the pen, the Crédit Foncier, of which Baron Grant was chairman and manager, had been inserted in place of the name of another company and was described as being in liquidation. I at once saw that this was a serious matter which might involve heavy damages.

I said, 'Where is Baron Grant?' 'He is in the City trying to answer the many inquiries your paragraph has occasioned.' Are you going to the City?' I asked. 'Yes.' Then I will go with you.'

We went together and I was introduced to Baron Grant. He complained with bitterness, in which perhaps he was justified, of the paragraph. I said no one could regret the blunder more than I did; it was a pure accident, the mistake of a subordinate in the office. Anything I could do to put the matter right should be done. Baron Grant produced a handful of letters from alarmed shareholders: Look here, sir,' he said, 'this is what you have brought on us,' and he proceeded to pour on me much angry rhetoric. I was conscious that, in a legal sense, I was responsible, and I answered him with soft and apologetic words. My meekness seemed to make him still more violent. He began at last to talk to me as if I had committed a crime. At length I felt a little afraid of myself, and even more afraid of what might happen to Baron Grant. I stepped closer to the table, and brought my fist down upon it in a manner which made the ink-glass jump I said, We have had enough of this, Mr. Gottheimer. I am not going to submit to this kind of talk any longer. I will give you the name of my solicitors, and you may communicate with them!' I was not in the humour to be amused, for I was very angry; but I think a looker-on would have found something entertaining in Baron Grant's sudden change of front; he was almost too apologetic. I suspect that, owing to my addressing him by his real name, he thought I knew more about him than I did, and he probably did not desire to have poured upon himself and his enterprises the harsh light of a court of law.

6

My one police court experience was when, on February 12, 1870, Mr. Dion Boucicault's counsel applied to Mr. Knox, the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court, for a summons against the publisher of the Pall Mall Gazette' for a libel contained in a letter signed Azamat-Batuk, respecting a play called 'Formosa' which was being performed at the Princess's Theatre, a letter which he said reflected on Mr. Boucicault's private character. A summons was granted, and the parties attended at

Marlborough Street on February 21. Mr. Montagu Williams, Mr. Boucicault's counsel, said that if the writer of the article would state that he did not mean to attack Mr. Boucicault's private character the avowal would be deemed satisfactory; our counsel replied that he would readily declare on behalf of the publisher of the Pall Mall Gazette' that no prejudice to private character was intended. Mr. Williams demanded the name of the writer, but on the interposition of the magistrate, who pointed out that it was not usual for newspapers to disclose the names of writers and that such a demand rendered an arrangement impossible, this claim was withdrawn. The avowal was accordingly made, and the case happily came to an end.

The only libel suit in which I have been involved which has cost me more than one farthing in the way of damages was brought in June 1869 by a gentleman calling himself General George Henry De Strabolgie Neville Plantagenet Harrison,' who stated that he derived his title of General from one of the South American states. An article had appeared in the CORNHILL MAGAZINE of April 1868 under the title of Don Ricardo.' It was a pleasant little gossipy article, giving an account of a visit to Spain, describing a bull-fight, a fight between a tiger and a bull, and between a bulldog and a donkey, with many quaint stories told to the writer by an Englishman resident in Madrid who was generally known as Don Ricardo.' One of these stories described the amusing adventures of a General Plantagenet Harrison' and his swindling transactions. The editor of the CORNHILL naturally supposed that such a name, introduced into an article of this kind, was entirely fictitious-a mere humorous invention of the writer. But General Plantagenet Harrison' presently turned up in person, in a very angry mood, and straightway commenced an action for libel. He had been accustomed to read

for literary purposes in the Public Record Office. This article had drawn attention to him, and, as a result, some difficulty had been made as to his researches at the Record Office being allowed to continue. This constituted his claim for damages.

I wished to insert in the next number of the CORNHILL a brief explanation, with an expression of regret; but Sir John Coleridge, our counsel (Sir John Karslake being, unfortunately for me, unable to undertake the case), who had seen some correspondence between the General's solicitors and our own, in which General Plantagenet Harrison's strange pretensions were avowed,

insisted that the whole business was a farce, and that nothing need be done. When the General went into the witness-box his examination and cross-examination were really very amusing. In his evidence he admitted that he had been in some trouble in Spain about a bill which he had left at a bank for collection; that he had been escorted out of Spain and imprisoned at Gibraltar; that, rightly or wrongly, he believed himself to be descended from the Earl of Westmoreland and the Plantagenets. His crossexamination by the Solicitor-General, as reported in the 'Times,' revealed still more extraordinary claims.

You really believe, I understand, that you are the heir-general of Henry VI.? Yes, I do.

And that you are rightful Duke of Lancaster, Normandy, and Aquitaine? Yes, I am.

And that your title has been recognised by the Queen under the Great Seal? Yes, in a licence to Sir F. Thesiger as Queen's Counsel to plead for me.

Her Majesty has not recognised your title in any more formal document? No. It would be rather awkward for Her Majesty if she had, would it not? Well, I don't know.

Pray, have you asserted that you are Count of Angoulême, Flanders, Anjou, Alsace, and Champagne? Yes.

And of Kent? Yes; but that was some years ago.

In re-examination his counsel asked,

You have worked out your pedigree? Yes; I have.
And you believe it? Yes; and I can prove it.

After this evidence I thought we were safe, for I supposed that a crank of this quality must fare ill with the jury.

The writer of the article, Mr. G. H. B. Young, went into the witness-box and said that the story, or the materials for it, was told him in 1851, when he was at Madrid, by an English gentleman who was generally known as 'Don Ricardo.' The name of Plantagenet Harrison' was mentioned to him as that of a man travelling under that name. At that time he believed the name to be fictitious. He so believed until the plaintiff made his complaint, and down to that time he had never heard of such a person as General Plantagenet Harrison, nor did he suppose at the time he wrote the article that it would apply to any living person of the name.

Mr. Justice Lush, in summing up, told the jury that even although the writer of the article was not aware of the existence of the plaintiff, yet, as he had in fact named him and had attached these imputations to his name and character, he was legally liable.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at 50l. I must confess the verdict took me by surprise, and I can only suppose that Sir John Coleridge's attempt to scornfully laugh the case out of court irritated the jury.

This action is a striking example of what I may call an innocent libel on the part of the writer, and I think even a publisher may claim some sympathy for the result. It is difficult to see how the editor of a periodical can protect the publisher from an action of this description. It would be clearly impossible for him to examine a writer of such an article as the one in question as to the existence of persons who were named in it; and in this particular instance it will be noticed that the writer himself believed that the name of Plantagenet Harrison' was fictitious.

OF SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE SIEGE OF THE FOREIGN LEGATIONS IN PEKING.

BY THE REV. ROLAND ALLEN,

OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND MISSION, PEKING.

THAT a memorable siege like that of the foreign Legations in Peking cannot pass without throwing valuable light upon the character of the people who engaged in it, the nature of the causes which led up to it, and the results which may be likely to grow out of it, is obvious; but it may seem premature at this season to attempt to estimate what conclusions may justly be drawn. Nevertheless it would appear that a few of them are sufficiently clear to deserve consideration, even if the maturer knowledge of later days should modify or annul some of them. They may be briefly stated under six heads, as touching the condition of the capital, the advance of Russia, the retirement of the Court to Sian-fu, the Chinese attitude towards foreigners, the Chinese method of resistance, and the influence of Christian missions.

1. The city of Peking has been desecrated, despoiled, ruined, depopulated. This is in itself no light thing. The Chinese recognise no more terrible humiliation than the occupation of a capital by an enemy. This has been for centuries the last insult which a ruler can receive, only less terrible than absolute extinction. In that most entertaining and instructive history, the Tso Chüan, a State which, beset by foes, could find no means of escape other than unconditional surrender, was by the courtesy of nations nearly always entitled to demand, and generally received, the concession that the enemy should retire thirty miles and there negotiate, and the statement that terms were dictated beneath the walls is made always with the most decent brevity and with a sense of pity even for the most wicked of men reduced to such misery and degradation. But the foreigner in Peking not only dictates terms beneath the walls, he passes in triumph through the palace itself, and is hardly restrained from destroying it. After