The Magnificent Montez Part 26

At intervals, however, other and better established items of news were received from Australia and, as opportunity offered, found a niche in the London papers. From these it would appear that all was not going smoothly with Lola's plans, and that the start of the Antipodean venture was somewhat tempestuous.

"In Sydney," says a letter on the subject, "a regrettable fracas recently occurred at the theatre where Madame Montez has been playing.

Stepping in front she endeavoured to quell the uproar by announcing that, while she herself 'rather liked a good row,' she would appeal to the gallantry of the _gentlemen_ in the pit and gallery to respect the wishes of a lady and not interfere with the enjoyment of others by interrupting the performance. The request, however, fell on deaf ears.

The uproar continued for some time, and was much increased by the actors and actresses squabbling among themselves on the stage."

There was a good deal of "squabbling" among the company. Its members were not a happy family. They had been engaged by their princ.i.p.al to support her. Instead, however, of rendering such support, a number of them did all they could to wreck the tour. Thereupon, Lola, adopting strong measures, discharged the malcontents and left for Melbourne by the next steamer. That she was justified in her action is clear from a letter which her solicitors sent to the Press:

"Our client, Madam Lola Montez, was unwise enough to engage, at enormous cost to herself, a very inferior company in California. Before starting, she made large advances to every one of them; paid their pa.s.sages from America (where they were nearly all heavily in debt) to Australia; and trusted that, in return for her immense outlay, she would at least receive efficient a.s.sistance from them. But this band of obscure performers not only loaded her with insults while they continued to live on her, but on their arrival in Sydney they one and all refused to discharge their allotted tasks."

"When Madam Montez (not unnaturally irritated by such conduct) proposed, through us, to cancel their agreements on reasonable terms, they insisted on the fulfilment of the contract which they themselves had been the first to break, and made claims upon her amounting to about 12,000. This _moderate_ demand being very properly refused by our client, they secured an order for her arrest in respect of a number of separate actions. Only one of these (a claim for 100) was lodged in time for a warrant to be issued. When, furnished with this, Mr. Brown, the sheriff's officer, appeared on board the steamer, Madam tendered him 500, which, however, he refused to accept, insisting that she should also settle the various other claims for which he did not have warrants. Our client refused to leave the vessel, for which refusal, we, as her solicitors, are quite willing to accept responsibility."

The fact that there was talk of inst.i.tuting proceedings against the captain of the steamer and his subordinates led the solicitors to add a postscript:

"Those who governed the movements of the _Watarah_ are ready to answer for their conduct. They saw a lady threatened with arrest at the last moment for a most unjust claim, tendering five times the amount demanded, and having that offer refused. Hence, they did not feel called upon to interfere."

Another account of the episode is a little different. This declares that, just before starting from Sydney, she "dismissed with a blessing" two members of the company. As they wanted something more easily negotiable, they issued a writ of attachment. When the sheriff's officer attempted to serve it: "Madame Lola, ever ready for the fray, retired to her cabin and sent word that she was quite naked, but that the sheriff could come and take her if he wanted to." An embarra.s.sing predicament; and, unprepared to grapple with it, "Poor Mr. Brown blushed and retired amid roars of laughter."

Having thus got the better of the Sydney lawyers, and filled up the vacancies in her company with fresh and more amenable recruits, Lola reached the Victorian capital without further adventure. A picture of the city, as it was when she landed there, is given by a contemporary author:

"Melbourne is splendid. Fine wide streets, finer and wider than almost any in London, stretch away for miles in every direction. At any hour of the day thousands of persons may be observed scurrying along them with true Cheapside bustle." The Melbourne youth, however, appears to have been precocious. "I was delighted," remarks this authority, "with the Colonial young stock. The average Australian boy is a slim, olive-complexioned young rascal, fond of Cavendish, cricket, and chuck-penny, and systematically insolent to girls, policemen, and new chums.... At twelve years of age, having pa.s.sed through every phase of probationary shrewdness, he is qualified to act as a full-blown bus conductor. In the purlieus of the theatres are supper-rooms (lavish of gas and free-mannered waitresses), and b.u.m-boat shops where they sell play-bills, whelks, oranges, cheroots, and fried fish."

But, notwithstanding the existence of these amenities, all was not well where Lola was concerned. The Sydney correspondent of the _Argus_ had injured her chances of making a favourable impression by writing a somewhat imaginative account of her troubles there:

"I need not tell you that the Montez has gone to Melbourne, as she will have arrived before this letter, and is not the sort of woman to keep her arrival secret. It may not, however, be so generally known that she has made what is colonially termed a 'bolt' from here.... Thinking, perhaps, that Australia was not yet a part of the civilised world, and that a company of players could not be secured here, Madame brought a set of comedians from San Francisco. They were quite useless. More competent help could have been had on the spot."

Lola said nothing. Her leading man however, Mr. Follard, had something to say, and wrote a strong letter to the editor:

"Permit me to state, with all due deference to your correspondent's term 'bolt,' that Madame Lola Montez left quietly and unostentatiously.... The attempt to stop her leaving Sydney and prevent her engagement in Melbourne was an exhibition of meanness at which every honest heart must feel disgusted. Alone, in a strange land, without friends or protector, her position as a woman should in itself have saved her from the unmanly abuse heaped upon her and the contemptible att.i.tude manifested by some of her company."

A second adverse factor against which Lola had to contend in Melbourne was that prices had been doubled for her engagement there. This was considered a grievance by the public. The difficulty, however, adjusted itself, for the programme she offered was one that proved specially attractive.

"The highest degree of excitement was," ran the _Herald_ criticism, "produced upon visitors to the Theatre Royal by the actual presence of this extraordinary and gifted being, with the praises of whose beauty and _esprit_ the whole civilised world has resounded.... After curtseying with inimitable grace to the audience, the fair _artiste_ withdrew amidst a fresh volley of cheers."

But Lola, who never missed an opportunity of airing her opinions, aired them now:

"At the end of the performance," says a report, "Madame Lola Montez was vociferously called and addressed the audience in an animated speech, commenting upon some remarks that had been published in a certain journal. When a gentleman ventured to laugh while she was enumerating the political benefits she had conferred on Bavaria, the fair orator promptly informed him that such conduct was not usually considered to be courteous."

The Melbourne engagement finished up with a triple bill. The princ.i.p.al item was a novelty she had, the "Spider Dance," which Lola had brought from America. In this she appeared with hundreds of wire spiders sewn on her attenuated ballet skirts; and, when any of them fell off, she had to indulge in p.r.o.nounced wriggles and contortions to put them back in position. The accompanying movements of her body were held to be by some standards "daring and suggestive." In fact, so much so that the representative of the _Argus_ dubbed the number "the most libertinish and indelicate performance that could possibly be given on the public stage. We feel compelled," he continued solemnly, "to denounce in terms of unmeasured reprobation the performance in which Madame Montez here figures." Yet, Sir Charles Hotham, the Governor, together with Lady Hotham and their guests, had witnessed it without sustaining any serious damage. But perhaps they were made of tougher material.

The critic of the _Morning Herald_ at this period (understood to be R.

H. Horne, "the Jules Janin of Melbourne") was either less thin-skinned or else more broad-minded than his _Argus_ comrade. At any rate, he saw nothing much to call for these strictures. Thinking that the newcomer had not been given fair play, he endeavoured to counteract the adverse opinion that had been expressed by publishing a laudatory one of a column length, in which he declared: "Madame Montez went through the entire measure with marked elegance and precision, and the curtain fell amid salvoes of well merited applause."

Convinced that here was a critic who really knew his business, and a friend on whom she could rely to do her justice, Lola wrote to the editor:

GRAND IMPERIAL HOTEL,

_September, 1855._

SIR,

A criticism of my performance of the "Spider Dance" at the Theatre Royal was published in this morning's _Argus_, couched in such language that I must positively answer it.

The piety and ultra-puritanism of the _Argus_ might prevent the insertion of a letter bearing my signature. Therefore, I address myself to you.

The "Spider Dance" is a national one, and is witnessed with delight by all cla.s.ses in Spain, and by both s.e.xes from Queen to peasant.

I have always looked upon this dance as a work of high art; and I reject with positive scorn the insinuation of your contemporary that I wish to pander to a morbid taste for what is improper or indelicate.

I shall be at my post to-morrow evening; and will then adopt a course that will test the value of the opinion advanced by the _Argus_.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _Lola as a Lecturer. From stage to platform_

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

AND

LECTURES

OF

LOLA MONTEZ

COUNTESS OF LANDSFELD]

The promised "course" was merely to deliver a long speech from the stage, and ask the audience to decide whether she should give the vexed item, or not. The audience were emphatic that she should; and, when she had finished, "expressed their views on the subject by uttering loud groans for the _Argus_ and l.u.s.ty cheers for the _Herald_."

Honours to Lola!

But the "Spider Dance" was still to prove a source of trouble. The next morning a certain Dr. Milton, who had const.i.tuted himself a champion of morals, appeared at the police-court and applied for a warrant for the arrest of Lola Montez, on the grounds that she had "outraged decency."

"I am in a position," he declared, "to produce unquestionable evidence of the indelicacy of her performance."

"You must take out a summons in the proper fashion," said the magistrate, who clearly had no sympathy with busybodies.

But, before he could do so, Dr. Milton found himself served with a writ for libel. As a result, nothing more was heard of the matter.

In addition to its Mawworms, of which it was afflicted with an appreciable number of specimens, the city of Melbourne would appear to have had other drawbacks at this period. According to R. H. Horne, local society was somewhat curiously const.i.tuted. "There is an attempt," he says, "at the nucleus of a 'court circle'; and if the Home Government think fit to make a few more Australian knights and baronets there may be good hopes for the enlargement of the enchanted hoop. The Melbourne 'Almack's' is to be complimented on the moral courage with which its directors have resisted the claims for admission of some of the wealthy unwashed and other unsuitables. Money is not quite everything, even in Melbourne."

There were further strictures on the morals of Victoria, as compared with those of New South Wales:

"The haunts of villainy in Sydney are not surpa.s.sed by those in Melbourne; but, with regard to drunkenness and prost.i.tution, the latter place is far worse than Sydney. The Theatre Royal contains within itself four separate drinking-bars. The Cafe de Paris, in the same building, has two bars. In the theatre itself there is a drinking public every night, especially when the house is crowded. Between every act it is the custom of the audience to rush out for a n.o.bbler of brandy. The only exceptions are the occupants of the dress-circle, more especially when the Governor is present."

By the way, the "List of Beverages" shows that, in proof of her popularity, a "Lola Montez Appetiser," consisting of "Old Tom, ginger, lemon and hot water," was offered to patrons.

Alcohol was not alone among the objects at which "Orion" Horne tilted.

He also disapproved of cricket. "The mania," he says, "for bats and b.a.l.l.s in the boiling sun during last summer exceeded all rational excitement. The newspapers caught the epidemic, and, while scarcely noticing other far more useful games, they devoted columns upon columns to minute accounts of the matches of a hundred different clubs. The very walls of Melbourne became infected. On the return of the Victorians from Sydney, a reporter for the _Herald_ designated them 'the laurelled warriors.' If there is no great harm in this, the thing has been carried too far."

It is just as well, perhaps, for Horne's peace of mind that the present day value attached to "Ashes" had not arisen, and that an Australian XI did not visit England until another twenty years had pa.s.sed.