A Challenge to the Editor, Part 3

From this point, the story takes on the characteristics of a comic opera. It is now the evening of Saturday 17 November, and Taylor is again visited by Gibson. According to Taylor, the dialogue proceeds as follows:

Taylor: 'If you have any letter from Mr. Crossley, I am ready to receive it.'

Gibson: 'I have not one to give you, but I have one to read to you.'

Taylor's account continues:

He was then invited into the house, but, finding he had not his glasses with him, he put the letter into the hands of Mr.Taylor, saying 'I believe I must allow you to read it yourself, but you must restore it to me.' ⁷

Gibson feared that, if Taylor had possession of the letter, he might apply to the magistrates for protection against Crossley, for the message that Gibson eventually handed over was nothing less than 'a polite invitation from Mr. Crossley to fight a duel'. After a demand for an apology, Crossley invokes the notion of an ancient code of conduct:

I am sure you do not wish to exempt yourself from the laws which regulate the reparation of injuries amongst gentlemen, that you will name a friend who may arrange with the bearer, on my part, the time and circumstances of a meeting between us with as little delay as possible. ⁸

 

Taylor exempted himself from such laws with great speed, and declined the invitation, pleading that he was a family man and had recently taken out life insurance. He did, however, write out a reply, in Gibson's presence, which went some way towards making the apology sought by Crossley. In a careful statement, bristling with caveats, Taylor pointed out that his remark 'worthy of a disreputable lawyer' was not the same as accusing the writer of being a disreputable lawyer, and that:

Even supposing for a minute that Mr. Crossley was the person he had alluded to, he had no hesitation in saying that he did not consider Mr. Crossley a disreputable lawyer, and had never heard of any disreputable practice on his part. ⁹

 

The correspondence was also printed in the Courier on the same date as it appeared in the Guardian (Saturday 24 November), at the express request of Crossley. Assuming the mantle of the victor, Crossley adopted a high moral tone in his reply, which was copied to Taylor, but only partly reprinted in the Guardian. After requesting that the editor(s) insert the series of letters on the specified date, he continues:

Little interesting to the public at large as may be the circumstances of private disputes, yet to every man the vindication of his own character is important ...To the documents thus placed before the public, I deem it unnecessary to add any further comments of my own; nor shall I now or hereafter bestow the slightest further attention upon the individual to who they refer ... who, refusing either an acknowledgement with an adequate apology or a disclaimer, has not the manhood to justify the course he has adopted by conforming to the only remaining request which can be tendered to him by an honourable man, is surely unworthy of any further notice, as he has forfeited every title to be considered as a respectable editor or a gentleman. ¹⁰

 

This passage appeared only in the Courier, while the concluding sentence was printed in both newspapers: ‘It only remains for me to state in the most distinct and unequivocal terms that I never wrote one word of the articles in the Manchester Chronicle.’ ¹¹

 

A Challenge to the Editor, Part 2

It was clear that Taylor suspected that the article had been written by Crossley, who in turn evidently felt that this was the latest in a series of attacks on him in the Guardian. On the same day the article was published (14 November 1838), a letter from Crossley was delivered to Taylor by Captain William Gibson. Crossley refers particularly to the phrase 'worthy of a disreputable lawyer' and quotes from an earlier article which contains a description of ‘a certain lawyer’, before putting the fundamental question of identification to Taylor. He begins:

someone... who in the Guardian of Wednesday the 31st ult. is described as ‘one connected in no enviable way with the far more important frauds and falsehoods by which it was attempted to bolster up the case of the enemies of incorporation.’ [Crossley goes on …] Viewing these passages ... with the further knowledge that no-one in the profession of the law has been so extensively engaged in the opposition to the charter of incorporation as myself, I consider that I am entitled to inquire from you, as the editor of the Guardian, whether the terms scored under were made use of with any personal reference or application to myself. I trust you are too much a man of honour to insinuate, by innuendo, what you are unwilling to acknowledge or explain. I beg to request an immediate answer. ³

 

The following day, Taylor sent a letter listing three articles which had appeared in the Chronicle in the preceding three weeks, and asking whether or not Crossley was the author of any or all of them, or whether he had any connection with their authorship. Taylor continues as follows, repeating Crossley's emphasis upon honour:

These are questions to which I consider myself clearly entitled to expect full and specific answers, before I make any reply to the inquiry you have made to me ... I trust you are too much a man of honour to write calumnious and offensive articles in newspapers under the idea that, by assuming an anonymous guise, you will be able to divest yourself of that moral responsibility to public opinion, to which I, in common with every other avowed editor of such a periodical, am unavoidably subject. ⁴

 

The reply to this was delivered on 16 November, by Thomas Flintoff, a close friend of Crossley's. The substance was that Crossley objected to Taylor's answering inquiries with questions, and asserted that Taylor should have made some attempt to discover the authorship of the contentious pieces before publishing his Guardian article. Had Taylor made such an inquiry prior to publication, it 'would have found a prompt and explicit reply.' ⁵

 

Taylor responded that same evening, sending his letter to Flintoff, saying:

I adhere to the opinion expressed in my former letter... that your reply to the questions I have put to you ought to be an indispensable preliminary to my reply to the inquiry you have addressed to me. ⁶

Taylor goes on to put the hypothetical case that, if Crossley were not the writer of the offending article, then Taylor would provide not only an explanation, but also an apology. Clearly, events had reached a deadlock with neither of the protagonists willing to take the lead in providing the information that might have eased the situation.