[ 630 j [Jung, 
THEATRICAL MATTERS. 
Covent GARDEN has redeemed its pledge by bringing forward Miss 
Smithson: Her illness in Amsterdam seemed ominous, as theatrical 
illnesses generally are ; and the fair enchantress of so many French 
bosoms was understood to shrink from the peril of presentation before 
a British audience. But our alarms were relieved like her own, and she 
at last made her début. Jane Shore, the favourite of the French, was 
chosen for her first impression, in some degree judiciously, for no cha- 
racter could offer more for the peculiarities of Miss Smithson’s style. 
It_is essentially melo-dramatic ; it requires a very various display of 
agony, exhaustion, resignation, and despair. The close is among the 
most harrowing on the stage; and no audience could ever see the 
beautiful wife of the goldsmith reduced into the mendicant, dying of 
hunger, and rejected from every door, without strong sympathy. But 
here is the whole effect of the play. To an audience who can understand 
the dialogue, nothing can be more tiresome. The characters are at once 
feeble and extravagant; the plot wants incident and probability, and 
the language is alternate childishness and raving. 
The public anticipation of Miss Smithson’s performance was realised. 
She exhibited improved powers of stage effect ; she trod the boards with 
a less embarrassed air, and she pronounced the declamation with a 
stronger sense of its purpose. But nature has prohibited her from any 
high degree of success on the English stage. We by no means desire 
to follow the opinions of those who, almost before she appeared, had 
begun to depreciate the actress. She certainly has talents ; but the 
same talents which please a foreign audience are not calculated to please 
an English one. Which is the truer judgment we have no present space 
to examine. Miss Smithson’s Juliet is much more attractive than her 
Jane Shore, chiefly through the infinite superiority of the play. But 
her figure is not suitable to the young graces of Juliet ; and forcible as 
her conceptions were in the more vigorous portions of the character, and 
deserving of applause as her acting frequently was, still the “ girl Juliet” 
was not there. 
Since this effort Covent Garden has rather lain on its oars. Some- 
thing of this may be attributed to the progress of the season, which is 
now advancing into the benefits ; yet we look for activity from Fawcett, 
and the restoration of the Farce of the Master’s Rival is not enough. 
The fate of this farce is a curious incident in itself, and, we suppose, may 
furnish its author with hints for a new dramatic effort. It was brought 
out at Drury Lane, where it failed; according to Liston’s version, from 
the dulness of the piece ; according to Peake’s version, from the intoxica- 
tion of the principal performer! It has been transferred to Covent 
Garden, where it has succeeded ; and it has finally appeared in print, 
with a preface, detailing the author’s grievances with angry pleasantry, 
and saying that though an act of oblivion in the performer may cer- 
tainly relieve the audience of a good deal of an author’s nonsense, yet 
that they are not much the better if the performer introduces the same 
quantity of nonsense of his own ; that he has no objection whatever to this 
exercise of extempore ingenuity, except where he himself is concerned, 
but that he must be excused from being d-mn-d for the best bottle of 
wine in London. We may not quote Mr. Peake exactly, but we give, 
as the parliamentary writers say, the substance of his speech. 
