Australasian Dramatic, Operatic, Musical and Equestrian Assn

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.)