THE CONCERT THAT WAS TO BE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 5, 12 October 1871, Page 3

THE CONCERT THAT WAS TO BE.

To the Editor of the Thames Guardian. Sir, —I confess lo no small degree of astonishment, at the Idler of your correspondent “ Harmonious,” g in your issue of this morning, and, as a member of the Methodist connection, I trust that you will permit me to say a few words concerning it. I am glad that an offer to divide the profits of a concert between these two bodies should have been made by the Church of England, not because it is the Church of England, but because they are one body of Clnistians willing to assist another. Like your correspondent, I greatly admire the conduct of the Church committee in this matter, but I fail to see anything “ Pharasaicat ” in the conduct of Methodists by declining to accept the proffered aid. The Mcihodisis do not presume to cad theirs “a pure chinch,’' neither do they say they “ a>e holier than their neighbours and as for the “ prejudices” of the Church of Eog'aod, they a 1 e 'things of the past. “Harmonious” must know but little of the history of In’s own Church, or be would know that, instead of that church being “ piejudiced ” against Methodism, they, or it, have and are at the present time making overtures of union with the Methodists. Sir, as Ihave said, I am a member of the. Methodist Society, and instead of “ censure” to our leaders, I applaud them, because I am gV.d that Ill's has been done. Unfortun ly for Methodists here and in Auckk ', our “leaders” have hitherto had tcj great a leaning to the side of the Church. Methodism is becoming Ep'scopalicnisin, our chapels are modernised into churches, our choi• s favour and copy eburch singing, our congregations in Auckland use an abridged version of the “ Church” lithurgy, and I quite c::poci. to see (his latter introduced here as soon as its supporters dare bring forward the motion ; and the ne:.t thing I expect to see is our

preacher with a surplice on. These things are looked upon by Methodists as innovations, and because of the growing tendency to “ church” fashions and customs I am glad that our leadens have had the courage to piep between these growing innovations and ilie wishes of those who favour them. In conclusion, sir, let me rerna'k that I consider the spoil in which your cofrespondent's .letter is written to be anything but “ harmonious.” But rather consider it the essence of “inpertinence.”—l am, &c., Methodist.

To the Editor of Guardian. Sir, —Allow me to correct your correspondents in the matter of the “ concert that was to be.” Had they known the rea 1 state of the case, they would, 1 think, have spared their virtuous indignation, both aga : nst the conduct of the concert committee and that of the head, and ilie leaders of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. It is only because I deprecate those odious comparisons, which tend to promote anything but peace and concord, that I feci it my duty to no!ice their anonymous effusions. It would he a matter of very deep regret if, by groundless statements, a false impression should be made that would impair (hat friendly feeling which hitherto lias been maintained among the several Christian denominations at the Thames. The truth is that the proposal was as heartily accepted as it was handsomely made. It did not fall through because the conceit was to be he'd in the the thea re, but because the theatre could not be liiied for the night for no less a sum thau (£l7) seventeen pounds, which, togeiher with other unavoidable expenses, would make Ihe financial resu't very doubtful, insomuch as the members of (lie committee, Episcopalian and Wesleyan, could not rely on so numerous an attendance from their respective congregations as to ensure success. Had the Academy of Music been available aga'n, or could the Theatre have been engaged on the usual terms, the united committee would have proceeded with their woik.—l am, sir, yours obediently, James Buller, Wesleyan Minister.

To the Editor of the THAMES GUARDI4 \. Sir, —It is a piiy that when we are favoured with a visit from a tainted ac>.or like Mr. Burford, our local journal cannot repoit so favourably of In's magnificent imps, sonations as lie merits. Why not set forth justly, and without prejudice, the very excellent manner in winch this gentleman has acquitted hiinse’f since he came among us ? You, however, have spoken higldy of the very able and exquisite manner in which iie played the character of Othello. The talented ;l Ilistriomastrix ” of the Evening Star often speaks in a very eulog sing manner of pmsons who delineate character but indifferently compared with the Moor of Mr. Dm ford ; he merely gives that gentleman “ credit ” for the style in which lie has played that character. But the hypercritical remarks which have appeared in the Advertiser are rather too much to pass without comment. In the first place, the writer appears to be quite oblivious of the monstrous tautology which pervades most of'his effusions. I wouhl wager that half a do ;en of them cannot be found wheiein be does not ment'on llie“ Ins-’rioii’c abi l 'ties,” or tbe •‘ar-'Stic elegance,” of some lady or geu leman, as lie or sbe rendered such a character, in the 11 piece de resistance .” On Wednesday night I he make up !' of Mr. Bin ford did not suit lnm ; and on Sa'urday night that gentleman “ somewhat laboredin his delivery.” Now,asl happen to have been an attentive wi.ness of Mr. Eu''fold’s act'og from h : s first majestic entry, when, as lie walked across the stage, he assumed the stately and imperious gait,

“My dea’,” said a husband to b ; s w ; 'e, “I’m go : ng io slurb a eotfee plenial'oo.” “ How’l . you get the land?” ‘‘Oh, there’s no t cubic about that; I always have plenty of coffee grounds i ; i my cup.”

so very appropi late to the words he subsequently lepeatcd, “ ’Tis yet to know, (Which, when I know that boasting is an honour, I shall promulgate), I fetch my life and being Fiom men of royal siege.” To the time on Saturday night, when he uttered the woids “I kiss’d thee, eve I kill’d thee : —No wav but this,killing myself todieupon a kiss.” Perhaps you will allow me briefly to express my impartial opinion of liis acting. I have often seen Othello played, several times on the Thames—with one exception, Mr. Bnrford’s is the best Moor I have witnessed here. Nature has placed him in possession of physical characteristics which admit ably adapts him for the pa-1, not least among which is the eye. I did not perceive any impediment in his aiticul avion. Ido not wish to draw comparisons between ibe gentlemen who adorn the boards of the Academy, but that Mr. Buifo’.d is regarded asan elocutionist', and a good one too, was fully exemplified by the loud app'obal ion with which he was greeted when he first sa'd on that stage, “This on'yis the witchcraft I have us’d; Here comes the lady, let her wituess it.” The ’emarkablv clear and distinct tone in which be delivered Ids “ round unvarnished tale ” proclaimed the good actor. This he maintained all through, from first to last. He played the part with great care and calmness, introducing but few unnecessary or improper gesticulations, and even where lie was the most passionate and vehement, he did not, as many actors do, indulge in that fi antic and unnatural rushing to and fro, which the ini modal author of Hamlet appeared so much to disapprove. His Othello was beyond aff doubt amaslerly conception, and the very high appreciation of the audience on both occasions was evinced by the loud encomiums and continued applause which he so meritoriously received, it will be unnccessa'y to say that the character lias gamed him great popuhn' <ly. I liea'd a gentleman who was s : 'liug near me remark that that talented (and “puffed-up”) young tragedian, of the name of “Howe could not liokl a candle to bun,” an expression of opinion in which I fully concurred. The only shortcoming I observed was om Sat in day night I feared that he would om : t the g 'aud passage—- “ If I quench thee thou flaming minis; er ! I can again Iby former light restore, Should I repent me.” He had apparently fo'gottcn this passage for the moment, but instantly bethought himself and gave it correct utterance. This was the only imperfection I noticed. “ The lago of Mr Hoskins," says the g'eat critic, “was a perfect treatha removed from the pa- t the heavy villainy which is so often misrepresented (?).” The writer of these critiques lias evidently well studied this sublime tragedy, and seen it played “very oY:” “ Eveiy altitude, gesture [this word he spells with a “j” j, and ph'a3e were appropriate.” For my own paid, I did not observe the übiquitous lepober of the Advertiser among the aud'ence on Saturday; let us hope he did not beg the information. .Ahhough I adin me tiie lago of Mr Hoskins, aud though he was so vcy successful in it, I should have thought that Benedick would have been liis great London impersonation.—l have, &c., Tybalt. Grahamstown, Oct. 10th. [The above letter has been Traced in our hands. We pubbs'i it as wiiien, and most ceria'oiy do not bind ourselves to the statements contained in it. It is far Lorn our thoughts to make any invidious comparisons with our contemporary. — Ed. T. G.]