Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1996 - 52

designed to prevent the "bogus manager"' from entering into the business. Bogus managers were speculators, and were particularly undesirable because they often \rent into the theatre business \I·ith no financial
backing or support.
In contrast, members of the Stage Guild felt that disagreements between actors and managers could be resolved by gatheling together in
Councils; each Council having a representatire on a Grand Council.
Eren though the actors far outnumbered managers in tlle Stage Guild.
the managers still had unequally superior representation on the councils. In addition, tlle Manager"s Council reserved the right to meet in secrecy; even excluding members of the Grand Council.
The primaI~' area of contention between the A.A. and ilie Stage
Guild was the Standard Touring Contract. Though tlle Stage Guild
claimed it had adopted the standard contract established by A.A. in
1919, many differences were apparent, the most prominent was the absence of rehearsal pay during production. In addition, the Guild's contract offered no real protection against bogus managers. It was for this
reason that the Actors Association chose to boycott touring companies,
rather than the London stages. ;

ACTORS' ASSOCIATION
(Rea. T.U.. ,Affili.ted T.U.C.),

Trades Union Dispute.
The ACTORS' ASSOCIATION askc
.11 the Citizen~ of SHEFFIELD to

Keep away from
SIR

doJorlN

Martin Harvey's Company.
BECAUSESIR JOHN MARTrN HARVEY is one of the Inunders 01 the STAGE
GUILD. an Anti-Trade Union Organiza.tion, formed by the Employers to
smash the Actors' Association. and impose a Contrut of Employment upon the
Artiste that will encourage tbe continuance of SWEATED CONDITIONS.
IIIr. ARTHUR BOURCHIER. in discnssing lhis Contract, said.. Such a. suggestion is deliberately encouraging the bogus manager,
,,,,ho will onl}' be too ready to jump at this iniqttitous clanse,"

THE BOYCOTT BEGINS

Mr. ALBERT VOYCE, Chairman of the Variety Artistes' Federation, des·
cribe. tbe STAGE GUILD AS A MENACE TO THE ARTISTIC SIDE
OF THE PROFESSION.

In September 1924, tl1e bitter feud between the A.A. and the Stage Guild
canle 10 a head. nder the leadership of General Secretal~' Albert Lugg,
the A.A. chose to boycott tlle touring companies that were most popular
at the time. This included Sir John's company aIld another managed by
Era Moore, tllen lOuring the provinces \lith a production of JIm:)'. Mm:)~
Qllite COlltrmy. The A.A., in their efforts to keep audiences alra~; were
particularly hard on Eva Moore. In Huddersfield, Moore filed a writ for
libel against the A.A. based on statements printed in a leaflet accusing
her of dealing in ''White slave traffic." 6 In Woolrich, the A.A. chalked the
sidewalk in front of the theatre, ad\ising patrons to stay away, at which
point she came out herself \lith a mop to wash away the offending remarks.- Finally, in Cal'diff the A.A. threw stink bombs during her perfOI~
mance, which apparently many trade union leaders felt was going too
far and they withdrew their support for the A.A. 8

Mr. ANDRE CHARLOT saYS"I lbink that ACTORS HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN FROM THE
STAGE GUILD, but a lot to gain from a well-organised ActOTs'
Association, '0

LYCEU~[

THEATRE, EDINBURGH, SEPTDllBER 15,1924

Sir John fared somewhat better. He was able to negotiate with the A.A.
on a level that protected the interests of his company while on tour. Although the tour began in Llandudno on August 21, the A.A. threatened
to boycott Sir John on September 8 in :-iewcastle, pending negotiations.
Despite continuing deliberations in London, the A.A. put the boycott into
effect when the company mored to Edinburgh on September 15. In the
first of the Martin-Harvey letters. typewritten and dated September 15
from Edinburgh, Sir John writes:
My dear Bob,
Very many thanks for the Agate cULting and for your two last
letters. Forgive me for not replying sooner, but what wi h the
production of "Richard Ill" last week, with what was practically
a new Company, and the pestering nuisance of this so-called
boycott, I have been driven to death.
I liked so much what you said about the difference between
Labour and the Arts in the professions, and shall be more than
likely to quote it! I wonder if you couJdn't write a little letter to
the papers, pointing out the difference in the tactful way you
have done. I met the heads of the Trade Unions here last night
and they heckled me for three solid hours. Of course, as you say,

\\'11': T E It

996

TD&T

The Li"erpool ., ECHO" says.. The Actors' As.sociatioD are fighting the battle of the tbeatre·going
pnblic."
The

"MA~CHESTER GUARDUN"

say."The Chorus Girls and mlcor members or the casts of feeble and
unsuccessful Companies touring small towns and ohscure theatrM
ha...-c often led, ontil tbe Actors' ~ociation got to work. lives of
far more acute destitution than those of unemployed persons
li \'ing solei)' on the dole.' I

The Acton' Association has successfully dealt with
scorea of Bogus Managere, and rescued Hundreds
of stranded Artistes from all parts of the World,

It is the Moral Duty of SHEFFIELD CITIZENS
to support us, and prevent our extermination.
John L. BradhlUj" T.U, Printer. Enlorprioe Press, A«eroliJIe, Bbemeld

Figure B

Trades Unionism to-day is simply in alliance with the Labour
Party, and it is infamous that we should have to introduce politics into our artistic lives. I shall stick to my guns, though the
A.A. threaten all sorts of persecution if I don't back down l
Forgive more.
Ever yours,
Jack

At one point in the boycott at Edinburgh, the A.A. threatened to
prevent the company from removing its properties, but Sir John's reply
was that he did not care; there were lots of plays which he could do
\I"ithout properties. q In response to the boycott, Sir John hired members
of a local rugby team to act as a "Corps of Lictors" in the event the matter turned ugly.IO Mr. Frank Gray, a local organizer, delivered a speech
to a crowd outside of the theatre at Edinburgh on September 19, and
when Sir John appeared at an upper window, there was an outcry of
hoots and cheers [rom tlle crowd. II Although the boycott had its share
of supporters, in general it appeared to have little effect on the company
or on ticket sales. Sir John's popularity and appe;~ was such that it was
difficult to get support from members of Ihe trade unions who preferred

http://www.ugly.IO

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1996