BUCHANAN AND THE LAW

(Reports from The Times and The Penny Illustrated Paper on the ‘Fleshly School’ libel case of 1876 are available in The Fleshly School Controversy section of the site. And the court case arising from “Alone in London” is dealt with on the Alone in London in London page.)

_____

“Tom Jones” from The Scotsman (12 July, 1888 - p. 3)

     LIBEL ACTION BY MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.—In the Queen’s Bench Division, London, yesterday an action of Mr Robert Buchanan, dramatist, against the Evening News, London, for libel contained in some criticisms on a play called “Tom Jones,” was settled. The defendants now expressed regret for the language used, and Mr Buchanan accepting the apology, the record was by leave withdrawn.

___

The Times (12 July, 1888 - p.3)

BUCHANAN V. CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER COMPANY.

     This was an action by Mr. Robert Buchanan the dramatic author, for libels upon him in his character as an author in the Evening News. The libels appeared in that paper in the form of criticisms on his play entitled Sophia, founded on the well-known novel of “Tom Jones,” on the 3d of December, 1887, and one or two following days. The terms of the criticisms were admitted to be unfitting, and it is not necessary to say more of them than that they included such expressions as “literary uncleanliness,” &c.
     Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff; Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Cluer appeared for the defendants.
     On the case being called on,
     SIR CHARLES RUSSELL rose and said that from the nature of the case he had no doubt his Lordship would be glad to hear that he would not be troubled with the trial of the case. Appearing, as he did, on behalf of the defendants, he desired to say that the plaintiff, Mr. Buchanan, was the well-known author, and had acquired considerable reputation as a playwriter and as a poet, and was, no doubt, a man of considerable ability, and he brought the action for certain critical articles which had appeared in the paper in relation to a play he had recently written, entitled Sophia. He complained, and, as it appeared, with justice, of the tone and character of the criticisms, and the defendants felt that certain imputations were made in them which were not justifiable. The defendants, therefore, had instructed him publicly to say that they withdrew these imputations and desired to express their regret that such articles should have appeared in their paper, and he believed that his learned friend who appeared for the plaintiff was prepared to accept this retractation and to put an end to this action.
     Mr. LOCKWOOD said he, on the part of Mr. Buchanan, accepted the expression of regret proffered by his learned friend. It was impossible for Mr. Buchanan to allow such criticisms to pass without notice. His learned friend had referred in terms not too strong to the reputation of Mr. Buchanan as a dramatic author, and he felt keenly that the criticisms were undeserved, especially with reference to this play, which had been performed, he believed, for 400 nights in one of the principal theatres, and which he had no reason to believe detrimental to his position as a dramatic author. He accepted the expression of regret which had been offered and desired to withdraw the record.
     The record was accordingly withdrawn, and so the action came to an end.

_____

Lillie Langtry from The Scotsman (21 November, 1890 - p. 6)

     MR BUCHANAN’S ACTION AGAINST MRS LANGTRY.—In the Queen’s Bench Division yesterday, before Mr Justice Charles and a common jury, the case of Buchanan v. Langtry came on for trial. Mr Robert Buchanan, the well-known dramatic author, sued Mrs Langtry, who is now the lessee and manageress of the Princess’ Theatre, to recover damages laid at £2000 for alleged breach of a contract to open her New York theatrical season last year with a play written by the Plaintiff. Mrs Langtry admitted making the contract, but pleaded that one of its terms was that she should not be bound to accept the drama unless it was suited to her own powers and style of acting, that the plaintiff’s play did not suit her or her company, and therefore she was not liable; further, the defendant counter-claimed for £150, which she had paid the plaintiff in respect of the play. Mr Winch, Q.C., and Mr Studd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr Le Breton for the defendant. Mr Winch having opened the case, Mr Robert Buchanan was called and narrated the circumstances that led to his writing the play of “Lady Gladys.” Mrs Langtry, he said, made complaints with reference to it. Q.—Was there anything said about the dresses in the interview you had with her? A.—Yes. She said she wished to use some attractive modern dresses, and had bought some at Paris for the purpose. It was understood that there would be four changes of dress in the course of the play. Cross-examined by Mr LOCKWOOD—Mrs Langtry asked me to produce a play in which she could use modern costumes, and in which she would have a strong sympathetic part. Q.—A dog was to appear in the first act? A.—Yes. Q.—Where do you think that Mrs Langtry was to get this very intelligent dog? A.—I think almost anywhere. If necessary, I could have sent her a dog to suit her purpose. There was no difficulty in getting a well-bred Newfoundland or retriever to follow Mrs Langtry on the stage. It was not to be killed there. Mr LOCKWOOD, having next addressed the Court, called Mrs Langtry. Q.—Is it true to suggest that you had determined to reject the play before you received it? A.—No. Q.—Is it true that you had put “Macbeth” in rehearsal? A.—We rehearsed it at New York three weeks afterwards. Q.— Is the part of Lady Gladys a “strong and sympathetic part?” Mr Justice CHARLES doubted whether this question could be put. Mr LOCKWOOD argued that it could, which Mr WINCH denied. Mr Justice CHARLES said, although he doubted whether the question ought to be put to the defendant, he would allow it to be answered. Mrs LANGTRY then asserted that the part of Lady Gladys was not a strong or sympathetic one. The hearing of the case was adjourned until today.

___

Buchanan v. Langtry from The Guardian (21 November, 1890 - p.6)

ACTION BY A DRAMATIC AUTHOR.

BUCHANAN v. LANGTRY.

     In the Court of Queen’s Bench yesterday afternoon the case of Buchanan v. Langtry came before Mr. Justice Charles and a common jury. Great interest was shown in the proceedings, the court being crowded.
     The action was brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the dramatic author, against Mrs. Lillie Langtry, who is now the lessee and manageress of the Princess’s Theatre, London, to recover damages laid at £2,000 for a legal breach of a contract to open her New York theatrical season last year with a play written by the plaintiff. Mrs. Langtry admitted making the contract, but pleaded that one of its terms was that she should not be bound to accept the drama unless it was suited to her own powers and style of acting; that the plaintiff’s play did not suit her or her company, and that therefore she was not liable. Further, the defendant put in a counter claim for £150, which she had paid the plaintiff in respect of the play. Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
     Mr. Winch, in opening the case, said that the claim of his client was for a balance due to him for a play which he wrote for the well-known actress Mrs. Langtry, who had already paid £150. In September, 1888, Mrs. Langtry was desirous of having written for her a play which she might produce in New York. On the 10th September Mr. Buchanan received a telegram asking him to meet Mrs. Langtry. On the 14th Mr. Buchanan saw her and had a conversation with her. Mrs. Langtry told him that she desired him to write a play which she might produce in New York, and in which she would take the chief part. Among other things, Mrs. Langtry told Mr. Buchanan that she had been to Paris, and had bought a number of very beautiful dresses, and that the scenes of the play were to be so arranged that she could wear these beautiful dresses. Accordingly Mr. Buchanan, with a prudence that, as events turned out, was very wise, asked Mrs. Langtry to give him an agreement. The agreement was written as follows:—”September 14.—Dear Mr. Buchanan, I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts with a leading star part for myself on the terms proposed, viz., that I should pay you £150 down and £150 on the delivery of the MS., and the sum of £50 weekly during my performance of the piece. It is understood that the above prepaid £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50 a week. It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years. The piece is to be delivered to me in new York, not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January, in New York City.—Yours truly, LILLIE LANGTRY.”—On the same day Mr. Buchanan acknowledged the receipt of the letter and reiterated the terms on which the play was to be written. In the same letter he informed Mrs. Langtry that she might rely on him using very great efforts to write a play worthy of her talents. On the following Friday Mrs. Langtry again wrote to Mr. Buchanan, enclosing a cheque for £150, and saying that she would prefer not too long a cast, as “nice supers are hard to get in America, and impossible in some parts, though of course if necessary they can be found.” In answer to Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Langtry wrote the names of the company, and said that there must be a “strong lover’s part” in the piece as well as a strong part that she could offer to Mr. Coghlan, as “Mr. Calvert was not a good stage lover.”—(Laughter.) “Of course,” continued Mrs. Langtry, “you will make me a woman’s and not a girl’s part.” On receiving the deposit Mr. Buchanan put on one side all his other work and began to write the play. The play, which was called “Lady Gladys,” he had not read, though he understood that his learned friend had read it.
     Mr. Lockwood: Quite enough of it.—(Laughter.)
     Mr. Winch pointed out that Mr. Buchanan had a very great interest in writing a play that would have a long run. Some time afterwards Mr. Buchanan wrote to Mrs. Langtry asking her if there was truth in the rumour given in all the English newspapers that she was to re-open the Fifth Avenue Theatre with a revival of “Macbeth.” “I trust,” said Mr. Buchanan, “that this is not true, as it would amount to a breach of your contract with me. If you, however, desire to change your plans we had better come to some amicable arrangement, as, your season in New York being short, I shall be a heavy loser. I am, however, quite prepared to meet you in any way.” To that letter Mr. Buchanan got an answer in which nothing was said about the revival of “Macbeth.” That letter said—”By this post I return your MS., in sending which I venture to think that you must have made a mistake, as it is so very unlike what you promised. I hope you have discovered the error, and that the right play is now on the way to New York. If, however, it is the play you intended for me, I may tell you that it is not of the slightest service. The part is weak, as is the play. It is unsympathetic, and the surroundings nil. You must remember what we arranged for was a play with a heroine star part, strong, emotional, and sympathetic, and a hero’s part weighty and powerful, such as I could offer to Mr. Coghlan. You have placed me in a serious dilemma. I desired and promised to produce a new play in New York, and relied on you. Now at the last moment I am obliged to seek other plays, for I cannot produce a play so unworthy of you and of me.” After that letter Mr. Buchanan made an effort to compromise the matter, and was willing to let Mrs. Langtry have the play. Unfortunately no settlement had been arrived at, and the question was now left for the decision of the jury.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan was called and examined by Mr. Winch. He stated that on September 14 Mrs. Langtry requested him to write for her a play. She said that she would leave the material and the treatment of the play entirely in his hands. Thereupon he spoke of terms, and said that he thought that fair terms would be £50 for every week she played the piece. He asked for the usual deposit down and so much on the delivery of the MS. To these terms she assented. Mrs. Langtry during the interview wrote the agreement given in the opening. A day or so afterwards he received a cheque for £150. Mrs. Langtry stated that she had not a banking account in London, and would have to open one. The play was written and was delivered on November 30, notwithstanding great difficulty in finding Mrs. Langtry. “Lady Gladys” was a play that he had written with the best of his ability, and was a play in which Mrs. Langtry’s part would be that of a “Star.” Mrs. Langtry stated that she had bought some good modern dresses in Paris, and desired to use them. There would be four changes.
     Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood: The question of dress was merely as to period? No; the play was to be a modern play.—When was that discussed? During our conversation. She asked for a piece in which she could use modern costumes.—Are you sure it was on the 14th September only? I saw her on more than one occasion. I saw her, I think, on the previous day.—Was the contract partly made on the 14th? We discussed whether I would write a play.—She said particularly that she did not want a girl’s part? That was put in the letter. I should never have thought of writing her a girl’s part—in the theatrical sense.—When did you set to work? Practically at once, after I got the deposit.—Did you express pleasure at writing a part for Mr. Coghlan? Not in the least. Why should I?—(Laughter.)—What part was for Mr. Coghlan? Edgar Vane. I was not particular that he should play it.—As I understand the play Mrs. Langtry’s part was that of the daughter of a broken down earl? Yes.—There is no harm in breaking down an earl?—(Laughter.)—Theatrically, I suppose not.
     The main act turned on the shooting of a dog which was to appear on the stage with Mrs. Langtry? That is an incident of the first act.—In the directions we are told that the dog must be trained to carry out the business of the scene? Yes.—Where was Mrs. Langtry to get this intelligent dog? Almost any retriever would do, as all that the dog had to do was to follow his mistress about.—Did you indicate where Mrs. Langtry could get such a dog? I could have sent her one. There could be no difficulty, as any retriever would follow its mistress.—A great deal turned on the dog? No; he was not killed on the stage.
     In the play Lady Gladys marries under an assumed name a man named Gascoigne, and obtains from him a deed of gift, with which she returns to England in order to turn out the father of her husband. Does she not do that merely out of revenge? Not exactly out of revenge alone, but partly to repossess herself of her father’s property.—But her father had died? He is like the dog; he dies?—(Laughter.) Yes; he practically dies on the stage.—He faints on the stage? Yes; but all people that faint on the stage do not die?—(Laughter.) No; I did not say so.—When Lady Gladys returns she turns out the old man? Not absolutely. She makes it unpleasant for him.—(Laughter.)—I don’t mean that she takes him neck and crop. She orders him off the premises? Yes.—Then she ascertains that during her father’s poverty he was in receipt of anonymous gifts from Edgar Gascoyne, her heart melts, and then—curtain? That is a very ad captandum description.
     I have left out the humour?—You have left out a good deal. You might describe “Hamlet” or “Macbeth” in the same way.
     I have left out the humour. I will read a passage and will ask you to call my attention to any other portion of the play which you consider more humorous. There is a person who plays the part of Major Fitzherbert, an officer on half-pay—very dear at the price—(laughter)—and a Mrs. Pope. Speaking to Mrs. Pope, the Major says, “I say, Mrs. Pope, what a jolly story that was of yours about the fellah who went to India and when he got back found his wife had married another fellah.” Mrs. Pope (referring to some book she had written); “Oh ‘Twice Wedded’—an early effort.”—Major: “Haw, haw, an idea. Why don’t you write a story about a woman who has worn mourning for two husbands walking in a garden and call it ‘Twice Weeded?’ Haw, haw. You are welcome to the title.”—(Laughter.) You take that as humorous?—It is meant to be so. It is meant to be as you read it.
     Can you call my attention to any funnier part?—I don’t pretend that it is funny.
     Is this a serious play? Yes.—Show me a livelier passage?
     The Judge: If you read “She Stoops to Conquer” like that you would laugh at it.
     Mr. Lockwood apologised for his want of histrionic ability, and resumed his cross-examination.
     Do you really consider the part of Lady Gladys a sympathetic part? Yes.—You were to be sole arbiter as to whether it was sympathetic? Yes; but I offered a compromise afterwards without being able to get a hearing. The contract was broken before that, as she was then rehearsing “Macbeth,” as the English newspapers and Mr. Coghlan, if you call him, will tell you.
     Do you suggest that Mrs. Langtry had made up her mind to reject your play before it reached her, and that after paying £150?—Yes, I do.
     In re-examination Mr. Buchanan said that the characters from whose parts Mr. Lockwood had read were known in theatrical parlance as comic reliefs. The speech was in character with the man who spoke it.
     Mr. Lockwood, in opening the case for the defendant, pointed out that Mr. Buchanan stood in a very different position from that which would be occupied by a painter who had been commissioned to paint a portrait. Mr. Buchanan was bound by the promise he had made and by the contract into which he had entered, and really in respect of the promise there appeared to be not very much dispute between Mr. Buchanan and Mrs. Langtry. Mrs. Langtry asked the plaintiff to write a play on terms one of which was that the leading star part for herself should be strong and sympathetic. She started for America looking forward to the production of a new play which she had promised to bring forward in new York. He regretted that the plaintiff had thought fit to impute to Mrs. Langtry dishonourable conduct of which she could never be capable. The plaintiff’s suggestion was that before seeing the play and after paying a deposit of £150 Mrs. Langtry had determined to throw up the piece and to produce “Macbeth.” That statement was absolutely unfounded. It was unjust as well as untrue, and was unworthy of the talented man who had made it. He contended that the part provided for Mrs. Langtry was that of a woman who could have excited no sympathy in any audience. Lady Gladys might have been played with success by some actresses, though she was unsuitable for Mrs. Langtry, being a woman who acted throughout from vengeful motives—a woman who married fraudulently, under an assumed name, and who obtained by fraud a deed of gift that enabled her to turn out of doors her husband’s father. He urged that Mr. Buchanan had not fulfilled his part of the contract in providing a character suited to the powers of Mrs. Langtry, and that he was therefore not entitled to a verdict.
     Mrs. Langtry, examined by Mr. Lockwood, said that in 1888 she was about to go on tour in America and was anxious to produce a new play in New York. She saw Mr. Buchanan in September and asked him to write a modern play with a strong sympathetic part. Mr. Buchanan asked who was in her company. She replied that there were Mr. Coghlan and Mr. Evelyn. Mr. Buchanan expressed pleasure at finding Mr. Coghlan in the company, as he considered him a good actor, and added that he would write a part worthy of Mr. Coghlan. Mr. Buchanan promised to let her know something of the plot before she sailed, but he wrote saying that he had not been able to think of a plot. She was, she believed, in town when she received the play in December. It was not true that she had determined to reject the play before seeing it.
     Is it a fact that you had put “Macbeth” in rehearsal before receiving the play?—Not until three weeks afterwards, at New York.
     Was a strong and sympathetic part provided for you?
     Mr. Winch objected that this was not an admissible question, inasmuch as there was no such stipulation in the contract.
     His Lordship pointed out that, whatever may have passed in conversation, the parties had in the most formal manner reduced their compact to writing.
     Mr. Lockwood contended that Mrs. Langtry had stipulated for a leading “star” part for herself, and Mr. Buchanan must be taken to have understood what the capabilities of the actress were.
     The Judge said that the contract according to the learned counsel was for a strong and sympathetic part. The author said he had supplied such a part. Who was to decide?
     Mr. Lockwood supposed the jury must decide.
     The Judge asked if it was proposed that the jury should read the play.
     Mr. Lockwood said he himself had not had time to read the play, though he should have no objection to taking a part in it.—(Laughter.) In a case in which he appeared for Mr. Hermann Merivale he had to read the play to Mr. Justice Field. He did not know how much his Lordship heard of it.—(Laughter.)
     The Judge said that if the highest efforts of dramatic genius were to be measured by Mr. Lockwood’s success on the previous occasion the matter would be left pretty much where it was.
     The learned counsel was ultimately allowed to ask Mrs. Langtry whether the part was a sympathetic one and suited to her.
     Witness said it certainly was not. The part was one which could not command the sympathy or interest of the audience. Her part was that of a mean and vindictive character. It seemed to her that Lady Gladys cared more about the death of the dog than about the death of her father.—(Laughter.) She knew nothing as to whether the play she rejected had subsequently turned out a success.
     The case was adjourned.

___

Buchanan v. Langtry from The Times (21 November, 1890 - p.13)

(Before MR. JUSTICE CHARLES and a Common Jury.)

BUCHANAN V. LANGTRY.

     This was an action to recover damages for breach of contract.
     Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
     The plaintiff was the well-known dramatist and the defendant Mrs. Lillie Langtry.
     The plaintiff alleged that in September, 1888, by a contract partly verbal and partly in writing, it was arranged that he should write a drama for the defendant “to open her next season in New York.” The terms of the contract are set out in the following letters:—
                                                                                                                              “Sept. 14, 1888.
     “Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I accept your offer to write me a modern drama in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for myself, on the terms proposed—namely, that I pay you £150 down and £150 on delivery of the manuscript, and the sum of £50 weekly during my performance of the piece. It is understood that the above prepayment of £300 is on account of the said weekly royalty of £50.
     “It is also understood that I have the sole right of performing the said drama for a period of three years.
     “The piece is to be delivered to me in New York not later than the 30th of November, and to be produced on or about the 7th of January in New York City.          “Yours truly,          “LILLIE LANGTRY.”

                                                                                       “Hamlet-court, Southend, Essex, Sept. 14.
     “Dear Mrs. Langtry,—I herewith acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date recapitulating our agreement as follows:—
     “(1) That I am to write you a play, in not less than four acts, with a leading star part for yourself, and to deliver it to you in New York not later than the 30th of November next.
     “(2) That you are to pay for author’s royalties the fixed sum of £50 weekly whenever the play is acted, and wherever, and in consideration of your so doing you are to have the sole acting rights for a term of three years.
     “(3) That you are to pay me in advance of said royalties £150 (one hundred and fifty pounds) down and £150 on delivery of the manuscript; and
     “(4) That the play is to be produced by you in New York on or about the 7th of January next.
     “To all this I once more agree, and you may rely on my using my stringent endeavours to produce a drama worthy of your talents and of the occasion. Awaiting the receipt of your cheque for the first sum of £150 as arranged,
          “I am, dear Mrs. Langtry, yours most truly,
                                             “ROBERT BUCHANAN.
     “Mrs. Langtry.
     “P.S.—You will greatly oblige me by sending me the list of the leading members of the company, also by letting me know the exact date of your return to town that I can see you and make some preliminary suggestions on the subject of the play.          “B.”

                                                                           “Pulteney Hotel, 13, Albemarle-street, W., Friday.
     “Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I enclose cheque for 150 pounds. Please let me have a note in answer to mine. I omitted to say that I should prefer if possible not too long a cast, and also to tell you that nice supers are hard to get anywhere in America, and impossible in some parts. Still, of course, if necessary, they can be found.          “Yours truly,
                               “LILLIE LANGTRY.”
     “I shall look forward to hearing something of the plot before I leave for America.”

                                                                           “Pulteney Hotel, 13, Albemarle-street, W., Saturday.
     “Dear Mr. Buchanan,—I have received your letter. My company consists of :—C. Coghlan, leading man; Fred Everill, comedian and character; Louis Calvert, juvenile, or better in rough part; Ivan Peronet, wg. gentleman (dudish); Sidney Herbert, light comedy; Miss Russell, leading lady—Ada Rehan’s sister, rather like her in style, about my height, slight Irish accent, scarcely noticeable; Mrs. Calvert, soubrette; Miss Florence, very pretty ingénue, long fair hair. These are all the principals I have at present. Should there be a strong lover part in the piece as well as Coghlan’s I could engage some one especially, Calvert not being a good stage lover. You will see I have no old man nor old woman, but, of course, would engage. So I really think you had better not consider the company much beyond Coghlan and Fred Everill, who is excellent.
          “Yours truly,          “LILLIE LANGTRY.
     “Of course you will make me a woman’s not a girl’s part.”

     The plaintiff wrote a drama called Lady Gladys, and sent it to Mrs. Langtry in November, 1888. She, however, was not pleased with it, and consequently the play was never produced.
     The defendant pleaded that it was part of the contract that she should not be bound to accept the drama or pay for the same unless it was a piece of which she approved, and which was suited to the powers and styles of acting of the defendant and the members of her company, and alleged that the drama Lady Gladys was of no use to her.
     Mr. Buchanan, the plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that the agreement with the defendant was substantially to the effect stated in the above letters. She wrote the letter of September 14 in his presence, and he took it away with him. The £150 was paid to him on same day. Lady Gladys was a play in which defendant’s part would be a “leading star” part. The play would involve  four changes of dress.
     Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD, Q.C.—The play was to be a “modern” piece. The sort of play wanted was discussed on the 13th of September. The defendant said she wanted a strong and sympathetic part. He set to work at once. He expressed no pleasure at having to write a part for Mr. Coghlan. He came in the second act. Mr. Everill would have played Sir Gilbert. Mrs. Langtry would have played the part of the daughter of a broken-down earl, who had been dispossessed by Sir Gilbert Vane. The main incident was the shooting of a dog by Sir Gilbert which was to enter on the stage with Mrs. Langtry. Any retriever dog could have done the part. Lady Gladys makes it unpleasant for the old earl whose son she had married. [The learned counsel went through the play somewhat in detail, and asked whether his description was substantially correct.] That is rather bare. He was of opinion defendant made up her mind to reject the play before she read it.
     Mrs. Langtry, in her evidence, said that she was very anxious to produce a new play in the United States in the autumn of 1888, and consulted Mr. Buchanan with reference thereto. She impressed upon him that her part must be strong and sympathetic. She received the drama in Toronto. Macbeth was only rehearsed about three weeks afterwards. Lady Gladys was not a strong or sympathetic part. She did not know where to find a dog such as that mentioned in the play.
     In cross-examination she stated she thought so much of the plaintiff that she imagined he could write a play to suit her. She did not insist that her part was to be “strong” in the letter of September 14, because she thought it was included in the words “leading star” part. On December 1, when the play arrived, she had made arrangements to appear as Lady Macbeth during the New York season, which ran for ten weeks from January 10. She had been rather unfortunate before with play-writers—for instance, with Mr. Hatton Chambers, with whom she had an arbitration concerning a play he wrote for her, Mr. Bancroft being the arbitrator.
     At this stage of the case the Court adjourned.

___

Buchanan v. Langtry from The Times (22 November, 1890 - p.17)

(Before MR. JUSTICE CHARLES and a Common Jury.)

BUCHANAN V. LANGTRY.

     The further hearing of this case was resumed to-day.
     Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr. Studd appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Le Breton for the defendant.
     Mr. Everill was called and stated he had had 38 years’ experience of the stage. In his opinion the part of Lady Gladys was not a strong, or emotional, or sympathetic part for Mrs. Langtry.
     This closed the defendant’s evidence.
     The learned JUDGE intimated that the question he should leave to the jury was whether it was a term of the contract that the play should be one which, in Mrs. Langtry’s judgment, should be fitted for her—in  other words, whether what passed on the 13th of September was part of the promise or bargain, and, if so, whether that bargain was performed.
     Mr. LOCKWOOD, Q.C., in his address to the jury, insisted that it was unlikely that it could have been intended that the plaintiff was to be the sole arbiter of the excellence of his work. Mrs. Langtry’s part was to be “a strong part,” and this was not a play in which her part was of such a nature. There was no foundation for the statement that she had rejected the play before reading it. The part allotted to her was perfectly inadequate and unsuitable. The balance of probability was that the defendant would provide in any contract she made that she should have a part which should be “strong and sympathetic” and suited to her.
     Mr. WINCH, Q.C., in his reply, commented on the fact that it had not been made a part of the written contract that Mrs. Langtry’s part should be “strong and sympathetic.” The agreement simply provided that she should have a “leading star” part, which was a very different thing, but such a thing was provided for in  the drama. He showed that any one could make a play or work, however well written, seem ridiculous, by reading fragmentary or isolated bits of it, as Mr. Lockwood had done with Lady Gladys. At any rate, even the defendant had not proved that the part was to be strong and sympathetic for her, but simply maintained that it ought to be “a strong and sympathetic part.”
     MR. JUSTICE CHARLES having summed up,
     The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £150 damages.

(Lillie Langtry in 1890.)

[In May, 1894, Lillie Langtry appeared at the Opera Comique Theatre in London in a play entitled A Society Butterfly, written by Robert Buchanan and Henry Murray. It was this play which bankrupted Buchanan. In the same month, Lady Gladys opened in New York, to decidedly mixed reviews, with Minnie Seligman in the title role.]

_____

Greenberg v. Buchanan from The Times (19 December, 1891 - p.7)

     CLAIM AGAINST MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—In the Westminster County Court yesterday, the case of “Greenberg v. Buchanan” came before Judge Bayley. The claim was for £89 for advertisements inserted in various newspapers for Mr. Robert Buchanan, the dramatist. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant intended to have the play Heredity run at the Avenue Theatre. The manager and lessee was Mr. Henry Lee, and the orders were given by the last-named for advertisements to be inserted in the newspapers. Although Mr. Lee gave the orders, Mr. Buchanan altered the form of the advertisements. On one occasion defendant complained that more prominence was given to the farce than to the play, and he had the advertisements altered accordingly. A cheque for £34 was given by the defendant to Lee, who endorsed it. Mr. Buchanan received it back and then he handed it to the plaintiff’s clerk. The whole account came to £122. It was admitted that the account was entered in all cases in the name of Lee. The defendant was called, and in reply to his counsel he said that he had an agreement with Mr. Lee, who was entitled to give orders for advertisements on his behalf. Lee was not to be found. He had gone to America. His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

_____

(I’ve always been intrigued by the following statement in Chapter 27 of Harriett Jay’s biography of Buchanan: “More than one obscure martyr owed something to his intercession, and he saved at least one fellow-creature from death upon the gallows.” Who the ‘fellow-creature’ was, I’ve never been able to ascertain, but this article from the Penny Illustrated Paper could perhaps refer to the same case.)

Buchanan and the Hangman from The Penny Illustrated Paper (19 March, 1892 - p. 9)

ROUND THE COURTS

DROPPING into the Strand Law Courts and the Old Bailey, peeping into Police Courts, and even suffering the infliction of a visit to a draughty theatre, one of the riskiest of undertakings during this Siberian weather in town, the ubiquitous P.I.P. Artists have not spared themselves in their efforts to keep our readers au courant with the chief notabilities in legal and criminal circles. Room first, however, for

Mr. James Berry,

who has felt bound to resign the office of public hangman in favour of the vocation of public

lecturer on the gentle art of hanging. The P.I.P. Artist caught Mr. Berry making his maiden effort as a lecturer at the Imperial Theatre, adjoining the Westminster Aquarium, last Monday night. It appeared from what he read that the late chief executioner had too tender a heart for his occupation. His kind solicitude for the comfort of the poor fellow-creatures whom it was his painful duty to launch into another world induced him to devise various improvements in the hangman’s dread apparatus. But Mr. Berry favours the abolition of capital punishment, and a resolution to that effect was put to his audience and approved by a majority of those who cared to hold up their hands. This majority may not improbably have been influenced by the fervid and well-grounded appeal

Mr. Robert Buchanan

made in the Daily News of Monday for the reprieve of Rayner and Eggleton, two men sentenced to death at Aylesbury for killing two keepers during a poaching encounter, in which the latter appear to have been the first aggressors. Mercy might well be shown in this case.

_____

Buchanan’s Bankruptcy

(In 1894, Robert Buchanan was declared bankrupt. In Chapter 24 of her biography, Harriett Jay gives the background to the story:
“By this time he was not only far off independence, but heavily in debt. His last stake was a comedy of which he was part author, and for which he engaged the famous Mrs. Langtry, then anxious to return to the stage. Having secured a small financial backing, quite inadequate as the issue proved, he took the Opera Comique, and produced there in June, 1894, the “Society Butterfly,” with Mrs. Langtry in the chief female part, and such excellent artistes as Mr. Fred Kerr and the late Miss Rose Leclercq to support the leading lady. All would have gone very well, but for one unfortunate contretemps. The fate of the play absolutely depended on a certain dance to be performed by the leading actress at the end of the third act, but at the last moment Mrs. Langtry was unable to do the dance, and some ineffective tableaux vivants had to be substituted in a hurry. These tableaux provoked a stormy reception and led to very adverse criticisms in the Press. The play, however, ran for some weeks to very fair business, and was actually promising to develop into a popular success when the managerial exchequer was found to be empty. At that moment a creditor served Mr. Buchanan with a petition in bankruptcy. His house of cards collapsed, and a few months later he was standing in the bankruptcy court, a practically ruined man.”)

The Scotsman (15 June, 1894 - p.2)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.—Under the failure of Mr Robert Buchanan, the well-known author, which took place on Tuesday, it appears that the liabilities are between £14,000 and £15,000, part of which is secured. He states that he has a lease of 25 Maresfield Gardens, of which there are two years to run, the rent being £195 per annum, and the landlord is in possession for £97.10s. There is also £62 due for Queen’s taxes. The furniture (£100), he states, was his, and was assigned to trustees about four years ago in trust for his wife’s sister, Miss Harriet Jay, that he has no assets except some copyrights, and no cash in hand, and the bank account is overdrawn. Messrs Shearman & Rayner are the solicitors to the proceedings.

___

The Times (15 June, 1894 - p.14)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—A receiving order having been made on the 12th inst. against Mr. Robert Buchanan, described as an author, and residing in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, the debtor has since attended the Court for preliminary examination, and has given some details with reference to the position of his affairs. He estimates his liabilities at from £14,000 to £15,000. His residence is rented at £195 per year, and in consequence of the payments having fallen into arrear the landlord has entered into possession. The furniture had been assigned, and the debtor states that he has no available assets except some copyrights, his banking account being overdrawn. The receiving order was granted upon the petition of a judgment creditor.

___

The Times (6 July, 1894 - p.3)

     THE AFFAIRS OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.—Under a receiving order granted on the 12th ult. against Robert Buchanan, author and dramatist, amended accounts have been submitted showing the liabilities to be £15,792, of which £15,672 are unsecured, and the only unencumbered assets disclosed by the debtor consist of his interest in certain books and plays upon which he places no value. From the observations of the Assistant Official Receiver (Mr. G. W. Chapman) and the statements of the debtor, it appears that for many years past he has been engaged in literary work, and has produced a considerable number of books and plays; he has also from time to time acted as manager of theatres in London and in America. His income, derived from royalties and general literary work, has during the last three years averaged about £1,500 per annum. His present insolvency is attributable to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to loss by non-production of a play (Dick Sheridan) in America; and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work and to losses by betting. The debtor states that he has kept no record of his financial transactions, but he approximately accounts for the deficiency of £15,672 shown on the statement of affairs as follows:—Losses incurred at the Lyric and Royalty theatres in 1890, £5,000; loss at the Opera Comique in the present year, £600; loss by purchase and sale of copyrights, £500; interest on borrowed money, £1,500; excess of household and other expenditure over income (apparently), £4,229; losses by betting, £1,200; money lent and given away, £1,000; loans through acceptances, £674; loss by bad debts, £584; and other small losses (to balance), £385. The Official Receiver states that the unsecured liabilities (£6,380) include upwards of £4,200 in respect of borrowed money and legal expenses. The creditors appearing as “fully and partly secured” (£8,970) are stated to hold charges on copyrights and royalties in various plays, &c.; the debtor states it is impossible to estimate the precise value of any of these securities. The amount appearing to be owing to “creditors for rent, &c.” (£541) includes £360 for six weeks’ rent of the Opera Comique Theatre. The Official Receiver adds that the first meeting of creditors was held on the 5th inst., and was adjourned until the 26th to enable the debtor to amend his scheme of arrangement by providing reasonable security for payment of not less than 7s. 6d. in the pound. The amended scheme has not yet been lodged.

___

The New York Times (19 July, 1894)

Robert Buchanan’s Debts.

     LONDON, July 18.—The amended statement of the author and playwright, Robert Buchanan, was presented to the Bankruptcy Court to-day. The statement shows the liabilities of Mr. Buchanan to be £15,672 and says that there are no available assets. Mr. Buchanan was unable to appear in court owing to illness.

___

The Times (26 July, 1894 - p.14)

(Before MR. E. LEADHAM HOUGH, Official Receiver.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was the first statutory meeting held under a receiving order recently granted against Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known author and theatrical manager. From the preliminary examination of the debtor it appears that he resides in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, and during the last 15 years he has written several books and plays, and has also acted as manager of theatres in London and also in America. In June 1890 he produced two plays written by himself, the Bride of Love and Nancy, first at the Lyric Theatre, and subsequently at the Royalty, but they did not prove successful, and he incurred losses and liabilities to the amount of about £5,000 in respect of them. He subsequently entered into contracts for the production of other plays. The debtor states that his income has averaged about £1,500 per year, derived from royalties and from general literary work, and that his expenditure has amounted to about the same sum. About 20 years since a Civil Service pension of £100 was granted to him by Mr. Gladstone in recognition of his merits as an author. He believes that he effected a private arrangement with his creditors about ten years ago, paying them a composition of 10s. in the pound. The debtor ascribes his present insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations, to heavy payments of interest on borrowed money, and to the non-production in America of the play Dick Sheridan, and to damaging newspaper attacks on his dramatic works, also to losses by betting.
     Several proofs having been dealt with, including one for £805 supported by Mr. J. A. Bartram (solicitor) on behalf of Mr. G. R. Sims, and which was admitted for voting purposes for £782,
     The OFFICIAL RECEIVER said that a statement of affairs had been rendered, but it was in a very incomplete and imperfect form. The figures showed unsecured liabilities £5,980, in addition to Messrs. Chatto and Windus, who were treated as fully secured for £120. The debts of partly-secured creditors amounted to £8,750, and, as the debtor could not estimate the value of the securities, the whole sum was treated as likely to rank. There appeared to be practically no assets except bad debts, and for some time past there had been a deficiency, which was attributed to losses by bad debts and to other causes. The debtor had submitted a proposal to set aside one-third of his future income for the benefit of the creditors until they should be paid in full, but the Official Receiver pointed out that no security was provided for payment of the minimum statutory composition of 7s. 6d. in the pound.
     Some discussion followed, in the course of which the debtor said it was very difficult for a man who lived by his wits to find security for a composition. An endeavour was then made to pass a resolution for bankruptcy, but without success, and the proceedings resulted eventually in an adjournment for three weeks to enable the debtor to formulate a proposal with security, his statement of affairs to be amended in the meantime.

___

The Times (9 August, 1894 - p.15)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     A sitting for public examination was held under the failure of Mr. Robert Buchanan, author and dramatist. His amended accounts show liabilities amounting to £15,792, of which £15,072 are unsecured, and the only unencumbered assets disclosed by the debtor consist of his interest in certain books and plays, upon which he is unable to place any value. He ascribes his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculations; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to loss by the non-production of a play (Dick Sheridan) in America; and by adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting.
     Mr. G. Wreford attended as Senior Official Receiver; Mr. M. Shearman, Mr. J. A. Bartrum, and Mr. Bennett appeared for creditors; and Mr. W. A. Colyer for the debtor.
     In reply to the SENIOR OFFICIAL RECEIVER, the debtor stated that he had resided for the last five years at South Hampstead. He had been connected with the theatrical profession for about 25 years, and during the last 30 years had written a number of books and plays. He had also been engaged as a theatrical manager in London and America. Up to July last he acted as manager at the Opera Comique in connexion with the play A Society Butterfly, which he had written in conjunction with Mr. Murray. He ought to have made money over it, but did not, and the play had now ceased to run. He had created charges upon his copyrights in various works, and only a few of them were free. He was entitled to royalties on The Moment After and The Coming Terror, but both these works had been before the public for some time, and were now rather “flat.” Since 1890 he had lost money on the production of various plays, including The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, which were produced at the Lyric and Royalty theatres, and which resulted in a loss of £5,000. The manager of an American theatre had undertaken to produce his play Dick Sheridan, but had failed to do so, and he (the debtor) alleged that the manager had taken the whole body of his play, and, having altered it, used the same title without paying him for it, the manager contending that he had not written the play. He considered that this course damaged his reputation as a literary man and his pocket as well. (Laughter.) He had not lost money on the Stock Exchange, but had incurred losses in other forms of betting, and had lost about £1,200 on the Turf. He had accommodated a friend by purchasing the picture called “The World’s Desire,” but it had never actually come into his possession. He paid for the picture by means of bills, upon which he was still liable. He did not know where the picture was at the present time. It was valued at £1,500, but he gave £450 only for it. He had possessed one horse and a carriage up to a recent date, but the former had been sold, and the latter returned to the person from whom it was hired. He had not defended any actions brought against him for the recovery of debts. He had instituted an action for libel against the Sketch in connexion with the plays Dick Sheridan and A Society Butterfly, and the matter was still pending. He considered that the libel was an attempt to sweep him from the earth of created beings altogether. (Laughter.) He had never kept any books in connexion with his theatrical ventures except a diary.
     The OFFICIAL RECEIVER.—What does your income amount to?
     The debtor said it was difficult to state any particular amount, because it all depended on “luck.” His profession was a gambling one, and if he produced a book which was a success, he would reap considerable benefit, but if it proved a failure he would lose. His average annual expenditure did not exceed £1,500 per annum. He did not consider that he was insolvent, but had been driven into a corner, and he thought he had a reasonable probability of paying his creditors out of his future earnings. Beyond the plays already mentioned he had written The Lights of Home, The Charlatan, and The Piper of Hamelin, and the books “Come Live with Me,” and “Nerissa.” He was desirous of paying a composition to his creditors, but had encountered some difficulty in the matter, as he was not aware of the exact claims against his estate, or of the value of his assets. He hoped to be able, with the assistance of friends, to provide sufficient security for 7s. 6d. in the pound, as required by the statute. For many years past he had been in the receipt of a pension from the Civil List, which was granted to him by Mr. Gladstone. His house was rented at £200 per annum, but he did not consider that this sum was too large considering the amount of his income. For several years past he had experienced “bad luck,” but was certain that he had not lived extravagantly.
     Mr. SHEARMAN also examined the debtor.
     By Mr. COLYER.—His betting losses had extended over a period of two or three years.
     His HONOUR ordered the examination to be concluded.

___

The Times (30 November, 1894 - p.3)

(Sittings in Bankruptcy, before MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was an application by Mr. Robert Buchanan, described as an author and theatrical manager, of an address in South Hampstead, for an order of discharge. His amended statement of affairs showed unsecured debts to the amount of £15,672, and no available assets were disclosed.
     Mr. Egerton S. Grey attended as Assistant Official Receiver; and Mr. W. A. Colyer for the debtor.
     From the evidence and the report of the Senior Official Receiver (Mr. G. Wreford) it would appear that the debtor had been connected with the theatrical profession for many years, and that he had been employed as manager of theatres in London and America. He stated that his income derived from royalties and general literary work averaged about £1,500 per annum, but during the last year or two it had fallen short of that amount. He ascribed his insolvency to losses and liabilities incurred in connexion with theatrical speculation; to heavy interest on borrowed money; to the non-production of the play Dick Sheridan in America, and adverse criticisms on his dramatic work; and to losses by betting. The debtor had not kept any record of his financial transactions, and the Official Receiver asserted that the deficiency of £15,672 shown in the amended accounts was only approximately and imperfectly accounted for, but was partly explained by losses, amounting to £5,000, at the Lyric and Royalty theatres in 1890. The debtor stated that these losses were incurred in consequence of the unsuccessful production of the plays The Bride of Love and Sweet Nancy, of which he was the author and which he brought out personally. The Official Receiver alleged that on the failure of these plays the debtor became aware that he was insolvent. Further, that in March last the debtor, jointly with another person, produced another play, A Society Butterfly, a syndicate being formed for that purpose, but this also proved unsuccessful and he incurred a loss of £1,500 thereby. Amongst the proofs lodged was one for £450, balance of rent at the Opera Comique, at the rate of £250 per month, another for £134 in respect of hire of costumes, and another for £250 for advertising. The Official Receiver submitted that the debtor was not justified in embarking in the undertakings referred to as he was insolvent at the time and had been pressed by creditors. Reference was also made to the circumstance that in 1893 the debtor purchased a picture, “The World’s Desire,” from one Rudolph Blind, to whom he gave his acceptances for £460 in payment. These he was unable to pay at maturity, and he stated that the picture never came into his possession. Further, that his household and personal expenditure had considerably exceeded his income. The debtor also partly accounted for the existing deficiency by losses through betting transactions amounting to £1,200, which, he stated, extended over two or three years. The Official Receiver opposed the application on account of the absence of available assets, and on the ground that the debtor had brought on or contributed to his bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations and unjustifiable extravagance in living, and by gambling.
     The report having been read, the ASSISTANT OFFICIAL RECEIVER said he did not desire to dictate the form of order to be made, but he submitted that this was a case in which the Court would direct the debtor to set aside a portion of his income for the benefit of the creditors. He was well known in this country as an author, and it appeared that he had been able to earn £1,500 a year by his writings. He had written a story for one of the Christmas numbers, and it was not to be supposed that he would write for nothing. In his public examination the debtor stated that if time had been allowed him he could have paid all his creditors out of his future earnings.
     Mr. COLYER addressed the Court on behalf of the debtor, and said that he did not dispute the offences alleged by the Official Receiver. It appeared from the statement of affairs that several creditors held charges upon the debtor’s works until their claims were satisfied in full. Those works were now producing large amounts, and it was anticipated that before long the secured creditors would be paid in full and a large surplus would become available for the unsecured creditors. With regard to the charge of rash and hazardous speculation, the debtor was advised by some of the leading men in his profession that A Society Butterfly would prove successful. Had it been so the debtor would not have found himself in his present position. In reference to the picture referred to in the report he submitted that no one had lost or gained by the transaction. Dealing with the application of the Assistant Official Receiver, he asked the Court not to decide the matter at present, as there was no evidence brought forward to support it. The Christmas story referred to was paid for some two years ago.
     MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD.—But the debtor’s books are widely known, and he is one of the few whose poetry is read.
     Mr. COLYER submitted that no evidence had been given to show that the debtor was still earning a considerable income.
     MR. REGISTRAR GIFFARD, in giving judgment, said it appeared that the debtor had been able to earn £1,500 a year in the past by his writings, and there was no reason why he should not do so in the future. He was a man of great ability and versatility, and his works were very popular, and it was only reasonable that some provision should be made for the creditors. The offences alleged by the Official Receiver had not been displaced, and the order of the Court would be that the debtor be discharged subject to his setting aside one half of his income over and above £900 per annum until the unsecured creditors had received dividends amounting to 7s. 6d. in the pound, the debtor to file accounts annually of his receipts.

___

The Scotsman (15 May, 1895 - p.11)

     MISS HARRIET JAY AND MR ROBERT BUCHANAN.—A summary was issued in London yesterday under the failure of Harriet Jay, the actress, whose present address is unknown. She returns her debts at £385, and attributes her insolvency entirely to her liability in respect of a bill accepted for the accommodation of her brother-in-law, Mr Robert Buchanan, that representing her only stated debt. The debtor further asserts she has no property or assets, and that her income since 1890 has been very small.

___

The New York Times (15 May, 1895)

An English Writer in Bankruptcy.

     LONDON, May 14.—Harriet Jay, the authoress and actress, sister-in-law of Robert Buchanan, the playwright and author, has been declared a bankrupt.

_____

     Robert Buchanan was declared in bankruptcy recently, to the intense indignation of Mr. Labouchère, who cannot understand how a pensioner of the Government may spend more than his income.

___

The Times (14 June, 1895 - p.14)

IN RE JAY.

     The debtor, Miss Harriett Jay, until recently residing at an address in Maresfield-gardens, South Hampstead, attended for public examination.
     Mr. H. Brougham appeared as Official Receiver; and Mr. W. A. Colyer, solicitor, for the debtor.
     The debtor was examined by the OFFICIAL RECEIVER. and in the course of her evidence stated that she was an actress and authoress, but for several years she had not performed, and had practically no income. Her insolvency was attributable to a liability of £380 on a bill which she accepted about four years ago for the accommodation of her brother-in-law, Mr. Robert Buchanan. She never expected to be asked to meet the bill. Some furniture of which she was possessed had been sold by the landlord in respect of rent due from Mr. Buchanan.
     Replying to Mr. COLYER, the debtor stated that she became obliged to discontinue acting owing to an accident. She received no portion of the proceeds of the accommodation bill referred to.
     The examination was concluded.

___

The Times (22 June, 1901 - p.14)

THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS, 1883 and 1890.IN LONDON.

RECEIVING ORDERS.

Buchanan, Robert (deceased). Southside, Clapham-common, S.W., late Lewin-road, Streatham, S.W.

___

The Times (6 July, 1901 - p.17)

(Sittings in Bankruptcy, before MR. E. LEADAM HOUGH, Senior Official Receiver.)

IN RE BUCHANAN.

     This was the first meeting of creditors under a receiving order made on June 18 against Robert Buchanan, deceased, the well-known author and dramatist. The proceedings were founded on a petition presented by a creditor, who claimed £65 8s. 5d. in respect of moneys advanced.
     The CHAIRMAN said he was informed that the debtor possessed no assets, and it was probably within the knowledge of the creditors that he was adjudged bankrupt some years ago. In the course of those proceedings an order was made that he should set aside any income in excess of £900, but the order was unproductive.
     No resolution being passed, the matter remained in the hands of the Official Receiver.

___

The New York Times (13 July, 1901)

     Certain London papers which gave more or less sympathetic accounts of the funeral of the late Robert Buchanan, printed elsewhere in obscure places the following pathetic legend:
     At the London Bankruptcy Court yesterday a receiving order was made against the estate of the late Robert Buchanan.

_____

(Robert Buchanan’s father was also declared bankrupt in 1860.)

From The Scotsman (28 April, 1860 - p. 4)

SCOTCH BANKRUPTS.
(From the Edinburgh Gazette of Friday evening.)
SEQUESTRATIONS.

     ROBERT BUCHANAN, newspaper proprietor, printer, and publisher in Glasgow—Creditors meet in Crow Hotel, George Square, Glasgow, 8th May, at twelve o’clock.—James MacBride, 97 West George Street, Glasgow, agent.

_____

From The Guardian (19 May, 1930 - p.5)

     Mr. Edward F. Spence, K.C., was born at Liverpool in 1860, and after working hard at the Bar and as a dramatic critic for many years he has retired from these more strenuous activities and now finds time to give us some of his experiences in BAR AND BUSKIN (Mathews and Marrot, pp. xxii. 400, 15s. net). His father was one of the nineteen children of a Liverpool merchant who could recite “Paradise Lost,” but the present Mr. Spence tells us that he and his wife never desired to have a child. Another curiously frank confession is that he once intended to bolt with £30,000 which did not belong to him but changed his mind. Yet this volume reveals him as almost remarkably normal, and he went through many mental experiences that are so common as to be uninteresting. He appears to be a simple-minded man and writes without literary charm and without pretension. He became prosperous, earning from three to five thousand a year at the Bar, and one case which spread over several years brought him about eight thousand pounds. There are curious particulars about the dishonesty of some solicitors in their dealings with barristers, some interesting technical criticisms of methods of litigation, and a contention, with which, perhaps, a good many laymen will agree, that the House of Lords is not a great success as a final Court of Appeal. Mr. Spence is a man of independent judgment, and it is to his honour that he was one of the earliest favourable critics of Ibsen’s plays. He was too outspoken for some of the authors and managers, but he assures us that only three writs were issued “in respect of his severe notices”; all, it seems, by Robert Buchanan. On the whole his book is a modest and friendly one, but it seems a pity that from his snug retreat in the country he should have to warn us that we are going to the dogs.

__________

Back to Miscellanea