fore Mr. Justice in Westminster Hall for the purpose of getting for Mr. Tittle and selves all the benefits attaching to the claim.

Mr. Wobly, QC., and Mr. Rebutta represented Mr. Tittle, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Serjeant Silk and Mr. Theodore Speecher.

Mr. Justice

was late in coming into Court, and the interval between the hour at which he usually sat and that at which he did sit, was given over to time-killers to be destroyed. Those who had no briefs to read nudged and bothered those who had. Mr. Sansbrief, already mentioned, took occasion to relate the history of his engagements at Lady Dash's ball, at which he had been present the night before. Mr. Serjeant Hammer hurriedly explained to a willing but unemployed junior the mysteries of a case which he had just asked the junior to take in hand for him. Mr. This and Mr. That devoured their briefs for the fiftieth time, in hope of finding out some new thing not previously noted. The reporters recut their already. sharpened pencils; and idlers, who had nothing whatever to do in the Court, complained loudly of being kept waiting by the judge.

was

At length Mr. Justice announced. An usher drew aside the curtain at the side of the Bench and shouted, for the guidance of all below, 'Silence!' He was closely followed by the judge, holding up the skirts of his clothing. The bar rose, Mr. Justice bobbed once to either end of the rows of counsel and once to the jury. The case of Tittle v. Tattle was called on, the jury were sworn a true verdict to give according to the evidence,' and Mr. Rebutta rose to state the pleadings.

The pleadings were read, and then Mr. Wobly, Q. C., addressed his lordship and the jury on behalf of 'his much ill-used client,' commenting on the facts connected with the late trial, and urging the points which he deemed to be of importance. He descanted for a long time on the nature and definition of a libel, explaining what they were to the jury,

who did not understand them, and to his lordship, who did, until his lordship, tired with the repetition of the learned counsel's conclusions, said, after many but vain interrup tions, which had only sent Mr. Wobly back to recommence da capo, 'You are unnecessarily long in your statement. Why tell me the same thing three times over? The first time you told me my mind apprehended it; the second time it took it in; and the third time it fatigued me.'

was evidently

Mr. Justice not in a good-humour. Mr. Wobly took his snubbing kindly, and even made capital out of it, by saying that he was glad he had so well informed the Court of the matter he desired to lay before it. He had no wish to be tedious, but rejoiced in having saturated the mind of the Court and jury with the merits of his client's case.

Mr. Wobly knew, moreover, that his turn would come. The judge had interposed many times, to the great let and hindrance of the case. He asked innumerable questions and otherwise vexed the souls of counsel, till all, and especially Mr. Wobly, Q.C., were irritated to objecting point.

'Can ye tell me how lang 'this case will last, Mister?' inquired his lordship, apparently concerned himself as to the duration of the case.

I really cannot say, my lord,' answered Mr. Wobly; it took two days on the former trial, and there were no interruptions.'

'Oh, indeed!' remarked the judge, frowning, and taking refuge in his notes, about which he seemed to busy himself intently, while Mr. Wobly continued his arguments unmolested, enjoying a short triumph before his own downfall. Mr. Wobly spoke for some time upon the several points he had to make, and observing that the judge was busily engaged, apparently upon his notes, requested him to be so kind as to make a note of the closing argument, which Mr. Wobly evidently considered a clincher. To whom his lordship, looking steadily at him, while he completed without regarding it the word he had last

begun, said in the broadest Scotch, which showed the pitch to which the judicial bile had risen

Do not think, sir, that I am noting down your arguments; I am only noting the obvious replies to them.'

A suppressed laugh followed this hard-fisted blow of the judge, after which Mr. Wobly, who had but little to add to his speech, finished his address, and sat down a little the worse in temper for his castigation.

Witnesses were called and examined on behalf of the plaintiff, with a view to showing that the libel which was the subject of the action had really been published by the defendant. One of the libels complained of was contained in a ballad which it was alleged had been both written and published by the defendant; and the controversy upon this point waxed hot and fierce, giving rise to an animated discussion upon the further question whether, supposing said ballad to have been written and published as alleged, the words objected to constituted a libel or not. As Mr. Wobly and Mr. Serjeant Silk wrangled and fought in the interests of their respective clients, without satisfying themselves or the court upon the question of libel or no libel, and his lordship said he could not withhold the case from the jury, who were judges on this point as well as upon the issues of writing and publishing, a suggestion was offered by Mr. Speecher, the junior counsel for the defendant, which seemed upon the face of it to present many advantages.

'Words concerning which there may be a doubt that they are libellous, may be shown to be so by the tone and manner in which they were uttered,' said Mr. Wobly; and I have witnesses here to speak as to the tone and manner adopted in this case.'

'Your law may be sound,' answered the serjeant, but how is it possible for you to give evidence as to the tone and manner in which a libel was uttered? The character of the tone and manner must be purely matter of opinion. I do not

" A song from Mr. Serjeant Silk!' cried some wag in the back benches. 'A song!-Mr. Serjeant Silk's song!' was repeated by one and another, till his lordship, afraid of the storm he had raised, was obliged to interpose, in order to prevent the court becoming a bear-garden. The case went on; the witnesses for the plaintiff were examined, and Serjeant Silk, who had good-humouredly excused himself from joining in his junior's recommendation, cross-examined them. One of the witnesses was a nursemaid, resident in the town of Cambridge or, rather, she was a nursemaid de jure, and a nursemaid and fine lady de facto-too much of the fine lady to allow of the homely title of nursemaid soiling her addition, as she showed when the Serjeant cross-examined her in the witnessbox. She showed it, but had done wiser to have saved her character at the expense of her dignity.

'Your name is Jane Hinton, I believe?' said the serjeant.

'It is, sir,' answered the witness. 'You reside in the town of Cambridge?' inquired the serjeant.

'I do, sir,' replied the witness.

'Now, what is your calling, pray?' pursued her questioner, looking archly at the jury, as though he knew something about her that would materially influence their opinion of her. The girl was, as I have said, too fine a damsel to state concisely the nature of her

calling, and her pride laid her open to insinuations that might or might not have been founded on truth.

I have the charge of infants, sir,' answered the girl, thinking, I suppose, to save her dignity by this roundabout way of calling herself a

nurse.

'Oh, indeed!' remarked the serjeant; you live in Cambridge, and have the charge of infants. Now, pray tell me, by "infants" do you mean undergraduates of the University under the age of twentyone?' and as the serjeant put the question he looked yet more archly at the jury, as though he had for certain some information which would effectually discredit this witness in their eyes. But for all he strove, if he really strove at all for I believe it was merely the irresistible temptation which provoked the question-the girl succeeded in impressing the jury with the conviction that she was a respectable and ingenuous witness, and the case went on as if the Serjeant's shot had not been fired.

A witness was now brought forward to prove that a book had been offered for sale by the defendant to him, in which another of the libellous statements included in the present action was contained; and having given on his examination in chief but a poor and confused account of the circumstances under which he had been asked to buy the volume, Serjeant Silk pressed him severely, on cross-examination, both as to the appearance of the book and his knowledge of the libellous statement itself.

How large was the book? Was it the size of the serjeant's brief? Was it as ponderous as Daniel Lambert? What colour was it? Blue, red, violet, pink? or, as the Serjeant finally suggested, chameleon colour? Was it bound in boards or in calf? Was the witness sure it was bound at all? Would he swear it was not bound in rhinoceros-hide; or in mouseskin; or French velvet; or, like Falstaff's eleven assailants, in buckram?

Had the witness seen the libel? Was he aware that a certain legal

document was called a libel,' though it contained statements injurious to no one; and would the witness swear it was not such a libel he had seen? How long was the libel? Was it in verse or prose? As long as the witness's arm, or as the Serjeant's nose? and so on, with a number of questions more or less calculated to confuse, winding up with some searching inquiries as to whether the witness was not commonly known as 'Witty Dick,' and whether he had not been deemed too clever for the situation of village schoolmaster, or, at all events, been relieved of that post for some cause or other?

Between the questions which related to the book, the libel, and himself, 'Witty Dick'--if such was his soubriquet-stumbled sorely. He grew confused with his answers, said that the book was so long, the libel so thick, and that for himself, whatever folks might say, he was not witty, though his Christian name certainly was Richard.

'You say, sir, that the book was so 'long, and the libel was so thick. Now, let me ask you, do you know the difference between long and thick?'

Of course the witness knew; so he said, and endeavoured to give proof of his knowledge by means of an illustration; but before he could yield to the court and jury the benefit which this might have afforded them, Mr. Justice who evi

dently thought the man's evidence to be worth just what it appeared to be worth, and was getting tired of the whole thing, broke in with, to the witness

'Why, sir, you yourself are an example of the difference. You are thick-headed, and you are not longheaded.'

A genuine and hearty laugh followed this sally of his lordship, which served also to show, if need were, that though it may be true, as once famously alleged, that a Scotchman must undergo a surgical operation before he can understand a joke, the like process is not needed to enable him to make one.

The case of Tittle v. Tattle went on to its finish; and if principle,'

as represented by the plaintiff, was rewarded by a second verdict in its favour, so justice, represented for the nonce by the defendant, triumphed also. Despite the elɔquence of Mr. Wobly, Q.C., who in thrilling language described the irreparable injury sustained by his client, Mr. Tittle, ' a most eminently respectable man' (the learned Counsel did not accompany this statement with the celebrated definition of respectability' once put forward, which defined a respectable man as one who keeps a gig); despite the burning words in which the jury were told to consider the grievous nature of the wrong done to the feelings of Mr. Tittle, who, since the publication of this infamous and malicious libel,' had been known by, and even received letters addressed with, the offensive, deeply insulting epithet of King of the Cabbage;' and-for he was a tender and loving husband-his feelings, 'which the jury would let Mr. Tattle and the world know could not be outraged with impunity,' had been yet more deeply and sorely wounded by an insolent and cowardly allusion to the dear wife of his bosom, who had been covered with opprobrium and scorn under the title of Lady Bugle Eye." Notwithstanding all the force which Mr. Wobly, Q.C., put out-a force so great that his lordship complimented him upon it, regretting at the same time (surely the 'no interruptions' wound rankled still in his breast) most sincerely, that his own poor judgment was dead against the learned gentleman's conclusion -the twelve impassible men who had been conjured not to fling away their rights as Englishmen,' and to remember that Mr. Tittle's case was their own case, and the case of every one of Her Majesty's subjects,' could not be brought to estimate the damage done to the character of Mr. Tittle at more than one farthing, the sum at which a British jury had already once assessed them. His lordship concurred in the verdict, expressing it as his opinion that even now the damages were put too high.

And so the case of Tittle v. Tattle

was disposed of. Whoever lists to know more of it, let him search the records of Her Majesty's Court of Special Demurrers; and if he wishes to learn what is comprehended in the dominions of Lady Bugle Eye' and The King of the Cabbage— the knowledge will help him in ascertaining how it was the jury came to the conclusion they did-let him acquaint himself with the manners and customs of certain villagers in the county of Cornwall, who live in that part of it which looks towards the north and the setting sun.

One more story about Mr. Justice

and I have done. An important but somewhat tedious case involving the law of liens, came, by way of appeal, before the full Court in which his Lordship sat. Counsel on both sides had been long in speaking, the weather was warm, inviting sleep, and Mr. Justice yielding to counsel and the weather, was, so report said, guilty of the sin of Eutychus. Indeed charity would lead one to credit rumour's statement, since otherwise he must go further afield to find some medical or scientific reason for the strange sentiment to which Mr. Justice presently gave utter

ance.

A quarter of an hour had elapsed since his lordship took his last note, as long since he had expressed any opinion upon the case before him; counsel had not ceased to pour forth streams of law upon the difficult subject of pawns and liens; the words seemed to permeate through the nodding cranium of the learned judge, and there to mingle with untoward recollections of zoological gardens and wild beasts in menageries, for, as counsel ceased and silence roused his lordship to attention, Bench and Bar heard with astonishment this marvellous judicial utterance, in broadest Scotch, proceed from Mr. Justice mouth- It's ma opinion that if the lien (lion) had been chain'd, there 'd ha been nun o' this damage.'

And now the trial is over, witnesses and jurymen have retired, advocates in silk and stuff are about to rest from their labours,

his lordship is gathering up his skirts to go, and there are unmistakeable signs of a general clearance. I, too, must bring my case to a close. The points' have all been stated, the facts laid conscientiously before the jury; I leave it for others to sum up the whole. 'London Society,' to whose bar I have been

called, will have to pronounce its verdict upon the matters I have pleaded; all that remains for me to do is to thank the Grand Jury' for the patient hearing it has accorded to me, and then beg leave to move' that it will as kindly hear those who will follow on the same side.'

CHAPTER V.

A 'HUMOROUS' DIRECTOR-RIVAL OPERAHOUSES-DESTRUCTION OF THE PANSTORACE

THEON-GIARDINI-STEPHEN

-MICHAEL KELLY-NOVERRE, BALLET MASTER-SHERIDAN-A NOBLE AMA

TEUR-BADINI, A NEEDY POET-VIOTTI -TAYLOR'S PHILOSOPHY-A NON-REMUNERATIVE BENEFIT-MRS. BILLINGTON-MR. GOOLD-RIOT AT THE OPERA HOUSE-MADAME CATALANI - MANAGERIAL DIFFERENCES-TAYLOR'S QUARREL WITH THE SUBSCRIBERS-CALDAS, WINE MERCHANT AND MUSICAL DIRECTOR -WATERS-A BATTLE AT THE OPERA -MR. WATERS, DIRECTOR-PRACTICAL

JOKES (1791-1816].

MR

[R. THOMAS TAYLOR, who was proprietor of the King's Theatre at various periods ranging from 1779 to 1803, was one of the most eccentric of beings. He was what people then denominated a 'humorist'merely because he was exceedingly queer, and wonderfully impudent. In the outset of his career he had been a clerk in the bank of Snow and Co., and as he really had a certain degree of cleverness and acuteness, he might have made a respectable fortune, had he not found, as he declared, the climate of Snow and Co.'s bank too cold for his complexion,' and quitted the precincts of the City to become manager of the King's Theatre. For this position he had no qualification beyond a passion for speculation. He is described as having had all Sheridan's deficiency

of financial management, without that extraordinary man's resources, so unaccountably brought into action when every refuge seemed closed against him.'

He had also Sheridan's mania for

practical jokes. On the occasion of the laying of the first stone of his new theatre (1791), he played off one of his pranks. A party of his friends persuaded him to invite them to breakfast on the morning of the day appointed for the ceremony. To this he agreed, but secretly determined that he should not be a loser by his enforced liberality. With this idea he wrote in the name of some mutual friend to each of the gentlemen who were to be his guests, recommending them to take a supply of provisions, as their host meant to play a trick on them, by setting them down to empty dishes. The advice was obeyed; each gentleman sent, or took in his carriage, a plentiful contribution of preserved meats, pies, lobsters, champagne, or similar delicacies. On entering Taylor's room, they were disconcerted to find the table laden with the choicest viands, and, on seeing the evident hoax, they could not help breaking into a violent fit of laughter. With imperturbable gravity, Taylor ordered into his own larder the good things which they had provided, and then sat down to play host. Breakfast over, he pretended that he wished to show them a valuable picture, and ushered them into an adjoining room; he then, apologising for a momentary absence, left them,