For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time.  You see, my lord chief baron[18] has delivered his opinion, that the play was frequently acted and applauded; but you of the jury have found Ignoramus, on the wit and the success of it.  Oates, Dugdale and Turberville, never disagreed more than you do; let us know at last, which of the witnesses are true Protestants, and which are Irish[19].  But it seems your authors had contrary designs:  Mr Hunt thought fit to say, “it was frequently acted and applauded, because,” says he, “it was intended to provoke the rabble into tumults and disorder.”  Now, if it were not seen frequently, this argument would lose somewhat of its force.  The Reflector’s business went another way; it was to be allowed no reputation, no success; but to be damned root and branch, to prevent the prejudice it might do their party:  accordingly, as much as in them lay, they have drawn a bill of exclusion for it on the stage.  But what rabble was it to provoke?  Are the audience of a play-house, which are generally persons of honour, noblemen, and ladies, or, at worst, as one of your authors calls his gallants, men of wit and pleasure about the town[20],—­are these the rabble of Mr Hunt?  I have seen a rabble at Sir Edmundbury Godfrey’s night, and have heard of such a name as true Protestant meeting-houses; but a rabble is not to be provoked, where it never comes.  Indeed, we had one in this tragedy, but it was upon the stage; and that’s the reason why your Reflectors would break the glass, which has shewed them their own faces.  The business of the theatre is to expose vice and folly; to dissuade men by examples from one, and to shame them out of the other.  And however you may pervert our good intentions, it was here particularly to reduce men to loyalty, by shewing the pernicious consequences of rebellion, and popular insurrections.  I believe no man, who loves the government, would be glad to see the rabble in such a posture, as they were represented in our play; but if the tragedy had ended on your side, the play had been a loyal witty poem; the success of it should have been recorded by immortal Og or Doeg[21], and the rabble scene should have been true Protestant, though a whig-devil were at the head of it.

In the mean time, pray, where lies the relation betwixt the “Tragedy of the Duke of Guise,” and the charter of London?  Mr Hunt has found a rare connection, for he tacks them together, by the kicking of the sheriff’s.  That chain of thought was a little ominous, for something like a kicking has succeeded the printing of his book; and the charter of London was the quarrel.  For my part, I have not law enough to state that question, much less decide it; let the charter shift for itself in Westminster-hall the government is somewhat wiser than to employ my ignorance on such a subject.  My promise to honest Nat.  Lee, was the only bribe I had, to engage me in this trouble; for which he has the good fortune