pit, "attended by some noisy set." He would see the cold stare, and shrugs of contempt, and actually hear his remarks, and his loud laugh at some fine burst in Lear. When all the house was in fits at Drugger, Fitzpatrick's face and his companions', composed to a stony gravity, must have had a damping effect on the actor. This was a serious matter, for the critics of the pit were known and watched, and there were groundlings enough in the house to be influenced by such behaviour. As a matter of course, Fitzpatrick found coadjutors among Garrick's own treacherous dependants. There was a certain haberdasher in Cheapside, one of his green-room followers, who would come to sympathise with him, and consult as to what was to be done, and then repair straight to Fitzpatrick with fresh hints and information, for a new onslaught. Garrick soon found out this double dealing, and chasséd him promptly. The crowd presently began to discover that the person of the great Roscius was no longer sacred, and this never-flagging series of criticisms began to raise up at the coffee-houses and other places a train of little pretenders, who found an agreeable occupation, and some claim to consideration, in detecting his faults. The paper which was chosen for these attacks was "The Craftsman," in whose columns now appeared the most vindictive and malignant criticisms on Garrick's acting and manner. These were signed "X. Y. Z.," and soon attracted attention from their perseverance. Later these worthless criticisms were gathered up into a pamphlet, which was called "An Inquiry into the Merits of a Certain Popular Performer; with an introduction to David Garrick, Esq.," and was then known to be written by Fitzpatrick. The Nothing more offensive could be conceived. They dealt with his age, voice, figure, and manner. abuse was carried so far as to say that "he never did, or never could, speak ten successive lines of Shakspeare with grammatical propriety." Copies of this production were sent round diligently, to all Garrick's friends. . Sensitive as the great actor always was to such discussion of his failings, he was never slow, when once roused, to meet an enemy with all arms. His rather incorrigible taste for facetious rhyming led him to think of a tempting retaliation. The result was "The Fribbleriad," a lively and personal description of his enemy, which was largely sold, and made the town laugh. Fitzpatrick offered tempting openings for ridicule. His face, pale and wan, spoke of an effeminacy almost ridiculous; he had the mincing air and gait of all the beaux of the town. And the frontispiece, an absurd caricature, meant for a portrait, of a bowing and posturing "maccaroni," as grotesque as one of Callot's figures, was significant of the entertainment within. The portrait was introduced with a motto "Vir, femina, neutrum," the text which was to supply Churchill with the hint of his far more deadly satire. In his preface, too, the author quoted a little epigram from the "Ledger," but which has the mark of his own touch: VOL. II. "TO X. Y. Z. "Indeed, most severely poor Garrick you handle, D In the plot of the little poem is worked out a sort of discussion embodying the motto "The creature's male, say all we can It must be something like a man. What of that wriggling, fribbling race, Whose rancour knows nor bounds nor measure, This is something in the key of Churchill, and it does not seem improbable that it had been submitted to the satirist. There is a compliment to the open, courageous fashion in which he dealt his blows, as compared with the Fribbles, who pricked with their needles in the dark: "With colours flying, beat of drum- Unmasked his face, but armed his hands, This holds a pen and that a club. 'Mine is the Rosciad-mine,' he cries; But the great satirist was not merely to figure in this harmless shape; for in the preface was an alarming announcement, that the task of exhibiting Fribble in his proper colours was not to be completed there. "A much abler hand" was very soon "to expose and detect his designs." Not a few guessed that this heralded Churchill. The poem described a sort of conventicle held on Hampstead Hill, with Fitzgig in the chair, and attended by Lord Trip, Phil. Whiffle, Captain Pattipan, and Sir Cock-a-doodle, to devise means for annoying the great actor. The others propose various schemes; but Fitzgig's system of libels is adopted : "Their malice wakes in X. Y. Z. And now bursts forth their treasured gall, There were some touches about "our stage hero," and praises of "Roscius," more implied than expressed, put in to divert suspicion, which later gave him some qualms. Yet these seemed almost unavoidable from the subject and treatment. "I never in my life," he wrote, a few years later, "praised myself knowingly, except a little matter in 'The Fribbleriad,’ which always pinched me." Warburton was delighted with "The Fribbleriad." He thought it excellent in its fable, its sentiment, and wit. He had his own Fribbles to plague him, and could think of Pope, who had called the "Cock Fribble" of his day, a gilded bug. There This satirical personality affected Fitzpatrick keenly. He made no protest just then, but presently found an opportunity for revenge, and had the satisfaction of obtaining a public victory over his enemy in his enemy's own theatre. An opening soon came. can be no doubt there was great dissatisfaction abroad at the late changes. To this feeling, in part, must be set down the attack that was made on the first novelty of the season, produced before Christmas -Mallet's "Elvira."* * Murphy puts it after the riots of the next year, and in a diverting attempt to be exact, says: “As soon as the damages done to his theatre had been repaired, he brought it forward.” A pleasant story, at the expense of the manager, accounted for the acceptance of this extraordinary play. The author was supposed to be busy with an important life of the great Duke of Marlborough, for which the duchess had left a sum of a thousand pounds. On this retainer, very handsome in those days of hackwriting, Mallet for many years assumed airs of importance, gave out periodical reports of his progress, and excited a sort of expectation. Having a dull play by him, he laid an artful trap to secure its acceptance, and waited on Garrick to tell him, that he "had contrived a niche for him in his work."* The manager's eyes sparkled with pleasure. But how could he be appropriately brought into the history of the great duke. "That's my business, my dear friend," was the other's reply. "I tell you I have done it." "Well, faith, you have the art of surprising your friends, in the most unexpected and the politest manner; but why won't you now, who are so well qualified, write something for the stage. You should relax. Interpone tuis-ha! you know! for I am sure the theatre is a mere matter of diversion to you." The other at once took his tragedy from his pocket. It was a most absurd piece.† During one of the many The effrontery of this class of adventurer is amusing. Only a short time before his "Eurydice " had been brought out, and though well played by Garrick and Cibber-had been an utter failure. The author sat in the orchestra, and loudly "bestowed his execrations on the players," on whom he laid the blame of this fiasco. A very diverting criticism on this piece was published in a sixpenny pamphlet. Almost every scene, it said, was an interview and a tête-à-tête. "The king wants to see his son, the queen wants to see Elvira, Elvira wants to see the king--all the thoughts were poor and stolen. Dryden said that Ben Jonson was everywhere to be traced in the snow of the ancients; we may say that Malloch is everywhere to be traced in the puddle of the moderns. Instead of selecting beauties, he has everywhere picked out what is despicable; like a pickpocket who dives for handkerchiefs, not for gold, and |