Mrs. Kendal never forgets that she is not the actress, playing to the audience, but the Countess, playing with Montrichard. How few artists take sufficient note of these lights and shades, laying on the colour so broadly that the person intended to be deceived would certainly see through the clumsy ruse. It is impossible to help a feeling of disappointment, for which Mrs. Kendal, by her noble impersonation of a noble woman, is largely responsible, that the love of this true heroine should be so wasted. It is faithful enough to nature that Flavigneul should cast aside the priceless jewel for a pretty toy; but it is irritating in real life to see such folly, and hardly less so on the stage. Let us hasten to add, though, that this stricture on Mademoiselle Léonie de Villegontier is confined to the part, and in no degree includes its interpreter. Miss C. Grahame acts charmingly, and it is not her fault if her pretty minauderies cannot blind us to the fact that Mdlle. Léonie is a very silly young person. Mr. Hare, in the part of Montrichard, presents us with another of his marvellous pictures of astute old age. We do not think any one who saw the gifted artist for the first time would believe that he was not in the "sere and yellow leaf." Montrichard is as perfect an old man as if Mr. Hare visibly illustrated the Pythagorean doctrine, and became literally, for the time being, a septuagenarian. It is "Faust" in reverse order. His make up defies detection; and how has he acquired the right intonation, looks, odd little ways, movements, not only in walking, but in the slightest gesture, of an old man? He almost cheats us into believing that it is the young man who is "made up," and that the real Mr. Hare is old. But we have a difficulty in remembering that there is a Mr. Hare at all. We only think of M. de Montrichard. Mark the twitching muscles about the old baron's mouth, the keen, side-long look, the stoop of the shoulders, the nervous movement of the hands-these, and a hundred other touches-not one is missed-make a perfect whole, a work of art that has not its match on the stage. In the part of the ridiculous Gustave de Grignon, Mr. Kendal acts capitally, and to the one touch of real sentiment the rôle permits, he gives full effect. Mr. W. Herbert

has perhaps done better things than Henri de Flavigneul, but he acts with great intelligence and expression. He has many advantages, and there are marked indications of a capacity which only needs time and opportunity to assure him a strong position in the dramatic art. "Cousin Dick," Mr. Val Prinsep's first essay as a dramatist, is a most promising beginning. It is a really exquisite little piece of mosaic work, delicate, tender, and bright. The story is so delightfully told that it leaves us, after its brief occupation of the stage, wishing that the curtain had not fallen so soon. To this sentiment, Misses Kate Pattison and C. Grahame, and Mr. Wenman contribute in no small degree by their admirable rendering of the several parts of Constance, Florence, and Dick Dalston. The two sisters have lately lost their father, and Cousin Dick is their guardian, and the owner of the estate left by old Mr. Dalston. Constance, a thoughtful girl of twenty, and Florence, a novel reading school-girl of seventeen, are both in love with Dick, but Dick loves the elder. He is an awkward fellow withal, and sends to Constance an offer so written that each girl believes herself the favoured one. Cousin Dick arriving, explains matters, but Constance will not be happy at her sister's expense. Florence, however, sets matters straight and all ends happily. Miss Pattison as Constance, is thoroughly artistic; there is genuine pathos in her grief, and her expressions and manner while Florence is reading the letter, the gradation from confident joy to blank misery as the different reading of the letter is elucidated, is pourtrayed in a manner that shows a fine sense of the requirements of the situation. Miss Grahame throws all possible spirit and humour into the part of Florence. On the first production of the piece, the author was called at the fall of the curtain, and heartily applauded by a crowded house. We congratulate Mr. Hare on the present programme at this theatre, which, under his management, has done so much for dramatic art. To say that the pieces are beautifully mounted is superfluous. Mr. Hare excels in the taste and discretion he displays in every department of stage management.

MADAME JENNY VIARD-LOUIS.

HE rapid progress made during recent years in the taste for classical music in England is a marked feature of the time which future chroniclers of social history will not fail to note. Men not yet old can recall the period when only a very small clique cared for the music of the great masters; and while the sole public hearing accorded their works was that given by the then exclusive Philharmonic Society, chamber music was only given intermittently, in private salons.

But when at length Beethoven, Mozart, and later on Mendelssohn had become established favourites, and the enterprise of Mr. Chappell gave us the needed chamber concerts, another battle had to be fought. Schumann was still almost a stranger; Chopin little known; while Wagner was no more than a name; Liszt, as a composer, utterly inadmissible. After a hard tussle, Madame Schumann and Mr. Manns succeeded in making Schumann known; the Wagner Society showed what beauty there was in the works of the composer of "Lohengrin;" then the floodgates were opened; prejudice was washed away, and now, instead of decrying the unknown, the musical public eagerly grant a hearing to new works. Liszt, Raff, Brahms, Rubinstein, are names "familar in our mouths as household words," and even the ultra-Conservative Philharmonic Society hastened to perform a concerto of the famous North German composer's, which Vienna only heard for the first time a few weeks before.

Among those who have earned the gratitude of musicians by their practical advocacy of the claims of all schools of classical music, is the subject of our present portrait. Coming to this country three or four years ago, a stranger to us, but with a Parisian repute, Madame

Jenny Viard-Louis speedily earned the good opinion of those who heard her. The winter season before last the talented and energetic artist conceived the idea of giving concerts of mixed orchestral and chamber music, which should be thoroughly cosmopolitan in character, within the limits of classical music. She engaged an efficient orchestra, under the able conduct of Mr. Weist Hill, and her scheme met with warm support from the musical press and amateurs generally. The dearth of orchestral music during the winter is keenly felt by many who, for lack of money, or time, or both, cannot frequent the Crystal Palace Concerts; but the most unique feature of these concerts was the blending of chamber and orchestral music, which, for some inexplicable reason, had never hitherto been attempted. The programmes were admirably selected, and well carried out, their only fault being their great length. No undue prominence was given to any school or composer, while all schools were represented, and several new works of sterling merit were brought forward.

Madame Viard-Louis' second season has been even more successful than her first, and we trust that she will continue the important scheme which musicians are already beginning to regard as among those features of the winter season that they have a right to reckon among the pleasures of the months during which classical art has possession of the field.

WOMEN AND WORK.

A meeting of the committee devoted to obtaining the reform of the laws regulating married women's property, was held last month under the presidency of Mr. Jacob Bright. Mr. Courtney, M.P., Mrs. Morris Drummond, Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P., Madame Venturi, the Hon. John Welsh, and Mr. Hibbert, M.P., wrote letters of approval. Mr. ShawLefevre, Mrs. Arthur Arnold, Mrs. Hinde Palmer, Miss Lucy Wilson, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, and Mr. Osborne Morgan were among the speakers. Mrs. Arnold pointed out that men's property was confiscated only in the case of felony or high treason, whereas a woman's property was confiscated by her marriage. A man could squander his wife's property in racing and gambling. Where did they find women addicted to those vices ? Married people, it seemed to her, ought to be able to settle their monetary matters without the intervention of the law. It was as absurd to talk about "giving" a married woman her own earnings, as of" giving "her her hand or her head. No man could pretend that he could own the earnings of another freeman; it was only the earnings of a slave in which he could claim property. One half the population might, therefore, be said to belong to the other half. A husband might forbid a married woman to earn money if he were so disposed. A married woman had in fact no existence of her own in this country. Her position was founded on the barbarous laws of the heathen two thousand years ago. They should agitate for the principle that they were born free, and should be equal before the law. Mr. ShawLefevre considered the present Act a "confused, illogical, wretched