The Sun.
London, England, 1823-09-03 00:00:00

CO VENT.GARDEN THEATRE.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN.
Slrt—As the Lessees of Covent-Garden Theatre
have found it necessary to take several days to
arrange and bring forward the long list of charges
which they now, for,the first time, venture to
prefer against me, I am sure the public (to whom
I am so much indebted for their kind sympathy
in this time of need) will wait patiently a day
or two, when I pledge myself to rebut. every one
of the frivolous and vexatious charges which they
have had the cruelty to allege against me.
I am, Sir,
Yours and the public's most devoted Servant,
J. W. BRANDON.
Box. Office, llart-street, Covent-Garden, Sept. 2, 1023.

LYCEUM, THEATRE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS.

Theatre Royal, English Opera-house,
September 9, 1093.

SIR—As you have mentioned me by name in the British
Preis of this day, I offer no apology for addressing you, in
reply to your observations contained in the theatrical article of
that Paper. As lam bound to suppose your object to be cri-
tical truth and justice, I beg to set you right in one or two par-
ticulars in which you appear to me to have been mistaken.
You say " The Bold Stroke fir a Wife" has been " shorn of
its beams, and clipped down to a two-act opera"--that " the
company at my Theatre is too scanty in numbers" to act the
original—and that " by hewing away three acts, the audience
have been rescued from just so much of the tedium inseparable
from an ill-acted play." You then go on to say, that " there
is one thing worth noticing, and that is, the singular Costumes
of the characters. One man wore a ress which would have
been antique in the days of Elizabeth ; another strutted about
in a court-dress of Queen Anne's time; a third put on the
attire of our own days," &c. &c. &e.
Now, Sir, if you will allow me to call your attention to the
original play, I think in fairness you will see occasion to recant
your censure, and to acknowledge that you owe me some repa-
ration for an attack which you have made direct, by coupling
it with my nenie
The play has not been " shorn" or " clipped down," ex-
cepting in a few indelicate speeches, which'the better order of
our modern actors and actresses would refuse, with just pro-
priety, to deliver, and which, if delivered,-would be hooted by
our modern audiences. That the company at my Theatre is
not " too scanty" to act the original play, (a proved by the fact
that the play is acted, and without the curtailment of a single
character. The assertion, that three acts of the comedy have
been " hewed away," is a strange Incorrectness. The five
acts, which were before so short as to appear like so many sin-
gle scene:;, have been united, and I hope and think with some
improvement to the effect ; but nothing has been " hewn
away," excepting by the aforesaid shearings and clippings, and
is otherwise acted as it always was acted in my recollection.
In regard to Costume—while I acknowledge (in part.) the jus-
tice of your criticism, I must entirely deny its application to
this piece in particular. I should be really very glad to learn
how any comedy which keeps possession of the stage, could be
acted with the necessary effect without the violation of pro.
priety—(and, strictly speaking, such it really is) which is here
complained of. How would Sir Peter Teazle, Lord Qgleby,
Lord Townley, Foppington, Acres, or fifty other clutraCters,
look and act in a modern dress? And what would be the effect,
'if the young men and women, in the comedies to which they
belong, were dressed up to the necessary antiquity of their cos,
tome? The exsieriment has been'often tried and always failed.
In the present case, however, it is more particularly my object
to prove to you that you are in error, and strange) y so ; tbr if
you will only take the trouble to turn to the comedy you will
find the dress of one gentleman, whom you notice, thus de-
scribed by the author (and he has always been dressed con fort n-
ably to the present style). In act 3d, scene Ist, Perrhvbaie
says, This coat, you must know, Sir, was formerly worn by
that ingenious and very learned person, A T .fir. John radescant
of Lambeth." Now, Mr. John Trade:want was, if my memory
fail me not, a very celebrated virtuoso, in or about the time of
Queen Elizabeth, and Pcrriariuklc is, therefore, Brest con.
formibly to this notion. Saab.: it, in die first scene, also
describes him as one " fond of every. thing antique and foreign,
and wears his clothes of the fashion of the last century." 'The
old Beau, another object of your censure, he also describes as
one who "admires all the new fashions, and those mast be
French ;" and as one character was necessarily thrown cn
times long past in his dress, I conceive it perfectly proper that
this also should take a middle path bet Ween the very old and
the very modern, so as, at once, to preserve character, and.
connect the two, without violating propriety or common sense.
I have taken the pains to write at so much length, Sir, be-
cause the concluding paragraph of your critique does not appear
to me to indicate any hostile feelings towards met notwith-
standing the severe tone and 'character of the late articles in the
British Press, respecting this Theatre ; and es you have made
the voluntary promise, so I hope this frank declaration of my
difference of opinion will induce you to fulfil it ; and that you
wilt forego censure (1 mean, of course, unmerited censure), es
fur as relates to my 'Theatre " for the rest of your critical life."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. ARNOLD.

°se The foregoing letter is written with such candour, and
with so mild a spirit of expostulation, as to entitle it to inser-
tion in our Paper. It is certainly true that many of the old
cemedies partake too much of the licentiousness which prevailed
during the time of Cn AR L es. the Second, and long after. The
public, therefore, arc indebted to those who remove from " an
unweeded garden" what sprang from the rankness of the soil,
and retain what Alford* pleasure, and ornaments the place.

SHOCKING AccInENT.---On Monday evening us
Mr. Vrsruxn, of Hampstead Marsh, waS returning home from
a shooting party at Medhurst, Hurts, in his gig, the horse be.
came restive a short distance from Bushy, ran the gig up a
hank, and overturned it with great force, and Mr. Vining was
killed. His friend, a Gentleman of the name of Shaw,. Was
stunned at the moment, but he got assistance, and conveyed
Mr. Vining to next house senseless. The accident happened
between eleven and twelve o'clock, and the deceased expired
about four o'clock in the morning.

SHOCKING DlSCOVERY.—Yesterday morning,
at six o'clock,, violent screaming was heard to
proceed from a house in Nagshead-court, Grace.
church-street, which was in care of a widow,
named Saunders, who had no other company
than her two young children. The street-keeper,
accompanied by several of the neighbours, re-
paired thither, and, by means of a ladder (the
strut-door being found shut), an entrance was
effected at the first-floor window. The two chil-
dren were in a state of distraction, calling out
" mother, mother!--she is dead !" &c. Upon
the landing-place a great quantity of blood was
found, but Mrs. Saunders was not there ; the
drops of blood, however, were traced down stairs
to the cistern, ivhere she was found'in the water,
head foremost and quite dead. Upon inspection
a deep gash was found in her throat ; a common
knife, with which the wound is supposed to have
been inflicted, was also found, but the blood Was
partly wiped off. A Padlock, generally kept upon
the street-door, as well as the hasp and another
iron fastening, was taken ofl'. The circumstance
has created much alarm in the neighbourbood,
and various conjectures are in circulation. A
Coroner's Inquest will be held when the truth
must likely be made known.