In the course of a letter, our London correspondent writes:—"If you happen to come across a few people connected in any way with the drama or with entertainment you will soon find yourself involved in "a vigor-cus discussion as to the reasons for its Gecadence. You will listen to all opinions, but you will, if you are a wise man, associate yourself with none, since you are bound only to please one section of your audience and you will lose your reputation for intelligence with all the He tells us that a group of the leading provincial theatre' managers are lamenting "that never have there been so few first class attractions on the road." This [opens up a question always of insobteg: despite the opening woaning. We pleaded last year for the A.D.C. j to give up experimenting with deep and ambitious plays and_ to give us something bound to be j popular with every one and to give it as it always has been—not. modernized. "The Belle of New York" was as good a production jas could have been chosen, but it j was not the original play and there were later recriminations. We have pleaded for Gilbert and Sullivan' and the request is now repeated, yet with still another reservation. Gilbert wrote other things, as good, possibly better than "The Yeomen of the Guard," "Iolanthe,"' "H.M.S. Pinafore' or "The Gondoliers." "Patience," for instance, and many another could be considered without whole list being given. The only suggestion noted so far is "Abraham, Lincoln."" Undoubtedly good enough in its way, but not necessarily calculated to succeed in Shanghai as a popular play. Furthermore, it is a tremendous undertaking and sorely taxed the resources of rich, powerful and experienced producers at home. Surely something of a job for Shanghai.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.