fore cannot compete with Scotch salt herrings in the trade with Germany. Irish will be Irish. Even Irish herrings superabound with unctuous humour; your Scotch are comparatively dry.
England next came in for a little talk on the Agricultural Holdings Act, moved by Mr. Chaplin; whereon debate was, in the beginning of a speech by Mr. Duckham, adjourned.
Leave having been given to Sir E. Wilmot to bring in a Bill to incapacitate avowed Atheists from sitting in Parliament (as if total Nonconformists could be at all more reasonably excluded than any others), the House adjourned also.
Thursday (Lords). — Lord Stbatheden and Campbell, in order to enable himself to criticise speeches delivered by Mr. Gladstone in 1877, moved for returns of the killed and wounded in the late war between Russia and Turkey.
“A day too late for the fair, ” as in the old days, when fairs were institutions, the saying used to be in Arcadia, So said Lord Gran- VILLE (in other words), and asked how the Foreign Office could pos
sibly give a return of killed and wounded in a campaign which this country took no share in. How, indeed!
Lord Dunraven asked, with respect to Turkey, Greece, and the Berlin Conference, what the Government meant to do in the event of certain contingencies which might possibly occur, and might not..
Lord Granville replied that, in his ’prentice days at the Foreign Office, his master, Lord Palmerston, had taught him better than, except now and then in a very exceptional case indeed, to answer hypothetical questions. Hypothetical questions are questions that a Dundreary might be expected to ask — hardly a Dunraven.
(Commons. )—The Tay Bridge Rebuilding Bill read a Second Time, was referred to a “ hybrid ” or mule Committee.
At the end of a string of questions even more numerous than usual, the House at last got upon the order for going into Committee on the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill. A debate on an Amendment thereto, meant to limit its application, moved by
Mr. Pell, and negatived, was remarkable chiefly for comments on another Amendment down on the paper, to be moved in Committee by the Irish Attorney-General (Mr. Law), which, Mr. Parnell and Sir Stafford Nobthcote both agree, completely alters the character of the Bill; but this Mr. Fobster and Mr. Gladstone strenuously deny.
It provides that the Landlord shall he allowed to get rid of his liability by giving the Tenant permission to sell his holding. Cases in which this is done will be excepted from the Bill. Is this indeed “a change of front”? The Government says no; the Opposition and the Home-Rulers both say yes. Politicians are violently divided on the question.
Argue it out between you, Gentlemen. Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites.
If, however, a sop to the Conservatives, the (Mr. ) Law Amendment to the Ministerial measure is altogether an offence to Home- Rulers. Mr. Pabnell said it had entirely changed his view of the Bill; which, therefore, it may he presumed to have greatly ameliorated. It looks like Law combined with Justice.
Nevertheless, there was a question to be asked, and it was put by Lord Elcho: — “Is it a fact that the Marquis of Lansdowne is no
longer a Minister? ” Mr. Gladstone had to reply, “It is. ” The Opposition hoorayed.
Motion for going into Committee carried by 255 to 199. Announcement of numbers received with cheers from both sides, alike gratified —a result also truly gratifying to the genial mind.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE MAN. At the Gaiety — Adelphi — General Notes.
bserve that Chaumont as Lolotte is quite something to he seen before the star dis
appears. In this piece she first assumes the airs of a fine lady, and then, losing her temper, shows us what a Low lot she really is.
Her Madame attend Monsieur is only a sort of Lo
lotte married to a gentleman decidedly her superior, from the little we are allowed to see of him, whom she hopes to surprise at supper with his mistress. Madame is so decidedly coarse that nothing can excuse her ex
cept having been Lolotte
before marriage; and the unfortunate husband is to be pitied.
The idea of the piece is excellent, but it is not well worked out, and, when the actress only goes for a laugh, the true spirit of what might have been a very charming little comedy scene is utterly lost.
In Toto chez Tata Madame Chaumont est chez elle. As to her songs she puts too much spice into “La premiere Feuille, ” making
a winter pickle of it, all its spring freshness having departed; and for “La bonne Année” — that is about as perfect as Céléne Chaumont
can make it, which is only saying, that it is about as good as it can be.
Comparisons are odorous — and there can’t be a comparison, only a parallel, in this case — but, in a good English version of Madame attend Monsieur, or of Lolotte, wouldn’t Mrs. Bancroft in both
or Miss Nellie Farren in the latter, be on two equal parallels with the clever French actress? A copy would be impossible, and would, of course be a dismal failure; for the two characters —
Madame and Lolotte — are distinctly and peculiarly French; and similar pieces, written for Mrs. Bancroft and Miss Farren, would necessarily be distinctly and peculiarly English. Madame Chaumont could no more play Mrs. Bancroft’s characters in Robertsonʻs pieces, as the author intended them to be played, — that is, to the satisfaction of a jury of matrons and daughters, than could Mrs.
Bancroft play Chaumont’s Madame or Miss Farren the French Lolotte to the satisfaction of a Parisian audience at the Variétés, the Vaudeville, or the Palais Royal. The two ideas are totally apart. Human nature is the same, but its outward expression varies as the
nationality. The French actress would ever remain the French original of the part she had created, without detracting from the
originality of the English creation, which might he equally perfect in its own line.
La Bonne Année, however, is entirely Madame Chaumont’s pro
perty. No one, in any language, could improve on her rendering of this song; but any simple artless singer would please me more with La Premiere Feuille. Lhéritier is wonderful en galant homme,
taking his friend’s wife — the sly dog — to a baignoire, No. 4, to see that dreadful play, Le Roi Candaule.
Daubray, arriving late at the Gaiety, has nothing to do, the Menage Popincourt and L Affaire de la Rue de Lourcine having been, I am informed, “suppressed” by our Censor Morum. Rather
late in the day to wake up, after such a play as Célimare le bien aimé has been performed.
La Revue was a mistake in spite of Madame Chaumont’s five minutes’ Conférence sur le Theatre, and her song of grateful apology,
which was charmingly rendered and loudly applauded; and also, in spite of Mlle. Legault’s imitation of the gifted Sabah, and M. Pletʻs admirable imitation of Lhéritier.
Geoffroy is invariably good, rarely exaggerating, hut, as a rule, playing so naturally as to invest most farcical situations with an air of genuine probability. Lhéritier is a French Buckstone, and Hyacinthe a droll; but the public has seen them playing their own pieces in their own house, and, though delighted to welcome them at the Gaiety, is not very enthusiastic on the subject, specially after the Sabah effervescence had subsided. And then within the last
few years we have learnt something from our French friends, as it appears they have something to learn from the Dutch. We are ac
customed to first-rate ensembles, such as are to be found at the Haymarket and at the St. James’s, while the Palais Royal and Gymnase companies in their own special line would find themselves well matched — and in some instances overmatched — by the capital troupe of comedians now playing at the Criterion under the direction of Mr. Charles Wyndham. If the prolific and somewhat reckless French authors would associate themselves with English authors as collaborateurs, their pieces and their pockets would gain considerably; for most of their pieces, in which the point is un peu
vif, are really improved — most decidedly improved — for an English audience’s taste, by the freest adaptation possible.
Unfortunately we have recently seen, chez nous, that, as Mrs. Malaprop might state the proverb, “ Originality breeds contempt” — but this opens too big a subject for the present space, so, will con
tent myself by noting the fact that Mr. Dion Boucicault has
achieved a success at the Adelphi, not with a thrilling drama, hut with a melange of absurdities, called Forbidden Fruit, which is to be classed with Truth and Pink Dominoes as one of the Comedies of Cremorne.
Diona, the ballet at the Alhambra, is not by “Dion B. ”
Miss Ellen Terry is charming in Iolanthe; Madame Modjeska and Miss Geneviéve Ward are shutting up; les Bancroft depart for their holiday at the end of July; the St. James’s is over, and a new “Hares Bill” (without the rabbits) will he brought forward late in the autumn. Telle est la vie des Theatres, and I am
Your Representative.
England next came in for a little talk on the Agricultural Holdings Act, moved by Mr. Chaplin; whereon debate was, in the beginning of a speech by Mr. Duckham, adjourned.
Leave having been given to Sir E. Wilmot to bring in a Bill to incapacitate avowed Atheists from sitting in Parliament (as if total Nonconformists could be at all more reasonably excluded than any others), the House adjourned also.
Thursday (Lords). — Lord Stbatheden and Campbell, in order to enable himself to criticise speeches delivered by Mr. Gladstone in 1877, moved for returns of the killed and wounded in the late war between Russia and Turkey.
“A day too late for the fair, ” as in the old days, when fairs were institutions, the saying used to be in Arcadia, So said Lord Gran- VILLE (in other words), and asked how the Foreign Office could pos
sibly give a return of killed and wounded in a campaign which this country took no share in. How, indeed!
Lord Dunraven asked, with respect to Turkey, Greece, and the Berlin Conference, what the Government meant to do in the event of certain contingencies which might possibly occur, and might not..
Lord Granville replied that, in his ’prentice days at the Foreign Office, his master, Lord Palmerston, had taught him better than, except now and then in a very exceptional case indeed, to answer hypothetical questions. Hypothetical questions are questions that a Dundreary might be expected to ask — hardly a Dunraven.
(Commons. )—The Tay Bridge Rebuilding Bill read a Second Time, was referred to a “ hybrid ” or mule Committee.
At the end of a string of questions even more numerous than usual, the House at last got upon the order for going into Committee on the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill. A debate on an Amendment thereto, meant to limit its application, moved by
Mr. Pell, and negatived, was remarkable chiefly for comments on another Amendment down on the paper, to be moved in Committee by the Irish Attorney-General (Mr. Law), which, Mr. Parnell and Sir Stafford Nobthcote both agree, completely alters the character of the Bill; but this Mr. Fobster and Mr. Gladstone strenuously deny.
It provides that the Landlord shall he allowed to get rid of his liability by giving the Tenant permission to sell his holding. Cases in which this is done will be excepted from the Bill. Is this indeed “a change of front”? The Government says no; the Opposition and the Home-Rulers both say yes. Politicians are violently divided on the question.
Argue it out between you, Gentlemen. Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites.
If, however, a sop to the Conservatives, the (Mr. ) Law Amendment to the Ministerial measure is altogether an offence to Home- Rulers. Mr. Pabnell said it had entirely changed his view of the Bill; which, therefore, it may he presumed to have greatly ameliorated. It looks like Law combined with Justice.
Nevertheless, there was a question to be asked, and it was put by Lord Elcho: — “Is it a fact that the Marquis of Lansdowne is no
longer a Minister? ” Mr. Gladstone had to reply, “It is. ” The Opposition hoorayed.
Motion for going into Committee carried by 255 to 199. Announcement of numbers received with cheers from both sides, alike gratified —a result also truly gratifying to the genial mind.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE MAN. At the Gaiety — Adelphi — General Notes.
bserve that Chaumont as Lolotte is quite something to he seen before the star dis
appears. In this piece she first assumes the airs of a fine lady, and then, losing her temper, shows us what a Low lot she really is.
Her Madame attend Monsieur is only a sort of Lo
lotte married to a gentleman decidedly her superior, from the little we are allowed to see of him, whom she hopes to surprise at supper with his mistress. Madame is so decidedly coarse that nothing can excuse her ex
cept having been Lolotte
before marriage; and the unfortunate husband is to be pitied.
The idea of the piece is excellent, but it is not well worked out, and, when the actress only goes for a laugh, the true spirit of what might have been a very charming little comedy scene is utterly lost.
In Toto chez Tata Madame Chaumont est chez elle. As to her songs she puts too much spice into “La premiere Feuille, ” making
a winter pickle of it, all its spring freshness having departed; and for “La bonne Année” — that is about as perfect as Céléne Chaumont
can make it, which is only saying, that it is about as good as it can be.
Comparisons are odorous — and there can’t be a comparison, only a parallel, in this case — but, in a good English version of Madame attend Monsieur, or of Lolotte, wouldn’t Mrs. Bancroft in both
or Miss Nellie Farren in the latter, be on two equal parallels with the clever French actress? A copy would be impossible, and would, of course be a dismal failure; for the two characters —
Madame and Lolotte — are distinctly and peculiarly French; and similar pieces, written for Mrs. Bancroft and Miss Farren, would necessarily be distinctly and peculiarly English. Madame Chaumont could no more play Mrs. Bancroft’s characters in Robertsonʻs pieces, as the author intended them to be played, — that is, to the satisfaction of a jury of matrons and daughters, than could Mrs.
Bancroft play Chaumont’s Madame or Miss Farren the French Lolotte to the satisfaction of a Parisian audience at the Variétés, the Vaudeville, or the Palais Royal. The two ideas are totally apart. Human nature is the same, but its outward expression varies as the
nationality. The French actress would ever remain the French original of the part she had created, without detracting from the
originality of the English creation, which might he equally perfect in its own line.
La Bonne Année, however, is entirely Madame Chaumont’s pro
perty. No one, in any language, could improve on her rendering of this song; but any simple artless singer would please me more with La Premiere Feuille. Lhéritier is wonderful en galant homme,
taking his friend’s wife — the sly dog — to a baignoire, No. 4, to see that dreadful play, Le Roi Candaule.
Daubray, arriving late at the Gaiety, has nothing to do, the Menage Popincourt and L Affaire de la Rue de Lourcine having been, I am informed, “suppressed” by our Censor Morum. Rather
late in the day to wake up, after such a play as Célimare le bien aimé has been performed.
La Revue was a mistake in spite of Madame Chaumont’s five minutes’ Conférence sur le Theatre, and her song of grateful apology,
which was charmingly rendered and loudly applauded; and also, in spite of Mlle. Legault’s imitation of the gifted Sabah, and M. Pletʻs admirable imitation of Lhéritier.
Geoffroy is invariably good, rarely exaggerating, hut, as a rule, playing so naturally as to invest most farcical situations with an air of genuine probability. Lhéritier is a French Buckstone, and Hyacinthe a droll; but the public has seen them playing their own pieces in their own house, and, though delighted to welcome them at the Gaiety, is not very enthusiastic on the subject, specially after the Sabah effervescence had subsided. And then within the last
few years we have learnt something from our French friends, as it appears they have something to learn from the Dutch. We are ac
customed to first-rate ensembles, such as are to be found at the Haymarket and at the St. James’s, while the Palais Royal and Gymnase companies in their own special line would find themselves well matched — and in some instances overmatched — by the capital troupe of comedians now playing at the Criterion under the direction of Mr. Charles Wyndham. If the prolific and somewhat reckless French authors would associate themselves with English authors as collaborateurs, their pieces and their pockets would gain considerably; for most of their pieces, in which the point is un peu
vif, are really improved — most decidedly improved — for an English audience’s taste, by the freest adaptation possible.
Unfortunately we have recently seen, chez nous, that, as Mrs. Malaprop might state the proverb, “ Originality breeds contempt” — but this opens too big a subject for the present space, so, will con
tent myself by noting the fact that Mr. Dion Boucicault has
achieved a success at the Adelphi, not with a thrilling drama, hut with a melange of absurdities, called Forbidden Fruit, which is to be classed with Truth and Pink Dominoes as one of the Comedies of Cremorne.
Diona, the ballet at the Alhambra, is not by “Dion B. ”
Miss Ellen Terry is charming in Iolanthe; Madame Modjeska and Miss Geneviéve Ward are shutting up; les Bancroft depart for their holiday at the end of July; the St. James’s is over, and a new “Hares Bill” (without the rabbits) will he brought forward late in the autumn. Telle est la vie des Theatres, and I am
Your Representative.