Play List:

1. The Rath Boys

2. The Witchfinder

3. A Madcap Prince

4. Corinne

5. The Queen of Connaught

6. The Nine Days’ Queen

7. The Mormons

8. The Shadow of the Sword

9. Lucy Brandon

10. Storm-Beaten

11. Lady Clare

[Flowers of the Forest]

12. A Sailor and His Lass

13. Bachelors

14. Constance

15. Lottie

16. Agnes

17. Alone in London

18. Sophia

19. Fascination

20. The Blue Bells of Scotland

21. Partners

22. Joseph’s Sweetheart

23. That Doctor Cupid

24. Angelina!

25. The Old Home

26. A Man’s Shadow

27. Theodora

28. Man and the Woman

29. Clarissa

30. Miss Tomboy

31. The Bride of Love

32. Sweet Nancy

33. The English Rose

34. The Struggle for Life

35. The Sixth Commandment

36. Marmion

37. The Gifted Lady

38. The Trumpet Call

39. Squire Kate

40. The White Rose

41. The Lights of Home

42. The Black Domino

43. The Piper of Hamelin

44. The Charlatan

45. Dick Sheridan

46. A Society Butterfly

47. Lady Gladys

48. The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown

49. The Romance of the Shopwalker

50. The Wanderer from Venus

51. The Mariners of England

52. Two Little Maids from School

53. When Knights Were Bold


Short Plays

Other Plays

Buchanan’s Theatrical Ventures in America

Poetry Readings





The Fleshly School Controversy
Buchanan and the Press
Buchanan and the Law

The Critical Response
Harriett Jay

Site Diary
Site Search


11. Lady Clare (1883) - continued


[Cover of the programme for the original Globe Theatre production.]


The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News (5 May, 1883 - p.13)


     THE chief incident in our picture from Mr. Robert Buchanan’s piece at the Globe Theatre is the episode in the first act, by the lake at Broadmeads. The characters are the Hon. Cecil Brookfield (Miss H. Jay), who is fishing, Lady Clare (Miss Cavendish), and the Countess (Miss Carlotta Leclercq). At the foot of the page is, perhaps, the most striking incident in the drama—when, immediately after the wedding, Lady Clare repents her marriage with the wealthy commoner, John Middleton (Mr. Bucklaw), and is restrained by her husband on the point of flight. At the top are the Hon. Cecil Brookfield and Mary Middleton (Miss Lydia Cowell) at the Casino Dieppe. There are also portraits of Miss Ada Cavendish in the title character, and Mrs. Digby Willoughby as Melissa Small.



The Glasgow Herald (15 May, 1883 - p.6)

. . . Mr Harris has purchased the provincial rights of Mr Robert Buchanan’s play, “Lady Clare,” and Mr Buchanan’s new drama will probably be the first autumn novelty at Drury Lane.



The Daily Telegraph (15 May, 1883 - p.2)

     “LADY CLARE.”—The modern and popular custom of transplanting London plays when a suitable occasion presents itself is to be illustrated in the case of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “Lady Clare,” now being performed at the Globe Theatre. This drama will be produced at the Theatre Royal, Brighton, on Thursday next, and at the Crystal Palace on the following Saturday. Thus a wider significance will be given to the fine, nervous acting of Miss Ada Cavendish, whose performance as the heroine of Mr. Buchanan’s play has contributed not a little to its success.



The Sheffield Independent (19 May, 1883 - p.12)

     It is said that Mr. Augustus Harris has some intention of playing himself the part of the hero of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “Lady Clare,” over which piece Mr. Harris has secured what are called the country rights.



The Glasgow Herald (28 May, 1883 - p.8)

Augustus Harris has postponed Mr Robert Buchanan’s new drama till the winter, and will produce Mr Rowe’s drama in August. He has arranged that Miss Ada Cavendish shall direct the provincial tour of “Lady Clare.”


[Notice in The Era (9 June, 1883 - p.17).]


Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser (12 June, 1883 - p.5)

     George’s o’Hnet’s successful play, Serge Panine, was performed by the Paris Gymnase Company at the Gaiety Theatre to-night, but strangely enough attracted but a very small audience. Madame Pasca played finely, and was well supported. The story of Serge Panine has already been partly used on the English stage, being the foundation of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s Lady Clare, at the Globe.



The Referee (24 June, 1883 - p.3)

     So enormous has been the success of “Lady Clare” at the Globe, that it can only be played for a few nights longer, too much unaccustomed prosperity being considered not good for the author, and too much work being considered not good for Miss Ada Cavendish, who wants a rest prior to fulfilling her engagements in the provinces.



The Dundee Courier and Argus (25 June, 1883 - p.3)

     Our theatres are now running out the season with what plays they have in their bills. One or two are making changes, but they have no novelties to offer. Mr Wilkie Collins’ play, “Rank and Riches,” has proved a dismal failure, and the manager, in order to show his courage in adversity, has borrowed “Pluck” from the repertoire of Drury Lane. Mr Robert Buchanan’s drama, “Lady Clare,” has come to a termination in the midst of a success quite unexampled in the dramatic experiences of the Scotch poet. The withdrawal of a play which is so successful is not quite intelligible. Mr J. L. Toole has let his theatre to Mr Tom Robertson for the production of the Robertson dramas. Many will greatly regret this step, as he is doing the best business which the little house in King William Street has experienced for some time. On dit, that several of our fashionable operetta theatres are doing badly, but are bravely concealing their ill-luck. The French plays at the Gaiety are not drawing in a manner to keep up the traditions of this venture.



Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle (29 August, 1883)


     Mr. Robert Buchanan is not one of fortune’s favourites. Despite the fact that he is an admirable writer of fiction, and has turned out some of the best novels of the day, his fate on the stage is a history of accumulated disaster. Even Mr. Buchanan himself would experience a difficulty in recalling one of his plays that has been an unequivocal success. If there is, however, one calculated to retrieve his lost laurels, it is his new five-act drama of modern society, entitled “Lady Clare.” This drama, after having been rehearsed in London under the personal superintendence of Mr. Augustus Harris, has been sent on tour through the provinces. Mounted, dressed, and acted with the perfection that the piece was at the Theatre Royal on Monday evening, its tour should be attended with supreme success. At the opening Lady Clare Brookfield, daughter of the Countess of Broadmeads, is found to be engaged to her cousin, Lord Ambermere. His Lordship, a callous roué and libertine, finding himself pecuniarily embarrassed, throws over his pretty but impecunious cousin in favour of Melissa Smale, the daughter of an American millionaire, named Mr. Gould Smale. Piqued to the verge of madness by the heartless slight of the man she had really loved, under the impression of reciprocated affection, Lady Clare hastily accepts John Middleton, a wealthy manufacturer, whom she had previously rejected. As Lord Ambermere merely required money, and Melissa Smale a title, the pleasantest possible use is made of this marriage de convenance. On the other hand, John Middleton is devotedly attached to Lady Clare, who still has the old love strong within her. So much so, that on being taken to her husband’s home she, in a frenzy of repentance for the jealous hastiness with which she has enslaved herself, seeks to escape from her new home on her nuptial night. She is, however, prevented by her husband. Confession is made, then mutual recriminations ensue, with the result that both prepare themselves to live a life-long lie—man and wife to the world apparently really and actually, but to themselves only the mockery of a specious name. The following acts develop a gradual change of feeling on the part of Lady Clare, her infatuation for her cousin yielding to a strong admiring love for the noble qualities of her devoted husband. A duel, which the villainous lord forces upon Middleton, vouchsafes the opportunity for her to unexpectedly throw herself between the combatants, with the result that the ball that would indubitably have caused the death wound of her husband is received by her in the shoulder. Although her husband is still under the impression that her object was to save the life of her old lover, everything is explained in the end, and mutual happiness ensues. Lord Ambermere is deserted by his pretty chit of a wife, and finds humiliation on all hands. A brisk under plot of love between a gay-spirited young son of the Countess and a bright-eyed sister of John Middleton adds an additional sparkle of romance to one of the best plays of its kind that has been put upon the stage. Miss Kate Pattison, whose ability as a strong emotional actress is too well known to need any endorsement in these columns, played Lady Clare with charming grace. She was supported by Mr. W. S. Sutherland, who, as John Middleton, showed histrionic ability of a high order of merit. The part of Lord Ambermere was pourtrayed with a clever assumption of refined villainy by Mr. Augustus Cook; Miss Lizzie Claremont was the Countess of Broadmeads; Miss Grafton made a most bewitching Melissa Smale, with the prettiest of nasal twangs beloved of the Yankee; and Mr. Harry Parker was her very American father. The part of the Hon. Cecil Brookfield was played with a very judicious subjugation of blithesomeness by Miss Daisy England, who had a most fascinating little fiancee in fresh, unsophisticated Mary Middleton, who was depicted with charming naïveté and natural vivacity by Miss Barker, a young but highly promising actress. The subordinate parts were creditably filled. Most sumptuous dresses were worn in the piece, which was also mounted with scenes painted by Mr. Henry Emden, the like of which have not probably been seen on the local stage since its institution. The piece, in the production of which the master hand of the redoubtable Augustus Harris is so clearly traceable, is a sight to be seen by all local playgoers.



The Era (1 September, 1883)


     THEATRE ROYAL.—Lessee and Manager, Mr J. W. Boughton.—Mr Augustus Harris’s Lady Clare company have been engaged for six nights, and the appearance of the house on Monday promised well for the week. The company is extremely well selected. Miss Kate Pattison does well as Lady Clare; Miss Daisy England also enacts the Hon. Cecil Brookfield with taste. Mr A. Cook as the villain Ambermere, is well up to his work; and Mr W. S. Sutherland’s conception of the part of John Middleton is a fine study. The scenery is of the most artistic description; in fact, Lady Clare is about the best thing we have had here for a very long time.



The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post (4 September, 1883)


     Last night Miss de Grey, the well-known tragedienne, and a dramatic company of her own special selection, and under her own immediate direction, commenced a six nights’ engagement at this house, appearing in a five act play, which had never been previously acted in Bristol, called “Lady Clare.” It is from the pen of Mr. Robert Buchanan, and was produced originally at the Globe Theatre, London, with Miss Ada Cavendish in the title rôle. The piece tells a story of an ill-assorted marriage, and its plot may be thus briefly described:—Lady Clare, the heroine, is the daughter of the Countess of Broadmeads, a lady rich in patrician blood, but for her rank and station very poor in purse. One Lord Ambermere, a cousin of the young Lady, has been paying his addresses to her, but having become financially embarrassed by some gambling transactions he jilts his aristocratic cousin and accepts as his bride Melissa Smale, the daughter of an American millionaire, who having a plethora of gold comes down handsomely in order to purchase a coronet for his daughter. At the commencement of the action John Middleton, whom we suppose we must regard as the hero of the story, who is a self-made man and has built up a large fortune as a manufacturer, is enamoured of the Lady Clare and proposes for her hand. His presumption is at first resented, but finding that she has been deceived by Lord Ambermere, and incensed at his perfidy, the titled young lady accepts the advances of Middleton and becomes his wife. After the ceremony the newly-married pair return to Middleton’s home to pass the honeymoon. It is not, however, all sweets, for there occurs a scene which we remember was disapprovingly animadverted upon by the Metropolitan press at the time of the first performance, and which is no doubt palpably a paraphrase of the famous scene at the cottage of Claude Melnotte’s mother in Lord Lytton’s “Lady of Lyons.” The lady, overborne by her pride of ancestry, gives expression to her previously pent up feelings, and declares that she will be a bride only in name. As the result of this disclosure of Lady Clare’s real sentiment towards her newly-acquired bridegroom and the scene which ensues, a compact is made by which it is agreed that although they shall live together under the same roof, they beyond that shall be henceforth as nothing to each other. This scene is a powerful one, but as good an effect might, we think, have been achieved without trenching so closely upon Lord Lytton’s lines. Lord Ambermere, soon tiring of his American wife, begins to ply his arts against his former lover, and follows her about from place to place in the hope of inspiring her with a passion in his favour. Finding that she repels his advances, he, relying on his great skill with the pistol, fastens a duel on Middleton in the confidence that it will enable him to get his rival out of the way. As duels are illegal in England it is agreed to bring off the contest there in France, Lady Clare becomes informed, however, of the intention, and having been brought by her husband’s sterling qualities to form in her breast feelings in regard to him more akin to the love she owes him she determines that at all hazards she will save him. She arrives on the scene just at the moment that Lord Ambermere fires, and, rushing wildly between the combatants, receives the bullet which was intended for her husband. The wound, of course, does not prove fatal, and Middleton becoming assured by a conversation which he overhears that the solicitude which so nearly cost Lady Clare her life was for him and not for his rival, a happy reconciliation is brought about, and Lord Ambermere, by taking his leave of the Oaklands, escaped from the danger of being kicked out. In weaving the story we have thus briefly sketched into dramatic shape, Mr. Buchanan has displayed a fair amount of constructive skill, and his more striking situations, if not altogether new, are generally effective. Any weakness in the play lies in its being a little over sombre in its tone. If it were not in the relief afforded by the scenes between the young Honourable Cecil Brookfield and his youthful inamorata, Mary Middleton, this would be more notably apparent. The playwright has evidently felt the want of the lighter element, and in his anxiety to supply it has sketched the character of his boy extravagantly. In the effort to make him funny he has trenched on the lines of absurdity, and has too, in some degree, detracted from the simplicity which we are wont to associate with the boyish character. The play was well acted, and if it is true, as we hear, that this company acted together for the first time, surprisingly well. Miss de Grey displayed great histrionic power in her interpretation of the character of the heroine. Imperious pride is its dominant emotion., but underneath that there lies a keen sense of honour and some amount of tenderness. Miss de Grey brought out all the varying phases and rendered the different scenes with an impressiveness which well merited the enthusiasm she evoked. A more repulsively-drawn character than that of Melissa Smale could hardly be found in the entire range of the drama. She is selfish, hypocritical, and altogether unwomanly. Mrs. Digby Willoughby, its original exponent, appeared in it, and rendered it with a skill which could hardly be too highly lauded. Mr. Felix Pitt presented a manly and dignified portrait of the high-souled husband, John Middleton, who is not, it may be well to state, a self-made man of the ordinary stage type, but is in reality “one of nature’s noblemen.” Mr. Fred Terry was also excellent as Lord Ambermere, and Mr. W. Farren, jun., infused as much character as it was capable of receiving into the part of the Yankee millionaire, Gould Smale. The parts of Cecil and Mary were also made the most of, and the characters generally were very creditably filled, as also were the smaller parts, notably that (by Mr. John Forsyth) of Grimes, a workman. The scenery, as is always the case at this house, was excellent, and the costumes were superlatively good.



The Era (29 September, 1883)

“Lady Clare.”

     Sir,—I have lately enjoyed the privilege of witnessing the production of this drama at Torquay by Miss De Grey’s most artistic company. The performance was above criticism, and being, like Iago, “nothing if not critical,” I was perforce driven from the players to the play. There, Sir, I found what seems to me to be a somewhat curious state of affairs. The husband of the Countess is spoken of in the past tense, and is, therefore, presumably dead. The only children of the Countess, or her deceased husband, who appear are Clare and Cecil, and as the latter is addressed by Mr Smale as “one of our hereditary legislators” it seems to follow that he is his late father’s heir. Yet, Sir, this “hereditary legislator” is introduced to us as “the Honourable Cecil Brookfield.” The House of Lords has been long threatened with reform, but I was not aware that when a peer died his title went to one person and his hereditary legislative functions to another. Can this be so, or have I caught Mr Buchanan tripping?
     Lincoln’s Inn, September 24th, 1883.



The Stage (7 September, 1883 - p.2)

     BRISTOL—NEW ROYAL (Managers, Messrs. G. and J. M. Chute).—The first provincial representation of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s Lady Clare took place at this theatre on Monday. The treatment the piece received from Miss de Grey’s very efficient Co. was extremely good. In Lady Clare Miss de Grey has a character just suited to her peculiar and pleasing style. Occasionally her acting was really fine, but it is in the quieter portions that Miss de Grey is most effective. Another point for congratulation is having one so well suited to John Middleton as is Mr. Felix Pitt; throughout, his acting was veritably a lesson. Mr. Fred Terry, as Lord Ambermere, was telling, and so was Mr. E. Underhill as Count Legrange; Mr. G. W. Farren, jun., was much appreciated as the bragging Yankee, and other of the male parts were competently filled by Messrs. F. Mouillot, J. W. Piggott, F. Webster, J. Forsyth, and Lawrence. Mrs. Digby Willoughby, as the designing Amalia, evidently carried out the author’s ideas, and excited the indignation of the denizens of the theatrical Olympia; Mrs. E. Clifton was sufficiently dignified as the Countess; Miss Deby was scarcely at home as Cecil; and Miss A. Calvert, as Mary, was lively and interesting; Miss B. Huntley, as the Housekeeper, was prominent through being so unassuming. Altogether the play was a great success.



The Hastings and St Leonards Observer (29 September, 1883 - p.5)

     THE “LADY CLARE” COMPANY IN HASTINGS.—Monday last saw the advent of Mr. Augustus Harris’s Lady Clare company from the Drury Lane Theatre, London, to these towns, and on that evening the first performance of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s masterpiece was given in the Gaiety Theatre in Queen’s-road. The nightly production of this drama has been most successful, and during the week the chief artistes seem to have grown in favour at every appearance. The caste was in all respects a very powerful one, and the interest of the piece from the rise of the curtain on the Broadmeads Garden to the final reconciliation at Oaklands was never once allowed to flag. The new scenery by Mr. Henry Emden and the general appointments of the piece were altogether admirable, and it may be said, without much fear of contradiction, that the engagement carried out this week, and which terminates tonight (Saturday), has been in many respects the best that has ever graced a local stage. The characters are drawn from various nationalities, English, French, Irish, and American being all represented. The most praiseworthy character was certainly the John Middleton of Mr. N. R. Sutherland, which was almost perfect. The Lord Ambermere, too, of Mr. Augustus Cook was a capital assumption of the dissolute nobleman, and the other roles by Mr. Harry Parker, Mr. Edmund Lyons, and Mr. Burton Rolins were all well played. Of the ladies, the first place must be given to Miss Kate Patison, who, as the heroine (Lady Clare), acted with conspicuous talent and success. Miss Lizzie Claremont as the Countess, and Miss Carmen Barker as Mary Middleton were also noticeably good. In  short, we can only repeat that the engagement of this week has been a most successful one.



The Stage (5 October, 1883 - p.15)


     Lady Clare was revived on Monday evening before an audience of such vast proportions as to suggest the likelihood of an excellent fortnight’s business. As our readers are probably aware, Mr. Robert Buchanan’s drama was originally produced at the Globe Theatre on April 11th of the present year. The story founded on “Le Maître de Forges” possesses many characteristics not foreign to other tales. While the story is an effective one, the drama built upon it is at times made weak by faulty construction; yet, taken all in all, there is a genuine interest deducible from the play which careless adaptation or preachy dialogue can only obscure at intervals. Mr. Robert Buchanan, the author, who was present on Monday night, must have been greatly pleased with the reception given by an East-end audience—a reception, however, which was to a great extent evoked by excellent acting and superbly-dressed scenes. Foremost in the capable cast was Miss Kate Pattison, whose rendition of Clare was marked both by refinement and passionate intensity; a more ladylike impersonation we have seldom witnessed. Her antithesis Melissa Smale was made antithetical by Miss May Howard; and emphatic make-up, an extravagant improver, and an evidently affected assumption of Americanism, made the contrast between the ladies painfully glaring. Melissa may have been vulgar, but if we mistake not, she has had the benefits of a decent education. Miss Lizzie Claremont brought experience to bear on her dignified portrayal of the Countess of Broadmeads, and Miss Daisy England, as the “hereditary legislator” Cecil, played with both finish and go. Miss Carmen Barker made a pleasant and lovable little Mary, and Miss Jeannette Thompson did what little she had to do as Mrs. Foster fairly well. Mr. W. R. Sutherland’s John Middleton was both powerful and impressive, and Mr. Augustus Cook played Lord Ambermere with a quiet dash of expressive villainy which suited the part well. Mr. Harry Parker, always efficient in whatever he takes in hand, was sufficiently Yankeeish as Smale, and Mr. Edmund Lyons was a useful Legrange.



The Era (6 October, 1883)

Revival of Mr Robert Buchanan’s Drama of Modern Society entitled

John Middleton             ..............   Mr W. R. SUTHERLAND
Lord Ambermere           ..............  Mr AUGUSTUS COOK
Gould Smale                  ..............  Mr HARRY PARKER
Count Lagrange             ..............   Mr EDMUND LYONS
Major O’Connor           ..............  Mr BRUTON ROBINS
Woosnam                      ..............  Mr PEMBERTON
Montgomery                 ..............   Mr BARRI
Grimes                           ..............  Mr BRUTON ROBINS
Lady Clare                     ..............  Miss KATE PATTISON
Countess of Broadmeads   ...........   Miss L. CLAREMONT
Hon. Cecil Brookfield    ..............   Miss DAISY ENGLAND
Melissa Smale                ..............  Miss MAY HOWARD
Mary Middleton             ..............  Miss CARMEN BARKER
Mrs Forster                    ..............  Miss JANET THOMPSON

     The interesting series of revivals of West-end drama is still continued at this house, and, if we may judge by the crowds assembled on Monday evening last at the production of Mr Robert Buchanan’s Lady Clare, Mr Cohen is pursuing an eminently successful policy. Is it that a revolution in taste has come to our East-end playgoers, or are proprietors beginning to find that the old stock drama of the “penny plain and tuppence coloured” type does not pay? Can caterers, hitherto accepting as an axiom, preaching as an exhortation, inculcating as a gospel, that blood and thunder is the only food that “goes down” with the “mob” have at last discovered that, with the advance of education, theatrical taste has improved? It is not well to be too sanguine; but, if we satirise the “palmy days” of the past, there is such brightness in the dramatic horizon as to lead us to hope that the true “palmy days” are soon to come, even if they have not already arrived. At any rate, it says much for the position the stage now occupies that, through the enlightened policy animating the government the historic plays of Shakespeare form part of the study of the upper standards of our elementary schools. To what searching and intelligent criticism will the Shakespearian actor of a decade hence have to submit! It will indeed be incumbent on him to “speak the play trippingly on the tongue.” Whatever time may bring forth we feel confident that a new era must be dawning upon us when we know that such dramas as Lady Clare are not only received with general acceptance in theatres essentially depending upon the residuum for patronage, but are successful in a degree hardly dreamt of by the theatrical caterer of even ten years ago. Loveless marriages provide novelists and playwrights with a fruitful field in which to search for plot and incident. In this respect, therefore, Mr Buchanan’s drama is not strikingly original, and it even contains scenes reminding us of other pieces. Neither is it a production in which strong situations abound, but the subject has been treated in a scholarly manner, the story never loses its hold upon the attention, and so bright and charming a bit of light comedy as the underplot can never fail to make the piece popular wherever produced. If an audience cannot feel an intense sympathy for Lady Clare’s awakening to the nightmare of a guilty passion; if their hearts are not wrung by her yearnings after the love of a noble husband, they never tire of hearing young Cecil Brookfield declare what an awfully nice girl Mary Middleton is. The drama has been produced under the direction of Mr Augustus Harris, with new scenery by Mr Henry Emden, and carefulness and excellence marked the whole stage arrangements. Nothing prettier could be imagined as a stage picture than the water scene in the grounds of the Countess of Broadmeads. The cast possesses a high average of excellence. In Miss Kate Pattison we have an actress who is rapidly working her way to the front. The part of Lady Clare is not overloaded with opportunities; but the grief of the haughty, high-spirited girl when she learns her lover’s faithlessness and the scorn with which the wife bids him leave her in the last act found admirable expression, and Miss Pattison is to be complimented on a really artistic performance. Mr W. R. Sutherland plays admirably as John Middleton. Nothing could be better than the manly and decided tone in which this manufacturer, the puppet of pique and married for his money, brings his aristocratic wife to her senses, and the grief to which he gives way on fully realising what an arid desert life to him will be was finely expressed. Miss L. Claremont, leaving the delineation of strong character parts, acted with considerable refinement as the Countess of Broadmeads. Miss Daisy England succeeded in making the Hon. Cecil Brookfield what he should be—a light-hearted English boy, with plenty of fun and full of pluck. It was always refreshing to hear Miss England’s gay and spontaneous laugh, and altogether the young scion of the house of Broadmeads could scarcely find a better representative. The lovable Mary Middleton, who “will tease a fellow,” as Cecil puts it, was impersonated by Miss Carmen Barker, who never forgot that the part had a shade of pathos in it, and yet always imbued her acting with the requisite spirit. Melissa Smale, a by no means favourable specimen of the land of the almighty dollar, found a majestic representative in Miss May Howard. Lady Ambermere, we think, would hardly present such an appearance as Miss Howard assumed in the casino scene. With the exception of this bad make-up the actress succeeded in imparting a strong individuality to the American girl. Mr Harry Parker gave a rational portrait of Gould Smale, and was well made up; Mr Augustus Cook made a sufficiently villainous Lord Ambermere, and acquitted himself well in the challenge scene; while Mr E. Lyons demonstrated what may be done with such a small rôle as Count Lagrange; Mr Bruton Robins doubled the parts of Major O’Connor and Grimes. In the latter character he shouted a deal too much, and there was nothing particularly worthy of mention in his delineation of the old Irish officer. Mr Pemberton and Miss Janet Thompson did creditably as Woosnam and Mrs Foster. It is to be regretted that Miss Kate Pattison and Mr W. R. Sutherland made such a mistake as to appear hand-in-hand behind the curtain in answer to applause, when a minute before the latter as John Middleton had determined on a separate life. Such a Proceeding as this is a grave blunder, and spoils the illusion. Again the tableau, when the curtain was lifted after the duel scene, gave an air of improbability to the long illness spoken of in the last act, as Lady Clare was discovered standing up, and this, with a dangerous bullet wound in the shoulder, was a palpable absurdity. The successful farce The Opera Cloak, by Messrs Powles and Augustus Harris, preceded the principal piece. Mr Harry Parker invested the part of Mr Adolphus Hopley Malt with all the drollery required; Messrs Augustus Cook and Edmund Lyons were highly amusing as Colonel Fitzpatrick O’Brien and Mr Distin Kettle respectively; while the lady characters found excellent representatives in Misses Daisy England, Lizzie Claremont, Jeanette Thompson, and Carmen Barker. It will require a longer term than a fortnight to exhaust the attractiveness of the present programme at this house.


[Programme for Lady Clare at the Pavilion Theatre, October, 1883.]


The Liverpool Mercury (16 October, 1883 - p.6)


     It is hard to believe that a man of the eminence of Robert Buchanan should commit his reputation to so feeble a play as “Lady Clare.” An explanation may perhaps be found in the fact that he is ambitious of distinction in a domain in which a greater than he has failed. The drama presented at the Prince of Wales Theatre last night for the first time in Liverpool will not help towards the accomplishment of his aim. “Lady Clare,” in fact, is a combination of incidents gathered from many sources, and though the materials are disposed in a manner that suggests skill in consecutive arrangement, the mode and tone of the play seem to indicate that the author or rather compiler is in danger of becoming a dramatic hack. As the piece progressed last night the audience recognised numerous points which had occurred not only in novels which they had read, but in plays which they had seen, the inspiration in the case of both novels and plays being French. The characterisation is conventional, and the treatment of most of the parts by Miss Marie de Grey’s company equally so. A dissolute member of the British aristocracy, a virtuous but wealthy manufacturer, also British, an American millionaire of impossible vulgarity, and a Frenchman and an Irishman who mutilate the English language to prove their respective nationalities, are of the group which composes a picture in which modern society is said to be reflected. Mr. Felix Pitt, who comes of a family honourably connected with the stage, gave an impersonation of John Middleton whose effect lay in the restraint of emotional force; and the Gould Smale of Mr. W. Farren jun., though framed in obedience to impudent caricature, offered features of excellence in acting. Miss De Grey, whose costumes—no unimportant accessories to such a character as Lady Clare—were rich in colour and design, played self-consciously but with some degree of intention. Other parts were assumed with more or less success by Miss B. Huntley, Mrs. Digby Willoughby, Miss Adelaide Calvert, Miss Deby, Mrs. Ernest Clifton, Mr. Fred Terry, Mr. E. Underhill, and Mr. F. Mouillot. “Lady Clare” is to be repeated this evening and on Wednesday and Thursday. The piece announced for Friday and Saturday evenings is “Woman against Woman,” and there is to be a performance of “Romeo and Juliet” on Saturday afternoon. Following the termination of the engagement of Miss de Grey, comes “Iolanthe.” Gilbert’s searching wit and Sullivan’s pleasing music will again bring crowded audiences to Mr. Emery’s theatre.



Sunderland Daily Echo (26 November, 1883)

     POET AND PLAYWRIGHT.—The combination of the two distinct functions of poet and playwright, although not always attended with happy results, is becoming increasingly common. It will be fresh in the recollection of most readers how completely the Laureate has failed as a dramatist, by reason of his plays, while rich in poetic feeling, lacking the peculiar qualities essential to stage success. Another well-known but less distinguished poet of our time, Robert Buchanan, author of “White Rose and Red” and many other volumes of poetry and fiction, has, however, after repeated endeavours, succeeded where Mr Tennyson failed. One of Buchanan’s dramas, “A Sailor and his Lass,” is now running at Drury-lane Theatre, and another, “Lady Clare,” which was produced there a short time since, is being played in the provinces by a company specially organised by Mr Augustus Harris. The company visits Sunderland this week, and opens this evening at the Theatre Royal. Those who have read the author’s poems and stories will doubtless feel a special interest in the performance of “Lady Clare.”



Sunderland Daily Echo (27 November, 1883 - p.3)


     Mr Augustus Harris’s company last evening entered on a six nights’ engagement at the above house, when the new society drama entitled “Lady Clare” was produced. The piece is from the pen of Mr Robert Buchanan, and is a work of much merit. It has been favourably received in London and in the large provincial towns. The story of the play shows that Lord Ambermere (Mr Augustus Cook) is engaged to Lady Clare (Miss Kate Pattison), but he breaks his vows and marries a rich American lady, Melissa Smale (Miss May Howard). Lady Clare becomes the wife of John Middleton (Mr W. R. Sutherland), but an estrangement arises between them. The characters are all brought together in Dieppe, and Lord Ambermere, an accomplished duellist, insults John Middleton, and challenges him to fight. The offer is accepted, and the parties meet, but when they are about to fire, “Lady Clare” rushes between them and is shot in the arm by “Lord Ambermere.” In the next scene a reconciliation is effected between “Lady Clare” and her husband. The scenic effects in the play are extremely pretty, and were loudly applauded by the audience, while the principal members of the company were called before the curtain several times. Miss Daisy England, and Miss Carmen Barker, as the “Hon. Cecil Brookfield,” and “Mary Middleton,” acted well, and Mr Harry Parker ably sustained the part of “Mr Gould and Smale.” The other artistes were also good in their different characters.



The Edinburgh Evening News (28 November, 1883 - p.2)


     At the Theatre-Royal last evening the Edinburgh public, who were last week introduced to Mr Robert Buchanan’s drama “Storm Beaten,” were afforded a second opportunity of judging of that dramatist’s merits in “Lady Clare,” produced for the first time in Edinburgh by Miss Marie de Grey and company. “Lady Clare” does not possess the same amount of quasi-originality as is shown in various scenes of “Storm Beaten.” As regards originality, indeed, its claims are exceedingly small. The plot forcibly reminds one of that of Mr Albery’s adaptation from Mr Bronson Howard—“The Old Love and the New.” In both we have a woman allying herself with a man for whom she has no affection, but whom she eventually learns to love. As in “The Old Love,” the husband is engaged in commerce, while in “Lady Clare” the situation is strengthened by the lady being of noble birth. Further resemblances are found in the duel between the husband and a former admirer of his wife, and in the introduction of the Yankee element, which is common to both pieces. The close of the second act also strikingly recalls the well-known scene in the “Lady of Lyons” in which Pauline learns the cruel deception to which she has been subjected. The harsh and unyielding character of the husband further awakens reminiscences of M. Sardou’s “Odette.” Despite these coincidences, however, Mr Buchanan has produced a piece which affords good scope for emotional acting. If he can only enforce the truth of the old adage as to the folly of marrying in haste, he at least does so in an effective way. Miss De Grey’s impersonation of the heroine last evening was highly artistic and intelligent. It is to be regretted that she did not receive more efficient support in the part of John Middleton, undertaken by Mr F. Pitt, who was greatly wanting in animation. The remaining characters were very capably filled. Miss Deby gave an attractive reading of the part of the unruly boy-lover, the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, while Miss Montrose duly emphasised the unamiable traits in the character of Melissa Smale. Mr Fred Terry was very successful in the ungrateful part of Lord Ambermere, while Mr Farren, junior, gave an effective picture of an American millionaire. The somewhat sombre colouring of Mr Buchanan’s drama was agreeably relieved by the brief love-passages between Mary Middleton and the Hon. Cecil Brookfield. “Lady Clare” was preceded by the new comedietta entitled, “An Eye to Business.”



The Manchester Weekly Times (15 December, 1883 - p.6)


. . .


     “Lady Clare,” presented on Thursday for the first time to a Manchester audience by Miss de Grey and her company, is one of those compositions that recall to the mind of the habitual playgoer reminiscences of a number of the plays he has seen in times gone by. Mr. Robert Buchanan, who is the dramatist, has given his creations good and even poetic lines. The literary merits of the piece are above the average. It must be confessed, however, that the story is a curious example of fine spinning, and the incidents are frequently suggesting to one some such question as “Now, in what French play have I seen a situation like that.” Miss de Grey plays admirably, but still with greater force in the passages which approach light comedy than in those which require the expression of passion. Mr. Felix Pitt has a difficult part as the impossibly virtuous manufacturer; but he acquits himself well. Mr. Fred Terry as Lord Ambermere, Mr. W. Farren, jun., as Mr. Smale, Mr. Underhill as Count Legrange, and Mrs. Ernest Clifton as the Countess of Broadmeads are among the other noteworthy performers. One part, played with considerable promise, will have an especial interest for old Manchester playgoers. It is that of Mary Middleton by Miss Adelaide Calvert.



Truth (10 January, 1884 - p.8)

     MR. HARE and Mr. Kendal, to say nothing of Georges Ohnet, the French author, have a very serious complaint to make against Robert Buchanan, who is perpetually prating about the turpitude of his contemporaries, and preaching the peccability of critics and others. Georges Ohnet wrote for the French Figaro a capital story, called “Le Maître de Forges,” with the avowed intention of dramatising his own invention. As every one knows, a good and pure French play is extremely valuable to its author, under the new law which makes English managers pay for the property of clever Frenchmen. The St. James’s management at once secured the English right of performing Ohnet’s play, and paid honourably for their excellent bargain—as the French play is as successful as the novel. But meanwhile Robert Buchanan, the virtuous and unassailable Scotchman, steps in and pilfers Ohnet’s plot, before there is time to convert it into a play. He takes the story of “Le Maître de Forges,” and in a coarse and clumsy fashion bungles it into a play called “Lady Clare.” He only acknowledged the source of his inspiration when he was detected in his plagiarism, and now has the impudence to claim originality for “Lady Clare” on the strength of the silly nonsense and feeble characterisation he has tacked on to an excellent story. And this is the dweller under a glass roof who is so fond of smashing his neighbour’s skylights!



The New York Times (14 February, 1884)



     This play—which is described on the bills as Mr. Robert Buchanan’s exquisite drama in five acts—was given last night at Wallack’s Theatre. The house was full, there was generous applause, and the new play was undoubtedly successful. Mr. Buchanan’s “Lady Clare” had been acted previously in England, and with encouraging effect. Mr. Buchanan—who, at his best, is a strong poet—has not been known here overmuch as a dramatist. His plays have seemed, for the most part, useless and uninteresting. “Storm Beaten,” as an example, was in no way a sound or true work, though it was one of the few tolerably popular plays elucidated for the public mind by Mr. Buchanan. Fortunately, “Storm Beaten” was considerably changed, not to say repressed, before it was launched upon the troublesome seas of the American stage. As to “Lady Clare”—what shall be said of that? M. Georges Ohnet, a bright and inventive French novelist, declared not long ago that Mr. Buchanan had stolen, for the benefit of his drama, a novel written by M. Ohnet and called “Le Maître de Forges.” Mr. Buchanan replied that he had not adapted “Maître de Forges,” he had merely made use of the motive in M. Ohnet’s novel. The distinction is remarkably lucid, especially for a poet. It may be explained that an American arrangement of “Le Maître de Forges” has been prepared already, and that other adaptations of the same work are to be set forward. M. Ohnet’s dramatization of his own novel has been a brilliant success in Paris.
     The French novel is written with thought and spirit. It is sympathetic without being unpleasantly sentimental. It is certainly dramatic. The story which is presented by it is this: Claire de Beaulieu loves her cousin, the young Duc de  Bligny. This lively fellow goes to Russia, forgets his fiancé, and returns to Paris at a moment when he learns that Claire is betrothed to M. Darblay, who is the “maître de forges,” the person without family and with a good amount of culture. Darblay is not loved by his wife at first, and Claire is still inclined to adore M. de Bligny. In the end, however, after the usual vicissitudes of human passion, Claire discovers that her feeling for Darblay is love, and that her feeling for M. de Bligny is contempt. This is, naturally, a very slight sketch of M. Ohnet’s complex and carefully elaborated novel.
     Mr. Buchanan has declared that his play “Lady Clare” is not an adaptation of “Le Maître de Forges.” The story of “Lady Clare” informs us that Lord Ambermere loves Lady Clare Brookfield. Then, in his youthful enthusiasm, he deserts her and flies to pastures new. That is to say, he takes up another woman. Thereupon Lady Clare engages herself to John Middleton, a “self-made man.” But Lady Clare is not devoted to her self-made man. He finds himself tied to a loveless wife. After a while, however, she begins to have an agreeable opinion upon the merits of poor Middleton. Then Ambermere turns up again. He professes deep and Stygian devotion for Clare. There is a duel between the two men. Clare is shot in the shoulder. She rises from her ashes, a passionate Phœnix, and throws her arms about the neck of Middleton, who, having discovered, by judicious eavesdropping, that Clare is in love with her husband, not with Ambermere, rushes to her with theatrical celerity.
     The play is told with a fair amount of ability, and is entertaining. It was, as we have said, successful last night. Yet it is somewhat doubtful—the reader is asked to consider the subject in his own judgment —whether Mr. Buchanan’s drama is not a frank adaptation of “Le Maître de Forges.”
     Some excellent acting was done by Mr. Tearle, Miss Coghlan, Mr. Glenney, Mr. Buckstone, and Miss Measor. But Mr. Glenney might be less explosive in his speech.



The Boston Daily Globe (14 February, 1884)


Buchanan’s “Lady Clare” a Pronounced Success—
Coghlan and Tearle Do Fine Work.

[Special Despatch to The Boston Globe.]

     NEW YORK, February 13.—A new play, “Lady Clare,” by Robert Buchanan, was produced tonight at Wallack’s Theatre with great success. Its success was due mainly to the extreme beauty of the scenery, and the fine acting of Rose Coghlan and Osmond Tearle, the one so intense, the other so passionate and manly, and both so vigorous and brilliant. In itself the play is thin as to plot and rather trite as to incident, and it will be regarded rather as the literary framework of a romantic and fanciful story than as the dramatic reflex of actual or possible social life. Lady Clare in this drama, because she has been jilted by the man whom she loves, and is taunted by her rival, gives her hand to a man whom she does not love, and becomes his wife On their return from the church she tells him this truth, and he is overwhelmed by it. But he insists on like obedience, although he must forego like affections. This makes a strong scene. They are to dwell beneath the same roof, but they are to be strangers. A little later there is a meeting between the wife and the truant lover, and a subsequent quarrel between the two men. This results in a duel, but when this is fought, the wife rushes between the contestants and receives in her shoulder the bullet that else would have sped to her husband’s heart. When she recovers from this wound they are reconciled. But as it is evident before the duel that they love each other, the wife has cast away her earlier passion and imbibed a new one, which seems no adequate reason for this catastrophe. The outcome of it all, however, is a series of situations neither novel nor very striking, in the course of which, however, there is room for strong display of elemental emotion, and pretext for powerful acting. A neat thread of light comedy, domestic in character, is twisted with the darker strand of amatory passion, and misery at last relieved by mutual confession and fond agreement. Miss Coghlan and Mr. Tearle are suited to an extraordinary degree in Lady Clare and John Middleton. The mien and conversation of noble English ladies are considerably caricatured in some of the dialogue, but the topic of the play, the death of one love and the birth of another in a woman’s heart, shown under most dramatic conditions and illustrated with fire and sincerity, will suffice to make “Lady Clare” a success with this public, as it has been with that of London. Miss Coghlan and Mr. Tearle were repeatedly called before the curtain.



Brooklyn Eagle (17 February, 1884 - p.3)

     MR. WALLACK’S son Arthur and Mr. Wallack’s treasurer, Mr. Theodore Moss, resolved when “the Governor” went South that they would show him he had been mistaken in the policy he was pursuing at Wallack’s Theater, and that they could produce a success there. They have done so. “Lady Claire” is the solitary success at Wallack’s this year. It has caught the public fancy and is doing an immense business. It is a powerful melodrama by Robert Buchanan, and portrays the life of some members of the British aristocracy whose characters are cleanly drawn, well defined and in two instances quite original. Both Miss Coghlan and Mr. Tearle have at least been thoroughly suited. Tearle is doing the best work that he has done since he has been in America, but Miss Coghlan is after all the star of the cast. The story is a simple one, so far as the plot is concerned, but in the delineation of the character of Lady Claire, Miss Coghlan displays extraordinary intelligence and an amount of finesse and care in her work which places the character far above any other that she has essayed of recent years. She marries the man she does not love through pique, and then gradually shows on the stage how the kindness, delicacy and love of her husband in time win her over to him and destroy a foolish passion that she had for a profligate nobleman. The play is well mounted and carefully acted, and it all serves merely to enhance the value and beauty of Miss Coghlan’s performance.



Pall Mall Gazette (20 February, 1884 - p.4)

     A curious illustration of the perplexity of the law of copyright will be afforded when M. Ohnet’s dramatic version of his “Maître de Forges” is produced at the St. James’s Theatre. The case briefly put is this:—M. Ohnet wrote a novel called “Le Maître de Forges,” and published it in the Figaro, intending, as every one knew, to dramatize his creation for his own use and purpose. But before he could do so, Mr. Robert Buchanan took M. Ohnet’s book and dramatized it as “Lady Clare.” Messrs. Hare and Kendal having purchased M. Ohnet’s play from him, it will no doubt be open to Mr. Buchanan to claim his English rights over a story that he admittedly appropriated without permission from its author, and according to precedent the law would be bound to pronounce in favour of Mr. Buchanan. And how will the case stand in America, where Mr. Wallack has purchased “Lady Clare” from Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Eric Bayley has bought M. Ohnet’s play from its author?



The Stage (22 February, 1884 - p.13)

     Robert Buchanan has sold Lady Clare to Wallack, and Eric Bayley has bought the rights of Le Maître de Forges from Ohnet for the American Continent. Wallack in his innocence has only just discovered that Lady Clare is taken from Ohnet’s story. At this exact moment Wallack does not precisely love Robert Buchanan—indeed, he desires to “get at him.”



The London Magpie (1 March, 1884 - p.9)

     A nice complication has arisen out of M. Ohnet’s Maitre de Forges. When he wrote the novel, and published it in the Figaro, he meant to dramatise it for his own purposes. But before he had time to do so, Mr. Robert Buchanan dramatised it as Lady Clare. M. Ohnet having produced his own dramatic version, the American rights of it were recently bought by Eric Bayley. Wallack in the meantime secured Lady Clare from Mr. Buchanan, quite unaware of the real origin of the piece. Messrs. Wallack and Bayley consequently find themselves to all intents and purposes the happy possessors of the same piece.


     Mr. Robert Buchanan in the Pall Mall Gazette, disclaims all knowledge of M. Ohnet’s intention to dramatise his own novel. This is an excuse for ever having written Lady Clare, but I doubt if Wallack will accept it as a reason for selling the play to him.



The Theatre (1 March, 1884)

Our Omnibus-Box.

The moral vision of Mr. Robert Buchanan is temporarily obscured. He defends the indefensible action of helping himself to the story of Georges Ohnet for dramatic purposes on the plea that he did not know that the author of “Le Maitre de Forges” wanted his own property, and was not anxious to make it a present to Mr. Robert Buchanan. He did not know it, because he did not apparently want to be enlightened to the contrary. The expenditure of twopence-halfpenny on a postage stamp for France would have cleared up any doubt on the matter, and assured Mr. Buchanan whether the reports in the Parisian papers were true or false. On the very night that “Lady Clare” was produced at the Globe Theatre it was as well known in London as it was known in Paris that the dramatic version of “Le Maitre de Forges” by Ohnet was not only written but accepted and in rehearsal at the Gymnase Theatre. If there were dramatic critics present who were ignorant of the origin of “Lady Clare,” and ascribed it to Belot and not to Ohnet, the fault rested with Mr. Robert Buchanan, who was bound by every principle of courtesy and good taste to declare where the play came from, and not compel the critics to ferret it out for themselves and lay a bill of indictment against the borrower. The very next morning all London knew that “Lady Clare” was not an original play. The very next morning Mr. Buchanan was challenged to say whether “Lady Clare” was or was not the story of “Le Maitre de Forges,” taken with or without authority but without acknowledgment. It will be for Messrs. Hare and Kendal, in England, and for Mr. Wallack, in America, to say how far they have suffered from the prior production of “Lady Clare.” My own opinion is that they will not suffer in the least, because Ohnet has treated his work like a dramatist. What Ohnet thinks of Mr. Buchanan and his works will be found in The Era, the organ to which Mr. Robert Buchanan is in the habit of appealing when he desires to impeach the honour of his contemporaries. If I were to turn to one of the many excellent novels of Mr. Robert Buchanan and to help myself to one of his plots in order to make a play out of it, as I should have a perfect right to do according to our iniquitous law, I should consider that I had done Mr. Buchanan a great wrong, and so would he! I hold that a man’s literary invention is a man’s absolute property, and the borrowing does not become less shabby because it is perpetrated on a Frenchman whose dramatic work in this country has a marketable value.



The Edinburgh Courant (11 March, 1884 - p.2)


     Mr Augustus Harris’s company, in paying a return visit to this city, elected to appear last night in the new five-act drama “Lady Clare,” written by Mr Robert Buchanan. It is not the first time that this play has been submitted for the approval of the Edinburgh theatre-going public, Miss Genevieve Ward’s company having represented it at the Theatre Royal in the autumn. The company at the Lyceum last night was identically the same as that which gained such high encomiums but the other day for the way in which “Pluck” was enacted on the same boards, and their efforts last night only tended to increase the admiration at the manner in which one and all sustained their parts. Mrs Digby Willoughby as “Lady Clare” is the principal character in the drama—a trying rôle from beginning to end, and one which never finds her at a loss adequately to interpret. She was no less effective in the scene where, immediately after her marriage, she repents the steps she has taken, and tells her husband that she does not love him, than in that where, although she yearns to ask her husband’s forgiveness for the attitude she has taken, yet maintains an unbending demeanour because her husband has twitted her with a lingering love for her cousin, Lord Ambermere, who threw her off for a monied marriage. Miss May Howard’s rendering of Melissa Smale, the millionaire’s daughter—a cool, calculating woman, full of passionless hatred, who marries Lady Clare’s lover simply for the purpose of gloating over the lady’s disappointment, and then does her best to put harm between her and her husband, John Middleton—is a perfect study of dramatic power. Mr W. R. Sutherland takes the part of the highly virtuous John Middleton, who has married Lady Clare from sincere love, but who, when he finds his love unrequited, shows to her a cold demeanour, and exacts from her implicit obedience. His acting was marked by a studied carefulness, which suited the character well. Mr Augustus Cook as Lord Ambermere made a successful example of the aristocratic fast young man, and Miss Daisy England as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, and Miss Carmen Barker as Mary Middleton infused a good deal of liveliness into the play. Mr A. C. Lilly was also most successful as Mr Gould Smale, the Yankee millionaire. The play was exceedingly well mounted. “Lady Clare” will be withdrawn at the end of the present week.



The Edinburgh Evening News (11 March, 1884 - p.2)


     It must be confessed, in view of the reception given last night by an Edinburgh audience to Mr Robert Buchanan’s “Lady Clare,” that that poet is not altogether unjustified in turning his powers, as he has done in his more recent plays, to the manufacture of the cheapest type of sensational drama. The latter is apparently the article chiefly in demand among his countrymen. “Lady Clare,” it is true, will not stand being tried by the highest standard. The motive certainly is strong, and the construction really effective; but almost every character is to some extent overdrawn. The heroine is at first impossibly haughty, her husband is quite impossibly naïf, her mother impossibly full of caste-pride; and the American father and daughter are just as impossible, both in their stage Yankeeism and the latter in her vulgarity and heartlessness. But, melodrama as it is made under the management of Mr Augustus Harris, “Lady Clare” is yet on an altogether higher plane than the two compositions of Mr Buchanan already presented to Edinburgh playgoers, and if he had never stooped to lower work he would have deserved well of the lovers of art. As before remarked, however, he has no great encouragement. A singularly tasteless audience not only gave a dull reception to the strongest situations in “Lady Clare,” but was utterly blind to the merit of a piece of acting of the very highest order. Mrs Digby Willoughby’s playing as Lady Clare is the finest performance that has been seen in an Edinburgh theatre for many a day. That lady, it may be remembered, appeared in an unusually good cast in “The Cynic” at the Edinburgh princess’ Theatre in the summer of ’82. Her performance then, though noticeably good, could hardly be said to indicate the gifts and powers she now displays. Those competent to judge who heard her last night realised that she possesses a voice unequalled on the British stage for purity and delicately sympathetic quality. Merely to hear such a voice on the stage is a unique satisfaction; to find it along with remarkable powers of facial expression is a further pleasure; and to find it employed with the rarest artistic instinct and skill is an experience especially enjoyable. It is hardly possible to overrate the promise of this actress. Somewhat unpromisingly insouciant last night in the opening scene—in which, indeed, she gave an impression of physical weakness—she began, though still in a rather subdued fashion, to show an uncommonly true conception of natural expression on the first occasion for an exhibition of feeling; and before the first act was closed the impression of her powers was decisive. Still, however, it was impossible to anticipate what was to come; and it may be said, in brief, that her rendering of widely-varying passion and emotion in the second, third, fourth, and fifth acts was of a kind which no living English actress could have excelled. It is casting no slight on Mrs Kendal’s splendid and manifold powers to say that even she could hardly have achieved the exquisitely poignant pathos, or rivalled the noiseless intensity of Mrs Willoughby’s tones. In the last act, in which her slight physique accorded specially well with the situation, Lady Clare now being just convalescent from a pistol wound, her rendering of tremulous yearning and hopeless grief was above all praise—some of her “business” being quite indescribably moving; and her delivery of an impassioned repudiation of the scoundrelly lover’s solicitations was no less keenly effective, admirably free as it was from the least suggestion of theatrical loudness. The only positive fault discoverable in Mrs Willoughby’s performance is an occasional slight indistinctness in articulation. It will be to the discredit of Edinburgh culture if such work does not during the week attract more intelligent audiences than that of last night, portions of which giggled over serious situations, and which as a whole were chiefly demonstrative in hissing the villain and applauding hackneyed touches in the rhetoric. It is hardly necessary to say that Mrs Willoughby’s acting stands quite out from that of her coadjutors. Miss Carmen Barker, indeed, put some very clever work into her part of Mary Middleton; Mr Pemberton was a surprisingly good family solicitor; Miss Daisy England played with spirit as Cecil Brookfield; and Miss Claremont as the Countess was very satisfactory in the last act; but there was more or less room for improvement in all these performances; and on the other hand Miss Mary Howard did little towards redeeming the thankless and crudely conceived part of Melissa Smale, while Mr Lilly did even less than justice to that of the father; and Miss Thompson showed a somewhat plentiful lack of judgment as the housekeeper. The villain, too, was over-loudly though not ineffectively played by Mr Augustus Cook; and Mr W. R. Sutherland’s gentlemanly but characterless impersonation of the hero at times created a sensation as of sounding brass beside the delicate work of Mrs Willoughby. The management of the orchestra, it should be said, does little credit at present to the theatre.



The Stage (28 March, 1884 - p.13)

     At about a week after Easter the public will be summoned to the St. James’s Theatre to see Ohnet’s version of his play Le Maitre de Forges, which has obtained an enormous success at the Gymnase Theatre in Paris. Prior to the production of the authorised play a dramatic version of Ohnet’s story was given at the Globe by Robert Buchanan, called Lady Clare. But this fact will scarcely interfere with the success of A Midnight Marriage, in which the locale, character, and incidents of a story essentially French are faithfully preserved. The cast will be as follows:—Claire, Mrs. Kendal; La Marquise de Beaupré, Mrs. Gaston Murray; Athenaïs, Miss Vane; La Baronne, Miss Linda Dietz; Le Duc de Bligny,  Mr. Henley; Le Marquis de Beaupré, Mr. George Alexander; Moulenet, Mr. J. F. Young; Bechelin, Mr. Maclean; Le Baron de Préfont, Mr. Waring; Philippe Darblay, Mr. W. H. Kendal.



[Arthur Wing Pinero’s authorised adaptation of Georges Ohnet’s play, Le Maître de Forges, with the title The Ironmaster, opened on 17th April, 1884 at the St. James’s Theatre, starring Mr. and Mrs. Kendal. Reviews of the first night of The Ironmaster are available on a separate page, for purposes of comparison. However, I thought the following extract from the review in The Era, should be included here.]


The Era (19 April, 1884)

. . .

We pass by the Lady Clare of Mr Robert Buchanan, because that gentleman, rightly or wrongly, claims for his piece the merit of almost entire originality; but we shall not pass it without saying that he did improve on the original, and that his impertinence—if impertinence it was—had good excuse. Admirable construction, vigorous dialogue without a shadow of coarseness, strong characterisation, sustained interest have all been claimed for Ohnet’s work; but we did not find them. The Ironmaster seemed to us a very gloomy and a very uninteresting piece, with sentiment that was strained and with situations that were unnatural, and that, but for the skill of the artists engaged, would have met with very severe condemnation. . . .



The Referee (20 July, 1884 - p.3)

     Mrs. Digby Willoughby did not get a very large attendance at her Prince’s matinée on Thursday, and it was tolerably evident that the desire to see her play Lady Clare was not very widespread. According to certain statements I have read, her method of getting together a company was, to say the least, rather extraordinary. I may say that Mrs. Willoughby’s performance was much better than I had expected to see, although, of course, she was much behind Ada Cavendish in her impersonation of M. Ohnet’s wayward heroine. Mr. Alfred Bucklaw had sprained his ankle on Wednesday, but contrived, with the aid of a stick, to get through his original part, John Middleton, and to get through it well. My only objection is that this ironmaster blinked his eyes unduly under the influence of emotion. Perhaps, after all, though, this was a subtle touch of local colour, for his optics may have become weak from too intently regarding the glare of their owner’s forges. Mr. Fred terry played well as Lord Ambermere, as did W. Farren jun. as Gould Smale, the Yank with the heap of money. The Countess was represented with dignity by Miss Carlotta Leclercq.

     Before “Lady Clare” came an operetta called “The Miser,” with words by E. H. Gomm and music by W. Fullerton. The story of this trifle shows how a miser is frightened into giving consent to his daughter’s marriage by a lady who assumes a ghostly appearance and a spirit-y manner. The rendering of the work was no such as to entitle the performers to the gratitude of the author and composer, who, I should say, in their hearts cursed them pretty freely. Mr. Fullerton’s music justifies me in saying that he ought to make a name.

     In front I noticed my dear friend Sarah Bernhardt, her sister Jeanne, and Mrs. Bernard Beere—all occupying the same box—Robert Buchanan, the conveyer of Ohnet’s work, Harriett Jay, Kate Terry, and her sister Marion.



The Stage (25 July, 1884 - p.13)


     On Thursday afternoon, July 17, 1884, Mrs. Digby Willoughby gave a matinée at this house. The principal piece presented was Lady Clare, Mr. Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Mr. George Ohnet’s Le Maître de Forges, originally acted at the Globe Theatre on April 11 last. Mrs. Willoughby elected to appear as the heroine of the drama, a part not nearly so well suited to her personalities as that of Melissa Smale, the American heiress, which she pourtrayed in the Globe production. Her interpretation presented the character in a hard, cold, crude, and unsympathetic manner. There was little pathos in her acting, and the soft, womanly touches so necessary to enlist sympathy and arouse interest were entirely absent. Mrs. Willoughby was at her best in the more vigorous portions of the play, and her entrance in the duel scene was particularly dramatic. It was a dangerous experiment for a lady of Mrs. Willoughby’s standing in her profession, and of such limited experience, to follow so practised an artiste as Miss Ada Cavendish in a leading part, for in such a case comparisons are inevitable, and obviously must be a disadvantage to the least successful actress. On this occasion Mr. Alfred Bucklaw, as John Middleton, and Miss Carlotta Leclercq, as the Countess of Broadsmeads, resumed their original characters. Mr. Bucklaw, although suffering from a severe sprain to his ankle, played well, and gave a manly, earnest performance. Mr. Gould Smale, the American millionaire, was acted by Mr. W. Farren, jun., who gave a capital, well-considered sketch of character. Melissa Smale was represented by Miss Gladys Homfrey, who was scarcely successful in hitting off the peculiarities of the part. Mr. Fred Terry displayed considerable skill and rescource as Lord Ambermere. The two young people, the Hon. Cecil Brookfield and Mary Middleton, were represented by Miss J. Deby and Miss Carmen Barker respectively. Miss Deby was slow, dull, and monotonous when she should have been quick, bright, and animated, and she drawled her words in a most irritating manner. On the other hand, Miss Carmen Barker was singularly spirited as Mary Middleton, and she acted the part with a freshness and ingenuousness that were delightful. The minor parts were adequately filled. The drama was preceded by a new one-act comic opera, written by Mr. E. H. Gomm, with music by Mr. W. Fullerton. It was entitled The Miser, and, it was stated on the programmes, was produced under the direction of Mr. George Grossmith. It proved a weak and uninteresting piece of work. It related how a pair of lovers, being separated by a miserly father, are united by the aid of a good-natured aunt, who dresses as a  ghost, and so frightens the old man into consenting to his daughter’s marriage. The piece does not excite much laughter, and the dialogue is by no means witty. Some of the music is pretty, and we noticed in particular a charming melody to the words “Storms may come and go,” sung by the daughter, who was pleasantly interpreted by Miss Victoria La Coste.  Mr. W. Gregory appeared as the lover, and sang well, but his acting was indifferent. Mr. Fred Cape was the miser, and Miss Gladys Homfrey the aunt. Madame Sarah Bernhardt, together with her sister Jeanne and Mrs. Bernard-Beere, occupied a private box on the occasion, but the house presented an almost empty appearance.



The St. Paul Sunday Globe (27 July, 1884 - p.5)


The Wallack Engagement—“Lady Clare” and
“Moths” to be Given This Week.


     The Wallack Theater company open a week’s engagement at the Grand to-morrow night, presenting for the first time in St. Paul the drama “Lady Clare” and “Moths,” the latter being an adaptation from Ouida’s powerful novel of that name. Both plays will be presented with the original castes and scenery, and no doubt the appearance of so celebrated a company will prove the dramatic event of the season in this city.
     Robert Buchanan has given to the world several charming novels, such as “God and the Man,” “The New Abelard,” and others well known, but it has been acknowledged that his best literary effort is the charming domestic story “Lady Clare,” which has been on the boards of Wallack’s theatre for some time past in a dramatic form. The story of how Lady Clara Brookfield marries John Middleton, to spite her fiance Lord Ambermere, is told in an exquisite and interesting manner. The proud lady does not love her husband, who is only “A self-made man,” and acknowledges the fact to Middleton almost as soon as the marriage ceremony has been completed. He, smarting under the wrong, compels the high born Lady Clare to render him the obedience of a wife, and refuses to allow her to return to her former home. Middleton treats her with kindness and affection, but resolutely turns from any attempt to gain her love. He meets his rival at Dieppe, and after a quarrel provoked by Ambermere, consents to fight, and determines to allow his antagonist to kill him, but Clare frustrates his intention by rushing on the field, and receiving the shot from Lord Ambermere’s weapon. The play is brought to a happy ending by the union of man and wife. Lady Clare found that a true heart was worth more than all the happiness that wealth could purchase. The drama will be presented in this city with the entire Wallack company and scenery, under the management of Gustave and Charles Frohman, as played at Wallack’s theatre in New York for nearly one hundred nights.



The St. Paul Daily Globe (29 July, 1884 - p.4)

Opening Night of the Wallack Theater Company.

     The engagement of the Wallack Theater company opened at the Grand Opera house last night in Robert Buchanan’s domestic drama of “Lady Clare.” Several versions, it is understood, of the same drama are being performed by as many different companies, but as presented last night, the drama was originally performed by the Wallack company in New York, the cast being materially the same. The story of the play was furnished the readers of the GLOBE last Sunday, and it may be said imprimis that the version now being performed in this city is by all odds the most entertaining and superior representation.
     It was the inaugural night of the Wallack engagement in St. Paul, and while the audience was quite large and appreciative to the verge of enthusiasm, there was observed a notable absence of many of the constant habitutes and amusement patrons of the house. The fact that the season is at its height at the lakes may have partially accounted for this, and as good things should never go a begging, especially in the dramatic line, the attendance will no doubt increase to the limit of managerial expectation, which indeed the play is well worthy of.
     “Lady Clare” has been universally commended as a charming drama by the eastern press and public, and the phrase is not a misnomer. It rounds out the measure of anticipation both as to the plot and the finished manner of its presentation. There is a subdued harmony about the play, a freedom from rant, an artistic symmetry, fulfilment of details and beauty of arrangement that go to make up the complete artistic impersonation.
     Opinions may differ as to the style an actor or artist assumes in expressing a thought or delineating an action, passion or sentiment. Sometimes the power is conveyed in a gesture, or a loud or finely modulated tone; sometimes it is conveyed by the glance of the eye or the curve of the lips, but perfect acting comes only with the blending of all these into repose. The works of nature are all easy, paradoxical as it may seem, and the thunderbolt falls as easily from the frowning face of Jove as falls the snowflake or the dewdrop.
     The acting of Oscar Teazle, as John Middleton, is easy, graceful and marked by dramatic force and fervor. The role of Lady Clare by Mrs. Eyre is a difficult one to enact. The force required is powerful but subdued and intense. Her impersonation was finished and pleasing. Her voice is not always impassioned but this may come from the stony requirements of the part. Her face also, it seems, is too round at times, to acutely depict the poignant pangs of anguish and sorrow. But in watching her one loses these first impressions and the quiet face lights up and the tones quiver with passion. The delightfully refreshing roles are taken by Mr. Buckstone and Adele Mearor. Both are juvenile parts and they are taken with an archness and naivetie that always captivates. Mr. Glenny, as the degenerate nobleman and roue was clever and the roles taken by Gleason, Gwynette, Germon and Edwin were all well enacted. Mrs. Sol Smith was splendid as the countess, and Melissa Small, who ruins Lord Ambermere with her money and then gloats over the discomfiture of Lady Clare, by Miss Livingston, is superbly done. In short the cast is finished and fine throughout.
     There were several re-calls last evening, and the audience manifested their pleasure by bestowing liberal applause.
     In this version the duel scene is really enacted, and the juncture where Lady Clare rushes in and received the shot intended for her estranged husband, is very affecting.
     The same programme to-night.



The Nottingham Evening Post (6 September, 1884 - p.2)


     Miss Ada Cavendish last night took the leading part in the first representation in Nottingham of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s drama “Lady Clare,” which is founded on “Le Mâitre des Forges,” a work that has also been successfully dramatised under the title of “The Ironmaster.” There was a full house to witness this important performance, and the utmost interest was manifested in this new part of Miss Cavendish’s. The play, like its French original, abounds in highly dramatic situations, and the plot is of a very romantic kind. The Lady Clare (Miss Cavendish) is practically, though not formally, engaged to her cousin, Lord Ambermere, whom she loves intensely. The nobleman, however, having ruined himself by betting, seeks to retrieve his fortune by an alliance with Melissa Smale, the daughter of an American millionaire. From pique at this act Lady Clare consents to marry John Middleton, a wealthy manufacturer, whose hand she had previously rejected. After marriage, however, she finds and confesses that she cannot love him, and that her heart is still her cousin’s. Middleton behaves with forbearance and generosity, only asking of the lady that she stay in his house as its nominal mistress, to save public scandal. The scene then shifts to a French watering-place, where the parties are staying. Lord Ambermere, after gaining an interview with his cousin against her will, insults her husband, with a view of forcing him to a duel. The young nobleman is an accomplished duellist, whilst the manufacturer is utterly inexperienced with weapons. His life is saved by Lady Clare flinging herself between the combatants and receiving in her shoulder the shot intended for her husband’s heart. The husband, however, believes that his wife’s purpose was to save her cousin’s life, until, in a very powerful final scene, the Lady Clare tells her cousin, who follows her to her husband’s house, that her object was to save Mr. Middleton, which expression the latter overhears, and a suitable climax is reached. The dramatic powers of Miss Ada Cavendish are seen to great advantage in the development of so romantic a plot, and neither in breadth of handling nor gentleness of touch does the part lack aught in her hands. She is perhaps hardly so well supported on the whole as in “The New Magdalen.” Mr. C. P. Forester’s Ambermere is not altogether satisfactory. The Middleton of Mr. Mark Quinton is a studied performance, but the Mr. Gould Smale of Mr. W. Guise is a mere parody of Yankee manners, and the other characters are very sketchy. Mr. W. T. Elworthy as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, and Miss Marion Forbes as Mary Middleton supply an agreeable relief to the sombre colours of the chief plot, in the character of a pair of young lovers; while Miss Gladys Homfrey displays much talent as Melissa Smale, and Miss Rose Roberts sufficiently represents the Countess of Broadmeads. The play is to be repeated to-night, and all who desire another opportunity of witnessing Miss Cavendish’s skill in the delineation of human passions should not miss this performance. Next week, we may add, the boards will be occupied by Miss Kate Vaughan and an able company, when The Country Girl and one or two burlesques will be produced.



Otago Daily Times (New Zealand) (27 December, 1884 - p.2)

MELBOURNE, December 8

. . .

     A well-filled house greeted Miss Marie de Grey and her company on their appearance on Saturday night in Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Georges Ohnet’s well-known story, “Le Maitre de Forges,” known as “Lady Clare.” This “new drama of modern society” was first produced at the Globe Theatre, London, on Wednesday, April 11, 1883, and a storm of indignant protests against the adaptation soon came upon the distinguished author. Mr Buchanan, like the late Charles Reade, wields a very cudgel of a pen, and some very severe things were said on both sides. The chief complaint was that Mr Buchanan had not acknowledged the source of his play, and had made the adaptation, knowing full well that the original author was then engaged in preparing a dramatic version of his novel. On Thursday, April 17, 1884, the Kendals produced at St. James’s Theatre, an authorised adaptation by Mr A. W. Pinero of M. Ohnet’s drama, “Le Maitre de Forges,” under the name of “The Ironmaster,” which was, and is, as successful as “Lady Clare” was unfortunate.
     The plot cannot boast of any great originality, and may be summarised thus:—Lady Clare Brookfield is in love with a certain Lord Ambermere, and her love is returned. John Middleton, a wealthy manufacturer, also loves Lady Clare, but is refused by her. Lord Ambermere loses his fortune and marries a wealthy American girl, Melissa Small. Lady Clare, in a moment of pique, marries Middleton. The second act proves that the marriage was unfortunate, and Lady Clare and Middleton agree to live as man and wife in appearance only. In the third act we are at Dieppe, and find Lord Ambermere, who does not love his wife, making love to Lady Clare. Middleton interrupts an interview, takes in the situation, and arranges a duel. The fourth act shows first, how Lady Clare finds that her husband is going to fight Lord Ambermere; and secondly, the duel, when Lady Clare rushes between the combatants, to save Middleton, whom she finds she loves, and gets wounded in the shoulder. The last act shows how Lady Clare suffers for love of her husband, how the wicked lord again avows his love, which is met with scorn, how Middleton overhears the interview, runs the wicked lord off the premises, and how husband and wife are once more united. Miss Marie de Grey tries hard to make a success of the part of Lady Clare, and must be credited with much enthusiastic appreciation on the part of the audience. She has to suffer from the inadequate representation of some of the other parts, but makes a decided and clever bid for success. Miss Florence Cowell, as Melissa Small, is as capable and satisfactory as this lady generally is. Mr Alex.  Mayne, who was only known here as a reader, but who, I told you, played some time ago in Dublin, with Miss De Grey, makes a fair Middleton. He speaks well but acts badly. Mr Morton Salten was an unequal and unsatisfactory Lord Ambermere; and Mr Brodie was a laughable Hon. Cecil Brookfield. He can read that any way he likes. “Lady Clare” is promised for the whole of next week.



The New York Times (4 January, 1885)

     The little difficulty between Mr. Mallory, of the Madison-Square, and Mr. H. M. Pitt, whose salary it was sought to reduce, has been amicably adjusted, and the actor retains his post in the company. This week Mr. Pitt is loaned to Mr. Frohman for the “Lady Clare” engagement at Niblo’s, and he will for the first time undertake to be sentimental in a leading and lachrymose rôle. Mr. Pitt has hitherto flourished chiefly as a performer of characters of the sluggish and lackadaisical kind. The other item of interest in connection with the “Lady Clare” production is in the statement that Miss Harriet Jay will appear in masculine attire in the part played at Mr. Wallack’s theatre by young Mr. Buckstone. It is reported that when it was decided Miss Jay was to play the part she immediately sent all the way to London for the raiment in which she originally appeared in this character. It has hitherto been supposed that there were plenty of clothes in America.



The New York Times (6 January, 1885)

A company of competent actors and actresses appeared at Niblo’s Garden last night in “Lady Clare,” Robert Buchanan’s version of “Le Maitre des Forges.” Miss Cora Tanner, as Lady Clare, acted with grace, dignity, and earnestness. Mr. H. M. Pitt, as John Middleton, proved that, while he was not as much at home in a serious rôle as in a “character” part, he had sufficient power to hold the interest of the audience and in some scenes to awaken their hearty admiration. Lord Ambermere was played by Mr. Henry Aveling, an actor well qualified for the part. Miss Harriet Jay appeared as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, originally played by her in London, and gave a charming performance. Mr. Max Freeman displayed his eccentric humor as Mr. Gould Smale, and Miss Louise Dillon was a petite and piquant Mary Middleton. The other parts were in good hands and the play moved with smoothness and good effect. The audience was large and the applause frequent. On Wednesday afternoon what is known as a “professional” matinée of “Lady Clare” will be given, to which all the members of the dramatic profession in town will be invited that they may witness Miss Jay’s performance of the Eton boy.



New-York Daily Tribune (6 January, 1885 - p.5)

     Mr. Robert Buchanan’s play of “Lady Clare,” which the public received with considerable favor last season at Wallack’s Theatre, was revived last evening at Niblo’s Garden, and there represented with a good cast and good scenery—the principal characters being represented by Cora Tanner, Louisa Dillon, Flora Livingston, Kate Desin, Ellen Blaisdell, Harriet Jay, H. M. Pitt, Max Freeman, Robert Frazer, Henry Aveling and Frederick Cobett. Miss Harriet Jay played a boy, Hon. Cecil Brookfield. She was the original of this part when “Lady Clare” was first acted in London, and on account of much alleged professional interest in her performance of it the managers of Niblo’s Garden have invited the members of the dramatic profession to attend the matinée at their theatre on Wednesday.



The Daily Graphic (New York) (6 January, 1885)


     Niblo’s Garden was well filled last night by an appreciative audience. Mr. Robert Buchanan’s exquisite drama, “Lady Clare,” was presented under the management of Mr. Charles Frohman. The piece is one which has been seen several times in this city and had an extended run at Wallack’s Theatre some time since. The cast was not a particularly strong one, but some individual members gave effective impersonations. Miss Harriet Jay was admirable as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, a character in which she achieved considerable success on “Lady Clare’s” original production in London. She dressed the part in excellent taste, and her acting showed her to be possessed of rare comedy talents. Miss Louise Dillon was charming as Mary Middleton and shared the honors with Miss Jay. Miss Cora Tanner was satisfactory as Lady Clare, although somewhat nervous at times. Mr. H. H. Pitt’s John Middleton was uninteresting and lacked force, Mr. Harry Avling failed to make anything of Lord Ambermere, and Mr. Max Freeman presented a Yorkshire gentleman with a German accent. The piece is booked for this week only.



The Evening Telegram (New York) (6 January, 1885 - p.2)

Niblo’s Garden—“Lady Clare.”

     Mr. Robert Buchanan’s domestic drama, “Lady Clare,” was presented at Niblo’s Garden last evening, and, although there were occasional bits of good acting, the performance, as a whole, was uninteresting. It showed clearly that the success of the play when first produced at Wallack’s Theatre almost a year ago, was at least as much due to the excellence of the acting as to the merit of the drama. The interest of the play centres almost entirely in the two principal characters, John Middleton and Lady Clare, and requires that they should be impersonated by artists of strong emotional power. Mr. H. M. Pitt strove hard and conscientiously for success as John Middleton, but his extreme nervousness and odd manner of gesticulation rendered his impersonation barely endurable. Miss Cora Tanner made very little of the several strong situations which fall to the part of Lady Clare. Miss Harriet Jay appeared as Hon. Cecil Brookfield, which part was played by her at the presentation of the play in London. She made a good impression, and was recalled during the third act. Mr. Max Freeman excited some laughter as Mr. Gould Smale, and Miss Louise Dillon was well received as Mary Middleton.



Lady Clare - continued (ii)








The Fleshly School Controversy
Buchanan and the Press
Buchanan and the Law


The Critical Response
Harriett Jay


Site Diary
Site Search