LIBEL ACTIONS

Evening Star, Issue 20988, 30 December 1931, Page 12

LIBEL ACTIONS

SOME FAMOUS GASES WHEN WHISTLER SUED RUSKiN Recently a woman who suod_ a weekly paper in Sydney for libel, claiming £<5,000 damages, was given a verdict of one farthing. A similar verdict was given a month previously m another case in Sydney, in which plaintiff claimed £2,500 damages. Verdicts for a farthing damages have been fairly frequent in British courts, says the Melbourne ‘ Age.’ One of the most notable cases on record is the action in which James M‘Neill Whistler, the famous artist, sued John Ruskin, the famous critic, in 1877. At the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery, in London, which was founded by Sir Coutts Lindsay, a well-known painter of that period, for the purpose of exhibiting works by artists who were not in favour at Burlington House, the home of the Royal Academy, a picture by Whistler, ‘ The Falling Rocket at Cremorne Gardens: A Nocturne in Black and Gold,’ was included, and was priced by the artist at 200 gs. At that time Ruskin, who was fifty-seven years of age, was at the height of bis £ame as an art critic and social reformer, and was regarded by many people as one of the greatest men of his generation. Whistler, who was forty-three years old, was then regarded by the old school of painters and art critics as a mountebank. He had collected round him an admiring band of young artists, who copied his eccentricities of dress, spoke of him as the “ Master,” and expressed worshipping awe of the grace and beauty of his pictures, and the wonderful ' arrangement of colours. The famous portrait of his .mother, which was bought for the Luxembourg Gallery in Paris, was exhibited by the artist as an arrangement of colours, for it bears the cold, resthetic title, ‘ Arrangement in Grey and Black.’

Ruskin was unable to _ appreciate Whistler’s art, and he joined the chorus of condemnation _ directed against it. In criticising the pictures exhibited at the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery (the “ greenery-yailery Grosvenor Gallery ” of W- S. Gilbert, in ‘Patience’) he wrote: ‘‘For Mr Whistler’s own sake, no less than for tho protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approaches the aspect of wilful impotence. I have seen and heard much of Cockney impudence before now, but never expected to bear a .'oxcomb ask 200 gs for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” .Posterity has scorned Rnskin’s condemnation of Whistler’s work, and enormous prices arc now paid for this artist’s paintings and etchings. One of the two pictures of Valparaiso Harbour Which 'Whistler’s friend, Sir Thomas Sutherland, was willing to purchase, but not at the price of £7OO, which Whistler asked, was sold several years ago for £12,000. The Cockney impudence which asked 200 gs for ‘ Tho Falling Rocket at Cremorne Gardens’ has been justified by posterity. This picture, if put up lor sale to-day, would bring more than twenty times that amount. WHISTLER AS WITNESS.

The verdict of one farthing damages awarded to Whistler in his case against Ruskin for the • latter’s condemnation of ‘ The Falling Rocket at Cremorne Gardens/ was naturally regarded by the public as a victory for the critic. Rut Whistler’s friends proclaimed it as a victory for the artist. It is doubtful whether Whistler expected a stolid British jury to award him a substantial amount of damages. One of his objects in bringing the action was to avail himself of the publicity the trial provided for expressing his views on art to a wide circle of newspaper readers, and expressing the opinion of the old school of critics, who for years had condemned his work. He made a very effective witness, despite his well-known eccentricities, and the Attorney-General, Sir John Holker, who appeared for Ruskin, failed to score off him. “How long did you take to knock off that nocturne?’’ asked Sir John Holker, alluding to ‘ The Falling Rocket.’ “ How long did I take to ‘knock off —I think that is it—to ‘ knock off ’ that nocturne?” repeated Whistler. “ As well as I can remember, about one day. 1 may have put in a few more touches to it the next day, if the paint was not dry, I had better say that 1 was two days at work over it.” “ The labour of two days, then, is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?” “ No, I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.” That was a reply which Sir John Holker ought to have been able to appreciate, for he was being briefed at lOOgs a day for his knowledge of the law, which it had taken him many years to accumulate. “Do you offer that picture to the public as one of particular beauty, fairly worth two hundred guineas?” ho asked. “ I offer it as a work that I have conscientiously executed, and that I think worth the money,” replied Whistler. “ Do you think that you could make mo see the beauty of that picture?” asked _ the Attorney-General. Whistler gazed at the picture, and then at the face of his cross-examiner; his eyes went back to the picture, and back to counsel. After a long silence he answered in a tone of judicial gravity, “I fear it would bo as hopeless as for a musician to pour Ids notes into the ear of a deaf man.” But the public supported Ruskin’s condemnation of Whistler’s work, and a subscription was raised to pay defendant’s costs in the action. No one paid Whistler’s costs. It was not to be expected that Whistler himself would pay tlienij for ho lived in an extravagant fashion, owing debts on all sides. When ho had money ho paid his debts, and when ho hadn’t they didn’t trouble him. A picture framer to _ whom he owed a largo bill called at his home at Chelsea in the endeavour to get payment. He gob no money, but ho was offered a glass of champagne. “ I am astonished, Mr Whistler,” ho said, “that you can afford champagne and yet bo unable to pay my bill.” “Don’t worry about that,” said Whistler, “the champagne isn’t paid for.” He sought refuge in bankruptcy from his debts, and for the costs in his libel action against Ruskin. White House, his home in Tito street, Chelsea, which the architect, E. W. Godwin, had built for him, had to bo vacated. Before his departure ho placed on the stone above the entrance the inscription, “ Except the Lord built the house, they labour in vain that build it.” (Psalms, 127, 1) “ Goodwin built this.” Five years later a much greater sensation was created in art circles in England by a libel action brought by Mr Richard Bolt, who was enjoying a successful career as a sculptor, against another sculptor, Mr Charles Lawes, afterwards Sir Charles Lawcs-Witte-wx-onge. In this action plaintiff was awarded £5,000 damages, which was

the largest amount that _ had been awarded in a libel action in the English courts up to that time. The trial lasted forty-three days, spread ov r a„ period of nearly six months. It wafL the longest civil trial that had cv6l> taken place in England, with the exS|; ception of the case of Tichborno versus,.. Lushington, which occupied 103 days;,; and ended with the jury stopping they, case, and the presiding judge commits ting the Tichborne claimant for trial oii,;. charges of perjury. The criminal trial,of the Tichborno claimant broke all re-' cords. The hearing lasted 188 days, spread over a period of nearly two vears, and the summing up of Chief Justice Cockburn, who presided, occupied twenty days. In the Belt versus Lawes case plaintiff called eight-two witnesses, an ’ defendant Gl. The t f imony of witnesses lasted 32J- days, and filled 1,517 pages of closely-written notes. Speeches by counsel occupied GJ days, and the judge’s summing up four days. Richard Belt was born in 1852, and at an r early age ho devoted himself to the study of sculpture, and became student at the Royal Academy in 1871. His first work was exhibited two years later. Ho met with rapid success in his career, and in addition to receiving numerous commissions for the execution of busts of eminent people, lie executed a number of public statues ami monuments. Some of the commissions for public statues were won by him in open competition. His numerous public works included the Izaac Walton Memorial, in Stafford Church, various busts of the Earl of Beaconsficld, a memorial of the Prince Imperial at Windsor Castle, and the Byron Statue in Hyde Park. ARTIST OR IMPOSTOR? In 1882 appeared an article in a weekly paper, * Vanity Fair,’ which declared that Richard Belt was incapable of producing any artistic work, and that all the sculptures which he claimed to have executed were the works of other men. The following is an extract from the article:—‘‘After leaving Mr Lawes’s studio in 1875 Mr Belt began to do business on b : s own account. Ho published as his own work a statuette of Dean Stanley, of- which a good deal has lately been heard. Ihis statuette, however, was worked up for him by Mr Brock, as Mr Brock himself declares. In like manner the memorial busts of Charles Kingsley, and of Canon Conway, which also pass as the work of Mr Belt, were in fact invested by Mr Brock—as Mr Brock himself declares—with whatever artistic merits they possess. Mr Brock equally with Mr Lawes declares that Mr Bolt was himself incapable of doing anything in the shape of artistic work.” The article went on to say that in 187 G MiBelt took a Belgian sculptor, Mr Verheyden, into partnership, and that Vcrheyden not only modelled the sketch which enabled Mr Belt to win f'O competition for the Byron statue in Hyde Park, but also entirely modelled the statue itself. All the work with which Mr Belt was credited between the years 1876 and 1881 was done by Brock and Verheydcn. “ We feel bound to say in the fact of the detailed statements made to us, the bare outlines of which we have set down, we find it difficult to believe,” contained ‘ Vanity Fair,’ “ that Mr Belt has any good claim to the authorship of tho works given to the public as his, or to. anj other title than that of purveyor of other men’s work, an editor of other men’s designs, a broker-of other men’s sculpture. If he declared himself to be this, there would be no harm in it. But the point is. that if our information is correct hd has systematically and . falsely claimed to be the author, of the works for which ho was only the broker; that ho presents himself as a sculptor and artist, when in reality ho is but a statue jobber and tradesman. “ If, then, the statements made to us are true Mr Belt has been guilty of a very scandalous imposture, and those who have admired and patronised him as a heaven-born genius are the victims of a monstrous deception. Why this deception, if it be one, should have been allowed so long to exist is a matter which does not concern us, though wo must say that it does very greatly concern those artists and others who were aware of it.” The article concluded by asking if it were true that Belt had been recently commissioned to execute another statue of Lord Beaccnsfield. Belt took no action against ‘ Vanity Fair ’ beyond going to the office of the paper and demanding- an apology—a demand which was met with a refusal and a suggestion that he should submit his career and his work to examination by competent judges. But when Charles Lawes sent a copy of the article to tho Lord Mayor of London with tho object of damaging Belt’s prospects in a competition for a piece of statuary ordered by the City Corporation, Belt instituted an action for libel against Lawes, who accepted responsibility for tho article. Defendant’s case relied to a large extent on tho evidence of Verheyden, who claimed to have executed in Belt’s studio a great deal of the work credited to Bolt. But Vcrheyden’s evidence was severely shaken _in crossexamination, and the judge in his sum-ming-up plainly indicated to tho jury that ho regarded Verhayden as an unscrupulous liar. A number of sculptors and painters, including the president of the Royal Academy and distinguished Royal Academicians, gave evidence in support of tho contention of the defence that Bolt had little, if any, artistic ability. But tho value of their evidence was discounted as the result of a bad blunder. Belt consented, in order that bis artistic ability might bo tested, to model in court, while the case was proceeding, the bust of a servant in bis employ from a terracotta bust wliich was among the exhibits in court. The sculptors and painters who gave evidence for tho defence disparaged tho artistic merits of the bust Belt bad done in court, and declared that it did not compare with the original bust. But Bolt was able to produce unshakable evidence that the original, which those sculptors and painters so much admired, was his work. The jury took only forty minutes to arrive at a verdict for plaintiff, with £5,000 damages. But though Belt won his case so handsomely it practically ended his career as a sculptor. The public disparagement of his artistic ability by so many well-known artists ruined him. No more commissions came bis way, and he retired into obscurity. Though lie lived for thirtynine more years, the public heard nothing more of his work.