THINGS THEATRICAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 121, 2 April 1864, Page 4

THINGS THEATRICAL.

To the .Editor of tin- Nkw Zealand llkkauj. Silt, —An ill-tie].! headed (is above appeared in your paper of Friday last, an article .so injurious to mv interists tliut J feel that it demands notice at my hands. I shall dial with its arguments seriatim as they occur. In the first place by implication a comparison is instituted botwei-n a holey l* cuiii]iaiiy and that under the direction of Mr. Daniells and myself. I don't know who they were, but if it he anv satisfaction for your rcpoitcr to know it —1 have starred in lour London Theatres, in many Theatres in the Tnilcd States, aiul have occupied the position ot leading mail and manager of all the principle '1 lieatres in New .South 'Wales. Mr. Paniclls ami Miss Fannv Youiifr I have only known in tin'Ci'lonies, hut iheir jositieiis have hcen lei ognisi d, and tlie ladv e.-pecially has eeciipied a first cla.-s pe.-ition. Mes.-is." H:l! and' l'ellair tint ci me here and f/itf, I I'fiic ve. hriiiir what iniiiht for Auckland. he teimed a Jull company, and lust their money, a thing which 1 have not tlie slightest intention of doing if I can help it. The Honeymoon mix played without the characters of Roland and /.amoi-.i; it is frequently so presented, ami every publicity in hills and advertisements was •jiven to ih(! fact that it was mnijurtxeil into three acts: no imposition was attempted upon the jmhlir, and 1 presume from the satislaction with which the performance was received that none -was imagined on the part of anyone except the astute critic. The performance of Simpson and Co. seems to have been of so ridiculous a character as to awaken the sarcasm of our own friendly leporter, who with an apparent consciousness that he has the subject well ill, ainl noes (.n to hay in a vein of affected pleasantly, "Wo have all kmirh. d at the absurdity of performing the tragedy of Hamlet witli the character of Hamlet omiltid, and yet the omission of .Mrs. l-'itzallan. the very personage, the pivot on whom all the whim, dialogue and upiivoque of Simpson & Co. depends, reduces one of the most brilliant little comedies ever perleni'.ed into a tissue of something like sheer

IK'HSUIM'. , . 1 should think so. what must tho public think of a journalist who speaks thus sarcastically, thus unfairly, thus umrcnerous-iy ot' a thing flat mrcr IwpjMHi'rl 111 all. The part of Mrs. Fitzallau was played t,y Miss Corcoran. The piece was played, in all its integrity, not a line, not a character was omitted. >mav, the writer of the article in question has his choice oi three positions—either he was not there, or being there, he did not see, hear, or understand, or if in neither of these positions, he has been actuated by a vindictive animus unfair to us and by no means creditable to him. For the rest, the man who onehand gives me the greeting of good fellowship, and with the other stabs either my person or my reputation, cannot convince me ot "kindly sentiments; and where even truth is warped to do me injury, I must defend mvself and those with me, and conduct the epistolary duello, not in kid glove principles, but a Voutranee. Yours truly, " C. "W. Barry, [We havo but one word to give to Mr. Barry's tirade. He says Mrs. Fitzallan, in Simpson and Co.. was played, and that Miss Corcoran was the representative. We refer him to his own play bills, in which that lady is set down for Madame La Trappe; no such person as Mrs. Fitzallan is acknowledged in the managerial imprint.—Ed. N. Z. H.]