The Knickerbocker, or New-York Monthly Magazine, February 1844

The North-American Review for the January quarter is one of the best issues of that ‘ancient and honorable’ Quarterly which we have encountered for many months. It contains eight extended reviews, five brief ‘Critical Notices,’ and the usual quarterly list of new publications. The first article is upon the ‘Poets and Poetry of America,’ a work ‘which has travelled through many States and four editions,’ and for the production of which Mr. Griswold is justly commended. In the progress of this paper, the writer indulges in a sort of running commentary upon the more conspicuous poets included in the compiler’s collection, as Bryant, Halleck, Sprague, Dana, Percival, Longfellow, Willis Gaylord Clark, Holmes, Whittier, etc., etc. Of Bryant the reviewer among other things remarks:

‘Mr. Griswold says finely of Bryant, that ‘he is the translator of the silent language of nature to the world.’ The serene beauty and thoughtful tenderness, which characterize his descriptions, or rather interpretations of outward objects, are paralleled only in Wordsworth. His poems are almost perfect of their kind. The fruits of meditation, rather than of passion or imagination, and rarely startling with an unexpected image or sudden outbreak of feeling, they are admirable specimens of what may be called the philosophy of the soul. They address the finer instincts of our nature with a voice so winning and gentle; they search out with such subtle power all in the heart which is true and good; that their influence, though quiet, is resistless. They have consecrated to many minds things which before it was painful to contemplate. Who can say that his feelings and fears respecting death have not received an insensible change, since reading the ‘Thanatopsis?’ Indeed, we think that Bryant’s poems are valuable, not only for their intrinsic excellence, but for the vast influence their wide circulation is calculated to exercise on national feelings and manners. It is impossible to read them without being morally benefitted. They purify as well as please. They develope or encourage all the elevated and thoughtful tendencies of the mind.’

We are glad to see the reproof which the reviewer bestows upon those critics of Longfellow’s poetry, who to escape the trouble of analysis, offer some smooth eulogium upon his ‘taste,’ or some lip-homage to his ‘artistical ability,’ instead of noting the tendency of his writings to touch the heroic strings in our nature, to breathe energy into the heart, to sustain our lagging purposes, and fix our thoughts on what is stable and eternal. The following is eminently just:

‘The great characteristic of Longfellow, that of addressing the moral nature through the imagination, of linking moral truth to intellectual beauty, is a far greater excellence. His artistical ability is admirable, because it is not seen. It is rather mental than mechanical. The best artist is he who accommodates his diction to his subject. In this sense, Longfellow is an artist. By learning ‘to labor and to wait,’ by steadily brooding over the chaos in which thought and emotion first appear to the mind, and giving shape and life to both, before uttering them in words, he has obtained a singular mastery over expression. By this we do not mean that he has a large command of language. No fallacy is greater than that which confounds fluency with expression. Washerwomen, and boys at debating clubs, often display more fluency than Webster; but his words are to theirs, as the roll of thunder to the patter of rain. Language often receives its significance and power from the person who uses it. Unless permeated by the higher faculties of the mind, unless it be not the clothing, but the ‘incarnation of thought,’ it is quite an humble power. There are some writers who repose undoubting confidence in words. If their minds be filled with the epithets of poetry, they fondly deem that they have clutched its essence. In a piece of inferior verse, we often observe a great array of expressions which have been employed with great effect by genius, but which seem to burn the fingers and disconcert the equanimity of the aspiring word-catcher who presses them into his service. Felicity, not fluency, of language is a merit.’

Exactly; yet these same ‘fluent’ versifiers are the persons who talk with elaborate flippancy of the ‘simple common-places’ of this noble poet! The reviewer adds: ‘Longfellow has a perfect command of that expression which results from restraining rather than cultivating fluency; and his manner is adapted to his theme. He rarely, if ever, mistakes ‘emotions for conceptions.’ His words are often pictures of his thought. He selects with great delicacy and precision the exact phrase which best expresses or suggests his idea. He colors his style with the skill of a painter. The warm flush and bright tints, as well as the most evanescent hues of language, he uses with admirable discretion. In that higher department of his art, that of so combining his words and images that they make music to the soul as well as to the ear, and convey not only his feelings and thoughts, but also the very tone and condition of the soul in which they have being, he likewise excels.’ The reviewer illustrates these remarks, by citing the ‘Psalms of Life,’ the ‘Saga of the Skeleton in Armor,’ ‘The Village Blacksmith,’ etc., which were written by Mr. Longfellow for the pages of this Magazine, and adds, that our poet indulges in no ‘wild struggles after an ineffable Something, for which earth can afford but imperfect symbols. He appears perfectly satisfied with his work. Like his own ‘Village Blacksmith,’ he retires every night with the feeling that something has been attempted, and something done.’ There is a subtle analysis of the style of that first of comic poets, Holmes, for which we shall endeavor to find space hereafter. Of the writings of the late lamented Willis Gaylord Clark, the reviewer remarks, that they ‘are all distinguished for a graceful and elegant diction, thoughts morally and poetically beautiful, and chaste and appropriate imagery. They exhibit much purity and strength of feeling, are replete with fancy and sentiment, and have often a searching pathos and a mournful beauty, which find their way quietly to the heart.’ The poetry of our friend and correspondent Whittier is warmly commended: ‘A common thought comes from his pen ‘rammed with life.’ He seems in some of his lyrics to pour out his blood with his lines. There is a rush of passion in his verse, which sweeps every thing along with it.’ The remaining references are to the lady-poets, Mesdames Brooks, Child, Sigourney, Smith, Welby, Hall, Ellet, Dinnie, Embury, Hooper, the Davidsons, etc. The whole article is well considered; and we cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. The remaining papers are upon Palfrey’s admirable ‘Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,’ ‘Trade with the Hanse-Towns, the German Tariff-League;’ ‘Gervinus’s History of German Poetry;’ ‘Debts of the States,’ an excellent and most timely article;’ ‘Prescott’s History of Mexico;’ ‘Sam Slick in England;’ and a valuable dissertation on Libraries, based upon the catalogue of the library of Brown University.

Joseph C. Neal’s ‘Charcoal Sketches.’—Right glad are we to welcome from the teeming press of Messrs. Burgess and Stringer a new edition of these most humorous and witty sketches, illustrated with engravings by D. C. Johnston, of Boston. We have re-perused them with renewed delight, and awakened again the echoes of our silent sanctum, in the excess of our cachinnatory enjoyment. Our friend Morton M‘Michael, in the ‘advance Graham’ for February, (which by the way contains a breathing likeness of the sketcher,) has the following remarks upon the papers composing the volume before us, which we most cordially endorse: ‘No one, who has his faculties in a healthy condition, can read them and not feel convinced that they are the productions of a superior and highly gifted mind. They not only smack strongly of what all true men love, genuine humor; rich, racy, glorious humor; at which you may indulge in an honest outbreak of laughter, and not feel ashamed afterward because you have thrown away good mirth on a pitiful jest; but when you have laughed your fill, if you choose to look beneath the surface, which sparkles and bubbles with brilliant fancies, you will find an under current of truthful observation, abundant in matter for sober thought in your graver moments. In all of them, light and trifling as they seem, and pleasant as they unquestionably are, there is a deep and solemn moral. The follies and vices which, in weak natures, soon grow into crimes, are here presented in such a way as to forewarn those who are about to yield to temptation, not by dull monitions and unregarded homilies, but by making the actors themselves unconscious protestants against their own misdoings. And to do this well requires a combination of abilities such as few possess. There must be the quick eye to perceive, the nice judgment to discriminate, the active memory to retain, the vigorous pen to depict, and above all, the soul, the mind, the genius, call it what you will, to infuse into the whole life and spirit and power. Now, all these qualities Neal has in an eminent degree, and he applies them with the skill of an accomplished artist. What he does he does thoroughly, perfectly. His portraits, which he modestly calls sketches, are unmistakeable. The very men he wishes to portray are before you, and they are not only limned to the outward eye, but they speak also to the outward ear, and in sentences thickly clustered with the drollest conceits, they convey lessons of practical philosophy, and make revelations of the strange perversities of our inward nature, from which even the wise may gather profitable conclusions.’ Our friend speaks of Mr. Neal’s being ‘comparatively little known.’ We have good reason to believe that one great cause of this is, that his name has often been confounded with that of another and altogether different species of Neal, whose infinite twattle—infinite alike in degree and quantity—has prejudiced the public mind against any thing that may seem to come in ‘questionable shape’ from a questionable source. This error has had its advantages to one party, no doubt, since there was ‘every thing to gain and nothing to lose;’ an advantage however which the prefix of the first two initials of our friend and correspondent to passages from his work which may hereafter find their way into the newspapers, will transfer to the rightful recipient. But to the volume in question, from which we are about to make a few random selections, illustrating the characters of sundry ‘city worthies,’ who are ‘comprehended as vagrom men’ by the ‘charleys’ or watchmen of the good City of Brotherly Love. Let us begin with the soliloquy of the poetical Olympus Pump:

‘‘Genius never feels its oats until after sunset; twilight applies the spanner to the fire-plug of fancy to give its bubbling fountains way; and midnight lifts the sluices for the cataracts of the heart, and cries, ‘Pass on the water!’ Yes, and economically considered, night is this world’s Spanish cloak; for no matter how dilapidated or festooned one’s apparel may be, the loops and windows cannot be discovered, and we look as elegant and as beautiful as get out. Ah!’ continued Pump, as he gracefully reclined upon the stall, ‘it’s really astonishing how rich I am in the idea line to-night. But it’s no use. I’ve got no pencil—not even a piece of chalk to write ’em on my hat for my next poem. It’s a great pity ideas are so much of the soap-bubble order, that you can’t tie ’em up in a pocket handkerchief, like a half peck of potatoes, or string ’em on a stick like catfish. I often have the most beautiful notions scampering through my head with the grace, but alas! the swiftness too, of kittens, especially just before I get asleep; but they’re all lost for the want of a trap; an intellectual figgery four. I wish we could find out the way of sprinkling salt on their tails, and make ’em wait till we want to use ’em. Why can’t some of the meaner souls invent an idea-catcher for the use of genius? I’m sure they’d find it profitable, for I wouldn’t mind owing a man twenty dollars for one myself.’

Mr. Fydget Fyxington is another worthy, who reverts continually to ‘first principles,’ and is full of schemes and projects, especially when he chances to have ‘a stone in his hat.’ Hear him:

‘‘Nothin’s fixed no how; our grand-dads must a been lazy rascals. Why didn’t they roof over the side-walks, and not leave every thing for us to do? I ain’t got no numbrell, and besides that, when it comes down as if raining was no name for it, as it always does when I’m cotch’d out, numbrells is no great shakes if you’ve got one with you, and no shakes at all if it’s at home. It’s a pity we ain’t got feathers, so’s to grow our own jacket and trowsers, and do up the tailorin’ business, and make our own feather beds. It would be a great savin’; every man his own clothes, and every man his own feather bed. Now I’ve got a suggestion about that; first principles bring us to the skin; fortify that, and the matter’s done. How would it do to bile a big kittle full of tar, tallow, beeswax and injen rubber, with considerable wool, and dab the whole family once a week? The young’uns might be soused in it every Saturday night, and the nigger might fix the elderly folks with a whitewash brush. Then there wouldn’t be no bother a washing your clothes or yourself, which last is an invention of the doctor to make people sick, because it lets in the cold in winter and the heat in summer, when natur’ says shut up the porouses and keep ’em out. Besides, when the new invention was tore at the knees or wore at the elbows, just tell the nigger to put on the kittle and give you a dab, and you’re patched slick; and so that whole mobs of people mightn’t stick together like figs, a little sperrits of turpentine or litharage might be added to make ’em dry like a house-a-fire. ’Twould be nice for sojers. Stand ’em all of a row, and whitewash ’em blue or red, according to pattern, as if they were a fence. The gin’rals might look on to see if it was done according to Gunter; the cap’ins might flourish the brush, and the corpulars carry the bucket. Dandies could fix themselves all sorts of streaked and all sorts of colors. When the parterials is cheap and the making don’t cost nothing, that’s what I call economy, and coming as near as possible to first principles. It’s a better way, too, of keeping out the rain, than my t’other plan of flogging people when they’re young, to make their hides hard and water-proof. A good licking is a sound first principle for juveniles, but they’ve got a prejudice agin it.’

‘A pair of Slippers’ brings us acquainted with another original personage, who one dark night soliloquizes on this wise:

‘‘I’ve not the slightest doubt that this is as beautiful a night as ever was; only it’s so dark you can’t see the pattern of it. One night is pretty much like another night in the dark; but it’s a great advantage to a good-looking evening, if the lamps are lit, so you can twig the stars and the moonshine. The fact is, that in this ‘ere city, we do grow the blackest moons, and the hardest moons to find, I ever did see. Lamps is lamps, and moons is moons, in a business pint of view, but practically they ain’t much if the wicks ain’t afire. When the luminaries are, as I may say, in the raw, it’s bad for me. I can’t see the ground as perforately as little fellers, and every dark night I’m sure to get a hyst; either a forrerd hyst, or a backerd hyst, or some sort of a hyst; but more backerds than forrerds, ‘specially in winter. One of the most unfeeling tricks I know of, is the way some folks have got of laughing out, yaw-haw! when they see a gentleman ketching a reg’lar hyst; a long gentleman, for instance, with his legs in the air, and his noddle splat down upon the cold bricks. A hyst of itself is bad enough, without being sniggered at: first, your sconce gets a crack; then, you see all sorts of stars, and have free admission to the fire-works; then, you scramble up, feeling as if you had no head on your shoulders, and as if it wasn’t you, but some confounded disagreeable feller in your clothes; yet the jacksnipes all grin, as if the misfortunes of human nature was only a poppet show. I wouldn’t mind it, if you could get up and look as if you didn’t care. But a man can’t rise, after a royal hyst, without letting on he feels flat. In such cases, however, sympathy is all gammon; and as for sensibility of a winter’s day, people keep it all for their own noses, and can’t be coaxed to retail it by the small.’

‘Dilly Jones’ is one of those unfortunate wights ‘just whose luck’ it is never to succeed in any thing they undertake. In a state of ‘mellow’ mental abstraction, while lamenting that the trade of one’s early days might not likewise be the trade of one’s latter years, he unconsciously utters his thoughts aloud:

‘‘Sawing wood’s going all to smash,’ said he, ‘and that’s where every thing goes what I speculates in. This here coal is doing us up. Ever since these black stones was brought to town, the wood-sawyers and pilers, and them soap-fat and hickory-ashes men, has been going down; and, for my part, I can’t say as I see what’s to be the end of all their new-fangled contraptions. But it’s always so; I’m always crawling out of the little end of the horn. I began life in a comfortable sort of a way; selling oysters out of a wheel-barrow, all clear grit, and didn’t owe nobody nothing. Oysters went down slick enough for a while, but at last cellars was invented, and darn the oyster, no matter how nice it was pickled, could poor Dill sell; so I had to eat up capital and profits myself. Then the ‘pepree-pot smoking’ was sot up, and went ahead pretty considerable for a time; but a parcel of fellers come into it, said my cats wasn’t as good as their’n, when I know’d they was as fresh as any cats in the market; and pepree-pot was no go. Bean-soup was just as bad; people said kittens wasn’t good done that way, and the more I hollered, the more the customers wouldn’t come, and them what did, wanted tick. Along with the boys and their pewter fips, them what got trust and didn’t pay, and the abusing of my goods, I was soon fotch’d up in the victualling line—and I busted for the benefit of my creditors. But genius riz. I made a raise of a horse and saw, after being a wood-piler’s prentice for a while, and working till I was free, and now here comes the coal to knock this business in the head.’ · · · ‘I wonder if they wouldn’t list me for a Charley? Hollering oysters and bean-soup has guv’ me a splendid woice; and instead of skeering ’em away, if the thieves were to hear me singing out, my style of doing it would almost coax ’em to come and be took up. They’d feel like a bird when a snake is after it, and would walk up, and poke their coat collars right into my fist. Then, after a while, I’d perhaps be promoted to the fancy business of pig ketching, which, though it is werry light and werry elegant, requires genus. ’Tisn’t every man that can come the scientifics in that line, and has studied the nature of a pig, so as to beat him at canœuvering, and make him surrender ‘cause he sees it ain’t no use of doing nothing. It wants larning to conwince them critters, and it’s only to be done by heading ’em up handsome, hopping which ever way they hop, and tripping ’em up genteel by shaking hands with their off hind leg. I’d scorn to pull their tails out by the roots, or to hurt their feelin’s by dragging ’em about by the ears. But what’s the use? If I was listed, they’d soon find out to holler the hour and to ketch the thieves by steam; yes, and they’d take ’em to court on a railroad, and try ’em with biling water. They’ll soon have black locomotives for watchmen and constables, and big bilers for judges and mayors. Pigs will be ketched by steam, and will be biled fit to eat before they are done squealing. By and by, folks won’t be of no use at all. There won’t be no people in the world but tea-kittles; no mouths, but safety-valves; and no talking, but blowing off steam. If I had a little biler inside of me, I’d turn omnibus, and week-days I’d run from Kensington to the Navy Yard, and Sundays I’d run to Fairmount.’’

There is a world of wisdom in the syllabus, or ‘argument,’ prefixed to each sketch; but for these we must refer the reader to the volume itself. The Dogberrys too are as wise as their ‘illustrious predecessor,’ and are quite as profuse of advice to ‘the plaintiffs’ who fall into their hands. Take a single specimen: ‘Take keer—don’t persume; I’m a ‘fishal functionary out a-ketching of dogs. You mustn’t cut up because it’s night. The mayor and the ‘squires has gone to bed; but the law is a thing that never gets asleep. After ten o’clock the law is a watchman and a dog-ketcher; we’re the whole law till breakfast’s a’most ready.’ ‘You’re a clever enough kind of little feller, sonny; but you ain’t been eddicated to the law as I have; so I’ll give you a lecture. Justice vinks at vot it can’t see, and lets them off vot it can’t ketch. When you want to break it, you must dodge. You may do what you like in your own house, and the law don’t know nothing about the matter. But never go thumping and bumping about the streets, when you are primed and snapped. That’s intemperance, and the other is temperance. But now you come under the muzzle of the ordinance; you’re a loafer.’ One of these ‘‘fishal functionaries’ justifies extreme physical means in ‘captivating obstropolous vagroms’ both by reason and distinguished precedent: ‘Wolloping is the only way; it’s a panacea for differences of opinion. You’ll find it in history books, that one nation teaches another what it didn’t know before by wolloping it; that’s the method of civilizing savages; the Romans put the whole world to rights that way; and what’s right on the big figger must be right on the small scale. In short, there’s nothing like wolloping for taking the conceit out of fellows who think they know more than their betters.’ ‘And so forth, et cetera,’ as may be ascertained on a perusal of the volume.

Life and Times of the late William Abbott: Third Notice.—This most entertaining manuscript-volume, from which we have already drawn so largely for the entertainment of our readers, has not been published in America, as it was designed to have been, owing partly as we learn to the fact that, through ‘something like unfair dealing’ toward the widow of the writer, a copy of half the volume had been transmitted to England, parts of which have already reached this country in the pages of a London magazine. We had the pleasure to anticipate by a month or two the best portions even of these printed chapters; and we proceed to select passages from other divisions of this interesting auto-biography, which were written out after a duplicate copy of the earlier chapters had been transmitted to the London publisher. Mr. Abbott (aside from the society to which he had the entrée on account of his professional merits,) was a personal favorite with many of the most eminent personages among the English nobility, with whom he was on terms of close intimacy; but we never find him illustrating his own importance by the narration of the social anecdotes or careless table-talk of his distinguished friends, as too many of his contemporaries have done. He was honored with the cordial friendship of the Earls Glengall and Fitzharding; and ‘at their tables,’ he writes, ‘I was a frequent guest, where I constantly met with society embracing the highest rank and most distinguished talent in England. I refrain, from obvious reasons, from mentioning names; but I may say that if there was ever a class of persons who confer honor upon the society in which they mingle, it is the Aristocracy of Great-Britain. There is a delicacy and forbearance in their manner, and that air of perfect equality which is so indicative of the accomplished gentleman and scholar. Colman was a very frequent guest at these dinners, and was, with the exception perhaps of Lord Alvanley, one of the most brilliant diners-out in London.’ This testimony, let us remark in passing, in favor of the ease and simplicity of the really high-born gentlemen of England, is confirmed by all Americans who have been well received in English society. The reader will especially remember the tribute paid on this point by Mr. Sanderson, the accomplished ‘American in Paris,’ in his ‘Familiar Letters from London,’ in these pages. But we are standing before Mr. Abbott. In Edinburgh ‘there lies the scene:’

‘I again visited Edinburgh at the close of the Covent-Garden season, and received the same undiminished hospitality as on a former occasion. I established an intimacy with the Ballantines of celebrated Scott memory. Matthews was indebted to John Ballantine for his famous old Scotch woman, and he certainly rivalled his preceptor in the quaint and dry humor with which he narrated that most amusing story. The management of the Edinburgh Theatre rested in the hands of Mr. Murray. He was the only son of the Murray formerly of Covent-Garden Theatre, who was one of the most chaste and impressive actors I ever saw. His Adam, in ‘As you Like it,’ was really the perfection of the art. Mrs. Henry Siddons, in whom the property was vested at the death of her husband, was, fortunately for me, residing with her charming family in Edinburgh, and I was a constant guest at her table. Her manners were fascinating in the extreme, and a greater compliment could not well be paid than in having the entrée to a family so intellectual in their resources, and so perfectly amiable in disposition. A very amusing and agreeable club was got up by a party of young advocates. Delightful it was, from its very absurdity; in fact the nonsense of men of sense is an admirable couch to repose upon. Our numbers were limited, and embraced some of that powerful intellect which the modern Athens possesses in so eminent degree. Mr. Miles Angus Fletcher, Mr. Anderson, Sir William Hamilton, and a son of the late and brother of the present Lord Meadowbank, were among those I knew intimately, and whose varied talents gave life and soul to the society. We scorned the artificial light that illumined our midnight orgies, and seldom separated before the beams of the sun were dancing in our festive cups.’

The following account of the first Theatrical Fund Dinner, an entertainment of which we hear so much latterly in England, with the defence of actors against the charges of extravagance and improvidence so often brought against them, will possess interest for American readers:

‘The Covent-Garden Theatrical Fund about this period was languishing for want of support; and the great importance to be derived from an increase of its means seriously occupied the attention of the committee. We naturally looked upon it as affording an opportunity of increasing the respectability of the profession, and the means of preventing those individual appeals to the public from our impoverished brethren. There is a popular delusion that actors form a class in which the most reckless profusion is displayed; that the habits of their lives are necessarily dissipated, and that in the enjoyments of the luxuries of to-day, the wants and cares of to-morrow are entirely lost sight of. I do not believe in these sweeping assertions. I will not pretend to say that actors are exempt from the frailties of humanity; nay, I will admit that their course of life perhaps exposes them to greater temptations; but this fact ought rather to operate in their favor, than to tell so powerfully against them. I would ask those persons who are so inimical to the profession of an actor, whether longevity is the result of dissipation; and if they will take the trouble of examining, they will find that actors in general are extremely long-lived. There is a want of thriftiness in their composition, I grant; and fortunately for them the same charge is brought against the poet; the man whose high intellectual powers prevent his descending to the level of this work-day world. But will any one take the trouble of explaining from whence the actor is to derive his wealth? We will imagine that his salary is respectable, that it is regularly paid, and that there is no excuse for his being in debt. And now take into consideration that he has an appearance to maintain; that he has a family to support; and then what becomes of the opportunity of laying by a modicum even, to guard against the decline of life when the ‘winter daisies’ shall crown his head, and a new race of performers have started up and driven the others from their posts? We have some rare instances of very large fortunes being made and retained by members of the profession it is true, but they were instances of dazzling genius, or had the world’s belief that they possessed it. I will take names within the memory of us all: Mrs. Siddons, Mr. Kemble, Miss O’Neil, the ‘Young Roscius,’ and the late Mr. Lewis; and I will add to that list men of accomplished talents and great honor to the profession; Young, Bannister, Munden, Braham, Wroughton, Liston, Harley, Johnstone, Power, Jones; and I am sure the reader will believe me when I state, that I heartily wish I could place my own name in the list. Take the members of any other profession, however honorable, limit their numbers and means to the same proportion, and I ask if you would be enabled to produce a greater list of independent persons. The great advantages to be derived from a Theatrical Fund are here I trust made apparent; and after many suggestions, I believe it fell to the lot of Charles Taylor to propose an annual public dinner; and it proved a most fortunate idea. The first great point to be obtained was a patron, and then a president for the dinner. Our application met with immediate success, and His Royal Highness the Prince Regent condescendingly gave his name at the head of our undertaking, accompanied by a solid mark of his favor in the donation of one hundred pounds. We then had the gracious consent of the Duke of York to be our President, aided by his Royal brothers Kent and Sussex. The list of vice-presidents embraced many of the most distinguished noblemen and gentlemen in the country. In what an amiable point of view do the Royal Princes place themselves before the public in so thoroughly identifying themselves with the many interesting charities to which London gives birth! The grateful spirit of joyousness which they invariably displayed on these occasions, gave an interest to the festive scenes, and confirmed many a heart in its loyalty to their illustrious house. The late Duke of Gordon sat on the right hand of the Royal President, and favored the company with a song, which greatly surprised them, and elicited a general encore, and with which, with great good humor, he immediately complied. Matthews always held a conspicuous position at these dinners, and made a point of giving an original song, selected from his forth-coming entertainment. The amount collected at our first dinner was extraordinary; no less a sum than one thousand eight hundred and seventy pounds. The Drury-Lane Fund in the following year adapted our plan of the dinner, and both these institutions now annually derive a very large sum from the volunteer subscriptions of the Friends of the Drama. The same Royal patronage is most graciously continued by her present Majesty, and Royalty continues to preside at the festival. With this accumulation of patronage the actor may fearlessly look forward to the close of his mortal career without the dread of eleemosynary contributions, and also feel the proud gratification that he has personally contributed to support so interesting a Fund.’

As a specimen of Mr. Abbott’s’ stock-breaking and gambling experiences, we quote the subjoined passages: