1880 THE HAPPY LAND: [burlesque] Txt Adapt. Marcus Clarke; Mus. [n/e] # Joseph Aarons and James O'Meara, 1880 (printed by Alex McKinley) Adapted by Marcus Clarke (possibly in asssociation with R. P. Whitworth and perhaps actor H. E. Walton), The Happy Land is a two act satire in blank verse and prose based on W. S. Gilbert and Gilbert A' Beckett's 1873 burlesque of the same name, which was itself based on Gilbert's The Wicked World, which was first staged earlier that same year. The Gilbert and A'Beckett parody satiries the excesses of popular government, particularly that of the then Gladstone ministry which had "allegedly lessened British prestige abroad." It's storyline sees "three popular statemen invited to Fairyland to bestow on its inhabitants the blessings of their style of government; however, their precepts cause such chaos that the Fairies are relieved to see the last of them and return to their former dull but secure state" (Kelly, 74).1 The Clarke version targets a tinder-dry political subject - the row between Graham Berry's Liberal government and the Legislative Council. His text, which adheres fairly closely to the English play in all but the local detail, contains explicit and controversial references to Melbourne politics, personalities and issues, was not surprisingly banned in Melbourne by the government censor under orders from Berry. Although Clarke's reworking is less partial and bitter, while at the same time being somewhat more skeptical and good-natured than the original, Veronica Kelly observes that few people at the time would have read it as anything less than "a studied attack on the Liberal 'popular government" (74). Clarke begins his play with Melbourne press reports being raised in Fairyland with these suggesting that Victoria's government has turned the state into a political Eldorado. The Fairies subsequently send for three of the government's most popular statesmen to teach its own leaders the principles of "Popular Government." The fairy statesmen form into government and opposition and examine the former's suitability for office by distributing portfolios to the most venal and incompetent. The opposition grow discontented and determine to strike a blow for liberty. In the end the Fairies decide that Popular Government is too expensive a luxury. The publicised date for The Happy Land's premiere was Saturday 17 January. In her 1983 paper on the banning of The Happy Land, Kelly records that Berry's decision to stop the production as a "dramatic work" less than a week before the premiere created series of countermoves by the producers (Academy of Music manager, Joseph Aarons and lessee James O'Meara), the writer (under both his real name and his pseudonym "Atticus"), and other members of the Melbourne press. Initially Aarons, O'Mera and Clarke attempted to get a rewritten version through the government censor. When this was again refused by Berry, consideration was being given on the Friday (16 Jan.) to producing the original A'Beckett play. This option was dismissed on the day of the premiere, however, when the actors could not satisfactorily unlearn the Clarke script. In the end a decision was made sometime during the day to produce Clarke's piece not as a stage play (as defined in the prohibition notice) but as a more or less a public lecture- without any acting or evidence of a "staged" production. The Australasian records in this respect that "the piece was produced in plain dress without character make-up, but with the notorious propos of travelling bag, sword and tar brush" (ctd. Kelly, 83) [see image right]. As Kelly notes, the emphatic omission of names of characters could only have drawn more attention to the play's satirical intent. The performance, she writes, made Berry's "stance seem ludicrous and dictatorial, and played into his opponent's hands" (83). In this respect the Portland Guardian echoed the sentiments of most critics and political observors of the time, when in its 20 January edition its editor wrote: The following is a fair sample of the most objectionable Author of "Our Unhappy Land," the Actors in "The Happy Land." --- "I part of the dialogue which Mr Berry says is unfit for a SHALL PROHIBIT EVERYTHING ON THE STAGE INIMICAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF GOOD MANNERS, DECORUM, OR colonial theatre. The only wonder is that Punch is allowed MORALITY." to exist, and that the proprietors have not long ago been The three characters at the rear are L-R: John Woods, with sword (Minister for indicted under the Newspaper Statute for treason, Railways and Roads), William Collard Smith, with tar brush (Minister for blasphemy, heresy and every other iniquity (2). Mines and Public Instruction) and Graham Berry, with travelling bag (Premier) Melbourne Punch 22 Jan. (1880), 35. 1 Unless otherwise noted all citations for Veronia Kelly in this entry refer to "Banning of Marcus Clarke's The Happy Land" (1983). With the Melbourne production limited to two nights and reduced to a spoken-word production, US actor/ managers Edwin Kelly and Frances Leon decided to give The Happy Land a full production over two weeks in Sydney in late January/early February. A clandestine Victorian production was also staged in Frankston on 6 February. Interstingly, both Victorian productions included among the cast members a young actor, Thomas Bent, who would himself become in later years Victorian premier. The Happy Land was also staged in several cities in New Zealand, beginning around late February. The last known production was in September. The text for this version was localised by a local journalist/editor as a means of burlesquing that country's statesmen (Kelly, 101). There has long been some conjecture over who actually wrote the burlesque, a matter which Kelly argues has been the result of an "elaborate game of cover-up and cover-blowing" that developed "to a farcical extent" prior to and in the weeks after the premiere (74). This confusion has been compounded by the fact that the published text (included as part of the production program) credits actor Henry Walton as author. According to Kelly, Clarke also helped instigate the confusion through his Leader column, "Under the Verandah" (which he contributed under the pseudonym "Atticus"). She notes that in the 10 January edition he not only leaked "some tantalising advance publicity for the 'new and grand burlesque of great local and Victorian interest'," but also named Walton as the adaptor (74): "Rumour has it that Mr Walton has written some very pungent lines applicable to present politicians" (ctd Kelly, 74). Kelly notes that Walton also named himself as the author on several occasions. The first of these was in a letter to the Argus (published on 15 January). That same day he also accepted responsibility in a statement made to the police when they served prohibition notices at the Academy of Music. Kelly argues, however, that while Walton, "the star actor… who joined the company to play The Major," may have made contributions or suggestions during the rehearsal stages, the manuscript held by the Mitchell Library (written entirely in Clarke's handwriting) shows that he "certainly 'wrote' no lines at all" (75).2 Sydney Morning Herald 16 Jan. (1880), 5. Robert Percy Whitworth's association with the burlesque is similarly unclear. His name certainly appears as author on the manuscript submitted to the Patent Office on 13 January, the registration for which was officially cancelled two days later by the Attorney-General Sir Bryan O'Loghlen. In his letter to the Argus (17 Jan.) Whitworth claims however, that the writing was a collaboration: "The fact is that I, representing Mr Walton and myself, did register the piece of our adaptation of it… " (ctd Kelly, 78). In their statements to the police at the theatre on 15 January, however, Aarons and Walton both denied that Whitworth had anything "whatever to do with the writing of the play" (ctd. Kelly, 79). Evidence supporting Clarke's role as primary, if not sole, author comes from several sources – notably the handwritten manuscript held by the Argus 17 Jan. (1888), 12. Mitchell Library. A comprehensive analysis of the handwriting indicates that Clarke was responsible for the entire manuscript (Kelly, 75). The first newspaper to unequivocally name him as the adaptor was the Argus in its 16 January issue (Kelly, 79). The following day the Leader's "Amusements" column also put his name into the mix: "The adaptor is said tobe Mr Marcus Clarke. If such is the fact, he is to be congratulated on the production, as it is one of the most pungent, and at the same time humorous political skits contributed to the colonial stage" (ctd. Kelly, 85). Other papers to credit him as author include the Sydney Morning Herald (22 Jan.), Sydney Mail (24 Jan.) and Daily Telegraph (29 Jan.). Another puzzling aspect of the authorship issue is that Clarke's hand (using a different ink) is identified as having written "M. Clarke &" over the initial inscription "R. P. Whitworth" on the cover of the Office of Copyright manuscript. The same handwriting (and same ink) has also cancelled the copyright stamps. Veronica Kelly believes that this indicates that "it was Clarke who undertook the mental and physical labour of adapting the Gilbert work; that he originally ascribed his own work to his friend Whitworth; and that at some time subsequent to this he added his own name on the title page" (108). The Mitchell Library manuscript (C 449) includes a newspaper clipping disputing the authorship and (erroneously) claiming that H. E. Walton was in fact R. P. Whitworth. The holding is also accompanied by a handwritten note by historian Brian Elliot, and a typed letter from L.