better, apart from Mr. HARE's eccentric characters, has been seen on
the stage for some considerable time. I hope the author is of the same
opinion. Mr. FRED THORNE is capital as the Irish Member; and as _Mrs.
Hooley_, an obtrusively Irish eccentricity of Thackerayan extraction,
Miss ALEXES LEIGHTON is very good, for the character, as drawn by
the author, _is_ obtrusive, and is so meant to be. The _Mrs. Egerton
Bompas_ of Miss FANNY BROUGH is _the_ woman to the life, and, in my
humble judgment, Miss BROUGH's impersonation is well-nigh faultless.
Whether, if the part of _Egerton Bompas_ were played as high comedy,
this would still improve Miss BROUGH's impersonation of _Mrs. Bompas_
or not, it is difficult to decide; but I am inclined to think this
would be the result. What does the author think? Most likely he will
continue to "think"; it is the wiser course. Mr. HENRY V. ESMOND makes
the lad, _Howard Bompas_, unnecessarily repulsive; but if, in doing
so, he is only exactly carrying out the author's idea, i.e., "Master's
orders," then he is no longer responsible for the overcharged
colouring. The probable fate of this unhappy pair, an impulsive
uneducated kind of Irish orange-girl married to a contemptible
young sot, is not a pleasant termination to the story, nor is the
anticipatory sadness felt for the future of this ill-assorted couple
in any way dissipated by the stereotyped and perfunctory offer of
marriage made by the young London Journal Nobleman to the daughter of
the utterly crushed snob just before the Curtain descends.

Why the piece is called _The Times_, remains a mystery. _To-day_
would have been better; that is, if by _The Times_ is only meant "The
Present Day." And if it doesn't mean this, what meaning has it? For
alliterative advertisement it may be useful; e.g., "Times at TERRY's."
The dialogue generally is easy, natural and telling.