MR. LANDSEER, MR. ROBINSON, AND THE SPECTATOR.
ON the subject of our remarks on the singular pamphlet to which we last week adverted, we have received the following letter from Mr. LANDSEER senior.
"Southampton Street, 24th August.
"SIR,—You are under a mistake which I must beg of you to correct with regard to my having published the narrative concerning the adulterous inter- course between Mrs. T. L. and Mr. R. Its publication is quite contrary to my wishes, and I suppose must be the result of some scandal-hunter's invo- cation of a printer's devil—notwithstanding that I endeavoured to guard against the possibility of such an occurrence. The little pamphlet was printed for the use of the parties principally concerned, and in the hope of inducing them to submit to private arbitration, rather than appeal to a court of law. And as this purpose has been frustrated by the newspaper pruriency, it ought at least to exonerate me from the supposition of having published the narrative. I have only parted with three copies, which are in the hands of the parties chiefly implicated ; all of whom are of course too much mortified by its pub- lication to have been themselves the authors of it.
"I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. LANDSEER."
The following is an extract of a letter from Mr. RomNsorr, addressed to the editor of the journal in which the contents of the pamphlet first appeared. Mr. ROBINSON expresses a wish that the letter may be considered as addressed to us also, and we are content that it should.
" The Spectator of Sunday last has made most unfair extracts from any letters, giving such only as could tend to my prejudice, and none in my favour. No comments from editorial pens, however severe, shall induce me to offer any justification of myself to the injury of Mrs. Landseer ; but I must draw the attention of the public (who, by-the-by, ought never to have known any- thing of the matter) to a few extracts in refutation of its ever having been my Intention to abandon Mrs. T. L , and to selfishly screen myself. My fret and only consideration, from the moment this unhappy affair became dis.. closed, was how to protect the reputation of the lady ; but when I found that four or five, or more, of my letters had been intercepted and were in the pos- session of Mr. Landseer, sen., all hope was at an end, denial useless, and perfectly out of the question as to being of any avail ; therefore, upon coil_ sultation with my friends, I had no alternative but to meet the result with the spirit and conduct of a gentleman. From the hour the writ for erim. con. was issued against me by Mr. Hugh Evans, of Gray's-inn, Mr-Landseer, see. had hut one object, that of negociating to effect a compromise for a pecuniary consideration ; but, being aware that my defence to the action would enable me to reduce the damages to a shilling, I naturally declined making myself responsible for any considerable annual payment, or giving those securities Mr. L. so urgently pressed my doing in all his letters. I will now just extract a few lines from different letters, to convince the public that I did not (and still do not) wish to avail myself of my power, nor to abandon the lady to the mercy of relatives for support. On referring to the letters, you willyead tint I offered , ' to give her elevenpenee out of. every,shilling I might liave';--' To devote every boor of my ,life to her futtne eOmfort an lipppin4g To have sacrificed everything, rather than forsake all will I give up
sooner than 'desert het'—To have exceeded not only the bounds of pro-. dence but of.consistency,' fk,c Izze.
"I need not make 'further extracts to refute any imputation as to my want of hondura.hle principle and disposition towards Mrs. T. L. Latterly I wrote to Mr. Landseer, sen., that I would take charge of the child, bring it up with ray own, and give his son a bond of indemnity against all liability for its sup- port ; and this lam even now willing to do."
To Mr. LANDSEER our answer is, that when we said he had pub- lished the letters in question, we were not aware whether a small or a large number of copies had been distributed. All we knew was, that the pamphlet was in circulation. In what manner the journal that gave to it the publicity of its columns got possession Of it, we are not called on to explain. We quoted nothing that had not previously ap- peared, nor did we make one extract that could by any possibility ad- minister to the pruriency of the public. We gave the names, it is true,—not for the purpose of bestowing greater notoriety on error and misfortune, but because we have a strong dislike to that Affectation of concealment which renders a tale obscure to those only WhOhave no knowledge of the parties and take no interest in them.
Mr. RooiNsoN has wholly mistaken our object in noticing the let- ters in question. We did so because -of, the very singular view of human nature they exhibited. Had the -case been one of Ordinary scandal, we should not have deemed it worthy of our comment. Nei- ther was it our purpose very nicely to 'balance the guilt and imprudence of the parties. We did not pretend to act as umpires between them, but as chroniclers for the public ; and we took from Mr. ROBINSON'S correspondence, not unfairly, but considerately, those portions which bestowed individuality on his case. We have read over the whole of the letters that appeared in the pamphlet, and we confess we cannot find in them any of those indications of a desire to protect the tainted reputation of the lady which Mr. ROBINSON alludes to.; And Mr. ROBINSON must permit us to add, that we do not look onhis offer to give to the partner of his guilt elevenpence out of every shilling he had—if it were anything More than a figure of speech-with the same approving eyes that he seems to do. He appears to have forgot, when he made it, that there was a virtuous female and a legitimate off- spring who had claims on his fortune at least as strong as those of Mrs. T. LANDSEER and her son. We are ready to admit that his last letter contains a more intelligible and more correct proposal; and had it been published with the rest, we should have given it a place last week.
We now quit this tale of domestic irregularity and suffering. It has been a subject for a few days of wonder and laughter to the idle, and of melancholy reflection over the weaknesses of poor human nature to the grave. To us it came in the light of a psychological curiosity ; and we have looked to it only as such, without levity, and without anger.
Previous page
