- Ballarat Heritage Services (3) has recently published an image of a poster for “The Wizard of the South” . It is this poster which gives us final confirmation that Thomas Amott was in fact Monsieur Du Pree, because it was enclosed with an October 1855 request from Amott, to the Victorian Colonial Secretary in support of his request for approval to perform.  Although it is headed only as “The Wizard of the South”, that much-abused title adopted by so many performers over decades, the description of the performance is worded exactly to match earlier newspaper advertising under Du Pree’s name.  Another copy of this same broadside has been located in the W.G.Alma Conjuring Collection (4)

Thomas Amott was born in Britain, most likely in 1800 (14). A family tree published by Rosemary Yeoland, and Thomas’ convict register, name a birthplace of Monmouth in Wales. Other sources make possible connections to the family line of Sir Thomas Amott of Norfolk / Norwood Lodge, Surrey; while this is possible, it is unverified at present, though it can be said that Amott’s death notice in 1866 names Norwood, Surrey as his birthplace.

Amott was employed as a compositor and letter-press printer, in the business owned by John Barfield (1795-1841), who for over thirty years was ‘printer in ordinary’ to the King, located at 91 Wardour St. Soho.

Amott also had his own printing office at Bow Lane off Lamb’s Conduit Street in Bloomsbury, according to his convict Conduct Record. Amott was not only employed by Barfield but was also married to his daughter Mary (aged 21) in 1818, at St. Botolph’s, London. His mother, Charlotte Amott, was a witness to the marriage. It is not presently known whether there were any children from this marriage.

So it is apparent that Amott was not some petty criminal or someone from poor financial circumstances. His conduct record in 1827 described him as “well behaved, good Conn(ections).”

According to Thomas Amott in transcripts of proceedings at the Old Bailey on May 31, 1827 (16), he had been completely out of employment for some twelve months. This raises speculation as to whether he had any falling-out with his employer John Barfield, and whether his marriage to Barfield’s daughter may have been in trouble.

England was in the grips of the “Great Panic”, one of the first major crises of the financial markets. The deep recession was causing many businesses to go under. Barfield’s printing business, however, was not one of those as he continued for many more years. It seems questionable that he would have dismissed his own son-in-law and breadwinner of his own daughter, unless there was some disharmony.

Relying on Amott’s testimony in court, it was this desperation that drove him to make some unwise choices and, according to the first two charges laid against him, on December 27, 1826, he stole (or obtained under false pretences) a pianoforte valued at £20 and on February 1, 1827, another piano  of the same value. These two thefts alone would have been enough to ensure his transportation to the colonies, and on May 31 he pleaded guilty to both thefts.

A further charge alleged  that he had stolen, on March 5, an Erard Harp, the property of Francis Tatton Latour, valued at £70. On this charge, Amott made an attempt at defending himself. He had obtained the harp supposedly on hire, and by making some use of the name of his brother, John Amott, who was known to the instrument dealer. The instrument was delivered to 22 the Crescent, Euston Square; a hardly unpleasant location made up of fifteen two and three-story houses.

The harp soon made its way to an auction house run by Robert Godfrey (19), who rapidly disposed of it at public auction without concerning himself too much about its history, as he had previously bought some furniture from Amott’s mother who, he said, ‘kept a very respectable private house’ (it might be that the Euston Crescent address was her home).

The dealer who had hired the harp to Amott claimed to have been told that the brother, John Amott, was arriving in a couple of days from Shrewsbury and, as he was familiar with that respectable gentleman, it had eased the way for the hire of the harp to Thomas.

John Amott (1798-1865) was a musician, organist, and choirmaster of some reputation (18). He was organist at Gloucester Cathedral and St. Chad’s Abbey Shrewsbury, frequently noted for the leading of choral concerts. (It is reported that John’s death occurred in 1865 when, following the rendition of a performance of "Oh that I had the wings of a dove, for then would I flee away and be at rest"  he collapsed, never to recover).

In court, John Amott denied having authorised the hiring of a harp, and indeed Thomas insisted that he had only used John’s name as being familiar to the dealer. He had a note from the dealer charging him two guineas for the hire, which he had since lost. “Being arrested for £65, I was induced by the persuasion of a friend, to dispose of this instrument to relieve me; I got released the very night it was sold”, said Thomas, insisting that he had no felonious intent.

His defence in the stolen harp trial was to no avail. Combined with his guilty plea on the pianoforte thefts, Thomas Amott was found guilty of grand larceny, and sentenced to transportation for seven years.

Aboard the ship Asia(3), Amott’s register and conduct record noted that he was a Protestant, married, 5’11” tall with a mole on his neck , well behaved in both the Hulks and on the ship. The only disciplinary action noted in his conduct record was a fairly lenient two hours in public stocks for insolence to his assigned master in Hobart.

The Asia(3) (see note 19) sailed from Portsmouth on August 17, 1827 and arrived at Van Diemen’s Land on December 7, offloading 198 convicts.

Immediately, Amott was assigned to work as a compositor in Hobart for James Ross, a Scottish free immigrant to Van Diemen’s Land in 1822. Initially intent on being a schoolmaster (he became the tutor for Lietutenant Governor Sir George Arthur’s children), by 1827 he was in sole charge of the government printing office, publishing The Tasmanian, the Hobart Town Crier and the Hobart Town Gazette, which were supportive of the authority of the government, unlike other independent publisher Andrew Bent who consistently butted heads with officialdom. Ross eventually sold his printing and bookbinding business in 1836 and retired, but died in 1838.

Amott would have thrived under these conditions, notwithstanding his convict status. His literary and printing skills were put to good use on new printing equipment acquired by Ross, and he was only once disciplined by the strict Ross, indicating that he performed his duties well. (20)

All in all, Amott probably lived an almost respectable life in the community, and in December 1831 his name was appended to a list of members of the Methodist Chapel, advertising in praise of the Rev. J. Hutchinson through whom “many have been reclaimed from a state of moral degradation and infamy, and have learned to follow after righteousness.”

In April 1833 he was granted a ticket of leave, giving him increased freedom of movement in the colony prior to his being granted final Certificate of Freedom at the end of May 1834. Meantime, he had re-married, at the Holy Trinity Church Hobart, on December 2, 1833. Permission had been sought back in 1830 to marry a Catherine (or Caroline) Fitzallen, a convict whose ticket-of-leave was granted in 1831.  (21) We might speculate that Amott had successfully argued some case that his British wife, Mary, had died, or had otherwise persuaded the authorities that he was not committing bigamy. Regrettably, the marriage register is a transcription of the original church record and does not allow us to compare Thomas’ signature with those on letters later written by him.

James Ross ran his printing business until 1836, and Amott would have been a valuable worker, but he did not wait long to depart Tasmania after receiving his freedom. He formed plans to move to Sydney, and on July 4, 1834 he dictated a letter requesting the Colonial Secretary's permission to take his wife Caroline Fitzallen with him, "Having engaged at a a printing establishment at Sydney" which he sadly did not name. Caroline's behaviour as a prisoner was mentioned as good, and approval was granted.

A few references to a ‘Thomas Arnott’ of Kangaroo Point, Hobart, being fined for drunkenness and having a dispute over a land grant, do not appear to be Amott, since the land grants extend over a time when Amott was no longer in the colony.

However, in June 1836, Mary Pickett, a landlady of Castlereagh Street in Sydney, advertised “If THOMAS AMOTT does not come and pay his rent due to me, and take away his bedstead and hanging, they will be sold in fourteen days from this day, to assist in paying the same, and the expences [sic.] of this advertisement.”

The question arises – how would an ex-convict in early Australia learn the art of magic and become an entertainer? Both Amott and the other convict magician, John Powell Courtier, featured some magic which required knowledge of secret methods, without (presumably) having any access to either printed materials or other performers who might have mentored them. The same question might be asked of many later magicians who performed with mechanical apparatus – where did they obtain their knowledge, and who manufactured these props for them?

The usual means for a magician to learn their craft prior to the 1800s would have been either to copy another performer, or to be mentored by a working magician who would pass along their own knowledge and skill. As Thomas Amott was the very first known performer in the colonies, we have to assume that there were no others to guide him, and that any knowledge he possessed came from watching magicians in Britain.

Looking over his repertoire, it is clear that he did not rely solely on magic to fill out the performance, padding the show with his lecture on “logic”, as well as Comic and Sentimental Singing, Balancing, &c. Several of his feats such as ventriloquism, fire eating and (possibly) sword or knife swallowing may simply have come from having observed street performers in his home town. Much of the magic is mentioned only summarily – “Money, Cards, Balls, Knives, Rings, Fire”, giving us little information to work with, though it would appear that he was not heavily reliant on the cumbersome mechanical apparatus commonly in use at that time.  If he was presenting the genuine physical feat of swallowing a sword or knife, this would have required long practice. The feat had been introduced to Britain in 1812, when ship’s captain Peter Campbell imported a troupe of South Indian Jugglers to perform their magic for an astounded audience of Londoners. (24)

The three magical feats most boldly advertised are the Gun Trick (catching a bullet), frying a pancake in a spectator’s hat, and ‘A Waltz in Character between Nine Eggs Blindfold’.

The Blindfolded Egg Waltz is almost not even a magic trick. The “Egg Dance” was an ancient courting ritual in which a successful romp through a field of eggs might lead to a young man earning approval to wed his beloved. Adding a blindfold scarcely added to the difficulty, since a blindfold does not obscure a person’s downward vision. As well, the blindfolded egg waltz had been advertised by British magicians as early as 1786 (Mr Belgrave in Leeds), 1787 (Signior Pasqual Sanazar in Manchester)  and 1792 (Mr Lassells in Stamford) (22), so it is safe to guess that young Thomas had a memory of seeing this delicate dance back home, and taught himself.

Frying a pancake in a spectator’s hat required a fairly basic piece of apparatus which could easily have been made by any local tinsmith, so Amott needed only to know the secret of the trick.

The Gun Trick, or bullet cathching, a feat eventually to be featured by many magicians in the colonies, would have required some specialist knowledge, and this would have been difficult to come by.

Instructional magic books did exist at the time, but mostly in a form which exposed the basic secret without fully detailing how to perform it.  A couple of notable examples were Philip Astley’s 1785 volume, ‘Natural Magic: or Physical Amusements Revealed’ in which he claimed to have invented the feat of ‘dextrously receiving a ball on a tip of a knife or sword.’ (Although earlier books had mentioned the Bullet Catch, as far back as 1597 in ‘Theatre of God’s Judgements’,  when a performer named Coulen is said to have performed the feat.) Any explanation in such books would have required much extrapolation by Amott, and a great deal of bravery to put himself in front of a pointed gun. It is doubtful that many of these type of texts made their way to Australia, in the barely fifty years since the colony was first established.

“The Conjurer Unmasked” by Thomas Denton (a translation from the French of Henri Decremp’s “La Magie blanche dévoilée”) and “Breslaw’s Last Legacy” are two other books of the late 1700s which explained magic with coins, cards, birds etc, albeit in a brief and unhelpful fashion. Other books of the time were content to plagiarize the work of others, or to describe interesting feats of scientific and chemical ‘amusements’. It would be much later in the 1800s when more descriptive works, such as those by the great French magician Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin, were released to the general public; and it was 1876 before the average amateur could have access to a true ‘teaching’ book, “Modern Magic” by Professor Hoffman.

So, we must speculate that Thomas Amott’s knowledge of magic originated from his youth in Britain, either from reading books during his upbringing as a literate and fairly respectable man, word of mouth from others, or from performances which he had witnessed and recalled.
Possibly some newspaper reports made mention of British or American performers (Signor Blitz in America was performing the gun trick in 1832), though the earliest discovered references are in 1840, when a performer in England,  Mr. Buck, was wounded during a show. The South Australian Colonist made some comments exposing a possible method for the trick.
Amott’s advertised claim to have been “ late of the Theatres, Manchester, Liverpool and Dublin” is extremely unlikely to hold any truth.

The difficulties of tracing a reliable family tree are compounded, not only by the mismatch in the Arnott/Amott name, and by the probable existence of other Arnotts in the Hobart district, but also by the unreliable nature of birth and marriage certification at the time.

We know, from his letter to the Secretary in August 1838, that Thomas had “a wife & two male children”.  These must have been offspring of the marriage between Thomas and Catherine but neither has been identified, since registration  of births was not compulsory in either NSW or Van Diemen’s Land. If the family was travelling with Thomas to all of his performing localities, their lives must have been extremely hard and constantly disrupted. It was a big call for a solo performer to make such journeys, let alone a man with three dependents.

From late 1841 there follows a period in which Du Pree's name is not to be  found for some years, until he re-emerged in South Australia in 1845. We have no real clues as to his activities during this time, and must currently speculate from the little that is known.

Thomas’ wife Catherine died at St. Mary’s hospital in Hobart on September 2, 1843, her death certificate reporting an inflammation of the bowel. Was it possible that she had endured a lengthy illness, which had forced Thomas to remain in one place for the sake of his wife and children? If the two children were offspring from the 1833 marriage, they were only ten and it is unlikely that Thomas would have been able to care for them on his own, while also travelling. Their later lives are not known, but it does not appear that Thomas continued to look after them.

There was a single exception to Amott’s invisibility from the public record. On August 7, 1844, an advertisement appeared in the Cornwall Chronicle (Launceston, Tasmania) challenging a rival conjuror, John Powell Courtier, to a magical duel:-

Save for a confident acceptance of the challenge by Courtier in the very same day’s edition, nothing further eventuated, leaving us with only a few small clues to Du Pree’s identity and whereabouts at this time. Given that Amott was so frequently on the move, it cannot even be assumed that he was living in Campbell Town (Tasmania) .

It is notable, when looking at all the available records, that Thomas Amott made a conscious effort to dissociate his real name from his career as a magician. As the very first magician to perform in the colonies, when theatre was regarded as grossly disreputable, he must have carefully watched his step. None of his correspondence with the Colonial Secretary mentions the name Du Pree, and none of Du Pree’s advertising mentions the name Amott. On his son Thomas’ baptismal record (1848) he is named as a “dealer”, and in later years (1869) his son George married and Thomas is named as a “play actor”. His other children referred to him as a “minister” or “gentleman” on their marriage records. He wrote, in 1855, that his winter months were spent as a gold miner around Ballarat. His death registration has him as a “labourer”; and perhaps he was all those in addition to being a performer of magic, but he seems averse to mentioning his magic in official documents.

Returning to the 1840s:- Thomas re-married on February 3, 1845, at St. David’s church in Hobart. His new wife was Sarah Stevens, a widow of Irish descent with three children. Sarah was from the nearby township of New Norfolk, where her husband Jonathan had, in 1844, left his business of baking and general supplies, and announced that he would take on the license of the old “Star and Garter” and re-name it as "The Traveller’s Home.” Sadly, sometime after June he died, leaving Sarah to bravely struggle on with the new business. Upon her re-marriage the register was full of inaccuracies to frustrate any researcher. Thomas is declared to be a bachelor and a “writer”, aged 36 when he was in fact 45, and his name is spelled “Emott”. Sarah is claimed to be just 26 years of age, a widow, and her surname is spelled “Stephens”.  Fortunately, any doubts are cleared up by the announcement, on May 15, 1845, that Sarah Stevens “now Amott”, would be transferring her liquor license to another owner (25). And with that, Thomas and Sarah departed by the cutter “William” on June 4 for Adelaide,  arriving June 25. There is no mention of children, though Sarah had at least three children from her first marriage (Jonathan born 1833, Elizabeth 1835, John Charles 1840, all of whom grew to adulthood, according to a family tree by Rosemary Yeoland).

By August 2, 1845, Mons. Du Pree was advertising in the South Australian Register for Adelaide performances, commencing on the 7th at Mr Allen’s Temple Tavern, Gilles-arcade. He continued there until announcing his final four nights on August 27.

Clearly, Du Pree was a talented performer, as the South Australian Gazette anticipated: (8)
“Those who have heard of the exploits of the ‘Wizard of the North’, or who may have witnessed his many astonishing deceptions, will confess that he is, here, matched, if not surpassed by Monsieur Du Pree, the Wizard of the South, whose perfect knowledge of the Art of Legerdemain, and the mysteries of the Salamander Feast, with his other inexplicable performances, have won for him boundless applause from crowded audiences, in the elder Colonies. We refer the reader to our advertising columns for particulars of the intended performances of the 7th and 11th instant, and venture anticipate for Monsieur Du Pree “a decided hit”, not from the pistol ball, which it is said he is to catch between his teeth, but from the spare siller which he is likely to pocket from the Adelaideans, in the absence of the ‘Legitimate Drama’. “

Advertisements for performances at the Mechanic's Institute, August 29-31, and September 5-7. 'For Four Nights Only. By desire of several private families.'
He performed at the Royal Victoria Hotel, Geelong, as the Wizard of the South, from 27 November 1848 until 15 December 1848, and for an apparent single evening on July 23, 1849 (26).
On August 25, 1849, a tantalising and frustrating snippet appeared in the Cornwall Chronicle (Launceston, Tasmania). Referenced in the Police News of August 22, “The Wizard of the South was fined ten shillings, having pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent exposure preferred by Constable Durham.” Unfortunately the court record for this offence has not yet been located, and it seems inconceivable that the report should refer only to the “Wizard” instead of appending his real name.
Launceston being a regular stopping place for Du Pree, he might be suspect in this charge. However there had been a “Wizard of the West” advertising a show there in March, using wording not in Du Pree’s usual style,  and there had been a news report from late May (23) in which a Wizard of the South performed at a Launceston race day. On the basis of this stain on his character, we would prefer to believe that the real Amott was actually in Geelong during 1849, where his son George is thought to have been born.

Sons Thomas and George both became butchers, among other professions. Thomas married in December 1867, George in May 1869, and consent to the marriage was recorded as “permission given by Sarah Amott the mother, of Prahran, the father having died”.

George was a keen amateur thespian. Thomas, who became a ‘master butcher’ also had political ambitions. He lived in Prahran and North Melbourne then known as Hotham, married twice, became a local identity, was elected to both local councils and became mayor of North Melbourne before returning to Tasmania in 1908 where he also managed to become Mayor in 1910. Like his father he seemed to move back and forth between Tasmania and Victoria. He was said in his obituary to have been the ‘Father of Trotting’ in Hobart,  establishing the trotting club. He also participated in races and seems to have had an interest in the theatre, being the Chairman of ‘His Majesty’s Theatre Co. since the time of building’. He died in Hobart in 1929 aged 80.  In the obituary published in the Prahran Telegraph (March 15, 1929) are some interesting assertions. “The late ex-Alderman Thomas Amott was grandson of Sir Thomas Amott, of Norfolk (sic) Lodge, Surrey, England, and was born in Melbourne on May 26, 1848. He went in his early boyhood to Tasmania with his parents, and resided and was educated at New Norfolk Tasmania.”

39/8491 - Microfilm reel 2215 Shelf No. 4/2454.1

There were two charges, t18270531-138 and t18270531-139, both recorded under the name “Thomas Arnott”. However, newspaper reports of the trial name him as Amott.

(17) A full examination of this particular case is made by Lewis Jones on “The Early Pedal Harp” site at
https://www.theearlypedalharp.net/post/auctioning-francis-tatton-latour-s-erard-harp-in-finsbury-london-in-1827

(19) There is some discrepancy in the name of this voyage. Amott’s convict records state the ship as Asia(3)  but some modern records have it as Asia(2), in which our subject is listed with a precautionary question mark against his name “Arnott, Thomas?”

(20) James Ross’ compositors “Pratt and Amott” are mentioned in passing in the Hobart Town Courier of September 13, 1828 p.4 “The Sick Editor”.

(21) Marriage registry for the Amott-Fitzallen wedding is at
https://linctas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/names/search/results?qu=Thomas&qu=Arnott&qf=NI_INDEX%09Record+type%09Marriages%09Marriages

(22) Leeds Intelligencer December 5, 1786 / Manchester Mercury October 9, 1787 / Stamford Mercury July 20, 1792.

(23) Launceston Examiner, March 14 1849, and People’s Advocate and New South Wales Vindicator, May 26, 1849 p.4

(24) ‘Empire of Enchantment- the Story of Indian Magic’ by John Zubrzycki, Scribe Publications 2018.

(25) The Courier (Hobart) May 15, 1845 p.4