Mr Morton Tavares

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.

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.)