genuineness of his extracts from the rude original of Shakspeare's comedy." The rarity of particular books as well as pamphlets, has been occafioned by obvious circumftances. Sometimes a fire has almoft deftroyed an unpublished work. At other times, a threat has fuppreffed an invective, or a bribe has ftifled an accufation. It were no talk of difficulty to enumerate tracts, of each of which but a single copy has been difcovered. I readily allow, and in their utmoft extent, fuch departures from the acknowledged truth of dramatick history, as are pointed out by Mr. Malonė with his accustomed accuracy and precisión. But he has not proved that those very defects might 9 I know not from what cause it has arifen, but I think I have obferved a more than common degree of inaccuracy in facts and dates relative to the ftage, as often as they become objects for the memory to exercife itfelf upon. No conclufive arguments, I am fure, can be drawn from the falfehoods or miftakes in the piece under confideration, to prove the nonexistence of it. Immediately on the death of Mr. Quin in 1766, a pamphlet was published profeffing to be an account of his Life, in which the fact of his having killed a brother actor was related; but forelated, that no one circumftance belonging to it could be depended on, except that a man was killed. Neither the time when the accident happened, the place where, the caufe of the quarrel, the progrefs of it, or even the name or identity of the perfon, were ftated agreeable to truth; and all thefe fables were impofed on the publick at a time when many people were living, who could have contradicted them from their own perfonal knowledge. To apply this to the prefent cafe fuppofe at the distance of more than a century, one fingle copy only of this Life (no improbable fuppofition) fhould remain, and after being quoted fhould be loft; the facts which it contains might be demonftrated to be untrue, but the non-existence of the work referred to, furely would not thereby be eftablished. REED. not have originated from the pamphlet fuppofed to have furnished Mr. Macklin with materials for his letter. Does it follow that the pamphleteer himself must have been qualified for his task? Might he not rather have been fome inaccurate hireling, who tacked together, for purposes now unknown, the disjointed and fallacious fcraps of literary intelligence which every theatre ufually fupplies? Let us likewife inquire, whether fuch extracts from an antiquated pamphlet as are hafily made by a perfon unskilled in argument and compofition, may not exhibit blunders and contradictions which had no place in the work from whence his notitia were derived. By injudicious retrenchments, therefore, of the intelligence Mr. Macklin adopted, and a heterogeneous mixture of his own conceptions, he may have perplexed his narrative fo effectually, that, without reference to his original document, the truths in question must escape the reach of human inquiry: Doth all the noble fubftance often dout." In juftice to Mr. Macklin and myself, I muft add, that in 1777 when he firft related the history of his loft pamphlet, he fubjoined the following remarkable circumftance, which could not well have been invented on a fudden for the purposes of deceit." The want of this publication (fays he) I do not fo much lament, as the lofs of a speech on the Habeas Corpus by Sir J. Elliot, which, (with feveral other tracts printed about the fame time,) was in the fame quarto volume."-Every collector of fugitive publications must know how ufual it is for coeval articles, however miscellaneous, to be bound together. This circumftance, in my judgement, adds no fmall probability to the narrative in which Mr. Macklin ftill perfifts; for the speech to which he alluded, must have been published in or about the very year that produced "Old Ben's Light Heart, &c. provided a pamphlet bearing that title was ever iffued from the prefs. It has been by no means my defire to controvert the fentiments of Mr. Malone, any further than was needful toward my own apology as the first republisher of Mr. Macklin's production. Mr. Malone's ingenuity in fupport of his pofition, demands an acknowledgement which is cheerfully bestowed; and yet, confidering the labour he has expended on fo flight a subject, I cannot help comparing him to one who brings a fledge hammer for the demolition of a houfe of cards. STEEVENS. |