There waits Master Gaussen; he has seized the chaplain and the boat's crew, and is just about to murder the man in the cloak, when-- NORMAN rushes in and cuts him down, much to the surprise of Miss, for she never suspected it was sly Ashdale who had come, as we have seen, disguised, and very nearly paid for his masquerading. Ashdale is very grateful; but, when Norman persists in marrying Violet, he says--no, he shan't. He shall fight; he is a coward if he doesn't fight. Norman flings down his sword, and says he WON'T fight; and-- Lady Arundel, who has been at prayers all this time, rushing in, says, “Hold! this is your brother, Percy--your elder brother!” Here is some restiveness on Ashdale's part, but he finishes by embracing his brother. Norman burns all the papers; vows he will never peach; reconciles himself with his mother; says he will go loser; but, having ordered his ship to “veer” round to the chapel, orders it to veer back again, for he will pass the honeymoon at Arundel Castle. As you have been pleased to ask my opinion, it strikes me that there are one or two very good notions in this plot. But the author does not fail, as he would modestly have us believe, from ignorance of stage-business; he seems to know too much, rather than too little, about the stage; to be too anxious to cram in effects, incidents, perplexities. There is the perplexity concerning Ashdale's murder, and Norman's murder, and the priest's murder, and the page's murder, and Gaussen's murder. There is the perplexity about the papers, and that about the hat and cloak, (a silly, foolish obstacle,) which only tantalize the spectator, and retard the march of the drama's action: it is as if the author had said, “I must have a new incident in every act, I must keep tickling the spectator perpetually, and never let him off until the fall of the curtain.” The same disagreeable bustle and petty complication of intrigue you may remark in the author's drama of “Richelieu.” “The Lady of Lyons” was a much simpler and better wrought plot; the incidents following each other either not too swiftly or startlingly. In “Richelieu,” it always seemed to me as if one heard doors perpetually clapping and banging; one was puzzled to follow the train of conversation, in the midst of the perpetual small noises that distracted one right and left.