On the occasion alluded to, Mr. Macready introduced a fancy dance into his performance of Hamlet, which I designated as a _pas de mouchoir_, 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.” I unhesitatingly pronounce this to be a wilful and unblushing 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 before I appeared upon the London boards, and continued his abuse at every opportunity afterwards. 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 unkindness.” Bah! 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 on his part wilfully to misrepresent. EDWIN FORREST.