Henry Dolan Wilton (1843-1872)

Henry Dolan Wilton is even less known than his 'Uncle" J.Hall Wilton had had made him his legally heir a year before the old warhorse died, and they had been travelling together for six years. He was a theatrical manager of sorts, who learned what he had from Wilton, though he did not have Wilton's 'smarts.'

"Poor Henry Dolan Wilton has at last paid the debt of nature. He died in his 29th year, at Church Street, South Shore, Blackpool, Lancashire. Since his return from Australia as agent with Lady Don, his health has gradually succumbed, and young and volatile as he always was, he did not take that care of himself which a man of mature years would have done. It is to his credit that he stood by Lady Don in all her troubles incidental on the management of the Newcastle Theatre, and his death is most acutely felt, not only by her Ladyship, and by a large circle of friends." — The Australasian, Sat 20 Jan 1872 

I wish I had more to say on him, and indeed upon his uncle, both of whom seemed to have left little trace of their early lives, though we do know Dolan was the young mans last name and that he testified at the inquest that he was not a real nephew but had been made 'heir in law.'

Lady Don seems to have been very fond of him, for which I shall ever hold her in high esteem.

Addendum, March 2020: Fred Brewer noted in the Bulletin of the 1920s that Henry was a son of Wilton's and that he had married the Widow Don.

John Hall Wilton, Manager (1820—1862)

Mr. J.Hall Wilton was a mysterious figure, little known but regularly mentioned, here and there. He was an adventurous spirit and his 'nephew' —well, who wasn't his nephew, was something else entirely, but that is another story, but here is a reminiscence from "Hayseed" of 1909 about the long since passed Mr. Hall:—

"Apropos Mr. G. V. Brooke and Mr. Barry Sullivan, the agent for the former, Mr. J. Hall Wilton, was also agent for the latter. I believe it was was under Mr. Wilton's auspices - that Mr. Barry Sullivan came to us. Mr. Wilton had been a soldier, and had seen service in India. He was not a ‘'carpet warrior," nor one that had "never sent a squadron in the field." 

He was a participator in most of the disastrous events occured in Scinde, Baloochistan, and Afghanistan during 1838-1839 and 1840—1843 and during the whole of that time he kept a daily journal, which detailed many thrilling circumstances, considered, perhaps, by many as too trivial for the public mind, but being connected wiih the murders, assassinations, treacheries, etc., of individuals whose near; and dear friends, no doubt, are to this day unacquainted with the particulars of them, and as there may be many thousands of such friends, they will, perhaps, prove doubly interesting to them, as also to the reader generally; and if the brief and simple statements of these facts:—

"…from personal observation, will thus tend to aid the same, and at the same time give any satisfaction to my friends, I am willing to do my utmost trusting never to be considered unworthy of their kindness. 

I shall in a few chapters arrange so as to give a plain, narrative of tbs principal and most interesting events, and give in them some incidents that will, no doubt, induce the memory to reflect on their miseries and results—not forgetting the murder of Captain Hand, the burning to death of three British officers, description of the Indus, Dadur, Hydrebad. Sukher, the much talked-of passes, the Bolun, Gundavie, Mysore. Kojuk, Tezeen, Jugdulluk. Gundamuck, Jellalabad, Khiva, Rohawa, the Punjab; also the battles at Dadur, Kunda, Candahar, Baba Walla, Killa Seuk, I Cilzie, Gownie, Ghurze, Mindan, Cabool, Istaliff, Jellalabad, Aii Mesjid, Meeanee and Hyderabad; the principal operations of Generals Brookes, Keane, Wiltshire, Sale, Nott, Pollock,McCaskill, England and Charles Napier: the army under Lord Ellensborough; the massacre of the Cabool army, Sir W. Macnaughton, Sir A. Burns; the prisoners under Shoomsood Dien Khan, and his cousin Akhbar Khan. Lady Sale and Lady McNaughton; the Bing of Cabool and the Amire of Scinde.” as detailed in his introductory chapter in his book “Scenes in a Soldier's Life, being a connected narrative of the principal military events in Scinde, Ballochistan, and Afghanistan during the years 1839, 1840 1841,11842. 1843, and 1843. under Generals Lord Keane, Brooks. Sir Robert Sale, Wiltshire, Pollock, Nott. England. McGaskill and Sir Ciiarles Napier!" Mr. Wilton was also the author of many other works “Ethaldi”— “The Ouesii” — “The Deserters”— “The First Cause” —The First Crime” —“True Friendship,”— “The Darling Wife” etc. To this gentleman we are indebted for the introduction of Sir William and Lady Don, Sir. Barry Sullivan,  and other notable personages  

He died wider melancholy circumstances at Tattersalls Hotel, Pitt-Street, Sydney. December 18, 1862, but is kept in kindly memory by those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance  A nephew, in no way a reflex of the uncle was agent for Lady Don on her second visit to Australia, and he was agent, if I mistake not, for G. V. Brooke, just prior to his leaving England in the ili-fated London. 

Weybert Reeve, in his little hook, “From Life'' (1831), gives an insight into the nephew's style. In a reference to G. V. Brooke, Mr. Reeve says:—'Years then passed over: he had been to Australia, and had made a name there, and at one time, as he told me, had a great deal of money, £50,000, and lost it in the Theatre Royal, Melbourne, and Cremorne Gardens. He came hack to England, and we met in the same theatre again, the Royal at Sheffield, of which I was then manager for Mr. Charles Pitt. He brought with him Miss Avonia Jones and Mr. Richard Younge, but he was far from being the Brooke of the. Olympic, and the engagement was not a Successful one. We decided, however, to play him at the Theatre, Newcastle-on-Tyne two or three months later on. I took the company over. Miss Jones was there, when to my horror I received a telegram on the morning he was to have appeared, from his agent, Mr. Wilton, 'Brooke arrested: send money to release him, or cannot play.' I sent the money, but he did not arrive until Wednesday. It was then too late; the engagement was ruined, and a considerable loss was the result. His share for the nine nights was nothing like enough to pay his expenses, and I had to provide the deficiency. Generous to a fault, others reaped whatever harvest his engagements, produced." Miss Jones and Mr. Younge had left for Manchester; he had to pay the hotel bill, and whilst asking me to let him have the money to do so, I could not help noticing his agent’s wife, sitting an the room elegantly dressed, with diamond rings on her lingers, nursing a pet Italian greyhound. There would be his journey to Manchester. I would gladly have paid this, too, but I would not pay for his hangers-on, so I arranged with the stationmaster that they should go through on the security of their luggage. Miss Jones to release it on their arrival' I am under the impression that the nephew died in indigence, or under peculiar circumstances."

Brooke versus Keene

"While in Australia Mr. G. V. Brooke added to his long list of impersonations two of importance—Louis XI, and Sir Bernard Harleigh in J. Palgrave Simpson's one-act drama "Dreams of Delusion," a piece adapted from the French drama, "Eile Est Folle.” 

The piece was originally produced by amateurs at Thurloe Place, West Brampton, in 1853, Palgrave Simpson sustaining the leading part—a mad baronet. Later on it was played at Laura Keene's Theatre, New York (1856) when Laura played the leading female part —Lady Viola Harleigh. The play was again produced at the Howard Atheneum in 1858. 

Brooke produced it in 1860 or 1861 at the Theatre Royal, Melbourne, and made a huge success of the character—one it may be said, entirely new to him, it being that of a man who is under the delusion that he has murdered a friend. In Louis XL the study was also original (1853). He produced it while Charles Kean was running the play at the Princess, London. I saw Charles Kean in it on the occasion of his appearance at the Haymarket Theatre, Melbourne — in 1863. 

Nothing could be more distinct than the two impersonations. 

Charles was active, cunning, alert in everything;  Brooke made the monarch old, decrepit, superstitious, at times in terror. In the scene with Nemours, when they are alone, Brooke grovelled, Kean trembled. Each might have been on the stage at the end at the same and the spectator would not have known that each was playing Louis XI. 

Charles Dillon, on April 6, 1863, made his first appearance in Sydney as Louis XI., its first performance in the city; but I was not there to see. We will talk about Charles Dillon later on. I saw him In my native Dublin. as a boy, and have pleasing memories of him as an actor." — by "Hayseed" Nov 1909.

Charles Dillon (8) Portrait

Charles Dillion (7) A Critic's Reflection

I thought an decent retrospective analysis of Dillion from a Melbourne Critic of 1914 might be if interest. The following is from a regular column entitled "Dramatic Memories" by “Proteus” published in Freeman’s Journal, Sydney, of date 20 August 1914 (p.12). It is long but worth the attention, as much for its content, but also for what is between the lines.

"If these memories were to follow exact chronological order—which they do not pretend to—Montgomery would have not been mentioned imediately after Sullivan. In the same year that witnessed Sullivan’s arrival (1862), a ‘wandering star’ of no little importance was visible in Australia. That was Charles Dillon. He came quite unannounced. Not even the tiniest newspaper paragraph had heralded his approach. As a matter of fact , he had crossed over the pacific rom San Francisco under the impulse, it would seem, of a sudden whim, for Charles Dillon was an actor who at that time was in little danger of soon wearing out his welcome in any English-speaking community where the stage was an institution. He was really a very fine performer. But along with groat talent he had a streak, and no very light one, of Bohemianism. He would often act on the spur of the moment, and in direct opposition to his own interests.

George Coppin, who had recently opened the Haymarket Theatre in Bourke-street, Melbourne, at once entered, into an engagement with Dillon, and put him up for Macbeth. There was earnestness and power in his representation of the ambitious Thane. He was especially effective in the dagger scene, and also where Macbeth is confronted with the apparition of the murdered Banquo. Dillon, in these two scenes, showed a certain imaginative perception which had its influence on his audience. It is a quality in the absence of which tragedy, however engrossing, and words, to whatever extent they may be weighted with great thoughts— become mere “sound and fury signifying, nothing.” Yet, on the whole, the Macbeth of Charles Dillon did not very much impress the first Australian audience that was privileged to witness it. It is no reflection on Dillon’s memory to say that the Melbourneites had seen at least one tragedian who rose more imposingly to what has been called “the wild and supernatural glory” of the wonderful Scottish tragedy. They had seen Brooke. Dillon did not reveal his real strength till he was seen in romantic drama or an that distinctive variety labelled as “domestic.” His Belphegor in the play of that name was a very natural and a very pathetic piece of acting. The late Mr. Alfred Dampier, long subsequent to Dillon's time, in Australia, made a good deal out of the same character. Before Dillon came, it had been played by Clarence Holt (father of Bland), who was wont to remind his friends that he was the only Belphegor on the stage. The statement was usually emphasised with a highly coloured adjective which need not be quoted here. But Clarence Holt was very far from being equal to Dillon in Belphegor. The piece was an adaptation from the French, the leading character in which was originally sustained by the celebrated Frederic Lemaitre. It was considered one of Lemaitre's best parts. His best was not deemed a bit better than that of the English actor who took up the same character.

Dillon was for several years only known in England as a provincial actor. He was within a couple of years of forty when his first chance offered in London. That was in 1856. He appeared as Belphegor at Sadler's Wells Theatre, a house which, though far outside the bounds of fashionable London, had, under the spirited and intelligent management of Samuel Phelps, and through his own efforts as an exponent of the legitimate drama, won a high place in the estimation of critical audiences. After his success at Sadler’s Wells, however, Dillon soon shifted to the quarter where theatrical audiences of the better sort most did congregate. He opened at the Lyceum, and repeated his success as Belphegor. He assumed the management of the house, of which he remained for several months the main attraction, and with the part of the mount-bank as his surest card. He played it so long that the public began to wonder whether he was only a man of one part.

That notion was speedily banished when he produced a version of Dumas' 'Three Musketeers,' in which he represented D'Artagnan. He was generally admitted to have caught the very spirit which must have actuated the fiery young Gascon drawn by the novelist. Next to Belphegor, it remained his favourite part. The verdict of so excellent a judge of acting as Charles Dickens was not, wanting in his favour. Dickens went to see him one night in a piece specially written for him by Dr. Westland Marston, entitled ''The Hard Struggle.” The author asked the great novelist what he thought of the man who played the hero. His acting, Dickens answered, was what acting should be — ''Nature itself.” Dickens, who was himself an admirable actor, was not in the habit of indiscriminately lavishing his encomiums on new candidates for celebrity in that line. No man had a more profound contempt for false histrionic art. What he said as to Dillon's merits is tolerably conclusive on the subject.

Dillon did not confine himself too long to romantic and domestic drama. He bid boldly for distinction in “Legitimate.” He appeared as Othello, and had an encouraging reception. He followed it up with Macbeth, which he played to the Lady Macbeth of the celebrated Helen Faucit (Lady Martin). His next Shakespearian venture, was Hamlet. The writer saw him in all three characters when he visited Australia, but must confess not to have been much carried away by his performance in any of them. There were indeed scenes in his Hamlet, even as in his Macbeth, in which he was very striking. The closet scene in 'Hamlet' was rendered peculiarly effective by his “business” as it is technically termed, in connection with the apparition of the Ghost. It became visible as though it had glided through the picture of Hamlet's father, hanging on the wall. Hamlet followed it as it traversed the round of the chamber, and his exclamation to his mother, 'There, out at the portal!' as the ghost vanished, was really awesome in its tones. But fragmentary excellence in great Shakespearian parts is not enough. And Dillon was never more than fragmentary in such assumptions.

After finishing his season with Coppin in Melbourne, he came up to Sydney, and opened at the Victoria Theatre on April 6, 1863. He didn't try the Sydneyites with Shakespeare on this occasion. He contented himself with the version of the French play which Dion Boucicault had written tor Charles Kean, and in which Kean, as the central figure, Louis XL, had added so greatly to his reputation. The very next year a Sydney audience had an opportunity of judging for itself as to Kean's merits. He was no doubt a more haunting figure as the Valois King, than Dillon, but for all that Dillon’s impersonation was decidedly good. Those who had never seen Charles Kean in the same part were disposed to rate Dillon's Louis very high indeed. He gave his Sydney admirers Shakespeare too. On the evening when he took his benefit at the “Old Vic” as the close of a season of some four months he showed his versatility by playing Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice” and Willam in Douglas Jerrold’s “Black-Eyed Susan.”

Dillon wandered over Australia and New Zealand for three or four years—at least over such regions of both as could be considered theatrical ground. On quitting these shores he went to England by way of America. An interesting conjuncture of two actors of undoubted ability was when Dillon and Barry Sullivan played together at the Melbourne Royal, of which Sullivan was then the lessee. When “Othello” was produced, the Moor was represented by Dillon, Iago by Sullivan. It was thought by most of those who saw them thus contrasted with one another, that Sullivan's Iago was a far finer performance than Dillon's Othello. In setting down this the writer does not forget that Mr. Titheradge not long since declared that he thought Charles Dillon the best tragedian of his day. Mr. Titheradge spoke, with no ordinary authority on such a subject. Be that as it may, personal impressions, such as they were, must be recorded faithfully here.

Dillon, on his return to England, successfully toured the provinces for many years, and was occasionally to be seen in London . He was engaged to support the title part in a production of “Manfred" at Drury Lane, and was said to have given a very artistic impersonation of Byron's mysterious and much soliloquising hero.

As a Shakespearian actor Dillon as already intimated, could not be classed with Sullivan, much less with Brooke. In his human weaknesses, however, if by no means in his artistic strength, he had certain affinities with the gifted Dubliner. A certain careless temperament was common to both. They both failed to take advantage of fine opportunities. After Brooke's great success at the London Olympic, he was offered an engagement by Benjamin Webster at the Haymarket, and on terms which were then considered very liberal. He was, of course, to lead in tragedy. To take up such a position in the house where Macready had made his farewell appearance was, so to speak, to have his claim to stand at the head of the profession formally recognised. Macready himself, in an entry in his diary, grudgingly acknowledged Brooke's right to it— for Macready was not generous in his recognition of any of his contemporaries. Brooke meanwhile had, for some unaccountable reason, refused Webster's offer and betaken himself to the provinces. He was not seen in London again till he returned from America in 1852, but his welcome was as warm as ever when he appeared on the boards of “Old Drury.” Ten years later Drury was to see him, again, but under altered circumstances. He was badly supported, and the man himself was in partial eclipse.

Dillon forsook London as capriciously as Brooke had forsaken it. In neither case could it be said that audiences had forsaken the actors. It is only by taking into account the irresistible promptings of the Bohemian temperament and the constant desire for change that the thing can be explained at all. In his later days Dillon used to revert regretfully to the time when he had “the ball at his feet.” No doubt he had, so far as he was capable of kicking it. With a melancholy sense of declining power, shortly before his death, he is said to have made a sad forecast of what might yet await him. Pointing to an old actor with whom he had often played, and who was getting a wretched living as a ticket-taker, poor Dillon shook his head and muttered, “Perhaps I'll come to that…” He died early in the Eighties. Brooke and Dillon were born in the same year, 1818."

Charles Dillon (6) Portrait

A portrait of Charles Dillion from his American visit. The photo was formerly in the archive of "picturehistory.org" whose lamentable business practice and unholy price structure (and limits on the persons with whom they would deal) made their business unprofitable. The archive is now in the possession of a University: Yale, I think, who are a long way off digitising the thousands of images — if ever. God bless Yale for its acquisition, but meantime, here is a saved image (I have somewhat clumsily removed the picturehistory watermark).

If Yale wish this taken down, please drop me a line.

Various other sources:

(1) Victoria and Albert Museum have an agrarian of Dillon as "Belephegor' also, in engraved form, as Hamlet and in Othello (all available in good resolution with an excellent pop-up window with reasonable limits and conditions).

(2) The State Library of Victoria, Melbourne have a CDV in their H88 accession series.

(3) The Baillieu Library in Melbourne has a hand copied engraving in an oval cartouche (a copy of what looks to be an American engraving). (3a) An American engraving, upon which the Baillieu one is based, whose source I cannot find but which is included below.

(4) Harvard has him also in the ubiquitous engravings as Hamlet and Othello.

(5) Yale (see above)

(6) A painting of him as 'Belphegor' painted by Raeburn was mentioned in the book "Conquest: the story of a Theatrical family" but I have never seen the painting.

All in all, not a bad haul.

Charles Dillion (4) the Wives

Dillon was 'married' four times; two documented, and two unverified in status.

The first wife remains unknown. Charles could have passed some of his youth in Ireland, for the Americans alter noted his Irish accent; an accent that is not picked up simply in the home, but in the community. Perhaps Alfred Dillo had taken him there was a child, and in his formative years, acquired that accent, and perhaps a young sweetheart to whom he may have formed an attachment. Other accounts talk of his early days in the North (after a childhood in London), where perhaps he married prior to coming back South. There is a marriage in Scotland of a Mr. Charles Dillon to a Frances Quin, of the 7th of October 1838, in Lanarkshire, though it not possible at the moment to know if this was he. Another possibility, is that of a marriage between a Charles Dillon and Mary Clegg in Manchester of 15th December 1845. I mention these as curiosities, and do not list the numerous Charles Churches that married during the period.

To his second wife is given the larger portion of interest: "Clara." I believe her to have been born as "Rose Kate Roxby"on the 22nd of November 1829, to parents Henry Roxby and wife Clara Beverley, which is odd. We know from the records of the Conquest theatrical family that Ben Conquest (né Oliver) the actor, took as his second wife, Clarissa Bennett, one of several daughters of Joshua Bennett, a Wandsworth coal-merchant who must have earned pretty coin because three of his daughters enrolled as dancing students very early on. One of her classmates, Louisa Coghlan White married the horse-faced actor, Henry Roxby, also known as Mr. Henry Beverley — a name he took after his home town. Louisa and Henry married in 1817, but nine years later i 1826, Henry Roxby married Clarissa Ann Bennett.

It was their daughter —known as Clara Bennett Roxby, that was to marry Charles Dillon on the 27th of January 1854 in Shoreditch; and, in Brighton, on the 4th of March 1863, her mother Clarissa married Benjamin Conquest, after having obtaining a divorce from Henry Roxby on ground of desertion. I assume Louisa, earlier, had suffered a similar fate, if she had not died in childbirth.

The family still recalled that Clarissa the elder had given birth to the first of her and Ben's children, when Clara had given birth to Charles Dillon's first child.

Of the third we know a little, especially that she was not a wife at all, but a mistress, fellow player, and in her foreign tours with Charles, called herself Mrs. Dillon, although she was just plain old Eliza Webb. Well, not quite 'plain old' as she was the daughter of Charles Webb, actor and 'theatrical writer' who had translated — so he claimed — the French "Paillasse" into "Belphegor" for Charles Dillon, which I suspect he didn't; it is far more likely that he re-wrote the tale from the English translation already extant for Ben Webster's version of it, some years earlier. Charles and his brother, Henry Berry Webb were celebrated comedians. Eliza was christened (and named for her mother) in Watling Street London on the 20th of April 1845. She died however on the 13th of December of 1865 in New York, of Typhoid — just twenty years old. Her uncle Henry Berry Webb died two years later, most lamented by the profession. With her brother in Madras, poor Charles Webb, who died in 1889 had been most ably looked after by Alice Grieve who he had married in 1876, presumably after Eliza Señor had died.

No doubt, Charles Dillon's affairs ended his relationship with Clara. She never remarried as far as we know but her daughter Clara married an actor named Henry George.

Which brings us to spouse, or spouse equivalent number four, "Bella Mortimer" born as Isabella Hamilton Mentrup in about 1838 at Sculcoates, Yorkshire. Her father Richard, a master-mariner had died early and her mother Eleanor struggled on with two daughters. Bella married Charles in Cardiff in 1874 but did not live any long measure after that, as she died in 1881.

Clara Dillon died at Durham House, Portsmouth on the 3rd of July 1889.

The Australian actor that passed himself off as William Charles Dillion, and then as Charles W. Dillon was indeed a son, but by a woman named 'Silver' about whom I have found nothing. This Dillon Junior is better known for his splendidly scandalous divorce case with the actress Edith Pender.

Dillon was known for pathos and the articulation of emotional agonies — little wonder; his life was full of grievings, partings and ill-conceived investments in many areas.