|
THE FLESHLY SCHOOL CONTROVERSY
The ‘Fleshly School’ Libel Action (3)
The Trial
Day Three: Saturday, 1st July, 1876.
The Pall Mall Gazette (1 July, 1876)
THE “EXAMINER” LIBEL CASE.
The hearing of the case of Buchanan v. Taylor was resumed to-day in the Common Pleas Division. The speeches of counsel having been brought to a conclusion yesterday, Mr. Justice Archibald proceeded this morning to sum up. He said that the attention of the jury had been directed to so wide a range of subjects, that he thought it necessary to recall their attention to the question which they had to decide. The action was brought upon three alleged libels upon the plaintiff, to which charge the defendant had pleaded that they were published in the Examiner in the usual course and in good faith and without malice, that they were never seen or read by the defendant before publication, and also that they were written and published for the public good. It was further said that the alleged libels were fair reviews of the works of the plaintiff and his conduct as a critic, and that they in no way referred to his private character. Then there was a passage in the statement of defence which set out that the plaintiff had as a critic written under assumed names critiques upon various authors; and under assumed names had written of himself as being among writers of high repute, and that the alleged libels were written of him solely in reference to his conduct therein and not as to his private conduct. This last statement, however, went only to the question of damages, because it was no answer to the action for libel to say that the damage had been provoked by the plaintiff’s own conduct. In reference to the law of the matter, his direction to them was that a libel was a document which was calculated to bring a person into contempt or disrepute, or to disparage him. But, though he told them what it was that constituted a libel, it was for them to say whether these articles now in question amounted to a libel or not. His lordship, after going through the first alleged libel, said that the jury would say whether the publication was actionable, though the matter of taste was another thing—and, indeed, there could be no doubt that the article was in very bad taste. The second alleged libel was a more serious matter. Mr. Taylor could not shelter himself from the consequences of this by saying that he never saw the articles before they were published; because in law he was responsible for them, though it might have an important bearing upon the question of damages. They knew that just as the action commenced a correspondence took place, in which Mr. Taylor gave up the name of the author of the second article, and proposed that the action should be brought against Mr. Swinburne; but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to adopt that proposal, and gave certain reasons for so doing. Among them was this one, that Mr. Taylor was in a position which rendered him much better able to pay damages and costs than Mr. Swinburne. The jury would consider how far Mr. Buchanan was justified in not seeking a remedy against the person who really had so injured him, and choosing to go against the proprietor of the paper, who, though a person legally responsible, had certainly not been actuated by any malice against him. Mr. Minto, indeed, was the editor of that paper, and it was true that Mr. Buchanan thought that Mr. Minto had shown a spirit of hostility to him, he having written of him again and again adversely, but against Mr. Taylor nothing of the kind was alleged. Still, after all, Mr. Taylor was a person against whom Mr. Buchanan had a perfect right to proceed. There was nothing more deplorable than to see men of high ability choosing degrading subjects for the themes of their writings instead of others which would not be calculated to stimulate and inflame the lowest and most degrading passions of human nature. He thought that the jury would agree with him that a great deal of the poetry that had been read, and which had been written by persons belonging to what was called the “Fleshly School,” had better never have been written at all; or that if it had all been committed to the flames the world would have been much the better for it. It was not the less to be deplored because the poetry was couched in elegant language, for it might be the more dangerous and successful on that account. Such writings as these were not good for the writer or for the reader, they tended to demoralize, and altogether their influence was in a direction that was not good. A critic upon such writings should be a grave person, who would rebuke them in a tone of remonstrance that would carry weight as well; such a subject should not be taken up for the purpose of writing a sensational essay upon it, but if it were possible, the critic should so speak that he should be able to place his heel upon the writings and drive it into them without it being necessary to take them up with his hand as though they were some venomous thing. Now, how had the plaintiff dealt with the matter? Had he dealt with it as the subject should be dealt with? There was a mode of reviewing such writings which made the review as sensational as the articles reviewed. The jury would on the whole say under the circumstances whether the plaintiff had by his conduct disentitled himself to damages, or how far his conduct had diminished the damages to which he was entitled.
The jury, after considering the matter for a quarter of an hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £150.
___
Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper (2 July, 1876 - p.7)
[Since this account deals with the whole trial I have placed it on the ‘Fleshly School’ Libel Action - additional material page.]
___
The Times (3 July, 1876 - p.13)
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION, JULY 1
(Before Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD and a Special Jury.)
BUCHANAN V. TAYLOR.
The trial of this cause was concluded to-day. It was an action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. Taylor, M.P., as the proprietor of the Examiner, for two libels published in that paper, bearing date the 27th November and the 11th December last. The defendant denied that the articles were libels, and pleaded that they were written for the public good, and were fair comments upon the critical writings of the plaintiff.
Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. MacClymont were for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, and Mr. Robert Williams were for the defendant.
When the Court adjourned yesterday the evidence was concluded, and the counsel on either side had addressed the jury on behalf of their clients. From the effect of these speeches, and the examination of the plaintiff, who, with the exception of Lord Southesk, was the only witness called in the case, it appeared that the libels in question, which are too long to publish in extenso, had their origin under the following circumstances:—As long ago as 1871 the plaintiff sent an article to the Contemporary Review under the title of the “Fleshly School,” in which he took occasion to make some pungent criticisms upon the poetry of Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, and Mr. Morris. It is a rule with the Contemporary Review to admit no contributions unless the name of the author is appended, but, in this instance, Mr. Buchanan, being desirous that his article should be judged strictly on its merits, preferred to send it without any signature. The article, however, was not published in this state, and the name of “Thomas Maitland” was appended, but apparently without the sanction or even knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, in answer to public curiosity, the plaintiff owned he was the author, and a fierce paper war ensued, in the course of which Mr. Swinburne, in an article, called “Under the Microscope,” retaliated upon the plaintiff, in language not less pungent than had been employed in the article itself. The spirit aroused by these counter-productions had not died away when an anonymous poem was published last year under the name of “Jonas Fisher.” This poem, harmless in itself, and admitted to have been written by Lord Southesk, who was called as a witness for that purpose, contained censures upon the “Fleshly School” which attached suspicion to the plaintiff as the author. Thereupon a review appeared in the Examiner, which was the subject of the first libel complained of. In the course of this the reviewer remarked, “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 the alternatives.” Continuing in the same strain, “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.’” After the appearance of this article, a disclaimer was inserted in the Examiner, at the request of Mr. Buchanan, denying that he was the author of “Jonas Fisher,” and then, on the 11th of December, appeared the second libel in the shape of a letter headed the “Devil’s Due,” and signed “Thomas Maitland.” This letter, which was admitted to be the work of Mr. Swinburne, and was very long, referred to the plaintiff as the “multifaced idyllist of the gutter,” “the polypseudonymous lyrist and libeller,” and stated that 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 accurity at the window of Horace or of Virgil.” Mr. Buchanan was at this time known to be in Scotland, and a postscript was added to the letter, in which such expressions as “skulk” and “Captain Shuffleton” were used, and it was suggested that the plaintiff sheltered himself from attack by the adoption of a feigned signature. The defence to these articles substantially was that the language used, if libellious, had been provoked by Mr. Buchanan himself, and he was subjected to a long cross-examination with this purport by Mr. HAWKINS. It was impossible to report these questions in full, because they were founded for the most part upon passages selected from books which would not bear publication; but the effect of the cross-examination was that Mr. Buchanan admitted he had spoken in terms of praise of the works of “Walt Whitman,” an American, who had written some grossly indecent poems. And passages were read from his own works in which frequent allusion of an uncomplimentary kind was made to Mr. Swinburne. In one place he was spoken of as “jumping up with his neck stretched out like a gander;” and in another Tennyson was made to say of him:—”’To the door with the boy. Call a cab; he is tipsy.’ And they carried the naughty young gentleman out:” but Mr. Buchanan defended these allusions by saying they referred to writings, and that in the same poem he had spoken of himself in terms of dispraise.
Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD summed up the case at considerable length. After telling the jury that anything written to bring another into contempt, or degrade or disparage him, was a libel in law, his Lordship said it would not be enough, therefore, if the articles showed they were only written in bad taste, however bad that taste might be. As to the defendant in the record being the proprietor of the paper, and not the author of the article, Mr. Taylor could not shelter himself from legal responsibility on the ground that he never saw the libel before it was published; but, at the same time, there were considerations here for the jury which might affect the degree of damages, if they thought that Mr. Swinburne was the proper person to have been sued. His Lordship then, after reading and commenting upon both the alleged libels, said this brought him to the question which had been so much discussed—whether the libels had been provoked by Mr. Buchanan himself. Mr. Taylor had nothing to do with this; and it would have been more satisfactory, as well as logical and rational, if Mr. Swinburne had been the defendant. Nothing was more deplorable, his Lordship said, than to see men of genius applying their minds and pens to subjects of the most degrading kind, and calculated only to stimulate and inflame the lowest passions of human nature. He was sure the jury would agree with him that much of the “Fleshly School” had better never have been written, and if all of it was consigned to the flames to-morrow the world would be much the better. In the words of a high authority, such writing was not convenient, and was not good for writer or reader. It might be more successful because the object was veiled in elegant and refined language, but it was not the less on this account unworthy of men of genius. But if this was the character of such writings, they were not to be rebuked except in a grave and serious way; and if, instead of this, they were made the excuse of a sensational essay, and the same faults were reproduced by repetition and unnecessary quotation, such a mode of treatment must betaken into account by the jury in assessing damages. His Lordship then read passages from the plaintiff’s article in the Contemporary Review, and from his “Sessions of the Poets,” and asked the jury if they thought, from the remarks in the latter upon Mr. Swinburne, the plaintiff showed the characteristics of a man capable of seriously reviewing and rebuking the “Fleshly School.” His Lordship made some further observations on the plaintiff’s writings, observing that it was the extreme of idealism on his part to attribute “Walter Whitman’s” poems to philosophy, and, in conclusion, after remarking that the contest was creditable to neither side, left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, and, if so, to what amount.
One of the jurors asked his Lordship whether, if Mr. Swinburne had been made the defendant, this would have covered all the forms under which damages was claimed.
Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD said it would not; that Mr. Swinburne could only be responsible for what he had actually written.
The jury then retired, and, after a short absence, returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £150.
His LORDSHIP, in answer to Mr. MacClymont, gave judgment accordingly.
___
The Morning Post (3 July, 1876 - p.3)
COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.—SATURDAY.
(Sittings in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Archibald and a Special Jury.)
BUCHANAN V. TAYLOR.
The hearing of this case was resumed this morning. It was the action by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the essayist and poet, to recover damages from Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for Leicester, for alleged libels which had appeared in the Examiner, a newspaper which belonged to that gentleman.
Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. McClymont appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. Mathew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Robert Williams for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Archibald, in summing up, said that the attention of the jury had been for so long a time directed to such a long range of subjects that he thought it necessary to call their minds to the subject which they had to decide. In the few observations which he had to make to them he would point out to them the questions which they had to decide. The action was brought upon three alleged libels upon the plaintiff, to which charge the defendant had pleaded that they were published in the Examiner in the usual course and in good faith, and without malice; and that they were never seen or read by the defendant before publication, and also that they were written and published for the public good. It was further said that the alleged libels were fair reviews of the works of the plaintiff and his conduct as a critic, and that they in no way referred to his private character. Then there was a passage in the statement of defence which set out that the plaintiff had, as critic, written under divers assumed names critiques upon divers authors; and under assumed names had written of himself as being among writers of high repute, and that the alleged libels were written of him solely in reference to his conduct therein, and not as to his private conduct. This last statement, however, went only to the question of damages because it was no answer to an action for libel to say that the damage had been provoked by the plaintiff’s own conduct. In reference to the law of the matter, his direction to them was that a libel was a document which was calculated to bring a person into contempt or disrepute, or to disparage him. Though, however, he told them what it was that constituted a libel, it was for them to say whether these articles now in question amounted to a libel or not, because, though it was the duty of judges to tell juries what primâ facie amounted to a libel, it was necessary that in each case the question should go to the jury to say whether in the particular instance the publication amounted to a libel or not. His lordship, after going through the first alleged libel said that the jury would say whether the publication was actionable, though the matter of taste was another thing; and, indeed, there could be no doubt that the article was in very bad taste. Leaving this, he would now pass on to the second alleged libel, which was a more serious matter. Mr. Taylor could not shelter himself from the consequences of this by saying that he never saw the articles before they were published, because in law he was responsible for them, though it might have an important bearing upon the question of damages. They knew that just as the action commenced a correspondence took place in which Mr. Taylor gave up the name of the author of the second article, and proposed that the action should be brought against Mr. Swinburne, but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to adopt that proposal, and gave certain reasons for so doing. Among them was this one, that Mr. Taylor was in a position which rendered him much better able to pay damages and costs than Mr. Swinburne; but the jury would consider how far Mr. Buchanan was authorised in not seeking a remedy against the person who really had so injured him, and chose to go against the proprietor of the paper who, though a person legally responsible, had certainly not been actuated by any malice against him. Mr. Minto, indeed, was the editor of that paper, and it was true that Mr. Buchanan thought that Mr. Minto had shown a spirit of hostility to him, he having written of him again and again adversely; but against Mr. Taylor nothing of the kind was alleged. Still, after all this, Mr. Taylor was a person against whom Mr. Buchanan had a perfect right to proceed. There was nothing more deplorable than to see men of high ability choosing degrading subjects for their themes instead of others which would not be calculated to stimulate and inflame the lowest and most degrading passions of human nature. He thought that the jury would agree with him that a great deal of the poetry which had been read, and which had been written by persons belonging to what was called the “Fleshly School,” had never been written at all; or if it had all been committed to the flames it would have been much the better for it. It was not the less to be deplored because the articles were couched in elegant language, for it might be the more dangerous and successful on that account. Such writings as these were not good for the writer or for the reader; they tended to demoralise, and altogether their influence was in a direction that was not good. A critic upon such writings should be a grave person, who would rebuke such writings in a tone of remonstrance that would carry weight to effect its object; but certainly such a subject should not be taken up for the purpose of writing a sensational essay upon it, but if it was possible the critic should so speak that he should be able to place his heel upon the writings and drive it into them without it being necessary to take them up with his hand as though they were some venomous thing. Now, how had the plaintiff dealt with the matter? Had he dealt with it as the subject should be dealt with? There was a mode of reviewing such writings which made the review as sensational as the articles reviewed. The jury would on the whole say, under the circumstances, whether the plaintiff had by his conduct disentitled himself to damages, or how far his conduct had diminished the damages to which he was entitled. He repeated that he thought it was very much to be regretted that they had had to decide these matters at all, for he did not think that what had happened was creditable to either party. The case being here, however, the jury would decide between them.
A juror inquired whether, in the event of an action having been brought against Mr. Swinburne instead of Mr. Taylor, what would have happened. Mr. Swinburne had written only one of the articles, and if the action had been brought against him could the plaintiff have obtained damages for the other articles.
Mr. Justice Archibald—The plaintiff could only have recovered damages against Mr. Swinburne for what he had himself done. The first article, it appeared, was written by Mr. Minto, the second by Mr. Swinburne. As to the first they would consider whether there was anything actionable in it.
The Juror—Was there any other form than the present in which the action could have been brought to recover damages for all the articles?
Mr. Justice Archibald—No, there was not.
Mr. Hawkins—There was no evidence that Mr. Swinburne was actuated by any malice, or, indeed, that he ever saw the plaintiff.
The jury retired to consider the matter, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour, they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £150.
On the application of Mr. McClymont, his lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff.
___
The Western Mail (3 July, 1876 - p.4)
POETS IN THE LAW COURTS.
Poets have by long tradition acquired the reputation of being an irritable race, and no one who has taken the trouble to study the interesting chapter of the quarrels of authors can say that the imputation is undeserved. They have, however, up to the present time been in the habit of fighting one another by means of pen and ink, and through the comparatively harmless medium of the publishers and the press. It has been reserved for a minor poet of our own day, Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN, to introduce into the literary tilting ground an element of an altogether different character, and, with the result now before us, it cannot be denied that in a substantial pecuniary sense he has triumphed by means of his invention. Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN, who has now for some years been trying to induce the British public to place him as a poet upon a level with WORDSWORTH, if not with SPENSER, and who has the very best possible opinion of himself, has not unnaturally become the subject of the sharp criticism which usually falls to the lot of a man of his temperament. In the true spirit of a minor poet he has resented these supposed wrongs and remarks, which, if they had been uttered with reference to the genuine successor of our great English bards would have been allowed to pass with little or no notice—have irritated him to the pitch of literary madness. Not content with writing mild poetry, and with amusing himself by criticising his supposed critics, he has thought proper to fall foul of the gentleman who may be considered his personal rival in the field of poetry in the present day, namely, Mr. ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE. Twelve years ago, when he had no personal acquaintance with Mr. SWINBURNE, Mr. BUCHANAN wrote a poem in which that gentleman was accused of the vice of drunkenness, and since then Mr. BUCHANAN has never allowed an opportunity to pass of impugning, under an anonymous form, the morals of his brother poet, whose real crime is that he surpasses Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN as a writer of English verses. The personal antipathies of the two poets have lately resulted in articles under assumed names in the Contemporary Review and in the Examiner, and it was in respect of a letter written by Mr. SWINBURNE to the Examiner that Mr. BUCHANAN thought proper to appeal to a court of law.
Like the kettle in DICKENS’S Christmas story, Mr. BUCHANAN may be said to have begun it. Irritated by the tone which a certain school of criticism adopted with regard to his own poems, he conceived the notion of crushing his enemies by means of an epithet, and this idea, it must be conceded, he has worked out with a great deal of genius, for the epithet has stuck. He denounced his rival and his critics as belonging to the “fleshly school of poetry,” an expression which was meant to convey the idea that their works were unfit to be read by those people who confine themselves to the perusal of pure literature, and that there was nothing like the real and genuine leather produced by ROBERT BUCHANAN. The name given to the school was one which even the vulgar were capable of comprehending, and therefore it had the greater effect in irritating Mr. BUCHANAN’S opponents, who knew perfectly well that it was impossible for them to enter into a defence of their method of writing without soaring into the classic region, where the uneducated would be unable to follow them. Mr. BUCHANAN had made his attack upon Mr. SWINBURNE had his friends under the assumed name of “THOMAS MAITLAND,” and his enemies appear to have awaited their opportunity to give Mr. BUCHANAN a taste of the same kind of medicine as that which he had administered to them. They accordingly chose to attribute to him the authorship of a poem called “JONAS FISHER” which, it has been proved, was not written by Mr. BUCHANAN, but by Lord SOUTHESK, and upon this foundation they, or rather Mr. SWINBURNE, based an elaborate criticism upon the whole of Mr. BUCHANAN’S works. Among other things, he was described as the idyllist or lyrist of the gutter, and it was imputed to him not only that he had written poems which could be described as belonging to the “fleshly school,” but that he had gone to a great deal of trouble to assist the American poet WALT WHITMAN, portions of whose works he admitted were a great deal too pronounced to be read even in an English court of justice, which is not easily shocked. At this point Mr. BUCHANAN, instead of sticking to his gun and firing away—as a poet of the good old school would have done—goes in sorrow and tears to submit his injuries to the arbitrament of a British jury. It must be confessed that he was, from a money point of view, wise in his generation in taking this course; for the British jury— notwithstanding the fact that he had anonymously attacked his brother poet, and attempted to bring him and his poetical school into disrepute among persons so sensitive upon matters of morals as the British public—have awarded him the solatium of £150 as damages.
We do not grudge Mr. BUCHANAN the poor triumph which he has achieved in a court of justice, but we do think that both he and Mr. SWINBURNE should cast their minds back to the times when poets had backbone enough to bear scathing criticism, and to expend their wrath in indignant verse. It seems altogether a lowering of the poetical function to find two poets—who aspire to a name in the literature of their time—fighting out their quarrels by means of a jury. When POPE was assailed by the army of critics hailing from Grub-street and the rules of the Fleet prison, he never thought of invoking the laws of his country to remedy his wrongs. It is true that upon one occasion he, with Dr. ARBUTHNOT, cited that scoundrelly publisher EDMUND CURLL in the Court of Queen’s Bench for pirating their letters, when they had the satisfaction through the efforts of MURRAY—afterwards Lord MANSFIELD—of making that disreputable publisher feel that it was not a good thing upon the whole to steal other men’s brains. But with regard to his literary and poetical critics POPE took a very different course. He never thought of serving a writ or of estimating damages, but he simply set to work and wrote the Dunciad, in which he placed the whole of his enemies in a pillory of everlasting infamy. In another recent and quite as celebrated a case, Lord BYRON, instead of bringing FRANCIS JEFFERY into court for his article in the Edinburgh on his early poems, sat and wrote “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.” Surely this is a much more noble way of settling differences between poets and their friends than that of dragging poetry into a court of justice to be turned into ridicule by facetious and unsympathetic counsel. As it is, the quarrel of Mr. BUCHANAN and Mr. SWINBURNE ends with a verdict in favour of the former of £150, but if they had followed the illustrious examples with which both of them must be perfectly well acquainted we might, as to the result, have had the pleasure of reading a couple of vigorous satires in an age which seems altogether to have forgotten the art of writing satirical poetry.
___
[The following reports deal with the last two days of the trial, but include some details not found elsewhere.]
The Western Mail (3 July, 1876 - p.8)
THE QUARRELS OF POETS.
_____
MR. BUCHANAN AND MR. SWINBURNE.
The case of Buchanan v. Taylor, which began in the Common Pleas Division on Thursday, and continued on Friday, was concluded on Saturday. 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. Chas. 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. Buchanan, the plaintiff, again appeared in the witness box, when his cross examination was resumed by Mr. Hawkins. He said: I have no personal feelings against Mr. Swinburne—none whatever. When the letter headed “The Devil’s Due” appeared in the Examiner I recognised that gentleman’s style, which is unmistakeable, and not long before this action was brought I was told he was the author of the letter. I heard my counsel, Mr. Russell, open the present case. I did not instruct him to keep anything back. I am perfectly willing—indeed, I wish that every line I ever wrote should be before the jury. “The Last of the Hangmen” is a poem which I do not rank amongst my best productions in a literary point of view. I should not, however, have contributed it to a magazine if I had not thought it worthy of a place there. It appeared in St. Paul’s.
Mr. Hawkins: I suppose you would not describe a hangman as—
“The inmost wheel of the machine of State?”
Witness: I believe I have done so.
Mr. Hawkins: Is this your notion of a hangman? A man—
“Who keeps the Constitution sharp and clean,
Who finishes what statesmen only plan
And keeps the whole play going.”
Mr. Russell: I must object to the question. Surely it cannot be right to ask the witness what his opinions are, and in doing so to quote passages carefully selected from a particular point of view.
Mr. Hawkins (to the witness): Is it your opinion that the hangman is the man who “keeps the constitution going?”
Witness: The passage you have quoted is written ironically, as you will see if you read it in the proper spirit.
Mr. Hawkins: Have you pictured the hangman taking an innocent cup of tea in a tea garden in the suburbs?
Mr. Russell: I object to the question. This is quite irregular. It is asking what is in the book without putting the book in.
Mr. Justice Archibald: I do not think the question can be allowed. It would be more regular to put in the volume.
Mr. Hawkins: Should you think it was at all offensive to a man to publish that he was a monkey?
Witness: I should think so, decidedly.
Mr. Hawkins: You think it would be a very vulgar and improper thing to do?
Witness: Well, that would depend to some extent upon what might be the man’s opinions.
Mr. Hawkins: Should you not think it grossly insulting to say of a man that he is—
“A clever monkey—he can squeak,
Scream, bite, munch, mumble, all but speak;
Studies not merely monkey-sport,
But vices of a human sort;
Is petulant to most, but sweet
To those who pat him, give him meat.
Can imitate to admiration
Man’s gestures, gait, gesticulation;
Is amorous, and takes no pain
To hide his aphrodital vein;
And altogether, trimly drest
In human breeches, coat, and vest,
Looks human, and upon the whole
Lacks nothing save, perchance, a Soul.”
Witness—Not if the individual did not believe in the existence of a soul or anything of the kind; and traced his own descent from the monkey. The passage you have read represents such negative opinions. Certainly those opinions are not mine. I am not a materialistic atheist.
Mr. Hawkins: Do you not think it an offensive thing to publish of a man that he does not believe in the existence of a soul?
Witness; I should think so, except under circumstances of great irritation and provocation.
Mr. Hawkins: Do you not think it would be grossly offensive to the man of whom such a thing was written?
Witness; I should think it would.
Mr. Hawkins: Did you publish in St. Paul’s Magazine an article entitled “The Monkey and the Microscope?”
Witness: I did.
Mr. Hawkins: And did you tell your counsel to omit all mention of that yesterday when he made his speech?
Witness; Certainly not.
Mr. Hawkins: Did you know that all mention of it was going to be omitted?
Witness: I hoped not.
Mr. Hawkins: You heard your counsel state that Mr. Swinburne had written an article called “Under the Microscope,” which was a reply to your pamphlet. Do you think it fair that your counsel should refrain from stating yesterday in opening your case that——
Mr. Russell: I object to my learned friend asking the witness whether my conduct was fair or not.
Mr. Hawkins: Did you hear an allusion made to “Under the Microscope,” and the statement made that the publication contained all the words to be found on the vocabulary of abuse?
Mr. Russell: Except what were exhausted. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins: By the witness himself. (Loud laughter.) Did you (addressing the plaintiff) call attention yesterday to the omission of any reference to “The Monkey and the Microscope?”
Witness: I did not.
Mr. Hawkins: You say you have no ill-will against Mr. Swinburne?
Witness: I have strong literary ill-will against him. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins: Was the passage I have read not written by you in a spirit of vindictiveness?
Witness: It was written under a spirit of great annoyance.
Mr. Hawkins: Was it not written in a spirit of vindictiveness?
Witness: I dare say I wrote it in a spirit of momentary vindictiveness.
Mr. Hawkins: Intending to wound Mr. Swinburne?
Witness: I wrote it, smarting under my own wounds, immediately on reading his pamphlet. I was in Scotland at the time, and forwarded my manuscript to London.
Mr. Hawkins: Oh! you were in Scotland. There’s a cooling air down there. (Laughter.) You were yachting, I suppose?
Witness: No; not yachting. I was living in Scotland at the time.
Mr. Hawkins: Do you now regret having written what I have quoted?
Witness: I regret having had any quarrel with any individual.
Mr. Hawkins: Do you not regret having written what I have read?
Witness: Not altogether.
Mr. Hawkins: Then you would not recall it?
Witness: I would recall it directly if the pamphlet were recalled which Mr. Swinburne published. I should certainly not withdraw my “Fleshly School of Poetry.” I knew when I wrote the latter article that some of Walt Whitman’s poems were exceedingly unclean and animal.
Mr. Hawkins having directed the attention of his lordship and the jury to a passage in one of Mr. Whitman’s poems, which, he said, he could not read in court, asked the plaintiff, who also quietly perused it, whether it was not as filthy as anything he had ever read.
Witness: I should certainly be ashamed of such language as this passage contains appearing in any work of mine.
Mr. Hawkins: Can you conceive any occasion when it would be justifiable?
Witness: I think what I have read must have been written under a total mistake—parading things which ought to have been kept in the background; which, indeed, ought not to be written about at all.
Mr. Hawkins: Can you conceive any justification for writing such a thing as I have shown you?
Witness: I can conceive of no justification but the man’s youth at the time of its publication, and his honesty of purpose in writing it.
Mr. Hawkins: Would any language be too strong in condemnation of such passages as you know are to be found in Walt Whitman’s writings?
Witness: Certainly not; not for the passages themselves.
Mr. Hawkins: And you have written of Mr. Walt Whitman—“Whitman is in the highest sense ‘a spiritual person; every word he utters is symbolic; he is a colossal mystic; but in all his great work, the theme of which is spiritual purity and health, there are not more than fifty lines of a thoroughly indecent kind, and these fifty lines are embedded in passages in the noblest sense antagonistic to mere lust and indulgence.’” Would it be passages of the kind I have shown you that would lead you to regard and speak of Walt Whitman as a “colossal mystic.”
The Witness: No; it would be a general perusal of his works.
Mr. Hawkins: Did you ever publicly address an audience on the subject of Mr. Swinburne?
Witness: Certainly not. It would not be worth the trouble. (Loud laughter.)
Being re-examined by Mr. Russell, the plaintiff deposed: I have publicly reprobated the indecencies which appear in Mr. Walt Whitman’s poems. The main tone of his writings, however, is healthy and pure, and not sensual. Mr. Rossetti himself published an English edition of Walt Whitman’s poems. Their author is at present paralysed in body and poor in means. A large number of charitable persons in this country have assisted in the subscriptions started on his behalf, Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti amongst the number. Both gentlemen are passionate admirers of Mr. Whitman.
Mr. Russell: Have you ever written anything in poetry or prose which you should object to my learned friend reading to the jury if he desired to do so?
Witness: None whatever. I have given readings of my poems in public. These readings have been largely attended. They have been attended by the Duchess of Argyll, Lady Gainsborough, and many other ladies. There is not a word, I hope, of an indecent character in all my writings; and neither the Examiner nor any other newspaper has ever suggested that I ever have penned a work which is immoral.
Mr. Russell proceeded to call attention to several of the poems written by Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti.
Mr. Justice Archibald remarked with regard to them that there could be no doubt that they were pieces very much to be reprobated indeed.
Mr. Russell then stated that that was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins intimated that he should not call any witnesses.
Mr. Russell accordingly proceeded to sum up the plaintiff’s case, and said that though Mr. Buchanan had been libelled several times in the Examiner; though there had been put upon record a plea which stated, forsooth, that the libels were written for the public good; though the plaintiff had been examined by Mr. Hawkins, he would not say in as offensive a manner, but in as severe a manner as his learned friend was capable of; and though his learned friend had failed to lay before them the least justification for the course which had been taken on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Hawkins had allowed the case of Mr. Buchanan to go to the jury untouched and uncontradicted. Although, for all they knew, Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, Mr. Minto (the editor of the Examiner), and Mr. Taylor, the proprietor of that journal, might have been in court and heard him again and again challenge his learned friend to put them before the jury—to read to them if he chose—everything from the beginning of his life until now which Mr. Buchanan had written, Mr. Hawkins had declined those challenges, and wanted and desired him to do for him what he could do for himself. He had invited his learned friend to put some of those gentlemen—the writers of “the fleshly school”—into the box, and he had especially desired to have had before him gentlemen who could have spoken as to the general character of the paper in which the libels appeared, in order to be justified, by other things which they had written and published, the position which Mr. Buchanan had taken up in the case. His learned friend, however, had deemed discretion the better part of valour. If the jury would look at the books of the writers of the fleshly school they could not fail to come to the conclusion that the writings of the school, and especially those of Mr. Swinburne, were marked, not by occasional deformities, not by occasional indecent excrescences, but throughout by a subtle spirit of sensualism all the more dangerous because it was subtle. Mr. Buchanan, desirous of preserving what was in the main the pure tone of the great body of English literature, attacked the workings of that fleshly school, and attacked them strongly; and this he was perfectly entitled to do. Mr. Hawkins appeared to take up the position that Mr. Buchanan himself had written in a manner which was not quite the thing; and he had referred, in support of that idea, to the “Nuptial Song” in the plaintiff’s poem of “White Rose and Red.” that song was as follows:—
What was the service? It was the service read
When Adam’s faith was plighted.
The tongue was silent, but the lips, red-rose,
In silence were united.
Who saw it done? The million starry eyes
Of one ecstatic Heaven.
Who shared the joy? The flowers, the trees, the skies,
Thrilled as each kiss was given.
Who was the bride? A spirit strong and true,
Beauteous to human seeing—
Soft element of flesh, air, fire, and dew,
Blent in one Rose of being.
What was her consecration? Innocence?
Pure as the wood-doves round her,
Nothing she knew of rites—the strength intense
Of God and Nature found her.
As freely as maids give a look away,
She gave herself unto him.
What was the bridegroom? Clay, and common clay,
Yet the wild joy slipt through him.
He kissed her lips, he drank her breath in bliss,
He drew her to his bosom—
As a clod kindles at the Spring’s first kiss,
His being burst to blossom.
What was there offensive or fleshly about that? So far from there being anything of that kind in it, he regarded the poem as a production which any man might have been proud to have written. But even supposing it were to be condemned, what had that to do with the question? Supposing that the plaintiff had, once in his life, written something which offended against good taste, was that a reason why, apropos of nothing he had done, he was to be libelled; why the authorship of a particular book should be put upon him in order to find an excuse for attacking him for what he had not done, and had not said, and had not written, in order to give vent to the pent-up malice of Mr. Swinburne? Mr. Buchanan did not and could not complain of criticism so long as the very wide liberty which was happily afforded to the English press was not abused; but in the libels in this case there was not one word of criticism, and there was not a syllable of condemnation of anything Mr. Buchanan had ever written. The story about the London correspondents was a pure invention, and was made a peg on which to hang an attack upon the plaintiff. The story had been deliberately invented; was that for the public good? He did not make any reflection upon the gentleman who was the defendant, but Mr. Taylor was responsible for the acts of those who conducted the paper of which he was proprietor. With reference to the communication headed “The Devil’s Due,” which had been written by Mr. Swinburne, he could only term it a mad letter. It was not the production, on the face of it, of a perfectly sane man. No justification for attacks upon the plaintiff had been made out in any way. Those attacks had not reference to his public conduct or to his writings, but were full of personal vituperation, abuse, malice, and spite.
Mr. Hawkins, in addressing the jury for the defendant, remarked that they were not there to discuss the question whether Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti’s works were deserving of laudation or approbation. They were there to discuss the question what was the responsibility of Mr. Taylor, the proprietor of the Examiner, a gentleman whom it was conceded on all hands had not the smallest ill-feeling towards the plaintiff of any sort or kind. Mr. Buchanan might have brought his action against Mr. Swinburne, for he knew that that gentleman had penned the letter of which he complained, and he asked the jury what they would have said if they had found that a communication, which they knew to be written by a person, between whom and themselves there existed some personal enmity, had been admitted into the columns of a newspaper owned by a person who bore them no ill-will whatever? They would have said, “I do not care, Mr. Taylor to prosecute you—to drag you as a defendant into a court of justice. You have told me frankly who the man was that wrote the article or letter, and you have said you will deliver the manuscript to me. That is enough for me; and that is the man against whom I will proceed, for he owes me ill-will, and I am determined to prosecute.” The plaintiff in this case, however, did not do that; but had insisted on proceeding against Mr. Taylor, and what he (the learned counsel) submitted was that if Mr. Buchanan chose to act in that way, and to say to the proprietor of the Examiner, “Because you have inserted this article I am entitled to recover damages from you,” he was not entitled to recover damages on the same footing as if there had been personal malice against him on the part of the proprietor or the editor of the paper. Personal malice there was none. He repudiated the idea that the editor of the Examiner invented the paragraph suggesting that Mr. Buchanan was the author of “Jonas Fisher;” and the editor could do no more, having published an erroneous statement, than subsequently acknowledge that an error had been committed. Besides, a false statement that a man was the author of a book was no cause of action. In regard to the letter to the Examiner, headed “The Devil’s Due,” unpleasant things were undoubtedly said in it of Mr. Buchanan. It was said that he had sheltered himself from adverse criticism by writing under false names; and there was no question that that was true. The letter also spoke of the plaintiff as having libelled others; and there could be no question that he had done so. In a third paragraph in the letter, which seemed to have given great offence to Mr. Buchanan, he was called an “idylist of the gutter” and when they looked to the character of some of his works they would find that there was no great error in using that expression, because he could hardly conceive any subjects which could be written about which more deserved such an appellation than some of those which most needlessly Mr. Buchanan himself had introduced to the notice of the public. There could be no doubt that Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti had written things of which no man of decency could approve, but there was nothing in the Examiner upholding their writings, and when the jury considered what the plaintiff himself had written, and what were the topics which he had selected for his poems—poems which his learned friend (Mr. Russell) had said had “enabled him to leave his mark on the literature of his country”—(laughter)—they would be able to determine whether Mr. Buchanan was a gentleman who was entitled to come forward and make attacks which he had made, and deliberately made in the grossest language he could employ, upon Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti. There could be no doubt that the plaintiff had extolled himself and unfairly criticised others. There were not so many “great poets” in the world, but in his “Session of Poets” Mr. Buchanan had placed himself amongst, say, the favoured dozen. (Laughter.)
How name that wonderful company o’er!
and it was in a “wonderful company” of poets that Mr. Buchanan had placed himself. His learned friend (Mr. Russell) had said that Mr. Gladstone had recommended the plaintiff for a pension, owing to his literary services—a recommendation to which effect had been given; but he rather thought that if certain poems which were now before the jury—such as “The Little Milliner,” “Liz,” and others, had been before Mr. Gladstone—the right hon. gentleman would not have been very favourably disposed to their author. He had, in the course of the case, quoted passages from the writings of the plaintiff, which clearly showed that he had intended to abuse Mr. Swinburne, to ridicule his personal peculiarities, and to publish to the world that which was calculated to pain that gentleman, and to bring discredit upon him amongst those who did not know his weaknesses. While, however, Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti were severely condemned by the plaintiff in his pamphlet, no similar measure of condemnation was dealt out to the infamous indecencies of Walt Whitman. If Mr. Buchanan’s article or pamphlet had been an honest endeavour to expose the fleshly school of poetry the plaintiff could not have omitted to notice the English publication of Whitman’s sensual poems when he was speaking of and attacking Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti.
After a brief summing up by Mr. Justice Archibald, the jury, after considering the matter for a quarter of an hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £150.
[An editorial about the trial, printed on page 4 of the same issue of The Western Mail, is available in the ‘After The Trial’ section.]
___
The Western Daily Press (3 July, 1876 - p.3)
MR BUCHANAN AND HIS CRITICS.
THE VERDICT.
In the course of his cross-examination in the case of “Buchanan v. Taylor,” the plaintiff was asked by Mr Hawkins:—
Have you any personal feeling against Mr Swinburne?—None whatever.
How did you recognise the “Devil’s Due” as Mr Swinburne’s?—I recognised the style.
Did you ever hear he had written it until after communications had passed between the solicitors on either side?—I say I recognised the style.
Yes or no?—No.
Upon your oath were you not told yourself it was Swinburne’s?—I was not told by any one that I remember.
Did not your attorney communicate the letter already read?—That was subsequent to the action.
Did not your attorney communicate to you the fact that the name of Swinburne had been used as the author of that article?—Yes, after a communication.
But this action was brought then?—No, certainly not.
Well, it was very early after the proceedings?—Very early.
You heard Mr Russell open the case?—Yes.
Did you instruct him to keep anything back?—Certainly not; I wish that every line I have written should be laid before the jury.
Is it the case that the articles written by you included the “Hangman’s Ditty?”
Mr. Justice Archibald: The “Hangman’s Ditty?” (Laughter.)
Witness: I am perfectly willing, my lord, that every line of what I have written should be looked into.
Mr Hawkins: Is that the poem in which you used the choicest of words?—I wrote it, but do not think it one of my best.
But, speaking of the hangman, you would not call him “the inmost wheel of the machine of the State?”—No.
You know there is this passage in it respecting the hangman—
The man who keeps the constitution sharp and clean,
Who furnishes what statesmen only plan,
And keeps the whole play going.
Was that your notion?—Witness: That is my notion.
Mr Russell, Q.C.: I should like to know what part of the libel you justify?—I object to any questions being asked as to a book not put in.
Mr Hawkins: I am simply asking the witness his opinion upon a sentiment.
His Lordship: It is better not to ask questions as to passages from books not put in.
Witness: The passage must be taken ironically.
Mr Hawkins: Now, if you were speaking of the hangman, would you describe him as “the man who keeps the constitution sharp and clean, 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 on telling me.
His Lordship: You may ask him, if you like, whether those are his sentiments or not?
Mr Hawkins (to the witness): Well, I ask you is it your notion that the hangman is the man who keeps the constitution going? (Laughter.)
Mr Russell: You must read the passage through.
Mr. Hawkins: Oh! you are not going to drop me into something you would not like to get into yourself. (Laughter.) Now (to the witness) did you write the poem called “The Last of the Hangman?”—I did.
And it was published in the St. Paul’s Magazine?—Yes.
Mr Justice Archibald: This is a happy state of things. I thought we had not arrived at the last of the hangman. (A laugh.)
Mr Hawkins: And he says you never will.
Witness: II 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.) Well, I want to ask the witness as to the character of the poem. Do you picture the hangman taking an innocent cup of tea in a tea-garden? (Laughter.)
His Lordship: I think the question goes too far.
Mr Hawkins (to the witness): Do you object to answer that question?—I do.
You know what I mean?—Oh, yes, perfectly well.
Look at that book (handing a book to the witness). Now, do you think it offensive to call a man a monkey?—I should think so.
It would be a blackguard thing to do?—According to what his opinions were.
Do you think it was grossly insulting to say of a man that he was 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
“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 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.
When you wrote your article in the Contemporary Review, did you know that Walt Whitman’s poems were considered in America to be gross and indecent?—I did.
Did you not publish the article about the “Monkey” as applied to Swinburne?
Mr Russell objected to the question.
Mr Hawkins: Did you publish in the St. Paul’s Magazine an article called “The Monkey and the Microscope?”—I did.
Did you direct your counsel to omit mentions of that fact?—Certainly not.
You say you have no personal feeling or ill-will against Swinburne?—I have a strong literary ill-will against him. (A laugh.)
Was that article, “The Monkey and the Microscope,” written in a spirit of vindictiveness?—It was written in a spirit of great annoyance.
Did you not write it in a spirit of vindictiveness?—I dare say I did, in a momentary spirit of vindictiveness.
But you did intend to wound him?—I wrote it rapidly, and partly smarting under my own wounds.
How soon after you wrote it was it published?—I was in Scotland at the time. I sent it to the publisher as soon as it was written.
You never expressed regret for what you deemed was written in a vindictive spirit?
Mr Justice Archibald: Momentarily vindictive.
Witness: I always regretted it.
Mr Hawkins: You never expressed it. Do you regret it?—Not altogether.
Would you recall it?—I would, if the other pamphlet were recalled.
You would like to have all your own way. In the original you gave your opinion. I ask you whether you did not know Walt Whitman’s poems were considered to be gross and indecent in America?—I did.
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.
Is it too gross to read?—I have already said so.
Mr Russell: The witness on Thursday 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 (after reading the document): Yes.
Now I ask you a general question. Is not that as filthy as anything you ever read?
Mr Russell objected to the question.
Mr Hawkins: Well, I will ask you this. Would you not have been ashamed, in any work of yours, to have introduced such language?—Oh, decidedly.
Can you conceive any occasion on which such language is justifiable?—I think it is too strong.
Can you conceive an occasion on which such filth is justified?—I think it is a total mistake.
A mistake?—You are reading things that ought not to be written about.
Do you mean things that ought not to be written about at all?—Yes.
Can you conceive any justification for such filth?—No justification, but a man in his youth might have an honesty of purpose in writing it; but I don’t justify that passage.
I don’t believe any man alive would; but would you not feel justified in writing as strong a criticism as you could upon such passages?—I should cite them as they are.
Would you not say any more yourself?
Mr Justice Archibald: You don’t mean you would quote them?—Witness: I would censure them.
Mr Justice Archibald: Would you quote them and review them?—Certainly not; I would direct attention to them in terms of censure.
Mr Hawkins: You would not quote them?—Certainly not.
They are too gross for that?—Yes.
Would any censure in the language be too strong for a book containing such passages as that?—Certainly not.
Do you consider every word here is 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 healthy, 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.
Have you ever delivered a lecture on the “Fleshly School” in Liverpool?—No.
Did you ever lecture against Swinburne?—Never in my life.
Did you ever address a public audience against Swinburne?—I never did. It would not be worth while to lecture against Swinburne.
Do you mean to say you never addressed a meeting on the subject?—Never.
Re-examined by Mr C. Russell, Q.C.: Have you publicly reprobated this indecency of Walt Whitman?—I have.
Mr Hawkins: If he has done so, put in the writing.
His Lordship: Just so.
Mr Russell: Out of this large quantity of writing of Walt Whitman, is it correct to say that the indecencies are inseparable from the contents, or are confined to a very short passage of 50 lines?
Mr Hawkins: That we will know when the book is put in.
Mr Russell: The book will be put in. (To the witness): Are these indecencies all through his works?—They are introduced by the poet when dealing with certain subjects; but the indecent part could be erased by the simples process of tearing out two or three pages from the whole book.
Does any spirit of indecent sensualism underlie the main body of Whitman’s works?—I don’t think there is any such spirit in the main body of his works at all.
Has a charitable subscription been got up for Whitman?—Yes; for he is paralysed.
And a number of eminent persons in this country have given him assistance?—Yes, a great number.
Are Rossetti and Swinburne amongst the number?—Yes, they are passionate admirers of him, and the former has addressed a poem to him.
You have, I believe, read your poems before distinguished persons?—Yes. My poems “Liz” and the “White Rose and Red” were read by me in my lectures, which were attended by the Duchess of Argyll, Lady Gainsborough, and many other ladies, so that it could hardly be said that there was anything indecent in them. The “White and Red Rose” was the story of a man who met an Indian woman far away from civilisation in South America, and virtually married her.
Mr Hawkins: A most interesting book, surely.
Mr Russell: I will put the whole book in. The man eventually marries the Indian girl. Now, my learned friend read the passage in your book describing the marriage—it is as follows—
What was the service? ’Twas the service read
When Adam’s faith was plighted,
The tongue was silent, but the lips, rose-red,
In silence were united.
Now, was it ever suggested there was anything indecent in all that poem until Mr Hawkins read it?—Never.
The learned counsel then referred to the “Story of Jennie,” and 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.
His Lordship: I think it is better the jury should have them for themselves. There can be no doubt that poems of this style are very much to be deprecated indeed.
Mr Russell: That is the plaintiff’s case, my lord.
Mr Hawkins: I shall not call any witnesses on the part of the defendant.
Mr Russell thereupon summed up for the plaintiff, and said that after his client had been libelled, once, twice, thrice—after it had been put upon the record that these libels in the Examiner were, forsooth, for the public good; after his client being cross-examined in—he would not say the most offensive, but the most able way of which his learned friend was capable, and whilst the suggestion was that Mr Buchanan had not come into court with clean hands—having done all this, the other side had failed to lay before the jury any justification other than his learned friend’s law upon the case. 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 then replied upon the whole case, and reminded the jury that they were not there to discuss any question as between Mr Swinburne and Mr Buchanan. They were there to discuss the responsibility of Mr Taylor as proprietor of the Examiner newspaper, a gentleman who, it was conceded, had no personal acquaintance with Mr Robert Buchanan, who never saw him, who never exchanged a word with him, and against whom he could not possibly have the slightest ill-feeling. If Mr Russell was desirous of introducing all the personal ill-will between Mr Swinburne and Mr Buchanan he might have brought his action against Mr Swinburne, because he had notice when only 20s had been laid out on the law proceedings that Mr Swinburne was the man who penned this article. Why should the other side drag Mr Taylor into court when they were frankly told who the man was who wrote this article? The plaintiff did not choose to do that, and what he (the learned counsel) would submit to the jury was that if the plaintiff took that course and adopted the Examiner in order to recover damages for the insertion of the article, it was nevertheless a case of no personal malice, and the question would be what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The first article appeared on Nov. 27, written, he believed, by Mr Minto. It was a review of “Jonas Fisher,” of which he was happy to say Lord Southesk was proud. It was a literary production, the noble lord said, which cost him a great deal of labour.
Mr Justice Archibald: No; a great deal of thought, but not much labour. (Laughter.)
Mr Hawkins: Thank you, my lord, for the correction. Lord Southesk, when in the box, frankly admitted that the specimen I read reviewed by the Examiner was a fair specimen of the work, and in the material of this work there is nothing which any human being could find reason to complain of. There is no passage in the work which in the slightest degree deserves the reprobation which a great many works introduced in this case may fairly deserve. I entirely repudiate, gentlemen of the jury, what Mr Russell said, that the editor of the Examiner invented the paragraph stating that Robert Buchanan was the author of the work “Jonas Fisher.” The paragraph ran thus—
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.
Well, Mr Taylor, the defendant, got an intimation on Dec. 2 that Mr Robert Buchanan was not the author of the poem, and that he never saw it until it was reviewed. I now come to what is called the more serious libel. The article is called, “The Devil’s Due,” and was published in the Examiner of the 11th December. It was penned by Mr Swinburne, and Mr Buchanan knew it was penned by him. In it is stated something about Mr Buchanan not being able to shelter himself from adverse criticism by writing under false names, and a third paragraph seems to have given great offence, in which Mr Buchanan was called “the multifaced idyllist of the gutter.” Well, gentlemen, looking at some of the works we have had before us, there does not appear to have been any great error in using that expression. In dealing with this case I am not disposed to defend the poems of Swinburne or Rossetti. If I were asked to stand up and tell you that Swinburne and Rossetti had not written things I thought unfit for public perusal I should tell you that which, in my honest conscience, I do not believe. No man can say they are works of which any man of decency and common sense could approve; and I shall ask you to consider whether the works of Mr R. Buchanan have made for him that mark in the literature of his country—(laughter)—as to entitled him to make the attack he had made upon Rossetti and Swinburne. How does he begin? He produces the “Session of the Poets,” and introduces Mr Swinburne. My learned friend says his client is the guardian of the morality of the British people. That is the substance of what he says, but I now come to ask him what his own client has written. Here is a poem written in 1866, in which Mr Robert Buchanan professes to bring together all the British poets. There are a good many of them, but, if you take all the gentlemen who write trash in the corners of the country newspapers, and those who publish trash abroad, there are not many who could stand in the foremost row of British poets. If you take in the first rank a round dozen, it is saying a good deal, and Mr Robert Buchanan immediately dots himself down in the first rank of the dozen—(laughter)—and no doubt in the Session of Poets he could, with much greater brilliancy, have taken the chair at that literary assembly than Tennyson himself. (Renewed laughter.) Now, here is what he says in August, 1866—
At a session of poets held lately in London
The bard of fresh water was voted the chair!
With his tresses unbrushed, and his shirt-collar undone,
He lolled at his ease like a good-humoured bear.
(Laughter.) Then came a verse in which occur the names of five people of note, including Kingsley and a poetess, and then comes No. 6, Mr Robert Buchanan himself:—
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.
(Much laughter.) This, gentlemen, is the poet who has made his mark in the literature of his country! (Renewed laughter.) Mr Gladstone must have thought highly of him when he granted him a pension; but I do not know whether Mr Gladstone had previously read the classic effusion I have quoted—(laughter)—or his “Liz” or his “Little Milliner,” or, indeed, I had almost forgotten the best of the lot, “The Last of the Hangman.” (Great laughter.) Well, gentlemen, you see the way in which he spoke of himself. I need not tell you the history of Apollo “asleep on a coster girl’s barrow;” but I do find the coster girl lived in the neighbourhood of St. Giles’s, and fell into a difficulty with a gentleman who himself pursued a course of life which ultimately brought him to the gallows. (Great laughter.) Well, if you do not call this “the idyllist of the gutter,” I don’t know where you will find one. And, gentlemen, I doubt there is very much good to be gained to the public from little histories like this. I do not know whether those duchesses who, we have heard, listened with such delight and rapture to Mr Robert Buchanan’s readings, would find themselves very much edified by such literature as that. (Laughter.) Mr Robt. Buchanan says, “Here I am. I find Apollo ‘asleep on a coster girl’s barrow,’ the girl having gone to see her beloved hanged!” Well, you will not blame people if they pull your poems to pieces if you drag into light the lives of girls who draw barrows about the streets. These are the things that do come from the gutter. Then take Mr Robert Buchanan’s “Liz.” Here is the life of a wretched poor girl who has been seduced by one of the low persons who inhabit the same locality of St. Giles, and who has got an illegitimate child. These are the stories in which Mr Robert Buchanan delights. The very next one gives us a description of “The Little Milliner,” how she was living overhead, and, in fact, he paints a picture of this poor girl as she undresses and goes to bed. These, gentlemen, are not the themes which form or uphold morality. There may be a little amusement in these stories, but, to my mind, they are more liable to produce sleep than anything else. (Laughter.) Mr Robert Buchanan is not content with praising himself, but descends to a gross attack upon Mr Swinburne. You heard him say, and assuming it were true that a man took too much of the good wine before him, is it not infinitely cruel to mention that and to make exposure of that in a poem for others’ reading? He wants not only to ridicule Mr Swinburne, but to bear hardly on personal peculiarities which would injure him in the eyes of his friends and of the world. You know he said of him—
Up jumped, with his neck stretched out like a gander.
And he ends with—
Call a cab; he is tipsy!”
And they carried the naughty young gentleman out.
Now, how could a gander’s neck bear upon Mr Swinburne’s neck? (Laughter.) I said to the plaintiff, “Why not make your own neck like unto a gander’s neck? (Laughter.) Why not say you yourself were tipsy?” Having spoken of the filthy passages in Whitman’s writings, and argued the legal points in the case, the learned counsel concluded by stating there were many things said in the review which were not complimentary to Mr Buchanan, but which 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 them 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, then, if the jury awarded the smallest coin in the realm, they would meet the justice of the case.
On Saturday Mr Justice Archibald proceeded to sum up. He said that the attention of the jury had been directed to so wide a range of subjects, that he thought it necessary to recall their attention to the question which they had to decide. The action was brought upon three alleged libels upon the plaintiff, to which charge the defendant had pleaded that they were published in the Examiner in the usual course and in good faith and without malice, that they were never seen or read by the defendant before publication, and also that they were written and published for the public good. It was further said that the alleged libels were fair reviews of the works of the plaintiff and his conduct as a critic, and that they in no way referred to his private character. Then there was a passage in the statement of defence which set out that the plaintiff had as a critic written under assumed names critiques upon various authors; and under assumed names had written of himself as being among writers of high repute, and that the alleged libels were written of him solely in reference to his conduct therein and not as to his private character. This last statement, however, went only to the question of damages, because it was no answer to the action for libel to say that the action had been provoked by the plaintiff’s own conduct. In reference to the law of the matter his direction to them was that a libel was a document which was calculated to bring a person into contempt or disrepute, or to disparage him. But, though he had told them what it was that constituted a libel, it was for them to say whether these articles now in question amounted to a libel or not. His lordship, after going through the first alleged libel, said that the jury would say whether the publication was actionable, though the matter of taste was another thing—and, indeed, there could be no doubt that the article was in very bad taste. The second alleged libel was a more serious matter. Mr Taylor could not shelter himself from the consequences of this by saying that he never saw the articles before they were published; because in law he was responsible for them, though it might have an important bearing upon the question of damages. They knew that just as the action commenced a correspondence took place, in which Mr Taylor gave up the name of the author of the second article, and proposed that the action should be brought against Mr Swinburne; but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to adopt that proposal, and gave certain reasons for so doing. Among them was this one, that Mr Taylor was in a position which rendered him much better able to pay damages and costs than Mr Swinburne. The jury would consider how far Mr Buchanan was justified in not seeking a remedy against the person who really had so injured him, and choosing to go against the proprietor of the paper, who, though a person legally responsible, had certainly not been actuated by any malice against him. Mr Minto, indeed, was the editor of that paper, and it was true that Mr Buchanan thought that Mr Minto had shown a spirit of hostility to him, he having written of him again and again adversely, but against Mr Taylor nothing of the kind was alleged. Still, after all, Mr Taylor was a person against whom Mr Buchanan had a perfect right to proceed. There was nothing more deplorable than to see men of high ability choosing degrading subjects for the themes of their writings instead of others which would not be calculated to stimulate and inflame the lowest and most degrading passions of human nature. He thought that the jury would agree with him that a great deal of the poetry that had been read, and which had been written by persons belonging to what was called the “Fleshly School,” had better never have been written at all; or that if it had all been committed to the flames the world would have been much the better for it. It was not the less to be deplored because the poetry was couched in elegant language, for it might be the more dangerous and successful on that account. Such writings as these were not good for the writer or for the reader, they tended to demoralise, and altogether their influence was in a direction that was not good. A critic upon such writings should be a grave person, who would rebuke them in a tone of remonstrance that would carry weight as well; such a subject should not be taken up for the purpose of writing a sensational essay upon it, but if it were possible, the critic should so speak that he should be able to place his heel upon the writings and drive it into them without it being necessary to take them up with his hand as though they were some venomous thing. Now, how had the plaintiff dealt with the matter? Had he dealt with it as the subject should be dealt with? There was a mode of reviewing such writings which made the review as sensational as the articles reviewed. The jury would on the whole say under the circumstances whether the plaintiff had by his conduct disentitled himself to damages, or how far his conduct had diminished the damages to which he was entitled.
The jury, after considering the matter for a quarter of an hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £150.
_____
The Fleshly School Libel Action - continued
|
