The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-04 00:00:00

TO THE [MOE OP THE TX PRESS.

SLR,—I will leave your correspondents "C." and
" A Member of the Committee" to deal with the
verbal ingenuities by which sour contemporary,
the Atheneum, has endeavoured to explain away
the simple truth, that Mr. Thackeray not only
never was invited to become one of the Vice-Pre-
indents ef the Shakespeare Committee, but was di-
rectly rejected by a formal vote, supported almost
entirely by the clique which now notoriously
threatens to end this movement iu a disgraceful
failure. But, as one who enjoyed a long personal
intimacy with Mr. Thackeray, I shall be grateful
' to you for an opportunity of calling attention to
the obituary notice which appears this day
in the Atheneram, and which I cannot but
regard as an important collateral ,evidence
of the spirit of this clique towards the me-
mory of our great humourist. After attributing
Mr. Thackeray's failure as an artist to " a lack of
earnest study," the writer of the notice referred to
informs us that to suit the tone of a " sarcastic and
unscrupulous" periodical—Fraser's Magazine—Mr.
Thackeray indulged in " banter," " indifference,"
and " personality," but that his powers " were
turned to better account, because tempered with
feeling and taste, in the course of the close con-
nexion formed by Lim with the phalanx of merry
and powerful men who established Punch." The
purport of this theory is obvious. That an admis-
sion to the society of the " merry and powerful
men" whofounded Punch was an advantage such as
any man might Lave ooveted, who would deny 1 but
assuredly there was not one among them who would
not have repudiated with contempt any claim set
up on their behalf as the men who took Mr.
Thackeray in as a sarcastic unscrupulous writer,
and gave him for the first time those qualities of
refinement and gentlemanly feeling with which we
have learnt to associate his name.

The writer then attempts to throw some light on
the nature of the society iu which Mr. Thackeray
moved—delicately insinuating that this consisted
of " fools of quality, rich idle folk who want to be
amused, and free-living men and women whose
morals would the least bear exposure." I refer
your readers to the article to say whether any
other interpretation than this can be put upon its
fourth paragraph. I will not dwell much upon the
style of this paper, from which the author of the
"Essay on Thunder and Small Beer" could have
extracted infinite amusement for his readers.
Throughout the article any allusion to the de-
ceased as a man of genius is carefully avoided.
"The 24th of December," it elegantly commences,
" broughtstartliug news to all who care for men of
mark." Mr. Thackeray is spoken cf as "a wit," a
"man of imagination," and "a distinct man of
imagination" (whatever that may mean). His
"easy literary essays," we are further told (in the
style of the Danish courtier iu Hamlet) showed
" originality of thought and direction" (sie), but were
marked by the same faults as his artistic failures
his art criticisms were " incomplete, and freaked
with paradox ; " his reviews of contemporary
painters and men of letters were " saucy reviews,"
and the heroes and heroines of his novels so
despicable that " we cannot bring ourselves to care
fora single one."
It is true that the article is not without
some such admissions of Mr. Thackeray's position
iu English literature, as the temper of the
public must demand from any literary journal
in speaking of the irreparable loss which
we all feel, but it is impossible to read without
disgust the conclusion of this memoir, surmising up
1" these drawbacks which it would be disrespectful
to the memory of a distinct man of imagination
not to admit." The secret history of the illwill
that has for some time existed among the prime
movers in this now notorious cabal towards Mr.
Thackeray is a subject which cannot now with
propriety be entered into, but there is a degree of
provocation under which it will no longer be possi-
ble for those who know the facts to remain silent

upon thin point.—l am, &c.,
London, Jan. 2.

S. L.

PEINeff4A —Mr. Weetland Maraton'e new play
DORM Maris was not produced at this house ea Saturday
sight I. masequence of this sadden iodisoosition of Mrs.
Merman Vesta (late Mrs. Charlie Young), who is to per-
form the priocipal character.

ROYAL DRAMATIC Cour.° e. —We aro glad to
learn that the inmates of the Royal Dramatic College at
Maybery hams not bees forgotten by their friends this
Christmas—Mr. B. Conquest, Mr. Z. Watkins., Mr. J. W.
Anson. and a benevolent lady residing in the INi/66°in-hood
of the college, have bees unapt the chief special bene-
factors at this SOW" mid Mrs. Ruddell has agaio shown her
appraisal...a of one of the purposes of the institution by the
gift of a valuable portrait of the celebrated John Bunter.
pealed by Gaineborough.