FOOTNOTES:

[1] John Henry Brodripp Irving was born at Keinton, near Glastonbury

(the scene of the tradition of the sacred thorn), February 6, 1838.

In 1849 his father sent him to the private school of Dr. Pinches, in

George Yard, Lombard street, London. During his school days he evinced

a taste for dramatic poetry. He was placed in the office of an East

India house, and might, had he liked his occupation, have become a

prosperous merchant; but his ambition gravitated towards the stage.

He made personal sacrifices in many ways to educate himself in the

direction of his taste for dramatic work. He read plays, studied the

theatre and dramatic literature, became an expert fencer, practised

elocution with a famous actor, and in 1855 left London and obtained

an engagement in a provincial theatre. An earnest student always, he

fought his way through a world of troubles, and made his first success

at the St. James Theatre, London, October 6, 1866, as Doricourt in

“The Belle’s Stratagem.” He afterwards played in eccentric comedy with

Toole; made a hit in melodrama at the now defunct Queen’s Theatre; then

went to Paris with Sothern, and played Abel Murcot in “Our American

Cousin.” Returning to London, he filled important engagements at the

Gaiety and Vaudeville Theatres. His appearance at the Lyceum Theatre,

London, followed. Here, after his friend, Manager Bateman, had staked

and lost everything on “Fanchette,” Mr. Irving advised the production

of “The Bells,” which restored the fortunes of the house, and was the

beginning of a series of artistic and financial successes, both for

the management and the leading actor. On the death of Mr. Bateman, and

the withdrawal of his widow from the lesseeship of the theatre, Mr.

Irving entered upon management. One day I hope to tell the story of his

life and adventures. Placidly as the river of his fortunes may seem to

have flowed since he became lessee of the Lyceum, in October, 1878,

the incidents of his early struggles are not more interesting than

his managerial battles and victories in these latter days of London.

Pending a more complete biography, the sketch entitled “Henry Irving,”

by Austin Brereton, may be consulted with advantage; its data are well

founded, and its figures are correct.

[2] The following cablegram appeared in the “Herald,” on October the

18th, and it was alluded to in the editorial columns as “a hint” which

“will not be lost upon the theatrical critics”:—

“LONDON, Oct. 17, 1883.

“The ‘Standard,’ in an editorial this morning, thus appeals to America

for a dispassionate judgment of Henry Irving:—

“American audiences have a favorable opportunity of showing that they

can think for themselves, and do not slavishly echo the criticisms

of the English press. We confess that, though one has read many

eulogistic notices of Mr. Irving and listened in private to opinions

of different complexions, it is difficult to find anything written

respecting him that deserves to be dignified with the description of

serious criticisms. Cannot New York, Boston, and Chicago supply us with

a little of this material? Are we indulging vain imaginings if we hope

that our cousins across the water will forget all that has been said

or written about Irving and the Lyceum company this side of the ocean,

and will go to see him in his chief performances with unprejudiced eyes

and ears, and send us, at any rate, a true, independent, inconventional

account of his gifts and graces, or the reverse?

“Most Englishmen naturally will be gratified if the people of the

United States find Irving as tragic, and Miss Terry as charming, as

so many people in this country consider them. But the gratification

will be increased should it be made apparent that a similar conclusion

has been arrived at by the exercise of independent judgment, and if

in pronouncing it fresh light is thrown upon the disputed points of

theatrical controversy.”

[3] The “Tribune’s” reporter drew Miss Terry’s picture with studied

elaboration:—

“As she stepped with a pretty little shudder over the swaying plank

upon the yacht she showed herself possessed of a marked individuality.

Her dress consisted of a dark greenish-brown cloth wrap, lined

inside with a peculiar shade of red; the inner dress, girt at the

waist with a red, loosely folded sash, seemed a reminiscence of some

eighteenth-century portrait, while the delicate complexion caught a

rosy reflection from the loose flame-colored red scarf tied in a bow

at the neck. The face itself is a peculiar one. Though not by ordinary

canons beautiful, it is nevertheless one to be remembered, and seems to

have been modelled on that of some pre-Raphaelitish saint,—an effect

heightened by the aureole of soft golden hair escaping from under the

plain brown straw and brown velvet hat.”

[4] These simple facts prove that, aside from his acting, with which

it is not our duty to deal at present, Mr. Irving is one of the most

remarkable men of this or any other age. But he is unquestionably right

when he asserts that he owes his success to his acting alone. It has

been said that the splendid manner in which he puts his plays upon the

stage is the secret of his popularity; but he first became popular in

plays which were not splendidly mounted, and his greatest financial and

artistic successes have been made in pieces upon which he expended no

unusual decorations. It has been said that Manager Bateman made Irving;

but, as we shall presently prove, Irving made Manager Bateman in

London, and has been doubly successful since Manager Bateman’s death.

It has been said that his leading lady, Ellen Terry, is the Mascot

of Irving’s career; but his fame was established before Miss Terry

joined his company, and he has won his proudest laurels in the plays in

which Miss Terry has not appeared. It has been said that the financial

backing of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts gave Irving his opportunity; but

he had been overcrowding the London Lyceum for years before he made

the acquaintance of the Baroness. No; the unprecedented and unrivalled

success of Mr. Irving has been made by himself alone. He became popular

as an actor in a stock company; his popularity transformed him into

a star and a manager; and, as a star and a manager, he has widened,

deepened, and improved his popularity. He has won his position fairly,

by his own talents and exertions, against overwhelming odds, and he has

nobody to thank for it but himself, in spite of the theories which we

have exploded.—_Spirit of the Times, New York, Oct. 27, 1883._

[5] Speculation in theatre tickets seems now to have reached its

height. Folks thought it had come to a lively pass when Sarah Bernhardt

was here and some $23,000 worth of seats were disposed of for her

engagement on the opening day of the sale. But, bless you, that was

a mere drop in the bucket. A man named McBride, who has from keeping

a small news-stand gradually come forward until he is now one of the

richest of the ticket speculators, “got left,” as he picturesquely

observed, on the Bernhardt affair. In other words, rival speculators

got all the best seats. So McBride put twelve men on duty in front of

the Star Theatre box-office three days before the Irving sales were to

open, and there they stayed on duty day and night, until the window

was finally thrown open. Each one of these men got ten season-tickets

for the Irving engagement, which is to last four weeks. In other

words, every one of these men bought two hundred and eighty tickets

of admission to the Star Theatre, so that McBride now holds for the

Irving season a neat little pile of three thousand three hundred and

sixty tickets. They were bought at season-ticket prices of $60 per

set of twenty-eight, and, therefore, cost the speculator the sum of

$7,200. Now you will see how the speculator happens to have the bulge

on the Irving management. The box-office price of a ticket for a single

performance is $3, and even if the demand should not happen to be as

immense as to warrant a long advance on the box-office tariff, McBride

can sell his tickets at the regular price of $3 apiece and get the sum

of $10,080 for them, which will leave him a profit of nearly $3,000

upon his short investment. There is, however, little or no likelihood

that he will be obliged to resort to this manner of doing business.

For the first night he has already sold seats for $10 and $15 each,

and it is quite reasonable to suppose that as the time approaches,

and tickets become scarce, he can advance to a still higher price.

These ticket-speculators have regular customers, who willingly pay

them the ordinary price they ask rather than bother about going to the

box-office. When Anna Dickinson wants to visit a theatre in New York

she invariably buys her tickets of Tyson, who charges her $2 for a

$1.50 seat. So it is with a good many other people, particularly the

rich and reckless down-town brokers, who purchase their tickets during

the day, and who, rather than take the trouble to send a messenger away

up to the theatre they intend to visit, go to the speculator’s branch

office and pay the advance demanded for whatever they want. There are

only a few regular ticket-speculators in New York. Old Fred Rullman, a

Dutchman, was for a long time the chief operator in theatre tickets,

but he seldom appears nowadays in any of the big deals. He works mostly

in opera tickets, and is contented not to take heavy risks. McBride is

the longest chance-taker of the lot. Tyson is not a risky buyer, but

confines his purchases pretty closely to the demands of his regular

customers.—_New York Correspondent of St. Louis Spectator._

[6] This story was reprinted in several American papers. A dentist of

some note in a leading city, not appreciating its satire, wrote a long

letter to Mr. Irving, offering to make him a new set of teeth, on a

patented system of his own, which had given great pleasure to a number

of eminent American ladies and gentlemen. He enclosed a list of his

clients, and the price of their teeth. As an inducement for Irving to

accept his proposals, he quoted “very moderate terms,” on condition

that “if satisfactory” he should “have the use of his name” in public,

thus “acting up to the liberal principles of the English practitioner.”

[7] The misunderstanding between Forrest and Macready has been

canvassed and discussed in most histories of the modern stage. Forrest

believed that his ill-success in London was the result of a plot on the

part of Macready to write him down. So fixed in his mind was this view

of his failure, that brooding over it evidently unmanned him. He went

to the Edinburgh Theatre (shortly before he left England for America)

and hissed Macready in Hamlet. In a letter to the _Pennsylvanian_, Nov.

22, 1848, he wrote:—

“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, a few nights afterwards, when Mr.

Macready repeated the part of Hamlet with the same ‘tomfoolery,’ the

intelligent audience greeted it with a universal hiss.

“Mr. Macready is stated to have said last night that 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 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 had appeared upon the London

boards, and continued to abuse me 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 remarked, that ‘until

that act he never entertained towards me a feeling of unkindness.’”

It is worth while adding in this place the following interesting

account of the fatal riot, which is extracted from Barrett’s life of

Edwin Forrest published by Jas. R. Osgood & Co., in 1881:—

“On the 7th of May, 1848, Macready began an engagement at the Astor

Place Opera House, under the management of J. H. Hackett. The theatre

was packed by his enemies, and he was hooted from the stage. He

prepared to return to his own country, but was persuaded by his friends

to remain, in order that he might see how far the public indorsed the

opposition against him. An invitation to this effect, signed by many of

the best citizens of New York, was taken as a defiance by the admirers

of Forrest, who prepared to meet the issue. Forrest was playing at the

Broadway Theatre, and on the 16th of May, Macready, at the Astor Place

house, was announced to reappear as Macbeth. The authorities had been

called to the aid of the signers of the call, and when the doors were

opened the theatre was instantly filled by a crowd of persons favorable

to the actor, while the great mass of his enemies were excluded. These

filled the street, however, while the few who did gain admission showed

their opposition upon the appearance of Macready. At the first attempt

the assailants were confronted by a body of Macready’s friends within

the theatre too powerful to be resisted; but the majority without added

a threatening reinforcement when the decisive moment for violence

should arrive.

“The play was stopped. Macready, hustled from the back door in the

cloak of a friend, barely escaped with his life, and the mimic tragedy

within doors gave way to the approaching real tragedy without. The

theatre was attacked on all sides by the mob, and its destruction

seemed inevitable. Troops were called out; the order was given to

disperse. The angry crowd only hooted a reply of derision. The riot

act was read amid the yells and oaths of the blood-seeking rabble;

stones and missiles were hurled at the Seventh Regiment; the police

gave way before the overpowering numbers of the mob, and at last,

the soldiers, sore pressed, wounded, and nearly demoralized by the

assaults which they were not allowed to repulse, were called upon to

fire. They responded with blank cartridges, which only increased the

fury of the crowd. A pause, and then the order was given to load with

balls. A volley was fired: the cries were hushed; the smoke cleared

away; the ground was red with the blood of some thirty unfortunate men;

the rioters vanished into the darkness before that hail of wrath, and

the stain of blood was upon that quarrel which began far away in Old

England and ended so tragically here.”

[8] Among the audience (says the “Tribune”) were Miss Ellen Terry

herself, accompanied by an elderly gentleman, with gray hair, who to

some was known to be Felix Moscheles, Mendelssohn’s godson, with his

wife, and a young man of boyish appearance, known to many as the son

of Lord Coleridge. In the other boxes were W. H. Vanderbilt, Chauncey

M. Depew, Judge Brady, Augustus Schell, Algernon S. Sullivan, John

H. Starin and Mrs. Starin, Howard Carroll and Mrs. Carroll, Madame

Nilsson, Dr. Doremus and Mrs. Doremus, Mrs. Lester Wallack and Mrs.

Arthur Wallack, Mr. and Mrs. William Bond, Mr. and Mrs. John Foord,

Mrs. Charles Leland, Henry Rosener and Mrs. Rosener, and Mr. and Mrs.

Theodore Moss. Among other well-known faces in the audience were

noticed those of ex-Judge Horace Russell, General Horace Porter,

Colonel and Mrs. Tobias, of Philadelphia; General Winslow, Dr. Fordyce

Barker, George J. Gould, John Gilbert, Rafael Joseffy, Dr. Robert Laird

Collier, of Chicago; Oscar Meyer and Mrs. Meyer, Mrs. John T. Raymond,

Harry Edwards, Daniel Bixby, Charles Dudley Warner, John H. Bird, Mrs.

John Nesbitt, Miss Jeffrey Lewis, Laurence Hutton, Mr. E. A. Buck, Mr.

Whitelaw Reid, Colonel Knox, ex-Governor Dorsheimer, William Winter,

and Dr. Macdonald.

[9] “Twelve Americans,” a graphic series of biographical sketches,

by Howard Carroll, devotes some interesting pages to the story of

John Gilbert’s life and work. For upwards of fifty years an actor,

this veteran of the American stage was born on the 27th of February,

1810, at Boston, in a house “adjoining that in which Miss Cushman,

the greatest of American actresses, first saw the light.” His parents

were in a good position, and while they were not bigots, they did not

altogether hold the theatrical profession as a highly reputable one.

Young Gilbert was head of his class in declamation at the Boston High

School. When he left school he was sent into a commercial house with a

view to his becoming a dry-goods merchant. He disliked business, and

after reciting Jaffer, in “Venice Preserved,” to the manager of the

Tremont Theatre, he was granted an appearance. After opening the store

where he was engaged he read with delight in the newspaper, that in

the evening “a young gentleman of Boston” would make his _début_ in

the play of “Venice Preserved.” He appeared and “did well,” in spite

of his uncle (who was his master), scowling at him in front. “O John!

what have you done?” was the broken-hearted exclamation of his mother

the next day. John had not dared to go to the store, and felt himself

quite an outcast. He was forgiven, however, in due course, and made a

second appearance as Sir Edward Mortimer, in “The Iron Chest.” He was

successful beyond his expectations, and as “a boy actor” was praised

as a phenomenon. Later he joined the stock company, and was reduced to

“speaking utility” parts. Though disliking the drudgery of his place,

he grew up with his work, and with the physical capacity for leading

business he showed that he had also the mental strength for it. He

played with Macready and Charlotte Cushman at the Princess’s Theatre,

London. At the close of his engagement there he attended the leading

English theatres to study actors and their methods. Thence he went

to Paris to complete his studies. On his return to America he filled

important engagements for some years at the old Park Theatre; then he

went for a time to Boston, where he was a great favorite; and finally

he joined the Wallacks, in New York, where he has familiarized the

Empire city with the best interpretations of Sir Peter Teazle, old

Dornton, old Hardy, Sir Anthony Absolute, Major Oakley, Master Walter,

Hardcastle, Sir Harcourt Courtley, Adams, and other high-class comedy

characters of the century. He is still to New York what the Elder

Farren was to London.

[10] This statement and question were founded upon “The Standard’s”

message, previously referred to; but which Mr. Irving himself neither

saw nor heard of until within a few days of the close of his New York

engagement.

[11] In “Charles the First” Irving confirmed the good impression he

had made. Miss Terry received a most cordial reception, and made

so excellent an impression upon the audience, both by her charming

personality and admirable acting, that long before the evening was

over she had firmly established herself in the good graces of her new

public, who more than once, at the fall of the curtain, invited her,

with every enthusiastic mark of approbation, to come before the house

to receive in person its acknowledgments and congratulations. Her

success was unquestionable. In the second act the curtain fell on the

conclusion of one of the grandest results that any actor has achieved

in New York for years. A continued succession of plaudits came from all

parts of the house. The performance was profoundly conceived, acted

out with infinite care, elaborated with rare skill, and invested with

naturalness that deserved all praise. Irving, in his finale, merited

fully every word that has been written of his power, intensity, and

dramatic excellence; and he was enthusiastically called before the

curtain, in order that the audience might assure him of that verdict.

Miss Terry made the impression of a charming actress. There was

something very captivating in the sweetness of her manner, the grace

of her movements, and the musical quality of her tones. In acting, her

points were made with remarkable ease and naturalness. There was an

entire absence of theatrical effect, there was a simplicity of style

in everything she did, a directness of method and sincerity of feeling

that, as we have said, was the simplicity of true art, and yet not the

exaggeration of the simplicity of nature.—_New York Herald._

[12] Miss Terry was born at Coventry, Feb. 27, 1848. Her parents

were members of the theatrical profession. Her first appearances on

the stage were in “The Winter’s Tale” and “King John” (Mamillius and

Arthur), during the Shakespearian revivals of Charles Kean, in 1858. As

Prince Arthur she had repeated the success of her eldest sister Kate,

who had made her first appearance in the part six years previously.

Mr. Irving, during his conversations and speeches in this book of

“Impressions,” has referred to the stock companies which, at one time,

were the provincial schools which supplied London with its principal

actors. When Ellen Terry was a girl, the late Mr. Chute presided over

the fortunes of two of the best stock companies in the country. He was

the lessee of the Bristol and Bath theatres, and he played his Bristol

company at Bath once or twice a week. Some twenty years ago, I remember

a stock company at the Bristol theatre, which included Marie Wilton,

Miss Cleveland (Mrs. Arthur Sterling) Miss Mandelbert, Madge Robertson

(Mrs. Kendall), and her mother, Arthur Sterling, George Rignold,

William Rignold, Arthur Wood, Fosbroke, and the fathers, respectively,

of Marie Wilton and Madge Robertson. At that time Kate Terry and Ellen

Terry had left for London, Ellen having joined the Bristol company at

the close of Charles Kean’s management of the Princess’s. She played

Cupid to her sister Kate’s Diana in Brough’s extravaganza of “Endymion”

at Bristol, in 1862. She made her _début_ in London, March, 1863, as

Gertrude, in the “Little Treasure.” The critics of the time recognized

in her art “an absence of conventionality and affectation,” and they

look back now to trace in her interpretations of “the buoyant spirits,

kindly heart, and impulsive emotions” of Gertrude for the undoubted

forecast of her present success, more particularly in those characters

which give full play to the natural sympathetic and womanly spirit of

her art. From March, 1863, till January, 1864, she played Hero, in

“Much Ado About Nothing,” Mary Meredith, in “The American Cousin,” and

other secondary parts. She married and left the stage while still a

mere child, and was not yet twenty when she made her reappearance at

the end of October, 1867, in “The Double Marriage,” adapted from the

French by Charles Reade for the New Queen’s Theatre, London. She also

played Mrs. Mildmay, in “Still Waters,” and Katharine in the ordinary

stage version of the “Taming of the Shrew,” known as “Katharine and

Petruchio.” It was in this comedy, on the 26th of December, 1867,

that she and Mr. Irving first acted together. She left the theatre in

January, 1868, and did not reappear on the London stage until 1874,

when she succeeded Mrs. John Wood in the part of Phillippa Chester, in

Charles Reade’s “Wandering Heir,” which was produced under the author’s

management at the Queen’s Theatre. She afterwards joined Mr. and Mrs.

Bancroft’s company at the Prince of Wales’s, and was the Portia to Mr.

Coughlan’s Shylock, in the ambitious production of “The Merchant of

Venice,” which was to be a new departure in the history of the famous

little house near Tottenham Court Road. Shakespeare did not prosper,

however, at the Prince of Wales’s, though his great comedy was daintily

mounted, and Miss Terry’s Portia was as sweet and gracious as the art

of the actress could make that sweet and gracious heroine. From the

Bancrofts, Miss Terry went to their rivals (Mr. Hare and the Kendalls),

at the Court Theatre. The sterling natural qualities which some critics

noted in her method when a child, were abundantly apparent in her

Olivia, a fresh, graceful, touching performance, of which “Punch” said,

January 11,1879, “If anything more intellectually conceived or more

exquisitely wrought out than Miss Terry’s Ophelia has been seen on the

English stage in this generation, it has not been within ‘Punch’s’

memory.” She closed her engagement at the Court Theatre on the offer of

Mr. Irving to take the position of leading lady at the Lyceum Theatre,

where she made her first appearance, December 30, 1878, and since which

time she has shared with him the honors of a series of such successes

as are unparalleled in the history of the stage. They include the

longest runs ever known of “Hamlet,” “The Merchant of Venice,” “Romeo

and Juliet,” and “Much Ado About Nothing.” This is not the place to do

more than give these brief, biographic notes of a brilliant career.

But one is tempted to quote a singularly happy sketch of Miss Ellen

Terry which appeared on the eve of her departure for America in the

“St. Stephen’s Review,” July, 1883: “It is well for the stage that

it possesses such a gift as Ellen Terry. The age is, on the whole,

terribly unromantic and commonplace; it deals in realism of a very

uncompromising form; it calls a spade a spade, and considers sentiment

an unpardonable affectation. But Ellen Terry is the one anachronism

that the age forgives; she is the one living instance of an ideal

being that the purists pardon. As she stands before these cold critics

in her classical robes as Camma; as she drags at their heartstrings

as the forlorn and abandoned Olivia; as she trips upon the stage as

Beatrice; as she appears in a wondrous robe of shot-red and gold, or

clothed ‘in white samite, mystic, wonderful,’ as Ophelia, or, as she

falls a-weeping as the heart-broken queen on the breast of Charles the

First, even these well-balanced natures pronounce her inexplicable but

charming. She is the one actress who cannot be criticised; for is she

not Ellen Terry?”

[13] All that has been said in recognition of Mr. Irving’s intellectual

leadership, and of his puissant genius and beautiful and thorough

method of dramatic art, was more than justified by his impersonation

of Louis XI., given, yesterday afternoon, before an audience mainly

composed of actors, at the Star Theatre. He has not, since the

remarkable occasion of his first advent in America, acted with such a

noble affluence of power as he displayed in this splendid and wonderful

effort. It was not only an expression, most vivid and profound, of

the intricate, grisly, and terrible nature of King Louis; it was a

disclosure of the manifold artistic resources, the fine intuition,

the repose, and the commanding intellectual energy of the actor

himself. An intellectual audience—eager, alert, responsive, quick to

see the intention almost before it was suggested, and to recognize

each and every point, however subtle and delicate, of the actor’s

art—seemed to awaken all his latent fire, and nerve him to a free and

bounteous utterance of his own spirit; and every sensitive mind in

that numerous and brilliant throng most assuredly felt the presence

of a royal nature, and a great artist in acting. Upon Mr. Irving’s

first entrance the applause of welcome was prodigious, and it was

long before it died away. More than one scene was interrupted by the

uncontrollable enthusiasm of the house, and eight times in the course

of the performance Mr. Irving was called back upon the scene. A kindred

enthusiasm was communicated to the other actors, and an unusual spirit

of emulation pervaded the entire company and representation.... At the

close there was a tumult of applause, and the expectation seemed eager

and general that Mr. Irving would personally address the assembly. He

retired, however, with a bow of farewell. “Louis XI.” will be repeated

to-night.—_The Tribune, November 21._

[14] Henry Edwards was born at Ross, Herefordshire, England, August,

1831. He finished his education under the Rev. Abraham Lander, son of

the friend of Robert Burns, and studied for the law in his father’s

office. In 1848 he became a member of the Western Dramatic Amateur

Society. In 1853 he emigrated to Australia, passed three years in the

bush, and went on the stage professionally, at the Queen’s Theatre,

Melbourne, under the management of Charles Young, then the husband

of Mrs. Herman Vezin, who was the leading lady. After supporting the

late Gustavus V. Brooke, he went, as leading man, to Tasmania, under

the management of Charles Poole. He again joined Brooke, and for six

or seven years was his second, playing Iago, Macduff, De Maupry,

Icilius, etc., becoming manager of Theatre Royal, Melbourne, for G.

V. Brooke, in 1861. He afterwards travelled with Mr. and Mrs. Charles

Kean, playing Falconbridge, Henry VIII., Coitier, etc. In 1865 he went

to New Zealand, and managed theatres in Auckland and Hokitiki. He

left the colonies early in 1866, passed four months in Lima, giving,

in all, thirty-three performances in the Peruvian capital, aided by

a small company. He also gave entertainments in Panama. Arrived in

San Francisco, October, 1866, under an engagement to Thomas Maguire,

opened in that city as Othello to the Iago of John McCullough, and

afterwards played Pythias, Sir Anthony Absolute, Sir Peter Teazle,

Marc Anthony, and Sir John Falstaff. At the opening of the California

Theatre he joined Barrett and McCullough’s company, and remained to

the close of the latter’s management. He went to New York in 1879,

and opened at Wallack’s Theatre (now the Star), in Byron’s comedy of

“Our Girls,” and has been ever since a member of Wallack’s company,

of which he is now Stage Director. He is an earnest entomologist, and

has one of the largest private collections of insects in the world,

numbering over 260,000 specimens. Has written much on his favorite

study, as well as many magazine and other articles; is the author of

“Pacific Coast Lepidoptera,” and a volume of sketches called “A Mingled

Yarn”; is engaged to write the article on “Butterflies,” for Kingsley’s

Standard Natural History, in association with Asa Gray, Prof. Baird,

Prof. Packard, A. Agassiz, and other distinguished naturalists; and was

five years President of the Bohemian Club, San Francisco, three years

Vice-President of the California Academy of Sciences, and one year

President of the Lambs Club, New York.

[15] On a later occasion Mr. Curtis (whose eloquence on the platform

and in the press, and whose independent career in politics, are

familiar to all Americans and to many English) and Mr. Joseph Harper

had a box to see “The Merchant of Venice.” Irving invited them to go

behind the scenes, and afterwards to join him at supper in his room

at the Brevoort. Mr. Curtis said it was the first time he had been on

that side of the foot-lights. “I am not sure whether I regret it or

not; I think I am sorry to have the illusion of that last lovely scene

at Belmont set aside even for a moment.” While he was talking to Miss

Terry in her dress as the Lady of Belmont, Loveday’s men were bringing

on some of the scenery of “The Lyons Mail.” Said Harper, “Behind the

scenes is always to me a good deal like the ‘tween decks of a ship; the

discipline is just as strict, too.” During the evening after supper

Mr. Curtis discussed with his host the question of how much an actor

may lose himself in a part, and still have full control over it and

himself. Irving said circumstances sometimes influenced an actor. An

event which had disturbed him during the day might give extra color to

his acting at night. In fact an actor is influenced by all sorts of

causes,—as all other people are in their daily work,—by health or

weather. Sometimes the presence of a friend in front, or some current

occurrence of the moment, or piece of bad or good news, might influence

him; but, as a rule, after an actor had played a particular part for

a long time, he generally played it very much in the same way every

night. “There is a story,” he said, “of Kean and Cooper which is to the

purpose. A friend met Kean, and told him that on a particular night he

was at the theatre, and thought that Kean played Othello better than

ever he had seen him play it. ‘Gad, sir,’ he said,’ I thought you would

have strangled Iago outright!’ Now we come to the solution of this

extra energy which had impressed Kean’s friend. ‘Oh, yes,’ said Kean;

‘it was a Tuesday night, I remember; Cooper tried to get me out of the

focus!’ In those days the theatre was lighted with oil lamps, and only

at one particular place on the stage could the actors be seen. To be in

the light was to be in the focus; and that accounts for the old habit

they had of getting into a line along the foot-lights.”

[16] Among the gentlemen present on this occasion were Messrs. Daniel

Huntington (the president), Gilbert M. Speir (vice-president), A. R.

MacDonough (secretary), Henry A. Oakey (treasurer), F. A. P. Barnard

(President of Columbia College), Albert Bierstadt (the artist), Noah

Brooks (journalist and author), L. P. di Cesnola, S. S. Conant; Profs.

Botta, Dwight, Flint, Alexander, and Lusk; Judges Choate, Brown, and

Daily; Bishop Potter, the Rev. Dr. Rylance, the Rev. Dr. Storrs, the

Rev. Dr. Brooks; the Honorables John Bigelow, John Hay, J. G. Forrest,

and Edward Mitchell; Mr. Joseph Drexel (the banker), ex-Governor

William Dorsheimer, ex-Mayor Edward Cooper, Col. Goddard, Gen. Cullum

and Gen. Horace Porter, Dr. George Otis, and Messrs. W. Dodge, Wm. M.

Evarts, Cyrus W. Field, Swain Gifford, Richard W. Gilder, Quincy A.

Gillmore, Parke Godwin, H. H. Gorringe, I. H. Gourlie, G. S. Greene,

M. K. Jessup, S. E. Lane, Francis F. Marbury, C. H. Marshall, H. D.

Noyes, O. Ottendorfer, H. E. Pellew, Whitelaw Reid, Jas. Renouck, R.

G. Remson, A. Thorndike Rice, William Bond, J. F. Ruggles, John O.

Sargent, W. Satterlee, Clarence A. Seward, R. H. Stoddard, H. C. Van

Vorst, Theodore Weston, Alfred Wilkinson, and many other well-known

members of the club and their friends.

[17] This was a very notable gathering on November 18. In nearly

every case the guests came from long distances. They were all men of

distinction in their several walks of life. Among them were, James

H. Rutter, President New York Central & Hudson River Railway; Hon.

Noah Davis, Chief Justice Supreme Court, State of New York; Geo. R.

Blanchard, Vice-President New York, Lake Erie, & Western Railway; Gen.

Horace Porter, President New York, West Shore, & Buffalo Railway; John

B. Carson, Vice-President and General Manager Hannibal & St. Joseph

Railway, Hannibal, Mo.; Col. P. S. Michie, U.S. Army, West Point; Hon.

A. J. Vanderpoel, New York; Hon. Wm. Dorsheimer, Member of Congress and

ex-Lieut.-Governor New York; Col. L. M. Dayton, Gen. Sherman’s Chief

of Staff during the war, Cincinnati, O.; Jas. N. Matthews, Proprietor

Buffalo “Express,” Buffalo, N.Y.; Hon. Henry Watterson, ex-M.C. and

editor “Courier Journal,” Louisville, Ky.; Col. Wm. V. Hutchings,

Governor’s Staff, Boston, Mass.; Col. H. G. Parker, Proprietor

“Saturday Evening Gazette,” Boston, Mass.; Col. Wm. Edwards, Cleveland,

O.; Hon. L. J. Powers, Springfield, Mass.; Hon. M. P. Bush, Buffalo,

N.Y.; John B. Lyon, Chicago, Ill.; Hon. A. Oakey Hall, ex-Mayor of New

York City; Lord Bury, W. J. Florence, William Winter, Stephen Fiske, J.

H. French, and Chas. Wyndham. The dinner was not reported in the press;

nor were several other entertainments which are briefly sketched in the

pages of these “Impressions.”

The Chief Justice spoke in eloquent terms of Lord Coleridge, whom the

American bar and bench had been proud to honor, and who, in his private

and public life, realized the highest ideal of the American people. “It

is our desire,” he said, “the sincerest wish of America, to like the

English people. We are always afraid that our visitors from the old

country will not let us like them. When they do, and we can honestly

respond, we are glad.” Presently, alluding to Irving, he said, “We

have watched your career over a long period of time, through the New

York papers. We were prepared to be interested in you, and to bid you

welcome. No people are more moved than ours to exercise their free

and unbiased judgment. We have done so in your case, and are proud to

acknowledge the greatness of the work you have done; to welcome you and

to take your hand, not only for what you have achieved in England, but

for what you have done for us in America.”

Ex-Mayor Oakey Hall, in the course of some remarks supplementary of

the speech of the Lord Chief Justice, said, “A morning cable despatch

informs me that the Millais portrait of our guest was yesterday added

to the walls of the Garrick Club, in completion of its gallery of David

Garrick’s legitimate successors. But on the walls of our memories

to-night has been hung the original,—impressive features, poetic

eyes and hair, and a face so bright that it this moment reflects

our looks of personal affection. I have had the personal felicity,

thrice within the past fortnight, of seeing our guest in the serenity

of private life. Friends knowing this have said to me, ‘How did you

like Henry Irving on the stage?’ And I have answered, ‘I have not

yet seen Mr. Irving act.’ True, I had seen on the stage of the Star

Theatre, Mathias, and Charles the First, and Louis the Eleventh, and

Shylock, and Duboscq and Lesergne, and against these characters I had

seen printed on the bills of the play the name of Henry Irving; but

never had it otherwise occurred to me, as an auditor, that the guest

now before us,—original of the Millais picture,—and whom I saw

at the banquets of the Lotos and Manhattan clubs, was representing

these characters. On the contrary, I cannot connect Henry Irving, the

gentleman of private life, with the actor. If you say he is the same,

I must believe you. Indeed, I am now conscious of having lived in the

seventeenth century, and of having beheld the veritable Charles as a

man caressing his children and his Henrietta Maria,—a wife rather than

a queen,—on the banks of the Thames, at Hampton Court, or as Majesty

rebuking Oliver Cromwell. Nay, I have stood with Charles himself in

the Whitehall Chamber of Death, and with my own streaming eyes I have

witnessed his touching farewell of home and earth. I have forgotten

the merchants of New York in the boxes, and I have really seen

Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. I have seen the dreaming victim of

remorse. I have lived in the war-rent realms of France, while Louis the

Eleventh infected his court with his own moral leprosy. I have known

in ‘The Lyons Mail,’ the self-respecting and shrinking merchant, and I

have known his double, the besotted brute of a murderer. They are all

realities to me at this moment. If you again tell me one man personated

all these, and that this one man was the original yonder of the Millais

portrait, I must believe you, for your honor’s sake. During an active

career of a quarter century I never had seen an approach to such a

surrender of personal identity in an actor, nor such a surrender of the

peculiarities of one representation when the actor grasped another. How

all this contradicts a lively writer in the current (November) number

of Clement Scott’s ‘Theatre,’ who declares that every great success of

the stage is due to a correspondence of the natural peculiarities of an

actor with the fictional peculiarities of the character portrayed! Is

yonder gentleman a victim to remorse? Is he a Shylock? Is he a Duboscq?

Has he the soul of a Charles? Least of all, has he one peculiarity of

Louis? No. Then these great successes are won—if yonder guest be the

actor—by a destruction of personal peculiarities and by portraying

his own precise opposites, in his human nature. You have all seen

these recently enacted characters. You now—some of you for the first

time—behold the man Henry Irving, and hear him converse. To you as

a jury, then, I appeal. Am I not right? Is not my experience yours?”

(Aye!—Yes!—Yes!—and great applause.)

[18] “Bathed in their own liquor.”—_Sir Henry Thompson._

[19] In case this charge against Irving should be exploited by the

“little English correspondent” who undertakes to describe his “Palace

on the Thames,” let me say that for one who talks so well about

eating, Irving—next to a great authority on gourmandize—recently

dead, alas!—is the most moderate diner I know. He discourses of

dishes with the eloquence of Brillat Savarin, and eats as frugally as

the “Original Walker” did, and is as easily contented as was my late

friend, Blanchard Jerrold (“Fin-Bec”), who wrote so much, and always so

well, about the art of dining, that those who did not know him might

naturally have regarded him as a gourmand. He knew the literature of

“the table” thoroughly, but lived as simply as Irving does. It will be

noted that it is the simplicity of the dinner under notice that awakens

Irving’s enthusiasm. New York, by the way, has many restaurants,

in addition to its most famous one (Delmonico’s) and the house in

Lafayette place. The Hoffman House and the Brunswick are well-known

for their excellent _cuisine_. Among the hotels that are equally

famous for their _chefs_ are the Everett House, the Windsor, the St.

James, the Victoria, and the Clarendon. The latter is to New York what

such establishments as Morley’s and the oldest West End hotels are to

London. It is one of the pleasantest, and certainly the quietest, of

New York houses. There are very bad hotels in the United States, and

very good ones; dear hotels, and hotels where the charges are fair;

but the general idea of uniform excellence and uniform dearness which

obtains in England is incorrect. One class of houses which the English

traveller misses is the comfortable family inn or tavern (where the

landlord and landlady are in evidence all the time), common in England,

France, and Germany; and the other absent luxuries, for the lack of

which oysters and canvas-back ducks do not altogether compensate him,

are the mutton-chop, the beefsteak, the ham and bacon, the sole,

salmon, and bloaters of his own country.

[20] “The difference between a _gourmet_ and gourmand we take to

be this: a _gourmet_ is he who selects, for his nice and learned

delectation, the most choice delicacies, prepared in the most

scientific manner; whereas the gourmand bears a closer analogy to that

class of great eaters, ill-naturedly (we dare say) denominated or

classed with aldermen.”—_Haywood’s Art of Dining._

[21] These lines were written by Mrs. Marion Fortescue, a lady well

known in New York society.

[22] Mr. Irving presented a Hamlet last evening that was entirely

consistent with itself and with the play, and the most virile,

picturesque, and lovable Hamlet that has been seen on the stage. There

was great variety in his moods and manners. He realized Goethe’s idea

of a born prince,—gentle, thoughtful, and of most moral nature,

without the strength of nerve to make a hero, and overcome by the

responsibility put upon him by a vision whose message he alternately

accepts and doubts. There was, indeed, the fullest variety given to

the part; it was dramatically interesting, and a clearly marked,

intelligent study that more than realized the expectations that had

been formed of the personation.—_Philadelphia Ledger._

[23] DISTINGUISHED VISITORS.—The “Evening Call” band of fifty-one

pieces and the “Evening Call” flute and drum corps, numbering

thirty-five pieces, making a total of eighty-six performers, formed

before the Union League building this morning, and proceeded down Broad

street a few yards, to the Hotel Bellevue, and tendered a complimentary

serenade to the distinguished English actor, Henry Irving. Several

delightful airs, including “God Save the Queen,” were rendered with

fine effect. Mr. J. H. Coplestone, Mr. Abbey’s manager for Mr. Irving,

acknowledged the compliment on behalf of the eminent tragedian. The

band then proceeded to the Aldine Hotel, where Miss Ellen Terry, Mr.

Irving’s leading lady, was serenaded, following which the musicians

gave a short street parade. At the conclusion of the serenade Mr.

Irving sent the following pleasant little note to the office of the

“Evening Call”:—

“HOTEL BELLEVUE, PHILADELPHIA, 29th November (‘Thanksgiving Day’), 1883.

“_To the Editor of the Evening Call:—_

“MY DEAR SIR,—Upon this day of universal thankfulness allow me to

add a personal item. My thanks to you and your magnificent band for

the honor done to me this morning by their serenade. I enjoyed the

music much, and beg to add my tribute of praise to the worth of your

band which, to my mind, is amongst the best I have heard. To hear the

strains of the national anthem of my own dear land here and on such

a day touched me much, and assures me again in a forcible manner of

the strength of the affection between the two countries, America and

England.

“Believe me to be, dear sir, yours very faithfully,

“HENRY IRVING.” —_Evening Call._

[24] The youngest member, who is provided with a tall chair, a rattle,

and other things indicative of his “clover” childhood.

[25] The documentary evidence handed to Irving as establishing the

identity of the watch are, (1.) a copy of the catalogue of the sale by

auction of “the estate of Edwin Forrest, deceased,” at Davis & Harvey’s

Art Galleries, No. 1212 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, on Feb. 4, 1883.

(2.) A copy of the Supplementary catalogue of “the personal effects of

Edwin Forrest,” which sets forth twenty-eight articles, including a

silver watch. (3.) The auctioneer’s receipt for “One silver watch, the

property of Edwin Forrest,” and (4.) a voucher from Mr. Donaldson, in

which he states that, until he presented it to Mr. Irving, the watch

had never been out of his possession from the time that he bought

it. Mr. Donaldson is a collector of _bric-à-brac_, and possesses

many interesting relics of the stage. On Irving’s second visit to

Philadelphia we called upon him and inspected some of his miscellaneous

treasures. They covered a wide range of interest,—antiquarian,

geological, historical, artistic, and literary. A white-haired,

picturesque-looking old gentleman was there to meet us. “How like

Tennyson!” exclaimed Irving. The interesting visitor was Walt Whitman.

He expressed great satisfaction on being told that he was well known in

England, and, in an amused way, he stood up, that Irving might judge if

he was as tall as Tennyson. It is a milder face, and less rugged in its

lines, than the face of the great English poet; but, in other respects,

suggests the author of “In Memoriam.”

[26] The Boston was built in 1854 by a stock company. It was opened

on the 11th September in that year, under the management of the late

Thomas Barry, and for some time was in the hands of Junius Brutus

Booth. After a time the company gave up the theatre, and it was

acquired by Messrs. Thayer and Tompkins. On the death of Mr. Thayer,

Mr. Tompkins associated with himself Mr. Hill, who had been a prominent

stockholder, and they have since continued as proprietors. Mr. Eugene

Tompkins, son of the chief proprietor, is the general manager.—_King’s

Boston._

[27] Mr. Oliver Ditson, General Blackmar and party, Mr. Joseph Thorpe,

and Mrs. Ole Bull. In the body of the house were seen General Devens,

Colonel Henry Lee, Mr. J. R. Osgood, Colonel Fairchild, Mr. T. B.

Aldrich, Mr. Boyle O’Reilly, Mr. Robert Treat Paine, Professor Pierce,

of Cambridge, Mr. S. H. Russell, Mr. Charles F. Sherwin, Mr. Thomas G.

Appleton, Mr. Hamilton Wild, Mr. B. C. Porter, ex-Mayor Green, Colonel

W. V. Hutchins, General Whittier, Mr. A. V. S. Anthony, Mr. Arthur

Dexter, Mr. George H. Chickering, Mr. Curtis Guild, Colonel H. G.

Parker, Hon. R. M. Morse, Jr., Mr. H. M. Ticknor, Colonel W. W. Clapp,

Mr. Martin Brimmer, Signor Ventura, Mr. T. R. Sullivan, Mr. Higginson,

Mr. Hemenway, Mr. Matt. Luce, Hon. W. D. Davis, of Plymouth, Mr. George

Riddle, Mr. Henry M. Rogers, Mr. Edes, Mr. Ellerton Pratt, Mr. Arthur

Dodd, Mr. Alanson Bigelow, and many others of eminent social, literary,

and artistic position. William Warren, with many professionals, was

present, while, of course, Mr. Henry E. Abbey and his staff, as well as

city managers and theatre folk, were represented. Most of the gentlemen

who attended were accompanied by ladies, and the house, as seen from

the stage, presented a very brilliant appearance.—_The Globe._

[28] As the position which Mr. John Gilbert holds in New York is

akin to that which the elder Farren held in London, so the position

which Mr. William Warren occupies in Boston is akin to that which Mr.

Buckstone (“Bucky,” as his particular friends called him) held in the

English metropolis. Mr. Warren’s Dogberry and Paul Pry are among the

pleasantest reminiscences of Boston play-goers. It fell to Irving’s

lot to meet Mr. Warren frequently, and perhaps no actor ever received

greater compliments from two veterans of his craft than Irving received

from Gilbert and Warren. While the favorite of New York never missed

an Irving performance at the Star Theatre, his famous contemporary

of Boston not only attended all the Lyceum performances at Boston,

but later, when Irving went to Chicago, Mr. Warren paid his relatives

a visit in the western city, and was as constant an attendant at

Haverly’s during the Irving engagement as he was at the Boston Theatre.

[29] LADIES’ NIGHT AT THE PAPYRUS.—The Ladies’ Night entertainment of

the Papyrus Club, which has come to be accepted as one of the annual

features of that organization, took place at the Revere House last

night, and the occasion proved to be one of exceptional interest and

brilliancy. The Papyrus includes in its membership a large number

of clever men, and, with their guests who assembled last evening

to partake of the club’s hospitality, the company made up a most

delightful and distinguished gathering. The after-dinner exercises,

which were not permitted to be reported in full, were of a most

entertaining character; the speeches of the distinguished gentlemen

guests, and the contributions in prose and verse by some of the members

of the club, being very bright and enjoyable. The members and their

guests assembled in the hotel parlors at six o’clock, where they were

received by the president of the club, Mr. George F. Babbitt, assisted

by Miss Fay. Music was furnished by the Germania Orchestra, and, after

an hour spent in introductory ceremonies, the members and their guests,

numbering altogether one hundred and twenty ladies and gentlemen,

proceeded to the dining-hall and sat down to the dinner-table, which

was arranged in horseshoe form. The tables were artistically decorated

with flowers, and at each plate was placed a dinner-card, bearing the

name of each guest, and a _menu_ of an exceedingly artistic design,

the front cover bearing a photograph of the club paraphernalia, very

cleverly grouped, and bearing the inscription: “Papyrus, Ladies’ Night.

December 15th, MDCCCLXXXIII.” President Babbitt sat in the centre,

with Miss Fay at his right and Miss Ellen Terry at his left. On either

side of the president were seated Miss Alcott, Mr. Joseph Hatton,

Dr. Burnett and Mrs. Frances Hodgson Burnett, Gen. Francis A. Walker

and Mrs. Walker, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, Captain Story, U.S.A.; Mr.

Guy Carleton, of New York, editor of “Life,” and Mr. J. A. Mitchell,

assistant editor; Rev. and Mrs. Brooke Hereford, Dr. John G. Blake

and Mrs. Blake, Mr. W. H. Rideing and Mrs. John Lillie, the author of

“Prudence,” and Rev. and Mrs. H. B. Carpenter. Among the other members

and guests present were Miss Nora Perry and Miss Noble, the author

of “A Reverend Idol”; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Grant, Mr. F. J. Stimson,

the author of “Guerndale,” and Mrs. Stimson; Dr. Harold Williams,

the author of “Mr. and Mrs. Morton”; Mr. Arthur Rotch and Mrs. Van

Renssellaer, Mr. and Mrs. W. F. Apthorp, Mr. A. H. Dodd, Mrs. Dodd,

and Miss Dodd; Mr. Henry M. Rogers and Mr. George Abbot James; Miss

Gage, Mr. and Mrs. Howard M. Ticknor, and Mrs. S. A. Bigelow; Mrs. C.

H. Washburne, Mr. George Snell, Mrs. Bacon, and Mrs. Charles Whitmore;

Mr. Alexander Young, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. John T. Wheelwright, Mr.

L. S. Ipsen, Mr. Alexander Browne and Miss Edmundson, Mr. Frank Hill

Smith, and Mrs. Henry Fay; Mr. Arlo Bates, Dr. and Mrs. James Chadwick,

Colonel Theodore A. Dodge, and Mrs. Crowninshield; Mr. and Mrs. F. P.

Vinton, Mr Francis Peabody, Jr.; Mr. Russell Sullivan, Mr. and Mrs.

Charles Albert Prince, Miss Minot, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Prince, Mr. and

Mrs. F. V. Parker, Mr. and Mrs. E. L. Osgood, Mr. and Mrs. George M.

Towle, Mr. H. G. Pickering, Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Sayward, and Mrs. R. G.

Shaw; Mr. T. O. Langerfelt, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Foote, Mr. Sigourney

Butler, Miss Butler, and Miss Shimmin; Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Fitch, Mr.

and Mrs. George B. Goodwin, Mr. W. B. Clarke, Mr. and Mrs. C. A.

Campbell, Mr. G. W. Chadwick, Mr. Preston, Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Wright,

Mrs. G. A. Gibson, Mr. and Mrs. L. L. Scaife, and Mr. and Mrs. J. E.

Woods. At the conclusion of the dinner the president proposed the

health of the assembled company in the loving-cup, in accordance with a

time-honored custom of the Papyrus, the cup passing from guest to guest

until it had made the rounds of the tables. Many of the gentlemen were

merrily cheered as they rose to drink from the cup, as were many of the

distinguished ladies, who, without rising, simply touched the cup to

their lips. After this interesting ceremony had been gone through with,

the president welcomed the company in a brief speech, concluding with

a toast to the lady guests, which was drunk standing by the gentlemen

present. Rev. H. Bernard Carpenter was called upon to respond to the

toast, which he did in a neat speech, in which pleasant allusions were

made to the distinguished ladies of the company and their work. He was

followed by Mr. John T. Wheelwright, the secretary of the club, who

gave a very bright burlesque report of the proceedings of the monthly

Papyrus meetings. It was made up of clever imitations of the poetic

and prose contributions of the more active members of the Papyrus,

and its numerous hits were received with shouts of laughter. Mr. T.

R. Sullivan then read a charming bit of prose; and then came a bright

and humorous contribution from Mr. Robert Grant, who described, in a

very funny way, his experiences as a member of the committee on ladies’

night some years ago. It abounded in witty allusions to the antics

of some of the members of the club, and, although the names of the

characters who figured in the sketch were assumed for the occasion,

the references to the members of the club were readily recognized.

Mr. Howard M. Ticknor was then introduced, and read a poem addressed

to Miss Terry, concluding with a toast in honor of the distinguished

lady, the mention of whose name elicited enthusiastic applause. Mr.

Joseph Hatton responded handsomely for Miss Terry, thanking the company

for their very cordial welcome, and the Papyrus for their elegant

hospitality. Mr. Arlo Bates read some very pretty songs, and Mr. Guy

Carleton responded to a toast in honor of “Life,” the clever New York

paper. Mr. W. H Sayward gave one of his excellent imitations, and the

entertainment concluded with the performance of “a burlesque operatic

monodrama,” entitled “Titi.” The sole _dramatis persona_, Titi, was

assumed by Mr. Wm. F. Apthorp, who sang and recited the monodrama

in costume, being accompanied on the piano by Mr. Arthur Foote. The

performance of this bright musical composition occupied nearly half

an hour, and it was acted and sung by Mr. Apthorp with exquisite

_chic_ and drollery, serving as a fitting finale to the very pleasant

after-dinner entertainment. The company arose from the tables at about

half-past ten o’clock, and soon after separated, many of the gentlemen

going to the St. Botolph Club reception to Mr. Irving, which was

appointed for eleven o’clock.—_Boston Saturday Evening Gazette._

[30] In America “chestnut” is a slang phrase for an old story.

[31] In the second act there were occasionally passages where Mr.

Irving spoke one or more lines in a manner which so nearly touched

the heart with sadness, so closely appealed to the feelings, that

nothing but the brilliancy of his art stood between. His interview with

Cromwell was something grand. The patience shown could hardly belong

to anything less than royalty, and the majestic tone thrown into the

line, “Uncover in the presence of your king,” indicated a conception

of conscious authority which could hardly be improved. But by far the

greatest artistic triumph was his delivery of the short speech at the

close of the third act. The tone in which the lines were spoken was

simply grand, and when they were finished the pity of the audience was

instinctively bestowed upon the betrayer rather than the betrayed.

Miss Terry as the queen won a considerable success. Her sincere love

and devotion to the king and her children were exhibited by the finest

tokens, and with a simplicity which would not admit the thought of

extravagance or affection. Her appeal to Cromwell for the life of the

king was well worthy a queen; but her disdainful refusal of the offer

to release him in case he would abdicate was something remarkable and

unique. But her brightest laurel was won in the final parting with

the king as he went to the execution. The little shriek she utters at

the king when he breaks the embrace in which she holds him, appealed

directly to the emotions, and seemed to be the cry of a heart that was

breaking.—_Boston Post._

[32] The trouble touching some of the “Interviews” that appeared in the

journals was that they were not all genuine. Fiske suggested this fact

as discounting a “Christmas chat”; but I undertook to endorse his work

by “annexing” his “interview” to these pages, and I have to thank him

for his bright contribution.

[33] A very large delegation of the members of the Hamilton Club

received Mr. Henry Irving in the rooms of the club last night, after

the close of the performance at Haverly’s. The honors of the club were

done by its President, Mr. Samuel McLean, and Mr. Irving was introduced

by him to the members present. Among those who attended to do honor to

the great actor were the Rev. Dr. Putman, the Rev. C. Cuthbert Hall,

the Rev. Harry Lacy, Judge Van Cott, Henry E. Pierrepont, H. E. Sanger,

S. B. Duryea, Dr. Kissam, Howard Van Sinderen, J. S. T. Stranahan,

Gordon L. Ford, Professor West, Alfred C. Barnes, Dr. McCorkle, E. A.

Packard, Amos Robbins, J. Spencer Turner, Alex. Cameron, Edward Barr,

Colonel Partridge, John Notman, J. S. Noyes, H. E. Ide, Clinton Tucker,

Ernest Jackson, Raymond Jenkins, F. Abbott Ingalls, W. T. Lawrence,

Frank Hines, Arnold Hastings, Gus. Recknagel, A. Van Sinderen, Joseph

Youmans, H. E. Dodge, Dr. Burge, Robert Ogden, Leander Waterbury, Wm.

Sanger, Dr. Colton, John King, H. D. Atwater, and John Foord. The

reception was arranged for at twenty-four hours’ notice, Mr. Irving’s

ability to attend not being known to most of the members of the club

before yesterday morning. Mr. Irving, who was accompanied by his

stage-manager, Mr. Loveday, and by Mr. Joseph Hatton, expressed himself

as extremely gratified by the cordiality of his reception.—_Brooklyn

Union, Jan. 4, 1884._

[34] A reception was given to Mr. Henry Irving, the distinguished

English actor, by Dr. Wm. H. Crim, at his residence, 185 W. Fayette

street, last evening. At the close of the performance at the Academy,

Mr. Irving, accompanied by his stage-manager, H. J. Loveday;

acting manager, Bram Stoker; J. H. Copleston, and James H. Plaser,

representing Manager Abbey, of New York, and Mr. Joseph Hatton, the

English author, drove to Dr. Crim’s residence, where they were received

by the host, and presented to a number of journalists, representing

the city press, and other gentlemen. Among those present were Messrs.

John W. McCoy, Wm. T. Croasdale, John V. Hood, Innes Randolph, Harry J.

Ford, Henry D. Beall, C. M. Fairbanks, E. N. Vallandigham, Frederick

L. Holmes, Prof. Charles G. Edwards, Samuel W. Fort, Manager of the

Academy; Harry P. Wilson, Harry F. Powell, Harry J. Conway, Charles

F. Meany, John W. Albaugh, of Holliday-street Theatre; Chas. Reynolds

and W. I. Cook. The affair was wholly informal, but was apparently

all the more agreeable on that account. Mr. Irving, upon being

presented, expressed his gratification at meeting the representatives

of the Baltimore press, and during the evening manifested the utmost

cordiality of manner. He is a delightful conversationalist, and for

a couple of hours entertained groups of attentive listeners. His

impressions of Baltimore, as far as he had seen, were very favorable,

and he was much pleased with the audiences that had greeted him during

the week at the Academy. Speaking of the Academy, he remarked that its

acoustic properties—a rare quality in a theatre of that size—were

among the very best he had ever known. About midnight the visitors

repaired to the dining-room, where a tempting repast, with choice

wines, was enjoyed. Adjourning thence to the library, the guests

indulged in a fragrant Havana, and another hour slipped by almost

unconsciously in pleasant social intercourse. During the evening Mr.

Irving appeared much interested in the rare collection of antiques,

art-works, _bric-à-brac_, and articles of _virtu_ that adorn the parlor

and library of the genial host, and in the collection of which he has

spent much time and labor.—_The Day (Baltimore), Dec. 28, 1883._

[35] The colored gentleman who asked me, during the “wild railway

journey” of a previous chapter, if I used “sticking plaster,” referred

to the exploits of the James boys. Their murderous adventures, I find,

cover a period of over twenty years, beginning, some people allege,

with a sort of guerilla warfare during the war. A reward was offered

a few years ago for the capture of the leader, Jesse James, dead or

alive, and he was treacherously murdered by one of his confederates,

who, being tried and sentenced to death, was reprieved and rewarded in

accordance with the State proclamation. He and several other members

of the gang are still occasionally before the courts, I believe, on

various charges; some appealing to the superior power of the law,

others working out their various sentences, and some of them free.

One of their most daring adventures is a tragedy that is not likely

to be forgotten in the criminal history of America. The story is to

railway travel, so far as the mere robbery itself is concerned, what

the robbery of “The Lyons Mail” is to the history of posting in France

and England a century ago. It is a truly dramatic story, in two acts.

The first scene discovers the postmaster and two or three friends of

the village of Glendale, at a flag station on the Kansas City branch of

the Chicago & Alton Railway. It is a pleasant October evening. Suddenly

they are made prisoners by a band of twelve masked and heavily-armed

men. They are marched to the little railway station, where the

telegraph-operator, an old woman, and the railway auditor, are added to

the number. They comprise the entire population of the very picturesque

and romantic station. The telegraphic instrument is destroyed, and

the station-master compelled to lower his signal lights and stop the

mail then due. This ends the first act. The second is the arrival of

the train, the sudden and expert seizure of engine-driver and guard

(the latter battered almost to death with the but-end of a pistol),

the overawing of the passengers with revolvers, and the plunder of the

mails. Horses are then brought up to the track, the men mount with

their booty, and order the train to proceed. As the cars move away,

the robbers write a despatch that the telegraph-operator is directed

to send off as soon as his instrument is in order:—“We are the boys

who are hard to handle, and we will make it hot for the boys who try to

take us. Signed, Jesse and Frank James, Jack Bishop, Irwin Cohens, Cool

Carter,” etc. The plunder was thirty thousand dollars in gold.

[36] Mr. Abbey’s excellent business manager and treasurer.

[37] Miss Ellen Terry is said to have a broad knowledge and high

appreciation of decorative art. During the past two or three days

she has been doing Michigan and Prairie avenues in this city with a

critical eye. “I noticed a good many houses,” she says, “that I did

not like at all, but many others that are truly beautiful. The red

brick ones and the yellow marble fronts are mostly exquisite in design

and color. Here and there Michigan avenue reminds me of Brighton in

England.”—_Daily News._

[38] The company included His Worship the Mayor of Chicago (the Hon.

Carter Harrison); G. M. Pullman (of Pullman City); J. Medill (editor

of the “Tribune”); Murray Nelson; Mr. Gage (banker); Major-General

Schofield; Marshall Field; Mr. Dexter; George Dunlap; C. R. Cummings;

General A. Stager, and J. B. Lyon. The _menu_ was remarkable for its

luxurious elegance, and the speaking, though informal, and in no

sense prearranged, was notable for being chiefly confined to the arts

and their influences on civilization. Mr. John B. Carson proposed

“Health and continued success to Henry Irving,” and welcomed him to

the West in terms of hearty friendship. “And I only hope,” he said,

“you will one day come to Quincy, which is my head-quarters; we are

not a very great population, but we have a fine theatre, and we enjoy

a good play.” Quincy has a population of twenty-five thousand, is

beautifully situated on a limestone bluff, one hundred and twenty-five

feet above the Mississippi river. Mr. Carson and his friends at

Quincy sent Mr. Abbey a guarantee of $4,000, for one night’s visit

of the Irving Company. It will be interesting to add, in this place,

that many “theatre parties” came to Chicago, from distant cities,

to see Irving. Some of them travelled all day, and several of their

newspapers contained reports and criticisms of the performances.

The Rockford “Register,” for example, printed the following in its

leading columns: “Remarkable success has attended the performances of

Henry Irving, the celebrated English actor, during the present week,

at Haverly’s Theatre, Chicago. For once the severest critics in the

country have their scalpels blunted and dulled by the perfection of

his work combined with the exactness of the stage-setting. There has

never appeared an actor on the boards of Chicago who has received

such lavish, unreserved praise from the critics and the press. It

is doubtless true that there is no other actor in the world who has

studied so thoroughly all the minor details of every play, arranging

every bit of scenery, every position of the most unimportant member

of the cast. Nor has there been such an outlay of money elsewhere by

any one to secure the completest perfection of every surrounding.

The result is, that every play to which this student-actor lends his

attention becomes correct and faithful, historically and artistically.

He remains in Chicago for another week, and those of our citizens

who love art in its highest sense have now an opportunity that is

not likely to be offered again for studying the man whose name is a

household word in England, and whose fame is world-renowned. Miss Terry

likewise is winning well-earned laurels, while the entire company

of English actors are Mr. Irving’s continuous and carefully chosen

support, and rank high in their respective rôles. A party of prominent

citizens to attend in a body one night next week has been formed.

In that event, Mr. Perkins states that the North-western road would

probably make special rates.

[39] The _menu cards_ on this occasion were gems in the way of printing

and binding. They were exquisitely encased in alligator-leather and

silver. With each of them was a guest-card, on which was written

a poetic welcome, couched in bright, humorous, and complimentary

terms—the work of the hostess. Many ladies and gentlemen of position

were present, and the affair was one of the pleasantest in the history

of the Calumet Club.

[40] At eleven o’clock last evening Mr. Emery A. Storrs gave a supper

in honor of Mr. Henry Irving, at the Leland Hotel, and pleasantly

entertained thirty-five well-known gentlemen. The guests assembled

about ten o’clock, in room twenty, and shortly afterward adjourned

to Mr. Storrs’ suite of parlors on the Michigan-avenue front of the

hotel. Mr. Irving and Mr. Hatton arrived soon after eleven o’clock,

and, after a few minutes’ social chat, the party proceeded to the small

dining-hall. The arrangements were elaborate and perfect, and the

decorations were very handsome. Lines of flags of all nations extended

from the four corners of the room, crossing one another just under the

dome in the centre. Hanging by an invisible wire from the electric

light in the dome was a double-faced floral circle, edged with smilax,

through the centre of which was a floral bar. On one side of this was

the name “Irving,” and on the other side “Terry,” in red carnations

upon a white ground. The walls were hung with the English and American

colors, and directly behind the guest’s seat was a bust of Shakespeare,

over which was looped the English flag, caught up by a shield, bearing

the arms of Great Britain and Ireland. Above this was a banner bearing

the following inscription: “‘One touch of nature makes the whole world

kin’—Irving and Booth.” At the opposite end of the room, just above

the door, was a similar banner, inscribed as follows: “‘To hold, as

‘twere, the mirror up to nature’—Ellen Terry and Mary Anderson.”

Immediately opposite the entrance to the room was the inscription,

“Greeting and Welcome,” and over the entrance was inscribed, “Not that

we think us worthy such a guest, but that your worth will dignify

our feast.” To the left of this was a banner, bearing the following:

“Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with the special

observation that you overstep not the modesty of Nature.” And to the

right was a banner, inscribed as follows: “All the world’s a stage, and

all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their

entrances.” The table was arranged in the shape of a “T,” with the

host, the guest of the evening, and a few of the more favored sitting

at the cross of the “T.” Immediately in front of the seats of Mr.

Irving and Mr. Storrs was an immense basket of flowers,—which was sent

later in the evening to Miss Terry, with Mr. Storrs’ compliments,—and

to the right and left of this was a floral bell, suggesting the actor’s

favorite play, “The Bells.” In the body of the “T” was a huge _épergne_

of fruit and flowers, and trails of smilax were laid the length of the

cloth. In front of each one of the thirty-five plates was a fragrant

_boutonnière_, and a satin-covered card bearing the name of the guest

diagonally across a marine scene. Delicate-tinted glasses to the right

of each plate suggested liquid enjoyment to follow. The following is

a list of the guests as they sat at table:—Emery A. Storrs, Henry

Irving, Joseph Hatton, General Schofield, Professor Swing, Perry H.

Smith, Professor Fraser, William Balcom, F. B. Wilkie, F. H. Winston,

J. D. Harvey, M. E. Stone, Alfred Cowles, D. B. Shipman, W. C. D.

Grannis, W. P. Nixon, W. S. Walker, Dr. Jackson, Mr. Phinney, Leonard

Hodges, Canon Knowles, A. F. Seeberger, Louis Wahl, S. D. Kimbark, C.

P. Kimball, J. L. High, Mr. Clement, Washington Hesing, J. M. Dandy,

Mr. Lewis, Mr. Griswold, Mr. Harper, Mr. Dewey, Mr. Thayer, Mr. Hord,

Mr. Bacon. After supper Mr. Storrs, in a witty prelude, explaining that

there were to be no speeches, proposed the health of Mr. Irving. The

famous actor having responded, Joseph Hatton, who, by his works and

in his own person, is well known in Chicago, was toasted. Miss Terry

was not forgotten during the unstudied and informal eloquence of the

evening. A magnificent basket of flowers was sent to her, with the

respectful compliments of the host and his friends.—_Tribune and other

newspaper reports._

[41] The reception to Henry Irving and Miss Ellen Terry, by the Chicago

Press Club last evening, was a brilliant social and professional event.

It was a graceful recognition of Great Britain’s greatest histrionic

stars. Many professional people, including Mlle. Rhea, Mrs. Jessie

Bartlett-Davis, and others of note on the dramatic and operatic stage,

were present, and were presented to the distinguished guests of the

evening, together with a large number of _litérateurs_, journalists,

and members of the bar. Miss Terry came in shortly after eleven

o’clock. She was presented to Mlle. Rhea, and the two artists who had

thus met in conversation for the first time chatted pleasantly while

the other guests gathered about them, and were introduced as occasion

permitted. Miss Terry said she had witnessed Mlle. Rhea’s acting in

London, when the latter first began to speak English. Miss Terry talked

pleasantly to several ladies, who expressed great delight at the

opportunity thus afforded them to form the acquaintance of so excellent

a woman, and so talented a member of the dramatic profession.

Mr. Irving came in shortly after Miss Terry arrived, accompanied by

Joseph Hatton and an escort from the Press Club. The great actor was

a centre of attraction, and he submitted in the most kindly manner to

the ordeal of introductions and the pressing multitude of guests who

moved about the rooms. About midnight lunch was served. It was nearly

one o’clock when Mr. Irving, Miss Terry, and Mr. Terriss departed.

Most of the company remained, and listened to some fine singing by

George Sweet and Miss Lena Hastreiter. It was nearly two o’clock

before the other guests dispersed. Among the many present were the

following: Mr. and Mrs. Will. J. Davis, Miss Grace Cartland, Mr. and

Mrs. James W. Scott, Mr. and Mrs. Franc B. Wilkie, Miss Ada M. Dunne,

Mr. and Mrs. Leo Canman, Mr. and Mrs. George Broderick, Professor

Swing, Emery A. Storrs, Miss May Waldren, C. P. Dresser, W. D. Eaton,

Walter Meadowcroft, E. A. Barron, Elliott Durand, Mr. and Mrs. C. H.

McConnell, R. J. Murphy, Judge and Mrs. Bradwell, Mr. and Mrs. John

B. Jeffery, John M. Ayer, Professor Bastin, Col. and Mrs. Nat. Reed,

John A. Hamlin, John Hambline, Mr. and Mrs. F. A. Rice, Mr. and Mrs.

Frank C. Cooper, E. P. Hall, Professor R. Welsh and Mrs. Welsh, Miss

Bessie Bradwell, Henry W. Thomson, Miss Kate McPhelin, Mrs. McPhelin,

Mr. and Mrs. Wash. Hesing, Miss Gertie Buckley, Miss Lillian Powell,

Miss Clark, Al. Clark, H. D. Russell, Mr. and Mrs. F. G. Logan,

Miss Van Inwegan, Mr. and Mrs. T. Z. Cowles, J. M. Dandy, and T. C.

MacMillan.—_Morning News._

[42] The institution of “The Elks” is one of great influence and

importance. Its objects are to promote and advance the material and

social interests of the theatrical profession, and to give mutual aid

and assistance to the members in case of pecuniary need. Candidates for

admission to the order must be “proposed and vouched for” by existing

members; and before election they must pass through the ordeal of the

ballot “after an investigation as to character by a committee of the

lodge.” Membership is a title to relief in distress wherever there is a

lodge; but a “Black Book” is kept and circulated containing the names

of members who have proved unworthy of their privileges. Members need

not necessarily be actors. Many lawyers and journalists are Elks. The

charity of the order is secretly dispensed by an executive committee,

sworn not to divulge the channels into which it flows, or the names

of those who request assistance. Annual performances in aid of the

“charity fund” are given at the theatres. One of these “benefits”

occurred during Mr. Irving’s first visit to New York. Irving, finding

it impossible to accept an invitation to be present, either as a

performer or a spectator, sent a donation; and this was acknowledged

by a formal resolution of thanks, which, beautifully illuminated and

framed, was presented to Irving at the Brevoort House by a deputation

of the members, headed by A. C. Morland, Exalted Ruler and Secretary of

the lodge; A. L. Heckler, I. Steinfeld, George Clarke, J. W. Hamilton,

and James W. Collier, chairman of the Committee of Arrangements. New

York City is the head-quarters of the Elks. The New York lodge is No.

1 on the list of lodges, each of them, as in Masonry, being numbered;

though practically, I understand, the lodges in the other States are

considered to be branches in association with No. 1. Their club-houses

in many States and cities are handsome and well-appointed buildings.

Among the anecdotes which Mr. Morland related to Irving was the story

of an “advance theatrical agent” dying suddenly in a strange place, and

his body being laid away in the local morgue. Some persons happening

to hear that the only sign of identification found on the body was a

bronze badge, with “P.B.O.E.” and an elk’s head upon it, the fact came

to the knowledge of a brother Elk, who at once discovered the number

of the man’s lodge, the officers of which identified him by name; and,

instead of lying in a nameless grave, the poor fellow was conveyed to

his home, in a far-distant State, and given “Christian burial” in the

presence of his family and friends.

[43] The Irving-Terry reception, by the Elks, “Wednesday evening, was a

notable social event. The Elks were there, of course; but it is worthy

of notice that, at this testimonial offered to two eminent members of

the dramatic profession, the attendance of ladies represented the most

exclusive and aristocratic circles of St. Louis society; and quite a

number of the most liberal and eminent of the clergymen were there

also. “Society” in St. Louis has more good common-sense than in any

other city in the Union.—_Post-Dispatch, Jan. 26._

[44] The Dramatic Festival Association tendered a dinner to Mr. Henry

Irving, at the Queen City Club-rooms, last evening, after the great

actor’s final performance at the Grand Opera House. There were present,

besides the distinguished guest, Governor Noyes, ex-president of the

association: Manager Henry E. Abbey; Colonel Miles, city dramatic

director; Secretary Hall, Mr. Halstead, Judge Force, Colonel Dayton,

Mr. Alter, Mr. Huntington, Mr. J. W. Miller, Mr. Nat. H. Davis, Mr.

Devereux, Mr. Chatfield, Mr. Bram Stoker, manager for Mr. Irving; Mr.

Wetherby, Mr. Stevens, Copleston, agent of Mr. Abbey; Mr. Charles Taft,

Mr. Leonard, Colonel Markbreit, Mr. Will. Carlisle, Mr. Frank Alter,

and others, to the number of thirty or more. The tables were elegantly

decorated, and the _menu_ was, of course, of the choicest and most

fastidious description. Governor Noyes introduced Mr. Irving to those

present in his usual happy manner, alluded to the great pleasure and

benefit the “Paris of America” had enjoyed from his brief sojourn among

us, and significantly expressed the hope that he might soon return to

us. Mr. Irving responded to the enthusiastic greeting which followed

Governor Noyes’s introduction in a manner which won all hearts, by its

sensible and modest sincerity. He had been most favorably impressed

by his audiences in Cincinnati, finding them keenly responsive and

deeply attentive. Allusion had been made to the operatic and other

festivals; but he was not yet persuaded that the emulation excited

between the artists taking part in them might not have a flavor of the

cockpit about it. He was much more inclined to believe in the benefit

of sound, permanent dramatic enterprise here, a school of the drama,

with a theatre and stock company attached, whence might originate

influences of deep and permanent good to the community and country. He

paid a high compliment to the quickness and ready grasp of an idea by

Americans, and concluded with a graceful acknowledgment of the general

and particular courtesies he had met with in Cincinnati, not forgetting

the press. Remarks were also made by Judge Force and Mr. Halstead, the

latter alluding, with much feeling, to some of Cincinnati’s peculiar

claims to the title of “Paris of America.”—_Cincinnati News-Journal,

Feb. 3, 1884._

[45] Irving saw the beginning of one of the periodical disasters to

which Cincinnati is subjected,—the overflowing of the Ohio. “Within a

few days after his visit the city was inundated, thousands of people

were homeless, entire families flying from their homes, their houses

wrecked, their property floating down the river. Many lives were lost

up and down stream. Great floods occurred in other districts, the busy

manufacturing city of Pittsburg being among the most serious sufferers.

Cincinnati had hardly recovered from the floods, and thought out new

devices for dealing with any future trouble of the kind, when she was

visited with another disaster,—a great and fatal riot. All countries

have their public abuses, their governmental shortcomings. England

has plenty of them; the administration of the law in America is far

from perfect. As long as judges are elected by popular vote so long

will there be serious miscarriages of justice; so long as juries can

be packed, intimidated, and bribed, so long will the jury system be

found defective. Such glaring instances of malfeasance and failure

in the administration of justice had, from time to time, occurred at

Cincinnati that (upon the principle that it is the last straw that

breaks the camel’s back), when “another notorious murderer was let

off,” the populace arose, attacked the jail where a company of other

ruffians were imprisoned, with a view to taking the law into their own

hands. The militia were called out, and fired into the rioters. Many

persons were killed and wounded before order could be restored. The

press of the country, while regretting the breach of the peace and the

loss of life, generally insist upon the moral that governments must not

look for people to respect the law in face of corruption in high places

and notorious compromises with thieves and murderers. “The objective

point of the mob,” wrote the special correspondent of the “New York

Sun,” “was the jail, and the murderers it contained, whom they meant to

hang. Twenty-three murderers are in that jail, none of whom have had a

trial, except William Hugh, who is to be hanged; and Emil Trompeter,

who has had two trials, and is to have a third. In the list are William

Hartnett, who murdered his wife with an axe; Joe Palmer, the negro

confederate of William Berner in murdering William Kirk, and Allen

Ingalls and Ben Johnson, the Avondale negro burkers. In addition to

these there are several murderers out on bail and walking the streets.

They have not been tried, though the murders for which they were

indicted were committed months ago.” The “New York Herald,” editorially

discussing “the results of the riot,” says that, in the first place,

“no jury in that city for some time to come will outrage justice and

public decency by making a mockery of murder trials,” and that, “in the

next place, the people of Cincinnati have become deeply impressed with

the importance of divorcing partisan politics from the administration

of justice and municipal affairs generally. Before the echoes of the

riot have died away they have started a citizens’ movement, with the

determination to put in the field and elect at the coming municipal

election candidates not identified with either party machine, but

representative of the highest order of citizenship. When this is done

there will be a more effective administration of law and justice and a

reform of abuses which contributed, directly or indirectly, in no small

degree, to the disastrous events of the past few days.”

[46] “Louis XI.,” “Charles the First,” “The Merchant of Venice,”

“The Bells,” and “The Lyons Mail,” drew great and fashionable houses

at Cincinnati, and the criticisms in the native press and in the

German newspapers were written in a spirit of cordiality, much of it

descriptive, and all of it recognizing the possibilities of a speedy

reformation in the existing method of representing the classic drama

in the West. The following translation of some of the most prominent

passages in a lengthy criticism of “The Merchant of Venice” is from

“Tagliches Cincinnati Volksblatt,” one of the principal German

newspapers of the district:—

“The court-scene is a masterpiece, and is filled with so many

details that the spectator follows the action with lively interest,

and imagines himself in a real court of law. The decoration of the

last act, a wonderful park scene, with moonlight, was ravishing,

and the madrigals behind the scene were charmingly melodious, and

were also excellently sung; in a word, one saw a great performance

of ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ and not only Mr. Irving, as Shylock,

or Miss Terry, as Portia. By that we do not mean to say that Henry

Irving’s performance was less great; on the contrary, he confirmed and

fortified, through his Shylock, the judgment we pronounced upon his

‘Louis XI.’ His reading is entirely the same as Döring’s, who ranked

as the best Shylock in Germany, and who has not yet found a successor.

It is the covetous, vindictive Jew; but he is rather an object of

pity than of scorn. It was the Jew whose passionate temperament and

inexorable vengeance naturally seized upon the first opportunity of

gratifying his hatred towards the Christians, who heaped mockeries,

insults, and injustice upon him, particularly Antonio, who treated him

with the utmost scorn. This was the Jew Shakespeare drew, played by Mr.

Irving with the refinement of an artist and the sharp observance of a

philologist.... His facial expression is mobile and most expressive ...

and his speech has only just the accent by which the Jews of that class

are known. His acting in the first scene, in the scene with Tubal, and,

above all, in the court-scene (particularly the passing from cruel,

passionate joy to the consciousness of his own torpid despair), was

the true work of a great actor.... Miss Ellen Terry, who plays Portia,

was reported from other towns where she had appeared to be a great

actress: the audience was, therefore, highly expectant.... She took

the public from first to last by storm.... She is one of those endowed

actresses, who shine so completely in the character they represent that

the spectator forgets the actress, and only sees the person represented

in the piece.”

[47] Mr. Henry Irving, in remembrance of distinguished courtesies

shown him while in the East by the Hon. Thomas Donaldson, called upon

his father, Major Donaldson, to-day. During the afternoon, in company

with Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Irving called upon various gentlemen, and was

introduced to a great many members of the General Assembly in the House

and Senate. He received many warm expressions touching the pleasure he

gave our citizens in “The Bells,” at Comstock’s Opera House. During

their stay in the State House Mr. Irving was introduced to Governor

Hoadly and the State officers.—_Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 5._

[48] Detroit is a handsome and populous city on the banks of a noble

river that connects Lake Erie and St. Clair. The company gave two

performances at Whitney’s Opera House, to large audiences, by whom

they were heartily received. The “Post and Tribune” contained long

and complimentary notices of the plays and the actors, with lists of

the principal people in the audiences. “The coming of Mr. Irving and

Miss Terry,” it says, “was a great event in dramatic circles here, and

has long been looked forward to with expectancy. The audience that

greeted them completely filled the house, every seat being occupied,

while many were content to stand during the entire performance. It was

also a fashionable audience, in the fullest sense of the word, all of

Detroit’s most pronounced society people being there.”

[49] The “Niagara Falls Courier” has an interesting article on the

many orthographical changes of the name of Niagara. In 1687 it was

written Oniogoragn. In 1686 Gov. Dongan appeared uncertain about it

and spelled it Onniagero, Onyagara, and Onyagro. The French, in 1638

to 1709, wrote it Niaguro, Onyagare, Onyagra and Oneygra. Philip

Livingston wrote in 1720 to 1730 Octjagara, Jagera, and Yagerah, and

Schuyler and Livingston, Commissioners of Indian Affairs, wrote it

in 1720 Onjagerae, Ocniagara, etc. In 1721 it was written Onjagora,

Oniagara, and accidentally, probably, Niagara, as at present. Lieut.

Lindsay wrote it Niagara in 1751. So did Capt. De Lancey (son of Gov.

De Lancey), who was an officer in the English army that captured Fort

Niagara from the French in 1759. “These pioneers,” says the local

journalist, “may, however, be excused in view of the fact—as will be

attested by post-masters—that some letter-writers of to-day seem quite

as undecided about the orthography of this world-wide familiar name.”

[50] The following is the correspondence alluded to:—

“NEW YORK, Jan. 20, 1884.

“MR. IRVING:—

“_Dear Sir_,—The creation and development of a taste for true dramatic

art among the colored citizens of culture in New York city, having been

long regarded as a necessity to their intellectual growth, a number of

ladies and gentlemen, selected for their evidences of dramatic ability,

which they have shown from time to time, met on the evening of January

7, and perfected the organization of the ‘Irving Dramatic Club.’ In

apprising you of this fact we beg leave to assure you, sir, that, in

selecting your name for the title of our club, we did not choose it

because we felt we were conferring an honor,—far from it,—for we

well know that the mere naming of an amateur club could add nothing to

the lustre of the laurels so deservedly won by one who so fittingly

represents as yourself all that is noble and grand in dramatic art.

But, having in our mind the record of past events, we could not fail to

recognize that the English stage and its representatives were but the

synonyms of equity and justice.

“Thus, in searching for a patron, we naturally reverted to that source

from which our efforts were mostly to be regarded with favor; and,

acting upon this impulse, we could think of no name that would be a

greater incentive to conscientious and praiseworthy effort than that of

Irving.

“Hoping that this action will meet with your approval, we remain, with

best wishes for your health and prosperity, respectfully yours,

“IRVING DRAMATIC CLUB. “CHARLES G. BOWSER, _Pres’t_. “W. H. A. MOORE,

_Sec’y_.”

“ST. LOUIS, Jan. 26, 1884.

“DEAR SIR,—I have received your letter of the 20th, and it gives

me great pleasure to have my name associated with so gratifying an

intellectual movement among the colored citizens of New York as the

establishment of a Dramatic Club. Art is of no country, and has no

nationality. Europe is deeply indebted to the artistic culture of

the great colored people of the Eastern World, and there is promise

of a future for your race, in the fact that you have ceased to

feel the disabilities of color in your association with your white

fellow-citizens. I once had the pleasure of knowing a very famous actor

of your race,—Ira Aldridge. I wish for your club a prosperous career,

and beg to subscribe myself,

“Yours truly, HENRY IRVING.”

[51] TOBOGGANING.—Saturday, February 24th, was a gala day in the

annals of the Toronto Toboggan Club. The slide was in perfect

condition,—glare ice from top to bottom. About eighty members were out

with their toboggans, enjoying the slide, the only fault of which is

that it is too fast for the length of run at the bottom. The committee

are, however, making arrangements to overcome this defect. During the

latter part of the afternoon several members of Mr. Irving’s company

and friends were present by invitation, escorted by Mr. Bram Stoker.

Miss Terry drove a young friend, Miss Helen H. Hatton (who is visiting

Toronto with her father), out to the grounds, and they were both

initiated into the Canadian winter sport. Miss Terry was completely

captivated by this entirely new sensation, and only regretted that she

was unable to enjoy it longer. She entered into it with the greatest

zest. The ladies and gentlemen of the club gave her a very hearty

welcome.—_Newspaper Reports._

[52] Mr. Henry Irving, Miss Ellen Terry, and their company left for

Boston early in the morning, by special train, over the “West Shore

route.” The train consisted of Mr. Irving’s private car, two Pullmans,

and three baggage-cars. The Pullmans, two of those in ordinary use

on the West Shore road, are simply magnificent in their internal

arrangements, possessing the latest improvements, and affording to the

traveller the greatest possible comfort. Among the innovations not

found in the ordinary “sleepers” are the racks on which clothes may be

deposited; electric call-bells attached to each berth, communicating

with the porter’s berth; a small kitchen, where light refreshments may

be prepared, and the whole structure running on paper wheels, so that

the rattle and jar of the ordinary car is entirely abolished. The train

was in charge of Mr. G. J. Weeks, of Buffalo, northern passenger agent

of the company, who accompanied the party to Boston.—_Toronto Mail._

[53] During the journey from Boston to Baltimore an inquiring member

of Mr. Irving’s company pulled the check-string, “just to see what

the thing was.” There was great consternation on board, neither guard

nor driver knowing what had happened. The inquiring gentleman offered

a frank explanation, and the train went on again; but the monotony

of the remainder of the journey was relieved by a little practical

joke at our friend’s expense. An official was introduced into the

conspiracy, and the delinquent was formally fined a hundred dollars.

The rules of the company and the law of the land were quoted against

him. Irving explained to him the enormity of his offence, and, after

a little outburst against the tyranny of American laws as compared

with those of England, the defendant paid twenty dollars on account,

and a subscription was started to raise the remainder. “I am glad the

affair occurred,” said the offender, an hour or two later, “if only

for the pleasure it has given me to find how well I stand with my

colleagues; it is quite touching the way they have stood by me in purse

and in friendly words.” Alas for the sentiment of the thing!—most of

the subscribers were in the secret. At Baltimore imaginary despatches

passed between Mr. Abbey and the railway authorities, and the fine was

withdrawn, the President, at New York, being satisfied that there was

no malice in Mr. ——’s strange interference with the working of the

train. The victim thereupon wrote a letter of thanks to Mr. Abbey, had

quite a pathetic interview with Irving on the happy termination of

the _contretemps_, and insisted upon treating the chief subscribers

to champagne, over which he made so cordial and excellent a speech

that everybody shook hands with him, and said he was “a real good

fellow,”—which is perfectly true, and a good actor to boot. I would

not have mentioned this incident but that the opportunity of an

appropriate foot-note overbears my self-denial; and, after all, it was

a very harmless piece of fun.

[54] One day’s rest was taken at Niagara Falls.

[55] The President went last evening to witness the final performance

of Mr. Henry Irving and his company at the National Theatre, in “Louis

XI.” and “The Belle’s Stratagem.” Mrs. McElroy and Miss Nellie Arthur

were with him in the box. Subsequently he entertained at the White

House, Mr. Irving, the members of the President’s cabinet and the

ladies of their families; Mrs. McElroy and Miss McElroy, the sister

and niece of the President; Colonel and Mrs. Bonaparte; General and

Mrs. P. H. Sheridan, United States Army; General E. F. Beale; Mr. and

Mrs. Marcellus Bailey; Mr. Walker Blaine; Mr. and Mrs. N. L. Anderson;

Lieut. T. B. M. Mason, United States Navy, and Mrs. Mason; Commissioner

of Agriculture George B. Loring, Mrs. and Miss Loring; Assistant

Attorney-General William A. Maury, Mrs. and Miss Maury; Assistant

Secretary of State John Davis and Mrs. Davis; John P. Jones, United

States Senate, and Mrs. Jones, Nevada; Senator M. C. Butler, South

Carolina; Senator Aldrich, Rhode Island; Mr. and Mrs. H. S. Sanford;

Mr. John Field; Mr. F. J. Phillips, secretary to the President; Senator

and Mrs. John F. Miller, California; Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Lyman, of

Massachusetts, House of Representatives; Mr. and Mrs. William Walter

Phelps, New Jersey; House of Representatives; Mr. Clayton McMichael,

United States Marshal, and Mrs. McMichael; Mr. and Mrs. Charles

Nordhoff, “New York Herald”; Mr. Stillson Hutchings, “Washington Post”;

Mr. Albert Pulitzer, “New York Journal”; Mr. and Mrs. Isaac Bell, of

New York; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hatton, of England.—No actor was ever so

entertained in Washington as Mr. Irving has been. He attended a supper

at the Metropolitan Club on Wednesday evening; a breakfast given by Mr.

Bayard on Thursday; gave a supper to Mr. Blaine and a party of friends

on Thursday evening, after the play; was the guest of Mr. William

Walter Phelps on Friday morning; attended a supper given to him by Mr.

Dorsheimer on Friday evening; and last night was the President’s guest,

as stated. Miss Terry has received more social attentions here than in

any other American city.—_The Capital, March 9._

[56] We thoroughly believe that the time will never come when any actor

can present a Hamlet that will be universally regarded as a correct

interpretation of the master poet’s sublime creation. Mr. Irving’s

impersonation was brilliantly bold in execution, replete with new

readings and stage business, and magnificent bursts of feeling, arising

from his changeableness of moods. There does not seem to be a scene in

the entire tragedy which he has not touched with his own subtle and

delicate refinement, and removed far above the conventionalities of

other actors whom we have seen. His first soliloquy, “Oh, that this

too, too solid flesh would melt!” was rendered as though it were the

unconscious utterance of a thought. He displayed but little interest

in the return to earth of his father’s spirit until he met it face to

face; and then he surrounded himself with a solemn supernaturalism,

tinged with glow of superb filial affection. This, in turn, seemed

to give way to a sort of nervous terror, and he became hysterical,

which presented to the oath of secrecy an added reverential awe.

The first long interview between Hamlet and Ophelia was played with

splendid dramatic force and fire. His simulation of passion, his

deep longing for its gratification, and his recklessness consequent

upon his recollection of the stern duty to which he had devoted

himself,—alternately flying from her, and then returning,—was a part

of the performance which created a most profound impression upon our

mind.—_The National Republican, March 6._

[57] Mr. Henry Irving and Miss Terry were tendered a reception by the

Hamilton Club yesterday afternoon. The quaint old mansion on Clinton

street was filled between the hours of three and five. The reception,

which was informal, was held in the library on the second floor, an

inviting apartment papered in old gold, with a frieze of olive-green

with conventionalized flowers. The walls are lined with mahogany

bookcases filled with well-bound books, largely historical. An oil

painting of Alexander Hamilton, in an old-fashioned frame, hangs on

the west hall, where it is lighted by the flickering gleams of the

wood-fire in a tiled fireplace opposite. An antique chandelier, with

imitation candles, completes the effect.

At half-past three Mr. Irving and Miss Terry were found in opposite

corners of the room, each surrounded by an animated group. Miss Terry,

over whom some of the younger ladies were mad with curiosity, was

completely hemmed in, and was given no opportunity to move about, as

Irving did. She sat during intervals in an old arm-chair, covered

with red plush. She wore an artistic gown, with a Watteau plait. Her

fair hair curled from beneath a round French hat, covered with brown

velvet, and with a dark feather. At her neck was an eccentric scarf

of orange-colored satin. Prior to the reception Mr. Irving and Miss

Terry lunched with Mr. Samuel McLean, President of the club, at his

residence, 47 Pierrepoint street; among his fourteen guests being

Mrs. Buckstone (his sister), Mr. and Mrs. Henry Ward Beecher, and Mr.

and Mrs. John Foord. Those present at the club reception included Mr.

and Mrs. Bryan H. Smith, Mrs. George Prentiss, Mr. and Mrs. Crowell

Hadden, Mrs. S. C. Lynes, Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Ide, Mr. and Mrs. S. B.

Chittenden, Captain McKenzie, Alex. Forman, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Turner,

Mr. and Mrs. Alex. Cameron, Mrs. F. P. Bellamy, Mr. and Mrs. William C.

De Witt, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Yeoman, Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Robbins,

Mrs. Hattie Otis, Amos Robbins, A. F. Goodnow, Mr. and Mrs. John T.

Howard, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Sheldon, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Phelps, Mrs.

Washington A. Roebling, Mrs. Packer, Mr. and Mrs. J. S. T. Stranahan,

Mr. and Mrs. Josiah Low, John Winslow, Mrs. P. Lynch, Mrs. Callender,

Adrian Van Sinderen, John N. Peet, Mr. Bram Stoker and Mr. H. J.

Loveday (of Mr. Irving’s company), Mrs. Joseph Hatton and Miss Helen

H. Hatton (of London), Miss Abbie O. Nichols, Mrs. John A. Buckingham,

Mrs. Birch, Mr. and Mrs. N. W. C. Hatch, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon L. Ford,

the Rev. Dr. Hutton, Mr. and Mrs. Geo. W. Mead and daughter, Mr. and

Mrs. McKean, Mr. and Mrs. F. W. Morse, Mr. and Mrs. Robert H. Turle,

Mr. and Mrs. Mackie, Charles Bill, Mrs. Ropes, Mr. and Mrs. John Foord,

Mr. Samuel McLean, and Mr. and Mrs. Rodman.—_Brooklyn Times, and

Brooklyn Union, March 30._

[58] When Henry Irving was here, in December last, the “Clover Club”

tendered him a breakfast, and at that time he stated that when he

returned to the city he hoped again to meet his genial hosts. Last

night he kept his promise. Upwards of sixty gentlemen, members of

the club, and friends whom he had met elsewhere, were invited to

take supper with him at the Bellevue, after the performance at the

Chestnut-street Opera House, and the occasion was a most delightful

one. The celebrated table of the club, in the shape of a four-leaved

clover, was spread in the banqueting-hall. On it were two lofty forms

of flowers, in the midst of which rose two fountains, throwing up

crystal streams of water, which fell in spray over the blossoms.

There were also several little plots of growing clover, shaped in the

form of the quadrifoliate. The company did not assemble until after

the performance of “Much Ado About Nothing.” It was 11.30 when they

were seated at the table, with Mr. Irving at the head. Among the many

present were Ex-Gov. Hoyt, Dion Boucicault, Attorney-General Cassidy,

Col. A. Loudon Snowden, A. K. McClure, M. P. Handy, J. H. Heverin,

Mr. Joseph Hatton and Mr. Montague Marks, from New York. The occasion

was one long to be remembered. Mr. Irving, in proposing the toast

of the “Clover Club,” thanked the members for their hospitality,

and Philadelphia for its welcome of him, and, with characteristic

modesty, spoke of his tour through the country, the welcome which he

had everywhere received, and the love of dramatic art which he found

among the people. Mr. Handy replied for the “Clover Club,” with his

customary felicitous eloquence, and concluded by informing Mr. Irving

of his election as an honorary member of the club. While Mr. Irving

was bowing his thanks Mr. Handy decorated him with the jewelled badge

of membership. Dion Boucicault told how Mr. Irving, to his mind, had

banished the pedestal actor from the stage, and presented Shakespeare

as the dramatist himself would have wished to see his works given. Mr.

A. K. McClure pointed out how the dramatic art had knit the Anglo-Saxon

race in a close bond of union. Mr. Howe, the “old man” of Mr. Irving’s

company, gave some interesting reminiscences of how he, as a Quaker

boy, and dressed in a Quaker garb, applied to Edmund Kean to be allowed

to go on the stage. Mr. Terriss, the leading man, gave a recitation.

Dr. Bedloe offered a new version of Shakespeare’s “Seven Ages,” and

before the close Miss Terry was toasted in a bumper of three times

three. Seldom has such a merry party sat down to supper, and the

evening, when it is brought to mind, will never call up any but the

most delightful recollections.—_The Day, Baltimore, and The Call,

Philadelphia, March 20, 1884._

[59] The head-quarters of the Fire-Insurance Patrol, are eighty-five

feet wide and one hundred feet long. The first floor or room is sixteen

feet eight inches high, with black walnut and maple wainscoting. In

the front of the room there are two pairs of stairs, one each side.

Under these are the horses’ stalls. Between the stairs and stalls is

the patrol-wagon, the pole of which is ten feet from the front doors,

which open out in a vestibule by electricity, and are held by weights.

On the right of the room, as you enter, are all the telegraphic

instruments connected with the patrol, with no wires visible; a raised

panelled black-walnut wall, consisting of the Electric Mercurial

Fire-Alarm, which is connected with seventy different business

buildings, concealing the wires. This is a system which gives the alarm

automatically, giving the exact location of the fire in any building.

Over this annunciator is a large clock. On panels, on the right and

left of the above, are two gongs, one giving the fire-alarms from the

city, the other connected with the Mercurial Fire-Alarm Annunciator.

Under one gong there are three small gongs, one connecting directly

with the Western Union Telegraph Office, one with Marshall, Field,

& Co.’s retail store, and the other with the City Fire Department.

In another panel are the American District Telegraph connections. In

the ceiling over the wagon is a large reflecting gas-light, which

shines directly over the horses when hitching. Just in the rear of

the reflector are three traps, that work automatically when an alarm

is received, opening the floors on the second story, and ceiling of

the first, to enable the driver and assistants to have easy access to

their seats; two other members, who sleep on the second floor, make use

of the same means of ready exit. The same telegraphic instrument sets

in motion appliances which take off the bed-clothing from ten beds on

the second floor, and four berths on the first, relieving the men from

all incumbrances in an instant. On the second floor is the dormitory

for the men, which is carpeted with English body Brussels. There are

heavy black-walnut bedsteads, with F. I. P. carved in headboard,

inlaid with gold. The front part of this room is partitioned off

and used as Captain Bulwinkle’s room, which is carpeted with Wilton

carpet, bordered with white, papered and frescoed on all sides in

handsome style. Conspicuous here are white marble mantels and grates.

On a table in the centre of this room is an album, with autographs of

noted people from all parts of the world who have been visitors, and

left their names as a testimonial of the excellent qualities of this

department. The time required by this patrol to get out of bed, dress,

hitch the horses, and get out of the building, is four and one-half

seconds.—_Stranger’s Guide to the Garden City._

[60] William Winter is probably best known in America and England as

the accomplished and scholarly critic of the “New York Tribune.” As

an authority on the drama he holds in New York a similar position to

that which the late John Oxenford held on the “Times.” While there are

other professional critics in the Empire city who write admirably,

and with the authority of knowledge and experience about the stage,

William Winter is the only one among them who has made for himself a

prominent name apart from the paper with which he is associated. There

is no other critic sufficiently well-known to be entitled to have his

name mentioned in news cables or telegrams aside from the journal which

engages his pen. Winter has broken through the anonymous character

of his journalistic work as successfully as Oxenford and Sala. He is

the author of several volumes of lyrics; he is the biographer of the

Jeffersons; and since Washington Irving nothing more charming has been

written about “the old country” than his “Trip to England.”

[61] Among the cablegrams that cast English shadows upon the tour

was the announcement of Charles Reade’s death. This had already been

preceded by obituary notices of Blanchard Jerrold. It was followed, at

a later date, by the chronicle that Henry J. Byron had also “joined the

majority.” The sudden death of the Duke of Albany was chronicled by the

leading American newspapers, with touching sentiments of sympathy for

the Queen of England.

[62] “Much Ado” did “grow,” and was played for three weeks, a “mixed

bill” closing the last six nights. The receipts during Lent were

unprecedentedly large in the history of New York theatres. These pages

go to press before the financial returns are completely made up; but

it is known to-day (April 25), that the receipts for the entire tour

will be more than $400,000. The social hospitalities in honor of Irving

and Miss Terry, which characterized their first visit to New York,

were continued on their return. Among the notable breakfasts of the

time was one given to Irving by Edwin Booth, at Delmonico’s, on April

14. The “Times,” in chronicling it, says: “Mr. Booth sat at the head

of the table, with Mr. Irving on his right, and Chief-Justice Charles

P. Daly on his left. John McCullough knocked elbows with Parke Godwin.

The other guests included Jervis McEntee, Launt Thompson, Charles E.

Carryl, Richard Henry Stoddard, William Bispham, Eastman Johnson,

William Winter, Bram Stoker, Lawrence Hutton, Frank P. Millett, Junius

Henri Browne, H. J. Loveday, and E. C. Benedict. No speeches were

made, but in the course of an informal chat Mr. Irving was asked about

‘Hamlet.’ He said that he hardly thought it policy to produce the play

for three or four nights at the end of a season, and on the eve of his

departure, particularly as he contemplated so speedy a return.”

[63] The excitement of that cheerful October evening, last year, when

Henry Irving made his first appearance in New York, was repeated

last night, at the Star Theatre, where “Much Ado About Nothing”

was presented, and where Mr. Irving and Miss Terry effected their

reëntrance, and were welcomed by a great and brilliant company, with

acclamations, with floral tributes, and in a charmingly manifest

spirit of the heartiest admiration and good-will. The scene,

indeed, was one of unusual brightness, kindliness, and enjoyment,

both before the curtain and upon the stage. The applause, upon

the entrance of Beatrice,—a rare vision of imperial yet gentle

beauty!—broke forth impetuously and continued long; and, upon the

subsequent entrance of Benedick, it rose into a storm of gladness and

welcome.—_Tribune._—The performance at the Star Theatre last evening

was one of remarkable interest. “Much Ado About Nothing” was produced,

and Mr. Irving and his company furnished a dramatic representation more

complete and artistic, and in every way more admirable, than any that

has been seen upon our stage. The audience was large and brilliant, and

the reappearance of Mr. Irving and Miss Ellen Terry was greeted with

every demonstration of pleasure.—_Sun._