Miss Surtees

In answer to a correspondent, I have no knowledge of what became of Mr. Morton Tavares and his wife, the stage name of the lady being Surtees. In the latter part of 1871 they had an engagement with Mr. Thomas Bennett at the Victoria Theatre, when, amongst other novelties, was produced "The Two Roses." Mr. Tavares was an irritable actor, a mass of conceit, and more or less a failure upon the stage. Miss Surtees was a gentle lady, and excelled in mild characters. I understood that they settled in New Zealand, on a farm, where they engaged in raising stock.

**********

In the course of these articles I have made frequent mention of Mr. G. R. Ireland, and I have also said that when a thespian gets a nasty knock in the press the knocked individual frequently resorts to abuse, and, where he can afford it, to the law. Morton Tavares, of whom mention was made in connection with George Coppin's complaint against Viscount Canterbury for his dead-headism, had a set-to with a New Zealand paper, whose editor took exception to something or other: and at the same time Julia Mathews threatened to 'deal with' the same editor, but whether she would use her tongue (and she could), or invest a shilling in a cowhide, as did Madame Zavistowski at Sandhurst, the little lady did not explain. When the actor has money to lose, and a decent reputation to maintain, we must not be surprised if he does rush into law, not, perhaps, with the intention of wasting the one, but to keep up the other. Such was the action at law entered by G. R. Ireland against a newspaper— a trade journal; in fact—the 'Licensed Victuallers' Gazette,' exactly thirty years ago.

Mr. Ireland is a colonist of half a century's standing. When I knew him first, in the late fifties, he was clerk in the office of Brodribb, Crisp and Lewis, in Bank Place, off Chancery-lane. The same Bank Place, on the corner of which stood the Waterloo Inn, kept at one time by a little old-fashioned Cockney named Wicks. Later on by a man of the world, Harry Taylor, who knew most of the old time English fighting men, and whose house in Chancery-lane was the resort of the best and steadiest men in the Victorian ring. Later on George Mayger, well known now in the racing world, opened the Mitre Tavern at the Collins-street end of Bank Place, and later on, when Harry Taylor retired with a fortune, the ''old Waterloo" was demolished, and an immense pile of offices erected on the site.

*********

While in the service of Brodribb, Crisp and Lewis, Mr. Ireland was a member of the Garrick Club, and appeared several times with considerable success as an amateur. His greatest hit was as the ghost, in 'Hamlet,' his deep chest voice, tall figure, and somewhat spare shanks suiting the physical part of the character admirably. Mentally, Mr. Ireland's ghost was all that could be desired. I do not know that any actor, however eminent, can make much out of the buried Majesty of Denmark ; a good elocutionist, well drilled, well dressed, and the text does the rest. Mr. Ireland had other parts which he played with equal care. He was ambitious of appearing on the professional stage, and G. V. Brooke gave him the opportunity. The first piece selected, not for Mr. Ireland's first professional appearance (he was only a circumstance in it) was "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," the first representation of the play in Australia. Brooke was the Valentine, Heir Proteus, Harwood Antonio, The Duke Creswick (not the Creswick), Lambert Speed, Wigan Launce. Mrs. Heir was the Julia; the Abbess was the recently dead Mrs. Guerin. The small part of Eglamour was assigned to Mr. Ireland. The part consists of just seven lines in the fifth act; these lines Mr. Ireland read correctly. As an intelligent man he got on, one of his prominent characters in his early stage life being Cassio to the Othello, I think, of Brooke.

*********

In giving evidence in support of his case, Mr. Ireland said that his line of business was 'leading juvenile man.' Mr. Ireland denied all the imputations in the libellous article, produced the costume he wore, and showed that he had been called before the curtain twice. Dampier was called three times. Ireland played the part as he always played it, even with such a lion in the profession as Walter Montgomery. The piece ran for three weeks, and the audience never expressed any disapprobation. Mr. G. P. Smith appeared for the newspaper. This gentleman had a tongue sharp as a razor and a temper as rough as a file. He was the gentleman who a few years before narrowly escaped losing his life at the hands of Gerald Henry Supple, a brother barrister, an ex-detective named Walsh losing his life as the time. Mr. Supple was nearly blind, and in firing mistook one for the other. Mr. Smith's first inquiry as to Mr. Ireland's scrap book, of the cuttings therein, were all laudatory. Then he wanted to know if the actor had not been termed "stagey and stockey." Ireland's counsel objected to this line of cross-examination. But the Judge, Justice Williams the elder (it was about the last case he tried), held that criticism must necessarily be based upon the general characteristics of the man. It was almost impossible to sever the acting of any particular piece from general acting.

*******

In September, 1873, Mr. Dampier made his first appearance in Melbourne in "Faust and Marguerite" at the Theatre Royal. At the old theatre Mr. Ireland had been playing 'off and on' for 14 years. Dampier played Mephistopheles, and Ireland Faust. The "Licensed Victuallers' Gazette," owned by W. F. King, S. A. King, John Proctor, William Turner, and A. F. Frazer, published a criticism of the performance, in which occurred this paragraph : —

"Faust, in the hands of that slovenly, careless actor, Mr. Ireland, was a farce. The great scene in which the piece opens rests on the sudden transformation of an old man into a sparkling, brilliantly dressed youth. Now, when the gown and beard were twitched off Mr. Ireland, he simply appeared dressed like an ordinary supernumary in solid garments. Then his delivery of his speeches were so low, sulky, and lifeless that we were inclined to think he had had some quarrel with the management about it. We leave him with disgust."

Mr. Ireland alleged that by means of this false and malicious libel he was disgraced and injured in his profession and reputation as an actor, and underwent great mental suffering; that his prospects of future engagements as an actor were injured and damaged, and that he was otherwise disgraced and injured. He claimed £1,000 as damages. A good deal of capital was made by Mr. Smith out of the dress worn. It was a new dress, and Ireland stated that he had only worn it three or four times. He admitted that the 'Argus' criticised him severely in the same character, and when asked 'why he had not sued the 'Argus,' Mr. Ireland replied that he thought he had not sufficient grounds. Mr. Smith tendered a bundle of newspapers with criticisms on Mr. Ireland's Faust, but as the opposing counsel objected, Smith said that he would call the writers. Ireland left the Royal in November, and was out of employment at the time of the hearing of the suit, but he could not say, that it was the libel that kept him idle.

*********

Mr. George Coppin gave evidence that he was one of the proprietors of the Theatre Royal. He had been then connected with the stage for more than 30 years. (Thirty added to that now makes 60, and the veteran is still going strong.) He had known Ireland for 14 years. There was nothing particularly noticeable about Mr. Ireland's dress as Faust. It was suitable to the occasion; the dress of a supernumerary would not be suitable. Mr. Ireland had no quarrel with the management. He was generally a good speaker and actor. The description of him as using low, sulky tones would not be correct, nor would the remarks about his being a slovenly, careless actor. No complaint was made by the management as to Mr. Ireland's acting. A supernumerary is the lowest grade in a theatre. To compare a leading man to a supernumerary is to degrade him. The remarks in the article were damaging to Mr. Ireland as an actor. If actors are strangers, managers look to theatrical criticisms before engaging them. Criticisms are looked upon as a sort of credentials.

**********

In the course of cross-examination. Mr. Coppin said that he had been instrumental in knocking off a number of free passes. The 'Licensed Victuallers' Gazette' was never on the free list of the Royal, and at that particular time the 'Argus' regularly paid its five shillings for its reporter.

**********

Mr. Dampier said that he had been an actor since his boyhood, his time being heavy leading characters ; he had played such parts for 11 or 12 years in English provincial theatres. Faust was a very unthankful part; however played, it did not bring much credit. If Faust were not well and effectively played, Mephistopheles would not tell so well with the audience. Mr. Ireland's performance was capable, careful and intelligent ; he was letter perfect in the part, and his tones were not low and sulky. He was not slovenly. It compared favorably with the dresses in which Mr. Dampier had seen other people play the part. Mr. Ireland, according to Mr. Alfred Dampier, was the reverse of being a careless, slovenly actor. If criticisms are fair, they are useful as advertisements.

*************

In cross-examination, Mr. Dampier admitted that the "L. V. Gazette." had been good to him, so good that he cut out the criticism and had pasted it in his scrap book. He had been pretty severely handled at times. The 'Argus' said that he was "awkward in action," "wooden in repose," with passion like the ranting of a 'London Journal' flunkey or a Belgravia Jeames. From that criticism Mr. Dampier said that he had suffered severely. That was the only time he had received such a severe slashing. He had cut it out and sent it home. Criticisms keep up the tone of the drama as well as advertise the actors. Frederick Belton who had arrived in Australia the year before, and had been 17 years on the stage, generally backed up Mr. Dampier's estimate of Mr. Ireland, and Mr. Arthur Gardiner (?) said ditto, ditto to Coppin, Dampier and Belton. Mr. Gardiner added that he had seen the article complained of circulated amongst the actors at the Theatre Royal, Hobart Town.

*******

The now veteran theatrical critic, James Edward Neild, was also a witness. He said that theatrical criticism was merely a matter of opinion; he quite agreed that criticism should be fair, impartial and candid; he had run counter to the opinions of many, even as to the capabilities of leading actors. From time to time he had pointed out some little faults of Mr. Ireland, but generally he had a very high opinion of him. He thought that he was one of the best actors that ever graced the Melbourne stage. He was certainly very much better than Mr. James Anderson. Dr. Neild thought that Mr. Ireland stood on a very respectable plane; in point of comparison, to Mr. Walter Montgomery, though he should prefer Mr. Montgomery. In the doctor's opinion Mr. Ireland ranked second to Mr. Montgomery. (Mr. Montgomery, it will be remembered, suicided September 1, 1871.) Dr. Neil hoped that his opinion would do Mr. Ireland good. He preferred G. V. Brooke to Mr. Ireland, but he thought Mr. Ireand would have made as good an actor as Brooke if he had the same experience. Brooke had more experience, and that made all the difference. (G. V. Brooke, it will remembered, perished in the steamship London, in January, 1866. I am sorry I cannot agree with Dr. Neild in his Montgomery-Brooke-Ireland comparisons). John Lynch (a journalist), Richard Stewart (an Actor), John Hanlon Knipe (an auctioneer), and Sam Kemp (a boot and shoe maker) gave evidence that they had frequently seen Mr. Ireland as Faust, and did not consider him slovenly.

************

Miss Eleanor Carey (what memories this lady's name brings up, to be sure) gave evidence that she played Marguerite in the drama; that Faust and Marguerite are together - during nearly the whole of the drama. She had opportunities of observing Mr. Ireland's acting; it was not slovenly, and the dress was suitable to the occasion. Miss Carey said that she did not mind adverse criticism. She had never been libelled. She had read the "Licensed Victuallers' Gazette" article about herself: "Miss Carey failed in the great part of Marguerite. She went through it with her usual mouthing, and was intolerably stagey and ineffective." But that "does not touch my dress or personal appearance," added Miss Carey. For the defence, Donald Cameron, a journalist, said that he wrote the article, under the nom-de-plume of 'Cayenne.' He was not personally acquainted with Mr. Ireland. He never saw him, except on the stage, and had no dealings with him. Before he wrote the article he had read the criticisms in 'The Argus,' 'The Town and Country,' and 'The Leader.' Marcus Clarke wrote the criticism in 'The Argus,' Mr. Hughan in 'The Town and Country.' He did not know who wrote them for 'The Leader ' (These criticisms were admitted and read after discussion.) Mr. Cameron went fully into his reason for his 'hot' article. Amongst other reasons given was one that capable actors and actresses had to leave the country because incapables were employed, either because they were friends of the management, or the management was niggardly,

***********

Marcus Clarke said that he had the permission of the proprietors of 'The Argus' to say that, he wrote the criticism in that journal. He would not describe Mr. Ireland generally as a slovenly and careless actor. There was no misunderstanding between Mr. Clarke and the management of the Royal, as some had insinuated.

********

F. W. Hughan, journalist, author of the article in 'The Town and Country,' and James Williams, of 'The Leader,' also gave evidence. Mr. Williams said that Ireland's dress looked seedy, and that he did not think him as good as Brooke or Montgomery.

**************

Robert P. Whitworth, better known among his confreres as Bob Whitworth, a theatrical critic and author, had seen Mr. Ireland act for a good long time. Although he had faults to find in him, he could not say that he was a careless, slovenly actor; he was quits the reverse.

*********

The quintette of proprietors gave evidence that they had no malice against Mr. Ireland. Mr. Justice Williams charged generally against the newspaper, and after a retirement of three-quarters of an hour the jury awarded the plaintiff £100 damages.