Mr Richard Capper

Charles Lamb, in an essay on some old actors, remarks that the casual sight of on old playbill which he had picked up brought back such a flood of memories that he was constrained to 'write them up.' Lamb says : 'These old remembrances makes us feel how we once used to read a play-bill, not as now, peradventure, singling out a favorite performer, and casting, a negligent eye over the rest, but spelling out every name, to the very mutes and servants of the scene.' This was written over 80 years ago, and the words are applicable to-day. There is no greater delight to an old playgoer than in turning over a sheaf of old play-bills and living in the past, and with these dead and gone actors recalling happy days that are no more.

Next, perhaps, to the delight of recalling the actors and actresses of our boyhood days is the present delight of running through old books and papers, musty with age; when in search perhaps of one object you light upon another and are equally a gainer of pleasure. One day recently, to get rid of some cobwebs which had gathered about the brain, I strolled among some of my old familiar friends, the second-hand booksellers of Sydney, and in the shop of Mr. J. Murphy, 22 Castlereagh-street, I came across what was to me an almost priceless treasure, a copy of the play-bill of the opening night of the old Queen's Theatre, Melbourne, now nearly 60 years ago. Mr. Murphy very kindly presented me with the relic, and as it brings back to earth, in memory, some of our ancient favorites, I may be excused for quoting it in extenso.

QUEEN'S THEATRE ROYAL,

QUEEN-STREET, MELBOURNE.

OPENING NIGHT.

THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1845.

The proprietor having completed his arrangements for the opening of the New Theatre Royal, Queen-street, on the above-named evening, has the honor of announcing to the patrons of the drama —the public of Melbourne and its vicinity—that he had secured all the available talent in the province, and is in communication with neighbouring colonies for the purpose of adding strength to his company.

Previous to the rising of the curtain an opening address will be delivered by Mr. Nesbitt.

ON THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 1, the performances will commence with Tobin's celebrated Comedy (in five acts),

THE HONEYMOON.

Duke Aranga ……………… Mr. Nesbitt

Balthazar ………………….. Mr. Capper

Count Montalban …………. Mr. Boyd

Rolando ………………….... Mr. Cameron

Jacques …………………….. Mr. Lee

Lampedo ………………...… Mr. Cochrane

Campillo …………………... Mr. C. Boyd

Lopez ……………………… Mr. Miller

Servant …………………….. Mr. Jacobs

Juliana ……………………... Mrs. Cameron

Zamora …………………….. Mrs. Knowles

Volanto …………………….. Mrs. Boyd

Hostess …………………….. Mrs. Avins

Villagers …………………… Messrs. Jones and Smith

In Act 4 a rustic dance incidental to the Comedy.

End of the Comedy, an Admired Song by Mrs. Knowles; a Comic Song by Mr. Miller.

To conclude with the laughable Farce of the

UNFINISHED GENTLEMEN ;

or

BELLES, BEAUX, CANTABS AND TIGERS.

Lord Totterley (an

Adonis of 60) ………………. Mr. Capper

Hon. Frisk Flammer ………... Mr. Boyd

Jem Miller (an Incipient tiger

or gentleman's gentleman)….. Mr. Miller

Charles Danvers ……………. Mr. C. Boyd

Bill Downey (an unfinished

gentleman, a polished philoso-

pher) ………………………… Mr. Lee

Bailiffs ………………………. Messrs. Cochrane and Jones

Louisa (with songs) ………..... Mrs. Knowles

Chintz ……………………..… Mrs. Cameron

Doors open at half-past 6. Performance to commence at 7 precisely.

Dress circle 5s, half-price 3s ; upper Circle 4s, half-price 2s ; pit 2s 6d, half price 1s 6d ; gallery 1s 6d, no half price.

Proprietor, Mr. Smith ; stage manager, Mr. Nesbitt; mechanist, Mr. Capper.

Vivat Regina.

* * *

Mrs. Avins was the last of the thespians who opened the "old Queen's" to "Pass over." She died in the Actors' Homes, built by Mr. George Coppin some years ago. Mrs. Avis had been a subscriber to the Dramatic and Musical Fund founded by Mr. Coppin, which gave her a claim on the Homes, of which she availed herself.

Mr. Capper died between the ages of 80 and 90 years. I had the pleasure of meeting the ancient on more than one occasion, long after he had retired from the stage. He was particularly fond of reminiscing both in the newspapers and on the platform and was as full of old lore as the hungriest antiquarian could desire. Mr. Capper wrote a book, about which more at another time.

Six weeks later, the success of Mr. John Thomas Smith's theatre having precipitated matters, Mr. George Coppin, with a company, crossed over from Launceston, under the following agreement ; —

''Theatre, Launceston,

“May 30, 1845.

“We, the undersigned, hereby agree to proceed to Melbourne by the brig Swan, and to perform there under the management of George Coppin, Esq., for a season, and to return to Launceston when required, he paying passages both ways; and we also bind ourselves under a penalty of £25— to be paid to the said George Coppin— that we will not perform at the Melbourne Theatre, or any other place of amusement, unless it is under the management of the said George Coppin, or by his free will and consent.

'”Signed) Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Young, Mrs. and Miss Thompson, Messrs. F. B. Watson, E. A. Opie, J. Hambleton, J. Wilks, B. Rae, J. Megson, W. Howson, A. Howson, and A. M'Donald.”

Mr . Opie, or one of the same name, was a scene painter, and Mr. J. Megson was leader of the orchestra.

On arrival Mr, Coppin found that he could not come to terms with Mr. J. T. Smith, who, by the way, was also the proprietor of the St. John's Tavern, next door, and sooner then be "stuck," or allow the monopolist to dictate his own terms, Mr. Coppin engaged the large room at the Royal Hotel, in Collins-street, where afterwards stood the well-known and much-frequented, and where now stands the Union Bank of Australia, with a firm determination to oppose the theatre. John Thomas Smith appears to have taken fright at the energy of the man from Launceston, and came to terms. What these terms were, Mr. Smith announced in his playbill:-

QUEEN'S THEATRE ROYAL,

Queen-street, Melbourne.

The proprietor is happy to announce to his friends and the public generally that he has entered into an agreement with Mr. Coppin and the entire of his Corps Dramatique, to perform alternate nights with the present company for one month only. Trusting the greatest combination of talent ever witnessed in any of the colonies will receive the patronage and support it will ever be his study to deserve.

On Saturday evening, June 21, 1845, the entertainments will commence with Sir E. Lytton Bulwer's celebrated play (In five acts), entitled the

LADY OF LYONS.

Claude Melnotte ………… Mr, Charles Young

Colonel Damas ………….. Mr. Rogers

Beauseant ……………….. Mr. Thompson

Glavis …………………… Mr. Coppin

Mons. Deschappelles Mr. Watson

Pauline ………………….. Mrs. Coppin

Madame Deschappelles … Mrs. Watson

Previous to the play, and during the

evening, the band will play : — Overture, 'Italiana in Algero' (Rossini); overture, 'Fra DiaVolo' (Auber); .quadrille, 'Royal Irish' (Julien).

Wreath dance ……………. Mrs. Chas. Young

Song—

'Should He Upbraid 'Me …. Mrs. Rogers

Comic song ……………… Mrs Hambleton

Mr. and Mrs. Charles Young will dance the 'Tarantella,' in the costume of the country.

To be followed by an entirely new interlude (never acted here), called

THE FOUR SISTERS.

An entirely new comic double, Irish Jig by Mr. and Mrs. Charles Young.

The whole to conclude with the very laughable farce of the

TURNPIKE GATE.

Crack the Cobbler …………. Mr. Coppin

Joe Standfast ………………. Mr. Rogers

Nights of performances during the present month Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

On Monday night will be produced Howard Payne's celebrated tragedy of

BRUTUS,

By the members of the Melbourne Company.

On Tuesday evening will be produced the celebrated comedy of

THE SOLDIER'S DAUGHTER,

And a variety of entertainments by the Launceston Company.

The prices of admission and the time of opening were as on the first night of the theatre.

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

Sixty years ago the playgoers of Melbourne got enough for their money. Those who recollect Charlie Young as a comedian will try to imagine him as Claude Melnotte, and then the Tarantella and double Irish jig! and the afterwards classic Mrs. Charles Young-Herman Vezin dancing a double Irish jig. I won der what London Haymarket audiences would have thought of it. However, it would appear as if, in the long ago, all thespians engaged for general utility and general usefulness. You won't require the fingers of one hand to count those of these double bills who new remain on earth.

After a time the amalgamation of the companies took place under the sole management of Mr. Coppin, Mr. J. T. Smith (the proprietor) taking a share of the profits for his rent. I have obtained an insight into the methods and cost of working an early-day theatre. Leading actors in 1845 received from 30s to 40s a week, and were satisfied. Ten years afterwards the same class of actor got from £7 to £12 per week. The entire working of the Queen's Theatre in 1845, with the combined companies, in expenses, was under £60 a week. What profits the manager and lessee must have divided !

What accounts we read of the same old Queen's in the golden roaring 'fifties, when red-shirted, sun-browned diggers, 'lucky diggers' lounged in the dress circle, smoked their pipes, called out to their acquaintances in other parts of the house, pelted their favorites on the stage with golden nuggets, and drank champagne at fabulous prices, ate and drank, sang and danced, as if the good times were never to end. And while the theatres crowded nightly with prices quadrupled, the St. John's Tavern adjoining did a roaring trade. John Thomas Smith, a Magistrate and a member of the City Council, raked the shekels into the till in bucketfuls. The daily and nightly saturnalia beggared description. The time and place are apropos for an incident, which occurred in the early days of the Queen's Theatre and St. John's Tavern.

In July 1846, the neighborhood of the theatre was the scene of an alarming riot, which kept Melbourne in some excitement for more than a week, and threatened at one period to end in a

general fight between Orangemen and Roman Catholics. The Orangemen decided to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne by a banquet in the Pastoral Hotel, which stood on the north-east corner of Queen and Little Bourke streets. The building was

decorated for the occasion, and Orange flags were displayed on polls from the windows facing Queen-street. This display aroused the passions of the R.C's., who assembled in hundreds round the Pastoral Hotel, many on both sides being armed. The Mayor, James Frederick Palmer, hurried to the spot. He ordered the door of the hotel to be opened, and entered, for the purpose of putting a stop to the riot ; but the R.C's., now finding the door opened, rushed through the hallway to the staircase, where they

were met by the Orangeman, and a regular battle ensued.

J. F. Palmer was a medical man, who, on arrival in Melbourne, found that the manufacture of gingerbeer and cordials would pay better than would the vending of Epsom salts and jalap. Palmer in after life became Speaker of the mixed Legislative Council, and President of the Legislative Council under Responsible Government. The doctor was squat, fat man, with a pair of calves that would have been the envy of Dr. Dill Macky to-day.

The crowd in front fired into the hotel, and 'Yellow-bellies' quickly responded. At this moment Father Geoghegan arrived and attempted to restrain his parishioners. As the good old padre (he was the first priest in Melbourne, and became Bishop of Adelaide); was in some danger of getting an ounce of lead, John O'Shannassy and a Mr. Hurley went over to his rescue, when Hurley got a bullet in the shoulder. Another man, drinking a glass of ale in the bar of the St. John's Tavern was badly wounded in the cheek, the shot having crashed through the bar window. The riot now was at its height; the doors, windows, and the furniture of the Pastoral Hotel were demolished ; the one party attacking the building and endeavoring to force an entrance, the other , defending every inch of ground. Fortunately some soldiers appeared upon the scene, and temporary peace was secured.

The R.C/s were induced to disperse by the promise of Dr. Palmer, and his brother magistrates that the Orange dinner should not total place. Three or four persons were badly wounded in the riots. Several of the Orange party were taken into custody and bound over to keep the peace. Mr. William Hinds, a grocer of Queen-street, was charged with firing the shot which wounded Mr. Hurley, and was committed for trial. The town was alarmed the whole of the night by skirmishes between detachments of both factions. On the following day the rival

greens and yellows assembled in different parts of the town. The whole of the hotels were closed by order of the authorities. Many of the shops were shut, and a dense fog, perhaps opportunely settled down upon the town. The police and military were called out, and having formed in Market-street, proceeded to an hotel in Flinders-street, where fifty Orangemen were assembled, but who quickly dispersed when the military and police appeared. They next proceeded to the top of Flinders-street, where afterwards stood the Stork Hotel, where some eighty Roman Catholics were assembled. After some hesitation these were persuaded to go to their several homes. The town was put under martial law for the night, and the soldiers bivouacked in Collins-street, opposite the Royal Exchange Hotel, which stood where the Bank of New South Wales stood thirty years ago. This riot gave birth to the Party Processions Act, prohibiting any party flag from being explayed under any circumstances in the colony of New South Wales, an Act more honored in the breech than in the observance.

The old Princess' Theatre, in Spring street, was built in 1854 by Mr. G. B. W. Lewis, who married Rose Edouin. It was of corrugated iron, and called Astley's Amphitheatre; and therein, with a good stud of trained horses, gave the uproarious diggers the delight of a circus. In 1857 John Black, who built the Theatre Royal in Bourke-street, bought the place, and, by adding a stage, etc., converted it into the Princess' Theatre, wherein Joseph Jefferson made

his first appearance. Of the great American actor-manager more hereafter. While George Coppin was building the Olympic — or 'iron pot'— John Black was building the Theatre Royal. That was in 1855. Mr. Black, in three years, made a huge fortune— or 'pile,' as the diggers named it— as a carrier between Melbourne and the diggings. His long line of drags and wagons were the means of supplying thousands of diggers with the necessaries of life, as much as £100 a ton being paid as freight to Bendigo, 100 miles from Melbourne. Mr. Black's great ambition was to own a theatre, and a fine building he erected. It was the first building lighted with gas in the city. The streets were then lighted with oil lamps, though a company had been formed, and was building its works on the Yarra. Mr. Black, however, built his own retorts, and made his own gas. Black thought that he could manage a theatre as well as he did his horse and bullock teams, but he found to his cost that the two enterprises took a totally different stamp of man to control. After a year of small successes and some heavy failures he leased the theatre to George Coppin, who immediately transferred G. V. Brooke and his company from the 'iron pot' to the Bourke-street establishment. The Theatre Royal was opened with 'The School for Scandal,' Mr. G. H. Rogers being the Sir Peter Teazle. The old Royal had many ups and downs from the first day that John Black opened it, and numerous owners, mortgagees, lessees and managers tried their luck in it. Few, outside the actual covenanting parties, knew who really did own the Royal. Fred. Bayne, the solicitor, had some big interest in it in the late fifties, as he claimed and got the free use of a stage box. The dress circle entrance was on a different leasehold, and at one time complications were threatened. In the late fifties Brooke and Coppin were lessees. The pair dissolving partnership, Brooke retained the Royal, Coppin taking the old Olympic and the Cremorne Gardens. Brooke at this time should have been worth £50,000. Henry Edwards and George Faucett Rowe became managers after Bob Heir had resigned. Brooke went travelling, and things got messed up generally. Then Ambrose Kyte, with a rent roll of about £10,000 a year, came in, lending the management money and getting the lease as security. He put Barry Sullivan in, and for some years the Royal was the best-conducted theatre in the Southern Hemisphere.

(To be continued.)

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.)

The Vice-Regal indignation of Lord Canterbury, filtered through Aide-de-camp Rothwell, at being bowled out in his dead-headism, was extremely amusing. The 'great dailies' were compelled to publish the report of the subcommittee, notwithstanding their abuse of Geo. Coppin and his associates, and their desire to stand well with the Government House set. But as the 'great dailies' did not publish all the correspondence, George Coppin did, and with alliteration worthy of John Norton's best efforts he gave it to the world :— 'Concise Clippings! Concentrate Conclusions!' and a 'round unvarnished tale' of the trouble

between 'The Governor, the Dramatic and Musical Profession,' and 'The Press and Mr. Coppin.'

On the publication of the details as given in the 'Sportsman' last week Lieutenant Rothwell demanded of Mr. Coppin an immediate account, which, he repeated, would be examined, and if found correct, paid. On Mr. Coppin refusing to recognise any debt in connection with admissions to theatres, the irate Lieutenant announced that Viscount Canterbury would immediately place the matter in the hands of his solicitor. One can understand a solicitor making a demand for a debt, but the demanding of the immediate furnishing of an account is another matter. You may lead a horse to a trough, etc., etc., and George Coppin proved equally obstinate. Eleven months after, Mr. Morton Tavares, from his pig ranch in New Zealand— the esthetic Tavares took to rearing pigs in the late years of his residence in Maoriland— wrote Mr. Coppin, per favor of the 'Australasian,' thus : — 'Sir, — I find that you have claimed and received from the Governor of Victoria payments for his visits and command nights to your theatre. You are aware that his Excellency commanded a night during the first week of my engagement with you. I am therefore entitled to half the amount he paid on that occasion.' (If George Coppin gave Tavares one half the gross receipts, as this demand would indicate, the said George Coppin must have been demented at the time.) 'As far as I am concerned, I was quite contented with the honor of his presence and with the presence also of the Marquis of Normanby and Lady, whom he brought with him, especially as their visit brought a good house.

'Do you not think it rather ungentlemanly to 'solicit' that he would give a command, and then ask him to pay for it? For you told me you intended doing so, and you also said that you did not expect him to pay for it.

'You cannot claim that I am not entitled to it on account of the arbitration, because that only related to releasing you from the balance of the six months' engagement I had with you. You paid me for the fortnight I played at the Royal, and the visit of the Governor was on the second night of my appearance.' (Tavares was such an awful frost that George Coppin, at the end of a fortnight, asked to be relieved of the balance of the six months' engagement, and a sum as compensation was fixed by arbitration.)

'You will please pay over the amount to the Editor of the 'Australasian,' or any person he may appoint, to be given in charity to some one of the benevolent societies of Victoria.— Yours, etc., Morton Tavares.'

***

To this Mr. Coppin replied:—

'To the Editor of the 'Australasian.' Sir, — I regret that the unpleasant subject of his Excellency the Governor's visits to places of public amusement, without paying for admission, has been revived by the publication of a letter from Mr. Morton Tavares in last week's 'Australasian.' As the first line of his epistle is a mis-statement, I shall not go beyond it, and will simply deny that I have ever claimed payment from the Governor for his visits and command nights at my theatre. On the contrary, I have declined to furnish an account, under the conviction that his Excellency ought to have carried out the established rule of previous Governors by presenting a cheque for whatever amount he considered becoming the dignity of the Queen's representative for the occupation of the Vice-Regal box. As this subject is again unfortunately thrust before the public, I trust you will allow me to state the position of the case at this moment. Upon the publication of the unanswerable report of the Council of the Australasian Dramatic Association, his Excellency announced in the newspapers that he should place the matter in the hands of his solicitors. More than two months ago, a communication was received from his solicitors stating that : 'We are instructed by his Excellency Viscount Canterbury to request that you will, without delay, furnish us with a memorandum,' etc., etc. An immediate reply was sent, and there the matter rests — waiting, I presume, his Excellency's further instructions before another step can be taken towards a settlement of an obligation emphatically repudiated, but thoroughly proved— Yours, etc., George Coppin.'

* * *

When Mr. Richard Capper presented the report of the sub-committee respecting the Vice-Regal 'dead-heads,' he, being followed by others, made a very interesting speech. Mr. Capper, be it remembered was a very old actor, of the respectable stock type, not perhaps in the first flight, but good enough and solid enough for the times in which he flourished. He had retired from the stage in 1850, so that his re-appearance in connection with the Dramatic Association was a labor of love. In addition, Mr. Capper was an author of some ability. In 1868 he published a volume in Melbourne, entitled, Dramatic Illustrations of Ancient History, Arranged for the Stage.' The volume included 'Judith' (niece of William the Conqueror), 'The Mummy Makers of Epypt,' 'Eurynome,' 'Centheres,' 'Eadburga,' 'Babylon,' and 'Nimrod the Hunter.' I am not aware that any of the plays were put upon the stage.

In presenting his report, Mr. Capper said some bitter things about the press. It must be admitted that actors and writers have generally, at some time or other, a quarrel with the press. Actors, as a rule, are very touchy, and, when offended, threaten to 'bash' editors and newspaper men generally.

Mr. Capper commenced by remarking that it had been publicly stated that the committee were mere marionettes, whose strings were in the hands of Mr. Coppin. To that statement he wished to give the most emphatic denial. For his own part he had had no connection with theatrical management, or theatres since 1850. He was a gentleman living on his means. He was quite independent of Mr. Coppin and of Viscount Canterbury, and he believed the other two gentlemen comprising the committee to be equally independent. But no opinion of the 'Argus' was worthy of respect. They had only to look over the columns of that journal for the past 22 years to see its profligacy and villainy in every way. The 'Argus' pursued a 'disgraceful course in connection with the Ballarat riots, and it was that paper which killed Sir Charles Hotham. Its villany was now directed at spiting him, but he cared nothing for it.

With regard to the 'dead-head' business, it seemed to him that his Excellency the Governor was utterly ignorant of the course which became the dignity of an English nobleman. It was the custom, whenever the representative of the Queen gave his patronage to an entertainment, to return a sum proportionate to the gratification he had received, and calculated to support the honor and dignity of the lady he represented. Here we had a Governor, who was paid a handsome salary, and it was his duty to maintain the honor and dignity of the Crown of England. If he did not do so he deserved to be told of it. In England the patronage of a nobleman to an unknown actor often procured him an engagement on the London boards; but what was meant by a command night here he did not know. It appeared to him to mean nothing but the Governor going on the cheap. The theatres of this country had done a good deal for charities. The Melbourne Hospital was commenced with money raised by a theatrical performance; and when an emigrant ship was wrecked, 416 souls perishing, the seven survivors were presented by the Rev. Mr. Thompson with a large sum of money raised in the same way. As to the patronage of Governors, he held in his hand a bill of theatrical performances patronised by Governor Snodgrass in 1836, and on the morning after those performances, Governor Snodgrass sent 37 sovereigns!

The emigrant vessel alluded to by Mr. Capper was the Cataraqui, bound from Liverpool to Port Phillip, wrecked off King's Island, in Bass Straits, August 4, 1845. The official record says that 414 were lost and nine saved. Mr. Capper is, I think, in error as to the status of Colonel Kenneth Snodgrass in 1836. In that year the Colonel was Major of Brigade and senior officer in command of the troops, having his office in the Barrack yard in George-street and his private residence at Barham Hall, Darlinghurst, afterwards the house of E. Deas-Thomson. From December 6 1837, to February 23 1838, the Colonel was Acting-Governor on the departure of Sir Richard Bourke, and prior to the arrival of Governor Gipps. As senior military officer he would be Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Wilton was not quite so irate as Mr. Capper, but he was perfectly independent in the matter. The greatest possible care had been taken to check all the accounts lest an error should creep into the report. He was connected with Hussey's entertainment at the time the Governor's patronage was given. Though the performances were drawing crowded houses at the time, the whole of the centre of the hall was cleared and fitted-up at great expense for the convenience of the Vice-Regal party, yet not a shilling was received. He was sure there was no member of the association who did not regret that the Governor should find himself in the position of being contradicted on a statement which ought to have been cautiously considered before it was inserted in a newspaper. It was very singular that, according to the letters of Lieutenant Rothwell, the Governor should not know of a single instance in which he had attended places of public amusement without paying. A large amount of sympathy was justly felt for Mr. Coppin, who had been abused right and left for his action in a matter the whole responsibility of which rested with the Council of the Association. There was no body of men who had behaved more liberally to charitable institutions than the theatrical body. It was rare for a respectable travelling theatrical company to pass through a country town without giving a performance for the local hospital, or some such institution.

Mr. 'Jimmy' Simmonds, the third committeeman, made no comment on the report. This gentleman must not be confounded with the old-time actor of the same name, located for many years in Sydney. This Simmonds, who died comparatively young, was a good-looking Hebrew, a low comedian of fair renown, and was for a time lessee of the Haymarket Theatre, Melbourne. Mr. Simmonds was not very successful in management; in fact, I don't think anyone did succeed well in the management of the Haymarket. The Keans did well, but then they were under exceptional patronage, the Governor, Sir Charles Darling, having, it was said, Royal orders to see that the Keans succeeded.

George Coppin took up the thread of the discourse, and, in moving the adoption of the report, complimented the gentlemen forming the sub-committee on the great moderation displayed in its preparation. He thought they had acted wisely in selecting only a few of the more important cases to report upon. He also thought they had acted very judiciously in erasing the nights his Excellency the Governor had visited the theatre with H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. The Prince was a distinguished visitor to these colonies, and it was not at all surprising that the doors of every public place of amusement were thrown open to him; while it was most gratifying to all to know that the attention shown his Royal Highness had not been forgotten by him. The great interest the Prince took in the establishment of the Dramatic Association, in imitation of his Royal mother, was illustrated by his own personal exertions in forwarding the amateur performances of the Galatea Company, which contributed upwards of £120 to the funds of the asylum, attached to the Association. The prominence which the Prince had given to our much-respected townsman and artist, M. Chevalier, in London, should be accepted as a proof of his good will, and his last act of consideration in regard to the son of poor Aspinall must touch the sympathies of every Australian colonist. Every outspoken man who was not afraid to speak in suppression of an abuse was sure to meet with the censure of the toadies. Since this present exposure had been made, he (Mr. Coppin) had certainly had a very liberal share of abuse, both privately, professionally and politically. He could afford, however, to laugh at such terms as 'meanness' and 'cowardice,' for his character was so well engraved in the minds of all colonists that whatever opinions might have been formed of him privately would not be displaced by a very injudicious and ill-advised article in a very violent newspaper. His theatre had been compared to a sinking ship, and himself to a sinking manager struggling to make one last kick before going down, but so long as he had public opinion on his side, his head would have to be poked under water several times before he was drowned. Again, his theatre had been given up to 'unsavory costermongers and foul-mouthed roughlings.' This was certainly very complimentary to the thousands of people who had recently attended the Theatre Royal. But the greatest discovery of all was, that they found out that he was no actor —that he was simply disgusting, and not amusing. It was gratifying to him to know that so many people liked to be disgusted. These remarks would go very well alongside of many rather complimentary notices he had received from the same newspaper. Why was this thus? Why this abuse from persons who did not believe in what they wrote, and certainly did not think what they said. It was simply because he declined to take upon himself the responsibility of answering a letter addressed to the chairman of the association— in other words, to usurp the functions of the council. Let them apply this to a bank, a hospital, or any such institution, and see how it would act. If the same thing were to occur again he should act in precisely the same manner, in consideration of the subject due to his brother directors. As to his 'Paul Pry' speech, he took all the subjects from the newspapers, and he claimed an equal right with any press man to criticise public events either as Paul Pry or George Coppin. (In explanation of this Mr. Coppin, as Paul Pry, always delivered a stump speech on current events.) He was accused, very absurdly, of desiring to throw mud at the Governor, because his Excellency was the representative of Royalty. The idiot who wrote these words knew as little of his political history as he did of his professional standing. He challenged anyone to show that, during the 30 years he had been in this country, he had not always been a most loyal and conservative member of the community. If he had anything to blame himself for, it was that his respect for the institutions of the old country had checked his desires to keep pace with the requirements of the times. If the Home Government continued its policy of sending out as Governors needy gentlemen who pocketed the money of the colonists to relieve their encumbered estates in England, he said that the sooner they elected a Chief Magistrate from amongst themselves the better. And he would tell the 'Argus' this, that the want of dignity and liberality on the part of some of our colonial Governors was having the effect of rapidly changing Conservatives into Democrats, and of driving Democrats into Republicanism. There was an English Act of Parliament which provided a retiring allowance for Colonial Governors after they had served a certain time, upon the presumption that it was necessary to maintain a certain dignity by spending the amount they received in the colony in which they resided. It only required a Colonial Act of Parliament to compel the Governor to spend his salary. People had asked him, 'What would you do if you were Governor?' Well, he would take a private box at the opera or theatre, and give the manager so much a year. He would not shuffle out of State balls on the Queen's Birthday. If there was no room large enough for the purpose he would spend £200 or £300 in procuring one, so that those who had a right to be present on such occasions should not miss the annual entertainment. If from any such circumstances as a death in the family the ball would be indecorous, he would select a future day on which to spend the money he received for the special purpose of this celebration. He would also accept invitations to races, take the luncheons, and drink the wines, but he would give a Governor's Cup to be run for, or a Queen's Plate, or a Victorian Purse, in recognition of the hospitality he had received. He would also subscribe to the Horticultural Society. If he went to dog or poultry shows he would either give a prize or pay for admission. Which was all doubtless very severe upon Lord Canterbury and certain members of his family.

(To be continued.)