friends as much in adversity as when I shared their hospitality in their prosperity. I am sorry my conduct has been misconstrued, as the inference is unworthy of yourself, me, and a being, whose conduct, I am sure, is unimpeachable. To remove all doubts upon the subject, and to counteract the effects of insidious men, I shall beg leave to withdraw a friendship, rendered unworthy by suspicion. I must be the worst of villains, if I could take that man by the hand while meditating towards him an act of injustice. You do not know me, Cox; mine are follies-not vices. It has been my text to do all the good I could in the world; and when I am called to a superior bourne, my memory may be blamed, but not despised. Wishing you and your family every blessing the world can give you, believe me nothing less than Yours, most sincerely, EDMUND KEAN. R. A. Cox, Esq. 6, Wellington Street, Waterloo Bridge, London. On one occasion Mr Kean, in advising caution to Mrs Cox, tells her, "that if the goods were not found upon the thief, there was no convic tion," which remark caused much laughter among the lawyers in the court; and the artful hypocrisy of these letters was not spared by Mr Denman in his comments. All the correspondence was carried on in fictitious names, and an aunt of Mr Kean's was chiefly employed as receiver of the letters; but his handwriting was proved to them all. Mr Scarlett made a merit in his client of not producing the lady's letters to him; and certainly the Court was obliged to him for sparing it the pain of hearing half the mass of this filthy correspondence. If the stage can be disgraced by the ill conduct of its professors, the records of the Court of King's Bench, on two recent occasions, will afford sufficient condemnation of the morality of the two metropolitan theatres. Some of the letters from Mr Kean to Mrs Cox are of a most vulgar and indecent description. These, of course, we leave in the obscurity they deserve. But there are others which are merely absurd, and two of these we shall indulge public curiosity by giving, a June 19, damned town, (Post-mark,) Bath, June 20, 1822. My little darling Love,-I am in such vortex of perplexities and mortifications, that I can scarcely collect my thoughts sufficiently to thank you for your letter, and to tell you how much I love you. It is now, my dearest girl, I wish for you; now that I am suffering under the most painful sensations of wounded pride, and the evident dupe of determined scoundrels, my mind, boiling with rage and grief, wants now my own dear darlingmy love, to condole with; my fevered head wants rest in the bosom of my Charlotte. Indignation, resentment, and all the passions of the furies, guide my hand while I tell you, that in this infernal city, where I was a few years since the idol of the people, my endeavours are totally failing. I have not yet acted one night to the expenses. Come to me, darYou must put off Tidswell; the carriage ling, come to me, or I shall go mad. will not hold us all. If I should ever return to London, I will give her a jaunt to some of the environs; but if my provincial career is followed up by this ter rible sample, heaven or hell must open for me. I bore my elevation with philosophy; I feel I cannot long submit to the opposite. Meet me as soon as possible at will permit; and believe me, dearest girl, Birmingham, that is, as soon as safety that I love you to distraction, and in heart!!!-I am, solely yours for ever, ever, ever, ever. Mrs Alleyn, care of Miss Tidswell, 12, Tavistock-Row, Covent-Garden, London. (Post-paid.) by the same imaginary atonement. That I may have been mad enough to wound those feelings (whose delights are my enjoyments) is probable that I intended to do so is impossible. I am sure my little darling must feel that nothing in this world or the next is prized beyond her-that my advice is not intended for reproof-that though I may have suddenly repelled those tears, there was not one that did not drop into my heart. My dear, dear, dear, dear, dear little love! If I have been wrong, forgive me, my dear, dear, dear, dear love! If I was right, be cautious, but be assured I love you, almost to madness. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jan. 31. Sittings in Hilary Term for the City of London, before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury. MILITARY ASSAULT AND FALSE M'INTIRE, V. LAYARD. Mr Brougham stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff had been quarter-master-serjeant in the 10th regiment of foot, which was in 1819 stationed at Malta. The defendant was major-general of the same regiment, and at that time was governor in the absence of Sir Thomas Maitland. The plaintiff had held the highest character for correctness in all the duties of his station. But there had been serious complaints by the troops, of being supplied with bad pork; but whatever delinquency there had been of this kind, it had been that of another person, who was allowed to sell out all his commissions, and, what was most extraordinary, to retire on the rank of brevet-colonel. The plaintiff was tried by a court-martial, and found guilty of having neglected to examine the pork, or submit it to examination after he had received it from the com missary. He was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks; and he was so reduced. But after he had been thus sentenced, General Layard, who acted as governor, thought proper to have the plaintiff arrested, thrown into the provost prison, and there confined from the 1st of July to the 5th of October. For some days no person was allow to see him, and during the whole of the time, his wife was not suffered to see him or converse with him, without the presence of the jailer, who placed himself between them. The cell was a narrow, low, dark hole, without window or opening for light or air. The consequence was a fever, which had nearly proved fatal.-The Learned Gentleman then called witnesses to prove the facts. The evidence of Colonel Rate was read, from which it appeared, that General Layard had ordered the arrest and imprisonment, and that the reason was, to prevent any communication between M'Intire and Major Trickey, who were believed to have conspired in the issue of the pork from the stores. Major Trickey resigned rather than stand a courtmartial. The Attorney-General addressed the Jury. The case was defended by the Treasury, because General Layard, who had served for many years in Spain and various other places, was now absent on the public service; but if any one supposed that, should damages be given, the Treasury would pay it, he was greatly mistaken. The plaintiff's character had been good, and therefore he had been promoted; but he lent himself probably to the temptations of Major Trickey. It was not because Major Trickey was superior in com mand that a fraudulent collusion could be justified. The plaintiff had made an over issue of beef without authority, and he had also withdrawn beef and substituted unwholesome pork. This was done in absence of the officer whose duty it was to inspect the provisions. They could not suppose that M'Intire did not derive advantage from this fraud. The men had naturally become more outrageous at finding this unwholesome food. The plaintiff was found guilty and degraded. When the defendant arrived from Cephalonia, he found the men still dissatisfied. A court of inquiry was instituted, and the result was, a determination to bring Major Trickey to a court-martial. Major Trickey was a man of influence. He was put under arrest. There were strong apprehensions that M'Intire would be tampered with, and in order to prevent that, he was put under confinement. Even in this country, there were some instances of witnesses being thus confined, where tampering was apprehended, he did not say whether lawfully or not. The plaintiff was treated, during his confinement, with all the lenity consistent with the object. The Lord Chief Justice summed up. The circumstance of the Treasury paying, or not paying the damages, was not material for their consideration. The estimate of damages would be the result of calm consideration. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages L.200. COURT OF SESSION-SECOND DIVISION.-Tuesday, Feb. 22. SUSPENSION AND INTERDICT. Mrs H. Siddons v. Mr Corbet Ryder. The case of Mrs Henry Siddons, of the Theatre-Royal, against Mr C. Ryder, of the Caledonian Theatre, came to be pleaded in the Second Division. The statement in the bill of suspension appeared to be substantially this:-That it is unlawful to exhibit entertainments of the stage without letters patent or license; that the suspender holds a patent for such entertainments;-that the respondent holds no patent or license; that he, notwithstanding, exhibits entertainments of the stage;-that he is, therefore, acting illegally; and that the suspender, as possessed of the legal right, is entitled to stop him. In answer to this, the respondent observed, generally, 1st, That the suspender holds no sufficient right to the patent on which she founds; and, therefore, is not entitled to plead upon it. 2d, That, although she held such right, no exclusive privilege is carried by the patent; and it, therefore, affords no right for challenging. The act of 10th Geo. II. on which the suspender founds, contains no prohibition against the performance of plays. It merely enacts, that if they are performed, certain penalties shall attach; and it is, therefore, inept and incompetent to proceed by suspension and interdict. 3d, That the suspender's premises are not supported by the fact, because the respondent does not exhibit such performances as, according to universal practice and understanding, fall under the description of entertainments of the stage, in the sense of the said act of 10th Geo. II. cap. 28. 4th, That the question of interdict is a res judicata. Mr Cockburn, for the suspender, the very threshold with an objection stated, that the suspender was met at to her title. The patent was granted to the late Duke of Buccleuch, acted at this very theatre under the designation of the Battle of Bosworth. With respect to the minor theatres, they are all either licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, or by the justices by tolerance that never would be recognised as legal. When this theatre was first got up, it was used as a circus, in which rope-dancing and other entertainments of a similar kind were performed. It has no license from the Chamberlain, nor from any Justice of Peace, nor any one else; and it is, therefore, a place in which entertainments of the stage cannot be acted." and the late Viscount Melville, by whom it was assigned to certain assignees, who subsequently conveyed the right to the suspender, for the period of five years. The respondent seemed to contend, that that assig--and even in these, much was done nation was limited to five years only, but in this he was mistaken. Even though the objection was originally good, it must fall to the ground when the assignees consent, and all parties from whom the suspender derives her right, concur in her procedure. The act of Parliament declares it to be criminal to act for hire any tragedy, &c., or any part thereof. The argument of the suspender is, that in this theatre the same plays are acted with Mr Moncrieff, for the respondent, the same words and exactly the said the bill of suspension contained same scenes, as acted at the Theatre a conclusion for an interdict against Royal. The respondent named his all representation whatever. The dehouse a minor theatre-to that the mand was made under very peculiar suspender has no great objection-it circumstances; for it was matter of was of what was acted in it she com- notoriety, that for about thirty years plained." The whole of Shaks- this theatre had been occupied as a peare's plays are acted at this theatre, place of public entertainment; and with only this difference, that they for the last nine years, performances are divided into three acts, and de- of a similar description to those now nominated melo-dramas. The trage complained of, had been exhibited in dy of Richard III. is called the Bat- that very house without interference. tle of Bosworthfield; and Richard His first objection was, that the sus never appears without the accompa- pender had no title to complain, and niment of a flourish of fiddles, there she had not shown the fact to be fore the tragedy is said to be melo- otherwise. So conscious was she of dramatised. Your Lordships are the defective nature of her title, that quite certain that a mere change of she brought forward the acquiescence name cannot evade the statute. Me- of a number of other persons, with lo-drama is just a modern name for whom the respondent had nothing to a dramatic performance. Thus, if do. From the very nature of her paHamlet is made to sing a song, and tent, she had no title to complain; the tragedy comprised into three acts, and to make out her case, she foundit is a melo-drama. A burletta, ac- ed on the 10th of Geo. II. She thus cording to the same rule, is a musical founded on a positive statute, which farce, therefore the Beggar's Opera must be interpreted strictly. That was called a musical burletta. So, statute prohibits the representation by merely altering the names, it is of entertainments of the stage "withconsidered quite lawful to perform out authority by letters patent from those pieces which could not be per- his Majesty's Chamberlain," &c. Acformed under their real names. In cording to that statute, she was enpoint of fact, Richard III. has been titled to go before the Justices, and complain by information; but instead of following that course, she comes and demands an interdict. So, because she had herself obtained a license, she conceived she has acquired an exclusive privilege in her favour. Though her license gave her the right of acting, did it give her a title to apply for an interdict, and prevent such things being done by others? The suspender might proceed against the respondent for a penalty, but not for an interdict. In London, the fact was notorious, that performances at the minor theatres had always been considered as lawful which did not call for interference of the police magistrate. By the 25th Geo. II., which relates to places kept for public dancing, music, &c., all entertainments of that kind, for twenty miles round London, without a Justice's license, were deemed disorderly, and subjected to certain penalties. This was a statute which prevented the acting of melo-dramas and burlettas within twenty miles of London and Westminster, without a license from the Justices; but if a license was granted, every melodrama was acted, and all those complained of in this bill, without interruption. With respect to the minor theatres, the 10th Geo. II. was in operative, melo-dramas and burlettas being there represented under authority, not that, however, of the Lord Chamberlain, acting on the 10th of Geo. II.-but of the Justices, by the 25th of Geo. II., which protects them, and they are not subject to any other statute. It is plain that the 10th Geo. II. did not apply to melo-dramas, nor did the 25th Geo. II. apply here. In a recent case, (and it was very curious that it happened to be one of the pieces upon which the present bill was founded,) that of Elliston v. Glosset, the proprietor of the Cobourg Theatre, the attempt was the same as here. A piece, entitled Therese, or the Orphan of Geneva, was performed at Drury Lane, licensed, of course, by the Lord Chamberlain; notwithstanding, the same piece was avowedly performed at the Cobourg. Mr Elliston complained in the Court of Chancery, and applied for an injunction. It was granted, in the first instance; but when the case came to be argued, the Lord Chancellor dissolved the injunction. In the case of the King v. Glosset, who was said to have acted Richard III. the complaint was for penalties, and L.50 was recovered. In that case, the merits of the question were not decided. The respondent is said to have acted Richard III. That he denies.-He merely performed a melo-drama relating to the scenes and some of the historical facts contained in that tragedy. If an interdict was granted, it would be ruinous to the respondent, who had taken a lease of the theatre on the faith of established practice, and engaged performers, all of whom would be thrown adrift. Lord Alloway said, that as the case was new, and most of the decisions referred to English, he was not prepared to give his opinion, and wished that the farther consideration of the question should be delayed till Thursday. This proposition having been approved of, the case was adjourned accordingly. Thursday, February 24. Mr Moncrieff gave in a minute as to the state of fact of possession. From 1789 to 1801, the Caledonian Theatre was constructed with a stage and movable scenery; it was then converted into concert rooms. In 1816 it was reconverted into its original form; and since that period, melo-drama and burletta had been acted. In 1818, two applications for |