Victoria Woodhull versus The British Museum.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 95, 21 April 1894, Page 1 (Supplement)

Victoria Woodhull versus The British Museum.

Extraordinary Libel Suit.

(From Our London Correspondent.)

London, March 2. Twenty years ago Victoria Woodhull was a name familiar to the ears of Americans as a household word. She was the leader o* bhe woman's rights movement, a popular lecturer and the promulgator of strong views anent sexual matters. Her courageous voice first gave publicity to the scandal ab that time whispered everywhere concerning Henry Ward Beecher and Mrs Tilton. Ib cost her dear. Beecher'e supporters fell upon Mrs Woodhull's reputation, and tore ib to shreds. She waa accused of living with Theodore Tilton in concubinage, of promulgating the most infamous views on sexual quesbions, of being ' bhe queen of immoral women.' In 1883 Mr Biddulph Martin, a wealthy English banker, who had long followed Mrs Woodhull's unselfish and cruelly misunderstood career with admiration, ollered. her marriage, and the sanctuary of peace and privacy in England. She gratefully accepted him. and for eleven years has disappeared from bhe platform and from public life. For her husband's sake, Mrs Biddulph Marbin has long been anxious that the libels circulated concerning herself (bub more especially concerning her alleged views) in America during the heat of the Beecher Tilton esclandre, should be effectively and finally publicly disposed of. The difficulty waa to find a mode. Eventually, a lawyer, shrewder than the rest, suggested that the British Museum, in issuing to its readers a work called « The Beecher - Tilton Scandal,' in which Mrs Woodbull was fictitiously represented as admitting she had lived tor three months with Mr Tilton, had slandered and was slandering her. Accordingly an action for libel was brought, Sir Richard Webster leading for the plaintiff, and Sir Charles Russell for the Museum authorities. The defence was that bhe books were placed in the Museum Library under ttatubory powers, and bhab bhe authorities were nob aware they contained scandalous matter. Mrs Marbin ia a woman of some 50 years with a kindly maternal countenance, and hair slightly tinged with grey. She was wearing a cloak of dull claret tinb, and a low bonnet made of bhe same material, each being trimmed with equirrel fur. Naturally the courb was crowded. The lady quietly entered the witness-box to be further cross-examined by the AttorneyGeneral, who had been briefed by the British Mu-eum.

• Were not you,' asked Sir Charles Russell, with a preliminary bap ab his golden snuff-box, ' the firßb person who gave publio voice in the columns of the press to the charge against Henry Ward Beecher ?' 11 don't think that is so,' answered the lady. She desired to make an explanation, but was requested to confine herseli to answering questions. ' Didn't you publish a letter in the "New York World " on May 22, I*B7l, thab you knew of one public-man, a teacher of eminence, who lived in concubinage with the wife of another teacher of almost equal eminence, and that all three concurred in ib?— < Yea, something to thab effect.' •In a book of your life you say the knowledge about the Beecher-Tilton scandal was known in every newspaper office, bub nob a hint was given of the allegations against Mr Beecher, but from the day ib was known you were in possession of the facts you became the target of vituperative abuse ?'—' Thab is quite true.', • May I say, then,'continued Sir Charles, ' that you gave the first substantial indicotnenb in an article on September 2, 1872 ?' • Oh,' said Mrs Martin, 'it was public talk in all tho circles throughout the newspaper world. I did not publish the article in pique, but thero were very serious conditions which led up to the publication.' 'Now; didn't you,' said the AbtorneyGenoral, fixing his eyes firmly on the lady, •ask Mr Beecher to give you an interview and to preside ab one of your meetings at Stein way Hall ?' • I did not,' came clearly and firmly.

' Now the published interview purports that you said you had a talk with Henry Ward Beecher about his relations with Mia Tilton, and Mr Beecher said, "I am a moral coward on this subject. It" I appeared on.your platform I would be a living He." Then "you are credited with saying he got on the sofa, and, with tears in his eyes, placed his hands on your face and begged you to let him oi£ Now is that statement untrue ?' Mrs Martin hositated. ' There is a great deal which led up to it,' ehe tried to ramble away. ' But is it true ?' presisted Baron Pollock, gazing at the witness through a round pair of spectacles rimmed with black horn. 'Oh,' said Mrs Martin with some impatience, ' all this is not only unjust to history, but it is unjust to me.' Sir Charles Russell smiled ; the lady'B observations were irrelevant. • 1 think what you are asking me is irrelevant,,' said Mrs Martin. ' But you complain thab the British Museum —' Sir Richard Webster, charged with the case of Mrs Martin, hotly interrupted, • We complain of the allegation that this lady was guilty of the grossest immorality, and that she waa the queen of immoral women.' The little flare-up then subsided. Then came a little re-examination by Sir Richard Webster. When she was away on a lecturing tour in America opinions were put in the ' Woodho.ll and Claflin Weekly Journal' with which she entirely disagreed. She found it was used by sex maniacs and she stopped the paper. ' She had never approved of the filthy paragraphs alleged to represent her opinions. 'Something waa said yesterday,' remarked Sir Richard, 'about your onc6 going on the stage. Tell the court aboub it.'

Mrs Martin's eyes filled with tears, and her lips quivered. She glanced ab her husband, Mr Martin, who also was affected.

' Just tell us,' .insinuated the learned Queen's counsel.

Mrs Martin plucked up courage. .'My firsb husband, Mr Woodhull, took me and my imbecile child out to California, and was unable to buy our tickets back. I went to a theatrical manager, and asked if he would allow me to earn enough money to brine us homo. He did, nnd that was the only time I was on the Bbage.'

1 Something has been said that the birthof your first child led you to adopb your presnnb views ?' • Yes,' said Mrs Martin emphatically, • my first desire on entering public life was to search out the cause of so much misery on the earth. I was married when only fourteen years of age. My husband was a physician, a very clever man, but addicted to drink. Fifteen months after my marriage I gave birth to an imbecile child. My heart was broken. I sought out an explanation and my husband helped me.' ' You name to the conclusion it was due bo your husband's habits?' questioned counsel.

'He positively aided me to it. Ib was that which led me to undertake to plead on every platform on the face of the earth that women should awaken to their responsibility, in becoming mothers, and never benr any child that could be an imbecile or a criminnl.'

Mr Biddnlph . Martin—tall, conrfreoue, and iron.grey haired - banker,- of I.otnb«n[. street, paid he married Mrs Woodhull In October, 1883, He bad followed her career

for some years before she came to England. The views alleged in the pamphlets to be thoae of his wife were direotly contrary to i those she held.

Then the Attorney-General in a facetious and light-hearted manner, addressed the jury. He ridiculed the position into which the plaintiffs endeavoured to place the British Museum. Instead of the objection* able pamphlets having been 'widely circulated ' during the fifteen years they had been in the library, they were only Been by three persons. Every publisher was obliged bo send every paper and book-^to the Museum, and the Museum was obliged to accept them, and he argued that) any book which had historical, physiological, social and scientific interest ought to be accessible at bhe Museum, even if they did contain statement* which might be deemed to be libellous. This action was no* brought to obtain damages, but rather to allow Mrs Marbin to go into the box, and, unchallenged, give a denial to views said to be entertained by her. How was ib poseible for the British Museum authorities to know what was in every book which came their way ? Why last year the aggregation was 315,006 publications. For these fco be critically examined would occupy 173,356 hours, or 110 readers engaged each day ecrutinising the volumes. But they would have to be legal experts, and the AttorneyGeneral held up his bands in horror at the prospect of 110 legal experts turned loose in the British Museum trying to find the libellous needle in the literary bundle of hay. i .

Verdict, 20s damages.