ground that she would not play parts which other characters had to get the better of.

The Berlin Schauspielhaus still retains two artists who merit a special word of mention: they are Theodor Döring and Frau Frieb-Blumauer. Döring succeeded Seydelmann in some of his parts, and cannot remain much longer on the stage. In character-parts, both serious and comic, he is excellent. A born actor, he plays with life, freshness, geniality, and enjoyment. I have seen him as Mephistopheles, but I think his devil too full of bonhomie, too human. Döring never gives you the terrible feeling of a being of another world, infra-human, and without our stained divinity of nature.

Frau Frieb-Blumauer may be most nearly compared to our Mrs. Glover. When, as is constantly the case, she is acting with Döring, the couple suit each other as Farren and Mrs. Glover did; and the result is delightful. This lady is full of the finest dramatic intuition and is mistress of all the resources of her art. She is at home equally in a palace and a cottage; in pathos, in character, in humour, she belongs to the first rank of actresses, and I know of nothing now that can be compared with her for truth to nature and for excellence of expression.

Helmerding remains to be mentioned. His gifts and powers are closely akin to genius. Deep pathos and broad humour, the greatest breadth, clearness, and force of characterisation are his. He plays at one of the private theatres, and appears in strong, broad, popular dramas. He is an idol of the people of Berlin, and is a most unique and unapproachable popular artist. I saw him last year in "Mein Leopold," and was struck again with the vigour and variety of his singular powers. Dessoir, who recently retired, was a meritorious tragedian, though his tragedy leaned somewhat towards the domestic and familiar. Hendrichs, an imposing but unimpassioned actor, whose Götz von Berlichingen was good, has also retired from the Berlin stage. An ingénue of very distinctive merit, Fräulein Gossmann, was lost to the German stage a few years ago when she retired into married life.

Eduard Devrient's long experience and love of his art have led him to the conclusion that the influence of the stage affects men not in their material, but in their spiritual interests; and that the stage should be ranked by the State with the Church and with the school; he cannot regard the drama as an ordinary branch of amusement, or of mere trading industry, looking only to money profit and loss: and this view of the stage may be taken as a fair representation of German theory and experience.

VOL. XIV. N.S. 1875.

Ꮓ Ꮓ

"THE MEMBER FOR STOKE."

BY THE MEMBER FOR THE CHILTERN HUNDREDS.

N a charming letter addressed to "The People of England, Wales, and Scotland," and signed "Edward Vaughan Kenealy," we have the first formal intimation of the scheme which has resulted in adding to the House of Commons the famous "Member for Stoke." That letter was written just after Dr. Kenealy had been disbarred, and is a rare specimen of severe reasoning, chaste argument, and admirable English. "This is," the writer says, "the only opportunity I shall have of pointing out the weak points of the case without my countrymen send me to Parliament, when I assure them that certain persons shall hear from me again. To slightly parody the words of Lord Byron on his friend Hobhouse

Let Disraeli but send me to Newgate,

And Newgate will send me to Parliament.

But I hope I shall get there without, and I shall then test whether England is extinct or not. You may be quite sure that the donkeys will not bray me down, and that I will force Brand to let me catch the 'Speaker's eye'; yea, and that I will make the House hear truths that it has not heard for years, and that, as in the Court of Queen's Bench I muzzled and chained Cerberus for nearly a year, so will I treat that other three-headed dog Gladstone, Cross, and Disraeli, if they dare to treat me unfairly. The judges never forgave me for showing that I was their lord and master. I knew my power. I kept them in hand as easily as I might have kept Three Puppies in a leash. They kicked and chafed and barked and howled every day; but they were powerless. I did it without difficulty, and I assure you that if I can but get in I will manage the House of Commons with equal ease, and I hope without once losing equanimity." The preservation of the Doctor's equanimity under the circumstances herein presented is, I venture to say, a secondary consideration, and the people of England, Wales, and Scotland (not to mention Ireland, as Dr. Kenealy does not) may be forgiven if they turn with some anxiety to observe how the House of Commons itself bears, and has borne, the incursion of this modern Hercules. The manifesto in which this terrible threat incidentally appears is dated

"December, 1874," and is one of a series of blood-curdling references to members of the House of Commons individually and collectively which are of curious interest now that the author is privileged to sit covered in the presence of the Speaker, to vote and to speak.

It may perhaps be noted that at the outset the proposal, cautiously put forth, was to return to Parliament the Claimant himself. "Sir," writes a correspondent of the Englishman in June, 1874; "considering the subservient conduct of members of Parliament I would suggest that constituencies should organise for the purpose of securing the return of the tried friends of the unfortunate Claimant, Sir Roger Tichborne. Every effort should be made to return the Claimant himself to the House of Commons, and seats ought to be secured for Mr. Guildford Onslow, Dr. Kenealy, Mr. Skipworth, Mr. Biddulph, and other tried men whose sterling worth is beyond dispute." This is a significant passage, of which, perhaps, we may hear more before many months are passed. A study of Dr. Kenealy's life and writings, undertaken for the purposes of this article, have, however, convinced me that the Member for Stoke is not a man greatly under the influence of sentiment. There is in all his actions and writings a keen consideration of substantial results as far as they may be turned to the account of Dr. Kenealy. When, for example, he recently visited a town in the west of England for the purpose of delivering an address, the Organising Committee "organised" a triumphant public reception, in which an open carriage drawn by four grey horses largely figured, and which was rounded off by a cheerful supper. Dr. Kenealy took his seat in the carriage, and beamed benignly through his gold spectacles on the crowds that thronged the roadway. Also he partook of the supper, and thereafter "said a few words" expressive of the satisfaction with which he regarded the manly qualities of the people of this western town in general, and of the Organising Committee in particular. The parting over night was, I have heard, quite a touching scene. The Organising Committee were charmed with the Man, though a little overawed by the Scholar. Still it was delightful to be in such company, and on the following morning the Organising Committee returned with increased pleasure, bringing with them a cheque for a good round sum of money, the net proceeds of the public entertainment. But here the sky grew dark, and the thunder which had erewhile been rolling round the accustomed heads of "the judges" broke over the astonished Organising Committee. Where were the details of the accounts? the Doctor wanted to know. He was not going to be put off with "round

sums" representing net profits. He must see and check the receipts and the expenditure, or the Organising Committee should be pilloried in everlasting infamy beside Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and other enemies of the human race. After some show of resistance the hapless Committee produced the account, in which the open carriage, the four greys, and the supper figured among the expenses. But Dr. Kenealy would have none of such trifling with a Great Cause. If the Organising Committee chose to take him into the town behind four grey horses and afterwards to entertain him at supper that was their affair, and they must pay the cost out of their own pockets. He would have the full amount of the "takings," less cost of hire of hall, &c., and the unfortunate Organising Committee were fain to hand it over.

The same uncompromising spirit appears in the pages of the Englishman of the 17th Oct., 1874, in the form of an editorial note attached to the accounts of " The London Testimonial Fund." It appears from the figures that a series of meetings held in various parts of London with the view of furthering a national Testimonial to Dr. Kenealy had not been strikingly successful. Expenses incurred for the hire of public halls had not always been covered by the "amount collected," and the result was that out of a total revenue of £40 16s. 91d., £26 14s. 91d. had vanished in expenses, and only £14 25. had been handed over to the Doctor. Whereupon the Committee, who appear to have gratuitously devoted their time for upwards of six months to collecting coppers for the Doctor, are gratified by the publication of the following note appended to their account :-"We hope some investigation of these accounts will be made. They are eminently unsatisfactory."

I mention these two little incidents by way of bringing out what I have been greatly struck with-to wit, Dr. Kenealy's ability to subordinate sentiment to considerations of business, and also his determination that no one shall share with him a single penny of the profits which this gigantic delusion rains into the money boxes with various labels which he rattles wherever he goes. It is quite possible that the Organising Committee in the western town referred to provided carriages for themselves also in the triumphal entry, and it is beyond doubt that they did their share in quaffing the porter and sipping the punch that circulated round the festive board at which the Doctor presided at the conclusion of his labours in the Lecture Hall. Not less improbable is it that if the suggested investigation into the accounts of the London Committee of the Kenealy National Testimonial Fund were to take place it would appear that the Committee

had debited them with certain unauthorised quarts of half-and-half, and safe in their supposed immunity from the eye of an auditor, had indulged in an unlicensed succession of "screws" of tobacco. They were giving their labour for nothing, and as Dr. Kenealy was evidently making a good deal out of the affair, they may have thought that they at least might make a trifle. Herein they reckoned without the Member for Stoke, and for the peace of the realm it is to be hoped that the examples sternly made of them will not be without effect in deterring other Organising and Honorary Committees who in other parts of the country may hereafter set themselves the task of making up a little purse for the Doctor. As bearing upon the scheme floated in this early number of the Englishman, this phase of Dr. Kenealy's character appears to show that as far as he can control affairs "the Claimant, Mr. Guildford Onslow, Mr. Skipworth, Mr. Biddulph, and other tried men whose sterling worth is beyond dispute" will, as far as the Member for Stoke is concerned, have to shift for themselves in their efforts to get into Parliament, unless they can clearly show that their candidature will directly and personally profit Dr. Kenealy.*

In the number of the Englishman following that in which this first distinct bid for a place in Parliament was made by Dr. Kenealy, I find the subject followed up in a large-type paragraph headed "Infamous Conduct of the Ministry," and introducing an extract from a correspondence between Mr. Plimsoll and the Board of Trade. "The present holders of office are walking in the bloody footsteps of the late abandoned Cabinet," says Dr. Kenealy. "When will England waken? However, the time will come.

* Since this article was in type Dr. Kenealy has put forward his son Ahmed as a candidate for the vacancy in the representation of Norwich, a circumstance which supplies a singularly striking illustration of the disinterested character of the Member for Stoke. When Dr. Kenealy's family is provided for in Parliament, the turn of Mr. Guildford Onslow, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Skipworth, and even the Claimant, will follow in due time. This is a condition of affairs which gives borough constituencies a new and keen interest in the extent of the Kenealy family. How many sons are there now? There was one about whom in years gone by "the great heart of the people of England beat" with throbbings almost as violent as those which, according to Dr. Kenealy, to-day agitato it at the thought of "that distinguished nobleman now pining in prison." I remember the circumstance chiefly by reason of a good thing that appeared in Punch at the time. It was in a column of burlesque announcements of forthcoming works that Punch mentioned: "Lines on a Boy's Back, by Dr. Kenealy." Is Ahmed, the candidate for Norwich, the "boy" here referred to ? or is he on whose account Stoke would once have stoned its present “Member,” had he shown himself in the streets, still kept in reserve?