purpose, is that the system now adopted by the managers of our Toronto theatres is, in more than one respect, a marked improvement on that formerly in vogue. At the Grand Opera House, Mr. Pitou has abolished altogether the old Stock Company, and wisely placed his trust in combinations. In so doing he has, we believe, shown himself fully alive to the conditions of successful management in Toronto. It had become imperative that the stock company should either be vastly improved or altogether abandoned. Toronto theatre-goers had grown more than weary of a system under which the only new thing presented for their delectation was the weekly passage of a single first, or second-rate star through a dull dramatic firmament of fixed rushlight mediocrities. The inevitable re-appearance of the old familiar faces,' and the invariable repetition of the old familiar mannerisms in every play, in every conceivable make-up, and under every conceivable circumstance, was beginning to exhaust the patience of even the most enthusiastic habitués of the theatre. There have been some very tolerable actorsas well as some very intolerable onesamong the various stock companies Toronto has had; but it would have required phenomenal versatility, such as certainly none of them possessed for them to have assumed satisfactorily all the incongruous rôles, which they were called upon at short notice to prepare. The system was unfair to the stars,' it was unfair to the company, and, above all, it was unfair to the public. To have made it otherwise, it would have been necessary to keep on foot a regular company of such first-rate ability as would have ruined the management in salaries, unless there had been developed an enthusiasm for theatre-going as yet unprecedented in Toronto. The alternative which Mr. Pitou has adopted, in bringing to his theatre week after week, a series of combinations,' or regularly organized travelling companies, with limited répertoires, is one which obviates the most serious of the disadvantages to which we have alluded as connected with the stock' system—although it has others of its own. Without dwelling on these at present, it will suffice to say that under this new régime, Toronto audiences will, at all events, have change and variety, such as a city with but two theatres could not otherwise obtain. The various companies visiting us, hav

ing been organized each with a view to the production of a certain piece or class of pieces, and having played them consecutively a great number of times, may at least be expected to present them with a smoothness and ensemble that was always lacking when one company was forced hurriedly to get up numerous fresh plays, and, thus insufficiently prepared, to support a different 'star' every week. In this connection, however, we would strongly protest against a trick, which these travelling companies are frequently guilty of, and which will prejudice the interests of our local managers even more than their own, if it is long continued. We refer to the unaccountable manner in which the approach to Toronto seems to affect the health of the actors and actresses who are advertised for a week before the arrival of the company, and we are sorry to add, throughout their stay-to play important parts; but who are suddenly taken ill somewhere on the route, leaving their parts to be filled by sorry substitutes, without any apology or announcement being made to the public, before or after the performance. It is the chief drawback to these transitory companies that the public have no guarantee of the fulfilment of their advertised pledges-and no hold upon them in default. Such being the case, it is only right that the managers of our theatres should be held responsible for any small dodges of the kind just referred to, and it is to their interest to look to it that their patrons are protected from anything of the kind.

One thing more, before we enter upon the details of our task. It is much to be regretted that our daily press neglects to exert any influence towards the elevation of the public taste in the dramatic art, by competent or even outspoken criticism. In this respect the Toronto Evening Telegram sets a meritorious example to its bigger brothers. The leading dailies-except on very rare occasionsentrust their dramatic criticism to tyros whose 'notices'-couched in an unvarying phraseology which suggests the use of regular forms in blank, filled in with names and dates as required,--are utterly misleading to such of the public as read them, and must be anything but encouraging to actors or managers who are wise enough to value intelligent criticism above monotonous encomiums dealt out in return for their advertising.

We will proceed to pass briefly in re

view some of the attractions' which have so far visited the Grand Opera House.

6

6

Early in the season Mr. Lawrence Barrett, supported by Mr. Eben Plympton and an efficient company, presented for the first time in Toronto, a drama adapted especially for him from the Spanish, by Mr. W. D. Howells, editor of the Atlantic Monthly. The play, which has the rather vague and hap-hazard title of A New Play,' has its action in the days of Shakespeare, amid the actors of the old Globe Theatre, the chief interest of the piece centering in the rôle of Yorick, which Mr. Barrett assumed. Yorick, a fellow of infinite jest,' at the first, is represented as the victim of gradually increasing jealousy and suspicion of his young wife, Mistress Alice (Miss Ellen Cummins), who loves his protégé, Master Edward (Mr. Plympton). He is made to act the rôle of a deceived husband in A New Play' produced by Heywood at the Globe Theatre, Alice and Edward taking the parts of his guilty wife and her lover. The situation, though far-fetched and spoiled by a too detailed and elaborate correspondence of the circumstances of the play, and the play within the play, is unquestionably a strong one, and gives ample scope for some subtle and powerful acting. We are forced to confess that Mr. Barrett entirely failed to realize the possibilities of his part. In the first act he seemed to think that light-hearted gaiety and whimsicality were amply represented by incessant restlessness of legs, hands and eyes, and a rapidity of utterance which it was almost impossible to follow, while, as the tragedy of his situation deepened, the spasmodic jerkiness of his movements, and the breathless rapidity of his speeches were increased, presumably to portray increasing depth of passion. We cannot say that the effect was artistic; nor do we think Mr. Barrett's Yorick a success in any respect. He entirely fails to make the character his own, or to leave any impression of a distinctive personality with his audience. In marked contrast to this is his Richelieu, a finished study which, although marred by some of Mr. Barrett's inevitable mannerisms of mouth and eyes, it is always a pleasure to witness.

The apparently inexhaustible fleet of 'Pinafores' now cruising about the continent, has sent us representatives in Haverley's Juvenile crew, the Saville

Lee crew, and, more recently, Haverley's Chicago Church Choir crew-for, in boarding this subject, we are nothing if not nautical. Some of the 'Pinafore' companies, on the other hand-notably the last mentioned-are anything but nautical in appearance.

The success attending the visit of Haverley's Juvenile Pinafore Company was attributable rather to the 'infant phenomenon' craze by which astute managers like Mr. Haverley know so large a part of the public to be possessed, than to much intrinsic merit in the performance itself. The singing, especially in the choruses, was often shrill and hopelessly out of tune, while in some cases, especially in that of the Josephine (Annie Walker), it was rather pitiable than enjoyable to witness the unsuccessful at tempts of the child to render music entirely beyond the compass of her voice. Sir Joseph Porter (Frankie Bishop), Dick Deadeye (Arthur Dunn), and Hebe (Daisy Murdoch) however, all had excellent voices, and sang with spirit and precision; while Jennie Dunn, as Ralph Rackstraw, had a sweet voice and sang carefully, but was overweighted by the difficulties of her part. The acting of little Arthur Dunn as Dick Deadeye, notwithstanding some excusable selfconsciousness, was really superior in grotesqueness and humour to that of any grown up' representative of that blighted and misanthropical tar we have seen. Zoe Tuttle was a bright and piquant Buttercup, but Daisy Murdoch as Hebe was more pert and saucy than her part required or than it was pleasant to see a child applauded for.

From a musical point of view, Haverley's Chicago Church Choir Company is unquestionably the best Pinafore combination that has visited Toronto. There was not a poor voice in the cast, while some of them, notably the fine baritone of Mr. McWade (Captain Corcoran), and the rich contralto of Miss Bartlett (Buttercup), were exceptionally good. The really phenomenal basso profundo of Mr. A. Liverman, elicited repeated encores of the song' He is an Englishman ;,' the tremendous power of his voice compensating for some lack of musical quality and of skill in its management. The choruses were strong and spirited, and the orchestra, conducted by Mr. Louis J. Falk, a very fine one. Altogether, more was made of the music than previous companies had even suggested the

possibility of; although we scarcely think that the somewhat ambitious alterations in Sullivan's score were improvements on the original or altogether in keeping with its general motif. Mr. McWade acted Captain Corcoran with refreshing life and zest, it being a part, as a rule, played very tamely. Miss Bartlett made his attachment to Buttercup, as charmingly represented by her, one in which the audience could heartily sympathize. With these exceptions, however, the acting was very amateurish and flat. The parts of Sir Joseph (Mr. F. A. Bowden), Dick Deadeye (Mr. L. W. Raymond) and Hebe (Miss Ada Somers), losing all their due prominence, and, indeed significance. The crew in this Company are so sombrely-almost dingily-dressed, as to detract very materially from the general brightness of the effect.

The Saville-Lee English Opera Company, who paid their second visit to the Grand' a few weeks ago, do Pinafore full justice all round; and have, in Mr. Digby V. Bell, an excellent singer and actor, who catches the full humour of the part of Sir Joseph Porter and renders it inimitably. He is ably seconded by Miss Carrie Burton, who makes a dainty and coquettish Hebe. This Company, however, is scarcely strong enough to attempt The Bohemian Girl' with much success; nor did Mr. J. J. Benitz (as Devilshoof), and Mr. Percy J. J. Cooper (as Florestine) improve matters by introducing buffoonery utterly incongruous and out of place in that opera. The most interesting performance by the Saville-Lee Company was thatfor the first time in this City-of Gilbert and Sullivan's comic operetta, 'The Sorcerer,' which met with success almost as remarkable as that of Pinafore, on its production at the Opera Comique, in London, a year or two ago, with George Grossmith and the late Mrs. Howard Paul in the leading parts. Whether it be that the 'points' of its satire are best appreciated in England, or that its music, although fully as charming, is not so full of catching' airs as Pinafore, it certainly has not created anything like the same enthusiasm on this side of the Atlantic. Though

it be heresy to say so, we think it superior to Pinafore in the humour of its plot and the quaint satire of its libretto; while its music, although in a somewhat higher vein, is bright and captivating in the extreme. It was well received here, and rendered very satisfactorily, Mr. Bell again decidedly taking the lead, both in acting and singing, in the part of John Wellington Wells, the Family Sorcerer. The marvellous grotesque dancing of Mr. George Grossmith, the originator of this part in London, contributed in a great degree to the original success of the opera. Mr. Bell, not being George Grossmith, cannot justly be taken to task for its omission; but the dancing having been omitted, we think we may fairly say that Toronto has not yet seen the 'Sorcerer.'

Mr. John T. Raymond, in a three nights' engagement last week, made his first appearance here as Ichabod Crane, in a new play by Mr. George Fawcett Rowe, entitled Woolfert's Roost, and dramatized, with many variations, from Washington Irving's book of that name. The drama is no better-rather worsethan Mr. Rowe's former not very successful attempts. There is no coherence or sequence in the plot-if plot it can be said to have-and there is not much literary merit in the dialogue by way of compensation. Some of the situations would be good if anything led up to them, or they led up to anything, but neither is the case. The associations of the piece, and the very pretty scenery it introduces, give it a sort of idyllic interest; and Mr. Raymond makes Ichabod, the Schoolmaster, an amusing, if not a very distinctive, character. In fact, if Ichabod were suddenly to exclaim 'there's millions in it!' we do not think the audience would resent it as much of an incongruity. Mr. Raymond played Colonel Sellers — intentionally — once again during his stay, and when we hear of Sothern doing something better than Dundreary, or of Jefferson eclipsing his Rip Van Winkle, we shall be ready to believe that Mr. Raymond will ever make the mark in any other part that he has done in Colonel Sellers.

-

October 28th, 1879.

IN

N this, the second and concluding article on The Powers of Canadian Parliaments,' much must be omitted that is necessary for argument and illustration. But the claims of space are imperative.

The present paper will consider, in brief

1. The powers given to the Dominion and to the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec by the British North America Act.

2. The powers with which the Legislatures of these two Provinces have clothed themselves, in order to carry out the purposes for which they exist.

3. The opinion of the Tribunals on the powers of the Provincial Parliaments, those inherited and those conferred.

4. The difference between the powers of the Imperial and the Federal Parliaments.

Section 90 of the British North America Act thus defines some of the powers conferred on the Provincial Legislatures:

'The following provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada-namely, the Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills Reserved-shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces, as if those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the substitution of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province for the Governor-General, of the Governor-General for the Queen, and for a Secretary of State, of One year for two years,* and of the Province for Canada.'

No argument is needed to prove

that

This refers to the period-one yearwithin which, and not after, the GovernorGeneral has authority to disallow Provincial Legislation. During the existence of the late Province of Canada two years was the period within which the Imperial authorities could exercise the veto.

the conferred on the Provinces powers by this 90th section, are amongst the most important that justify the existence of a Parliament. The Provincial Legislatures are made the participants of the Federal Parliament, as if these provisions were here re-enacted' in the power to deal with the people's money; a right which, entrusted for the time being, by the people to their responsible representatives, lies at the root of Parliamentary Government and Free Institutions.

The latter part of the section shows that the powers conferred are part of those exercised by the late Parliament of Canada, and are transmitted unimpaired to the Provincial Legislatures.

But it

It is but right to admit, without discussion, that the Federal Parliament is in possession of larger powers than the Provincial Legislatures. may be possible to show that these powers differ more in degree than they do in kind. In attempting to make this comparative similarity apparent, there is no desire to belittle the Parliament of Canada. Such as it is, that Legislature is our own; it represents, in a tentative way, the idea of Nationhood. It is the formative power, shaping out of materials, scattered and disproportioned, something that shall be the embodiment of a vigorous National life; something less than the British Empire, but greater than a Province.

(1). Section 91 of the British North America Act deals with the Distribution of Legislative powers.' Under the heading Powers of Parliament,' there are enumerated twenty-eight subjects reserved to the Federal Legislature.

Section 92 of the Act enumerates the subjects under the control of the Provincial Legislatures: they are sixteen in number.

For the purposes of comparison, the more important of the subjects reserved to each Legislature will be placed side by side, not in numerical procession, as in the Act, but according to relationship.