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.