"SIR,--In reply to Mr. Hermann Vezin's letter, which appears in your issue of to-day, may I be allowed to make a few remarks? He says that on the first night 'some one started a hiss, which soon grew into a storm,' &c., and he continues to say, 'it is to be presumed that this opposition came from professing orthodox Christian people. On the third night the Marquis of Queensberry, a professed Freethinker, rose in his stall, and loudly protested against what he considered a caricature of his own sect.' Not a caricature against my own sect, Sir, which is Secularism, but against an infamous libel to the whole body of people who have been designated by that name of Freethinkers. Mr. Hermann Vezin says, here we have a curious spectacle of the most outspoken opposition from both extremes, and that neither party has quite caught Mr. Tennyson's meaning. Whether two separate parties spoke (or only one, as I expect is the case) it would be as well if Mr. Tennyson himself would explain what his meaning is; for, coming so soon after the poem, which he issued to the public a short time ago, entitled 'Despair,' we Freethinkers can have but one opinion as to what his meaning is, and that is to caricature and to misrepresent what the outcome of freethought has led to in its secession from orthodoxy. My object the other night in causing an 'interruption' at the theatre was not only to make a public protest against the supposed sentiments of a Freethinker (on marriage), but to attract public attention to that protest, and I consider that the end justified the means, considering the difficulty that we have in getting a hearing from those who oppose us, and not only who oppose us, but who misrepresent us. Freethinkers may not be satisfied with the present marriage law--as I explained the other day in my letter to the _Daily News_--but that is no reason that they should not respect marriage, and we cannot be attacked on a more tender point, from the very delicacy there is to speak on the subject.--Yours faithfully, "QUEENSBERRY. "45, Half Moon-street, Piccadilly, November 20, 1882." This led to a discussion in the newspapers on Tennyson's muddled metaphysics and absurd theories; public curiosity was thus aroused, and the management was enabled to run the play much longer than could have been expected from its original reception. _Punch_ (November 25, 1882) had a long and elaborate criticism of the play, giving a humorous analysis of the plot. The opening and closing paragraphs are much to the point, especially as they include two amusing parodies. NEITHER RHYME NOR REASON; _Or, Promise of May, and Performance of November at the Globe._