W E Holmes

Mr. George Coppin's controversy with John Henry Thomas Manners-Sutton, Viscount Canterbury and Governor of Victoria 1866-1873, clearly proved that some Vice-Regal people were afflicted with very bad memories, or something worse. In the very early seventies Mr. Coppin founded an institution known as THE DRAMATIC ASSOCIATION which had a council to direct its affairs, and kept a minute-book with commendable regularity. The first hint the newspapers got of there being trouble about Vice-Regal dead heads was through the 'Age' of December 21, 1871, in which the proceedings of the council of the Australasian Dramatic, Operatic, Musical and Equestrian Association — comprehensible enough in all conscience — were reported. Amongst the business transacted there was a resolution, carried unanimously: 'That as his Excellency Lord Viscount Canterbury and suite patronise public entertainments upon the free list, an application should be sent to all managers from this association to discontinue a practice so unprofitable to the profession, and so undignified for the representative of her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen.'

The 'Age' newspaper was evidently read at the gubernatorial breakfast table, as under date December 21, Lieutenant J. S. Rothwell, private secretary, writes: 'George Coppin, Esq., Chairman of the Council Australasian Dramatic, etc., Association,' thus:

'Sir— His Excellency, Viscount Canterbury has observed, in the report (in the 'Age' of this morning's issue) of the proceedings yesterday of the Australasian Dramatic, Operatic, Musical and Equestrian Association presided over by you, the announcement that the council has adopted a resolution, of which the following passage is the commencement: 'That his Excellency the Governor of Victoria, Lord Viscount Canterbury and suite, patronise public entertainments upon the free list, etc.'

'With reference to the assertion contained in this passage, Viscount Canterbury instructs me to state that if it should be intended to convey the inference that his Excellency is, or has been, in the habit of being present at dramatic, operatic, musical or equestrian entertainments without payment, that inference would be directly contrary to the facts of the case.

'It is, indeed, a fact that his Excellency's attendance at entertainments of this character has generally been at the request of managers, and it is also true that he has frequently attended them at considerable inconvenience to himself, but he is not aware of a single instance in which he has not paid for the seats which he has occupied; and if you should have any claim which, through inadvertence on my part, remains unsatisfied, against his Excellency for seats occupied by him at your theatres: or if there should be any manager among those with the council of which you are the president who has entered, or is about to enter, into communication, in accordance with the resolution to which I have referred, who has not been paid for the seats occupied by his Excellency at the dramatic, operatic, musical or equestrian establishment under his control, I shall esteem it a favor if the account should be sent to me, in order that it may be examined, and, if found correct, paid.'

To this very formal communication Mr. Coppin replied, in an equally formal manner :-

'Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of December 23 (sic) at 10.30 on Saturday night.

'In reply I most respectfully decline to furnish an account in order that it paid. The old established rule of my profession will not permit me to acknowledge debtors for admission to the theatre.'

Lieutenant Rothwell came again : —

'Sir,— I have laid before his Excellency Viscount Canterbury your letter of the 26th instant, which only reached me this morning (December 28), in which you have refused, for a reason alleged therein, to state the instances, if any, in which seats occupied at any time by his Excellency at any theatre under your management have not been paid for.

'His Excellency has instructed me to refrain from making any comment on this refusal, and I am to inform you that any correspondence with you on this subject is now closed.'

There were other letters, but those quoted contain the germ. The Melbourne press naturally sided with Government House as against the player, and that without hearing any reason from Mr. Coppin. The 'Australasian' was particularly severe, and extremely unjust, in its criticism of the action of the Dramatic Association. It heaped upon the devoted head of Coppin all the obloquy it could. The papers, the 'Argus' especially, believed Lieutenant Rothwell's assertion, and in fact, told George Coppin that he was a liar — if not in as many words, at least by strong inference. Thus the 'Australasian' :— 'That Association has been blamed for adapting an insolent and insulting resolution; and what says Mr. Coppin? His Excellency ought to pay for admission to the theatres. Very well. We are assured on excellent authority that Viscount Canterbury does so. When the Governor attends the Theatre Royal a cheque for the admissions is sent to the management next morning by the aide-de-camp. What becomes, then, of all this offensive talk about the free list? Mr. Coppin and his friends have made a great mistake, and have committed a glaring breach of good taste and propriety; but instead of contritely acknowledging their error and making a frank apology, they attempt to explain and justify their misconduct, and they fail signally. They should remember that the Melbourne public of 1871 is not the Melbourne public of 1855. Any sort of managerial flummery would go down at the earlier epoch. 'We have changed all that.' Mr. Coppin has done good service to the drama in days gone by, and we cheerfully acknowledge it ; but he is incapable of reading the signs of the times. 'Dodges' are out of date, and playgoers are beginning to understand that charitable benefits— especially when given on the worst night in the week, or the year— are mere devices to enable the manager to pull in sufficient people to pay the usual expense of the house, which, under ordinary circumstances, would not have been covered; while as regards the deduction made on that account before any surplus is handed over to the charity to be benefited, it is very well known that the expenses are down at 50 percent, higher than they actually are, the plausible excuse being that a charitable performance has the effect of lessening the average attendance on the night before and the night after it takes place. When David Garrick, being then manager of Drury Lane Theatre, gave a benefit for the theatrical fund instituted in connection with that establishment, he handed over the gross receipts of the house to that fund without deductions of any kind. He did the same when Mrs. Gibbes took a benefit on the 10th of March, 1754 and also on November 11, 1753, when the performances were, 'on behalf of a gentleman with a very large family.' This was true charity, but, so far as our recollections of Garrick's voluminous published correspondence serves us, he never boasted of it; and never traded upon it.

But then Garrick was a gentleman.'

OI course the sting of the article is in its tail, but the 'Australasian' scribe was a bit previous. George Coppin was the last man in the world to allow his 'bone to go with the dog,' and the Dramatic Association loyally backed him up. The 'Daily Telegraph' (Melbourne), in its issue of December 29, said: 'It is a very remarkable correspondence, and it has this outcome: If Viscount Canterbury is not the biggest of falsehood mongers, Mr. Coppin is the meanest. There is no escape from that very unpleasant dilemma. We shall all be agreed on the point that one or the other — the Governor or the manager ought to be hissed out of the theatre the next time he appears there.'

The Dramatic Association appointed a sub-committee to investigate the whole matter, and from the tenor of its report one can imagine that the snuff-taking, port-wine-loving Viscount Canterbury would wish that he had taken no public notice of the resolution passed by the A.D.O.M. and E. A., but had let sleeping dogs lie. On Wednesday, January 3, 1872, the council met at St. George's Hall, when there were present— George Coppin (in the chair), James Simmonds (sec.), R. Stewart, William Pitt, J. H. Wilton, Richard Capper, Fred. Coppin, G. Seide, J. R. Greville, John Hennings, R. Scott, W. Holmes, G. Chapman, and John Dunn. Amongst other business done was the election of Martin Simonsen and Enderby Jackson as governors. Miss Lizzie Watson was also elected to a similar position ; and Mr. J. H.Wilton was transferred from membership to governorship. Mr. Edward Gladstone and Mr. James Alison were elected members. Amongst the subscriptions acknowledged were 10 guineas from Spiers and Pond, London ; a guinea from Dan Melhado, Sydney; and a guinea from Tommy Trotter, of whom more at another time.

Lieutenant Rothwell's letter was read, and Mr. Coppin entered into an explanation of the correspondence which had passed between him and the Lieutenant. Mr. Coppin explained that he refused to furnish an account on several grounds. Theatrical management was a ready money business. No one whatever could pass a check-taker without first purchasing his ticket of admission, with the exception of those who received the compliment of being placed upon the free list, ‘a compliment, by the way, which was not practised by any other trade or profession but theirs. Etiquette opened the doors of a of place of public amusement, without demanding a ticket, to the representative of her Majesty, and in return, custom dictated the presentation of a cheque to the management with as little delay as possible, the amount of that cheque being generally regulated by the liberality of the Governor and the amount he received from the public purse by way of salary. Lord Canterbury had neglected to carry out that principle, and he (Mr. Coppin) could but think that the omission on the part of the Governor was not at all in accordance with the dignity we had a right to expect from a well-paid representative of Royalty.’

The meeting passed a resolution confirming Mr. Coppin's action, and appointed a committee of three— Messrs. Wilton, Capper and Simmonds — to report upon the matter in dispute. At the following meeting the committee brought up its report. The document placed Lord Canterbury and his private secretary in a somewhat unenviable position. The committee presented a few cases which were indisputably shown to be glaringly inconsistent with Rothwell's assertion. 'Visits of his Excellency the Governor to the Theatre Royal, Melbourne, upon which occasions no payments have been made : 1867 — August 21, command, no payment. 1868 — January 13, patronage, no payment; November 23, command, no payment; 1869— January 4, command, no payment; May 1, command, no payment; May 27, patronage, no payment (Note A); October 28, command, no payment. 1870 — May 14, command, no payment. About this time it appeared that the acting manager instructed the box-bookkeeper to make out an account against the Governor. He also informed his partners that he had spoken to Lieutenant Rothwell for the purpose of obtaining payments. No notice, as yet, has been taken of the communication. June 30, command; December 13, patronage. The sum of £3 15s has been paid for the last two visits, at the rate of 5s per ticket for the centre box, the established price being 7s 6d per ticket. Authenticated by the account books of the theatre and the statements of the treasurer.

'Theatre Royal, Haymarket : 1867—January 11, command, no payment; August 10, command, no payment. The absence of the manager leaves a blank of three years. 1870 — November 4, command, no payment; November 9, patronage, no payment (Note B). Authenticated by the accounts of the theatre and the treasurer.

'St. George's Hall (Weston and Hussey): 1869 — June 23, command, no payment; July 23, command, no payment. Authenticated by the books and the statements of the managers.

'Town Hall, Melbourne : 1871— May 13, benefit concert, patronage, no payment (Note C).

'Note A. — Your committee consider that this night had special claims upon the Governor's purse. The entertainments were given by the Foresters' Society, for the benefit of the Melbourne Hospital and the Benevolent Asylum. The printed accounts show 'no payment' for the Gubernatorial party.

'Note B. — Your committee report these two occasions as 'no payment' because the manager did not participate in the amount that his Excellency presented to the official assignee of an insolvent estate nearly three years old. If the Governor had paid for his boxes within a reasonable time, the manager would have received the share he paid to the 'star,' and the proportion to which he was justly entitled for providing the entertainment.'

In other words, the Governor, Viscount Canterbury, only paid for the boxes when, three years afterwards, the official assignee in the estate of the insolvent manager was collecting the debts due, and furnished his Excellency with an account of the amount of his indebtedness.

'Note C. — This is a special case for notice, as the benefit was given to relieve a talented artist from pressing difficulties and to provide funds for his passage to England. The accounts and statements of members of the managing committee prove 'no payment.' The above facts are sufficient to prove the general correctness of the resolution, and the consequent inaccuracy of the statement contained in the letter of the private secretary. Your committee are not in a position to show that his Excellency attended operatic entertainments without paying for admission, as the leading operatic managers are absent from the colony, but inasmuch as they are aware that those managers frequently, and most publicly, complained of this being the case, they can hardly suppose that they would do so without adequate cause. Your committee may further refer to the correspondence of a late manager of the Haymarket Theatre, which has been published in a Melbourne newspaper, in support of the allegation, contained in the resolution. The manager, in question had literally to 'dun' the private secretary before he could obtain any answers to his letters or an acknowledgment of his claim, and at last reaped scarcely any personal advantage from his persistency. The nights upon which his Excellency, the Governor visited the places of amusement free, in company, with his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh have been struck out of the list's that have been produced, as your committee acknowledge with gratitude the patronage and assistance given by his Royal Highness to the Galatea amateur performances contributed £120 11s. 6d. to the building fund of the Asylum of Decayed Actors, established by the Hon. George Coppin. Your committee, in conclusion, report that the terms of the resolution are fully borne out by the facts.— Richard Capper, chairman of the committee.

(To be continued.)