MR. IRVING urged that the Nemesis was worked out by the murderer's own conscience. MR. MEDLAM said that was all nonsense; a person's conscience could not be made visible on the stage, and here a murderer was represented as dying several years after his crime, in his own bedroom, respected by all who knew him. Did MR. IRVING intend to tell them that such a spectacle was calculated to deter an intending murderer, or did he not? That was the plain question. MR. IRVING thought that intending murderers formed so inappreciable an element in his usual audiences, that they might safely be left out of the calculation. MR. MEDLAM. But you might have an intending murderer among your audience, I suppose? MR. IRVING'S reply was not audible in the reporters' gallery. MR. PARSEEKER. I should like to hear what you have to say about duelling, MR. IRVING--I mean, is it, or is it not, a practice sanctioned by the laws of this country? MR. IRVING said that he did not quite understand the drift of such a question; but, since they asked him, he should say that duelling was distinctly illegal. MR. PARSEEKER. You will understand the drift of my question directly, MR. IRVING. I have made it my business to acquaint myself with your dramatic career, and I find that you have played as hero at various times in _Romeo and Juliet_, _Hamlet_, _The Corsican Brothers_, and _The Dead Heart_, besides _Macbeth_. Am I wrong in saying that in each of these pieces you fight a duel? MR. IRVING. No. I fight a duel in each of them, except _Macbeth_, in which there is no duel, only a hand-to-hand combat. I do commit a murder in _Macbeth_. A MEMBER. MR. IRVING'S tastes seem rather to run in the direction of murders. (_Laughter._)