Star. — 1829-11-04 (London, England)

THE NEW PLAY.  Long unaccustomed to behold any new Comedy contributed to our modern stage of pure and legitimate character, we were not much disappointed at the failure, last evening, at Drury-Lane Theatre. Yet we were sorry—very sorry—to behold a subject, so justly the property of genuine Comedy, botched front the license and unmanageable fancy of the author, who has disfigured a theme, of the most happy selection, by cramming situation upon situation—confusing his business with unnecessary episode—and entangling himself in a dedelium of embroglia, from which, of necessity, his denouement scrambles scurvily out, at the expence of all propriety and effect. In a piece of two Acts, the interest should hinge upon one crowning incident, towards which we should arrive rapidly but without strained effort. The actors should be few to preserve perspicuity and facility : the dialogue should be tierce and neat ; and the author should content himself with mere spirited sketches of character—and not aspire to the importance of fiveact pictures. But all these irrefutable principles the writer has, either through wilfulness or ignorance, totally subverted in this new piece : the plot has too much material for an Entertainment ; and is too little and too pre-' cipitate for Comedy, on its high scale. The subjects richly affords canvas for five acts. The vice and weakness it would expose are prevalent pests of' society : the characters of gossip mischief-makers, working on petty passion around them, afford excellent latitude for just satire, and corrective inculcations ; and present an object nobler to the stagewright than the mere applause to be attained by unmeaning farce destitute of moral lesson. But to attempt this with effect, dignity should preside over the scene ; the characters should be delineated with consistency and strength ; the tendency made clearly manifest ; the incident gradually developed—till the mind, through progressive reflection, arrive at conviction with the conclusion ; and the language, with all its comic gloss, should convey spirit and thought. The subject of this piece demanded all this— and, alas ! all this it wants. LISTON made every effort, but without success. We laughed indeed—but it was at LlSTON—rarely at the character he personated. This gentleman is the spoiled child of the public ; and has the privilege of abstracting himself from the author's conception to make traits for himself.— He appears—we applaud. He speaks—we titter.' He moves—we roar. He grimaces—and we are convulsed. But his author, all the time, might as well be POOLE as SHEarRAN. Mrs. GLOW Elt acted with ease and pointed intention ; but not, as one of our contemporaries has it, " smooth and silky." It rather appeared to us like hombazeen —solid and good. JONES, Miss MonDAUNT, and HARLEY, were as unnecessary as a naval combat or a fox chace. As to the first, his conception of a military " Muscadin" does no great honor to the army whose uniform he wore on this occasion. We hope the character, as he represents it, is merely a child of his own fancy. Such a caricature in reality would raise a mob.— The dramatic critics appear sorry that insignificant parts were, in this piece, assigned to respectable actors. But we cannot participate in their regret. Too much use is made of subordinates to the destruction of all minor interest in our plays ; and if the new piece was unsupportable with the aid of good actors, what would it have been if committed to the butchery of those eternal sticks, nightly engaged to murder our nightly pleasures. • • • • •