The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-10-31
(By GEORGE BERNARD sRAW.)

| dO not IeSdIu u 1OIu II6S dS q AfI4CIl- iavelli. I heartily wish he were. think MT. Dell has hit him very ac- curately, except that when an English country gentleman is so simple minded that he never knows what he is doing, and can, therefore, at any moment assure the country in all honor that he is not doing it, his simplicity is not of the kind called holy.
 I should not myself have sent Lord Grey to America, or even, since our successes in the east, to Jericho. As an English country gentleman, Lord Grey regards Americans IS Outsid- CTS, and Tsars as insiders. He made that clear in his dealing with MT. Morgan Sinister. He may have been right But that is not the point, which is, that as our relations with America are extremely delicate just at present, and likely to become more so, and as the Americans do not re- gard themselves as outsiders Cpossi- ply again quite wrongly), the appoint nent of Lord Grey Is hardly a mas -erpiece of tact it has been hailed S by the British press.
 As to what Lord Grey will do in
 nerica, which is, after all, the inn
 rtant thing, he will be well received
 American society. The conscious
 of him will respond very agree
 to these attentions; and his
 ehes will be reassuring and quite
 Ggent and pleasant. And the un-
 scious part of him will fall into
 hands of whoever the Japanese
 iva1ent of IsvolsIy may be, and
 1 manoeuvre for a st~~tgIe-hoId
 our most formidable rival now
 It Germany is disposed of. What
 e is there for Lord Grey to do
 tn his official traditions, and his
 stincts as a sirnpIe-nlinded country enIeman'?
 Now if there is one point more than mother at which the Americans mis- trust and dread our old dipIimacy it is the Japanese point. The einkreis- ung is too obvious. You will never persuade the American diplomatists that Lord Grey has not a secret treaty with Japan in his pocket. And that is why I would not have sent Lord Grey to America.
 1 shall be asked, I suppose. whom I would send over instead of Lord Grey, the implication being that he is the only dipIomatist in the Elm Dire. I reply, precisely and without a moments hesitation, that I should have sent MT. H. L. MacKinder. Not so much because he is a man of ability so distinguished that he may be cIasSed as one of our few geniuses because that fact is indiscernible in the House of Commons. which is as uncOnsci"I1s of his being anyone in partie1lar as 1t was for thirty years 'U1~1 Lord Rhondda. should send hin, because. he konws that North and '0oXth America are only a couple of peFIIously situated islands, and that I/Is dangerous for us to tOrnfoo1 will, 7&Iand secrufty
 And now for a cheerful changa of FSubJect to my friend MT. Archer Nho' by being reasonable while MT DflnkWater and I anu Mir. Gram Vile Barker and MT. PoeI and inc rest Of us, have, as MT. Archer right " puts it, abjured the exercise of reason, produces an impression of en- RIFe and perfect madness. One ina g1nes MT. Archer at an orchestra I concert remOnstrating with the a11di- TIlce. what went ye out for to see 7? I1ere IS man on g. platform waving q SUCK threateningIy at a herd o4 saves in evening dress, who frant5- caIIy swallow and regurgita,te 1engtbs or brass tubing. clash brass disks 3huTnp the parchment covers of mon, Strous Jampots, and rub pieces of Wooo together like the Swiss Fva177i1,, Roo1nson trying to light a, fire +o no apparent purpose but the con7bin0 at1on or an unseenIy spectacle u,i+I, a deafening din. Is this good sarse 9 Have you eyes? What do won ,,,oo,, by it?' '0 1iietfl
 MT. Archer has not done full i1s- tioe to hls own criticism of Shak kes- peafe. lie says very truly that if is common sense to play Shakes peafe at full length. It is not con7n,o,
 iiSe to act plays at all; before such all ansurd1ty is possible the ac+ors and the audience have to taclt compact that good sense fE do thfoned- Where is our common, sar,,-, HI pretending that Sir Jo1,nr+o,. ofpes Robertson is the Prince o+ Deh1nark when the very paper in o171 hands tells us expressly that he i fofbes Robertson, and uha, - would walk out of the theatre if +t 1oio us that he was really Hamlet was only an amateur? Even if Sou agree to let this go, and onlv resume the exercise of vo11, ,.ao.-a1 ' tliilior points, what common sense tS there in a melancholy Dana snoo1- Ing English, and blank verso ot +Is'1'+ LOOK at the man he addresses os ta lher! Are ghosts common sansa7 T, E1lSl41ofe III Shaftesbury aven,,a2
 Fahcy1ng a man devotinp fo-+, years of his life to wttnessiner ol ,,'lt; ss luhacies' and writing grave article Tn the papers discussing whetbe1, tles +t,o+ are done efficiently or not? Sucb y man exists His name is v1511ia, Archer And it is William Archer -r1,r lectures me for my want of co,o,,,ne ~ sensei li1lof
 When said that had seen 1h.o- cut 10 the bone by MT. Archer should perhaps, have mentioned tho there is such a tremendous 1o+ of 1a,., Tn Ibsen that the phrase s7,pgos+( more cutting than the actual onar.a ton involved. One of my early 1as sons in the erroroneous of c11++i,, was a comparison of the first act o=
 The Wild Duck" reasonably snl sensibly cut by MT. Archer. and subsequently, senseless perforn,anc, Of it at full length by MT. C,bar1e Charrington at the old Opera C,on,i que- MT. Archer declares that s,x in principle and habit a liar for COW, ing that he cut it, and then goes o, to explain that the cuts were o,,I, little ones. I confess that I am no quite convinced of the accuracy o Air. Areher's memory; but I hone h, is right, as nothing could strenet.,o,