CHARLES HAWTREY.

_Eva Johns_ ... Miss JOAN BARRY.]

This quest, as you will easily understand, was not a very difficult one for
a man prepared to be imposed upon by just any adventuress, and in the
neighbourhood of his various business-branches, San Francisco, Washington,
Boston, he soon found a ready channel for the employment of his superfluous
wealth. The natural affection, however, which his generosity inspired was
not utilised by him, and you must try to believe that, in spite of the most
sinister appearances, he remained a faithful husband.

With the methods by which he appeased his wife's suspicions I will not
trouble you, partly because I could not follow them myself, owing to the
obscurity of the plot at its most critical moment. Enough that all ends
well with her firmly-expressed resolution that in the future she will
herself do all the necessary squandering.

Mr. CHARLES HAWTREY as _James Smith_ was irresistible in most of the old
ways and a few new ones. The play would have gone poorly without him, in
spite of the piquancy of Miss JOAN BARRY as a flapper, the fourth and final
recipient of his chaste bounty. Miss JESSIE BATEMAN as _Mrs. James Smith_
had no chance till just at the end with the turning of the worm. To the
part of _Lucille Early_--the _Earlys_, as a couple, were designed to
contrast with the _Smiths_, the wife in this case spending the money which
the husband hadn't got--Miss ATHENE SEYLER, who was meant for better
things, gave a certain distinction, but perhaps "pressed" a little too
much. Mr. JAMES CAREW, who played _Edward Early_, was conspicuous as the
sole male representative of the American language in this American play.
The fleeting visions that we had of Miss MONA HARRISON as a refractory and
venal cook excited general approval. The three _protegees_ of _James Smith_
were only faintly distinguishable in their rather crude banality.

The fun of the farce differed from that of most farces in depending less
upon situations than upon dialogue. The First Act, with the situations
still to come, was the best. I have not had the good fortune to read Miss
EDGINGTON'S novel, but one might be permitted to assume, from the
excellence of much of the wit, that, whatever the play may in other
respects have lacked of subtlety or refinement, such defect was no fault of
hers. What Mr. CHARLES HAWTREY himself thought of it all I cannot say, but
the play did not begin to compare, either for irony or si