
 obeyed the commands of the civil authorities, and were placed in a 
 position where the preservation of their own lives compelled them to 
 fire on the people. The writer has already said that he did not con- 
 demn the men who fired in obedience to their orders, but he cannot 
 extend tbe same clemency to the Generals who commanded them, and 
 indeed there is strong reason to believe that many of the privates 
 took counsel of their fears, and were hastily urgent in their demands 
 for orders to shoot their " thousand rounds of ball cartridge " at their 
 fellow citizens. General Sandford wa^ cunningly cautious in refusing 
 to express any opinion as to the necessity of ordering out the military, 
 and had his skill been equal to his caution after they were ordered 
 out, there would not, in all probability, have been one life lost. It 
 was about nine o'clock when the gallant Major General Sandford, at 
 the head oi forty brave horsemen and about 200 infantry, made his 
 appearance before " a dense mob,"' as he calls it, variously estimated 
 at from ten to twenty thousand. He " ordered the horse to form a front 
 of from five to ten men on entering Astor Place" — the forty brave 
 horsemen being "conspicuous marks," were greeted with a volley of 
 stones, which induced them to follow the example of their "illustrious 
 j)redecessor," and seek safety in flight. The gallant Major General 
 then dismounted, " returned through the mob and took charge of the 
 infantry." He led them into Eighth street, the rear of the theatre 
 
105 
 
 and the "mob" retreated before them "without a charge." He sta- 
 tioned two bodies of troops at each end of the theatre, and then sent 
 for Mr. Matsell, who furnished sufficient police to replace those two 
 lines of the military. There was no further riot or disturbance in that 
 street during the night. After executing this bloodless manoeuvre, the 
 gallant General led his infantry "round Eighth st. and down Broadway 
 by the flank," and crawled along on the sidewalk of Astor Place, only 
 two abreast, keeping as " close to the theatre as they could get." Ar- 
 rived in front of the theatre, he ordered two lines to be formed across 
 the street, with the intention of driving the mob both ways, towards 
 the Bowery and Broadway, which could not be done. He thus placed 
 his men in a position from which they could not retreat, and as the 
 force was not strong enough to advance, they were compelled to retreat 
 to the sidewalk, and receive the stones intended for the windows of 
 the theatre. According to the testimony of the officers, sad havoc was 
 made in the ranks of that devoted band by a violent and bloodthirsty 
 mob, but no Coroner's Inquest has to this day been held over the body 
 of any one who risked his life in vindicating the rights of property and 
 the supremacy of the " upper ten." The invincible Gen. Hall received 
 a dangerous wound in the cheek, but, fortunately for the country, in a 
 few days he was convalescent, and perhaps his entire recovery may be 
 hoped for, as he stated before the Coroner that " at home, however, a 
 small ball was found in my cheek a little larger than the head of a pin.''' 
 Gen. Hall informs us, too, that the daring Capt. Shumway was " shot in 
 the shin bone, the ball lodging in the calf" — but history, with the aid 
 of Capt. Shumway, must correct the General. The Captain says : — 
 " I was shot in the leg ; I for some time did not know that I was shot ; 
 some one told me that my face was bloody ; I then went up stairs with 
 the surgeon ; this ball was not a musket ball, but only a buck shot ; if 
 it had been the former, it would have broken my bones ; I did duty 
 after that," &c. (Page 93.) 
 
 The gallant Sandford, too, it must be recorded, received a slight ac- 
 knowledgement of his merits on the occasion, for he tells us that he was 
 "partly knocked down." But where are the bruised, maimed, and 
 murdered soldiers, whose companions wreaked a bloody vengeance on 
 twenty-five men, women, and children ? General ! bring out your dead, 
 or at least publish a list of the wounded, so that plain citizens may 
 find some reason to justify your demands for the privilege of kiUing 
 twenty-five people. 
 
 General Sandford says : "I several times called out to the crowd 
 that they must hold back, or we would fire," and we cannot be un- 
 generous enough to doubt his word ; but why was the General so care- 
 ful as not to tell the Coroner's Jury that he was there in citizen's dress ? 
 A little man — (although a Major General of thirty-five years military 
 experience) — five feet and four inches in height, and not remarkable 
 
for stentorian power of lungs, clothed withal in a modest suit of black, 
 and "partly knocked down" in "a dense mob" numbering from ten to 
 twenty thousand, was not very likely to command a great deal of at- 
 tention, and much less to drive such a mob '' both ways " from Astor 
 Place. If the General had been in uniform and mounted, he might 
 have been a " conspicuous mark," and exposed to the same calamity 
 that befel his heroic companion Gen. Hall, and therefore, perhaps, we 
 ought, in charity to the weakness of poor human nature, excuse him 
 for taking to his feet and avoiding the consequences that might have 
 followed a cocked hat and epaulettes. But still we cannot resist the 
 belief that if he bad presented himself in his official capacity, he would 
 have exercised more influence. General Sandford, in citizen's dress 
 and on foot, was Charles W. Sandford, Attorney at Law, and entitled 
 to no more respect than any other man in that vast assemblage. 
 
 Several of the persons who gave their testimony before the Coroner's 
 Jury, stated that most of those engaged in assaulting the house and the 
 military were boys ranging from fifteen to twenty years of age, and no 
 one has estimated their number at more than two hundred. Now, no 
 sane man can believe that two hundred policemen of ordinary courage 
 were not capable of arresting or driving every one of them from the 
 ground. But the police were aware that the military were in readi- 
 ness to act, and they allowed the spirit of violence to rage almost un- 
 checked until the sudden appearance of the military presented an 
 additional reason for its existence, and added to its intensity. The 
 police withdrew from the field, and it was left to the care of two 
 hundred infantry under the command of the little General in black. 
 According to the evidence of the Chief of Police (see page 82) the 
 " house was quieted sometime before the military arrived." Where 
 then was the great body of the police force 1 In the theatre was one 
 division applauding Mr. Macready, and another, free from all danger, 
 in Mrs. Langdon's stable ! 
 
 When the military arrived, if the whole police force had united 
 with them, there can be no doubt that Astor Place would have been 
 cleared just as easily as was Eighth street, where the " mob " was just 
 as dense and as violent ; or if the troops had marched into Astor Place 
 in ranks of eight or ten men front, instead of stealing along on the 
 side-walks two abreast, the result would have been different. A por- 
 tion of the testimony of Mr. Stewart, police clerk, is worthy of notice 
 here. He says, (see page 90,) that Judge Edmonds requested him to 
 take down the names of the soldiers who were brought into the thea- 
 tre injured ; he did take down the names of thirty or forty, but they 
 were brought in after the firing; he saw none injured before the fir- 
 ing ! Among all the officers who testified, he is the only one who was 
 not interested in giving evidence in favor of the authorities, and from 
 
107 
 
 that fact alone, what he says is entitled to great weight and confi- 
 dence. 
 
 In answer, then, to the fifth question, it must be said that there was 
 not at any time any absolute necessity for firing on the people — be- 
 cause there was no injury done to either the police or military to justify 
 it — because the persons engaged in committing acts of violence were 
 mere boys, whose numbers were so small that after the " house was 
 quieted," there was a sufficient police force to have captured every one 
 of them; and, because, if the police and military had acted together, 
 Astor Place might have been cleared without the sacrifice of a single 
 life. There have been more serious riots in this city quelled without 
 discharging a musket. During the Abolition riots, when churches 
 were almost destroyed, and Mr. Tappan'a furniture was taken out of his 
 house and burnt in the street — when the whole public mind was in- 
 fla,med, and no one could see the end of a mob's madness — not a human 
 being was killed — not one seriously injured — although the military 
 were out and were treated with no more respect than they received 
 at the Opera House. Our rulers then had more regard for human life, 
 and would not butcher twenty-five persons to gratify the pride of a 
 few fashionable upstarts. 
 
 The sixth question : — Was this affair properly investigated before the 
 Coroner's Jury — must be answered in the negative. Not a single wit- 
 ness was cross-examined, but each one implicated, either directly or 
 indirectly, in the slaughter of twenty-five persons, was allowed to tell 
 his own story, and make out the best case he could for himself and his 
 colleagues. Gentlemen., who were familiar with the causes of the dis- 
 turbance in the theatre on the 10th of May, and were instrumental in 
 introducing rowdies into the theatre, should have been examined before 
 that Jury. The iViessrs. Niblo and Hackett should have been examined ; 
 but, above all, the military officers should have been subjected to a 
 severely rigid examination, so that the Jury and the public might have 
 learned what necessity there was for firing upon the people. Why 
 were not the soldiers whose muskets were taken from them by the 
 " mob," produced and examined 1 Why did not the gallant General 
 Sandford produce his wounded soldiers, and the efficient Chief of Police 
 his wounded men 1 General Hall and his bleeding cheek, from which 
 was extracted a ball a little larger than the head of a fin, was a good 
 witness, and so was Captain Shumway, who was not shot in the shin 
 bone, but would have had his bones broken if he had been shot with a 
 musket ball, but eight or ten of the soldiers who were " knocked down 
 with paving stones" would have been much better witnesses, and the 
 Coroner should have compelled their attendance if they were to he found. 
 The District Attorney should have been present on the Inquest to see 
 that the whole truth was elicited, and that the rights of the people as 
 well as the interests of theatrical managers were protected. In all 
 
108 
 
 cases where one life is supposed to have been taken illegally, the Coroner 
 subpoenaes every one whom he believes can throw any light upon the 
 subject; but, in this case, his chief witnesses were the very men who 
 caused the death of twenty-five persons ! Could he have supposed for 
 a moment that those gentlemen would testify against themselves 1 
 Why did he not, as is the custom, examine first, those who were not 
 implicated in giving the order to fire, and then put the Mayor, Sheriff, 
 Chief of Police, Generals Sandford and Hall, on their defence, if there 
 was any evidence against them 1 This was the only legal and proper 
 way to investigate the matter, and the Coroner cannot escape censure 
 for the loose, partial, and illegal mode which he adopted. It will be 
 shewn hereafter, if certain distinguished gentlemen had been called 
 upon to testify, a flood of light would have been thrown upon the sub- 
 ject which would have enabled the Jury to see that it was the 
 determination of a clique to " court a fatal issue" on the night of the 
 10th of May. 
 
 We now come to the seventh and last question : — Who should be 
 held accountable for the sacrifice of life at the Astor Place Opera 
 House ? 
 
 Th-e original cause of riot and bloodshed was the grossly insulting 
 speech of Mr. Macready, delivered in the Opera House on the 25th 
 October. But justice to Mr. Macready requires us to say, that after 
 the demonstration on the night of the 7th, he would have retired with- 
 out further contest with the public, but for the officious interference of a 
 few persons who were prompted by various motives to offer to sustain him. 
 
 On the 9th of May the following letter, signed by forty-eight gen- 
 tlemen of different degrees of respectability, was addressed to Mr. 
 Macready. Their names may be found at page 49. 
 
 " To W. C. Macready, Esq. — Dear Sir — The undersigned, having heard that 
 the outrage at the Astor Place Opera House on Monday evening, is likely to have 
 the effect of preventing you from continuing your performances, and from con- 
 cluding your intended farewell engagement on the American Stage, take this 
 public method of requesting you to reconsider your decision, and of assuring you 
 that the good sense and respect for order prevailing in this community will sustain 
 you on the subsequent nights of your performances." 
 
 The journals favorable to Mr. Macready were enthusiastic in their 
 praises of the distinguished citizens who signed this letter, and equally 
 fierce in their denunciations of those who had the temerity to hiss him 
 off the stage. The Courier, the Commercial, the Mirror, the Express, 
 the Tribune, and that miserable apology for a newspaper, the Day 
 Book, fairly dared any one to attend at the Opera House on the night 
 of the 10th to hiss Mr. Macready. Those who hissed him on the night 
 of the 7th were denominated "rowdies," "ruffians," "blackguards," 
 "rabble," " lower classes," "the worst kind of Loco Focos." The 
 Mirror invited them to the theatre to have another " trial of strength," 
 and the Courier assured Mr. Macready that he was not opposed " by 
 any portion of the American people of whose approbation and esteem he 
 
109 
 
 would be at all desirous,'''' and that it was not " until another trial" that 
 Mr. Macready could have any just ground for refusing to appear 
 again. It also called upon every American to rebuke, " signally and 
 effectually," the treatment to which Mr. Macready had been subjected ; 
 and on the 10th of May, in commenting on Mr. Macready's reply to 
 the above letter, (see page 50,) said : 
 
 " This letter is in admirable taste, evincing that sense of mortification which 
 any gentleman would naturally feel at such wantonly unjust and insulting treat- 
 ment as Mr. M. received on Monday night, and yet avoiding the error of aittribut- 
 ing it in any degree to those of our citizens whose approbation he would covet. 
 We cannot doubt that his friends will embrace the opportunity of evincing, by 
 their presence to-night, their sense of his merit as well as their resentment of 
 the ignominy to which he has been subjected." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the friends of Macready, and the personal 
 •and political enemies of^Mr. Forrest, united in giving an invitation to 
 those who felt aggrieved by the conduct of Macready to meet them at 
 the Opera House and try which party was the stronger. But the dis- 
 tinguished gentlemen, par excellence, the educated, refined, and weal- 
 thy, did not rely solely upon themselves, the police, and the military to 
 " sustain''' Mr. Macready. They " stooped to conquer," and their re- 
 markable condescension must be recorded. 
 
 The foUowiag is taken from the New York Herald, and has never been 
 contradicted : 
 
 "Investigation OF the Astor Place Riot — Before Judge Edmonds. — The 
 
 following is the statement of Charles Tappan, taken before Judge Edmonds : 
 
 On Thursday, the 10th of May last, Charles Tappan, William Sparks, and 
 Robert Long, having seen a card inviting Mr Macready to play at the Astor 
 Place Opera House on that night, and signed by anumberof gentlemen, amongst 
 whom were the names of Moses H. Grinnell and Duncan C. Pell, supposed they 
 could make a speculation out of the invitation by supporting Mr. Macready. 
 Consequently, upon thai morning, Tappan and his two associates, called at the 
 office of Mr. Grinnell, in South street, and was informed by Mr. Grinnell's 
 brother that he could be seen at the Astor House. Tappan then called at the 
 store of Mr. Pell, and was told that he was not in, but would be in shortly, if 
 they called in a short time. They called in and saw Mr. Duncan C. Pell, to 
 whom Tappan communicated his mission, statin? they had a " big party" who 
 would be able to sustain Mr. Macready in the performance of that evening. Mr. 
 Pell said that was what they wanted, as Macready had been badly treated on 
 the Monday night previous, and they wanted him sustained. Mr. Pell then 
 made an appointment to meet them at 2 o'clock, that day, on the comer of 9th 
 street and Broadway, where he would furnish them with tickets. Tappan and 
 his associates then called at the Astor House and saw Mr. Grinnell, who obtained 
 at the bar, from a tall man, supposed to be Mr. Coleman, twelve tickets for the 
 boxes, for the purpose of sustaining the performances of Mr. Macready. At two 
 o'clock, Tappan and his associates met Mr. Pell at the corner of 9th street and 
 Broadway, when Mr. Pell took them to the box office of the Astor Place Opera 
 House and handed them two packages of box tickets for that night, containing 
 fifty in each package, and told them if they would call up again at 4 o'clock in 
 the afternoon he would give them one hundred more. Tappan and his associates 
 omitted to call for them. The hundred and twelve tickets thus received from the 
 hands of Mr. Pell and Mr. Grinnell, were some of them given away to their 
 friends ; but the majority were left at the bars of different public drinking places, 
 and sold at a reduced price, say *wenty-five cents each. Tappan, Sparks, and 
 
110 
 
 Long, went to the theatre according to promise, but were a:rrested by the police 
 as rioters, and are at present in prison. 
 
 " The above is the substance of an affidavit made by Tappan, at the request of 
 Judge Edmonds." 
 
 What a commentary is this on the pretensions made by men of 
 •wealth to virtue and respectability ! The man, Tappan, aboye men- 
 tioned is now in prison, charged with being a ^^pocket-booh dropper P^ 
 We are forced to reflect on the moral di£Ference between a wealthy 
 ^^ pipe-layer'''' and a poor ^^pocket-book dropper.''^ Perhaps the Hon. 
 Moses H. Grinnell can enlighten us. Now the reader will understand 
 why the gentlemen composing the Anglo- American committee who in- 
 vited Mr. Macready to re-appear, and promised to "sustain" him, 
 should have been summoned before the Coroner. Who can tell what 
 strange developements might have been made if the forty-eight law- 
 yers, brokers, editors, merchants, and unrequited authors, had been put 
 on the witness stand 1 How many tickets did each one purchase, and 
 what use did he make of them 1 How many were distributed among 
 their " friends," and how many were " sold at reduced prices" at the 
 " bars of public drinking places "?" 
 
 These are questions that ought to be answered by that "portion of 
 the American people of luhose approbation and esteem he (Mr. Macready) 
 would be at all desirous.''' This " New York public," of which the Courier 
 speaks, (page 49,) as not " wanting in the courtesy due to a scholar 
 and a gentleman, might have found better representatives, if any 
 were needed, at the Opera House, than the hired instruments of the 
 Hon. Moses H. Grinnell and Duncan C. Pell, Esq., andit is a great pity 
 that so refined a gentleman as Mr. Macready should have been com- 
 pelled by over zealous friends to look for support to the " rabble" of a 
 large community, led on by poc^e;-6oo^ droppers and pipe-layers. This, 
 we humbly submit, was not the right way to rebuke, "signally and 
 effectually, the outrageous treatment to which he (Mr. Macready) had 
 (has) been accidentatiy exposed." 
 
 It is true, that several of those who signed the letter of invitation to 
 Mr. Macready to re-appear, were utterly ignorant of the causes 
 which impelled the public to drive him from the stage on Monday, 
 the 7th of May, and but for that ignorance their names would never 
 have been attached to it ; and it is a source of regret that they do not 
 now feel at liberty to expose the means by which their signatures 
 were attached. But, it is undeniable that a great majority of them 
 were governed by a desire to appear before the world as the champions 
 of law and order, and the elite of New York society, who could and 
 would sustain any actor, especially the pet of the English and Ameri- 
 can aristocracies, against the lower orders of society — as they are 
 pleased to term the laboring and producing classes of this country. 
 No fitter opportunity ever presented itself to them to test the com- 
 parative strength of the two classes of this community, and they could 
 
Ill 
 
 not fail to embrace it. There is, to them, something odious in the free, 
 bold, and independent conduct of the poor men of this city ; their utter 
 contempt, never disguised, for the ridiculous assumption of superiority 
 by the descendants of ward constables, small grocers, tallow chandlers, 
 poor but respectable washerwomen, and industrious tailors, makes them 
 the especial objects of aristocratic hate. It was deemed the height 
 of presumption in those who did not reside in marble or brown stone 
 palaces at the " West End," to go to the Opera House to resent the gratu- 
 itous insults of Mr. Macready ; and as the Mayor of this city owes his 
 position to his wealth and his association with the party that claims all 
 the " decency and respectability" of the community, it wasnot difficult 
 to induce him to call into requisition all the powers of his office. Mr. 
 Niblo, who commenced life as a very industrious waiter in a down-town 
 .eating-house, and has ever since catered to the tastes and wishes of 
 his superiors, could easily persuade the Mayor, (particularly, when he 
 (Niblo) was sustained by the card of the Anglo-Americans,) that it was 
 his duty to protect the Opera House, at the sacrifice of the lives of 
 innocent people, if necessary. The signers of the letter to Macready, 
 and Messrs. Niblo & Hackett, cannot escape the awful responsibility of 
 being participes crimines in the bloody deeds of the 10th of May. Mr. 
 Hackett's son procured most of the signatures to that letter, and backed 
 up by it, Mr. Niblo insisted upon his right to open the theatre, and de- 
 manded the protection of the city authorities. On the part of the 
 managers it was a mere money speculation, but a majority of those who 
 signed the letter were governed by other motives, (already alluded to,) 
 no less reprehensible. The author will not say that any one engaged 
 in this affair deliberately contemplated the destruction of human life, 
 but lie must say that all who were concerned in calling out the mili- 
 tary are just as guilty as the man who recklessly discharges a loaded 
 fire arm into a crowd without the intention of killing any particular 
 individual. 
 
 Next to the signers of the letter to Macready, stands Caleb S. Wood- 
 hull as a candidate for the censure of the present and future genera- 
 tions. By his own confession he is a coward, and unfit to perform the 
 duties of the high station he disgraces. His imbecility is only equalled 
 by his ignorance, and those two qualities have given him a niche in the 
 temple of ignoble fame that will never be filled by another. He had no 
 power to close a theatre, when the peace of the city was threatened, but 
 did not hesitate to close every public house in the immediate vicinity 
 of the theatre on the night after the " riot." He had no power to close 
 a theatre, but does not hesitate to break into a poor man's house, take 
 possession, and convert it into an hospital ! He had power to call out 
 the military and leave thousands of citizens to the mercy of men but 
 little braver than himself, but had no authority to close a theatre ! He 
 had power to take life but none to preserve it ! Most enlightened. 
 
112 
 
 humane, and patriotic Mayor, for what were you elected ? We cora- 
 mon people are under the impression that one of the highest duties 
 imposed upon you, is to preserve the peace of the city, and that the 
 easiest way to do that in such a case as the one under consideration, is 
 to remove the cause of disturbance. We believe that the lives of twenty- 
 five human beings are more worthy of the protection of our Chief 
 Magistrate than any theatre, and we know that if the Astor Place 
 Opera House had been closed on the 10th of May, the national honor 
 would not have been tarnished, American liberty would not have been 
 endangered, and those who are now widows and orphans might be in 
 the enjoyment of their former happiness. Of the Mayor's conduct 
 previous to the night of the 10th of May there mai/be an honest difier- 
 ence of opinion, but there is but one sentiment prevailing as to his 
 disgraceful flight from the theatre when he found it necessary either 
 to assume or avoid responsibility — that marked him as a coward — a 
 disgrace to the city, and a libel on his species. He may escape the 
 penalty the law would inflict upon one more humble for the same 
 offence, but he and his memory will be followed by the execrations of 
 all who hate tyrants, aristocrats, and cowards. 
 
 The Chief of Police, like the Mayor, was also afraid to assume 
 responsibility. If he had called out one half of his force and taken 
 possession of the ground in the neighborhood of the theatre, instead of 
 hiding his men in that building and Mrs. Langdon's stable, there 
 would have been no necessity for using the military. He had no reason, 
 and gave none before the Coroner, to believe that the police were 
 inadequate to quell the anticipated riot ; in fact, from the proceedings 
 of Monday night, of which he was a patient witness, he kneiv that the 
 opponents of Mr. Macready intended to do no violence either to him 
 or the property of the house. The secret of his conduct is to be found 
 in the fact that he was gratified by the opposition to Macready, and 
 would not risk his popularity with certain persons by being too ener- 
 getic in the discharge of what he afterwards called his duty. By 
 relying upon the military he has failed to obtain the very object he 
 desired. The friends of Macready blame him for his inefficiency on 
 Monday night, and the whole public censure him for his want of cour- 
 age on the night of the 10th. If Mr. Matsell had been closely ques- 
 tioned before the Coroner's Inquest, some important facts might have 
 been put on record. He took care to be in the theatre when the firing 
 commenced, although the "house was quieted" sometime before the 
 military arrived. According to the Chief's own testimony, he made no 
 attempt to quell the riot after the military appeared on the ground. 
 His inefficiency on that night entitles him to rank among the princi- 
 pals engaged in the massacre of the 10th of May. 
 
 Wewouldbedoinggreat injustice to the Sheriffif wedidnot give him 
 a conspicuous place in this bloody record. He it was who sent for the 
 
113 
 
 military, and gave the orders to fire. If his testimony is to be helieved, 
 General Hall, almost immediately upon his arrival, asked for orders to 
 fire ! The Sheriff says, (page 81,) "on their arrival he had an interview 
 with Generals Sandford andHall, and accompanied them, the military 
 being then in Eighth street. General Hall told him unless the military 
 were allowed to fire, to defend themselves, they could not he kept to- 
 gether, as they were being pelted with stones, and several had been 
 badly injured." How does this evidence agree with the declaration of 
 General Sandford, that he led the infantry into Eighth street, and that 
 the " mob" retreated before them " without a charge ?" The two 
 statements do not agree at all, but the Sheriff's goes to show that General 
 Hall was in a hurry to "flesh his maiden sword" in the blood of hia 
 fellow citizens. The Sheriff admits, too, that the mob did not hear the 
 order to fall back, and yet he gave the order to fire ! He says also, 
 that " General Hall gave the order to fire over their heads, distinctly, 
 along the line." Now, if this be true, is it not evident that th.Q patient 
 and obedient privates took the very first opportunity to fire on the citi- 
 zens, for it has been proven by almost every witness examined, that 
 several persons were killed by fhQ first discharge ! The Sheriff testi- 
 fies that "it was impossible to give the people time to retire between 
 the firing," " because they were rushing at the military and taking 
 their muskets from them." It is not credible that two hundred boys, 
 scattered through Astor Place, as they must have been, could have 
 been engaged to any serious extent in taking the muskets from the 
 soldiers, and we even doubt that any such attempt was made at all, 
 and that doubt is strengthened by the fact that not one person engaged 
 as a rioter was hilled. If the rioters and the military came to such 
 close quarters as is alleged by the Sheriff and the Generals, how is it 
 that they all escaped death ? But who are the men that lost their 
 muskets ? Why did they not offer a reward for them, and by that 
 means perhaps detect some daring rioters % 
 
 We have no evidence that the Sheriff did anything towards quelling 
 the riot until the military arrived, although he and his deputies were 
 in the theatre. When General Hall demanded the order to fire in 
 Astor Place, the Sheriff did not, like the Mayor, say " wait a little," 
 but was almost as prompt to give as the other was to ask. Upon him, 
 then, rests a large share of the fearful responsibility attending all who 
 participated in the sacrifice of twenty-five human beings. 
 
 While censuring the guilty we cannot refuse praise where it is duo, 
 and, therefore, whatever may be our opinion as to the illegality of the 
 arrests he ordered in the theatre on the night of the 10th, we are con- 
 strained to say that F. A. Tallmadge, the Recorder, was the only mag- 
 istrate present on that night who sought to avoid the shedding of 
 blood. His testimony shows that he was indefatigable in his exertions 
 to disperse the crowd, and had he been properly sustained by the 
 
114 
 
 Mayor, the Chief of Police and his force, but few, if any, Uvea would 
 have been lost. 
 
 Enough has now been said to enable the reader to form a just esti- 
 mate of the conduct of the city authorities and the military, and of the 
 degree of guilt that attaches to each individual implicated. A careful 
 comparison of the testimony of the few private citizens who were ex- 
 amined with that given by the civil and military officers, will convince 
 all that there was gross inefficincy on the part of the civil authorities, 
 and criminal haste in all the movements of the military. In all the 
 _mass of testimony embodied in this book, there is none that proves the 
 existence of any imperative necessity to fire on the people, and without 
 that necessity there is no justification for the act. 
 
 When the intelligence spread throughout the city on the morning of 
 the 11th, that seventy-five American citizens had been either killed or 
 wounded by a military force, the public mind was excited to the 
 highest degree — a tragedy so appalling, committed in the name of the 
 law in the first city of the Union, was an event well calculated to 
 arouse the indignation of the people. Among the masses there was but 
 one feeling, that of sickening horror at the deed of blood by which 
 their city was dishonored. But in the circles of the select few there 
 we;re rejoicings that we had a strong government — that the rabble, the 
 lower orders, the common people had been taught a lesson. Such 
 were the expressions of the " exclusives," and they were of course 
 echoed by the presses which challenged the people to meet the aristo- 
 cracy at the theatre. On the afternoon of th^ 11th an immense meet- 
 ing of citizens, numbering at least 25,000, assembled in the Park and 
 adopted the following resolutions. Sufl&cient time had not elapsed to 
 allow the writer of those resolutions to inform himself thoroughly as to 
 all the facts in the cases, but the errors in the resolutions can be easily 
 corrected by the reader. They contain some truths worthy to be remem- 
 bered, and therefore, they are published : 
 
 " Resolved, That we love the peace, are law-abiding citizens, and devoted to 
 the vyelfare of this, the first city in the Union, but, above all, we cannot sanction 
 the murder of innocent men by those whose sworn duty it is to protect them in 
 all the rights of American citizens. 
 
 " Resolved, That we beheve it to be the duty of our city authorities, if a rio 
 takes place, or if they have good reason to beUeve that a riot, involving the 
 destruction of hfe or property, will take place, to exhaust the civil power of the 
 county before resorting to the military, which is, in fact, the right arm of despotism, 
 and ought to be the last resort of Americans. And here we must condemn the 
 Mayor of our city, for not causing the Astor Place Opera House to be closed, 
 when he knew (as he says) that a riot would ensue if it were opened. 
 
 " Resolved, That we look upon the sacrifice of human life in the vicinity of the 
 Astor Place Opera House, last night, as the most wanton, unprovoked, and mur- 
 derous outrage ever perpetrated in the civilized world ; and that the aiders, abet- 
 tors, and instigators of that unparalleled crime, deserve and shall receive the lasting 
 censure and condemnation of this community. 
 
 " Resolved, That in our opinion, it is the imperative duty of the Grand Jury of 
 this county to indict the Mayor, Recorder, and the Sheriff of this city, for order- 
 ing the mihtary to fire on the citizens, during the disastrous and bloody tragedy 
 of last night, 
 
115 
 
 " Resolved, That we mingle our tears and lamentations with the mourning 
 friends and relatives of the men, women, and children, who have fallen victims to 
 the pride, tyranny, and inhumanity of those, who, " dressed in a little brief au- 
 thority," have shown a higher regard for the applause of those who courted a fatal 
 issue than for the lives of their fellow-citizens. 
 
 "Resolved, That we will attend the funerals of our murdered fellow-citi- 
 zens. 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee be appointed by the Chairman, to take testimony 
 in relation to the lamentable affair of last night, for the purpose of presenting it 
 to the proper authorities, and our fellow-citizens. 
 
 ♦' Resolved, That we owe it to ourselves, to the high character of our city, to 
 the genius of our institutions, to the vindication of a large body of our fellow- 
 citizens from the opprobrious and unfounded .charges made against them, to prove 
 to our and their revilers that we respect the rights of others, are neither destruc- 
 tives nor law breakers, and, therefore, vdll not counsel orjcountenance the destruc- 
 tion of life or property. 
 
 " Resolved, That while we are opposed to all violence, in theatres, or else- 
 where, we still insist that citizens have a perfect and indisputable right to express 
 their approbation or disapprobation in all places of public amusement ; and we 
 regard the arrest and imprisonment of persons last night, for merely expressing 
 their opinion in the Opera House, as only surpassed in atrocity by the outrage 
 perpetrated outside among the people." 
 
 In concluding this work, the painful reflection is forced upon us, that 
 the causes which led to the deplorable results of magisterial,inefficiency 
 and wickedness, lie deeper than those presented on the surface of the 
 controversy between Mr. Forrest and Mr. Macready ; they are to be 
 found in our social system ; in the presumption and arrogance of a 
 class ; in the servile and disgusting imitation by the wealthy few of 
 the habits and customs of European, and particularly British, aristocrats. 
 This, of course, will be denied by the persons for whom those remarks 
 are intended ; but turn which way we will, on every hand are the 
 evidences of a gradual approach to those odious distinctions which the 
 rich have always been prone to establish between themselves and the 
 poor. The tradesman looks down upon the mechanic ; the merchant 
 assumes superiority over both ; the lawyer claims more honor and dis- 
 tinction than his less fortunate, but equally honest fellow citizen ; the 
 clergyman, in his own estimation, stands infinitely above them all; 
 and so these lines are drawn until insuperable social barriers have been 
 erected between the rich and the poor. Even the house of God — 
 in which the word of Eternal Truth should sound in the ears of the 
 poor and distressed — has been converted into a temple adorned by the 
 worshippers of Mammon, and its doors are closed to all but the proud 
 and wealthy of the land. Those stately structures that rise up annu- 
 ally in our midst, and are called ornaments to the city, are but monu- 
 ments erected to the vanity of men, and in too many instances owe 
 their existence to the avarice and rapacity of their builders. The 
 laborer and producer who looks upon the palace of the non-producer, 
 and the gorgeous churches of the aristocracy, knows that from his toil 
 has been wrung the wealth thus expended : he knows, too, that the 
 proud dwellers in marble mansions are not superior to himself j that 
 
116 
 
 he is, at least, in the eye of the law, their equal, and if he resists -their 
 encroachments upon the few rights left him, he only asserts his man- 
 hood, and maintains the principle of equality upon which the whole 
 fabric of this government is based. 
 
 The theatre, even, is not exempt from aristocratic rule. The Opera 
 House in this city was intended for the exclusive use of those only who 
 could afford to pay high prices for admission, and dress in a peculiar 
 style. But it will be asked : have not people a perfect right to estab- 
 lish a theatre and fix such a rate of prices as they see fit, and require 
 persons to dress in a certain fashion 1 We answer emphatically, 710. 
 In this country to do so would be an outrage on the feelings and rights 
 of a vast majority of the people. To say to the laboring man you must 
 a,ppear in the Opera House in a black dress coat, white vest, white 
 cravat, and white kids, would be equivalent to telling him he should 
 not enter it at all, unless he was willing to submit to the sneers and 
 ridicule of brainless fops and perfumed apologies for women. Any at- 
 tempt to widen the distinction now existing between the rich and the 
 poor by introducing a peculiar style of dress, and setting apart certain 
 portions of a theatre for each class, will, hereafter, meet with the most 
 decided hostility of the masses of the people, and our civil rulers will 
 scarcely dare ever again to call the military to the support of the aris- 
 tocracy in such a case. 
 
 If there had been a " row" at the Bowery or the National Theatres, 
 does any one believe that the manager of either house could have ob- 
 tained military protection 1 We remember several " rows" having 
 taken place at the former house, and even the police did not interfere ; 
 and it is but a short time since the manager of that theatre applied for 
 aid to the police, which was denied, and the only satisfaction he could 
 get was the reply : — "Oh, the boys ivill have their /?ot.'" But the 
 manager of the Astor Place Opera House caters for the wealthy and 
 refined " upper ten," and he and they must he protected at any and all 
 hazard! What right has the ship builder, the' carpentei', the mason, 
 and the blacksmith, residing east of Broadway, to ask for municipal pro- 
 tection ? They are of the " rabble," the " lower order," and fit only to 
 be shot down for the amusement of the habitues of Union Square and 
 the aristocratic " places" at the " West End." 
 
 Mr. Smith can be hissed, with impunity, from the Bowery stage, 
 because he refused to dance with a certain lady, but wo unto the 
 wretch who dares to hiss an Englishman from the stage of the Astor 
 Place Opera House ! In the one case, not even a police officer will in- 
 terfere — in the other, the Mayor attends in person, (only to run 
 away, however,) sage Judges leave the Bench, the Chief of Police 
 takes possession of the theatre and a stable near by, the Sheriff and 
 his regular and special deputies are alert. Generals in disguise, on foot 
 a.nd on horseback, and Fourth of July soldiers, rush to the scene of 
 
117 
 
 action, and the next morning the wailiugs of sorrow are heard over the 
 forms of murdered men, women, and children, not one of whom was 
 a criminal ! And this is called law and justice ! — a vindication of na- 
 tional honor — a triumph over the rabble., and an assurance to the world 
 that we have a strong government. 
 
 As usual in cases like this, the pulpit has produced a defender of 
 tyranny and bloodshed. The Rev. Henry W. Bellows, pastor of the 
 Divine Unity, has given to the world — or his congregation, which is the 
 same to him — his views upon this subject, the character of which will 
 be apparent from the following extract from his sermon : 
 
 " If the occasion for vindicating the law had not arisen now, it must have done 
 so upon another occasion ; and really, the only thing to be deeply regretted is, 
 that the flight of the object of popular violence and prejudice should seem to leave 
 any appearance of victory with the rioters. Though he had been the meanest of 
 his kind, he should have been protected here to the conclusion of his announced 
 engagement, if an army of ten thousand men had been required to wait upon 
 his movements, and a ship of loar chartered to carry him to his native land. 
 We have done something to vindicate order and law ; we ought to have done 
 3I0KE ! What a, lesson have we not received in regard to the nature of a popu- 
 lar and free government !" 
 
 The Rev. Henry W. Bellows preaches in one of the temples we have 
 describedj and receives for his services a munificent salary, which will 
 probably be increased to reward him for his advocacy of military power. 
 There is something fiendish in the regret he expresses that Mr. Ma- 
 cready fled from the city, and something worse than fiendish in his 
 exclamation : — we ought to have done more. This man of God — 
 this anoii;ited and sanctified representative of the meek and lowly 
 Saviour of men — this smooth-faced and well-paid preacher of peace 
 and good will among men — this creature whose lips teach us to return 
 good for evil, but whose heart is full of worldly pride and wickedness — 
 regrets that an insolent English actor did not remain here to brave 
 public opinion until thousands, perhaps, of innocent men were murdered 
 to satiate the appetites of monsters in the human form. If a minister 
 of the Gospel could give utterance to such sentiments, what must have 
 been the feelings of others who agreed with him in supporting the city 
 authorities, but were not restrained or controlled by a religious educa- 
 tion 1 The Rev. Henry W. Belloxos is the oracle of a large class in this 
 community, and the extract from his sermon will enlighten us as to the 
 way they would exercise power if they possessed it. It is not long 
 since he visited England, and we doubt not he secured the good will 
 of the aristocracy there by his sycophancy, and the perfect harmony of 
 his own mind with theirs. The fact that he, just before the Regiment 
 of New York Volunteers sailed for Mexico, made a prayer at a public 
 dinner given at the Astor House, in which he calledupon the Almighty 
 to bring discomfiture, disaster, and defeat upon our armies, ought to 
 satisfy the reader what sort of a patriot he is, and how much value 
 ought to be set upon his prayers and sermons. If the Almighty heard 
 
118 
 
 he did not heed his prayer, and the sermon quoted from will only serve to 
 place him among those whose names go down to posterity covered with 
 infamy. 
 
 We have said that this was a contest between castes., and it was ; but 
 it has also been made political. The Whig press of the country, almost 
 without an exception, justified the authorities, and denounced all who 
 censured them as " Loco Focos." 
 
 Among the daily papers of this city, hut two — the Herald, neutral, 
 and the True Sun, Democratic — took the side of the people. Every 
 Whig journal here was loud in its praises of the civil and military 
 authorities ; and at first aimed their attacks at Mr. Forrest, knowing 
 him to be a Democrat, and a foeman worthy of their steel. They utterly 
 failed to fasten any improper or dishonorable act upon him, and then 
 contented themselves in heaping abuse upon " Loco Focos." 
 
 It must be said, however, that in other sections of the country, jus- 
 tice and patriotism triumphed over partizan prejudices. The Whigs 
 are not all aristocrats, nor do they all sympathise with the English 
 against Americans. The Democratic press was as unanimously on the 
 side of the people as the Whig press was against them. Among the 
 Editors who deserve praise for their manly and independent course on 
 this subject. Colonel Forney, of the Pennsylvanian, -who was here at 
 the time, deserves especial mention : his able letters and articles have 
 done much to enlighten his readers as to the real causes of the tragic 
 events of the 10th of May, and have removed the prejudices enter- 
 tained by many against Mr. Forrest. 
 
 But, perhaps we should not be much surprised at the tone ©f certain 
 portions of the press, when we have seen some of the highest judicial 
 officers in the State identifying themselves with an aristocratic clique 
 — the Attorney General, Ambrose L. Jordan, signing the card of invi- 
 tation to Macready — a Judge of the Supreme Court, John W. Edmonds, 
 taking an active part in the theatre, and afterwards holding a " Star 
 Chamber' examination to compel witnesses to testify against them- 
 selves — and the District Attorney, John McKeon, exhibiting a bitterness 
 of hostility to persons accused totally ihcompatible with the political 
 creed he professes, and disgraceful to the position he holds. It is some 
 comfort to know that public opinion can reach those men. 
 
 The author will not institute a comparison between the two political 
 parties of the country, nor attempt to shew that the Whig party is 
 constitutionally opposed to the exercise by the people of their rights, 
 nor that it always has been the advocate of a strong government, 
 meaning, thereby, a government stronger than society, lest he should 
 be accused of entertaining partizan prejudices, and desiring to enlist 
 them in behalf of the views herein expressed. He is satisfied that the 
 calm and dispassionate judgment of the people will do justice to this 
 case, and to that judgment he leaves it. 
 
119 
 
 That national antipathies have had much to do in producing the 
 quarrel between Mr. Forrest and Mr. Macready, and the deplorable 
 consequences that followed it, cannot be denied, and it has been clearly 
 proven that Mr. Forrest was not the aggressor ; h(j bore patiently all 
 that man could bear, and his assailant must to t;ie latest day of his 
 life be harrowed with the reflection that his insolence and arrogance 
 sent twenty-five persons to premature graves, and forced him to flee 
 from a land that always welcomed him with open arms. 
 
 National jealousy is a passion that we cannot cherish, but this sub- 
 serviency to English arrogance, so prevalent in certain circles, deserves 
 the censure of every true-hearted American. England hates because 
 she fears the young giant of the West, and she knows that the easiest way 
 to rob him of his strength, is to accustom him to the luxury and artifi- 
 cial existence that has made her so weak in her old age ; therefore, it 
 ought to be the religious duty of every republican to frown upon and 
 oppose every attempt that is made to introduce the habits-and customs 
 of an aristocracy among us. To-day our citizens are shot down because 
 they vrill not hear an insolent English actor — to-morrow they may be 
 shot down if they do not receive the English Church. Nations always 
 lose their liberties by degrees — never all at once — and the very first 
 attack should be resisted, no matter how apparently unimportant the 
 right sought to be wrested from them. 
 
 The author, aware that he can claim no merit as a writer, a& "ily 
 the acknowledgment from the reader that this history contains all the 
 evidence on both sides of the controversy, and from that each beader 
 can judge for himself whether or not the inferences, deductio'as, and 
 arguments of the author are just, reasonable, and sound. If he has 
 contributed anything towards vindicating the fame and good name of 
 one of whom Americans may well be proud, his reward will bi ample. 
 That he has done so, he feels assured, and that his countrymen who 
 have been led into error will embrace the truth when it is presented, 
 he cannot for a moment doubt ; and he is equally certain that in due 
 time justice will be meted out to those who now, in the pride of power, 
 fancy themselves secure from the punishment that always follows ty- 
 rants. In the language of the poet : 
 
 " It often falls in course of common life, 
 That right long time is overborne of wrong, 
 Throngh avEirice of power, or guile, or strife, 
 That weakens her and makes her party strong ; 
 But justice, tho' her doom she do prolong, 
 Yet, at the last, she will her own cause right." 
 
 fSpenser's Faery Queen,