Mr Nat Douglass

As Mr. Coppin pointed out, he got no satisfaction from Lord Canterbury, notwithstanding loud professions of honor and a desire to do the correct thing. Certainly Lieutenant and Aide-de-camp Rothwell sent a cheque for three guineas to the Official Assignee of Mr. Roberts' estate years after that unlucky manager filed his schedule. That payment did Mr. Roberts no good, nor yet any of Mr. Roberts' creditors. The house of Canterbury was always impecunious. The eldest son was as a rule, up to his neck in debt, and in trotting round with the Duke of Edinburgh did things generally on the nod. On his return to England he wiped out his debts by a certain process of whitewashing which has been somewhat frequent of late years amongst the British aristocracy. As an evidence of the impecuniosity of the family, it may be mentioned that the dead-head Viscount held a small sinecure worth £200 a year, some petty legal office in London, which he never saw, but for which he drew the salary with surprising regularity. And yet the Governor asserted that he always paid his way into the theatres and other amusements.

About the time that Mr. Coppin was having it out with Lord Canterbury, there was another mild sensation in the Melbourne theatrical world. Thirty years ago there was an eccentric genius in Sydney named WALTER HAMPSON COOPER.

As a journalist and playwright Mr. Cooper held a fairly distinguished position. He studied for the Bar, and was called, held a few briefs, chiefly in criminal cases, and was elected to the Legislative Assembly for East Macquarie. He sat in but one Parliament, a lapsus linguae getting him his quietus. He said, in debate, that all the outfit a free selector needed was a harness cask and bullet mould, and although East Macquarie was not much of a selectors' electorate, the biting sarcasm told, and at the ballot at the succeeding election Mr. Cooper was promptly fired out.

In his leisure time Mr. Cooper wrote a drama, 'Foiled,' and toured with it himself. At Sandhurst, Victoria, he struck a snag. His company was a good one, and included Stuart O'Brien, Nat Douglass, and others. The experiment at Sandhurst did not turn out well. It turned out well so far as the theatregoers were concerned, and so far as the critics were concerned, and as one cynic at the time said, it possibly turned out good for the author, but that the actors were satisfied was quite another matter. The transaction at Sandhurst had a very ugly appearance as far as the author-manager was concerned. For while the author-manager was on his way back to Sydney, certain bits of paper given to members of the company as payment for salaries were returned with the mystic letters 'N.S.F.' It may be assumed that the actors were not quite enraptured with their employer.

In answer to some sharp strictures in the press, Mr. Cooper explained that he did not assume the position of an author-manager; that 'Foiled' was not a success at Sandhurst, and that he did not obtain the services of any person without paying for them. Briefly, Mr. Cooper put the case thus :— 'Being on the point of returning to Sydney, I met Mr. Stanley, of the Sandhurst Theatre, who wished to produce 'Foiled' at that place. Not being certain that Mr. Stanley would have a company strong enough at that place, I delayed giving a decision on Mr. Stanley's offer, In the meantime it was suggested to me that as the company then playing at the Princess' Opera House was about to break up, I might arrange with certain members of that company—let them have the drama, travel with it, play it where they pleased, pay their own salaries and expenses out of the money accruing out of its representation, and divide the profits, if there were any, equally with me. I spoke first to Mr. Douglass on this matter. He agreed to the arrangement, and went with me to Mr. O'Brien, who, after we had some conversation, agreed to join in the enterprise. Mr. Stanley's offer was discussed, and Mr. O'Brien was for taking the theatre at Sandhurst, and taking a complete company to play 'Foiled' there. As, however, the Princess' Company would not be free to leave Mr. Bayliss for a fortnight, it was decided that I should go to Sandhurst to arrange with Mr. Stanley. I did so simply because Mr. O'Brien was unable to go. If Mr. O'Brien had been free to quit Melbourne, he would have gone to Sandhurst and I would have gone to Sydney, leaving the whole thing in his hands. Bear in mind that Messrs. O'Brien, Douglass and Co. were to take 'Foiled' and my other pieces, pay their own salaries, etc., out of the receipts, and divide the profits with me. I, in fact, let them my pieces on sharing terms. I was not author-manager of the company, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Douglass had no more right to claim a salary from me

than you have; but I admit that in the cases of Miss Shepparde and Mrs. Jones I have made myself to a certain extent liable. Now, how did I act? First of all I paid the travelling expenses of Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Douglass, Miss Shepparde, and Mrs. Jones from Melbourne to Sandhurst. Then at the close of the first week I handed over to Mr. O'Brien the whole of the money, in cash, paid me by Mr. Stanley, without deducting the expenses paid out of pocket, and, at Mr. O'Brien's request, I gave him certain post-dated cheques to meet the company's expenses in case the second week at Sandhurst should not prove remunerative. All this I did, though, mark you, neither Mr. O'Brien nor Mr. Douglass had a claim upon me to the extent of a farthing; and for doing this, out of a pure desire to save these people annoyance, I am pilloried in the 'Australasian.' By the terms of our agreement, even the railway fares from Melbourne to Sandhurst should have came out of the proceeds of the piece, and not out of my pocket.

'I came down to Melbourne, and there I found that a cheque given me for some scrip (a cheque for £54) was valueless, and that consequently I would not have funds to meet the cheques given to Mr. O'Brien. I wrote at once and told him so; and there the matter ought to have ended as far as I was concerned, for those cheques were advanced as a loan, and not given by me as manager of the company responsible for their salaries. The receipts for the week in Sandhurst amounted to £127 16s 6d. Of this I received from Mr. Stanley £20 18s, and of that sum Mr. O'Brien received £18 2s 6d. I had no money left at all. I had not even sufficient to pay the passage of myself and wife to Sydney. You say truly that Mr. O'Brien holds my dishonored cheques; but you might have said, also, that Mr. O'Brien had no right to demand from me the money those cheques represent, and that he knew a week before he presented them that they would be dishonored.'

It is clear, therefore, from Mr. Cooper's explanation, that he made no money by the production of 'Foiled' at Sandhurst. But though Walter Cooper disclaimed any managerial responsibility in connection with the performance of the play there, he took a considerable share in the arrangements, and his connection looked very like management. When the intention of producing 'Foiled' at Sandhurst was first spoken of, it was stated that Mr. Cooper was going to travel with the company to the other colonies, in the same way that Fred Younge travelled with his 'Caste' company. The project was mentioned in several of the newspapers, and as Mr. Cooper was in Victoria at the time, he had every opportunity of correcting this statement if he had thought proper. Mr. Cooper could not wonder, therefore, that something more than a merely general impression prevailed as to his being in the position of manager to what might be termed the 'Foiled' Company. Such being the impression, it is nothing surprising that, coupling his sudden departure from Melbourne with the dishonoring of the cheques given by him to a member of the company, the conclusion should have been arrived at that he had left the colony to escape his managerial responsibilities. As one of the earliest efforts at Australasian dramatic authorship, Mr. Cooper's venture was hailed with satisfaction, and the public, for the time, was gratified that he had cleared himself.

But Mr. Stuart O'Brien and others had something to say in reply to Mr. Cooper. Dating from the Theatre Royal, Ballarat, January 9, 1872, Mr. O'Brien writes :-

'Sir,— I am sorry to contradict Mr. Cooper's statements, but, in justice to Mr. Douglass and myself, I must do so. Mr. Cooper's engagement with us was to pay us our Melbourne salaries under any circumstances. He did so for the first week, and handed me cheques for the following week, to be paid by me to Mrs. Jones, Miss Shepparde, Mr. Douglass and Mr. O'Brien. If the receipts of 'Foiled' reached, as they did in Melbourne (say) £100, the profits were to be divided, after salaries and expenses— Mr. Cooper one half, Mr. Douglass and self the other half.

'I enclose you Mr. Cooper's letters. You will find by one of them he states that there will be money enough in the bank to meet the cheques he gave me. They were no loan, as Mr. Cooper and I had taken the Adelaide theatre between us, and his cheques for £20 and £15 were from him to me as his partner, and to pay his share of the expenses to Adelaide.

'Mr. Cooper's last words to me were : 'If the salaries come in, do not use the cheques, and pay into my credit any balance that may be left.' There was £7 10s, I think, coming to Mr. Cooper from Mr. Stanley, which Mr. Stanley paid me in two of Mr. Cooper's dishonored cheques amounting to £10 4s 6d.

'On coming to Melbourne our cheques were presented at the bank and returned N.S.F., and I may say that I had every confidence in Mr. Cooper's statement that he had funds in the City Bank of Sydney; otherwise I would not have involved myself as I have done.'

Mr. Douglass, writing from the same place, says : 'Allow me to endorse every word of the above, and at the same time to express my sorrow that this matter should have been made public. In justice to ourselves, Mr. O'Brien and myself have no other course open than this: stating the truth.'

Mr. O'Brien produced several letters and documents to corroborate his statement. In a letter from Mr. Cooper to Mr O’Brien, under date November 21, is the following, relating to the arrangements for the tour alleged to have been in contemplation:— 'We can play here (Sandhurst) for a fortnight, then go to Castlemaine, and then go to Ballarat or to Hobart Town for the Christmas. After Hobert Town we may visit Ballarat or Adelaide. I leave you to arrange these matters, and, of course, will leave all future arrangements in your hands. My part of the business will be simply to go forward as agent, and bill the places where we intend to open.' In a letter dated November 22, Cooper says : 'Bayliss has not got the Ballarat theatre. We had better secure it, and also the Hobart Town theatre for Christmas. Do you think it worth while playing in Castlemaine?' In one letter dated November 30, speaking of the arrangements, Cooper says: 'I am to find you, Douglass, Miss Shepparde, no one else. Now, I don't want to break my word with Appleton, though the engagement was only a contingent sort of affair.' A document in Mr. Cooper's handwriting, dated December 9, contains the following: 'Received from Mr. Cooper, cheques postdated for £6, £5, £5, and £7, salaries of Miss Jones, Miss Shepparde, Mr. Douglass, and Mr. O'Brien, to December 16 next; also one bank cheque to be filled in for a sum not exceeding £35, for company's expenses.— F. Stuart O'Brien.' These cheques were dishonored, and on December 19 Mr Cooper wrote to Mr. O'Brien regretting the unfortunate turn things had taken, and offering to give him the play of 'Foiled' as compensation for his losses. He says: 'I think, if I place 'Foiled' in your hands, make it over to you as your sole property, you may be able to square yourself and me too. I therefore make the piece over to you for the nominal sum of £100— that is to say 'Foiled' is your property, if you like to have it for that price, with the option of paying me the money when it suits your convenience, and if it never suits your convenience never to pay me. This is the only reparation I can make you, I hope you will be able to arrange for me with the other people, whose money I will pay as soon as I can.'

From this it must be gathered that Mr. Cooper did intend to travel with a 'Foiled' company; that he did make himself responsible for the salaries, and that not being able to pay them, he offered reparation to Mr. O'Brien, and promised to pay the others as soon as possible. Cooper returned suddenly to Sydney, and brought upon himself a lot of odium.

There was a partnership subsequently between, if I remember rightly, J. J. Bartlett, Mr. Cooper, and a gentleman who belonged to a minstrel company. After producing certain of Mr. Cooper's plays in Sydney and other New South Wales towns, the party intended touring the United States. I think, however, this also ended in failure, as did most of Mr. Cooper's ventures. The unfortunate gentleman, after many domestic troubles, joined the great majority at an early age.

Mr. Bartlett, whose wife was a Miss Moon, sister of a distinguished musician of the sixties and seventies, came to Australia in the early sixties, having with him, they then being children, Bland and May Holt. Bartlett entered into theatrical management with Mr. William Dind, in the Prince of Wales' Opera House, Castlereagh-street, but the fire of January, 1872, dissolved the partnership and began the series of mishaps which ended Mr. Bartlett's career

upon the stage of this life.

In the articles re Barry Sullivan ('Sportsman,' September 7, 1904) the name of Mr, Wilton cropped up, he being the gentleman who held the lease of the Theatre Royal, Melbourne, when Mr. Sullivan arrived. This gentleman came to Sydney with Mr. Sullivan, and, as mentioned in Mr. Amory Sullivan's letter, committed suicide at Tattersall's Hotel, Pitt-street. Mr. Wilton had a son, H. D. Wilton, who, late in 1871, died at Church-street, South Shore, Blackpool, England, at the early age of 29 years. In Australia he had acted as agent for Lady Don, and returned with that lady to England. Young and volatile, he did not take that care of himself which a man of more mature years would. It is to his credit, that he stood by Lady Don in all her troubles incidental on the management of the Newcastle Theatre, and his death was not only acutely, felt by Lady Don, but by a large circle of friends and acquaintances.

The end of 1871 and the beginning of 1872 were eventful years in matters theatrical in Melbourne. Added to those mentioned in recent articles, the Theatre Royal went down by fire in January, 1872, a few weeks after the Prince of Wales' Opera House in Castlereagh-street met a similar fate.

(To be continued.)