predecessors, and no cotemporaries have possessed to so high a degree.

Mr. Ranger visited America in 1838, and became an established favourite there. On the several occasions when we have had an opportunity of witnessing the performances of this gentleman, we have remarked how thoroughly he identifies himself with the character he assumes, and that he has less of the actor, and more of the artiste, in all which he undertakes. No one, whom we have seen, not excepting Farren himself in his best day, has presented to our humble judgment a more perfect portraiture of Lord Ogleby; and it does seem a wonder (which perhaps Mr. Ranger alone can explain) why the London Stage, in its present state of dramatic poverty, is without that valuable support he has on all his occasional visits contributed to it.

The appearance this year (1838) of Mr. Charles Mathews and Madame Vestris (married July 18th, previous to their departure), was an instance of inexplicable failure—for such, comparatively speaking, it was. Whether Jonathan had worked himself up into a fit of prudery, whether the general seclusion of the lady from the curious eyes which were so anxious to gaze upon her, the cancans of

Saratoga Springs, or other ills which flesh (theatrical) is heir to, we do not take upon ourselves to determine; but certain it is, that a charmer who had turned the heads of half Europe, turned very few in America, and we question whether the result was either profitable or agreeable. Our opinions on this delightful actress have long since been recorded, and the talent of herself and her liege lord is too well known to require further notice. Mathews is so excellent an actor, that it seems almost a pity he does not confine his abilities to the sphere which it is evident Nature intended them to adorn; for he seldom rushes into print prudently. Flippancy of style, however agreeably manifested, is not the most convincing mode of carrying out argument, and rarely conceals the point at issue, however much it may mystify it. We have but a few words to bestow, for a very few are necessary, on his letter to the dramatic authors of France. We can have no possible objection to his classification of Drury Lane Theatre, or to the reference to ourselves while we were in the management of it;* our objection is, that he did not

* "Drury-Lane (l'autre ex-National,) hélas ! ressemble plutôt à un omnibus qu'à un théâtre, un grand omnibus qui fait des petites courses à bon marché mais à grand fracas-qui change tous les

equally anatomize the Lyceum, which his letter began by promising to do. Instead of simply admitting that in 1851, two pieces, "from the French," were produced there, he had better have confessed at once that the success of his theatre has ever been entirely dependent on the French resources of that prince of adapters, Mr. Planché, and on the inventive genius of that admirable artist, Mr. Beverley; and as to "les bêtises des conducteurs sur ses affiches," we cannot do better than refer him to his own affiches.† Unluckily for his authorities, at the very time he was depicting us as only dreaming of opera and ballet, we were performing a farce of French origin, entitled, "Too Late for the Train," by Mr. Madison Morton, the fertility of whose pen requires no eulogy from ours. Mr. Mathews's French is far better than his argument,

jours de cocher et qui pour attirer le bas peuple (sans l'attraper toutefois) imprime les bêtises des conducteurs sur ses affiches. Il y a peu à en espérer pour les auteurs. Le Directeur actuel, Poètelibrettiste, ne rêve qu'opéra anglais et ballet. Pleurez Messieurs,

et passez en silence-c'est le Mausolée de Shakspeare."-Lettre de C. Mathews, pp. 6—7.

*The Countess D'Anois's tales have for some years furnished the ground-work of the Lyceum spectacle-burlesques.

Refer to the Lyceum Christmas and Easter playbills, passim.

though the latter is full of good-humour, if it has no other qualification. On his recently published correspondence, which may be regarded as a sort of tiltingmatch with the representatives of the metropolitan press, respecting the privileges of admission extended to the London journals by the London theatres, we have to say more than a few words. This silly hubbub occurred during our absence in America, and was principally conducted by Mr. C. Mathews, Mr. Albert Smith, and Mr. Webster (Mr. Kean, we believe, standing on neutral ground). Mr. Mathews alleged that £25 a night was the amount of "press orders" presented to the Lyceum Theatre, and Mr. Albert Smith complained of a supposititious loss of a similar sum per week at the Egyptian Hall, while Mr. Webster published the subjoined statistical account of free admissions issued by the London newspapers in the years 1850, 1851, and 1852, and presented at the doors of the Haymarket and Adelphi Theatres; a document sufficiently curious to warrant our endeavour to give it additional circulation to that it has already received: