ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901)

THE FLESHLY SCHOOL CONTROVERSY

The ‘Fleshly School’ Libel Action (2)

Daily News (30 June, 1876)

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.—JUNE 29.

Sittings in Middlesex—(Before Lord Coleridge, Mr. Justice
Archibald, and a Special Jury.)

BUCHANAN v. TAYLOR.—ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE “EXAMINER.”

     This was an action by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known literary man, against the proprietor of the Examiner, Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for Leicester, to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in notices of a poem which was supposed to have been written by the plaintiff called “Jonas Fisher.” The defendant, in addition to “Not guilty,” justified the supposed libel as being only a fair criticism of the work.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. McClymont appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Mathew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Robert Williams for the defendant.
     Mr. C. Russell, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff was a Scotchman by birth, and a literary man by  profession. He had attained a considerable amount of eminence in his profession, and he received by the hands of Mr. Gladstone some years ago, an award from the Royal Literary Fund, which was the more creditable as having been entirely unasked for. The defendant’s paper was one which, to say the least of it, took strong and peculiar views of politics and religion. Some years ago there sprung up what was known as the “Fleshly School” of writers; and among the most prominent of the writers of this school were Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, Mr. Maurice, and Mr. O’Shaughnessy. This school was disgraced by an amount of sensualism and subtle indecency such as was to be found in the French school of writers, but seldom happily among English writers. In 1870 Mr. Buchanan sent to the Contemporary Review an article upon the writers of this school, but wishing that article to be judged of simply upon its own merits he did not wish to append his name to it. It was, however, the custom to place names at the end of articles in that Review, and the publisher therefore appended a name, that of “Thomas Maitland.” In consequence of some observations made upon this article the plaintiff came forward and openly avowed the authorship of it. After this Mr. Buchanan was criticised most severely by Mr. Swinburne in a publication called “Under the Microscope,” in which article he was supposed to have used up every epithet of abuse in the English language. After this matters rested for a while, but in 1875 Messrs. Trübner published a poem called “Jonas Fisher,” in which the writer took somewhat the same views as the plaintiff might have taken. Thereupon the poem was attacked in the Examiner. It was said “This anonymous poem is said by the London correspondents to be the work of either Mr. Robert Buchanan or the devil; and delicate as may be the question raised by this double-sided supposition, the weight of the probability inclines to the first of these alternatives. That the author, whichever he is, is a Scotchman may be inferred from one or two incidental sneers at the characteristics of his countrymen. If a prophet has no honour in his own country, it must be said, on the other hand, that a country seldom gets much honour from its own prophet; the worst things said about countries have been said by renegade natives. There are other and more specific circumstances which favour the report that ‘Jonas Fisher’ is another of the aliases under which Mr Buchanan is fond of challenging criticism rather than one of the equally numerous disguises of the enemy. There is no reason why the devil should go out of his way to abuse the ‘Fleshly  School.’ Now, this poem has views on some of the tendencies of modern poetry and art which coincide very closely with Mr Buchanan’s, exhibiting the same nicely- balanced and carefully differentiated feelings of scorn for effeminate voluptuousness and delight in that voluptuousness which is manly.” This criticism, it was submitted by the learned counsel, was unfair and unjust to the plaintiff. This, however, was not all; for in the Examiner of Dec. 11 last there appeared a letter headed “The Devil’s Due,” and signed with the name which had been placed to the plaintiff’s article in the Contemporary Review, “Thomas Maitland,” and dated from “St. Kilda.” The writer said:—
     “It is with inexpressible interest that I receive at this distance from New Grub-street the important, and doubtless trustworthy—I should say reliable—information that the “Examiner” has lately discovered a mare’s nest, and that a  poem, which I certainly did not understand to be on your authority, but on quite another kind of authority than yours, attributable “either to Mr. Robert Buchanan or the devil,” is at all events not assignable to my illustrious namesake in pseudonymy. So much the better or so much the worse, as the case may be, either for the songster or the song; possibly for both at once. The invention of the mare’s nest (I do not use the word “invention” in that sense in which the Church universal talks or used to talk of the invention of the Cross) is doubtless all in the “way of the world”—the title and the subject of the greatest of English comedies. But I may perhaps take this occasion to remark that the mere suggestion of such an alternative in authorship as appears elsewhere to have been offered with less discretion than decision would be more perplexing to readers of “Paradise Lost” than to readers of the “Book of Job” (I do not say the Book of Robert Buchanan, or of Peter Bell the Third). The Devil of Scripture, as we all know, was addicted to going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down in it, a locomotive habit which may suggest the assistance on his part of at least one quality in common with the bard whose range of vision and visitation is suggested to oscillate between the Seven Dials and “the Land of Lorne”—

“Whom green-faced Envy, sick and sore,
To many-childed Dulness bore;
(His sister she, in Dulness’ reign
Such mixture is not held a stain;)
Oft in Grub-street’s filthiest alleys
He met her fresh from Highland valleys,
Masked under many a furtive name,
While yet there was no fear of shame.”

And if this seer, this Vates, this teacher of a new truth—who “is one, while what you call artists are legion” —might on this one account be mistaken for the “tempter of Job,” it is possible that on another score he might be confounded with the spirit whose portrait is thus drawn by Shelley:

The Devil was no uncommon creature,
     A leaden-willed thief—just huddled
Out of the dross and scum of nature;
     With mind, and heart, and fancy muddled.

But it is certainly inconceivable that the authorship of any work whatever should be assignable with equal plausibility to the poly-pseudonymous lyrist and libeller in question and to the Satan of Milton, the Lucifer of Byron, or the Mephistopheles of Goethe. The work of which the credit was but now disputed on behalf of two such claimants is known to me as yet only by the extracts given in your columns; but from these I gather that the title of Mr. Robert Buchanan (seu quocunque alio nomine gaudeat) must have been disputable apart from his own disclaimer on at least two counts. An author haunted by “such a horror of the bloodthirsty critics who lie in wait for him” has evidently yet to learn the new and precious receipt discovered by Mr. Robert Buchanan (if that be his name) of “Every poeticule his own criticaster;” a device by which Bavius may at once review his own poems with enthusiasm under the signature of Mævius and throw dirt up in passing with momentary security at the window of Horace or of Virgil. I notice also that the present writer has adopted as the object of his servile but ambitious imitation an inimitable contemporary model of original burlesque, on which I am not aware that the “multifaced” idyllist of the gutter has yet attempted to form himself. The apposition of two representative stanzas will suffice to establish at once that fact, and the extent of this discipleship. You quote from “Jonas Fisher” the following notable quatrain:

“Oh, hush,” said I; “that kind of talk,
     All Christians must consider wrong.”
“I stand rebuked,” said Mr. Grace;
     “My language was a little strong.”

As an evidence of careful study this quatrain is creditable to the docile and obsequious pupil. But hear now the unmistakeable accents of his master:

Said Captain Bagg, “Well, really, I
     Am grieved to think it pains you so;
I thank you for your sympathy;
     But, hang it—come—I say, you know.”

In the golden roll of the “Bab Ballads,” and perhaps in the very poem from which this particular stanza is taken at  random there may be stanzas of which the palpable imitation here attempted by the godson of Mr. Jonas Chuzzlewit is even closer and more flagrant; but, judging from what I see of his verse, the last line appears to me to realise with singular felicitous exactitude the very words which might be expected to rise to the lips of a reader overcome with such emotion as would naturally be the instant relief of apt expression, and could certainly find none fitter than the eloquent, if ejaculatory, remonstrance of the gallant captain with his friend. A more impatient reader of the poem might probably be tempted with Mrs. Gamp to “wish it was [back] in Jonadge’s belly.” I will content myself with recommending the author, unless, as is indeed probable, he be also a disciple of the Bavio, exemplified by the Mævio-Bavian practice, that verse is an inferior form of speech, to study in future the metre as well as the style and reasoning of the “Bab Ballads.” Intellectually and morally he would seem to have little left to learn from them; indeed, a careless reader might easily imagine any one of the passages quoted to be a cancelled fragment from the rough copy of a discourse delivered by “Sir Macklin” or “the Rev. Micah Sowls;” but he has certainly nothing of the simple and perfect modulation which gives a last light consummate touch to the grotesque excellence of verses which might wake the dead with “helpless laughter.” With the parting expression of a hope that the new pupil, when his voice has a little improved, may ultimately pluck up heart to tell truth and shame the devil and Mr. Robert Buchanan, I take, for obvious reasons, which I trust can by no possibility be supposed to cast the slightest reflection on my courage or my candour, the natural and creditable precaution of signing this too-protracted epistle with the honoured name of THOMAS MAITLAND. St. Kilda, Dec. 28, 1875.—P.S. On second thoughts, it strikes me that it might be as well to modify this last paragraph and alter the name of the place affixed; adding at the end, if you please—not that I would appear to dictate—a note to the following effect: The writer of the above being at present away from London, on a cruise among the Philippine Islands in his steam yacht (the Skulk, Captain Shuffleton master) is, as can be proved on the oath or the solemn word of honour of the editor, publisher, and proprietor, responsible neither for an article which might with equal foundation be attributed to Cardinal Manning, or to Mr. Gladstone, or any other writer in the “Contemporary Review” as its actual author, nor for the adoption of a signature under which his friends in general, acting not only without his knowledge, but against his expressed wishes on the subject, have thought it best and wisest to shelter his personal responsibility from any chance of attack. This frank, manly, and consistent explanation will, I cannot possibly doubt, make everything straight and safe on all hands.
     Mr. Buchanan sent a paragraph to the Echo simply stating that he had nothing to do with “Jonas Fisher;” and there also appeared a paragraph in the World, in which some allusion was made to the Examiner; but with this the plaintiff had nothing whatever to do, though it was attributed to him in the Examiner. The plaintiff, through his solicitors, entered into a correspondence, in the course of which it was stated that “The Devil’s Due” was written by Mr Swinburne, who, it was said, was prepared to take the full responsibility of the article, and it was suggested that proceedings should be taken against him, and not against Mr. Taylor; but this was declined, and the action went on. The learned counsel, in conclusion, said that in the course of what had been written in the Examiner of the plaintiff he was called “a skulk,” “a shuffler,” “a liar,” and “the Idyllist of the Gutter,” which surely could not be called fair criticism. Mr. Taylor might know nothing of the article, but he was responsible for it, for he gave an opportunity to Mr. Swinburne, not to adversely criticise Mr. Buchanan’s works, but to vent the spleen, spite, and malice which he had conceived, so far back as 1871, against the article by “Thomas Maitland” upon the “Fleshly School;” and during all which time Mr. Swinburne appeared to have nursed his wrath.
     Lord Southesk was called, and said that he was the author of “Jonas Fisher,” and with it Mr. Buchanan had nothing whatever to do. In cross-examination, he said that he was acquainted with Mr. Buchanan. “Jonas Fisher” was supposed to be a City missionary in Edinburgh; and he made some free comments upon the Roman Catholic clergy, and upon other matters. A great deal of amusement was created by the reading of various extracts from the book.
     Mr. Justice Archibald asked what was the object of this.
     Mr. Hawkins said his object was to show that the review of the book was fair. The plaintiff had not read out the whole of the article.
     Mr. Russell—No; we only set out that part which attacked Mr. Buchanan.
     Mr Robert Buchanan said—I have followed literature as a profession for about 15 years. I am now 35. I have written some poems and much prose, mostly criticisms, and chiefly it was anonymous. In 1871 my attention was drawn to some writers of the “Fleshly School.” I had been acquainted with the matter before. In  September, 1871, I wrote an article upon the “Fleshly School,” and sent it from Oban, in Scotland, to the Contemporary Review. I believe that there was no name appended to it. I gave directions that it should be published anonymously. It appeared with the name of “Thos. Maitland” appended to it. Mr. Strahan wrote that the editor objected to the article appearing anonymously, and I telegraphed to him to suppress it. Very little comment was made upon it until it was discovered that I was the author. I then distinctly avowed being the author. There were then further criticisms upon it—one in “Under the Microscope;” another in “George Chapman,” but under the signature of Mr. Swinburne. I republished my article with additions, which were chiefly criticisms upon Mr. Swinburne. I honestly expressed my opinion upon this class of writing. I had no animosity against any of the writers I criticised, nor had I any quarrel with any of them. There was no pretence for saying a “London correspondent” had suggested that I was the author of “Jonas Fisher.” It was a distinct invention. I have written under various pseudonyms. I repudiated in the Echo being the author of “Jonas Fisher,” but I had nothing to do with the paragraph in the World in which the “Radical Shoemakers” and so on, was referred to. I have never written other than what I believed to be honest review. I have never puffed myself under assumed names, as imputed to me in the Examiner, nor have I taken any improper way of keeping myself before the public.
     Cross-examined.—I saw the criticism upon “Jonas Fisher” the week in which it was published. Mr Minto is, I  believe, the editor of the Examiner. I had not, before the publication of the review of “Jonas Fisher,” seen or had any communication with Mr Minto or Mr Taylor.
     And you have no reason to believe that either of them cares personally about you?—I have reason to know that Mr. Minto is a personal friend of Mr. Swinburne. I communicated with Mr. Minto after the review. I had no knowledge of “Jonas Fisher” until I saw the review.
     Did you tell Mr. Minto that he was better acquainted with the devil’s style than you were?
     Mr. Russell—Whatever it was it was in writing and must be put in.
     Mr. Hawkins—Was it your opinion that he was better acquainted with the devil’s style than you were?
     Mr. Russell said that this was an indirect attempt to get in the substance of a written document.
     Mr. Justice Archibald ruled that the question could not be put.
     Witness—I looked upon it as “a foolish rumour” that I had written the book. This was in writing. I saw the paragraph of the 4th December in the Examiner in which it was said, “Mr. Robert Buchanan has asked us to contradict the rumour that he is the author of ‘Jonas Fisher.’ He had never heard of the work till he saw our review.” The words of the Echo were, “Mr. Robert Buchanan is not the author of the clever poem, ‘Jonas Fisher.’ The Examiner says it is either by Mr. Buchanan or the devil, so that there is little room left for speculation upon the authorship.” That paragraph is not in the words I wrote, but it is substantially the same. I only wrote one paragraph—that for the Echo.
     Had you any reason to believe that the editor of the Examiner would “garble your words” if you wrote to him?—I had every reason to believe so—that he would represent me unfairly. I never met Mr. Rossetti, but I have once met Mr. Swinburne. It was at the Hanover-square Rooms, on the occasion of my giving a recitation. I believe I invited him.
     You asked him to go there to do you a kindness?—I do not see how it was doing me a kindness. I had never seen Mr. Swinburne when I wrote my “Session of the Poets” in 1866.
     You would not make any personal attack in a work of yours?—I might be guilty of personality; but it must be provoked by something very gross. I had not heard when I wrote my “Session of the Poets” that Mr. Swinburne had exceeded the bounds of moderation in drink. It would be an unfair, a cowardly, and ungentlemanly thing to refer to that in a review, if it stood alone. I might mention it as indicating character in combination with other things. I should think it unfair to drag in his personal appearance except as indicative of character. I did introduce him into the “Session of the Poets.” The expressions there were indicative of literary character.
     You refer to yourself in the “Session of the Poets,”

There sat, looking mooney, conceited, and narrow,
     Buchanan, who, finding, when foolish and young,
 Apollo asleep on a coster-girl’s barrow,
     Straight dragged him away to see somebody hung.

(Laughter.)
     And you also wrote of Mr. Swinburne—

Up jumped with his neck stretched out like a gander.

     Has he a long neck?—I do not know.
     You also make Mr Tennyson say of him—

To the door with the boy, call a cab, he is tipsy,
 And they carried the naughty young gentleman out.

     Was he drunk?—He was drunk to publish such a book; no man in his sober senses would publish it. I think what I said was an exceedingly mild way of putting it. I meant only to refer to Swinburne’s literary character.
     You allude to Mr Tennyson as being—

With his trousers unbraced, his shirt-collar undone,
He lolled at his ease like a good-natured bear.”

(Laughter.)—This was descriptive of his character, as the other was of Mr Swinburne’s.
     You say “Master Swinburne” “glared out of his hair;” how could a man do that? (Laughter.)—If his hair hung over his eyes it would be descriptive. The allusion to Mr. Swinburne was in allusion to his book having been suppressed by the publisher for indecency. The “Session of the Poets” was merely a jeu d’esprit.
     Do you think it desirable to publish to the world statements about judges going with white hats to Epsom? (A laugh.)
     Mr. Justice Archibald—I hope it is not wrong for a judge to go in a white hat anywhere; I wear a white hat myself. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Hawkins—Would you call this poetry—

When judges in white hats, to Epsom Down
Drive, gay as Tom and Jerry, folks don’t frown.

(Laughter). Is that poetry? You are a better judge than I am?—I should say it is not. What do you say about it?—I do not see anything poetical in it. I know the works of Walt Whitman, an American author. I have been engaged in getting up a subscription for him, not on account of his works, but on account of his personal character.
     Are not his works filled with filthy things?—There are things filthy in the extreme there. I have appealed to the public for Walt Whitman. I published the “Session of the Poets” in The Spectator, under the name of Caliban. I published “London Poems” about the same time. One of the poems there was “The Little Milliner,” and two others called “Liz” and “Nell.”
     Which of those three do you pride yourself on most?—I am no judge, but I should think the last-named, or the two last. “Nell” was living with Ned, a man to whom she was not married, but she was not living in a state of prostitution. I also published another book of poems, “The White Rose and Red.” Two of the poems were “Log and Sunbeam,” and the “Nuptial Song.”
     The learned counsel read long extracts from those poems, and asked the witness—Is there anything animal in that?— I don’t know what you mean by animal. The poems were written after my comments upon the “Fleshly School.” I have written under two or three aliases. I have written as “Walter Hutchinson” but not as “Senlac.” I wished to publish my article on the “Fleshly School” anonymously, to let the article stand upon its own merits.
     Did you wish to publish anonymously “to save you from the persecution of a clique of literary Mohawks”?—Just so.
     You do lavish in your writings about as much abuse upon Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, and others of the “Fleshly School” as you can put pen to?—I do, decidedly.
     The further hearing of the case was adjourned.

[Note:
This account is identical to that in The Morning Post (30 June, 1876 - p.7) and this version of Buchanan’s cross- examination was also printed in the Manchester Times (1 July, 1876).]

___

The Standard (30 June, 1876 - p.6)

MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN AND THE
“EXAMINER.”
_____

ACTION FOR LIBEL.
_____

     In the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice yesterday the hearing of an action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well known poet and essayist, against Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P., proprietor of the Examiner, to recover 5000l as damages for alleged libel, was commenced before Mr. Justice Archibald and a special jury. Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. McClymont appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Mathew, Mr. Robert Williams, and Mr. Warr were for the defendant.
     Mr. Russell, Q.C., in opening the case for the plaintiff, remarked that Mr. Buchanan was a Scotchman by birth, who had devoted his life to literary pursuits; and although still a young man he had undoubtedly left his mark upon the literature of his time. The plaintiff received some years ago an announcement, gratifying both to him and to Mr. Gladstone, from whom it came, that in recognition of the services which he had rendered to the cause of letters he should receive a yearly sum from the Royal Literary Fund—that announcement being all the more gracious and pleasant to both parties that the grant was entirely unsolicited by Mr. Buchanan. The defendant was member of parliament for Leicester, and was proprietor of the Examiner, in which the alleged libels were published; and at present he would not say more of that paper than that it was one which had very strong not to say peculiar, views, upon the subjects of religion and politics—he meant strong and peculiar according to the generally received notions on those subjects. In order that the jury might understand the matter rightly, it would be necessary for him to go back a short time. Some years ago there sprung up in this country a school of political writers who were now generally recognised under the name of the “Fleshly School of Poetry,” and amongst the chief apostles of that new school were Mr. Swinburne, Mr. D. G. Rossetti, Mr. Morris, and Mr. O’Shaughnessy—men as to whom it must be said in justice that they one and all possessed in a greater or less degree considerable intellectual power, but as to whom critics had thought—and the opinion of the critics in this matter had been adopted and endorsed by the sound opinion of society generally—that their writings were disgraced by gross and subtle indecencies. In 1870, Mr. Swinburne, whose name must be introduced rather prominently in the case, published a volume entitled “Poems and Ballads.” It was issued in the first instance by Messrs. Moxon and Co., but, owing to a strong expression of public opinion, it was after a short time suppressed. It was afterwards republished, however, by Mr. J. C. Hotten. In the same year appeared volumes by other apostles of the fleshly school. In common with many other persons Mr. Buchanan took notice of these productions; and he expressed his opinions regarding them in language which he conceived to be adequate to the occasion—in language which was strong and forcible. In October, 1871, he wrote, intending it for publication in the Contemporary Review, an article criticising the poetry of the school just mentioned; and that article was sent to Messrs. Strahan and Co., the publishers of the Review. The ordinary rule in connection with the publication of articles in that periodical was that names—sometimes real, and sometimes not real—should be appended to them; but in this instance Mr. Buchanan, for reasons which would appear perfectly intelligible, was desirous that his criticism should be judged upon its own merits. The plaintiff was himself a poet; he had produced a number of pieces which had commanded considerable attention; and he naturally thought that, inasmuch as a great part of the literary writing of this country was anonymous writing, he would be best securing a fair and impartial consideration of his own article if it were published without his name. When he wrote it Mr. Buchanan was enjoying his vacation in Scotland. A proof of what he had written was sent to him, with his own name appended; but he struck that out, and returned the proof to Messrs. Strahan and Co., with directions that he did not wish his name to appear, and that the article should be published anonymously. Messrs. Strahan, however, desirous, as far as one could judge, merely to keep up apparent uniformity in connection with their articles so far as having them signed was concerned, appended to Mr. Buchanan’s criticism the name “Thomas Maitland.” The article in question was entitled “The Fleshly School of Poetry” and expressed the convictions of the writer in good, masculine English language. It forcibly expressed the idea which the writer wished to convey, and that was without pretending to any sickly mock modesty, and without appearing to ignore the great part in human life and affairs which the sensual passions played—that in literature intended to be read by the world at large decency must be observed, and that there ought not to be imported into what was to be perused in this country the indecencies of such men as Baudelaire. After this article appeared there was considerable discussion about it; and when Mr. Buchanan found that there was a possibility of any sins which he might have committed in it being visited upon other heads than his own, he came forward and through the public press distinctly avowed its authorship. After that the plaintiff was subjected to a good deal of adverse criticism, and amongst other persons who so criticised him was Mr. Swinburne, who, in a publication entitled “Under the Microscope,” seemed to have gone far to exhaust all the abusive epithets which the English language contained. Time passed; each of the persons he had mentioned pursuing his own way, and sticking, he supposed, to his original views. Mr. Buchanan entertained the not unreasonable expectation that after an interval of four or five years the article written by him, to which the name “Thomas Maitland” had been appended by the publishers, might be forgotten, and allowed to drop out of sight. He had had his say; those of whom he had written had had their say; and the public were the judges between them. But in 1875 there was published by Messrs. Trubner and Co. a poem entitled “Jonas Fisher,” the writer of which happened to take very much the same view of the fleshly school as the plaintiff had done. Straightway, without rhyme or reason, without the shadow of a foundation for suggesting that Mr. Buchanan had anything more to do with it than any of the jury in the box, a writer in the Examiner made the publication of the book an occasion for imputing the authorship of it—a thing of which he need not certainly have been ashamed had it been the case—to the plaintiff; and for reviving the grievances of four years old and of repeating the vituperative attacks which had been begun in the columns of the Examiner. Here was what appeared in the newspaper on 27th November last, in a review of “Jonas Fisher.”

     “This anonymous poem is said by the London correspondents to be the work of either Mr. Robert Buchanan or the devil, and, delicate as may be the question raised by this double-sided supposition, the weight of probability inclines to the first of these alternatives. That the author, whichever he is, is a Scotchman may be inferred from one or two incidental sneers at the characteristic virtues of his countrymen. If a prophet has no honour in his own country, it must be said, on the other hand, that a country seldom gets much honour from its own prophet—the worst things said about countries have been said by renegade natives. There are other and more specific circumstances which favour the report that ‘Jonas Fisher’ is another of the aliases under which Mr. Buchanan is fond of challenging criticism rather than one of the equally numerous disguises of the enemy. There is no reason why the devil should go out of his way to abuse the ‘Fleshly School.’ Now, the hero of this poem has views on some of the tendencies of modern poetry and art which coincide very closely with Mr. Buchanan’s, exhibiting the same nicely balanced and carefully differentiated feelings of scorn for effeminate voluptuousness and delight in that voluptuousness which is manly.”

     Who were the “London Correspondents” referred to in this passage? There were none; the “London Correspondents” were an invention of the writer. There was no ground for the statement made; the occasion had simply been seized upon as a kind of peg on which to hang another attack upon Mr. Buchanan. After what he had just read appeared in the Examiner, Mr. Buchanan sent to the editor of the Echo a paragraph denying that he was the author of “Jonas Fisher.” The paragraph appeared, but not quite in the shape in which the writer sent it. It appeared as follows:—

     “Mr. Robert Buchanan is not the author of the clever poem, ‘Jonas Fisher.’ The Examiner says it is either by ‘Mr. Buchanan or the Devil,’ so that there is little room left for speculation upon the authorship.”

In the World of 8th December there also appeared a paragraph on the subject; but with it Mr. Buchanan had nothing to do directly or indirectly. It was as follows:—

     “In its penultimate number, that high class journal, the Examiner, which so many people believe to be dead, observed of a book called ‘Jonas Fisher,’ that it must be written ‘either by Robert Buchanan or the Devil.’ Mr. Buchanan denies the authorship, therefore the readers of the Examiner, the Socialist shoemakers of Leicester, and the Scotch family to whom it is sent gratis, must believe that ‘Jonas Fisher’ was written by the Devil.”

On 11th December there was published in the Examiner what he maintained was another libel. It took the form of a letter addressed to the editor. It was headed “The Devil’s Due,” and it was signed by the name which had been placed to the plaintiff’s article in the Contemporary Review, viz. “Thomas Maitland.” In the course of this letter, which it been ascertained was written by Mr. Swinburne, and which was dated from St. Kilda. It was said:—

     “It is with inexpressible interest that I receive, at this distance from New Grub-street, the important and doubtless trustworthy, I should say reliable information, that the Examiner has lately discovered a mare’s nest, and that a poem which I certainly did not understand to be on your authority, but on quite another kind of authority than yours, attributable ‘either to Mr. Robert Buchanan or the Devil,’ is at all events not assignable to my illustrious namesake in pseudonymy. So much the better or so much the worse, as the case may be, either for the songster or the song— possibly for both at once. The invention of the mare’s nest (I do not use the word ‘invention’ in that sense in which the Church universal talks, or used to talk, of the invention of the Cross), is doubtless all in the “way of the world,” the title and the subject of the greatest of English comedies. But I may, perhaps, take this occasion to remark that the mere suggestion of such an alternative in authorship as appears elsewhere to have been offered with less discretion than decision, would be more perplexing to readers of ‘Paradise Lost’ than to readers of the Book of Job (I do not say the ‘book of Robert Buchanan’ or of Peter Bell the Third). The devil of Scripture, as we all know, was addicted to ‘going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it,’ a locomotive habit which may suggest the existence on his part of at least one quality in common with the bard whose range of vision and visitation is supposed to oscillate between the Seven Dials and the Land of Lorne:—

“Whom green-faced envy, sick and sore,
To many-childed dulness bore
(His sister she in dulness reign,
Such mixture is not held a stain).
Oft in Grub-street’s filthiest alleys
He met her fresh from Highland valleys,
Masked under many a furtive name,
While yet there was no fear of shame.”

And if this seer, this Vates, this teacher of a new truth, who ‘is one, while what you call artists are legion,’ might on this one account be mistaken for the tempter of Job, it is possible that on another score he might be confounded with the spirit whose portrait is thus drawn by Shelley—

‘The devil was no uncommon creature—
     A leaden-witted thief, just huddled
Out of the dross and scum of nature,
     With mind and heart and fancy muddled.’

But it is certainly inconceivable that the authorship of any work whatever should be assignable with equal plausibility to the poly-pseudonymous lyrist and libeller in question and to the Satan of Milton, the Lucifer of Byron, or the Mephistophiles of Goethe. The work of which the credit was but now disputed on behalf of two such claimants is known to me as yet only by the extracts given in your columns; but from these I gather that the title of Mr. Robert Buchanan (‘seu quocunque alio nomine gaudeat’) must have been disputable apart from his own disclaimer on at least two counts. An author haunted by such a horror of the bloodthirsty critics who lie in wait for him has evidently yet to learn the new and precious receipt discovered by Mr. Robert Buchanan, if that be his name, of ‘Every Poeticule his own Criticaster,’ a device by which Bavius may at once review his own poems with enthusiasm under the signature of Mævius, and throw dirt up in passing, with momentary security, at the windows of Horace or of Virgil.”

     The letter, in the course of which the plaintiff was also referred to as “the multifaced idyllist of the gutter,” was, as he had stated, dated from “St. Kilda,” and in a postscript to it the writer said that on second thoughts it struck him it might be as well to alter the name of the place affixed adding at the end of the communication a note to the following effect:—

     “The writer of the above being at present away from London, on a cruise among the Philippine Islands, in his steam yacht (the Skulk, Captain Shuffleton master), is, as can be proved on the oath or the solemn word of honour of the editor, publisher, and proprietor responsible neither for an article which might with equal foundation be attributed to Cardinal Manning or to Mr. Gladstone, or any other writer in the Contemporary Review, as to its actual author, nor for the adoption of a signature under which his friends in general, acting not only without his knowledge but against his express wishes on the subject, have thought it best and wisest to shelter his personal responsibility from any chance of attack.”

     The jury would see that the plaintiff had been accused of skulking, shuffling, deceitful conduct, and falsehood. On the 11th December there also appeared in the Examiner another libel against the plaintiff. It was said:—

     “In reviewing two weeks ago a poem called ‘Jonas Fisher,’ we took occasion to discuss a ‘London correspondent’s rumour that the poem was the work ‘either of Mr. Robert Buchanan or the Devil.’ The expression was not ours, but the London correspondent’s; and last week, having no quarrel with Mr. Buchanan, or desire to say anything ill-natured about him, we acceded to a request, which he made in most friendly terms, that we should ‘contradict the foolish   rumour.’ It was with some surprise, therefore, that we saw in a paragraph in one of our contemporaries, the Examiner quoted as the authority for the strange alternative supposition of the ‘London Correspondent’ (who might have been Mr. Buchanan himself for all that we knew), and our surprise was not lessened when we found that the author of the paragraph in our contemporary was Mr. Buchanan himself! Why Mr. Buchanan should quote us as an authority for a rumour which he knew to come from a different source is known only to himself. May we suggest to him that his talents, which are considerable, would meet with more respect if he would not take to such questionable ways of keeping his name before the public.”

     Here it was implied that the plaintiff had been guilty of dishonest and disreputable conduct. Not one word of apology for what had been said had been inserted in the Examiner from beginning to end. Mr. Taylor, the defendant, might not personally have known anything about what appeared in the paper of which he was proprietor until it was published; but he was nevertheless responsible for what was inserted in it. It was said, on the other side, that in criticisms of others the plaintiff had written of himself as amongst writers of the highest repute—that he had puffed himself. Certainly, in the beginning of the article which appeared in the Contemporary Review, Mr. Buchanan began by “casting,” so to say, the play of Hamlet amongst all the well known literary men of the day. He gave the part of the gifted Prince to Mr. Tennyson; the parts of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were given to Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Morris; the part of gentleman to Lord Lytton; that of Osric to Mr. Rossetti; and Mr. Buchanan took himself the part of Cornelius. The latter was a part which, if he (the learned counsel) had any power of acting, he would not have taken.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Perhaps you would like to take it now (laughter).
     Mr. Russell (resuming) said Cornelius appeared only once or twice in the play. He was a walking gentleman; he did not say anything the first time he appeared; and on the second occasion of his appearance he made to Hamlet the short speech—“In this and all things else I will do my duty.”
     Mr. Hawkins.—That is a very good sentiment (laughter).
     Mr. Russell (continuing) did not think that what he had just stated showed that Mr. Buchanan had cast for himself a very ambitious role (laughter). It was also said that the plaintiff had puffed himself in a poem which he had written, entitled “A session of poets.” But in what way? The following was the reference which Mr. Buchanan made to himself:—

“There sat, looking mooney, conceited, and narrow,
     Buchanan, who, finding, when foolish and young,
 Apollo asleep on a costergirl’s barrow,
     Straight dragged him away to see somebody hung.”

(hear). He did not know how that could be described as “puffing yourself at the expense of others” (laughter). Mr. Buchanan had been libelled and defamed, and he left the case with confidence to the jury.
     The following evidence was then adduced:—
     The Earl of Southesk, examined by Mr. Russell, said—I am the author of “Jonas Fisher,” and with that work the plaintiff, Mr. Buchanan, had nothing to do. There is nothing whatever in the book to justify the statement that it sneered at the characteristic virtues of Scotchmen.
     Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins.—I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Buchanan for the last three or four months. “Jonas Fisher” was the fruit of a good deal of thought and experience; but its production did not cost me a great deal of labour. Of course I intended personally to keep clear of the fleshly school of poetry—not to imitate but to avoid it; and in writing the poem I did so according to my own definition of that school. Jonas Fisher is supposed to be a city missionary in Edinburgh; and of course he speaks of Scotch people incidentally. I certainly approve of calling things by their right names—of using correct and proper phrases. I count myself a Scotchman, and am proud of that circumstance. There is some abuse in the book of the Roman Catholic priests, but not of the Roman Catholic religion. The criticism of the volume in the Examiner was disfigured by several misrepresentations.
     Re-examined by Mr. Russell.—I have said in the poem that it is was not written for girls; but there is no immorality or indecency in it.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the plaintiff, examined by Mr. Russell, said—I am now 35 years of age, and have followed literature as a profession for fifteen years. In September, 1871, I wrote the article entitled “The Fleshly School of  Poetry,” and sent it to Messrs. Strahan and Co. from Oban. After some time I received a proof of it. I desired that it should appear anonymously, but Mr. Strahan wrote to me that the editor objected to articles without names to them, and I then telegraphed to Mr. Strahan to suppress the article altogether or publish it without any name whatever. It appeared, however, with “Thomas Maitland” attached to it. There was little noise made about the article until it was discovered that I was its author. I made no secret as to the authorship. It was subsequently republished by me with additions, those additions having reference principally to Mr. Swinburne, whom I had passed over somewhat lightly in what was published in the Contemporary Review. In the article referred to I expressed my firm and sincere conviction with reference to the character and tendency of the “fleshly school of poetry.” I was actuated by no feelings of animosity towards the gentlemen whom I had mentioned; nor had I had any quarrels with them. I had nothing whatever to do with the poem “Jonas Fisher.” So far as I know, the statement that London correspondents had attributed the authorship of that work to “Robert Buchanan or the devil” was a pure invention. I contributed a number of articles about the same time as the essay on “The Fleshly School of Poetry” appeared to St. Paul’s Magazine; and these were published under various signatures. I sent a paragraph to the Echo stating that I was not the author of “Jonas Fisher”; but I had nothing to do directly or indirectly with the paragraph which was inserted in the World. I have never consciously written an unfair criticism, and have never adopted “questionable means” of keeping my name before the public. In the original article in the Contemporary Review I consider that I spoke very mildly of the character and tendency of the writings which I criticised. Subsequent to the dispatch of the article from Oban to London I proceeded to the Hebrides on a yachting expedition. I am not conscious of having puffed my own works in any way. I have supported myself entirely by my pen. The idea of “A Session of Poets” was taken from Sir John Suckling and from Lowell, both of whom refer to themselves in a similar way to that which I have done in my piece, but in more complimentary terms (a laugh).
     Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins.—I believe that m. Minto is the editor of the Examiner. I had never seen either that gentleman or Mr. Taylor, the proprietor of the paper, prior to the 27th of November. I had have every reason to believe that Mr. Minto is a personal friend of Mr. Swinburne.—There has been a succession of attacks upon me in the Examiner. After I saw in that paper the article about “Jonas Fisher” I communicated with Mr. Minto in writing. The first I knew of the work was through reading the review of it in the Examiner.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Did you tell Mr. Minto that you were not so well acquainted with the devil’s style as he was?
     Mr. Russell.—Excuse me. Had you any communication, Mr. Buchanan, with Mr. Minto except by letter?
     Witness.—Certainly not.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Was it your opinion that Mr. Minto was better acquainted than you were with the devil’s style?
     Mr. Russell.—I must object. My learned friend is endeavouring to do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—Mr. Hawkins is asking about the devil’s style. I do not know anything about the devil’s style (laughter).
     Mr. Russell.—I hope your lordship may continue innocent of such knowledge (laughter).
     Mr. Hawkins.—Surely I may ask the witness what his opinion was.
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—It is difficult for me to see what is the bearing of all this or to what it points.
     Mr. Russell.—It has no bearing, my lord.
     Mr. Hawkins.—I want to know from the witness whether or not his opinion was that Mr. Minto was better acquainted with the devil’s style than he was.
     Mr. Russell.—I again object.
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—I do not think, Mr. Hawkins, that you can put the question.
     The cross-examination by Mr. Hawkins being resumed, the Plaintiff went on to say—I regarded the rumour that I was the author of “Jonas Fisher” as a foolish rumour. I requested the editor of the Examiner to contradict that rumour, and a contradiction appeared. The paragraph which appeared in the Echo of 4th December was not inserted in that journal as written by me. The paragraph which I sent was altered before it appeared, but substantially what was inserted was the same as what I forwarded to the office. I have never met Mr. Rossetti, but I once met Mr. Swinburne at a recitation which I gave in the Hanover-square Rooms. I invited him to be present on the occasion, but not for the purpose of doing me a kindness. before 1866 I had no personal acquaintance with Mr. Swinburne, and had never seen him. It was in that year I wrote “A Session of Poets”—before I met Mr. Swinburne. I may doubtless have been guilty of personalities under provocation. Personalities, however, should be provoked by something very gross indeed, otherwise, if they are inserted in a poem or article they show a spiteful feeling on the part of an author. It was after I wrote “A Session of Poets” that I became acquainted with Mr. Swinburne. I had not heard at that time that that gentleman in convivial meetings had exceeded the bounds of moderation; and to mention such a thing alone in a poem or essay would certainly be unfair, cowardly, and ungentlemanly. I would take such a statement as that, however as an indication of character, if it were combined with others. I would think it unfair, also, to drag in reference pure and simple to personal appearance, though undoubtedly the physique of a man is to some extent an indication of character.
     Mr. Hawkins.—You refer in your “Session of Poets” to “Master Swinburne,” and speak of him as jumping up,

“With his neck stretching out like a gander,”

As “yelling” and—

“Glaring out through his hair.”

And you add—

“Call a cab; he is tipsy,
 And they carried the naughty young gentleman out”

(laughter). Did you mean readers of the book to understand by that that Mr. Swinburne was drunk?
     Witness.—It is purely figurative language which occurs in that poem (laughter). It was written after Mr. Swinburne’s volume of “Poems and Ballads” was suppressed; and I say that no man in his sober senses would have been guilty of publishing such a book.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Did you intend to convey to those who read the poem the idea that Mr. Swinburne was drunk?
     Witness.—I thought he had done an exceedingly foolish thing; and I think that was an exceedingly mild way of looking at it (laughter). If I published such a volume as he did, I would consider that I deserved anything.
     Mr. Russell.—Your lordship will see that the language in the poem is figurative.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Figurative! You say of yourself, you know (addressing the witness)—

“There sat, looking mooney, conceited, and narrow,
     Buchanan, who, finding, when foolish and young,
 Apollo asleep on a coster girl’s barrow,
     Straight dragged him away to see somebody hung.”

What about that?
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—How does that in any way characterise your poetry or prose, Mr. Buchanan?
     Witness.—It refers to the nature of certain experiments in verse which I have made in connection with modern life.
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—It is difficult for me quite to understand you.
     Mr. Hawkins (to witness).—You say—

“At a session of poets held lately in London
     The bard of fresh water was voted the chair;
With his tresses unbrushed, and his short-collar undone,
     He lolled at his ease like a good-humoured bear.”

(laughter). Had that reference to Mr. Tennyson’s writings? (laughter.)
     Witness.—It had reference to the general personnel of the man.
     Mr. Hawkins.—And had this—

“His neck stretched out like a gander,”

reference to the personnel of Mr. Swinburne?
     Witness.—Certainly. I had seen the portrait of Mr. Swinburne.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Did you put in these things about personal appearance simply for the purposes of rhyme? (laughter.)
     Witness.—I have no doubt the necessity of rhyme had a good deal to do with it (laughter).
     Mr. Hawkins.—Had it all to do with it?
     Witness.—Not all.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Do you mean to say you did not intend the readers of the book to understand that Mr. Swinburne was drunk?
     Witness.—I did not mean to imply that he was drunk. I repeat that the poem referred to the publication of Mr. Swinburne’s “Poems and Ballads,” and to its suppression for indecency. The poem which I wrote was a mere jeu d’esprit.
     Mr. Hawkins.—What! To talk in that way of a man of whom you knew nothing except that he was a poet—I was going to say like yourself. Do you not know that Mr. Swinburne is an Oxford man and a gentleman?
     Witness.—No gentleman could have written the book of which I have spoken.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Now let me ask you, do you think it desirable to speak to the world about judges going in white hats to Epsom? (laughter.)
     Mr. Justice Archibald.—I hope it is not wrong to go anywhere in white hats (laughter).
     Mr. Hawkins—I would like to ask the witness whether he calls this poetry:—

“Judges in white hats to Epsom Down
Drive gay as Tom and Jerry;
     Folks don’t frown.”

—Is that poetry?
     Witness.—You are a better judge of that than I am.
     Mr. Hawkins.—If you asked me the question I should say no.
     Witness.—I do not see anything very poetical in the lines.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Nor do I. We are agreed (laughter).
     Mr. Russell.—Call them doggerel verse (laughter).
     Mr. Hawkins.—Very well (laughter).
     Witness (in answer to Mr. Hawkins).—I have read the works of Walt Whitman, the American poet. I do not approve entirely of what he has written. There are things in his poems which are filthy in the extreme. They are not filthy by intent, but because they name certain things which ought not to be named in literature. The poems to which I refer deserve reprobation; and I have said so more than once in public. Of Mr. Whitman’s personal character I have sincere admiration; and I have been instrumental in getting up a subscription for him, because of his poverty and sufferings. Having been examined at some length by the learned counsel with regard to the tendency and character of certain passages which occur in his own poems, the witness proceeded:—Desiring that it should stand on its merits the article which appeared in the Contemporary Review was sent in by me anonymously. One object I had in so sending it was to save me from the persecution of a clique of literary Mohawks. I have doubtless said verbally that I certainly wrote the article in question but that I had nothing to do with the signature; and that Mr. Strahan was best aware of the “inadvertence” which led to the suppression of my own name.
     Mr. Hawkins.—Did you ever say of yourself, and is it poetry?—

“Last, low Buchanan
     Stumps around the house,
Strong as a stallion
     Modest as a mouse?” (Laughter).

     Witness.—I have never said so verbally; but what you have read is a quotation, I think, from a poem of mine referring to a Scotch ploughman (a laugh).
     The Court then rose to meet again this (Friday) morning, when the hearing of the action will be resumed.

_____

The Trial
Day Two: Friday, 30th June, 1876.

The Pall Mall Gazette (30 June, 1876)

THE “EXAMINER” LIBEL CASE.

     The case of Buchanan v. Taylor, part heard yesterday, was proceeded with in the Common Pleas Division, before Mr. Justice Archibald and a special jury to-day. The action was by Mr. Robert Buchanan to recover damages from Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for Leicester, the proprietor of the Examiner, for alleged libels which had appeared in that paper in connection with the publication of a poem called “Jonas Fisher,” of which it was erroneously supposed that the plaintiff was the author, but which had really been written by Lord Southesk.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. McClymont were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. Mathew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Robert Williams for the defendant.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the plaintiff, again went into the witness-box; and his cross-examination was continued by Mr. Hawkins. The witness said: I have no personal feeling whatever against Mr. Swinburne. I recognized Mr. Swinburne’s style unmistakably in the “Devil’s Due,” but I was not long before this action was brought told that he was the author of  it. I heard Mr. Russell open this case. I did not instruct him to keep back anything. I wish that every line I have written should be before the jury. I wrote the “Hangman’s Ditty;” but I don’t think it one of my best.
     You would not think of calling a hangman “the inmost wheel of the machine of State”?—No.
     Mr. Hawkins: You would not say of him—

Who keeps the constitution sharp and clear,
Who finishes what statesmen only plan,
And keeps the whole play going?

     Witness: I should not.
     Cross-examination continued: I wrote “The Last of the Hangmen” in St. Pauls Magazine.
     Mr. Justice Archibald: That is a happy state of things. I thought we had not arrived at the last of the hangmen. (A laugh.)
     Mr. Hawkins: And he says you never will.
     Witness: I am perfectly willing to have everything I have written read.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then you and I are agreed. Why don’t you pat your counsel on the back and put him in a good  humour, so that he may put the book in? (Laughter.) Would you think it insulting to call a man a monkey?—I should say so.
     “A clever monkey who screeches and screams, bites and pouts and mumbles, all but speaks; who was possessed of vices of a human sort, that was

Pliant to most, but sweet to those
Who patted him and gave him meat?

(Laughter.)

That he was dressed in human coat
And vest, like human, and on th’ whole
Lacked nothing save a soul.”

Was that grossly insulting?—Not to an individual who did not believe in a soul, and who traced his descent from a monkey.
     You would consider it insulting yourself?—But those are not my opinions. I am not a materialistic Atheist. I wrote “The Monkey and the Microscope,” and I wrote it smarting under my own wrongs. I wrote it off rapidly. I knew when I wrote my article in the Contemporary that Walt Whitman’s poems were considered in America to be gross and indecent.
     Mr. Hawkins: I don’t propose to read the language, but I would put certain passages into his hand, and ask whether he had read them; and whether, after that, he had got up a subscription for Walt Whitman; and did not even mention him in the “Fleshly School.”
     Mr. Russell: It was the “Fleshly School” of England that he was dealing with.
     Mr. Justice Archibald: You say, Mr. Hawkins, that the plaintiff sets himself up as a censor of morals, and that he is not quite what he should be.
     After some discussion the questions were admitted.
     Mr. Hawkins handed the witness a brief and asked him to read some lines.
     Witness: I know the passage.
     Mr. Hawkins: It is too gross to read?—I have already said so.
     Mr. Russell: The witness yesterday strongly condemned what Walt Whitman had written.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then why did he not do so in the “Fleshly School”?
     Mr. Russell: Because it had nothing to do with what he was writing about.
     Mr. Hawkins: You may read the whole page now, and say whether the whole of it is Walt Whitman’s.—Yes.
     Would you not have been ashamed in any work of yours to have introduced such language?—Decidedly.
     Can you conceive any circumstances that would justify its publication?—I think it was written under a mistaken  notion, parading what should not be written about. The only excuse was his youth when he wrote it.
     Do you consider all the terms as symbolic?—I do.
     These are your words in your article:—“Whitman is in the highest sense a spiritual person. Every word he utters is symbolic. He is a colossal mystic. In all his great works, the theme of which is spiritual purity and health, there are not more than fifty lines that are thoroughly indecent, and these are embedded in lines of the noblest kind, antagonistic to impurity and lust.”—That is true.
     Cross-examination continued: I have never lectured upon the “Fleshly School” or upon Mr. Swinburne. I should not have thought it worth while. When I had written the article, I had done with it.
     In re-examination the plaintiff said that Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti were passionate admirers of Walt Whitman; and the former had addressed a poem to him. He added:—My poems “Liz” and the “White Rose and Red” were read by me in my lectures, which were attended by the Duchess of Argyll and Lady Gainsborough, and many other ladies.
     After further questions about the plaintiff’s writings,
     Mr. Russell referred his lordship to some passages in Mr. Swinburne’s “Ballads and Poems,” some of which he read, but others which he said he would rather not read.
     Mr. Justice Archibald thought that they had had quite enough of this, there could be no doubt that they were poems written in a style which was very much to be deprecated.
     Some other extracts having been referred to,
     Mr. Russell said this constituted the plaintiff’s case.
     Mr. Hawkins intimated that he should call no witnesses for the defendant.
     Mr. Russell thereupon addressed the jury. He complained that the defendant, after having opened the columns of his paper to libels upon the plaintiff once, twice, and again; after having pleaded that the alleged libels were written for the public good and were fair criticism, and after it having been suggested by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff had not himself come into court with unclean hands, he had allowed the plaintiff’s case to go to the jury untouched and uncontradicted in any particular whatever.
     The report will be continued in our subsequent editions.

___

The Times (Saturday, 1 July, 1876 - p.13)

SECOND DIVISIONAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD and a Special Jury.)
BUCHANAN V. TAYLOR.

     This case, which is an action of libel, brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. Peter Taylor, M.P., as proprietor of the Examiner newspaper, was continued to-day.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. C. R. McClymont appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, and Mr. Robert Williams were for the defendant.
     Mr. HAWKINS, continuing his cross-examination of the plaintiff, read several selections from the writings of “Walter Whitman,” who had been spoken of with approbation by the plaintiff, and pressed for an opinion as to their gross indelicacy. This the plaintiff admitted without reserve, excusing, however, Mr. Whitman on account of his youth at the time his book was published.
     Being re-examined by Mr. RUSSELL, the plaintiff replied that it was his honest opinion that no indecent sensualism underlay the whole of Mr. Whitman’s works, and that he had put his name to a subscription on Mr. Whitman’s behalf because he was a paralytic and in deep necessity. The Examiner had never suggested that he had written anything indecent.
     This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr. HAWKINS intimating that he should call no witnesses,
     Mr. RUSSELL summed up. The learned counsel commented strongly on the malice of the Examiner in attacking Mr. Buchanan for criticisms made four or five years back, and, after drawing a comparison between the gross sensualism of the writings condemned by Mr. Buchanan and the moderation, justice, and ability with which they had been criticized, he concluded by claiming for his client protection and compensation.
     Mr. HAWKINS then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. He deprecated the action being brought at all against Mr. Taylor, as it was conceded that that gentleman had no personal acquaintance with the plaintiff and owed him no spite. On the contrary, the author’s name had been given up, and there was no reason, therefore, why the defendant should be sued. If this case ended in a verdict for the plaintiff, he would not be entitled to damages as if there had been personal enmity—for personal enmity there was none. The learned counsel said the Examiner had, no doubt, fallen into error, but he repudiated the suggestion that the editor invented Buchanan as the author, and drew attention to the words “We are informed it is Buchanan,” and also to the statement that appeared in the number of the 4th of December, contradicting the authorship at Mr. Buchanan’s request. Coming to the alleged libel, the learned counsel said, no doubt it contained unpleasant statements, but he would show the jury that much of it was true. He was not there to defend the poems of Swinburne and Rossetti, which honestly he could not defend; but he would call their attention to the plaintiff’s own writings, and examine what his learned friend had called the mark which he had made on the literature of his country. The learned counsel then read extracts from “Session of the Poets,” “The White Rose and Red,” and the article in the Contemporary Review, and after citing several passages reflecting on Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti, contended that such writings deserved all they got in the criticism they had received. Mr. Buchanan’s own books showed his taste for depicting scenes of low life, and a man who could extol and praise the infamously indecent poetry of Mr. Walter Whitman had no right to condemn the fleshly school, which, however bad, was not nearly so gross and corrupt as what had been written by Whitman. The language of this author was too gross for him to quote or repeat, but the jury would have his book before them, and he would read to them Mr. Buchanan’s opinion of him. The learned counsel then referred to an article in which the plaintiff spoke of Walter Whitman as a “great ideal prophet,” a “colossal mystic,” and in the highest sense a “spiritual person,” and remarked if this was the kind of criticism plaintiff applied to such filth, what had he a right to expect himself? He complained of being libelled, but he had libelled others over and over again and under feigned names. Before he asked for damages he should look at his own writings, and if he set up to be a censor morum he must come into court with clean hands. The learned counsel concluded by asking the jury, if they gave damages at all, to give the plaintiff the smallest coin in the realm.
     The learned JUDGE said he would sum up to-morrow morning.
     The case was then adjourned.

___

The Guardian (1 July, 1876 - p.8)

THE ALLEGED LIBEL BY THE “EXAMINER.”

     The trial of the action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. as proprietor of the London Examiner, to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in that journal, was resumed yesterday morning, in the Common Pleas Division, before Mr. Justice Archibald and a special jury. Mr. C. Russell, Q.C. and Mr. McClymont appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. Mr. Murphy, Q.C. Mr. Matthew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. R. Williams represented the defendant.
     The cross-examination of the plaintiff being resumed by Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. he said he had no personal feeling against Mr. Swinburne. He recognised Mr. Swinburne’s style in the “Devil’s Due,” but he never heard that that gentleman had written it until after communications had passed between the solicitors on either side. He was not aware of the fact before the action was brought. He never instructed his counsel to keep anything back, and was perfectly willing that every line he had written should go before the jury—wished it, in point of fact. It was not for him to judge of the merits of his works, or to assign the value of the “Last of the Hangmen.” He believed he had called the hangman the inmost wheel of the machinery of State.
     Mr. Hawkins (reading)—

“The man who keeps the constitution sharp and clean,
Who furnishes what statesmen only plan,
And keeps the whole play going.”

     Mr. Russell objected to witness being asked questions as to what had been written in books which were not put in.
     Mr. Hawkins said he was asking the witness his opinion upon a sentiment.
     The Judge said it would be as well not to read passages from a book not put in.
     Witness replied that the passage must be taken ironically. The “Last of the Hangmen” appeared in St. Paul’s Magazine.
     Mr. Justice Archibald remarked that that was a happy state of things; he didn’t know that they had arrived at the last of the hangmen yet.
     Witness said he was willing to have the work read from beginning to end.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then why not persuade your counsel to read it. Mr. Hawkins asked witness if he considered it offensive to a man to describe a man as a clever monkey, who scratched and screamed, and bit and munched, and mumbled—all but spoke; who possessed vices of the human sort; that he was petulant to most, but sweet to those who patted him on the back and gave him meat; that he could imitate to admiration man; and that it was right to intimate that a man had no soul.
     Witness replied that it could be no offence to a Materialist to tell him he had no soul. He would think it offensive because he was not a Materialist.
     Mr. Hawkins asked if the description were applied to Swinburne.
     The question was ruled as inadmissible.
     Mr. Hawkins: Did you publish an article called the “Monkey and the Microscope” in the St. Paul’s Magazine?
     Witness said yes. It was written in reply to “Under the Microscope” under strong feelings of irritation, and he would say that if the one were withdrawn he would recall his own pamphlet upon it. He would not recall the “Fleshly School of Poetry.” He had got up a subscription for an American poet—Walt Whitman—whom he had not condemned in the article in the Contemporary Review, though he objected to the tone of his works.
     Mr. Russell observed that Walt Whitman’s works were not included in the “Fleshly School of Poetry” because he did not belong to that school.
     Mr. Hawkins handed up to witness an extract from Walt Whitman’s works, which he said was too grossly indecent to be read in court.
     Witness, in answer to Mr. Hawkins, said he should be ashamed to introduce such language into his own works. He did not justify such language, and would only say in extenuation that Whitman, when he wrote them, was a very young man, and that excuse would not avail in the case of a Holywell-street production, because that would probably be the work of a man of more mature years.
     By the Judge: Had he to criticise such a passage he certainly should not quote it.
     Cross-examination continued: He had written that Walt Whitman’s poetry was spiritual, and that every word he uttered was symbolic, that he was a colossal mystic, and that there were not 50 lines of a thoroughly indecent kind in his works.
     In re-examination witness stated that he had publicly reprobated the indecent passages in Walt Whitman. They were introduced by the poet when dealing with certain subjects, but the indecent part could be erased by the simple process of tearing out two or three pages from the whole book. There was nothing witness had written which he would have any objection to Mr. Hawkins reading to the jury if he chose. “Nell” and the “White Rose and Red” had been read by him at public readings in the presence of many ladies, including the Duchess of Argyll and Lady Gainsborough. Neither the Examiner nor any other newspaper had ever suggested that he was guilt of impropriety in his writings. “The White Rose and the Red” was the story of a young man who met an Indian girl and virtually married her. They were thousands of miles from any priest, or from churches and modern civilisation. “Under the Microscope” appeared after the article in the Contemporary Review, and the “Monkey and the Microscope” followed after “Under the Microscope.”
     Mr. Russell read several passages from Rosetti and Swinburne, which drew from His Lordship the remark that there was no doubt that they were poems in a style very much to be deprecated. Mr. Justice Archibald had previously remarked that he could see little difference between one of the passages read and the one handed up to him from Walt Whitman; but from this observation Mr. Russell, with deference, dissented.
     Mr. Russell announced that this was his case.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then you may address the jury (thereby indicating that he should call no witnesses).
     Mr. Russell then summed up his case to the jury, and commented upon the fact that Mr. Hawkins, after his severe cross-examination of the plaintiff, had called no witnesses. The plaintiff’s case was left untouched, and would go to the jury on Mr. Buchanan’s evidence alone. That gentleman’s testimony was entitled to credit. He admitted that he had written the “Monkey and the Microscope” under feelings of strong irritation, and in reply to the gross expressions in “Under the Microscope” written by Mr. Swinburne. But the work was written four or five years ago, and yet it was not forgotten when the reviewer in the Examiner wrote the article complained of. Mr. Buchanan wrote “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” seeking to show in it that men of talent and ability were degrading their powers by allying them to sensuality and indecency. He in that review was attacking that style of writing, as he had a right to attack it, in as strong language as he was capable of doing. With the evidence of the books themselves before the jury, could they fail to come to the conclusion that the writings of this school, especially and markedly of Mr. Swinburne, were deformed not with occasional indecent excrescences, but that there was underlying the main body of the writing a subtle spirit of indecency all the more dangerous because it was so subtle. Mr. Buchanan desired to preserve pure the tone of English literature, and attacked these works. Mr. Hawkins had asked why Mr. Buchanan should undertake that duty, and had suggested by a quotation from one of his works that a passage had an indecent tone in it. But this construction of “The White Rose and Red” could not for a moment be maintained. Mr. Buchanan had been attacked for what he had really not written, the article being intended as a vent for the pent-up malice that appeared to have actuated Mr. Swinburne during several years. With regard to Mr. Whitman’s works, there was no comparison between the one passage complained of and the subtle indecency which underlay the entire works of the gentlemen belonging to the Fleshly school. The learned counsel then read extracts from the “Fleshly school of Poetry,” and pointed out that during the interval between its publication and the appearance of the “Devil’s Due” in the Examiner, Mr. Buchanan had written nothing more against these gentlemen. There was, in fact, he said, no new offence committed when “Jonas Fisher” was published. Then came the article in the Examiner which was à propos of nothing except the wrath of Mr. Swinburne. Mr. Buchanan did not complain of fair criticism, to which every one, from the Prime Minister downwards, was exposed in his public capacity, but he did object to having this review containing false statements and being made a peg for an attack upon him. The learned counsel then read the review, in which “Jonas Fisher” was said to be written “either by Robert Buchanan or the devil, and that the author, whichever he was, was a Scotchman.”
     Mr. Justice Archibald remarked that the construction of this part of the review was rather curious, because it seemed to imply that the devil was a Scotchman. (Laughter).
     Mr. Russell asked if there were in the whole of the article one word of really fair criticism upon what Mr. Buchanan had written to justify the defence that this was an article written for the public good. The review contained language of the most vituperative character, ungentlemanly, smacking strongly of Billingsgate, and piling up epithet upon epithet with the hand of a master. It termed Mr. Buchanan a shuffler, a skunk, and a puffer of himself. He did not think it would be attempted to contend that this was a series of articles, the effect of which was to hold up the plaintiff to ridicule and contempt. Was it for the public good for the paper to describe Mr. Buchanan as a renegade Scotsman; that it should be suggested that it was only a fine point between him and the devil; that he was

“The child of green-faced Envy, sick and sore?”

Mr. Buchanan did not complain of any adverse criticism on his works, but the law did not authorise a man under the profession of a public writer to allow the columns of a newspaper to be used for purposes of private malice. If the jury came to the conclusion that it was a libel not to be cloaked by considerations of public good, then they would know how to assess damages for such an injury.
     Mr. Hawkins contended that even if the plaintiff were entitled to a verdict, which he maintained he was not, the smallest coin in the realm would satisfy the justice of the case.
     The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day.

___

The Morning Post (1 July, 1876 - p.6)

 COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.—FRIDAY.

. . .

(Sittings in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Archibald and a Special Jury.)

BUCHANAN v. TAYLOR.

     This case was partly heard yesterday, and the hearing was resumed this morning. It was an action by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the essayist and poet, to recover damages from Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for Leicester, the proprietor of the Examiner, for alleged libels which had appeared in that paper in connection with the publication of a poem called “Jonas Fisher,” of which it was erroneously supposed that the plaintiff was the author, but which had really been written by Lord Southesk.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. McClymont were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. Mathew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Robert Williams for the defendant.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the plaintiff, again went into the witness-box, and his cross-examination was continued by Mr. Hawkins. The witness said—I have no personal feeling whatever against Mr. Swinburne. I recognised Mr. Swinburne’s style unmistakably in the “Devil’s Due,” but I was told not long before this action was brought that he was the author of  it. I heard of it soon after the proceedings were commenced. I heard Mr. Russell open this case. I did not instruct him to keep back anything. I wish that every line I have written should be before the jury. I wrote the “Hangman’s Ditty,” but I don’t think it one of my best.
     You would not think of calling a hangman “The inmost wheel of the machine of State?”—No.
     Mr. Russell said that this was irregular, and that the book must be put in before passages of it could be read.
     Mr. Hawkins—You would not say of him—

“Who keeps the Constitution sharp and clear,
Who finishes what statesmen only plan,
     And keeps the whole play going?”

—I should not.
     Mr. Russell again complained of irregularity.
     Mr. Justice Archibald held that it would be more regular to put in the book.
     Mr. Russell—It was really asking what was in the book without putting the book in.
     Mr. Hawkins—I have not asked what the witness wrote, but he will insist upon telling me.
     Witness—I wrote “The Last of the Hangmen,” in St. Paul’s Magazine.
     Mr. Justice Archibald—That is a happy state of things, I thought we had not arrived at the last of the hangmen.
(A laugh.)
     Mr. Hawkins—And he says you never will.
     Witness—I am perfectly willing to have everything I have written read.
     Mr. Hawkins—Then you and I are agreed. Why don’t you pat your counsel on the back, and put him in a good humour, so that he may put the book in. (Laughter.) Would you think it insulting to call a man a monkey?—I should say so.
     “A clever monkey, who screeches and screams, and bites, and pouts and mumbles—all but speaks;” who was possessed of vices of a human sort, that—

“Pliant to most, but sweet to those,
Who patted him and gave him meat.”

(Laughter.) That he was dressed in human coat and vest:—

“Like humane, and on the whole,
Lacked nothing save a soul.”

     Was that grossly insulting?—Not to an individual who did not believe in a soul, and who traced his descent from a monkey.
     You would consider it insulting yourself?—But those are not my opinions. I am not a materialistic atheist. I wrote the “Monkey and the Microscope,” and I wrote it smarting under my own wrongs. I wrote it off rapidly. I knew when I wrote my article in the Contemporary that Walt Whitman’s poems were considered in America to be gross and indecent.
     Mr. Hawkins—I don’t propose to read the language, but I would put certain passages into witness’s hand and ask whether he had read them; and whether after that he had got up a subscription for Walt Whitman, and did not even mention him in the “Fleshly School.”
     Mr. Russell—It was the “Fleshly School of England” that he was dealing with.
     Mr. Justice Archibald—You say, Mr. Hawkins, that the plaintiff sets himself up as a censor of morals, and that he is not quite what he should be.
     After some discussion the questions were admitted.
     Mr. Hawkins handed the witness a book and asked him to read some lines.
     Witness—I know the passage.
     Mr. Hawkins—It is too gross to read.
     Witness—I have already said so.
     Mr. Russell—The witness yesterday strongly condemned what Walt Whitman had written.
     Mr. Hawkins—Then why did he not do so in the “Fleshly School?”
     Mr. Russell—Because it had nothing to do with what he was writing about.
     Mr. Hawkins—You may read the whole page now and say whether the whole of it is Walt Whitman’s.
     Witness—Yes.
     Would you not have been ashamed in any work of yours to have introduced such language?—Decidedly.
     Can you conceive any circumstances that would justify its publication?—I think it was written under a mistaken notion, parading what should not be written about. The only excuse was his youth when he wrote it.
     Do you consider all the terms are symbolic?—I do.
     These are your words in your article:—“Whitman is in the highest sense a spiritual person. Every word he utters is symbolic. He is a colossal mystic. In all his great works, the theme of which is spiritual purity and health, there are not more than 50 lines that are thoroughly indecent, and these are embedded in lines of the noblest kind antagonistic to impurity and lust”?—That is true. I have never lectured upon the “Fleshly School” or upon Mr. Swinburne. I should not have thought it worth while. When I had written the article I had done with it.
     Re-examined—Whitman had written a great deal of poetry. He is now paralysed. Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti are passionate admirers of Walt Whitman, and the former has addressed a poem to him. My poems “Liz” and the “White Rose and Red” were read by me in my lectures, which were attended by the Duchess of Argyll and Lady Gainsborough, and many other ladies, so that it could hardly be said that there was anything indecent in it. The “White Rose and Red” was the story of a man who met an Indian woman far away from civilisation, and virtually married her.
     The passage was read by Mr. Hawkins describing the marriage, in which it was said—

“What was the service? ’Twas the service read
When Adam’s faith was plighted:”

and so on. Had it ever been suggested that there was anything indecent in that passage until Mr. Hawkins read it? —Never.
     Mr. Russell referred his lordship to some passages in Mr. Swinburne’s “Ballads and Poems,” some of which he read, but others of which he said he would rather not.
     Mr. Justice Archibald thought that they had had quite enough of this. There could be no doubt that they were poems written in a style which was very much to be deprecated.
     Some other extracts having been referred to,
     Mr. Russell said this constituted the plaintiff’s case.
     Mr. Hawkins intimated that he should call no witnesses for the defendant.
     Mr. Russell thereupon addressed the jury in summing up the plaintiff’s case. He complained that the defendant, after having opened the columns of his paper to libels upon the plaintiff—once, twice, and again—after having pleaded that the alleged libels were written for the public good and were fair criticism; and after it having been suggested by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff had not himself come into court with clean hands, that he had allowed the plaintiff’s case to go to the jury untouched and uncontradicted in any particular whatever. In the “Fleshly School” of poets there were many men whom Mr. Buchanan admitted to be men of considerable power; but who, he thought, were degrading themselves and that power by loading it with a beastly sensualism, and by adopting the indecent garbage of the French Boudelaire. He attacked them for this in as strong language as he could use. He (Mr. Russell) contended with confidence that if the jury would look at the books of the writers of this school, and to many hundreds of passages that he had marked, they could not fail to come to the conclusion that those writings, especially those of Mr. Swinburne, were marked not by occasional indecent excrescences, but that there was underlying the main body of these books a dangerous spirit of indecency, all the more dangerous because it was subtle. Mr. Buchanan attacked this, and he attacked it strongly. But, said Mr. Hawkins, why should Mr. Buchanan do this? He, however, was perfectly justified if he chose in taking up the position of a critic. Why should he be so persistently attacked because it was simply suggested that he had once himself written what should not have been written. Many a man had done that of which he might be ashamed; but that should not prevent him for all time from holding up his head. But had Mr. Buchanan done anything of the kind which was charged against him; had he ever written anything that might not be read by anybody, however delicate and pure minded? The only thing of that kind which Mr. Hawkins had suggested was a passage on the “White Rose and Red,” and this suggestion was simply founded upon the putting of a meaning upon the passage which had never been suggested by the plaintiff or any body else or had been intended in any way to be conveyed. In his (Mr. Russell’s) opinion the poem of the “White Rose and Red” was a beautiful poem which did not offend against any canon of propriety or decency. Even if Mr. Buchanan had once in his life written which was to be regretted, was that a reason why he was to be libelled once, twice, thrice, so that there might be given scope to pent-up malice. He next went on the same way through the alleged libels. One of the passages referred to “Jonas Fisher” having been written either by Mr. Buchanan or the Devil; and continued—“The author, whichever he is, is a Scotchman.”
     Mr. Justice Archibald—That imputes to the Devil that he is a Scotchman; and, from the context, I am not sure that he is not a “renegade Scotchman.” (Laughter.)
     Mr. Russell said he had heard that suggestion before. The kind of argument seemed to be this: That either Robert Buchanan or the Devil was the author; and, whether one or the other, it was written by Mr. Buchanan; so that you, Robert Buchanan, are the Devil. (Laughter.) In conclusion, the learned counsel said that the defendant might have simply contented himself with pleading not guilty; but he had chosen rather to persist in saying that the charges had been made for the public good, and that they were true. Was it right that a journal which had libelled should put such things upon record without the least possible foundation; for the defendant had called no witnesses in support of his case. It was said that the libels were written of the plaintiff in his public character, but did it refer to his public character to call him a renegade Scotchman; to say that he wrote under various names; to say that he resorted to various tricks to puff himself and to make all the other imputations upon him which were contained in the various libels? Was it right that when a journal had libelled a man they should put such things upon the record as were pleaded in this case, and that without daring to call any evidence to support them? Mr. Buchanan never had complained of any adverse criticism upon what he had written or said. Men of his profession ought not to be thin-skinned, but must be content to be judged by their peers, and if occasionally they should suffer from the effects of private malice they must be content to grin and bear it. But the law did not authorise a man under the profession of being the proprietor of a public journal to allow his columns to be used for the purpose of disseminating personal spite, and giving expression to personal malice. A man never would be heard with success to say, “I am Mr. P. A. Taylor, the member for Leicester. I am not the editor or the writer. I have no malice against Mr. Buchanan, and therefore I ask the jury to give damages of an insignificant kind.” The jury would judge of that; it was their province. They would judge whether everything had been done honest and bonâ fide, or whether it was done in the way of giving expression to wicked and offensive private malice. If they came to the conclusion that this was a libel, that it was not to be cloaked by the profession of public duty, then they would know how to assess the damages, when they saw upon the record the plea of justification, and when they recollected the highly offensive character of the cross-examination which had been administered to the plaintiff. The defendant had not in the least vouchsafed one word of explanation or apology, and the charge, therefore, which the defendant had made really recoiled upon himself; and there was no doubt that under all the circumstances the jury would take a just view of the defendant’s conduct in this case.
     Mr. Hawkins, in replying upon the whole case, said that they were not there to discuss the question whether the writings of Mr. Swinburne or Mr. Rosetti were worthy of approval or condemnation, but rather to consider the conduct of Mr. Taylor as proprietor of the Examiner, who, when the alleged libels were published, not only had no animosity against Mr. Buchanan, but indeed had never seen him. Before the action was commenced Mr. Buchanan was told who was the author of the “Devil’s Due,” and was offered the MS. of the article, so that he could, had he pleased, have proceeded against the man whom he said had personal malice against him; but having refused to do this and chosen to proceed against the comparatively innocent man, he could hardly ask for substantial damages, as he could have done had he chosen to proceed against the real offender. There could be no harm in saying that the Examiner had been informed that Mr. Robert Buchanan was the author of “Jonas Fisher,” a book which, whatever might be its character, contained nothing which a man ought to have been ashamed to have written.
     Mr. Justice Archibald—It was not libellous to say that plaintiff was the author of such a book.
     Mr. Hawkins—Just so; and as soon as the editor found out that the statement was erroneous he corrected it as to saying that the author was either Mr. Robert Buchanan or the Devil, but that was only a way of saying “If Mr. Buchanan was not the author, we cannot say who is.” No doubt there were many things said in the review which were not complimentary to Mr. Buchanan, but these it appeared from the evidence that had been laid before the jury were substantially true. He had written under various names, and he had libelled other people. He had used hard words of other people, and considering the things that he had written himself he could hardly complain if some people thought fit to pull him to pieces. Mr. Buchanan having written as he had done had little to complain of what had appeared in the defendant’s paper, and even if the plaintiff were entitled to a verdict, and if the jury awarded the smallest coin in the realm they would meet the justice of the case.
     The further hearing of the case was adjourned.

_____

The Fleshly School Libel Action - continued