There has long been some conjecture over who actually wrote The Happy Land, a matter which Veronia Kelly argues has been the result of an 'elaborate game of cover-up and cover-blowing' that developed 'to a farcical extent' prior to and in the weeks after the premiere (p.74). This confusion has been compounded by the fact that the published text (printed within the production program) credits actor Henry Walton as author. According to Kelly, Clarke also helped instigate the confusion through his Leader column, 'Under the Verandah' (which he contributed under the pseudonym 'Atticus'). She notes that in the 10 January edition he not only leaked 'some tantalising advance publicity for the "new and grand burlesque of great local and Victorian interest",' but also named Walton as the adaptor (p.74): 'Rumour has it that Mr Walton has written some very pungent lines applicable to present politicians' (ctd Kelly 74). Kelly notes that Walton also named himself as the author on several occasions. The first of these was in a letter to the Argus (published on 15 January). That same day he also accepted responsibility in a statement made to the police when they served prohibition notices at the Academy of Music. Kelly argues, however, that while Walton. 'the star actor... who joined the company to play The Major,' may have made contributions or suggestions during the rehearsal stages, the manuscript held by the Mitchell Library (written entirely in Clarke's handwriting) shows that he "certainly 'wrote' no lines at all' (p.75).

Robert Percy Whitworth's association with the burlesque is similarly unclear. His name certainly appears as author on the manuscript submitted to the Patent Office on 13 January, the registration for which was officially cancelled two days later by the Attorney-General Sir Bryan O'Loghlen. In his letter to the Argus (17 January) Whitworth claims however, that the writing was a collaboration: 'The fact is that I, representing Mr Walton and myself, did register the piece of our adaptation of it... ' (ctd Kelly, p.78). In their statements to the police at the theatre on 15 January, however, Aarons and Walton both denied that Whitworth anything 'whatever to do with the writing of the play' (ctd. Kelly, p.79).

Evidence supporting Clarke's role as primary, if not sole, author comes from several sources - notably the handwritten manuscript held by the Mitchell Library. A comprehensive analysis of the handwriting indicates that Clarke was responsible for the entire manuscript (Kelly, p.75). The first newspaper to unequivocally name him as the adapter was the Argus in its 16 January issue (Kelly, p.79). The following day the Leader's 'Amusements' column also put his name into the mix: 'The adaptor is said to be Mr Marcus Clarke. If such is the fact, he is to be congratulated on the production, as it is one of the most pungent, and at the same time humorous political skits contributed to the colonial stage' (ctd. Kelly, p.85). Other papers to credit him as author include the Sydney Morning Herald (22 January), Sydney Mail (24 January) and Daily Telegraph (29 January).

Another puzzling aspect of the authorship issue is that Clarke's hand (using a different ink) is identified as having written 'M. Clarke &' over the initial inscription 'R. P. Whitworth' on the cover of the Office of Copyright manuscript. The same handwriting (and same ink) has also cancelled the copyright stamps. Veronica Kelly believes that this indicates that 'it was Clarke who undertook the mental and physical labour of adapting the Gilbert work; that he originally ascribed his own work to his friend Whitworth; and that at some time subsequent to this he added his own name on the title page' (p.108).

The Portland Guardian echoed the sentiments of most critics and political observors of the time, when in its 20 January edition its editor wrote:

The following is a fair sample of the most objectionable part of the dialogue which Mr Berry says is unfit for a colonial theatre. The only wonder is that Punch is allowed to exist, and that the proprietors have not long ago been indicted under the Newspaper Statute for treason, blasphemy, heresy and every other iniquity (p.2).

The Mitchell Library manuscript (C 449) includes a newspaper clipping disputing the authorship and (erroneously) claiming that H. E. Walton was in fact R. P. Whitworth. The holding is also accompanied by a handwritten note by historian Brian Elliot, and a typed letter from L. Buck (dated 1910), who claims the manuscript was given to him by Clarke.

Veronica Kelly argues that Ludwig Bruck (a clerk with publisher and medical agent Ferdinand Francois Bailliere) has erred in his recall of certain events pertaining to the banning of The Happy Land. She writes:

Bruck's assertion that the McKinley libretto was seized by the police is untenable. There is no report of such a sensational development in any contemporary source... There was furthermore no point in taking such action merely to suppress the play text; the Age, Argus, Sydney Mail, Australasian Sketcher, Ballarat Courier and Portland Guardian all published the text in full or in part. Although Bruck was close to the events and participants of the events of January and February 1880, forty years later he may have confused the prohibition of the Happy Land performances with the withdrawal of the January issue of the Melbourne Punch (p.109).

The Happy Land was also staged in several cities in New Zealand, beginning around late February. The last known production was in September. The text for this version was localised by a local journalist/editor as a means of burlesquing that country's statesmen (Kelly p.101).

The full text of the New Zealand version of The Happy Land, published in the Star (Christchurch) 3 March (1880), p.3, is available on line through Papers Past.

Further Reference:

• Australasian Sketcher with Pen and Pencil 31 January (1880) p.190.