The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Robert]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm kind of blown away by this statement Tom. I appreciate you have said that the burden of proof is on Simon Wood to prove Labouchere's allegations were true but still, I'm amazed you feel you can say this. Labouchere admitted he was wrong. He admitted the allegations were false. I don't need to prove a single thing but, in any event, all the known evidence shows that Jarvis was in Canada chasing Barton in December 1888. It is, without doubt, case closed.

In a legal sense, you're certainly correct. But his 'admission' was hardly convincing. There's a couple people who accept John Pizer's 'admission' of being Leather Apron simply because they want to accept it, but to many others it's obvious he was being compelled to make the admission. The same might be true in Labouchere's case. How can we say? If we can't take Labouchere at his word alone, that would have to apply to all his claims, including his weak and undetailed admission. If we knew his source material (assuming there was any) then we'd probably have a better idea of the truth.
It would certainly be nice to know the real reason he withdrew his accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mayerling]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

Hi Robert,

I imagine that to find a list of his libel disputes, one would have to search the newspapers' legal columns from the late 1870s to the beginning of the 20th Century (similar to searching for cases that Montie Druitt was a barrister in) which mention Labouchere and his newspaper "Truth". Problem is that I don't know how frequently an out-of-court settlement would have been made into a news item.

By the way - as a side issue here - I recalled the other night that Labouchere was also the fellow who nicknamed the Duke of Clarence "Collars and Cuffs" after (supposedly) seeing a studio photograph of Clarence supposedly in the highlands fishing while overdressed. As Prince Eddy was his mother's favorite, and was close to grandma Victoria, the comment was an additional reason for the Royal Family to hate Labouchere and insist he never get a cabinet or diplomatic post in 1892 - 1895, and again from 1905 - 1906 when he retired.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Then it is line with what you keep writing

Mike was making a very simple, straightforward, point and you either failed to grasp it or pretended to fail to grasp it. I'm not sure which is worse.

[David Orsam]

Well to the victor the spoils

You just keep on digging that hole Trevor.

[David Orsam]

I wonder whether, when a man is being sued for libel and wants to reach an out-of-court settlement, there are shades of mea culpa? E.g. "The allegations are wholly false" would be the most whole-hearted formula. "I retract the allegations, for which I have no evidence" might be another, but this would have the implied hint that evidence might be obtained at some point in the future. Perhaps the first form of words would cost the defendant less money than the second? I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of all Labouchere's libel disputes, of which I suspect there were many, and see how often he backed down and what form of words he used.

There's no set formula here Robert and you will never find one. Everything depends on the individual circumstances of the litigation, the strengths and weaknesses of both sides' arguments (not just on the facts but also the law) and the positions of the individual lawyers and parties involved in settlement negotiations as to what is an acceptable form of compromise. Therefore, when you say "I'm wondering if Labouchere, if he was really convinced that he was right, could have got away with a less unequivocal form of words, while giving Jarvis a few hundred more, which he could easily have afforded" there is just no answer to that because it would all depend on what form of words Jarvis and his lawyers were prepared to accept as part of an agreed apology. Labouchere could have offered a thousand pounds but without a public apology that might have been rejected. Equally, he could have made a grovelling public apology but paid no money and that might have been accepted. It probably goes without saying but I would also just comment on the part of your scenario which says "if he was really convinced that he was right" because it is clear from his own letter to the Times that he knew and accepted that he was wrong on the facts of the case.

[PaulB]

There is no hypocrisy

You clearly put too much faith in the accuracy of newspapers articles. Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute, and it seem the newspapers made a great play of that fact being a peer of the realm.

Tumblety wasn't arrested for being the Ripper he was arrested for Gross indecency, that's the difference. Now I hope you will stop banging on about Sir George Arthur and stop citing secondary newspaper articles.

You aren't going to make much headway persuading people that you are right and David's wrong if you keep claiming that newspapers are secondery sources. You don't even know what primary and secondary sources are. I really don't understand why sensible people bother to argue with you anymore.

[David Orsam]

In a legal sense, you're certainly correct. But his 'admission' was hardly convincing. There's a couple people who accept John Pizer's 'admission' of being Leather Apron simply because they want to accept it, but to many others it's obvious he was being compelled to make the admission. The same might be true in Labouchere's case. How can we say? If we can't take Labouchere at his word alone, that would have to apply to all his claims, including his weak and undetailed admission. If we knew his source material (assuming there was any) then we'd probably have a better idea of the truth.
It would certainly be nice to know the real reason he withdrew his accusations.

There's no "legal sense" involved here Tom. Labouchere wrote in plain English. His letter to the Times was not a legal letter at all. Have you read it? In what world was his clear admission that the allegations were all false not convincing? What more could he possibly have said????? Pizer is no comparison because that was a one line (rather vague) answer in the witness box. Labouchere's admissions were considered, lengthy, written admissions of the falseness of his allegations. We know exactly why he withdrew his allegations. They were false, just like he said. It's utterly perverse of you to continue to suggest there can be any other reason.

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

So Labouchere was the coiner of 'collars and cuffs'? He wasn't exactly tactful. I think I remember reading somewhere that the kind of collar worn by PAV was called a jampot collar.

Yes it can be hard to find reports of withdrawn libel actions or out-of-court settlements. In late 1890 Labouchere was threatened with libel proceedings by Walter Austin, who seems as far as I can gather to have been a charity fraudster operating the London Cottages Mission. As far as I can tell, Austin was told that his action would fail, though I have found no definite announcement of his withdrawal.

Hi David

That was my point - IF Labouchere still thought there was some hope of 'nailing' Jarvis, he might have sought a less unequivocal form of words - the fact that he didn't therefore suggesting that he knew it was all bunk. But as you say these libel backdowns all vary.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Let's be utterly perverse and consider whether there may have been a political motive behind Labouchere settling out of court in the matter of the alleged Jarvis libel.

In December 1889 Captain William Henry O’Shea filed for divorce, citing his wife’s long-standing affair with co-respondent Charles Stewart Parnell, considered in political circles to be the ‘worst-kept secret in London.’ As the matter rumbled on through 1890, with claims and counter-claims coming from either side, it became increasingly clear to politicians of all stripes that Parnell was not going to win the day and that the moral outrage and political fallout from his infidelity with Katherine O’Shea would bring about the downfall of the relationship between him, his Irish Parliamentary party and the Gladstonians.

The cause of Irish Home Rule was only going to move forward if Parnell was out of the way.

As predicted, on 17th November 1890 the divorce court verdict was delivered in favour of Captain O’Shea. The Times took its revenge for its humiliating defeat over the forged Parnell letters, denouncing him as a lecherous family wrecker, and soon afterwards William Gladstone announced in a speech that “I very soon found that the Liberal party in this country had made up its mind to draw a broad distinction between the national cause of Ireland and the person and the personal office of Mr. Parnell.”

So, despite Labouchere’s support for Irish Home Rule, an appearance in court at around this time to defend Charles Stewart Parnell against the machinations of Scotland Yard and The Times would have been politically unthinkable.

Described by historian Frank Callanan as a ‘true utilitarian,’ Labouchere, in the 20th November 1890 edition of his newspaper Truth, endorsed Parnell, vilifying The Times in the process, but in the 27th November edition wrote, “it is evident that there are Liberals who are of the opinion that the triumph of Home Rule depends upon the withdrawal of Mr. Parnell from the Irish leadership.” Winning the Home Rule battle outweighed “all advantage to the cause by his remaining Irish leader.”

Amidst accusations that Liberal MPs Henry Labouchere, James Stuart [also a director of the Star newspaper] and Philip Stanhope, later Lord Weardale, were engaged in intrigues with anti-Parnellites, Parnell’s political career soon came to an ignominious end. He married Katherine O’Shea in June 1891, dying in her arms in October 1891, aged 45.

On 20th December 1890 Robert Anderson wrote to the editor of The Times.

In a letter signed “An Observer” he reiterated the Jarvis story, chastised Labouchere for not apologising in the House of Commons and wondered “whether truthfulness and honour and decency shall be required of men occupying prominent positions in political life.”

Labouchere countered Anderson’s letter on 23rd December 1890—

“ . . . My retraction was published in Truth, and it was copied in many newspapers . . .There was no reason, therefore, why I should repeat it in the House of Commons, and still less reason why I should apologise to Mr. Smith and Mr. Matthews, for, as I have said, much was done in America by English agents which was not reported to the Home Secretary, and, a fortiori [with greater reason], not to the First Lord of the Treasury.”

There again was Labouchere’s accusation.

Robert Anderson had the last word on the subject.

The Times, 25th December 1890—

“Mr. Labouchere evidently fails to understand the suggestion that any one could be aggrieved by a charge of falsehood when he is the accuser. I presume the public must now be content to accept his own estimate of himself; and I hope they will bear it in mind hereafter when again he pledges his reputation, as he did in this case, ‘to produce any amount of evidence’ in support of some charge against political opponents.”

Thus it is hard to be absolutely certain whether Henry Labouchere’s allegations against Jarvis and Shore really were false, or whether they were true but that he was advised not to press the matter because of far greater political considerations.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

That was my point - IF Labouchere still thought there was some hope of 'nailing' Jarvis, he might have sought a less unequivocal form of words - the fact that he didn't therefore suggesting that he knew it was all bunk. But as you say these libel backdowns all vary.

Yes, I could see what you were getting at Robert but I honestly don't think that would be a fruitful avenue and easily misunderstood by some people on here. But fyi there is a reasonably detailed summary of Labouchere's libel actions in his obituary in the Times. I'm sure you will have no difficulty finding it. It shows that Labouchere was perfectly happy to defend himself in court if he felt he could win.

[David Orsam]

Thus it is hard to be absolutely certain whether Henry Labouchere’s allegations against Jarvis and Shore really were false, or whether they were true but that he was advised not to press the matter because of far greater political considerations.

Simon, you are piling nonsense upon nonsense. Jarvis' libel action against Labouchere was all about whether the inspector was in Del Norte in December 1888 doing something or other about Sheridan. It had nothing to do with Parnell other than that the alleged aim of Jarvis' visit was to obtain evidence for the Parnell Commission inquiry. Parnell would barely have been mentioned in any trial, if at all. Thus Parnell's difficulties in 1890 are wholly irrelevant. There were precisely no political implications for Labouchere in defending his action, had he gone on to do so. There were, however, political implications for Labouchere personally in having to write a grovelling apology because it exposed him to ridicule and made him look like a fool. But it was better than the alternative of total destruction in the witness box.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Duly noted.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Labouchere's letter

I doubt that everyone has read Labouchere's letter to the Times (which followed his grovelling apology in his own Journal, Truth) and came in response to a letter from 'OBSERVER' in the Times. This is the full text of this letter:

"Sir,

“An Observer” writes a long letter (undated) to you, that you publish in your issue of to-day, in which he criticizes my action in respect to Inspector Jarvis in terms somewhat uncomplimentary to him. I have failed, he says, to take the course which any man of honour or gentlemanly feeling would have done.

This is what happened. I heard that The Times was endeavouring to induce Sheridan to come forward as a witness before the Royal Commission. On this I telegraphed to some friends in America, who were Home Rulers, to find out what was doing (sic). On receipt of my telegram, they set out for Del Norte, in the vicinity of the place Sheridan was residing. At Kansas City they received information which led them to conclude that two persons connected with the police agency that was employed by The Times had been there, and that they had with them a third person, who from the description given, they thought was Inspector Jarvis. This third person, they were informed, had left by train for Del Norte. On this a detective, who had often met Jarvis in London, was sent to Del Norte. The detective on his return reported that he had seen in that city a person whom he recognised as Jarvis.

When Mr. Matthews and Mr. Monro denied that Jarvis had been employed to look up Sheridan, I did not regard this as proof that the inspector had not been at Del Norte, for I was aware that during a considerable number of years many details in regard to the action of our police in America were not communicated to either the Home Secretary or to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Jarvis brought an action against me for libel. I caused full inquiry to be made in America, and I came to the conclusion that it was probable my American friends had been misled, and that it was a case of mistaken identity. I might have stopped the action by pleading that there was no libel in what I had said, for the Government had employed policemen to aid The Times to look after witnesses in England and in Ireland (vide Report of Evidence taken before the Commission). But I thought that this would hardly be fair on Jarvis, all the more as I had invited him to prove in a Court of law that he had not been at Del Norte. My solicitors, therefore, put themselves into communication with his solicitors and I agreed to publish a retraction of my allegation, to pay his costs, and to give him £100.

My retraction was published in Truth, and it was copied in many newspapers (amongst them, if my memory does not play me false, in The Times). There was no reason, therefore, why I should repeat it in the House of Commons, and still less reason why I should apologise to Mr Smith and Mr Matthews for, as I have said, much was done in America by English agents which was not reported to the Home Secretary, and a fortiori, not to the First Lord of the Treasury.

Far, therefore, from agreeing with “An Observer” that I failed to take the course which any man of honour or of gentlemanly feeling would have adopted, I regard the course that I did take not only as honourable, but as generous. That the police did aid The Times in getting up its case is proved by admissions made before the Commission. The Government, consequently, obviously do not regard this as improper conduct. In the case of Sheridan I was misled into believing that Inspector Jarvis had done what other policemen did in the case of The Times’ witnesses in England and Ireland. At once I sent to his solicitors to inform them I had been mistaken, and voluntarily paid that officer a sum of money as a solatium for his trouble and annoyance, together with any legal costs that he had incurred, although if I had stood on a technical point of law, he not only would have got nothing, but he would have had to pay my own costs in addition to his own.

You will perhaps excuse me if I add that our complaint against The Times is that it did not pursue the same course when it acquired (as we think) ample proof that the Piggott letters were forgeries.

Your obedient servant

H. LABOUCHERE

5, Old Palace-yard, Dec 20

[David Orsam]

Having posted the letter in full, I do not see how it is possible to tease out of that anything other than a full acceptance that the factual allegations Labouchere had made against Inspector Jarvis were false. But I specifically draw attention to:

"In the case of Sheridan I was misled into believing that Inspector Jarvis had done what other policemen did in the case of The Times’ witnesses in England and Ireland. At once I sent to his solicitors to inform them I had been mistaken..."

It is as clear as day, as clear as a bell, as clear as the clear blue sky. Any other interpretation is delusional, to put it bluntly.