[4] The Times described the play as a "pretty melodrama" that was "betrayed by shame-faced acting" in a September 1934 review, but by March of the following year noted that the "audience are definitely over-rehearsed" speaking the performers lines in "anticipation of their cues".
[2] The plot concerns the machinations of Major Carlingford, a 'betrayer of women, shady promoter and sanctimonious humbug' who conspires with his son to sabotage the plans of a young scoutmaster, parliamentary candidate and councillor who wants to improve the River Thames at Charing Cross.
[5] Stephen Pile included it as the 'Worst West End Play' in his Book of Heroic Failure.
[5] In a December 1939 article TIME magazine wrote that "London's bright boys just had to see what the worst show in 20 years looked like.
They screamed with laughter at its superpatriotic goings-on, involving gallant officers, dastardly villains, prostitutes, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, taints of illegitimacy, stolen papers, stolen cash, the Union Jack".