To prepare a very own version of _Hamlet_ and play it with credit--that is still the blue riband of the Stage. Mr. H.B. IRVING has fairly won it. The version seemed to me apt. He tells us that his main purpose was to bring out the story as if for those who had never seen the play before. It is a rational point of view, and certainly it seemed a distinct improvement not to lose sight of _Hamlet's_ adventure to England, as is commonly the case, and to keep the essential sequence of events and the personality of the Prince constantly before the audience. The justification of the heroic cuts and adaptations was that the action did move faster towards the tragic end, instead of seeming to drag rather tiresomely as (be it confessed) it sometimes does. [Illustration: "OUR SON IS FAT AND SCANT OF BREATH." (We shouldn't have guessed it, but his own mother ought to know.) _Hamlet_ . . . . . . . MR. H.B. IRVING.] Observers contrasting this with Mr. IRVING'S earlier performance remarked a gain in depth and fire and a happier restraint of mannerism. It was a very notable and gracious piece of work. He has the player's first gift, an arresting personality. His elocution has distinction. He conveys the beauty of the words and the richness of the packed thought thoughtfully. The complex play of action and motive--the purpose blunted by overmuch thinking, the spurs to dull revenge, the self-contempt, the assumed antic disposition, at times the real mental disturbance--all this was set before us with a fine skill and resource. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was masterly in its sincerity and restraint; the two broken love passages with _Ophelia_ showed a fine tenderness through the distraught, bitter mood. An ingenious turn was given to that difficult change of weapons in the fencing bout, though I doubt if the Sword Club would wholly have approved the technique of the fencing. Miss GERTRUDE ELLIOTT'S _Ophelia_ in the Mad Scene was full of beauty, sweetness and dignity--and we have so often been bored by our lesser _Ophelias_. A very fine performance. Mr. HOLMAN CLARK was the foolish prating knave, a _Polonius_ robbed of his best speech, and the more consistent therefore. Mr. IRVING is obviously right in his view that _Polonius_ could never by any chance have given any such advice to his truculent son. One may congratulate the producer on the courage of his convictions. But I wonder if the Shakspearean tradition is really dying. The general quality of the performance was, it must be confessed, not inspiring. There was little of the king's divinity hedging _Claudius_; the _Queen_ (an always difficult part) was elaborately unconvincing, though played by a clever actress; _Guildenstern_ and awkward _Rosencrantz_ deserved any fate which awaited them in England. Neither _Laertes_ nor _Horatio_ seemed authentic. But Mr. TOM REYNOLDS' grave-digger had humour and avoided tedium. _Hamlet_ was the thing. T. * * * * *