Month: September 2024

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

“Richard Douglass, Painting Rooms, Next Grand Theatre, London N.” appears on several wings at the Normansfield Theatre.

He painted over several woodland scenes that were originally delivered by J. T. & G. Bull to the stage. These pieces were repainted sometime after 1891; as 1891 was the year that Douglass moved his painting rooms from Tottenham Street to the Grand Theatre in Islington.

Samuel “Richard” Douglass was a prolific scene painter, theatre manager, and comedian. His parents were theatre manager John Douglass (Sr.) and Jane Isabella Goodwin. John (1814-1874) married Jane Isabella Goodwin (1816-1881) on Feb. 11, 1835. The two celebrated the birth of their first child, John Thomas, in 1842, with Samuel Richard Douglass arriving two years later on March 17, 1844. Born in Lambeth, Surrey, England, he was named after his paternal grandfather, Samuel Douglass (b. 1780).

The year after Richard’s birth, John Douglas began managing the National Standard Theatre in Shoreditch. For geographical context, Shoreditch is located in the London Borough of Hackney, considered to be part of the East End.

This theatre, also known as The Standard, was first built in 1837 on the site of the Royal Standard Public House and Pleasure Gardens. It was located opposite the Eastern Railway Station. The original structure was rebuilt in 1844, absorbing an adjacent site, with twelve houses. The new structure was home to not only a stage, but also a circus arena.

On May 17, 1845, The Illustrated London News  reported, “The East-enders have now their Amphitheatre, or Cirque Olympique, for equestrian performances, which the proprietors of the New Standard Theatre have just provided for, in a novel and ingenious manner…The interior is of the horseshoe form, and a domed roof…The proscenium is 30 feet wide by 30 feet in height; the auditory has a circle of ten private, and fourteen public boxes, which, with the pit and gallery, will accommodate 2200 persons” (p.320). The stage and proscenium boxes were built to recede, thus revealing could shift, revealing a circus ring that could be filled with water.

The theatre became a training ground for his children. John and Jane Douglass celebrated the birth of five other children arrived over the years: Henry Charles (b. 1848), Alice Clara (b. 1850), Frederick Jerrold (b. 1852), Arthur Douglas (b. 1857) and Agnes Margaret (b. 1858). Then network of theatrical support continued as the family expanded. Three of his five sons followed in their father’s footsteps: John Jr., Richard, and Arthur.

I am going to start with a few excerpts from his father’s obituary entitled, “Death and Memoir of Mr. John Douglass.” Published on Feb. 8, 1874, in The Era, the obituary reported, “Acting under the advice, and profiting by the influence, his uncle, William Douglass, was the gas engineer at Covent-garden Theatre, he obtained, at the age of eleven, the envied eighteenpence a night at that time given to the small auxiliaries who appeared in Pantomimes. Farley, the famous inventor and arranger of these spectacular productions, speedily chose him out from a throng of other urchins as his favorite “Imp.”  Whatever little John Douglass did he was sure to throw his heart into, and, indeed on one occasion, when he appeared (April 12^th, 1826) as one of the Sprites of the Storm in Weber’s grand romantic opera of Oberon, this excessive zeal nearly brought him into serious tribulation. Fortunately, the mask he wore enabled him to escape the consequence of his disregarding stage directions, and on Boxing Night, 1826, when the Pantomime of Riquet with the Tuft was produced at Covent-garden Farley made a special point of selecting “clever little Jack” for the principal Turnspit Dog in the Magic Kitchen. At this Theatre, studying attentively in the best Theatrical school, Master John Douglass remained till he grew up to manhood, and he then began to try how far the lessons he had acquired would give him the position to which his aspirations tended. There were several small, but well-managed, Theatres at this period, unrecognized by the Magistrates, endeavoring to break through the strict cordon of the Lord Chamberlain, and to one of these unlicensed Theatres, in Westminster, Mr. John Douglas attached himself. He was an excellent dancer, a good pantomimist, a proficient broad swordsman, and one of the best of stage sailors… It may also be noted that Mr. John Douglas played with great success some of his nautical parts at Drury-lane in the early time of Mr. E. T. Smith’s management… All these acquisitions made him immensely popular, and having now to rely more than ever on his own resources – for his worthy uncle, William Douglass, had been killed by a terrible gas explosion at Covent Garden Theatre, November 18, 1828 – he worked with redoubled energy. After going through a round of characters in nautical melodramas which caused his name to be prominently brought forward, he became the obscurity, and here he continued several years, advancing his own interests and that of the property. In 1845, Mr. John Douglas became Manager of the Standard Theatre, 204 High-street, Shoreditch, and after seven years afterwards he became possessed of the freehold. In this management he succeeded Nelson Lee, who then went to the City of London. Recognizing the capabilities of the establishment, and the requirements of the educated theatrical taste of playgoers in that populous district, Mr. John Douglass conceived the possibility of paying, with remuneration to himself, the very largest salaries to distinguished artiste’s previously only seen at the West-end…The Theatre which he had raised to such a pitch of unexampled prosperity was turned down on the morning of Sunday, October 21, 1866; but, undaunted by this disaster, Mr. John Douglass raised an infinitely superior structure on the site, and purchasing some freeholds of some adjacent properties, the energetic Lessee gave to the East-end of London the advantage of the largest Theatre in the Metropolis. The magnificent new building, which remains as a monument to his enterprise, was opened with a grand inaugural operatic concert on Wednesday, December 18^th, 1867, and astounded the public with its four tiers of boxes and ninety private boxes. This building was constructed entirely without architect’s or builder’s plans. The points of the site were practically fixed, and the theatre measurements traced on the ground itself. The shape of the Theatre (so much admired) was made in bricks on the ground of the old Theatre by the late Mr. Douglass himself, and with vast seating accommodation were due to Mr. John Douglass’ practical suggestions. From 1833 to 1845 Mr. John Douglas was Manager successively of the Gravesend Theatre, the old City Theatre in Milton-street, the Orange-street Theatre, Chelsea; the Clarence (now Cabinet), King’s-cross; the Yorkshire Stingo (now the Marylebone Baths), the old East London, the new Queen’s, Windmill-street, Haymarket (now the Argyle Rooms), and the Westminster, as before stated. In 1857 he also became Manager of the Pavilion Theatre and carried on that speculation conjointly with the Standard for fourteen years. His last appearance on the stage was in Ben the Boatswain, May 1869. Not only as actor, manager and proprietor, but also dramatic author, Mr. John Douglass deserves to be remembered for both the Marylebone and the Standard he contributed several effective pieces. As may be imagined from his early  training, he had valuable knowledge of stage effect, and his arrangement of pantomimic action and his invention of changeable devices made the Standard Pantomime always exceedingly popular and amusing. Among the family left to mourn his loss his sons – one the eminent scene painter, and the other the author of several popular pieces produced at the Standard – will be living evidence of the care and affection which he bestowed on the education of his offspring.”

The Douglass children grew up in the shadow of John Douglass, learning a variety of theatrical trades at the Standard Theatre.

The 1851 Census listed the Douglass family residing at 3 York Place, Haggeston West, Shoreditch, Middlesex. This was six years after John Douglass began managing the Standard Theatre. That year, the Douglass household included: John Douglass (37, Comedian), Jane (35), Isabella (12), John (8), Richard (6), Henry (3), Alice (1/2), Two servants.

A decade later the 1861 Census listed the Douglass Household at Castle Villa, Dalston House,Hackney, Middlesex . By now, Richard’s older brother John Thomas Douglass (Jr.) was listed as a dramatic author, with 16-yrs.-old Richard Douglass still listed as a Scholar. Other Members in the John Douglass (Sr.) household included: John (47), Jane (45), Isabella Caroline (22, organist), John Thomas (18, dramatic author), Samuel R. (16, scholar), Henry C. (13, scholar), Alice C. (11, scholar), Frederick J. (9, scholar), Arthur D. (4), Agnes M. (2), Samuel (father, 81), Emily Bayles (niece, 16), and two servants.

By the age of 20, Richard Douglass’s scenic art was making news. Here are just a few articles from 1865:

On Oct. 1, 1865, The Era reported, “New and Beautiful scenery by Mr. Richard C. Douglass” for INGOMAR and THE BRIDAL at the “New Great National Standard Theatre, Shoreditch” (page 8).

On Oct. 15, 1865, The Era announced, r New Scenery by M. Richard Douglass” for OTELLO and MERCHANT OF VENICE. “ (page 8).

On Oct. 22, 1865, The Era reported, “New and Extensive Scenery by Mr. Richard Douglass” for production HENRY THE FOURTH. (p. 8)

Both Richard and his father were mentioned in an article about this same production on Nov 5, 1865, Reynold’s Newspaper: “The National Standard. Mr. John Douglass, the spirited proprietor of this theatre, in pursuance of a policy he has carried out for two years, of having one or two stars in the profession as an attraction, engaged for some months this season Mr. Creswick, the well-known tragedian, Mr. Ryder (of the Princess’s and Lyceum Theatre), and Miss Sarah Thorne, a very clever and engaging actress…The new scenery by Mr. Richard Douglass, Mr. J. Neville, Mr. Wellsey, and their assistants, was really beautiful, especially the view of the plain of Shrewsbury and the battle which decided the fate of the insurgents” [Henry the Fourth]  (p. 4).

Douglas would continue to work with John Garside Neville (1820-1886) for the next two decades. Neville came from a silk dying background; he was already working in the family business when the census was taken in 1841. By the 1851 census, Neville had transitioned from the silk-dying trade to scenic art. That year he was listed a scenic artist, living in Holywell, Shoreditch, Middlesex. By 1871 census, with his son, Fred Neville, working as an assistant, both living in Haggeston West, St Leonard Shoreditch, London.

On Nov, 5, 1865, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper described the scenery for Henry IV, reporting “The new scenery by Mr. Richard Douglass is bold and full of interesting detail – Shrewsbury fight, need it be said, coming in for the greatest honours of scenic building and painting” (p. 8). This scene was also mentioned in The Era on Nov. 5, 1865: “The new and beautiful scenery painted by Mr. Richard Douglass and will include the Palace in London – Gadshill by Moonlight – The Rebel Camp – The Plain of Shrewsbury”

On Dec. 24, 1865, The Era published an article about The Standard Theatre’s pantomime – “Pat-a-cake, Pat-a-cake, Baker’s-man; or Harlequin Bah! Bah! Black Sheep” reporting that “a splendid scene [Causeway of the Pixies]” was painted by Mr. Richard Douglass” (p. 12). The article continued, “A perfect hive of mechanics have been engaged for the production and novel effects of a the Fairy Ballet and Transformation scenes…[the Causeway of the Pixies and Herr Kozenou’s Patent Steam Shaft will be brought into requisition to develop some of the most extraordinary mechanical contrivances ever placed before an English audience…The New Scenery painted by Mr. Douglass, including the Fairy ballet mentioned, and a  most truthful representation of a Village Green, with cattle grazing, and live sheep in a sheep-fold” (p. 8).

Douglass was also working with scenic artist John Neville to paint the settings. On Dec. 31, 1865, The Era announced that “The beautiful scenery has been painted by Mr. Richard Douglass and Mr. J. Neville, the first-named of whom has thoroughly excelled in all his previous efforts [great descriptions.”

It was not until December 1865, that we newspaper credit William Telbin (1815-1873)  with the training of Richard Douglass. On  Dec. 31, 1865, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper  reported “The scenery, by Mr. Richard Douglass, who has been a pupil under Mr. Telbin, is very beautiful, and much of it is in the celebrated artist’s best style (p. 7).

Descriptions of Douglass’ scene painting flooded newspapers by the late-1860s. Telbin and Douglass continued to work together, with Telbin painting a new act-drop and Douglass painting the stock scenery for the Standard Theatre  after the venue was destroyed by fire on Oct. 28, 1866.

The New National Standard Theatre reopened in December 1867, after its foundation stone was laid on July 4 of that same year.  

An illustration of the new theatre was published in The Builder  on Dec. 28, 1867 (p. 940).

On Dec 28, 1867, The Builder published described the new venue in an article entitled, “The National Standard Theatre, Shoreditch” (p. 28). The article reported, “The National Standard Theatre was burnt down in October of last year, and for some time the site has remained unoccupied.  In July 1867, however, the first stone of a new theatre was laid; and last week the building was opened to the public. It is large and lofty, and we now give a view of the interior, produced under some difficulties. The ground upon which the old Standard stood has been considerably enlarged for the new theatre by a purchase adjoining property. The site was originally that of the old Curtain Theatre, one of the most ancient playhouses in the metropolis. This theatre is mentioned as early as 1578, in a sermon at St. Paul’s Cross. Ben Johnson exhibited is abilities here as both an actor and an author. Upon this ground, Mr. Douglass has erected his new theatre. The main building is 167 ft. in length and 90 ft. wide. The height of the interior, from pit floor to the top of the dome is 84 fts. Within this space four tiers of boxes and a gallery are constructed, each one receding from the other, the lowest circle being 54 ft. in width, the highest on 66ft. There are no columns visible in front of the house. The first tier is a balcony of cushioned arm chairs, covered in crimson velvet. Behind is a circle of comfortable little private boxes, fitted and lighted in a convenient manner. The shape of the interior of the building is a horse-show. The theatre is to be lighted by a massive crystal sunlight, by Messrs. Defries & Sons. All the staircases are of stone. The gallery staircase and the two at the side of the proscenium are carried the whole height of the building. From the main entrance in Shoreditch a double flight of stone steps conducts a spacious lobby, where they break off to communicate in separate flights with the several tiers. This lobby is surmounted by a dome, rising 40 ft. The box saloon is large. An iron bridge spans the room, forming the main entrance to the third tier of boxes. Above the saloon and running nearly the whole length of the front building, is a spacious room, which will make a concert of billiard room, There are ninety private boxes in the theatre. The decorations re mostly of papier mâché, coloured and gilt. The stage at the proscenium is 44 ft. wide, and from the footlights to the back wall is 70 ft., and to the front of the first horse-shoe 66 ft. To the barrel-loft the height is 94 ft., hence the greater part of the stage working will be in the flies, the scenery consisting chiefly of cloths. The act-drop has been painted by William Telbin. It is partly shown in the view. The curtain is composed of crimson silk velvet, arranged in folds, and embellished with golden fringe. We may take another opportunity to speak of the merits or demerits of this new place of public resort when we have seen it filled with persons” (p. 942).

During the planning and construction of the New National Standard Theatre, John Douglass managed the City Theatre of London (later St, James Theatre), 35-36 Bishopsgate Street, Norton Folgate.

Richard Douglass was also credited with new scenery for the City Pantomime “Ding Dong, Bell, Pussy’s in the Well,” under the management of his father (The Era 6 Jan 1867 p. 8). On Jan. 27, 1867, The Era reported, “The new scenery by Richard Douglass, Including the Transformation Scene (the theme of universal admiration, representing Ding, Dong, Glade, comprising Thirteen distinct Changes, and terminating with a splendid Tableaux” (p. 8). On Feb. 3, 1867, The Era published that the Grand Transformation Scene, by Richard Douglass, was “nightly greeted with tremendous bursts of applause” (p. 8).

Douglass was continually heralded for his landscapes and woodland scenes; it was his specialty. In fact, there was almost too much information in online newspaper collections to process. Each year, there were a couple hundred mentions of Richard Douglass’ scenic work, and search results continued to increase throughout the 1870s. For example, there were 456 matches by 1879 and by 1883, there were well over 600; these were all for the correct person. Douglass’s name consistently advertised as a scenic artist and was repeatedly listed as a manager and scenic artist at a few theatres.  He was a prolific scenic artist and theatre manager.

Douglass’s scenic art was described in detail throughout 1868. On Jan. 19, 1868, p. 11, The Era  described the Christmas spectacle at the Standard Theatre, Oranges and Lemons, Said the Bells of St. Clement’s: or Harlequin and the Good Fairy of the New Year. “…the exquisite sylvan scene, called the Golden Stem Valley, was one of surpassing loveliness, and that it, and the view of a Pass in the Kingdom of Riches, had been most artistically executed by Mr. Richard Douglass, who designed and painted them. Now that circumstances are more favorable for observation, we can, with greater readiness, recognize the truthful perspective, clear outlines, and rich colouring which are conspicuous in them. In the superb Transformation Scene of the Dripping Well, or Dewdrops at Evening, there is also now greater fulness and brilliancy. The lovely living tenants of the vast aquarium, and the whole glittering embellishments of the scene, look superlatively resplendent. Some of the hues are particularly pretty, and the effect produced by them are akin to magical. The acting in the piece is equal in excellence to the mounting of it.” (p. 11).

Douglass became known for his spectacular stage scenes at the Standard Theatre that included Alphine waterfalls and train wrecks. On May 17, 1868, The Era  reported on the audience’s reception of this thrilling scene in Danger, reporting, “The Wreck Scene nightly redemanded, and receives a perfect ovation” (p. 8). In addition to working at the Standard, Douglass also became associated with the Egyptian Theatre. On Nov. 1, 1868, The Era announced that Mr. Richard Douglass also delivered scenery for the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly.

In 1870, Douglass started a new chapter in both his professional and personal life. He began to place a series of advertisements in The Era. Over the next three decades, his name would constantly appear in newspapers, listing his services and theatrical associations. In 1870, an advertisement placed in The Era stated:

“To Theatrical Managers and Others. Mr. Richard Douglass, Scenic Artist, having at his command a Large Painting Room, and every facility for Scene Painting, is prepared to arrange for Large or Small Contracts on reasonable terms. Address, New National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 1)

That same year, he also married his first wife, Marie Armstrong (1848-1871). The couple was married on May 10, 1870, at Holy Trinity, Newington. On June 12, 1870, The Era announced, “Marriage – On May 30^th, at Holy Trinity Church, Southwark, by Rev. Daniel A. Moullin., S. Richard Douglass (the well-known scenic artist, the second son of John Douglass, Esq., Proprietor of the National Standard Theatre), to Marie, eldest daughter of William Armstrong, Esq. No cards.”

The 1871 Census listed the young couple living at 1 Graham Terrace in West Hackney. The household included Richard (26), Mary (29) and a servant. On Oct. 7, 1871, The Graphic: An Illustrated Weekly Newspaper announced the arrival of their first child – “Douglass.- On the 28^th ult., at 3, Graham Terrace, Dalston, N. E., the wife of Mr. Richard Douglass, of a son” (p. 22). Marie died the next day. Ernest “Leslie” Law Goodwin was baptized on Jan. 28, 1872.

During this same time, Douglass was completing scenery for the Christmas pantomime, Aladdin. On Jan. 7, 1872, The Era reported, “Always celebrated for its pantomimes, has never produced one so elaborately mounted as Aladdin, which will manifestly be held in high favour by the eastern region for the next two months to come. The scenery painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, an artist in the most foremost rank, is extremely good, and the mechanical effects are more novel and ingenious than usual. Vast as is the capacity of this extensive building, room is not always found for the large concourse of persons eagerly crowding round the various avenues to get a chance of beholding the diversified Recreation Grounds of the Emperor, the brilliant “Revels of Celestial Slaves of the Lamp,” and that marvel of the mechanism the Ascent of the Flying Palace.” (p. 10).

He was also delivering scenery for touring shows, working alongside other well-known London artists, including Charles Fox and Fred Hall. On March 13, 1872, the North Mail, Newcastle Daily Chronicle (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) advertised the production of Coriolanus with “New scenery by Mr. Charles Fox, Mr. Richard Douglass, and Mr. F. Hall” (p. 1).

In addition to placing newspaper advertisements for his painting services, also began listing scenery for sale. On 16 Nov. 1873, The Era published, “For Sale, Fit-Up, suitable for a Travelling Entertainment. Magnificent Proscenium, Side Scenes (with doors), Back Roller Scene (to match), Painted by Richard Douglass, Standard Theatre, London. For price, apply to M. B., 3 Northfield-terrace, Cheltenham.”

This practice continued throughout the duration of his career. I have become quite fascinated with his advertisements, as they are so consistent and numerous in The Era. Here are a few of his advertisements from 1878-1888:

On March 12, 1878, The Era  published, “To Amateur Theatrical Clubs and Others. For Sale (New), Several Drop Scenes, with Batons and Rollers. For price and subjects, apply to Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate. Estimates given for complete sets of Amateur Scenery, Prosceniums, &c.” (p. 19).

On August 11, 1878, The Era announced, “For sale, several drop scenes, with roller, &c., quite new. Suitable for halls, amateur clubs, or small theatres. Size, 17 ft. wide, 14 ft. high. Also, a New Act-Drop. Apply to Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 15).

On June 18, 1881, The Era published, “For sale, several drop scenes (new), 16 ft. by 14 ft. Also, an Act Drop. Apply, Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate, London” (p. 23).

In January 1882, The Era, published, “Painting Rooms, National Standard Theatre

Mr. Richard Douglass, Scenic Artist Is prepared to Accept contracts (Large or Small) upon reasonable terms. Information and Estimates requisite for Stocking New Theatres. Scenery for Amateur Performances kept in stock or painted to order. Panoramas, complete or separate views, &c. Address as above” (p. 7).

On Feb 10, 1883, The Era  advertised, “FOR SALE, a New ACT-DROP, size 20ft. wide, 17 ft., 10 in. long, capable of being reduced, or even enlarged, without injury to the subject. To be sold reasonable, owning to a mistake made in giving measurement. Address, Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre, London” (p. 21).

On Feb 23, 1884, The Era advertised, “For Sale, Several Drop Scenes, size 16 ft, 6 in. wide, 14 ft. high; also an Act Drop, all new. Address Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre” (p. 26).

On July 26, 1884, The Era published, “National Standard Theatre. Richard Douglass (Scenic Artist) is prepared to accept Contracts, large or small, upon reasonable terms. Estimates requisite for stocking new Theatres. Scenery for Amateur Performances kept in stock or painted to order. Panoramas, complete or separate views, &c. Address as above” (p. 20).

In Jan. 1885, The Era published, “For Sale, small act drop, 20 ft. wide 17 ft. high; also some stock cloths, 16 ft. 6 in. by 14 ft. 6 in. All new. Address Richard Douglass, Painting Room. National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 24).

On March 7, 1885, The Era  published, “For Sale, a Small Act-Drop, 20 ft. wide by 17ft. high. Also, some Stock Cloths, 16 ft. 6 in. by 14 ft. 6 in. All new. Address, Richard Douglass, Painting Room, National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 21).

On March 27, 1886, The Era announced, “For Sale, Several New Cloths, various subjects. Two sizes, 26 ft. wide by 21 ft. high. 17 ft. wide by 15 ft. high. Very reasonable. Also, a Small Act-Drop. Apply Richard Douglass, Painting Room, Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate, London” (p. 20).

On Jan. 16, 1886, The Era published, “For sale. Two cloths. 26 ft., Wide, 21 ft. high. Subjects – An Old French Street, a woody Landscape. These were painted for Mrs. Langtry on Tour, but afterwards not required. Also, several smaller cloths, 16 ft. 6 in. wide, 14 ft. 6 in. high. Subjects – Various. Address, Richard Douglass, Painting Room, Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 20).

On Oct. 29, 1887, The Era published, “For Sale, several cloths, all perfectly new. Sizes, 26 ft. by 21 ft. by 18 ft. and 17 ft. by 15 ft. Drawing-rooms, Oak Chambers, Street, Gardens, &c. Address, Richard Douglass, Painting Room, Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 22).

On May 19, 1888, The Era  published, “For Sale. – Several Cloths (New), various sizes, 26ft. by 21ft., 21ft. by 18ft., 17ft. by 14ft. Drawing rooms, Landscapes, Gardens. Apply Richard Douglass, Painting Rooms, Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate.” (p. 21).

Back to the story…

In 1874, Douglass delivered new scenery to St. James Hall after the space was renovated. [The Era  8 Feb 1874, p. 9]. The announcement came shortly after his father, John Douglass Sr. passed on Jan. 31, 1874. That fall, Richard Douglass married his second wife, Laurina Campland Brook (1853-1940), the daughter of William and Emily Brook of Kennington, Surrey. Brook was an actress who later went by the stage name of Stella Brereton. The couple was married on Oct. 28, 1874. At the time, she was living with her parents in Kennington, Surrey. Her father worked for a Commercial Newspaper agency.

1874 certainly had its share of challenges. Despite the joy of getting married, Douglass immediately was faced with a series of challenges. He and his older brother, John T. Douglass began to manage the Standard Theatre. The transition must not have been an easy one, as they were immediately faced with a court case. On Dec. 13. 1874, The Observer published hearings from the Court of Queen’s Bench. The case, “Shore v. Douglass and Another. – Accident at the Standard Theatre” was described in detail. An actor was suing to recover damages for personal injuries received from a fall, citing the cause to be the alleged mismanagement of a part of machinery at the Standard Theatre, Shoreditch (p. 5). The plaintiff was a comedian with the Adelphi Company, playing the character Heery Cavanaugh in the “Peep o’ Day.” His foot caught on a projecting piece of wood (piece of profile tree near a platform) during an action scene causing him to fall about twelve feet and suffer a head injury.  The issue was that the tree profile had been brought with the Adelphi company, and there had been no issue several times during rehearsals. The ruling supported that the accident did not arise in the manner stated by the plaintiff.

That fall, Douglass was also completing scenery for the Standard Theatre’s Christmas pantomime, Harlequin Robinson Crusoe and His Man Friday. On Dec. 20, 1874, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper  published about the production, describing all of the scenic elements, especially the grand transformation scene. The article reported, “From Storm to Sunshine, includes five distinct mechanical changes. The whole of the scenery has been painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, Mr. J. Neville Goodram [sic.], and assistants; and the pantomime is written, invented, and produced by Mr. John Douglass, author of the pantomimes for the past ten years.” It was further described in The Standard on Dec. 28, 1874:  “It is giving no small amount of praise to the scenery to say that throughout it is equal to anything which the masterly hand of Mr. Richard Douglas has hitherto produced, but especially worthy of commendation are the moving panorama of the journey to the island itself and the transformation scene, which is called “From Storm to Sunshine.” In “The Mystic Isle,” a ballet scene immediately preceding the transformation, is introduced a variety of admirably executed tableaux, in which a pleasing and somewhat remarkable effect is produced by the sudden ignition of gas upon the starts upon the helmets of the dancers as they move about the stage” (p. 3).

The Douglass brothers were starting a new chapter at the Standard Theatre, and in  the summer of 1875 renovated the theatre. When the theatre reopened on July 31, a newspaper article in The Era announced, “They claim to possess the largest and most elegant Theatre in the world, and those who do not take a peep within the walls of the Standard will not be in a hurry to dispute that claim. The house was reopened on the 31^st ult.”On August 8, 1875, The Era reported, “THE STANDARD. During the brief recess the magnificent auditorium of this deservedly-popular East-end establishment has undergone a process of renovation and redecoration which reflects high credit upon the liberality and taste of those entrusted with the management… The decorations which have been executed from designs by Mr. Richard Douglass and under his superintendence, are chiefly in white and gold, with rich crimson upholstery….A  new and pretty act-drop, also from the pencil of Mr. R. Douglass, completes a coup d’œil  truly effective, reminding us forcefully of Covent Garden theatre. The lighting of the theatre is, as ever, brilliant, the massive chandelier forming a fine centerpiece to the handsome hemispherical ceiling…”

The article elaborated that the new act-drop was “painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, with figures by Mr. D. H. Friston, and was “a highly artistic work.” The stage had also been widened and newly furnished throughout.

Douglass continued to work at the Standard and place advertisements in The Era. On Jul 2, 1876, Douglass advertised, “Comedy, Drama, and Travelling Companies, Summer Season. For Hire, on moderate terms, a completely new handsome Fit-Up by Mr. Richard Douglass, Standard Theatre; substantial framework, practical Chambers, Cloths, Act-Drop, Proscenium, Wings, Borders, Gasfittings, &c. Measures 17 feet deep. Proscenium opening 17 by 14 feet. Apply to W. P., 8 Lordship-park, Stoke Newington, N.”

This advertisement was placed after the birth of their first child. Walter Campland Brook Douglass was born on April 19, 1876. Their joy did not last, as Walter passed away shortly after his first birthday, on May 15, 1877. The couple welcomed another child into the world the next year. Bertie Richard CamplandDouglass arrived in July 1878.

In 1879, Richard and and his brother John T. Douglass also became associated with The Park Theatre, Camden-Tow as lessees and managers. On March 9, 1879, The Era reported, “THE PARK. Messrs. John and Richard Douglass evidently do not intend to let the grass grow under their feet, and the enterprise and energy they have displayed during their short occupation of the Park Theatre promises to be rewarded as it deserves to be. The manner in which Mr. Boucicault’s popular drama After Dark has been placed upon the stage at the Park does infinite credit to the management…We have already referred to the excellent and complete manner in which the piece is produced, and we may here mention that they scenery we have commended is the work of Messrs. Richard Douglass and John Neville” (p. 12).

Newspapers were listing “Mr. Richard Douglass, Esq.” as an eminent artist, really heralding his spectacle and transformation scenes. Douglass delivered scenery for the Christmas Pantomime, Beauty and the Beast Royal, at the Park Theatre, Camden-Town. The Grand Pantomime. Beauty and the Beast with “Scenery by Mr. Richard Douglass. His settings included a Grand Transformation Scene.” At the same time, Douglass also painted scenery for the Christmas Pantomime at the Standard.  On Dec. 28, 1879, The Era described the Blue Beard Re-Wived at the Standard. The article announced, “Splendid Spectacles. Gorgeous scenery by Mr. Richard Douglass…Grand spectacle, “The Haunted Blue Chamber,” and Transformation Scene, a Coral Reef.”

Douglass also continued to place advertisements for a variety of scenery. On April 8, 1880, The Era 8 Apr 1880, “For Sale, a very handsome drawing-room set scene, consisting of Five pieces, all practicable, Size 16 ft. High , 7 ft. wide. Folding doors, side doors, window, Fire-place, &c. Perfectly new. To be sold through mistake in measurement. Address, Richard Douglass, Painting-room, National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate

This scenery may have been intended for the Warrior-Square Concert Rooms in Hastings. An image of the building was published in Hastings and St. Leonards-on-Sea as a Health and Pleasure Resort : with Statistics and Local Information (1884).

On June 27, 1880, The Era reported, “Hastings. Warrior-Square Concert Hall…This splendid Hall, which is now fitted with very handsome proscenium and scenery (painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, of Standard and Park Theatres)…” (p. 8). On July 4, 1880, The Era elaborated, “Hastings. – St. Leonard’s-On-Sea.- Warrior-Square Rooms. (Under the Management of Mr. Henry Trenham). The Grand Hall is capable of seating upwards of 1,500 persons. Stage fitted with New Scenery, by Richard Douglass. “One of the finest and most conveniently arranged Halls in the Kingdom; possessed of every accommodation, and admirably adapted for entertainments of every description.” – Observer. “One of the best arranged buildings for performances of any kind out of London.” – Times.

By the end of the year, Richard Douglass’s wife was also making news. On Dec. 25, 1880, Stella Brereton was featured on the front page of The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.

Here is a photograph of Stella Brereton, taken by William Henry Gilbert Tate. It is part of the V&A Guy Little Theatrical Photograph Collection. 

Her likeness was also captured twice by Joseph Mordecai in 1883, he painted her in the role of Ophelia. I believe that this painting is now held at the Finnish National Gallery (https://www.kansallisgalleria.fi/en/object/520950 ).

The painting was included in two later exhibitions: “Women’s Exhibition 1900, Earl’s Court, London” and “Exhibition of Jewish Art and Antiquities” (Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1906).

Mordecai’s Ophelia was again mentioned in 1885.  On May 30, 1885, The Era included an article, entitled “The Drama at the Academy”,  article reported, “In the seventh room (644) will be found a three-quarter length portrait of Miss Stella Brereton (Mrs. Richard Douglass), by Mr. Joseph Mordecai, whose picture of the same lady as Ophelia appeared at the Academy of two years ago. The present portrait is not well hung; well enough, however, to show some clever painting of a yellow satin robe and a mantle lined with mouse-coloured fur, as well as the excellent flesh-tints of the face and arms.”

On Feb. 21, 1881, Richard’s mother, Jane Isabelle Goodwin Douglass, passed away in Hackney. Despite their loss, the careers of both Richard Douglass and Stella Brereton were soragin.

One of Douglass’s scenic art projects in 1881 was the act-drop for the Surrey Theatre . That year, George Conquest took over managemen of the venue, staging melodramas and pantomimes, many written by himself. Douglass’s act-drop depicted a view of Richmond from the Thames.

On Aug 6, 1881, The Daily Telegraph  reported, “SURREY THEATRE. – TO-NIGHT.- First week under the management of George Conquest and Paul Merritt. Theatre entirely redecorated. New Act Drop by Richard Douglass. Popular prices” (p. 4). On Aug. 6, 1881, The Era  added “a new act-drop, painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, who has chosen Richmond-bridge for his scene, and has a brilliant representation of that favorite resort, the bridge, the distant villas, and the woods of the fine park being shown reflected on the glittering bosom of the Thames” (p. 8). What I find interesting, is that in 1881, the Surrey Theatre had a scenic artist – J. J. Keith. He even placed in The Era, located just about those of Richard Douglass. On June 18, 1881, he placed an advertisement near Richard Douglass’s. It stated: “Scenic Artist, Mr. J. J. Keith, of Royal Surrey Theatre, late of Theatre Royal, Drury-lane, Lyceum, Continental Theatres, Dioramas, &c., as Principal, Stock, or Contract. 1 & 2, Camberwell New-road, London, S. E.” (p. 23). This indicates the quality of Douglass’ work, as act-drop projects were highly valued by scenic artists as the most priced type of work.

He also painted scenery for the pantomime production The Babes in the Woods.  On Dec. 9, 1881, The Leicester Journal, and Midland Countries General Advertiser included an ad for the production with “Special scenery, painted expressly for this production (including Grand Moving Panorama of well-known Local Views), by Mr. Richard Douglass, of the National Standard Theatre, London” (p. 5).

The 1881 Census listed Richard Douglass’s home at 9 Park Village East, Regents Park, St. Pancras, London. His household included Richard (36, Theatrical manager), Laurina (26, actress), Ernest L. G. (9), Bertie C. (2), Ann C. Waldie (69, visitor), Emily A. Brookes (44, visitor, embroiderer), and a servant.

Despite Douglass’s good fortune, extensive name-recognition, and constant stream of projects, tragedy struck – again –  when The Park Theatre was totally destroyed by fire on Sept. 11, 1881 (p. 7). The last show in the venue was the National Grand Opera Company’s production of La Sonnambula. The fire stated in a dis-used box on the dress-circle tier, shortly after the departure of John Douglass. On Sept. 11. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper announced, “Mr. John Douglass only left the theatre, in company of Mr. Johnson, the Manager, two or three minutes before the outbreak was discovered….The house now destroyed was opened on the 31^st of May 1873, as the Royal Alexandra theatre, Mr. Thorpe Pede being the manager. It has passed through a chequered career, and it is certain that no fortunes were made under any management.” (p. 7)

On Dec. 1-, 1881, The Bulletin reported, “Fifty-seven principal theatres in different parts of the world have been destroyed by fire this year” (p. 7)

Fortunately, Douglass’s Painting rooms were still located at the Standard Theatre, so he remained unaffected in scenic production. At the beginning of 1883 Douglass was credited with new scenery at St. James Hall when the theatre was renovated (The Morning Post 2 Jan 1883 p. 1). That spring, he and his wife purchased subscriptions for The Silver King, supporting the “oldest working actor and dramatic author” in London, J. B. Johnstone (The Era April 7, 1883, p. 7).

Other projects of note in the 1880s included:

On June 5, 1885, The Western Morning News included an ad for “The Green Bushes” at Theatre Royal, Plymouth. “New scenery painted by Mr. Richard Douglass, Standard Theatre London, and Mr. G. Twedell” (p. 4).

After Dark at The Standard (The Era, May 22, 1886, p. 14) – “What is done at the Standard is always done well, and it is not, therefore, at all necessary to insist upon the facts that the drama has been staged with excellent scenery from the brush of that clever artist Mr. Richard Douglass, and that the greatest care has been taken in order to make the sensation part of the business as effective as possible…”

Jack and the Beanstalk at the Standard Theatre (The Era, Dec. 31, 1886) – “The principal effects are – The Village of Content, changing from Winter to Summer, by Richard Douglass, the Palace of the Moon, the Carwine Rocks and Burning Geysers, changing to the ice-bound Regions; Grand Transformation of Jack’s Dreams of Fairy Land, painted by J. Soames, G. Blake, and assistants” (p. 4).

 The Royal Mail at the Standard Theatre (The Sunday People Aug. 21, 1887) – “In the stage arrangements and the painting of the scenery, Mr. John and Mr. Richard Douglass have excelled all their previous efforts. Needless to record that they were called to the curtain three times during the progress of the play, or that when the curtain fell.”

In 1887, Richard Douglass was painting scenery for The Grand Theatre, Islington.

On Oct. 8, 1887, The Era mentioned Douglass in “Theatrical Gossip” section – “A remarkable example of how much more effective on the stage scene painting, when artistically done, is than the carpenter’s work is given by the boats on the shore in the first act of Our Joan at the Grand Theatre, Islington. By the exercise of his art, Mr. Richard Douglass has given to these profile accessories that the appearance of roundness and solidness which is the object often attempted in vain, to be attained by “building up” and stage joinery” (p. 8)

On Nov 3, 1888, The Era reported, “The act-drop for the New Grand Theatre, Islington, which is fast approaching completion, is being painted by Mr. Richard Douglass. The subject is a classical composition representing the mythological story of “Diana and Actæon.” Mr. Douglas has also painted two scenes for the pantomime at the Pavilion Theatre, and is fitting for dramatic performances the New Victoria Hall at Kettering” (p. 9).

Douglass began to branch out, accepting work at an increasing number of theaters, such as the Prince of Wales Theatre in Birmingham. For the 1889 production of Master and Man, the scenery was credited to Douglass, C. R. Durant and W. T. Hemsley. Newspapers reported, “It would be unfair to dismiss this successful production without a word of hearty praise for the pretty and artistic scenery that has been provided by Messrs. Richard Douglas, C. R. Durant, and W. T. Hemsley.”

Douglass also worked with Fred Storey to deliver new scenery for “La Prima Donna” (Sunday Dispatch  13 Oct 1889 p. 8).

Douglass abruptly terminated his career at the Standard. On April 20, 1889, The Era reported, “Mr. Richard Douglass, after a connection of twenty years as scenic artist with the Standard Theatre, has retired from that post, but will still continue to carry out contracts for scene painting generally. Mr. Douglass’s many remarkable achievements in his profession, including the well-known stage pictures of “Rotten Row” in Glad Tidings, the “Crystal Palace” in The Ruling Passion, “Epsom Downs” in Daybreak, and the celebrated “Henley” scene in The Dark Secret, are sufficient proofs of his remarkable artistic ability to secure for him all the commission he wants, if not even more than he can execute” (p. 16).

On April 27, 1889, Douglass placed the following ad: “Painting Rooms, 19 Tottenham-Street, Tottenham-Court-Road. Mr. Richard Douglass. Scenic Artist, having retired from the Scene Painting at the Standard Theatre, is prepared to accept contracts upon reasonable terms. Estimates for Stocking New Theatres, Halls, &c. Address, as above.” (p. 3).

Douglass also liquidated some of his assets that were stored at the Standard Theatre that spring. On May 4, 1889, The Era published, “For sale, Several small cloths. Size, 21 ft by 16 ft. Quite new. Also set of Four Drapery Wings and Four tree Wings, 12^th, by 4 ft. Suitable for Small Halls, Amateur Clubs, &c. Address Richard Douglass, Painting Room, Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate” (p. 21).

That summer, Douglass painted a new act drop for the newly -renovated Colchester Theatre. On Aug 17, 1889, The Era reported, “New scenery and a new act-drop are being painted by Mr. Richard Douglass” (p. 7). It was Frank Matcham who drew the plans for the extensive alterations.

However, by the fall of 1889, Douglass’s career took a sharp turn. He began to perform on the stage, as well as paint scenery. On Nov. 24,1889, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper announced, “Mr. Richard H. Douglass, so long connected with the Standard theatre, has been engaged to play the Old Man of the Sea in the pantomime of Sinbad, at the Grand Theatre, Glasgow” (p 5). Douglass also painted the moving panorama of Sinbad’s Voyage. Advertisements credited four scenic artists – “Scenery by Julian Hicks, Bruce Smith, Richard Douglass, and Harry Mapleson”[The Era  7 Dec 1889 p. 24]. Amazingly, the entire show was listed for sale that spring. Advertisements were placed in The Era  [April 12, 1890, p. 21].

In some instances, Douglass was listed as a scenic artist associated with “the Avenue Theatre and Standard Theatre, London” [The Era  21 Dec 1889 p. 18]. Douglass’s association with the Avenue Theatre included stage setting for an opera Harlequinade entitled, The Belles of the Village by Hugh Foster.

On Dec. 22, 1889, The Observer reported, “new scenery by Richard Douglass” for “Harlequinade” at the Avenue Theatre (p. 2).

In addition to painting and performing, Douglass began authored several stories. On Dec. 28, 1889, The Newcastle Weekly Courant published “The Clown’s Story: Told in the Prompter’s Box” by Richard H. Douglass (p. 6). I am not including the article in its entirety due to length. The story tells of the love between a father and daughter, both who were victims in a tragic theatre fire at “King’s Theatre, Brownpool.” The blaze was started by an arsonist who sought revenge. Although the father rescued his daughter, suspended in a wire above the stage (awaiting her entrance). Both became separated until each woke up in the hospital. Believing her father dead, the young girl lost her senses and couldn’t recognize her father when he discovered her in the hospital room. She died in his arms, not recognizing him at all. Although the father still performed as a clown, on the anniversary of her father’s death he could not go on.”

A few years later, Douglass wrote an entertaining story from the perspective of a theatre cat. On Nov. 4, 1892, The Era reported, “Amongst the original articles is an amusing autobiography of a theatrical cat, written by Mr. Richard Douglass. The theatre cat is a sacred animal, and the reminiscences of this particular animal are very entertaining” (p. 15). I have yet to locate a copy of this publication.

On January 19, 1890, Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper announced. “Mr. Richard H. Douglass, who is now playing with great success in the pantomime of Sinbad at the Grand Theatre, Glasgow, has arranged to go on a short tour with his original humorous and musical entertainment, commencing in the West of England about the middle of February. Engagements have also been accepted for several London Halls.” (p. 5). Some of the venues were in Ramsgate, Godstone, Crawley, Portsmouth, Cowes, Edmonton, Dartmouth,  Theatre Royal, Torquay; Theatre Royal, Shrewsbury; Ostend (Belgium); Chelsea Town Hall (The Daily Telegraph  March 1, 1890, p. 1); reviews included Westminster and Pimlico News  on Mar 1, 1890, p. 2)- “Mr. Richard H. Douglass received an extraordinary and lengthy ovation on re-appearing at the Pastime, displaying wondrous versatility in his original “Illustrated Lecture – London,” and following satirical burlesque “Dickson’s Show.” This gentleman should be seen and heard, as description fails to convoy a due sense of his powers of humour. He is announced to appear again this evening.”

Westminster and Pimlico News  on Mar 8, 1890, p. 3: “The indescribable favourite, Mr. Richard Douglass, kept the audience in roars of laughter, by his first performance of a new original “scientific lecture,  “The Galvenised Battery,” the ingredients of which was compounded evidently being derived from sleepless observation of public instances, whose mimic representation produced convulsive recognition. His second sketch, “Imitations,” being equally successful.”

By the spring of 1890, Douglass was performing his own act throughout the country. On April 5, 1890, the Chelsea News reported, “Mr. Richard H. Douglass cannot be reported or aptly described, how for well-nigh half-an-hour in his “Geographical Lecture,” and quarter of an hour with his humorous sketch, “Black v. White,” he kept his audience in convulsive laughter, may be best comprehended by going this evening to the Pastime to hear the original “Pantomime Selections” and “Conjuring Extraordinary” – he is truly a marvelous genius. Mr. Harriot is to be commended for bringing him forward after the scourge of influenza, when ordinary remedies are inefficacious” (p. 2). I have to wonder, it the influenza pandemic provided openings for relatively unknown performers, such as Douglass, to fill the slots previously frequented by well-known names. It was at this time, that 

Richard began using his middle initial – “H”; going by the stage name of Richard H. Douglass.

He consistently placed ads as a comedian, burlesque actor, and character actor, while maintain a scenic studio. But his painting work soon took a backseat to his performance career. He was now listing his studio address as 19 Tottenham Street. On April 12, 1890, The Era published a want-ad by Douglass that advertised “Wanted to Sell, Several Cloths (New). Various subjects. Suitable for Stock, 12 ft. by 17ft. Address Richard Douglas, 19 Tottenham-street, W. C.”  However, work had slowed down enough that there was no need to maintain a full-time assistant. In fact, Douglass’s scenic art assistant sought other employment that summer. On Aug. 9, 1890, The Era published, “Wanted, by Young Man (late pupil of Mr. Richard Douglass, London), Engagement as Assistant in Painting-room or any other capacity, Theatre or Music Hall. First-class references. Address, M. 77, Liverpool-rd., Lo

Douglas sporadically painted scenery for the next few years. In 1891 for The Double Marriage (Harold B. Nelson Co.), A Yorkshire Lass at the (Queen’s Theatre, London), Warwick Gray’s Black Diamonds, and an Act-drop for the Aquarium.

Between April and June 1891, Douglass moved his painting rooms from 19 Tottenham-Street, Tottenham-Court-Road, to a space next to the Grand Theatre, Islington.

His painting rooms were next to the theatre (unlabeled space in illustration below), hence his advertisements and makers marks stating “Next Grand Theatre.”

On June 27, 1891, The Era  published, “Wanted, to Sell, Several Cloths (New), 21ft. by 17ft. Various subjects. All Six Wings, 12ft by 4ft. Apply, Richard Douglass Painting Rooms, next Grand Theatre, Islington” (p. 19).

On March 12, 1892, Douglass’s ad appeared just about W. T. Hemsley’s in The Era. It was the passing of a torch. Douglass’s ad stated: “Painting Rooms, next to Grand Theatre, Islington. Mr. Richard Douglass, Scenic Artist, is prepared to accept Contracts on very reasonable terms. Estimates free. Apply as above.” Below, Hemsley’s ad stated: “Mr. W. T. Hemsley, Scenic Artist, has removed to his New Painting Rooms and Scene Manufactory (the Largest and Best Appointed in London), 2 Felix-street, Westminster-bridge-road, S. E. Large or Small Contracts Arranged upon the most reasonable terms consistent with the best Artistic Work” (p. 2)

Douglass continued to perform at a variety of venues, even in the Newcastle Theatre Royal pantomime as Little Toddlekins in Bo-Peep. He also appeared in The Trumpet Call at the Adelphi [The Pall Mall Gazette 22 Feb 1892 p. 1]. He made an even bigger splash doing a series of impersonations. On Sept. 17, 1892, The Era  reported that Douglass was performing his skit at the Royalty Theatre, Empire Theatre and Trocadero (p. 27).

On Feb. 11, 1893, The Era reported, “In consequence of the success of Mr. Richard H. Douglass in the pantomime at Theatre Royal, Newcastle-on-Tyne, he has been re-engaged (for the third time) by Messrs. Hoard and Wyndham, and will appear next Christmas at Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh. He has also signed with Mr. Thomas W, Charles for Prince’s Theatre, Manchester, pantomime, 1894-95. Mr. Douglass returns to London halls on Easter Monday” (p. 17). On May 20, 1893, The Era reported thatMr. Richard Douglass’s “Pantomime” and “Melodrama in Ten Minutes” were “well-known to audiences in the metropolis” (p. 17). His performance career was being managed by Blackmore’s Agency, at 11 , Garrick-street, W. C. Advertisements placed by Douglass in newspapers also listed his agent. On Feb. 10, 1894, The Era published, “Mr. Richard H. Douglass, Royal Lyceum Theatre, Edinburgh, Blackmores Agency, 11, Garrick-street, W. C.” (p. 27). In 1894, hew performed at the at Empire Place [Feb 24, 1894, The Era, p. 27]; Scotia Variety Theatre, Glasgow [The Era 10 March 1894 p 27.] to name a few.

All the while, he continued to sell off his scenic stock and paint. Scenic art projects in 1894 included the scenery for an Uncle Tom’s Cabin production by the Moore and Burgess minstrels. Douglass moved his studio again in 1894, now advertising: “Painting Rooms, next Grand Theatre, Islington. Mr. Richard Douglass, Scenic Artist, (is prepared to accept Contracts on very reasonable terms). Estimates free. Apply as Above” [The Era 29 Aug 1891 p. 2].

On April 20, 1895, The Era reported, “Mr. Richard Douglass opens shortly at the Palace in an original monologue, The Rehearsal. He has also been engaged for a leading part in next year’s pantomime at the Grand, Islington, by Mr. Charles Wilmot” (p. 16). He was also portraying a series of cultural stereotype, including Chinese Laundrymen. On Dec. 27, 1895, The Daily Telegraph described mentioned the performance of Richard H. Douglass in the role of the Chinese Laundryman, Wishee-Washee, reporting, “This comical little gentleman has a rare frolic with the folk who patronize his establishment.” (p. 3).

On  July 20, 1895, The Era mentioned Douglass’ scenery for The Honour of the House, a five-act drama by H. H. Lewis, produced at Theatre Royal, Nottingham. “The scenery, which has all been specially designed by Mr. Richard Douglass, is truly magnificent. In act one, a view of the wine merchant’s yard, with distinct out-look on old London, is shown that is extraordinarily realistic – queer nooks and quaint bits of a bygone time that would delight an antiquary. The scene of the wine vaults, too, is remarkably picturesque, adorned as it is with fungus and cobwebs that make you almost scent the rich vintages hidden away amongst them. But excelling all is the view of the Pyrenees. The stage is one large waste of mountains – wild, barren, sterile – and here occurs a clever mechanical change. From absolute still life everything alters to masses of snow and ice, until it culminates in a veritable tornado, quite realistic in its intensity. Altogether the mounting is noble and picturesque in the highest degree.”

On Nov. 2, 1895, The Era credited Douglass with a new act-drop and scenery for the new Ladbroke Hall, Notting-hill. The venue was recently renovated, with an increased stage and raised  grid iron. On Jan 18, 1896, The Era announced Douglass was painting special scenery at Collin’s. Others providing scenery were Fritz Wallis and son who were painting at the Middlesex (p. 17).

And this was a turning point, as Douglass listed his paint rooms next to the Grand Theatre in Islington “To Let.”

On Feb. 22, 1896, The Era published, “Wanted, to Let, Storage for Scenery, Large and Dry. Apply, Richard Douglass, Painting Rooms, next Grand Theatre, Islington, N.” (p. 27).

On July 25, 1896, The Era published, “Wanted, to Let, Storage, Large and Dry. Apply, Richard Douglass, Painting Rooms, next Grand Theatre, Islington” (p. 21).

Douglass was not having much luck letting out his space. On Oct. 24, 1896, The Era published, “Wanted, to Let, Storage for Scenery. Large and Dry. Apply, Richard Douglass, next, Grand Theatre, Islington” (p. 28).

In the meanwhile, he continued to paint scenery. On August 22, 1896, The Era listed that new scenery for The Indian Mutiny was traveling with new scenery “painted from photographs by Nicholas Hinchey, Lionel Hart, and Richard Douglass, and the picture of the Ruined Mosque on the Mountain Pass, with its warm glow and cleverly suggested architectural detail, may be picked out as one of the remarkable examples of stage brush work” (p. 9).

Side note: The line, “painted from photographs by Nicholas Hinchey, Lionel Hart, and Richard Douglass” involves the subject of my next post – Hinchey. He also is also one of the artists who painted scenery to Normansfield Theatre.

Douglass also delivered scenery for Mr. N. Brigata’s Company production of En Route (The Era  19 Sep 1896 p. 5). At the end of the year, he was painting with E. Butts on the pantomime Cinderella, or Harlequin the Street Little Lass with her Trilbys of Glass and Pretty Prince Caramel at the Grand in London (The Standard 28 Dec 1896 p. 2). He also delivered scenery for Little Cinderella  at Theatre Royal, Handley.  On Jan. 2, 1897, The Era reported, “The scenery painted by Edwin Watts and Richard Douglass (p. 22) Douglass was also painting with Arthur Hillier that year.

An advertisement appeared in The Era on Jan. 23, 1897, that surprised me and supports the re-sale value of well-painted scenery. I have seen plenty of ads that listed stock scenery or touring show scenery for sale, but never while the show was still running. Such was the case with The Forty Thieves. The advertisement stated, “To Managers, Borough Theatre and Opera House, Stratford. FOR SALE, the whole of the Magnificent scenery (by Richard Douglass, W. T. Hemsley, Esq., &c.), Armour (by White, Bond-street), and costly dresses, all designed and made for this marvelously successful Pantomime (splendid transformation scene, by W. Hillyard) “The Forty Thieves.” Can be seen any Evening during the show. Apply to W. H. Fredericks” (p. 28).

I want to take a moment to address Douglass’ reliance on The Era and other newspapers throughout the region. He was an avid reader, submitting corrections when necessary, such as his letter to the editor in 1897. On June 5, 1897, The Era published a correction, submitted to the editor by Richard Douglass:

“Richard Douglass’s Picture, To the Editor of the Era. Sir, – In your report of the Victorian Era Exhibition this week, you have given a very generous and eulogistic notice, to my picture of “Windsor Castle from the Brocas,” but you have not mentioned my name as the artist. Mr. Kiralfy, in his official guide to the Exhibition, has given my name in a special paragraph speaking of the picture. Yours truly, Richard Douglass (late of Standard Theatre). 9 Park-village East, Gloucester-gate, N. W. May 29^th, 1897” (p. 11).

It is understandable that Douglass was miffed with the omission. However, this letter combined with a life-time of advertisements made me step back and look at the big picture of Douglass’ relationship with newspapers.  Douglass was an extremely prolific scenic artist and performer. In fact, this may be one of the most well-publicized scenic artists who I have researched to date. There is a great possibility that he also compiled a scrapbook. I would be curious to know where his personal artifacts are now. If they survived and have been passed down to his descendants. So much of his work was described in newspaper reviews, articles, and want-ads.

In the last few years of the 19^th century, Douglass was still credited with numerous stock stage settings, including the stock scenery for the New Palace of Varieties in Dover and the Granville Theatre of Varieties (the new Music Hall at Walham-green). Productions included scenery for: Dick Dottiby’s Dream  at Queen’s Hall as part of the Pyrotechnic Popular Entertainments;  Henry IV at the Prince’s Theatre in Manchester (he was painting with Conrad Tritschler, the scenic artist at the venue); Louis Calvert’s touring production, Proof; John F. Sheridan’s touring production, When the Lamps are Lighted; Faust and Margaret by Brian Daly and C. W. Somerset, produced at the Royal Opera House, Leicester; A King of Fools produced at Grand Theatre, Islington; Keighley Entertainment Company’s Gipsy Jack at the Mechanics’ Institute; and the Christmas pantomime, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves at the Empire Theatre Pantomime, Bristol (he was painting with J. Cox, the scenic artist at the venue).

And then the flood of public acknowledgements slowed to a trickle. It was about the same time that Douglass’ wife, Stella Brereton, also began placing advertisements and sharing her studio classes in several newspapers. On June 11, 1898, The Era announced, “Miss Stella Brereton (Mrs. Richard Douglass) had an “At Home” on Saturday last, at which some of her pupils recited (Miss Walker, Miss Maude Tibbitt, Miss Lillias Wilson, Miss Ella Challis, Mars. Spaldin)” (p. 12). She had transitioned from performing to teaching and was traveling throughout the region.  On Nov 18, 1898, The Nottinghamshire Guardian advertised an upcoming visit by Brereton to teach “Elocution and Deportment” classes (p. 14). She was listed as “Miss Stella Brereton, of the St. James, Drury-lane and Garrick Theatres.” The 1901 Census would also list her occupation as a “teacher” and “school educator.”

The Douglass household in 1901 also included Richard (55, Picture Restorer), and their two adult sons: Ernest (29, insurance agent) and Bertie (22, electrical engineer). Despite the new occupation listed for Richard, he was still performing and painting. His travels as a “comedian and entertainer” were described in newspapers across the country.  

On May 17, 1903. The Sunday Dispatch listed Douglass in the “People of the Day” section. The section, titled “Painted the Noted Scene at Earl’s Court” reported, “Mr. Richard Douglass, the well-known scenic artist, whose great picture of “Warwick Castle” in the grounds of the Earl’s Court Exhibition this season has created so much admiration, is one of the two brothers who some years back ran the Standard Theatre with sensational drama and sensational scenes. Mr. Douglass has now painted the large pictures annually shown in the Western Gardens of the Exhibition at Earl’s Court for some ten years past. Visitors will remember this artist’s previous pictures of “Windsor Castle,” “Richmond Hill,” “Balmoral Castle” &c. This year’s view of “Warwick” is considered by competent judges to be the finest of the series. Mr. Douglass has also another picture in the Western Garden, “Bothwell Castle,” on the Clyde; this also is a fine piece of colouring and effective work” (p. 9).

Douglass was also involved with the Scenic Artists’ Association. On Oct. 30, 1904, The Sunday People reported, “The Scenic Artists’ Association, under the presidentship of Mr. Hawes Craven (for so many years associated with the Lyceum production), and the vice-presidentship of Mr. Joseph Harker, has elected a council of Management for the present year Messrs. Walter Hann (chairman and treasurer), E. G. Banks, J. J. Markwell Davis, Richard Douglass, W. Hartford, W. T. Hemsley, H. W. Owen, W. Raphael, H. W. Robinson, W. B. Strong and George Twedell, with Mr. Stafford Hall, of Liverpool, as provincial representative. This committee are considering a proposal for the holding next month of the first their annual exhibitions of the works of scene painter – past and present – and scenic artist. Theatrical managers and others willing to lend models, sketches of scenes, portraits of scene painters, are invited to communicate with the secretary of the association, Mr. H. Lawrence Harris, 5 Robert-st., Adelphi-terrace, W. C.” 

By 1905, Douglass’ name began to disappear from the news, often solely attached to his wife’s advertisements – “Stella Brereton (Mrs. Richard Douglass).”  By 1908, Stella began to list herself as Stella Brereton Douglass. On June 4, 1908, The Daily Telegraph included the following advertisement, “Mrs. Stella Brereton Douglass, Professor of Elocution, Deportment and Acting. Patrons, Mrs. Kendall and Sir Theodore Marting, K. C. B. Amateur Theatrical stage-managed, and At Home. – 84, New Bond-street, W.”

Richard Douglass passed away three years later. On July 22, 1911, Douglass died at his son’s home (Ernest L. G. Douglass). That year, the 1911 Census listed the Douglass household in Finchley, as including: Leslie Douglass (head, 39), Margaret Douglass (wife 37), and Richard Douglass (father, 66).

Douglass died without much fanfare. No tributes were published in the news by fellow tradesmen or theatre personalities. I have located only one death notice. On July 25, 1911, The Daily Telegraph announced, “Deaths. Douglass. – On the 22^nd inst., at 36, Fortis-green-road, East Finchley, Samuel Richard Douglass, aged 67.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

My previous post explored the history of Normansfield, it’s theatre, and extant scenery collection.

The Normansfield Amusement Hall was completed in 1879, but theatrical entertainments had been produced at the facility for some time. Already in 1874, scenery and stage machinery were credited to theatre professionals.

On Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published a detailed article about Normansfield productions entitled, “Hampton Wick. Entertainment at Normansfield” (p. 5). The article reported, “Perhaps few private theatres for [asylum residents] are better conducted than the one known as Normansfield at Hampton Wick, of which Dr. and Mrs. Langdon Down have sole charge. Indeed the gratifying results which have hitherto taken place at this asylum have been solely due to the kind treatment which the inmates have received at the hands of the prinicpals. At the end of the old year or the beginning of the new there is usually provided a theatrical entertainment, first of all for the amusement of the [residents], and repeated for the benefit of the friends invited by Dr. and Mrs. Downs and the performers, who are servants at the establishment… The performances took place this week, when there were three one act farces  played – “Master Jones’ Birthday,” “John Smith,” and “Boots at the Swan.” The actors and actresses were “old hands,” and of course could not be otherwise that well up in their respective parts. The performers included Mr. Walter Lee, Mr. Perceval Langdon Down, Mr. King, Mr. Reginald Langdon Down, Mr. Healy, Miss Graham, Miss Martin, Mr. Smith, Mr. F. Brockley, Miss M. Baxter, and Miss Reed. Between each act there was, as usual, vocal and instrumental music. The acting manager was Mrs. Langdon-Down; the stage director, Dr. Langdon-Down; the pianists, Mesdames Innes and Chapman; cornet, Mr. James; and prompter, Mr. Barry. The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

The individual credited with scenic contributions was scenic artist, John Thomas Bull (1828-1890). By 1875, Bull had worked in the painting profession for at least 25 yrs. His son, J. T. Bull Jr. not only followed in his father’s footsteps, but also delivered scenery to the Normansfield Theatre.

Makers marks (studio stencils) on Normansfield Theatre scenery denote three periods of scenic artistry produced by the Bull family. The earliest dates from 1874 to 1879, and was produced when J. T. Bull was in a partnership with his brother, George Bull. The two established a partnership as decorators by 1866, adding scenic painting to their services over the years.

Their partnership continued until 1879 when it was dissolved, with J. T. Bull establishing his own firm at 134 New Kent Street – “J. T. BULL, SCENE PAINTER &c., 134 New Kent Road, London, S. E.”  1880 directories listed the new address, noting “Late of 54, Great Queen-street.)

Scenery credited to this firm includes two backdrops (beach and river), the false proscenium border (Grand border and tormentors), side wings (woodland and paneled-room and flats) and props (boat and mirror).  Although manufactured by Bull, some of the side-wings were overpainted by Richard Douglass at a later date.

The final stamp indicates the work by Bull’s son, a scenic concern that still listed the business address on Kent Street. Both of John’s sons, named John and Francis, followed in their father’s footsteps, listing that same address early on.

“J.T. Bull & Son, Scene Painter &c. 134 New Kent Road, London S.E.’ also appears on woodland scene flats (repainted and labeled by Richard Douglass at a later date) and a cut drop (labeled a walk-through cloth in conservation reports) that was deemed too fragile to photograph during documentation. Sadly, I have no reference for painting technique during this iteration of the Bull scenic art firm.

I am going to explore the history of the Bull family and their entry into the painting profession by the 1840s. John T. Bull (1828-1890) and George Bull (1830-1895) were brothers, coming of age and working in the various boroughs of following in their father’s trade as a tailor. By 1866, the two partnered to work as decorative artists. Between 1866 and 1879, their services included manufacturing and scenic art.

After the dissolution of J. T. & G. Bull in 1879, George Bull remained at 54 Great Queen St., working as a photographic scene painter until his passing in 1895. There is another familial aspect that adds to the confusion surrounding the name John Bull – BOTH John T. Bull and George Bull named their sons John Bull, and both worked as artists by the 1880s. John Bull was a family name, dating back generations from scenic artist John T. Bull. That being said, I am only going as far back as his father.

To clarify the Bull family lineage:

John Bull (Father, Tailor, 1804-1867)

John Thomas Bull (Son, Scenic Artist, 1828-1890) and his sons John T. Bull Jr. (Grandson, Scenic Artist, 1864-) and Francis Henry Bull (Grandson, Scenic Artist, 1871-1955)

George Bull (Son, Tailor and Photographic Scene Painter, 1830-1895) and his son John F. Bull (Grandson, Photographic Scene Painter, 1862-)

This family was not an easy one to research. There were an abundance of John Bulls in the 19th century. In addition to actual people with the name John Bull, there were fictional characters with the same name, including a satirical character that later personified the United Kingdom:

There was even the play John Bull: or, The Englishman’s Fireside.  

This five-act comedy was still playing at London’s Theatre Royal, Lyceum for the summer season in 1847. Here is the advertisement in The Times on Aug. 13, 1847:

And yes…there was even a newspaper that went by John Bull, c. 1820-1892.

Returning to the scenic artists, brothers John T. Bull and George Bull….

You will note that John T. Bull and his son (John T. Bull) continue to be listed as scenic artists or scene painters throughout the nineteenth century. George Bull and his son (John Bull) became photographic scene painters. The only difference is scale, as both used distemper paint (dry pigment paste combined with diluted hide glue).

A photographic scene painter is an artist who produces backdrops for photographers to use in their studios. For example, New York scenic artists Lafayette W. Seavey was well-known for photographic studio backings, as well as stage scenery, delivering his paintings throughout North America.

On Nov. 1, 1881, The Leadville Daily Herald reported, “One of the requirements of an excellent picture is to have backgrounds that will add to the beauty of the work, and as Mr. Brisbois entertains a full appreciation of this fact he has only the work of celebrated New York artist, L. W. Seavey, in his gallery, although they are procured at a price nearly five times as great as some of the less noted painters.” Here is an example of options for photographic backings included in an L. W. Seavey catalogue:

L. W. Seavey ran a large studio in New York City that accommodated the production of not only photographic backings, but also large-scale settings for live theatre.

If an artist, such as George Bull, were solely creating photographic backings, his studio space could be much smaller than a theatrical scene painting studio.  This may be one of the reasons why George Bull remained at 54 Great Queen St. and John T. Bull moved to a larger facility at 134 New Kent Road. 54 Great Queen St. Again the Great Queen St. space was a structure that could house up to five separate families (c. 1841), or one family and a small scenic studio (c. 1881).

To put this in context, I am going to share some Bull family genealogy. Here is a map to provide geographical context when I discuss various addresses. I added “walking distance” from Marylebone to Southwark to help with an overall understanding of the distances.

John Bull Sr. (1804-1867) and Maria Heaton Bull (1806-1878), married on Sept. 4, 1827, in St. Marylebone, Middlesex. The couple celebrated the birth of several children: John Thomas Bull (b. 1828), George Bull (b. 1830), James Bull (1832), Mary Ann Bull (b. 1835), Maria Louisa Bull (b. 1840), Margaret Bull (b. 1840), Ann Sophia Bull (b. 1844), and Reuben Bull (b. 1845).

John Bull (Sr.) and his father-in-law, Joseph Heaton, were tailors. George Bull initially followed in both his father’s and maternal grandfather’s footsteps, whereas his brother, John T. Bull, became an artist.

Here is the tale of John Thomas Bull…

John T. Bull was born on June 28, 1828, in Marylebone. When he was baptized a month later, the Bull address was listed as Castle St. East. His father was employed as a tailor.

The 1841 Census listed the Bull family living at All Souls and Trinity, St. Marylebone, Middlesex. The household included John Bull (36 yrs.), Mary (34 yrs.), John Jr. (12 yrs.).

Over the years, J. T. Bull would repeatedly state that his business was established in 1849. This would have been the year when he established his own firm. Bull was 21 yrs. old at the time; an average age to have completed an apprenticeship and other necessary training.

The 1851 Census listed J. T. Bull as an artist, living with his father John Bull (48 yrs., tailor), mother Maria Bull (47 yrs.) and four siblings – George (20 yrs. old, tailor), James (7 yrs.), Mary Ann (5 yrs.) and Margaret (1 yr.) The Bull family lived at 54 Great Queen St (St. Giles in the Fields). They were living in a large building that later housed five families (c. 1861). However, in 1851 there were only two families listed as living at 54 Great Queen Street; the Bull Family and the Joseph Dennis family (a coach maker).

On Sept. 6, 1856, John T. Bull married Margaret Esther Bull (b. 1827) at the Parish Church of St. Luke, Chelsea, Middlesex.  In their marriage records, John Thomas Bull listed his profession as a decorative artist, living at 28 Elizabeth Terrace. Margaret listed her address as 22 Sloane Street. They may have been related, as they shared the same surname; Margaret’s father was listed as James Bull, a tailor. However, this may have been a mistake, as records indicate that her parents were Joseph Bull (1790-1857) and Esther Bott (1801-1857). I have yet to find a definitive connection between their families.

By 1856, John and his brother George were listed as decorative artists, living at No. 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn. Their names were associated with the address when attempting to help a widow in need. On Nov. 21, 1856, The Times announced, “An urgent and stressing case – a poor aged widow, born 1779, is in very trying arrears of rent for a small room she occupies and greatly fears being turned into the streets and losing her few goods. She earnestly entreats ASSISTANCE from the benevolent, for she is in a most forlorn and destitute condition. For reference and subscriptions direct to Messrs. Bull, decorative artists, 54, Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn-fields.” (p. 3).

There was a “Mr. Bull,” listed at the same address three years later. On Jan. 5, 1859, The Times advertised, “Mr. Bull selling a newfoundland dog and doghouse, “and over the distemper”-both being sold as the owner was leaving town, listing No. 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn.” This is about the same time that the J. T. Bull’s parents, John Bull Sr. and Maria Bull, moved to Chelsea South, leaving the expanding families of John Bull Jr. and George Bull to live at 54 Great Queen St. Both John Jr. and George were listed as decorative artists, living in was a multi-unit building that housed five families in 1861. George’s household included Henrietta (wife, 33 yrs.), George W. (son, 3 yrs., and Henrietta M. (1 yr.). John’s household included his wife Margaret and 11 yrs. old niece, A. L. Palmer. Their niece was likely helping out, as John and Maria Bull celebrated the birth of their first child that spring. On May 3, 1861Margaret Esther Maria Bull (1861-1930) was born in St. George, Bloomsbury, Middlesex. A son followed three years later in 1864; John Bull (1864-1943) was born in St. Giles, London.

In 1866, John T. Bull and his brother George Bull advertised as scene painters in The Era, listing their address as 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn, W. C., London.

The 1871 Census Report listed the John T. Bull and George Bull families living at the same address -54 Great Queen St. At the time both men were listed as scene painters. John ‘s household erroneously listed him by his middle name, Thomas Bull (head, 42 yrs. old), and only included Margaret Bull (wife, 42 yrs.) and Harriet Clark (servant, 26 yrs.). His three children (10 yrs. old Margaret and 7 yrs. old John; Francis was born in 1871) were not included at this household. George Bull’s household Henrietta Bull (wife, 44 yrs.), George William Bull (son, 13 yrs.), and Edwin Thomas Bull (son 7 yrs.), and Emily Kirby Bull (daughter, 2 yrs.). His other two children (11 yrs. old Henrietta Maria Bull and 9 yrs. old John Frederick Bull) were not included in the household. It may have been the case where the children were temporarily split up, or visiting relatives. Such was the case with George Bull’s eldest child in 1861. That year, 3-yrs.-old George Bull Jr. was counted twice in the census; once at the household of his parents, and once at the household of his paternal grandfather in Chelsea. Census reports are somewhat unreliable this way; timing is everything, as well as the capabilities of the census reporter.

J. T. & G. Bull’s partnership lasted for almost a decade. On April 25, 1875, The Morning Post announced that the partnership – J. T. Bull and G. Bull, Great Queen-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, scene painters – was dissolved (p. 7). George continued to paint at the address, while John moved into a larger studio on New Kent St. That same year, a “Mr. Bull” was credited with painting scenery for the entertainments at Normansfield. (Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times, p. 5) The article reported, “The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

It is important to note that both Bradley and Bull had worked on previous theatrical entertainments at Normansfield. This was not their first year at the facility.

When the Amusement Hall at Normansfield was completed, J. T. Bull advertised the sale of a used scenery collection. On Jan. 26 and Feb. 9, 1879, following advertisement was published in The Era:

“Handsome Fit-Up For Sale, nearly New, Painted by J. T. Bull. Front Proscenium, height, 19 ft.; Proscenium Sides, width, 4 ft.; Act-Drop, Beautifully Painted, height, 15 ft., width, 13 ft 6 in; Two front Proscenium Wings, with return pieces and doors, 6 in by 8 ft. 6 in; Two Chamber Wings, 10 ft. by 4 ft.; Two Drapery Borders, 14 ft. by 5 ft. May be seen at the Theatre of Varieties, Southend, Essex. Useful Stock scenery required, about 17 ft. by 15 ft.”

Bull placed another advertisement the next summer. On August 13 and Sept. 7, 1879, Bull advertised a portable stage with scenery in The Era:

“Handsome Portable Fit-Up For Sale, In consequence the premises being sold. Well adapted for a Hall or for Amateur Clubs &c. It is well Painted, and nearly new, by J. T Bull. Not a Daub. Height of Proscenium, 19 ft.; Width, 24 ft.; Opening, 16 ft., by 12 ft. 6 in. Act-Drop, Proscenium, Wings, with Return Pieces and Doors, Front Chambers with Folding-doors, Two Chamber Wings, Two Boarders, well-made Portable Stage, Foot and Top Lights. Address, Managers, Varieties, Southend, Essex, where the above may be seen.”

The use of portable stages in both halls and ballrooms was commonplace throughout the nineteenth century. Many theatre managers wanted the versatility of a space that could serve as both a performance space and ballroom. Such is the case at the Adelina Patti Theatre where the floor of the hall can be raised level to the stage floor.

The sale of used scenery in the nineteenth century was very common. In act, I have traced numerous second-hand collections that were refurbished and installed in new venues. In some cases, used scenery was taken in as credit on the purchase of new scenery. Second-hand scenery maintained its value. Even scenery that remained on site was touched up or completely repainted.

Some scenery painted by Bull for the Normansfield Theatre was repainted by Richard Douglass. His stencil covers an underlying one. I have repeatedly encountered this in many historic scenery collections at North American Theatres. Also, some theatre owners did not realize that they were purchasing previously used scenery.

Interestingly, in 1879, Richard Douglass was also selling used scenery, listing his address as Painting-room at the National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate.  His advertisements were place near Bulls in the newspaper.  

On May 7, 1880, advertisements place by John T. Bull in The Era note:   “J. T. Bull, Scenic Artist, Scenery Painted and Lent on Hire Address, 134, New Kent-road, S. E.. Late of 54, Great Queen-street.”

The 1881 Census listed John T. Bull’s family living at 134 New Kent Road, Newington, in the Borough of Lambeth, London. This address was in the London Borough of Southwark. In 1881 the Bull household included: John T. (52, Theatrical Scene Painter), Margaret E. (wife, 52), Margaret E. M. Bull (daughter, 19), John (son, 17, Theatrical Scene Painter), Francis H. (10), and Joseph W. Smith (19, servant). Both of his sons, John and Francis, followed him in the scene painting profession.

On Nov. 25, 1882, The Era  published another Bull advertisement, listing the establishment year as 1849.

On November 10, 1890, scenic artist J. T. Bull (Sr.) passed away. After John T. Bull Sr.’s passing, the scenic studio of J. T. Bull & Son was established.

There are a few aspects of the name change that I find particularly interesting, as J. T. Bull and son was not in place before the father’s passing. I would love to explore this more in a future post, but for now, I want to mention that the widow of J. T. Bull was also listed as a scenic artist in two census reports. The 1891 Census reports listed Margaret Bull (widow of John T. Bull) as head of the household in Newington. London. She was living with the two sons, John (27 yrs.) and Francis H. (19 yrs.); all three listed their occupation as “scene painter.” This was not a typographical error, as Margaret was again listed as a scene painter ten years later in the 1901 census, with the additional designation of “employer.” I wonder if Margaret continued her husband’s business, keeping the name and adding her son – for J. T. Bull.

There is one other thing to keep in mind. In 1891, Margaret’s brother-in-law George Bull (60 yrs.) and her nephew, John F. Bull (29 yrs.), are working as a photographic scene painters at 54 Great Queen St.

The firm of J. T. Bull & Son continued to thrive, repeatedly making news throughout the 1890s.  On August 5, 1892, The Times published an article about the newly-renovated Egyptian Hall reporting, “new scenery by J. T. Bull and Son.”

On May 11, 1895, The Era described the work at the newly-constructed Canning Town’s Public Hall, reporting: “The fit-up was a model of compactness, and this, and the admirably painted scenery reflected great credit on Messrs. J. T. Bull and Sons, by whom they were supplied” (p. 7).

On Jan. 18, 1896, The Era: “Amusements in Nottingham…Grand Theatre, A Midsummer Night’s Dream…Some charming scenery has been painted by Messrs. J. T. Bull and H. J. Pedgeon…” (p. 18). Bull Jr. was working with Henry James Pedgeon (1869-1928), a scenic artist associated with theaters in Oldham (Colosseum) and Plymouth (Royal Theatre and Grand Theatre).

On June 10, 1896, Francis Henry Bull Bull married Harriet Agnes McGowan (1872-1963). On July 22, 1896, his older brother, John Bull, married Effie Grace Purkiss (1871-1938) at Saint Matthew, Ashford, Surrey.

John and Effie celebrated the birth of their first child, Edgar Frederic John Bull in 1898, with Vera Mary Bull arriving four years later. Both children were born in West Norwood, Surrey.

Francis and Harriet Bull celebrating the birth of their first child, Reginald Francis Bull the in 1899. Francis continued to work as both a scenic artist and sculptor. By 1901, settled with his family in Dulwich, Camberwell, London.

Throughout 1897, “J. T. Bull & Son, Theatrical Scene Painters” placed full-page ads London’s  The Theatre (a magazine published in London between 1877-1897): “J. T. Bull & Son, Theatrical Scene Painters. Every Description of Theatrical Scenery on Hire, Suitable for Halls, Drawing Rooms,  Bazaars,  &cc. Tableaus Vivants a Specialty. Platforms, Gas-Fittings, and Limelight supplied. Estimates Free. Head Office: 134, New Kent Road, London, S.E. Painting  Room:  New Kent Road.  Manufactory: Munton Road.“

Advertisements stated that the firm had been established in 1854. As with most scenic studios, establishment years are somewhat fluid and change over time.  In this case, J. T. Bull had not been working with his son since that year but had been active in the theatrical scene painting business since that time.

1897 advertisements also noted that the firm has been “Specially engaged by Mr. Wilson Barrett to paint scenery for English and American Touring Companies of The Sign of the Cross.  Bull also included testimonials from past clients that included: Mr. J. N. Maskelyne of The Egyptian Hall, London; Ben Greet of the Town Hall, Dover; Sire George Pigot of Pembroke Lodge; L. C. Venables of the Surrey Masonic Lodge; and Thomas Whitford of Montrose College for an amateur production of The Mikado.

On Dec.11, 1897, The Era announced that the Hampstead Dramatic Society’s, St. George’s Hall, performance of Walker, London, “The new scene, a pretty bit of up-river landscape was specially painted by J. T. Bull & Son, of New-Kent road.”

Life began to change for John Bull by the late 1890s. In 1899, John T. Bull  became a Freemason. Grand Lodge of England records list John Bull, was initiated at the age of 35 yrs. old on April 6, 1899, listing profession, scenic artist, Crystal Palace Lodge No. 742.

During this time, the scenic artistry of Francis H. Bull (J. T. Bull Jr.’s little brother, 1871-1955) also began to make news. On Jan. 21, 1899, The Era described a woodland scene for The Coriscan Brothers: “…the scenic artist, to whose artistic skill was due to the pretty piece of woodland labelled the Forest of Fontainbleu…was the brushwork of Mr. Francis H. Bull, and we hereby give him credit for his artistic and most effective picture” (p. 21). That year, Francis H. Bull was credited with scenery for the Theatre Royal in Chatham, a new playhouse erected by Charles and Lionel Barnard in High Street, Chatham. On August 5, 1899, The Era reported, “Most of the scenery, including the handsome act-drop, is from the studio of Mr. Francis H. Bull. Mr. Bull has worked into the drop two doors, and entrance and exit for the use of the players taking a call” (p. 7) From 1905-1930, Francis Henry Bull listed his studio at 4 Lower Bland St. SE1.

On Nov. 29, 1899, The Daily Telegraph reported that a “Donation for Our Soldiers’ Widows and Orphans Fund included scenery by “J. T. Bull and Son, 134, New Kent-road, Scenic Artists, and Employes” (p. 6). That spring, The Daily Telegraph announced,“Messrs. J. T. Bull and Son, 134, New Kent-road, are still willing to supply scenery free for performances in aid of the War Fund”( 21 Mar 1900. p. 4).

Work continued to plug along for John T. Bull that year. On June 2, 1900, The Era noted another scenic installation at the Theatre Royal in Ryde after the venue changed hands: “A new act drop has been executed by Mr. J. T. Bull, the principle feature being a view of Osborne House.” Later in the year, Bull delivered new scenery for a production of Riding Hood at the Public Hall in Hastings. On Dec. 29, The Era reported, “The scenery is effective and is the work of Mr. J. T. Bull of London, who has also designed the properties and mechanical effects.”

The 1901 Census listed the John T. Bull household as including John Bull (head, 37 yrs., Scenic Artist Manager), Effie Bull (wife, 30 yrs.), Edgar Bull, son, 3 yrs.), Margaret E. Bull (mother, 73 yrs. Scene Painter, employer), and Elimily Moore (17 yrs. old general servant).

Newspaper notices describing the scenic work by J. T. Bull & Son began to somewhat dwindle after 1904, but picked up again by 1911.  On March 9, 1904, The Times listed the auction of Bull’s scenery for St. George’s Chapel, Abermarle Street, Piccadilly. The announcement reported, “Other lots consisted of a complete set of stage scenery for The Bells by Leopold Lewis, painted by Messrs. J. T. Bull and Sons, comprising seven drop scenes, one gauze ditto, and 14 wings, together with staging on tressels, foot and top lights, snow-box, &c. – L15.

On Jan. 3, 1905, The Daily Mirror announced that The Coming Race at St. George’s Hall was painted y Mr. J. T. Bull and Mr. McCleery” (p. 6). J. T. Bull & Sons had not closed, but was slowly changing. Bull would continue to work with McCleery on other projects over the years, including

In 1905, an auction took place at the Bull studio, 134 New Kent Road. On June 1, 1905, The Daily Telegraph announced the sale of a stock of theatrical scenery by Bingham & Boughton (p. 4).

There is much more to tell about the scenic art careers of both J. T. Bull Jr. and Francis H. Bull, but that is a tale for another time. My next post will be about scenic artist Richard Douglass.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Mike Hume and I drove to the Langdon Down Centre in Teddington, London, on August 9, 2024. We had scheduled an appointment with Facilities Manager, Jo Hardie, to visit the 1879 Normansfield Theatre. We were fortunate that Adam Harrison, Mark Fox, and Jane Harrison could join us for the day!

This is a rare, Victorian Grade II* listed theatre with a remarkable scenery collection that consists of 80 flats, 18 borders, and 5 backdrops. I have recently discovered that some of the pieces pre-date the actual theatre! Painted replicas have replaced all the extant scenery, but many pieces remain accessible to the public.

This facility, once known as Normansfield, was established by Dr. John Langdon Haydon Down and his wife Mary Crellin Down in 1868. The building was constructed to care for people with learning disabilities, a condition now known as Down’s Syndrome.

Today’s post will focus on the Normansfield Theatre –both past and present. The scenic artists who delivered stage settings to Normansfield Theatre will be the topic of my next few posts.

Dr. John Langdon Haydon Down (1828-1896) and his wife, Mary Crellin Down, opened Normansfield in 1868. As the Langdon Down Centre website explains “Normansfield was a family home and a place where people with learning disabilities could be cared for and educated at a time when most of them would have been condemned to life in an asylum.”

Normansfield was a dramatic departure from 19^th century asylums that housed individuals suffering from a variety of mental conditions. Dr. Down believed that those with congenital conditions should not be housed with those who had lost their sense of reason. This was an extremely progressive stance to take at the time!

Dr. and Mrs. Down were dedicated to improving and elevating the lives of those at Normansfield, with activities included theatricals, dancing, croquet, basketry, needlework, loom rug and many more activities.

An entertainment hall was added to Normansfield as part of the care and education of Normansfield residents.

On June 28, 1879, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published a lengthy article on the formal opening of the new pavilion, wing, and halls (p. 3). In an inaugural address, Dr. Down explained the history and goals at Normansfield.

I am including the following excerpt from his speech, as it really sums up the progress made by Dr. Down prior to opening the amusement hall, now known as Normansfield Theatre:  

“A previously uninhabited and partially completed home was secured, on what was then a potato field. The house was finished, and the field was converted into a garden. Normansfield seemed a suitable name for the field, and it was then, for I was urged on and encouraged in my plan by my ever-to-be remembered friend, the later Mr. Norman Wilkinson, well known as the first patron of David Cox of Brockey, and the devoted friend of man an earnest man. In 1869 it was felt that more room would be needed, and with the professional advice of Mr. Rowland Plumbe [the architect], the son of the lady who first called public attention to the subject, the present building was foreshadowed. It was determined to add by degrees, but also that nothing should be done which would interfere with the realization of the complete idea. Accordingly, in 1869, the south wing was partially built. This gradually filled, and in 1872 it was determined to finish the south wing and subsequently build a block called the north block to correspond with the original structure, or what is now called the south block. Gradually pupils were attracted from all parts of the world – from India, the West Indies, Siam, Persia, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France and every part of the British Isles. Additional land was sought for and procured to meet the requirements of what was felt to be an increasing institution. Two years ago, it was decided to commence the hall in which we are now assembled, and the Kindersaal [children’s hall] below, and to communicate with the main building by means of a glass covered way. Before, however, the hall was half finished – the existing accommodation being gradually absorbed – it was determined to build the north wing, which now unites the hall and Kindersaal [children’s hall] to the north block, in lieu of the temporary glass-covered way. Before this was done, it was felt for architectural effect, but still more for complete organization of the establishment, the central pavilion should no longer be delayed. Simultaneously with these additions, four villas were purchased in order to provide in one sanatorium for the isolation of those who might be suspected of having infectious diseases, and in the others provision for patients whose special wants might be better met by life in a small family, while having the advantages of the discipline, training, and amusements of the establishment. The field of four acres by accretions has expanded into 40 acres. The last eleven year, however, has not been merely a period of growth, it has also been one of development – a staff nearly 100 in number, whose devotion to their duty has never been surpassed, has grown up in this nucleus, and I should but ill perform my part did not their publicly recognize an enthusiastic love for their work, which has helped to make the name Normansfield known beyond the immediate neighborhood of its location, and enabled me to carry out one of the great aims of my life, viz., to provide the highest possible culture, the best physical, moral, and intellectual training, and to open out fresh realms of happiness for a class who have the strongest claims on our sympathy and for who, till lately so little has been done.”

It is important to understand that theatrical entertainments, complete with scenery and stage machinery, occurred well before the construction of Normansfield’ years earlier’s amusement hall.

On Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published an article entitled, “Entertainment at Normansfield” (p. 5) The article reported, “Indeed the gratifying results which have hitherto taken place at this asylum have been solely due to the kind treatment which the inmates have received at the hands of the principals. At the end of the old year or the beginning of the new there is usually provided a theatrical entertainment, first of all for the amusement of the [residents], and repeated for the benefit of the friends invited by Dr. and Mrs. Downs and the performers, who are servants at the establishment…between each act there was, as usual, vocal and instrumental music. The acting manager was Mrs. Langdon-Down; the stage director, Dr. Langdon-Down; the pianists, Mesdames Innes and Chapman; cornet, Mr. James; and prompter, Mr. Barry. The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

The life and career of J. T. Bull will be the subject of my next post.

It was the success of these early theatrical entertainments that fueled Dr. Down’s desire to build a proper theatre for the children in 1877.

Over the years, Normansfield’s Theatre expanding their scenic offerings, eventually amassing a collection that eventually boasted over 100 pieces. A photographic display for the Heritage Lottery funded project, Normansfield – Protecting a Theatrical Past explains, “The scenery collection was made for the Normansfield Theatre and were well cared for in their day, however, they remained largely unseen and forgotten from the 1950’s onwards….The survival of this unique collection of Victorian scenery, came to the attention of theatre historian’s in the 1980’s. A team of specialist, including Dr. David Wilmore and Dr. Colin Sorenson form the Museum of London, began to list and photograph the scenery in 1984…13 years later, the Theatre Trust, with financial support from the Friends’ of Normansfield, was able to commission the Textile Conservation Centre, to survey the scenery and report on its condition. A Conservation Plan was put in place by John Earl while all the materials were carefully wrapped and stored properly and securely. The scenery was restored. Today, this collection is the largest Victorian collection of scenery in the UK. The Stage itself still contains the original working flaps and is only one of two theatres with this is place today. The scenery on the stage today is a painted replica of the original, due to the fragile nature of the scenery.”

Here are five of the eight framed pieces in storage at the Langdon Down Centre, once used at Normansfield Theatre.

The history about the documentation, preservation, and storage of the Normansfield Theatre Scenery Collection is absolutely fascinating! Here are three articles about the project, published by the Down’s Syndrome Association:

Dr. Langdon Down’s Normansfield Theatre, written by John Earl, provides an extensive history of not only the entertainment hall, but also the lives and good works of the Downs. Although out of print, a few used copies sporadically appear at online bookstores.

I first learned about the Normansfield Theatre in 2016, when Dr. Wilmore presented a paper about the historic scenery collection. It was for an international theatre conference in Stockholm (OISTAT Research Committee meeting event).

I was amazed that many pieces of the scenic pieces in the extant collection included studio stamps.

Normansfield Theatre was again the topic of two papers this summer, both presented at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference. Dr. Wilmore shared the discovery of portrait panels from the original Gilbert & Sullivan production of “Ruddygore” [later Ruddigore, Savoy Theatre, 1887], currently on display at the Normansfield Theatre.

Despite significant deterioration, the scenic art is absolutely exquisite!

For the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference, Karen Thompson also presented a paper that focused on Normansfield’s scenery collection.

Thompson was the project manager for the conservation of the Normansfield Theatre Scenery. A full documentation took place in 1997, with a conservation methodology plan recommended by 2001. Between 2003-2005 conservation and storage of the scenery took place. Thompson and Frances Lennard published “Normansfield Theatre Scenery: Materials and Construction Revealed Through Conservation,” detailing many of their discoveries.

A week after the conference, we visited Normansfield Theatre, hoping to see as much extant scenery as possible. The historic scenery collection was placed in an ingenious storage system below the hall. 

Although designed to be easily accessible for viewing, the space is now also used for storage, so the rolling units remain quite compact. During my visit, we could only create a narrow walking path to examine painted details.

Other extant scenery not as accessible, stored in an upstage area at the theatre, connected to the stage by a pair of loading doors.

My next few posts will explore the lives and careers of scenic artists who painted scenery for Normansfield Theatre.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

This is the final post about my trip to the Adelina Patti Theatre in Craig Y Nos, Wales, on August 7, 2024.

Scenic artist, Walter Hann, was the subject of my previous post, exploring the his creation of the stock scenery collection. The act drop for the theatre was painted by another London artist – Daniel T. White.

An illustration of Patti’s new act drop was published in Western Mail on August 13, 1891.

The article, entitled “Opening of the Patti Theatre at Craig-Y-Nos,” reported, “Upon entering the house the visitor is struck by the beauty of detail sown everywhere in this miniature opera house. Before him rises the act drop, which is an elegant picture, by White, of London, of the prima donna in the character of Semiramide driving a chariot and pair of horses…The act drop, which is an elegant picture, by White, of London, of the prima donna in the character of Semiramide driving a chariot and a pair of horses.”

At the time I read the article, I had no idea that “White, of London” was actually Daniel Thomas White. My mind initially whirled, as I contemplated several nineteenth-century scenic artists named White. So, with only a common surname and a large city, there was very, very little information to start. Regardless, I knew that “Mr. White, of London” was no amateur artist, local hire, or talented youth at the beginning of his career.

For many nineteenth-century theaters, stock scenery collections and act drops were created by two different artists. Unlike standard stock scenes, the painting act drops (also referred to drop curtains or front drops in North America) required an extensive skill set, as well as familiarity with all subjects matter, including the painting of drapery, ornament, architecture, landscape, animals and figures.

On Dec. 18, 1894, in The Philadelphia Inquirer reported: “[The act drop] is the most expensive piece of furniture in any playhouse. Managers are most solicitous about the care of a handsome drop curtain than almost any other appointment in the theatres. They are usually painted by the artists of wide fame in the peculiar branch of art which they represent, whose charges for the work range from $1000 to $3000.”

A year later, The Magazine of Art published an article written by W. Telbin entitled, “Art in the Theatre: Act-Drops.” In 1895, he wrote, “…in the interval between acts a painted canvas, either representing drapery or other form of decoration, or a landscape (classical mostly), has been used. A commission to paint this canvas was always sought for by the scene-painter, for it was, and is, comparatively speaking, the only durable record of his work. Such a commission was considered a diploma of merit of the highest order, only falling into the hands of those of the ripest experience.”

My quest to track down “White, of London,” started with the opera. Semiramide is a two-act opera by Gioachino Rossini, based on the legendary figure Semiramis of Assyria who was heralded for her intellect, military leadership, and beauty.

I was surprised to find that Adelina Patti is frequently mentioned in various histories written about Semiramide. She performed the title role as part of the Cincinnati Opera Festival in 1882. This annual event not only featured world-class performers, but also featured well-known scenic artists from England, Europe, and the United States. On Jan. 16, 1882, the Chattanooga Daily Times provided a little context for the event, reporting, “The first Opera Festival realized the intentions of its founders, excelling as it did, in lyric, dramatic, and scenic splendor, any previous performance ever given in this country, if not in Europe; yet the second Festival will be more complete and attractive than any predecessor. The principal operas to be given are: “Fidelio,” Beethoven; “William Tell,” Rossini; “The Huguenots,” Meyerbeer; “Magic Flute,” Mozart. These splendid works of great composers will be presented with a magnificence and completeness heretofore unequaled. The scenery, costumes, and the stage properties of these great opera have been prepared in Italy, at a great expense, by Colonel Mapleson. The scenery, painted by Magnani, the greatest of living scenic artists, is elaborate and exceedingly beautiful.”  Other scenic artists associated with the Festival between 1881 and 1882 included Charles Fox, F. S. Humphreys, D. B. Hughes, John, Rettig, DeWitt C. Waugh, H. E. Burcky, and many others.

Col. Mapleson, named impresario for the Festival, was the key link between the Cincinnati Opera Festival and Adelina Patti. It was Mapleson who brought Patti overseas for her London debut in 1861, and Mapleson who brought her back to the United States for a, 1881. On Feb. 20, 1881, The Cincinnati Enquirer announced in “Opera Festival Notes” – “Adelina Patti will be the prima-donna at the Opera Festival next year” (p. 12). Interestingly, this was a week after the same newspaper announced, “Adelina Patti gets $3,000 for every performance she gives” (14 Feb 1881, p. 1). Patti consistently made American news throughout the early 1880s, even when performing in other countries. For many Americans, she was a household name.

It was Patti’s time spent in Cincinnati that made me contemplate if “White, of London” was actually the Cincinnati-based African-American scenic artist Solomon E. White (1841-1912). There were a few things that caused me to go down this particular rabbit hole. Solomon White had made a name for himself by the 1860s, working at the National Theatre, Robinson’s Opera House, Freeman’s Theatre, and Wood’s Theatre. He was a free African-American male who travelled all over the country to complete a variety of painting projects, including residential murals, oil paintings, and public artworks. Solomon White’s story is quite remarkable, but there is a period (c. 1885-1895) when he disappears from print – a time that coincides with the planning and construction of Patti’s Theatre. I had often considered that the omission of White’s name from North American newspapers at this time possibly indicated work abroad; a common occurrence for African-American theatre artists who sought friendlier receptions on foreign shores. This was also a period in American history accentuated by increased hostilities against Black communities. Amazingly, an artist named “Mr. S. E. White” was exhibiting in England at this time, including at the eleventh annual exhibition of the Sheffield Society of Artists in 1885 (Sheffield and Rotherham Independent 12 August 1885, p.3).

In the end, I traced the lives and careers of well over 100 other scenic artists with the same surname.  This meant looking at alternative spellings too, such as Whyte and Whaite. Many nineteenth-century scenic artists working in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia are now in my database, including Septimus Whaite, Marmaduke “Duke” John Horton White, Eugene N. White, Frank H. White, H. O. White, J. B. White, James H. White, James V. White, John White, T. White, and Walter White, to name a few.

Just about the time I was ready to give up, I stumbled across the following article, published in The Era on October 25, 1868: “The Commencement of the season at the Haymarket Theatre is an event of some importance in the dramatic world, and on Monday night last a large audience assembled to welcome Miss Bateman on her return to the London stage. A fortnight since we recorded the principal features of the new decorations and embellishments which have been executed in such perfect taste under the immediate superintendence of Mr. John O’Connor, Mr. Buckstone’s principal scenic artist. The co-operation of Mr. W. Telbin, Mr. E. C. Barnes, and Mr. Daniel T. White has resulted in the most advantageously, and the Theatre now presents a remarkably chaste and elegant appearance. It will be remembered the above-named gentlemen are respectively answerable for the new act-drop (representing Tasso reciting a poem at Venice), the magnificent allegorical painting on the proscenium, and the four medallion portraits of Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Garrick, and Sheridan. The two groups of Cupids (one in each spandrel) are also painted by the clever young artist Mr. D. T. White. As regards the act-drop, the name W. Telbin is a guarantee that he picturesque subject chosen would be treated in the highest style of art. The whole of this Venetian picture is suffused with the rich glow of sunset, and Mr. Telbin’s reputation as a colourist if fully sustained.”

This article places White within prestigious scenic art circle as an up-and-coming “clever young artist.” Here is his tale…

Daniel Thomas White was born on April 19, 1843. Baptized on July 7, 1843, at Saint Mary-St. Marylebone Road, St. Marylebone, London, he was the son of a chemist, Daniel White (1801-1886), and Caroline Docwra (1811-1893). In 1843, the White family resided at 19 Park Terrace.

He is another scenic artist that links the painting and chemistry trades, continuing a topic in my recent posts about Edmund Handby (Victoria Hall, Settle) and George Rivers Higgins (Georgian, Theatre, Richmond).

Daniel T. White Jr. was the second youngest son of several children born to the couple. His siblings included: Edmund White (b. 1831-1915), Jane Margaret White (1833-?), George Farr White (1836-1900), Frances “Fanny” Anne White (1838-), Elizabeth Caroline White (1840-1840), Louisa White (1841-1931), and William Edwin White (1844-1915). The 1851 Census listed Daniel T. White as one of several children living with their maternal aunt Jane M. Docwra (1890-1895), in Hatfield Mill (Mill Green) in Hertfordshire, England. Jane Docwra was Caroline White’s oldest sister; their parents were William Docwra (1784-1852) and Elizabeth Farr (1786-1812).

In 1851, Daniel’s Aunt Jane was clearly listed as the head housekeeper at Mills House. Her household included the following children: Caroline White (11 yrs., niece), Louisa White (9 yrs., niece), Daniel White (7 yrs., nephew) and William White (6 yrs., nephew). Although the entry of each child’s occupation is somewhat illegible, it looks like “paint pupils.” Docwra’s household also included lodger George Harrison, noted as the Millers foreman.

Meanwhile, Daniel’s parents and three older siblings (Edmund, Jane and George) were living at 19 Park Terrace, Christchurch Parish, Middlesex County. For geographical context, this is approximately 42 miles south of Hatfield, near London. Both Edmund White and Jane White were part of the family business, listed as assistant chemists.

Now, I was extremely curious about this whole living situation, so I started looking at previous census reports. It seems that when the White children were quite small, they lived with their Aunt Jane,. Once they were old enough to support help their father as assistant chemists, they returned home. In 1841, Jane White (7 yrs.), George White (5 yrs.), Fanny White (3 yrs.), Charles White (3 yrs.) and Caroline White (1 yr.) all lived with Aunt Jane in Hatfield. However, at that time Jane Docwra’s occupation was listed as “Ink.”

There is a big problem census reports and young children, as that a lot can happen over the course of ten years. Unless they make news (death, marriage, or a legal matter), it is difficult to follow their lives.

By 1861, Daniel White Jr. and his sister Frances were the only children living with their parents at Christchurch Parish, St. Marylebone, Middlesex. That year, the White household included: Daniel White Sr. (60 yrs.), Caroline White (50 yrs.), Frances White (23 yrs.), Daniel White Jr. (17 yrs.) and their servant Mary Cooper.  This was about the same time that Daniel should have entered the scenic art profession, as an apprentice or assistant. Unfortunately, no occupation was listed for him in the 1861 census, not even as his father’s assistant.

It was during the 1860s, however, that Daniel T. White showed promise as an artist and began exhibiting his paintings. On April 7, 1867, The Era described a painting by D. T. White in an article entitled, “French and Flemish Gallery of Paintings for 1867.” The article reported, “Among the social and familiar every-day incidents of life, which the French artist catches up with such gusto and avidity, and out of which he always contrives to work a good picture, we wish to draw attention to No. 208, In the Bois de Boulogne, by D. T. White. The subject is the early advances of a French soldier on the affections of a middle-aged nursemaid, or bonne, who while listening to the gallant wooer, allows her charges to take care of themselves. This picture, as an illustration of character, is a study.

I want to pause here to also note that were other individuals named Daniel White at this time, men who also went by D. T. White.

The scenic artist who painted Adelina Patti’s act-drop is Daniel Thomas White (1843-1908), the son of chemist Daniel White (1801-1886). However, throughout my research, I noticed that a lot of art historians confuse the dates and activities of four different men – each named Daniel White. In addition to Daniel Thomas White and his father, there was an art dealer and another artist named Daniel White.

For example, on March 10, 1868, The Daily Telegraph noted the passing of Daniel White on Feb. 5, listing him as a “Dealer in works of art, No. 45 Maddox-street, Bond-street, Oxford-street in county of Middlesex”(March 10, 1868, p. 1). This is neither the father nor the son in my story. Daniel Thomas White’s father (Daniel White Sr.) passed away on Sept. 7, 1886. Unfortunately, the art dealer also appears in numerous historic records as D. T. White – hence, the confusion. The Royal Academy listing for D. T. White notes “(fl. 1850-fl 1864) Art dealer based in Maddox Street, London.”

AND… there is a second family of London artists with the patriarch named Daniel White. I want to make sure that people don’t confuse this individual with the scenic artist who painted the Patti act drop. The 1911 census lists 71-yrs. old-widower and artist, Daniel White, living with his three sons in St. Marylebone. His sons were Arthur Charles White (son, 37 yrs., artist), Percy Alfred White (son, 34 yrs., artist), and Charles Daniel White (son, 29, insurance clerk). This Daniel White (son of Thomas and Harriet White) worked at various 19th-century trades, including tin plate work. He died in 1921 and is buried in the same plot with his eldest son, Arthur Charles White (1876-1943). Again, this is a completely separate family.

There is even a stage character named Daniel White from a comic drama written by  H. T. Craven; a production titled MILKY WHITE.

Unreal.

Advertisements that appear from the 1860s onward really threw a screw in the works. For example, here is a Want Ad in The Era, published on March 21, 1885 (p. 20).

I am certain that Daniel Thomas White (1843-1908), son of Daniel White (1801-1886), is the “White, of London” who painted the act drop for Adelina Patti’s Theatre. He assisted scenic artist, John O’Connor, throughout the 1860s.

On Oct. 18, 1869, The Times advertised: “TREASURE TROVE, Operetta, at 7. The music by Offenbach. The scene by Mr. F. Lloyds. Characters by Miss Susan Pyne, Miss Henrietta Everard, Miss Bessie Loviel, Mr. Frank Crellin, and Mr. Henry Broughton. At the conclusion of the Operetta, a New Act Drop, “King Charles Leaving St. James’s Palace for the Play,” painted by O’Connor (the figures by Mr. D. T. White) will be exhibited. – ST. JAMES THEATRE TO-NIGHT (Monday)” (p. 6).

John O’Connor (1830-1889) was extremely popular as both a scenic artist and easel artist, well-known for his landscapes and architectural paintings (cathedrals, churches, old buildings and street scenes). His artworks were exhibited across the country, and he was associated with the Society of British Artists, the Royal Academy, Royal Watercolour Society, the Royal Hibernian Society, and many other organizations. Much has been written about his theatrical contributions. However, for the purpose of this story – O’Connor was principal scenic artist at Theatre Royal, Haymarket, from 1863-1878, having succeeded William Callcott. Upon his passing, The Era reported, “We think we are correct in stating that the drop-curtain still used here [Haymarket Theatre] was the work of O’Connor and a pupil of his, Mr. Daniel White, who painted the four figures dancing a minuet” (p. 9). O’Connor’s obituary also remembered his “correctness of drawing, manipulative skill, and keen sense of the picturesque in the strongest light.”

It was O’Connor who even submitted a sketch of the Haymarket paint room that was published in The Graphic on Dec. 27, 1873.

In 1871, Daniel T. White was listed in the Census as an artist, living with his older brother in Kingston, Surrey. The White household included George F. White (35 yrs., surgeon), Caroline (30 yrs.), Daniel T. White (28 yrs., artist), Mary Ann Steven (28 yrs., servant) and James Peters (17 yrs., groom).

1871 was the same year that D. T. White, E. F. Clarke, and W. J. Hennessy were credited with illustrations for a publication entitled, “The Dark Blue.”

I was also astounded to learn that in 1877 Daniel Thomas White was hired by Henry Labouchère to provide artwork for the new publication “Truth.”  The was remembered in an article entitled 50 Years of “Truth” that was published in The Evening Dispatch on January 5, 1927 (page 3). The article reported, “The jubilee number of “Truth,” which first saw the light on 4 January, 1877, appears to-day. It was founded by Henry Labouchere when he was 45 years of age, and its number bore on the front page which it still bears. The artist, Daniel Thomas White, was an unknown man who drew the design “on spec,” and sent it to Labouchere who, it is believed, paid £10 for it…for the first few years Labouchere edited the paper, and turned out columns of paragraphs, lengthy articles of several pages on theatrical affairs and a “city” article of several pages…”

Here is the link to the first volume, numbers 1-26, with D. T. White’s illustration: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002799229p&seq=17

In 1880, D. T. White was also listed as one of several men associated with the Junior Arts Club. On May 12, 1880 The Express reported, “The Junior Arts Club is the title of a new club at Lancaster House, Savoy, W. C. It is intended to be entirely a social club to facilitate intercourse between members of the literary, dramatic, artistic, and musical profession. It is anticipated that the rooms will be ready for occupation by Ladyday, when an inaugural dinner will be held. The following gentlemen constitute the honorary committee: – Sir Julius Benedict, J. Billington, H. J. Byron, Dutton Cook, W. W. Fenn, Luke Fildes, A.R.A.; W. P. Frith, R.A.; E. W. Godwin, F.S.A.; Major A. Griffiths, John Hollingshead, Henry Irving, Blanchard Jerrold, J. E. Millais, R.A.; J. C. Parkinson, C. Santley, Clement Scott, Major Hawley Smart, E. Solomon, Ashby Sterry, Charles Warner, D. T. White, W. G. Wills, and Edmund Yates” (p. 3).

By 1881, Daniel was living with another White brother in Christchurch Parish, St. Marylebone. Edmund White was now running the family business. The census listed the White household as including Edmund White (Chemist), Jane White (wife), George P. White (6, son), Edward D. White (3, son), Marshall Langtry (asst. Chemist), Josephus Mundaye (Chemist), Daniel T. White (brother, artist), Cecilia Purday (cook), and Elizabeth Bradford (servant).

In 1885, he married Maria Ann Curling (b.1861) in St. Giles Parish, London. Tragically, his young wife died that same year, and he did not remarry until 1897.

On Dec. 24, 1887, The Era Published an article entitled “The Drama at the Art Institute and the British Artists” (p. 9). D. T. White was listed as one of the contributors to the winter exhibition of the Institute of Painters in Oil Colours in Piccadilly. Of White’s artwork, the article reported, “Mr. D. T. White, who shows us, 509, “Garrick Introducing the Actresses to Dr. Johnson at his Theatre.” The actresses might have been portraits of Kitty Olive and Mrs. Abington, but are not. The Garrick is represented by Mr. White as almost of as many inches as Johnson, a height which makes Foote’s well-known jest about marionettes being “not so large as life – but only a little bigger than Mr. Garrick,” quite meaningless. The result of this introduction we know from Boswell was many a pleasant visit behind the scenes of Old Drury – visits which the susceptible old man, abruptly brought to an end, as he told Garrick himself, because the voluptuous charms of his actresses disturbed his meditations. Happily for the peace of mind our modern men of letters, they are not allowed to profane the mysteries of the Green-room!”

The 1891 Census listed Daniel as part of his mother’s household at No. 22 Orchard Road, Kingston, Surrey. Now a widower, Daniel listed his occupation as artist painter/sculptor. His older sister Caroline, now 51 yrs. old, was also living with their mother. This was just after he painted the act drop for Adelina Patti’s Theatre at Craig Y Nos Castle in Wales.

Amazingly, in 1895, White’s design for Patti’s Theatre act drop was pictured in The Magazine of Art!!!

In an article entitled “Art in the Theatre: Act-Drops,” White’s work was featured alongside that of William Telbin, Henry Emden, John O’Connor, F.  Harker, and Hawes Craven. I had accidentally stumbled across this article while doing one last search for “D. T. White.” 

What is remarkable about the image in the article is that it shows the actual design – not the completed act drop. We are able to see how certain elements were altered during the actual painting, including the addition of soprano roles to the border (see image below).

Interestingly, White’s design was criticized by William Telbin, author of the article. He wrote: “I also think that too much action is to be avoided on an act-drop. In the illustration on page 339, “Semiramide Driving the Chariot,” – though I have only seen the sketch herewith reproduced. The drop hangs in Madame Patti’s private theatre at Craig-y-Nos. Galloping horses must, of course, represent violent action, therefor the choice of subject I think not wise; calm water, placid skies, and the graceful rhythmic movement of the minuet – rather than stormy seas, wild and driving clouds, or dizzy whirling waltz – and thus the movement and colour in the School for Scandal scene exactly right.”

Wow….tell that to the dozens of theatre managers who selected Ben Hur’s Chariot Race as the subject for drop curtains…

Telbin’s article also included an image of the Haymarket Theatre Act drop, credited by D. T. White and John O’Connor.

Of this act drop Telbin wrote, “A decorative subject agreeable in coulour, graceful in design, will not offend in one case and may add tone in the other; I distinctly feel that representations of scenes from particular plays are inadvisable. In support of this opinion, two illustrations form subjects are given. The first is a reproduction of Mr. D. T. White’s and John O’Connor’s picture from the School for Scandal as represented by Mr. and Mrs. Bancroft at the Prince of Wale’s Theatre; and the other, Charles the First and Henrietta Maria in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace, by Mr. Hawes Craven, for the Lyceum. They are both charmingly painted, and most agreeable subjects, but are too distinctly individual to be quite appropriate in their agreeable public position.”

I have to wonder if Telbin was trying to pick a fight at this point. There is nothing like criticizing the work of your colleagues in a very public manner – and in an ART magazine.

A few years after Telbin’s article, Daniel White married again. At the age of 54 yrs. old, he wed 42-yrs.-old Kate Elizabeth Beyant Turner in Wandsworth, England. This was a second marriage for Kate too. Her first husband had been a banker, Charles Turner (1807-1891), 44 yrs. her senior. The childless couple lived in a house full of servants near the end, their marriage lasting from 1883 until Charles’ passing in 1891.

The 1901 Census listed Daniel and Kate White as living in Putney, London; White’s occupation as “artist oils/sculptor.” Daniel T. White passed away only seven years later, just shy of his 65^th birthday, in 1908. He is buried at Putney Vale Cemetery, in Wandsworth. Kate White outlived her husband by many years, living until 1936. I have located precious little information about her life as a widow.

It was almost 90 years before Daniel T. White made the news again. One of his paintings was pictured in The Independent On April 29, 1990. Titled “Battledoor and Shuttlecock,” it was part of the exhibit London’s Pride: the History of the Capital’s Gardens’ at the Museum of London, that ran from May 1-August 12, 1990.

All that remains of White’s legacy is a handful of oil paintings, some newspaper articles, and the Adelina Patti Theatre act-drop. Despite severe deterioration, the act-drop is the only extant example of White’s scenic art. It celebrates his brilliance as a scene painter who studied with John O’Connor. This drop desperately needs to be stabilized to prevent irreparable damage. It is a national treasure, a culturally significant artifact in the history of world theatre that not only documents the scenic artistry of Daniel T. White, but also the theatrical vision of Adelina Patti.

To be continued…