Luscombe Searelle Redivivus.

Auckland Star, Volume XV, Issue 3757, 26 August 1882, Page 2

Luscombe Searelle Redivivus.

THE WHECK OF " THE WRECK1.1 EXPLAINED. The question, " What has become of,that talented but luckless little mtmc*,Lnscombe Searelle?" has at length been solved. On the first night of " The Wreck of the Pinafore " ia London Luscombe, in a moment of gush, boasted that he was not an American. To America, however, Luscombe fled to bury his woes, and in the columns of the notoriously independent (?) "Dramatic News" he now explains that the failure of his masterpiece was entirely due to tbe wickedness of the London critics. "It; seems," says "Almavira" (Mr' Clement, Scott), ot the London " Figaro," renewing this ptecious production, " that pcor Wt Searelle was gratified by the facttttathe was " called three times/ and, in the inU6etnee "of his heart, went to bed' oa Saturday night honestly bVlievirig the'piece to be a success."

Mr Searelle probably overlooked the attenuated stalls, from which about an hoar after the rising of the curtain there.was so , steady an exodus. It is true that Mr Searelle forgets the scene which so shocked the house when a man in the drets circle, who cheerily called Upon the Fiftt Lord for "a hornpipe," wai violently throwr* against the unopened doors' and brutally ejected. It is true tbat tb the gentleniau \vbo followed the poor man to the street, where the police refuted to take the offender into custody, the iattendants explained that the man had been "passed iv," although his conscience had apparently rebelled againtt his applauding such stuff. But no ; it w*s all theiault of those wicked daily paper critics. Says Mr Searelle :— Now for the reason. In the stage box on the opening night were Mr Gilbert, Mr DOyly Cane, and Mr Clement Scott, the critic of the "Daily Telegraph." lam in receipt of proofs that alter the opera was concluded the repreaentatives of the "free nnd enlightened press" met together and arranged a plan of action, which plan they carried put. ' . " ■ ' . • Will Mr Searelle produpe thpaeproofs? Will he give the place of meeting and the na.mea of those who attended itt I' would be interesting reading. For myself, though I plead guilty to writing my notice of the work for one of the leadiug daily papers, I must humbly claim that I heard of no meeting, but went home to thank a bountiful Providence that, hard ss the life of a critic might be, he would never be likely to be called upon to listen to anything lesbler thau the operetta which Was not inaptly named the "Wreck" of the " Pinafore."