ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901)

LETTERS TO THE PRESS (4)

Alone in London

The Era (10 October, 1885)

THE OLYMPIC THEATRE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—I see that it is asserted, though not in your columns, that I have taken this theatre for the “production of my own plays.” I have not taken the theatre, though I shall be to a large extent responsible for its direction, and I have no intention whatever of limiting its productions to works from my own pen. I open with a drama written by myself in collaboration with Miss Harriett Jay, because this drama is already a great success in America, and is likely, I think, to attract audiences in this country.
     It is also suggested that the leading part will be played by Miss Harriett Jay, “supported” by other artistes, thus suggesting that the management is to be made the stalling-horse of a “star.” A totally different order of things will be adopted at the Olympic. There will be no “starring” and no “supporting;” an endeavour will be made to secure a company working in ensemble, like Daly’s company in America, and parts will be distributed on the French system, excellent artistes being seen from time to time in minor characters. This plan is a difficult one to carry out in a country where the “star” system flourishes so persistently, but the endeavour will be made, and I hope the public will consider it an endeavour in the right direction.
                                                                                                   I am, &c.,          ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     Olympic Theatre, Oct. 5th.

[Advert from The Times (4 Nov. 1885).]

The Times (6 November, 1885 - p.8)

FIRST NIGHT AUDIENCES AND BLACKMAILERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

     Sir,—Will you allow us, as the authors of Alone in London, and the persons responsible for all the details of its production, to enter into certain particulars concerning the so-called “organized opposition” which attempted, unsuccessfully, to crush that drama on its first representation?
     The matter is one which concerns not only dramatic authors and theatrical managers, but the great playgoing public generally, and it is the more necessary to discuss it, as the writers in one or two journals insist, whether from mere bias, or sheer ignorance of the truth, in affirming that the organized opposition of which we speak is a figment of the literary or managerial brain.
     The facts are simply these. Some days previous to the production of Alone in London it was intimated to the management of the Olympic Theatre that an attempt would be made on the first night to “goose” the play. If we are asked from what quarter the opposition was to come, we can only reply that it is impossible, for reasons which will readily be understood, to enter at present into particulars, or to give any names; but that the plot had been deliberately laid there was no manner of doubt.
     The cabal employed had instructions (1) to “guy” a particular actor, (2) to attack the authors and the play.
     Knowing the plans of the enemy, we were strongly advised to defeat them by doing what so many managers have done of late, i.e., packing the house with friends and well wishers. Mrs. Conover, however, with characteristic spirit, objected to this course, saying that she placed her dependence on the feeling of fair play and independence of the great public; and would trust to them to defend her if occasion arose. Consequently, no precautions were taken.
     Soon after the opening of the doors on Monday, it was evident that the enemy had entered in full force. As every one knows, even a few malcontents can soon effect a disturbance in a great crowd; and these emissaries of a malignant opposition began their operations long before the play began, hooting the opening farce, and causing so much commotion during the entr’acte that we had almost determined not to raise the curtain at all on Alone in London.
     Scarcely had the curtain risen when a ringleader in the gallery was heard to say, “Now, boys, keep your eyes on me, and mind and watch me when they call the authors.” The prologue went with little interruption, but scarcely had the first act opened, and a certain performer appeared in the scene, when the disturbance began.
     Fortunately, the interest of the drama held the majority in thrall, and the frantic efforts of the malcontents became more and more unavailing, as the play proceeded, until, on reaching the second act, they were almost entirely overpowered.
     Had a hitch occurred in the stage management, had a delay occurred between the acts, had an accident happened to the scenery, the opposition would certainly have triumphed. However, all went well, and it is no exaggeration to say that, during the third and last act, the audience was spellbound by the magnificent acting of the leading performers, and particularly of Miss Roselle. When the curtain fell there could be no doubt of the triumph which had been achieved; but on the call fro the authors came the enemy’s opportunity. In the midst of the cheers and applause which greeted our appearance before the curtain, came the dissentient cries of the round dozen of malcontents sent there to “goose” the play, and conquered up to that moment by the powerful sympathy of the great majority of disinterested spectators.
     Knowing all the circumstances of the case as we did, and knowing that nearly every person present was acquainted with them too, we were astonished enough to read next day, in one or two journals, that the reception of Alone in London, though on the whole favourable, had been in some measure “qualified,” and that the cheers which the authors received on their appearance had been tempered by some groans.
     If any doubt remained in our minds, it was dispelled on the second night. At 4 o’clock on Tuesday afternoon a band of 20 persons assembled at the stage-door, affirming (mirabile dictu) that they had been sent to oppose the cabal which had been formed against the piece, and offering their pugilistic and vocal services for a pecuniary consideration. In spite of all persuasions they remained there until the performance began. Nine of them then paid their money and entered the gallery. On being spoken to by the police, their leader said they might be quiet that night, but that, if they were not liberally paid, they would return next night and prevent the peaceful representation of the play.
     “It’s to be peace or war,” he said (we give his very words); “and if we’re not squared, look out again tomorrow.”
     Further remonstrated with, he declined to withdraw his party unless he was bribed. Wisely or unwisely, Mrs. Conover gave him a small sum, and thus prevented a disturbance on the second night, when the play went without a flaw amid the enthusiastic demonstrations of a popular audience.
     Now, as dramatic authors, living on the goodwill of the public, we wish to ask—How long is a state of things to continue which, if tolerated, will render honest, popular judgment impossible, will convert the first representations of plays into scenes of riot, and will make every decent man and woman avoid first nights altogether, leaving authors and managers at the mercy of blackmailers?
     As we have seen, a mere handful of roughs can easily interrupt the progress of a performance. In no civilized land except England, in no city of the land except London, is there possible such blackguardism as we have been describing; and when, to their shame, certain members of the Press, who ought to know better, treat such disturbances as actual expressions of honest opinion, they are simply leaguing themselves with the representatives of rowdyism and blackmail.
     In the name of fair play, we protest against a state of things which every honest playgoer must loathe and condemn. Fortunately, no cabal can affect the prosperity of a popular, successful play, such as ours; but it can, as we have shown, create confusion in the minds of those who claim to sit in judgment on authors and managers, and may lead to infinite misrepresentation on the part of people who are ignorant of the shocking state of things which we have been trying, with your permission, to explain. We are, &c.,
                                                                                                   THE AUTHORS OF ALONE IN LONDON.
     Olympic Theatre, Nov. 4.

[Note: This letter was also printed in The Era (7 November, 1885) and a long extract appeared in The Standard (6 November, 1885 - p.3).]

___

The Echo (6 November, 1885 - p.1)

     THE playgoer is falling on evil days. He is lectured from the stage by indignant actors, who object to his expressions of disapproval; his enjoyment of first-night performances is hindered by organised oppositions; and when he opens his paper in the morning he finds a column devoted to authors’ grievances and managerial trials. This is all wrong. Actors and actresses take all the applause they can get without  complaint, and have no right to complain when disapproval is expressed within decent bounds. If this disapproval comes from a single quarter and disturbs the audience, this amounts to disorder; and the management have their remedy in ejecting the offenders. But for actors or actresses to make counter- demonstrations from the stage, as no less distinguished performers than Mrs. Kendal and Mr. Hare were provoked into doing on Saturday night, is, as we said, altogether wrong. It destroys the illusion, and brings us back to the unreality of the Stage. We hold the same view as to the letter addressed by Mr. Robert Buchanan and Miss Harriet Jay to the Times this morning. Their play is an excellent one, although hardly up to Mr. Buchanan’s real intellectual standard. The staging of it is the best thing that Mrs. Conover has done at the Olympic Theatre; and no one who knows how persistently and with what splendid pluck Mrs. Conover has fought against ill-fortune at that theatre can fail to be glad that Mr. Buchanan’s play is a pronounced success. No doubt, too, there was a hostile gang in the theatre on the opening night. But the judgment of the public is not to be directed by a gang of roughs. To take Mr. Buchanan’s own statement the opposition of the cabal became fainter and fainter as the sympathy of the audience was more excited by the play. The demands of a counter-gang, who wished to break up the original gang on the second night, were very discreditable; but this seems to be more a matter for the police than the public. Every author has his trials; and after a play has been twice delayed, and many people disappointed thereby, the author must not take it to heart if he finds he has some enemies. Mr. Buchanan knows that good work carries its own commendation. The play, Alone in London, is good work, and the hoarse howlings of a few roughs will not make the public think otherwise.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (7 November, 1885 - pp.3-4)

     It is the season of “guys” and “guying,” and Mr. Robert Buchanan has dressed up a most effective “organized-opposition” bugbear with which he seeks to frighten managers and stir up the indignation of the public. His case is specious, and if all he alleges is exact, there can be no doubt that on the second night of his drama at the Olympic the management was victimized (rather weakly) by a small gang of blackmailers. As to the first night, however, he proves nothing except that certain incidents and speeches in his play displeased the audience. The allegation that the disapproval was directed against a particular actor must seem quite incredible to any one who was present at the Olympic on Monday night. The audience (and not the gallery alone but the pit as well) objected to a certain interlude and ridiculed certain characters and speeches. As the interlude was puerile, and the characters and speeches ridiculous, it needed no organized opposition to do this. It may be, however, that there was an organized opposition. We do not deny the assertion. We merely note the singular fact that in this case, as in all others, the opposition chose a very mediocre piece of work to vent its wrath upon. No one ever heard of a really good play meeting with “organized opposition.”

___

The Era (7 November, 1885)

MUTILATED CRITICISMS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—I see in several papers to-day a paragraph in which I am accused of actions with which I had nothing whatever to do. The advertisements are not framed by me but by Mr Buchanan, who must be held responsible for them. I have already explained this by letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph, by whom my attention was called to the extract, and to whom I also explained the circumstances under which it appeared.
     I am not given to look upon the blackest side of things, or think the worst of my fellow creatures, as I am known to be perfectly just and straightforward in my dealings, and that I detest anything underhand.
     Furthermore, I am not in the habit of addressing epistles to the papers, and have never altered the sense of a criticism for the sake of advertisement during the whole of my managerial career. Whatever I undertake I try to do conscientiously, and am always ready to take the consequences of my own actions; and as I have to bear all the risks attending the production of Alone in London, I consider it unjust and cruel to make me responsible for the actions of the author concerning his piece. Trusting you will kindly find space for this in your valuable paper,
                                                                       Believe me, Sir, yours faithfully,
                                                                                                                     ANNA CONOVER.
     Olympic Theatre, Wych-street, Strand, W.C.,
         November 6th, 1885.

[Note: This letter was also printed in The Standard (7 November, 1885 - p.2).]

___

The Times (7 November, 1885 - p.10)

FIRST NIGHT AUDIENCES.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

     Sir,—Almost the first thing that caught my attention this morning on opening The Times was a letter under the above heading, signed “The Authors of Alone in London,” and as one of the first-nighters present at the Olympic on Monday, and also one of what they call the malcontents (a word which just expresses our feelings), perhaps you will permit me to answer it, and I will take the paragraphs seriatim as they come.
     They say that some of the journals refuse to acknowledge that there was an organized opposition; these, of course, are the journals that parleyed with their consciences and damned the play with faint praise. But let that pass.
     They add that they were informed that “an attempt would be made to ‘goose’ the play,” but prudently refrain from entering into any particulars. This may be a figment of the literary or managerial brain, but in any case is worth as much notice as were the various warnings of dynamite scares, which invariably came to nothing.
     But now I come to the most important part of the letter, and that is “packing the house.” Now, Mr. Editor, I myself was among the first seven or eight people at the pit door, and the very first to pay at the box, being followed in direct succession by the others, and yet when I got into the house I saw two people just ahead of me, and when I challenged them with not having paid, they replied, “Well, we’ve got passes, and what’s more, we’re going to keep two places for friends; so there.” And this they did. Now, looking round for the three friends who had come next to me, I saw a mass of strangers pouring in, having taken advantage of the two outer doors being opened to slip past those engaged at the pay-box. One of these friends, the sixth to pay, would actually have had to be in the side of the second row—each row holds about 25—had he not managed to squeeze into half of my place in front. The other two got right away on the other side. We looked back and saw the pittites coming in, not in ones, as when each pays at the box, but in swarms; and in vain did I seek for the familiar countenances of the enthusiastic first-nighters whom year after year I have seen, till they are as familiar as those of near kindred, though with many I have not even a bowing acquaintance. But they were not. Instead, I saw strangers—strangers almost everywhere, leavened now and then by a face known to me.
     Hardly were we seated when, unprovided with programmes, we saw the curtain go up on, horror of horrors, a vulgar, noisy farce, of which no mention had been made in the advertisements. It was of that kind where two ladies (?) and two gentlemen (?) are always chasing each other in and out of the room, and arguing loudly over imaginary wrongs. The action of the management in giving it to the audience reminded me of the brimstone and treacle administered to the pupils at Dotheboys-hall to take away their appetite for breakfast.
     The programmes at length provided, and farce over, and deservedly laughed at, we waited patiently for the play. “The soup was bad, the fish worse, let us hope we can make our dinner on the entrées and joint.”
     Now comes the question whether if a play be distasteful that distaste may be expressed. One says, “No, if you do not like it go out.” To resume the dinner comparison, as appealing to all hearts, because the first one or two courses were bad, would you leave the table? Nay, rather would you hope for better things to come, and many a time in my theatrical experience have I seen a fine third act and well worked-up conclusion redeem the dulness of what came before.
     I do not wish to enter into a criticism of the play, but would merely say that many of us who have delighted in “The Shadow of the Sword” and “God and the Man,” and found true pathos in many of the sweet poems of their author, felt grieved and disappointed that such halting dialogue, such canting morality, such unnatural situations, and almost ridiculous game of consequences should be the outcome of the latter years of an admired writer.
     We, who thought the play unworthy of the intelligence of earnest playgoers, and unworthy of its author, or, say, chief author, thought ourselves also justified in expressing those feelings, and if the aggravating behaviour of the enormous mass of dead-heads who persisted in applauding everybody and everything at the most inopportune moments, even in the middle of the scene, drew upon them the “hushing” of the more sensible minority of actual playgoers, and that “hushing” were construed by the management as being invariably intended for the performance, then that is their own look-out. Let them do, as they imagine was done on Monday, throw open the doors to the paying public and trust to an honest feeling of independence for an honest verdict. Let them also provide good entertainment; what is good enough for dead-heads is most distinctly not good enough for us who pay. Let them take example by other more important theatres where there are never any complaints of scenes and no passes are given on first nights.
     As to blackmailers, that is quite beside the mark, and has nothing to do with me, nor, indeed, with the question under discussion, and I leave it to one of the guilty rowdies to defend himself.
     One cannot help admiring the ingenuous ingeniousness of “The Authors of Alone in London” in thus seeking bold advertisement.
                                                                         I remain, Sir, yours faithfully,
     November 6.                                                                                        A PAYING PITTITE.

[Note: This letter was also printed in The Era (14 November, 1885).]

___

The Times (13 November, 1885 - p.4)

CLAQUERS OR BLACKMAILERS!
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

     Sir,—While justifying the attitude of the independent section of the audience who condemned the réchauffé of recent successful dramas offered to the public as new and original at the Olympic last Monday, “A Paying Pittite,” in the letter appearing in The Times of this morning, does not think it worth while to deal with the very serious charge brought by the authors of blackmailing. I would wish to point out that, according to the statements of the management, a band of men presented themselves at the stage door on the day following the production and demanded money to prevent a disturbance in the house; and although nine of them entered the gallery, threatening to create a disturbance if not squared, it did not occur to the management to hand these men over to the police. Surely this was the most natural thing to have done, and when they were brought up before a magistrate the whole conspiracy would have been exposed and the blackmailers punished, whereas now I cannot disabuse my mind of the idea that these same men who threatened to create a disturbance on the second night were identical with those who had been so energetic in their applause on the first, and that, when “Mrs. Conover wisely or unwisely gave them a small sum of money,” it was not the first time they had been squared by the management. If the management is weak enough to place itself at the mercy of those who offer themselves as claquers and subsequently develop into blackmailers, it cannot expect much sympathy or support in its difficulties from independent playgoers. That the house was packed on the first night there is abundant evidence; and, as a member of the paying public, I wish to ask, “How long is a state of things to continue which, if tolerated, will render honest, popular judgment impossible, will convert the first representations of plays into scenes of riot, and will make every decent man and woman avoid first nights (at the Olympic) altogether, leaving (paying playgoers) at the mercy (of a rowdy claque, introduced by the management to manufacture a fictitious semblance of success)? In the name of fair play I protest against a state of things which every honest playgoer must loathe and condemn.”
                                                                                                       Yours, &c.,
                                                                                                                     EDWIN H. SHEAR.
     Playgoers’ Club, Nov. 7.

___

The Era (14 November, 1885)

FIRST NIGHTS.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—In reference to a letter from Mrs Conover, which appears in your last number, permit me to explain that by the terms of my agreement with that lady I am sole director for at least six months of the Olympic Theatre. The slight misquotation in one of the advertisements, through which the Daily Telegraph was made to say that “Mrs Conover had an Olympic success,” instead of “a chance of an Olympic success,” was entirely my doing. The gist of the criticism was that only a few alterations were necessary in order to ensure a success; these alterations were made on the third night, and thus I was quite justified in quoting, for the sake of brevity, the words as I did. In no other case have I altered the words of a single criticism.
     For all the arrangements at the Olympic Theatre I am personally responsible. The play, the scenes, the music, the “business,” down to the smallest detail, are the distinct invention of Miss Jay and myself. It was produced under my stage-management and personal direction. At one coup I have elevated an unfortunate house into the front rank of London theatres, and since the reopening taken more money at the doors than has been taken in Wych-street for many years. This state of affairs doubtless causes some “heart-burnings” outside the walls of the Olympic Theatre.
                                                                                                       I am, &c.,          ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     Olympic Theatre, November 11th, 1885,
     P.S.—I am accused of finding fault with the patrons of the pit. I never did so. I have always held, in my articles, both here and in America, that London “first-nighters” are the most generous in the world. The individuals who caused the disturbance at the Olympic were not real “first-nighters” at all, but a band of mere “black-mailers.”

_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—Since you have given publicity in your columns to the statements of the authors of Alone in London in regard to “First Night Audiences and Blackmailers,” and which statements I maintain are entirely false and unfounded, I trust, in the interests of fair play, space may be found in your columns for statements of the true facts, which can be supported.
     Your correspondents state that “Mrs Conover objected to packing the house with friends and well- wishers.” Whether or no Mrs Conover may have objected to such a course being taken, the house was undeniably packed with friends; and I will venture to say that in the whole of the pit and gallery, both of which were crowded to excess, not one hundred of the paying public could be found.
     To prove my case, I may mention that the first disturbance of the evening was caused by the management after opening the pit doors, allowing their friends—who openly held their “orders” in their hands—to pass in while they delayed taking the money of the genuine public. The disturbance during a more than ordinarily dull and outrageous farce was caused by the neglect of the management to provide programmes.
     I emphatically deny that any actor or actress on their first appearance was received with other than applause. The storm created by Mr D. Somers shortly after his first appearance was entirely aimed at the authors, who could so far forget the first instincts of dramatic art as to introduce to the dramatic stage a type of entertainer who is only tolerated outside of the public-house.
     If, as your correspondents state, twenty persons assembled at the stage-door on Tuesday evening and offered their vocal and pugilistic services for a consideration, I ask the management in the interests of playgoers, and more especially “First Night” playgoers, why these persons were not given in charge? A police-court exposure of such a cabal as your correspondents affirm exists could but be beneficial to the success of their present venture. Until then I will not believe that such a cabal does exist.
                                                                             Faithfully yours,          HENEAGE MANDELL.

_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—So much has been written lately on the subject of organised opposition at theatres on first nights, and the existence of such organised opposition has been so strenuously denied, that we think we have the right to appeal to the tribunal of public opinion in a case where we have been openly threatened with a conspiracy of this kind, and where the law of the land, as administered by the magistrates sitting at Bow- street, has declared itself unable to protect us until the outrage has been actually committed.
     The following are the facts of the case:—On October 30th a man, whose name and address we enclosed, wrote to Miss Consuelo, to whom he was totally unknown, as he was in fact to both of us, for the gratuitous use of a private box on the first night of Messrs Herman and Jones’s new opera The Fay o’ Fire. The letter was naturally treated as a piece of impertinence, and remained unanswered. Shortly after that we were warned by one of our principal artists against this person as harbouring a private grudge which would most likely be vented on the first night. But nothing more came of the matter until yesterday (Tuesday), when this man called at the box-office, offered to pay for a private box, and, on being told that they were all disposed of, openly threatened that unless he were allowed to occupy a box he would come to the theatre on Saturday next with some hundreds of others and hiss and damn the piece. We immediately applied to the magistrate at Bow-street for protection, and were told that nothing could be done until the actual offence had been committed. We repeated our application this afternoon, with the same result. Now, the matter resolves itself into this. This person, who has no knowledge whatever of the management of the Opera Comique, of the authors of the piece, or of the piece itself, threatens to endeavour to destroy the work to which Mr Herman and Mr Jones have given months of labour, and upon which we have spent a very large sum.
     We can prevent this either by totally excluding the public and issuing tickets only to people whom we know, or by meeting the outrage by force. In both of these cases we should be absolutely safe; but we decline to avail ourselves of either of these remedies. We content ourselves by stating our case through the columns of your paper, by appealing to the spirit of justice and fair play which characterises an English audience to give us the protection which the law of the land denies to us, to the authors who have worked for us, and to the artists who will appear on Saturday evening next.
                                                                   We are, Sir, your obedient servants,
                                                                                                                 AGNES CONSUELO.
                                                                                                                 F. J. HARRIS.
     Opera Comique, W.C., November 11th.

_____

“THE FAY O’ FIRE.”
_____

     AT Bow-street Police-court, on Tuesday, Mr F. J. Harris, joint lessee with Miss Consuelo of the Opera Comique Theatre, applied to Sir James Ingham for advice in the following circumstances:—A person, he said, had applied at the theatre for a box for the opening night—Saturday. When told that there was no box for disposal he threatened to attend with some hundred others on the first night of the performance and damn the piece. The applicant was apprehensive of a disturbance, and made the present application in the interests of other managers, and in the face of what had recently occurred at the Olympic Theatre. Sir James Ingham said that unless an assault was committed or some proof adduced of an existing conspiracy he could do nothing in the matter, but suggested that the applicant could obtain an interim injunction from the Court of Chancery restraining the individual complained of from going to the theatre. Mr James Davis, solicitor, renewed the application on Wednesday. Mr Davis quoted the case of “The Queen v. Eccles,” in which it was held that a conspiracy to injure a man in his trade or profession was a misdemeanour under 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 100. Mr Davis thought prevention was better than cure, and that something might be done to prevent the reputation of authors and artists alike being damaged. Sir James Ingham said he had no evidence of conspiracy, and could grant no process. If any such action as was threatened was taken there would, of course, be a case against the person in question.

[From The Era (5 December, 1885).]

The Era (5 December, 1885)

MISS AMY ROSELLE AND R. BUCHANAN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—Mr Arthur Dacre, the husband of Miss Amy Roselle, having thought fit to circulate certain scandals and misstatements concerning the management of the Olympic Theatre, I find it necessary to inform the public that Mr Dacre’s conduct will be dealt with in due course in the law courts. In the meantime, permit me to state that the so-called “resignation” of Miss Roselle is due to causes with which the Olympic management has no connection whatever.
     Some weeks ago it became necessary to intimate that Miss Roselle’s performances in Alone in London must cease on the 5th inst. Since then Mr Dacre has written in severe terms to the management, and has been refused admission to the theatre. This (Thursday) evening, in view of the fact that Miss Roselle had last night omitted an important portion of her part, and caused great confusion on the stage by so doing, it was determined that the part should be taken, without further delay, by another actress.
     One of Mr Dacre’s less serious assertions may be dealt with currente calamo. He has rushed from club to club, and from theatre to theatre, proclaiming his opinion that Alone in London is a commercial failure, and trying in every way to damage the management whose bread he has been eating. If Alone in London is unsuccessful, as he says, how does it happen that the average weekly returns of the Olympic have exceeded the average monthly returns of another theatre where Miss Roselle, assisted on that occasion by her husband, fulfilled her last engagement? In point of fact, Mr Dacre knows nothing whatever of the theatre’s returns, and bases his mendacious assertion on the fact that the acting-manager once informed him that, owing to the enormous preliminary outlay, it would take months of crammed houses to cover expenses and leave a profit.
     Malice refutes itself. What was a “brilliant success,” when Mr Dacre was pleased with the management, becomes a “failure” when he has to be refused admission to the theatre, thus repeating on a smaller stage his cantankerous performances at the Haymarket and at Drury Lane. I am, &c.
                                                                                                                                 ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     Olympic Theatre, Dec. 3d, 1885.

_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—Having reason to think that Mr Buchanan may indulge in one of his characteristic letters to your journal, will you allow me to make the following statement:—
     On Wednesday night my wife (Miss Amy Roselle) accidentally omitted one line from her part in Alone in London, thereby cutting some few words out of Miss Jay’s part, the mistake arising from the fact that two of her cues were identical. On Thursday afternoon she received a letter from Mrs Conover’s and Mr Buchanan’s solicitor, enclosing one week’s salary, endeavouring to break the engagement, and stating that he understood that she purposely cut out part of an act, and thereby seriously interfered with the proper performance of the play.
     I shall not condescend to defend my wife from so gross an insinuation as purposely committing this slight error. My solicitor has instructions to commence immediate proceedings, and until the case comes into court Miss Amy Roselle cheerfully places her reputation as actress and woman in the hands of her brother and sister artists and the managers under whom she has worked, feeling sure that it will hold its own even against that of Mr Buchanan and Mrs Conover.
                                                                                               Faithfully yours,
                                                                                                                       ARTHUR DACRE.
     P.S.—I may add that this did not occur until after Miss Amy Roselle had been begged to go on acting at a smaller salary, owing to the business done or not done.

___

The Era (12 December, 1885)

AMY ROSELLE AND R. BUCHANAN.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—In your impression of last Saturday there appeared two letters, one from Mr Robert Buchanan and another from Mr Arthur Dacre, under the above heading.
     With Mr Buchanan’s letter I have nothing to do; he is perfectly able to defend himself, but as Mr Dacre mentions my name in his letter, and as I have no desire to evade my responsibilities as lessee and manageress of the Olympic Theatre, you will perhaps allow me to state the circumstances under which Mrs Dacre’s (Miss Amy Roselle’s) engagement terminated.
     The engagement was for the run of the piece Alone in London, with a guarantee of six weeks. When the piece had been running three or four weeks it was evident that Miss Roselle would not be able to sustain the fatigue of the part of Annie Meadows for many weeks longer. There surely can be no rudeness or want of refinement in recognising the fact that a married lady is in such a condition as married ladies must expect to be in. Whatever precedents there may be for “matrons” on the stage continuing to perform their duties as long as possible under such circumstances, there are parts, and Annie Meadows is one of them, in which for the lady’s own sake, it is desirable that she should not continue to act when in such a delicate condition.
     Instead of Mrs Dacre sending for me (who am myself a mother), or Mr Dacre seeing me and discussing in a friendly spirit what arrangement could be made during the period his wife would be obliged to withdraw from the part, Mr Dacre chose to take offence at such a necessity being hinted at, and conducted himself in an insulting manner to all connected with the management of this theatre. He ultimately made a proposal to the effect that his wife should continue to play the six weeks, and accept a fortnight’s notice after that. In his letter he said that Miss Amy Roselle would give up her engagement out of sympathy for the management. I answered this letter through my business manager, Mr Boss, saying that I was very much annoyed at the turn things had taken, but that I did not believe that her leaving the theatre was actuated by any sympathy for the management. This letter, which at the proper time I shall call upon Mr Dacre to produce, he has characterised as coarse, and has abused me to other persons, both in writing and word of mouth.
     I am not able to enter into the exalted ideas of delicacy and refinement held by Mr Dacre, but I am sure there is not one word in that letter that can justify him in making such an imputation against a woman whose great fault, among others, seems to be that she is frank and outspoken, and, in addition to being a stranger in a strange land, possesses the facility, actuated by necessity, of meeting people great and lowly on their own ground, and is consequently often misjudged by those prone to do so.
     In continuing my subject, I regret very much that it should have appeared necessary to the management to bring Miss Amy Roselle’s engagement to a close two days before it otherwise would have ceased. But if Mr Dacre is of opinion that on this point his wife has been treated with undue severity he has only himself to thank; for the offensive and insolent behaviour which he chose to display towards Miss Jay, Mr Buchanan, and myself, and his persistent attempts to annoy the management and to injure the interests of this theatre, were the only cause of the strained relations which existed between Miss Roselle and her employers, a state of affairs which no one regretted more sincerely than I did. Mr Dacre is evidently going to spend some of his money in taking the advice of his solicitor. I will give him a piece of advice gratis. If he wishes his talented and charming wife to get many engagements he will favour the theatre at which she may be acting as little as possible with his “august” presence, at least behind the scenes.
     With regard to Mr Dacre’s postscript, in which he alleges that “this did not occur until after Miss Roselle had been begged to go on acting at a smaller salary owing to the business done or not done,” I beg to state that I certainly did ask Miss Roselle to accept half salary for the morning performance, as, owing to the excitement of the elections, the “house” was not large enough to pay the very heavy expenses, and the other artists were generous, as the cost of producing Alone in London was so considerable that it must take a long time in so small a theatre to get back the outlay, but I did not ask Miss Roselle to accept less salary, excepting the one occasion, the morning performance above-mentioned.
     Now, Sir, perhaps you will allow me to say a word or two on my own behalf. Ever since the production of this play Alone in London, I have been subjected to attacks more or less violent, and, especially in the matter of Mr Dacre and his wife, to much cruel and undeserved abuse. Throughout the two years during which I have been the lessee of this theatre, I have endeavoured as much as possible to do my duty to the public and to those in my employ. I think I may say that I have shown as much care for the interests and comfort of the artistes, whom I have myself employed, as any other manager, however much extolled by the public.
     I have cheerfully borne (with continued hope for better times) the very heavy losses entailed in the course of my management, and if the plays selected for production have not met with the favour of the public, I am not by any means singular in this respect, for managers and manageresses of much more experience than I could ever pretend to have signally failed.
     Now that I have succeeded in getting a piece which, in spite of much prejudice and ill-nature (I can scarcely call it criticism), let us say censure (a word which in English literature has many senses); when I have at last met with a piece which, in spite of several unfavourable circumstances, bids fair to be a substantial success—and surely I, who have to pay all expenses connected with the production and who have the means of knowing what the receipts are, am a better judge on that point than those whose estimate of its success is based upon a sincere desire for its failure—at this time, when my managerial prospects are brighter, I seem to have excited the enmity of a number of more or less worthy persons, to whom I can honestly say I have never done any wrong in thought, word, or deed. When I ask for an explanation of this, I am told “Oh, you know they don’t like Buchanan.” Well! if he has done anything to offend the critics or other individuals, why, in the name of all that justice so proverbial with all men—especially Englishmen— should I be attacked for Mr Buchanan’s errors?
     As a woman, I am naturally sensitive. To be sensitive in this age is to be a fool; argal, I suppose that I am a fool. But I confess that, fool though I may be, I should think a little more highly of some of those connected with the dramatic profession, directly or indirectly, if in my humble endeavours to fight an uphill fight independent of my private cares and worries, I met with a little more justice, to say nothing of consideration.
                                                                               I am, Sir, yours obediently,
                                                                                                                     ANNA CONOVER.
     Olympic Theatre, December 10th, 1885.
     P.S.—Not the least annoying of the vexatious reports which have been so assiduously circulated concerning me for some time past and, one which, like a snowball, seems to gather size the longer it is permitted to roll on without let or hindrance, is to the effect that I am a so-called “Mrs Gretton.” I shall take this opportunity of being in print to give this statement my most positive, emphatic, and unqualified denial. I am not Mrs Gretton, I never have been known as Mrs Gretton, and, as a matter of fact, until these rumours reached my ears, and caused me much annoyance and pain, I was not aware that any individual of the name of “Gretton,” either Mr Gretton or Mrs Gretton, or any other Gretton, ever existed.
     I was advised long ago to contradict the report, but I did not attach any importance to it then; but since I am in a position now to prove that this report has militated against my success, and in other ways directly injured me, I hereby offer a reward of “One Hundred Pounds” to anyone who will give such information as may enable me to bring to justice and punish the originator of this slanderous statement, and shall look upon the money as well spent.
                                                                                                                     ANNA CONOVER.

___

The Era (19 December, 1885)

MR. BUCHANAN AND HIS CRITICS.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—A letter from Mrs Anna Conover in your last impression is headed, for some inscrutable reason, “R. Buchanan and Amy Roselle,” thus making it appear as if I personally were warring against a lady whom I have always held in the highest respect. I have no quarrel with Miss Roselle, although I found it necessary a fortnight ago to institute an action for libel against her husband, and although, some days later, Miss Roselle instituted a cross-action against me for “slander.”
     My position in the whole affair had been one of peacemaker until Mr Dacre’s own conduct drove me into measures of personal protection. I repeat I have no quarrel with Miss Roselle. As for “slandering” her or any lady, I think I shall be able to show beyond doubt, when the time comes, that all the slander and all the scandal have been quite outside my own personal action.
     I gather from Mrs Conover’s letter her impression that certain gentlemen of the press are personally prejudiced against myself. This may or may not be the case; but I have certainly no reason to complain of the public criticisms on Alone in London. My difference with certain critics is traceable to two distinct acts of my own as a critic: 1. My animadversions on a certain school of poetry, and (2) my article on Society journalism, both published some years ago in the Contemporary Review. Since then, no doubt, I have been attacked in and out of season; but I am not of the disposition to think that mankind is a conspiracy to do me injury, or to fancy myself a literary martyr. As far as I know, my best work has never failed to meet with some measure of praise, while my worst work has deserved all the abuse it got. Take the leading notices of this very play. The Times and the Daily News praised the piece loudly, while the Standard as loudly condemned it. Now, believing Mr Watson of the Standard to be an honest and a vigorous writer, who has on other occasions treated me handsomely, I should be a churl if I flouted him for cudgelling me when he though I deserved it. On the Telegraph I had a critic notoriously adverse to me, a gentleman whom I had once encountered in a sort of “free fight”; but Mr Clement Scott showed on this occasion that an opponent can be magnanimous, and I had no cause to complain of the way he treated me. Elsewhere, the play was judged on its merits, and kindly judged. True, the society journalists stuck their knives into it sharply; but—après I am not ignoble enough to find in Mr Archer’s caustic pen a weapon guided by Mr Yates, or in the critic of Truth a mere tool of Mr Labouchere. My old friend Yates, though savage in stand-up fight, is made of manly fibre, incapable of lifelong malice, and Mr Labouchere is not the man to carry an old grudge into the literary arena.
     If I have not always shown the highest respect for criticism, I bear no ill-will to critics, and am not likely to go whining about injustice and malappreciation. Constant critical disagreement is in itself a proof of critical honesty, and for the rest, newspaper articles are the mere printed “talk” of good fellows more or less fallible. I certainly do not believe for a moment that any one of my accredited critics would go out of his way to do me an injustice. A free lance, a man who utters his convictions without fear and without favour, must expect to be attacked, especially by those to whom he has given bitter provocation. Only a coward would complain of retaliation, when he himself had dealt the first blow.
     A writer in Punch, apropos of these matters, says that the critics “never forget;” that, in other words, they allow old personal prejudices to influence their current decisions. Let me say once for all, that this sort of general accusation has never been uttered by me. Again and again, I have found good nature and magnanimity in the very quarters where I had the least right to expect them. I know human nature too well to impute mean motives to adversaries all round, and there is not a critic in London whom I believe capable of the meanness of “never forgetting.”
                                                                                                       I am, &c.,          ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     Olympic Theatre, Dec. 17th, 1885.

___

The Era (13 February, 1886)

R. BUCHANAN AND ARTHUR A. LOTTO.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—May I in the interest of members of the dramatic profession, and in justice to myself, ask you to kindly make public the following facts as to the manner of procedure taken by Mr Robert Buchanan and the Olympic management.
     On January 22nd I was verbally engaged by Mr Alfred Burnham, acting manager for Mr Buchanan, to play the part of Walter Burnaby in Alone in London for the rest of the London run of the piece (three weeks), and for the provincial tour to follow, the engagement being confirmed by Mr Buchanan fixing my salary, and in consideration of it being pointed out to me that the tour would run for about twenty weeks or more, I accepted a small salary, and also agreed to pay Mr Burnham 10 per cent. commission on my salary for ten weeks, which he demanded.
     I duly rehearsed the part in the presence of the members of the company, and played on Monday evening, January 25th, and every evening after until Friday, February 5th. On the previous Tuesday evening Mr H. Standing was taken ill, and could not play; and a member of the company suggested that the gentleman who had originally played my part, and who had been Mr Standing’s understudy, should be sent for, he having just returned from a provincial engagement. This was done, and he managed to get through the performance on the following evening. Mr Standing was enabled to resume his part, and, after the performance, Mr Burnham utterly took me by surprise by telling me that, as I had not attended the rehearsal called for that morning for the understudy, he was entitled to dismiss me there and then. On my remarking that he had no power to do this, he informed me that Mr Buchanan did not like the way I played the part, and that I should not be wanted after the Friday evening, having only been engaged on approval. This I at once strenuously denied.
     On last Saturday evening I went to the theatre, and was prepared to carry out my duties, but was prevented by the stage-manager, and informed I was no longer a member of the company, and since then have been refused admission to the theatre by the stage-door keeper, although my name has been advertised in the daily papers and appeared in the programme for the week. I have instructed my solicitor to commence an action for breach of contract and illegal dismissal against Mr Buchanan, and shall at the trial call my agents to prove that I told them on January 23d that I was engaged for the London run of Alone in London, and tour to follow. I have been offered a week’s salary to settle the matter, which I have refused, as it is preposterous to suppose that I should accept an engagement liable to instant dismissal when I have spent the amount of two week’s salary to dress a part, and pay Mr Burnham ten per cent commission on my salary, which I handed to him personally for the first week, and sent by post-office order for the second week’s salary. Added to this, Mr Burnham told me that the members of the company had complained of the way I had played the part, which has been denied by every one of them, thus endeavouring to injure my reputation.
     It may be asked why did I not have a written contract, which would put the matter beyond dispute? No member of the company had a written contract with Mr Buchanan, all being verbally engaged.
                                                                   I remain, yours very respectfully,
                                                                                                                   ARTHUR A. LOTTO.
     The American Exchange, 449, Strand, W.C.

___

The Era (28 August, 1886)

Lotto v. Buchanan.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—As I have lately received a number of inquiries from members of the theatrical profession relative to the action I entered against Mr Robert Buchanan asking me as to the result of the same, may I be allowed to mention, through the columns of your valuable paper, that Mr Buchanan paid my claim, with costs, previous to the day fixed for the trial.
                                                                                 I am, yours very truly,
                                                                                                                 ARTHUR A. LOTTO.
     449, Strand, August 21st, 1886.

___

The Era (29 January, 1887)

ROSELLE v. CONOVER.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—In the action of Roselle v. Conover it was stated that the defendant, on or about December 5th, 1885, was losing £200 per week on Alone in London. This statement requires some explanation.
     The production of Alone in London entailed a preliminary outlay of over £1,000, and the theatre, which was in very bad odour, held only £110 if closely packed. The expenses, including salaries to company, were very large, amounting, with the outlay, to nearly £800 weekly. It can thus readily be seen that many months would have had to elapse before business would be profitable.
     From the time when I personally took the theatre and continued the run of the play up till the present moment Alone in London has cleared many thousands of pounds, both in England and America. The authors’ profits alone have amounted to nearly £2,500.
     I make these explanations on behalf of Colonel Sinn, who holds the American right, and of Messrs Miller and Elliston, who hold the provincial right in England. All these gentlemen have made enormous sums out of this drama, and their profits are still accumulating.
     Let me take this opportunity of repeating, as I have again and again repeated in private, that I never attributed the losses of the first few weeks at the Olympic to Miss Roselle, and that, as I testified in the witness box, I have the highest opinion of that lady’s talent as an actress.
                                                                                                                         I am &c.,
                                                                                                                                   ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     Vaudeville Theatre, Jan. 25th, 1887.

[Note: This letter was also printed in The Standard (26 January, 1887).]

_____

MRS. CONOVER.
_____

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA.

     Sir,—Having no one to take up the cudgels for me I must do it myself, the more so because of late I have been more abused than ever. I see a letter from Mr Robert Buchanan which seems to me utterly uncalled for. I produced the play Alone in London at my own expense and at a great loss to myself, hoping ultimately that I might make something out of it, more especially as Mr Buchanan promised me that I should have a share of the profits made in the provinces. This was partly the reason which induced me to continue the piece as long as I did. As it is, I have never received a sixpence from Mr Buchanan for the profits made in the provinces, which he says were so large, and I incurred immense expense in advertising and scenery, from the effects of which I am still suffering.
     I admire Miss Roselle’s talent as an actress fully as much as Mr Buchanan, and I said so in the recent trial; but I assert again that, had not from the first misrepresentations been made to me as to Miss Roselle’s (Mrs Dacre’s) condition, I should not have engaged her. Mr Buchanan had his way in everything, and I had to bear the consequences; and had I known what Miss Jay was prepared to say in the witness-box I should never have defended the case, but should have sought to meet Miss Roselle in every way agreeable to her. As it was, I saw too late I had been made a dupe of from beginning to end in this matter.
     And now, Sir, I take this last opportunity to say how much I have been misled from the commencement of my lesseeship, and only bitter experience has taught me that I served the purpose of others, who had their own interests more at heart than mine. I took the theatre in order to learn the business, and to ultimately become an artist. I worked from morning till night, and spared no money or pains to get on and make others comfortable around me, and had nothing but continual persecution from persons directly or indirectly connected with the profession, who by a word of encouragement might have helped me onward. I have tried to bear it as bravely as I could, but I feel justified in saying, and so will others who know the circumstances, that I never had a fair chance.
     The only chance I had was at the “fag end” of my lesseeship, for I had only three months to study the part of Lady Macbeth under great difficulties—all the responsible cares of the production falling on my shoulders—and having spent the money in the past on the interior of the theatre, and for the good of the profession, I had none left to follow it up for myself, and so was left in the cold. I do not seek public favour or pity, but some of that proverbial justice with which the British public is credited. I beg your indulgence at the length of this letter, but, having hitherto fought the battles of others and borne the consequences of their follies as well as my own, I feel it is time I did so for myself. My only and last consolation is that all things come to those who wait, and that it is better to be injured than to injure.
                                                                               I am, Sir, faithfully yours,
                                                                                                                   ANNA CONOVER.
     11, Charlotte-street, Bedford-square, Jan. 20th, 1887.

[Note: A shorter version of this letter, omitting paragraphs 2 and 4, was also printed in The Standard (29 January, 1887 - p.3).]

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (16 February, 1887)

THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.

AN INTERVIEW WITH MISS AMY ROSELLE AND MR. ARTHUR DACRE.

THE case of Miss Amy Roselle and Mrs. Conover is still fresh in every one’s memory. Miss Roselle, one of our most accomplished actresses, brought an action against Mrs. Conover for wrongful dismissal and slander. It will be remembered that Miss Roselle had been engaged for the run of “Alone in London” at the Olympic Theatre. One evening she omitted a few unimportant lines from her part, quite accidentally; but next day a lawyer’s letter came from the management accusing her of “purposely omitting an important portion of an act of the play, and causing great confusion on the stage,” and forbidding her to appear at the theatre again. Mrs. Conover repeated the accusation to several people, and this was the slander complained of. This occurred in November, 1885.
     The case was tried before Mr. Justice Grove and a jury, and technically Miss Roselle won her case. We say “technically” advisedly, and the reader will see why if he glances at the following notes of a conversation with Miss Amy Roselle (Mrs. Dacre) and Mr. Arthur Dacre.

THEATRICAL MANAGERS AS WITNESSES.

     “Among other witnesses we called,” said Mr. Dacre, “two eminent London managers, Mr. Hare and Mr. Toole, who were prepared to swear that such an accusation might seriously injure my wife’s reputation, but Mr. Justice Grove refused to allow these gentlemen to speak on that point. This is of great importance, because—First, only a few weeks ago, in the case of Marius v. the Bat, the Lord Chief Justice allowed Mr. Toole and Mr. Bruce to say that the libel complained of might seriously injure the plaintiff, and mainly on the strength of this evidence the plaintiff received £100 damages and costs; and secondly, because in summing up, the judge stated that as the slander had only been mentioned to two or three people he did not see how the plaintiff’s reputation could suffer much. Now had the witnesses been allowed to speak they could have shown that it was impossible for an actress of my wife’s position,” continued Mr. Dacre, “to leave a theatre at a night’s notice without the matter causing great public comment; and, as a matter of fact, the matter was discussed and the reason stated in every theatrical paper in England and America, and she has suffered much pain and annoyance thereby.”

HOW A JUDGE DOES HIS DUTY.

     “Another point in this case,” continued Mr. Dacre, “is, I think, still more remarkable and of some public importance, as proving how a verdict intended by the jury to be unquestionably for a plaintiff may be turned into a verdict for the defendant. In the midst of Mr. Lockwood’s address for the plaintiff Mt. Justice Grove interrupted him, told him that it was a quarter to three, and that he would not sit after four o’clock—he would not do it on principle, even if he were physically strong enough. Mr. Lockwood therefore finished his speech rather abruptly. The judge summed up. The jury were told to consider their verdict, and the judge immediately left the court without waiting to hear what the verdict was. In half an hour the jury returned and found a verdict for the plaintiff on both counts. As regards the wrongful dismissal, they found for plaintiff for the full amount claimed £190); as regards the slander, they found that it was uttered, but added that it did not injure the plaintiff. The judge not being there to explain to them that this verdict was not a legal one, the jury then left the box.”

THE VITAL POINT.

     “Here, then, is the vital point—a point of the utmost public importance. A jury cannot give a verdict for slander for the plaintiff without giving some damages. Had the judge been there it would have been his duty to tell the jury that their verdict was illegal, that they must reconsider it, and that they must either find for the plaintiff and give some damages or find for the defendant. A day or two after Mr. Kemp took advantage of this and asked the judge to give judgment for the defendant on the slander. Mr. Lockwood warmly opposed this, pointing out that the judge, having left the court, there was no one to explain to the jury what they ought to do, and that, had there been, no doubt they would have given some damages. His lordship, however, decided to give judgment for the defendant as regarded the slander issue, and condemned plaintiff to pay costs; and this though the jury had most plainly given a verdict for the plaintiff.”

HOW MISS ROSELLE SAW THE JURYMEN, AND WHAT THEY SAID.

     “Miss Roselle determined to find out what the jury really meant, and called upon the foreman. That gentleman unhesitatingly told her that he was surprised and very sorry to see what Mr. Justice Grove had done; that the jury had unquestionably meant the verdict for the plaintiff, and had the matter been explained to them they would certainly have given enough damages to carry costs. He even added that so sure were they of the justice of her cause, that they had fully decided to give full damages on the wrongful dismissal before they left the box, and that as to the slander, although they could not see how a lady of such undoubted reputation had been injured, still they desired to give her their verdict in as decided and complimentary a way as possible. One gentleman had even proposed to give her £50 on the slander; another suggested £5; but he himself had said that if he gave anything he would not give less than £500, for it would be an insult to her reputation; and it was finally decided that as she would have full damages for the wrongful dismissal, they would give the verdict as they did. ‘I certainly took it as a compliment,’ said Miss Roselle. ‘I am very glad you did,’ the foreman replied, ‘for I assure you we intended it so.’ ‘May I ask what you would have done had the possible effect of your finding been explained to you?’ said Miss Roselle. ‘No doubt we should have given sufficient damages to carry costs.’”

VERY HARD LINES INDEED; BUT WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

     “My wife,” continued Mr. Dacre, “is now in this position: simple because the judge was not there to direct the jury, although she has clearly won her case, instead of receiving her fair damages and costs, she will probably be the loser of a considerable sum of money, and the verdict which twelve gentlemen of the jury unhesitatingly gave her in a most complimentary way has been turned into a verdict against her.”

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (17 February, 1887)

MR. JUSTICE GROVE AND THE ROSELLE JURY.

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

     SIR,—It is grossly unfair of Mr. Dacre to suggest that Mr. Justice Grove in any way was responsible for Mr. Lockwood “finishing his speech rather abruptly,” thereby implying that the learned counsel was prevented by the judge from doing full justice to his client. What happened was this: at a quarter to three o’clock Mr. Justice Grove said to Mr. Lockwood in effect, “I cannot sit later than four o’clock, and unless you finish your speech by three o’clock this case cannot be finished to-day, but I am quite ready to go on with it on the next available day.” The verdict on the slander was really and technically one for the  defendant, who never denied uttering the words, but who urged that they did not damage the plaintiff, and this was precisely what the jury found, and was so understood by most people in court at the time, whatever the foreman may say now.
—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
     February 16.                                                       A BARRISTER IN COURT DURING THE TRIAL.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (18 February, 1887)

“TRIAL BY JURY.”

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

     SIR,—Surely it is “grossly unfair” of your correspondent “A Barrister in Court, &c.” (why has not he the frankness to sign his name?) to ignore the main points in my statement, and to distort a very simple and unimportant sentence. I emphatically deny that I implied that Mr. Lockwood was prevented from doing justice to his client. To imply in any way that Mr. Lockwood did not do justice to his client, after the brilliant way in which that gentleman conducted his case, would be as ungrateful as it would be impertinent. The two points I wished to show were—first, that Mr. Justice Grove refused to admit important evidence which the Lord Chief Justice admitted in a similar case a few weeks back—which evidence gained a verdict for the plaintiff; second, that through the judge not staying to hear the verdict of the jury a verdict unquestionably given for the plaintiff was turned into a verdict for the defendant. These points I claim that I have proved, and as the anonymous “Barrister, &c.,” does not question either of them I can only assume that he agrees with me, and thank him for giving greater publicity to the case.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
     Haymarket Theatre, Feb. 17.                                                                ARTHUR DACRE.

_____

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

     SIR,—Although the trial of Roselle v. Conover is concluded, the trial of Roselle v. Buchanan, covering many of the same issues, has yet to be heard; and, much as I admire the ingenuity with which Mr. Arthur Dacre has led you into a pitfall, with the object of prejudicing the public mind and defeating the ends of justice, I cannot but protest against the publication of the so-called “interview” in your columns. The occupants of the judicial bench of England sit far above the region of Mr. Dacre’s spite and petulance, and can afford to smile when a pertinaciously litigious gentleman, disappointed of his “pound of flesh,” sends his already over-worried wife to interview nervous and impressionable jurymen. This, however, is a subject for Mr. W. S. Gilbert, not for one so immediately concerned as myself. I have only to protest against the publication, in the columns of any reputable newspaper, of matter which is concocted with only one purpose—that of indirectly influencing the verdict in a case not yet come to judgment.
                                                                                   —I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
     11A, Park-road, Regent’s Park, N.W.                                                                 ROBERT BUCHANAN.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (22 February, 1887)

THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.

To the EDITOR of the PALL MALL GAZETTE.

     SIR,—Although I have never in my life written to the press, I feel that I must do so now to deny that the statements which my husband and I made to your interviewer were in any way intended to defeat the ends of justice, or to prejudice my pending action against Mr. Buchanan, as that gentleman asserts in your issue of to-day, but simply to draw attention to a matter which I considered to be of public importance. That is all. I will merely add that the idea of Mr. Buchanan pretending to sympathise with my “worries,” considering that he is mainly responsible for them, is one of the funniest things I have met with in the course of a long, and I may add, not uneventful, professional career.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
     62, York-terrace, N.W., Feb. 18.                                                        AMY ROSELLE-DACRE.

__________

Letters to the Press - continued

or back to Alone in London main menu

or Letters to the Press menu