THACKERAY VERSUS YATES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 661, 9 March 1859, Page 5

THACKERAY VERSUS YATES.

. A case; which promises to be of- considerable interest in literary and club circles^and which will raise an important and novel pointy is to be tried by one of1 the common law; courts, at Westminster, probably during the sittingsat Nisi Prius^after the thfr present- term.' It arises: out of the dispute between Mr. Thackeray aiid Mr." Edmund Yates, both members of the Garriek Club; which arose under the1-, following; circumstances : — Under the title of " Literary Talk;" Mr. Yates < published an article having for its subject Mr. W. M. Thackeray, aud.thus described "his appearance"—''Mr. Thackeray is forty-six years, old,'though from the silvery whiteness of his hair- he appears somewh it older. He is very tall, standing upwards of six feet two inches, and, as he walks erect, his height makes him conspicuous in every assembly. His face is bloodless, and not particularly expressive, but re-markable-for the fracture of the bridge of his nose,; the result of an accident in youth. He wears asmall grey whisker, bnt otherwise is clean shaven. No one meeting him would fail to recognise a gentleman. His bearing is cold and uninviting;, his style of conversation either openly cynical or affectedly good-natured and benevolent; his bonhommie is forced, his; wit biting, his pride easily touched, but his appearance is invariably that of a cool, suave,, well-bred gentleman, who; whatever may be rankling within,; suffers no' surface display of his emotion." Mr. Yates. then proceeds to comment on Mr. Thackeray's genius:—"lt was with the third and fourth' numbers of ' Vanity Fair' that he began to dawn upon a reading public as a great genius."— Theny "His success culminated with 'Lectures on English Humourists of the Eighteenth Century,' wliich were attended by all the court and fashion of London. The prices were extravagant; the lecturer's adulation of birth and position was extravagant." The publication of the article in question having been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Thackeray, he wrote to Mr. Yates, with whom he had been on speaking terms as members of the same club,- in which1 he described the article to be " not offensive or unfriendly merel3% but slanderous and untrue." Mr. Thackoray concluded with the'following admonition :—I beg, as' I have a right to do, that you wi'l, refrain from printing comments upon mv private conversation, that you will forego discussion, however blundering, on my private affairs, and that you will henceforth please to consider any question of "my personal truth and sincerity as quite out of the province of: your criticism." Mr. Yates immediately rejoined by a letter, in which he rejected Mr. Thackeray's■: •• angry understanding" of his phrasesj adding, "If your letters were; not slanderous and unlrue,. I should, readily have discussed the subject with you, arid avowed my earnest and frank desire to set right anything I may; have left1 wrong." Mr. Thackeray then submitted the correspondence which had; passed between Mr.- Yates and himself, together with the copy of-the article to which he had taken exception, to the committee of the Garrick Club. " I think," wrote Mr. Thackeray, "I may fairly appealto tlie committee of the; Garrick Club to decide whether the complaints I have against Mr. Yates are not well founded, and whether the practice of publishing such articles as that which I enclose will not be fatal to the comfort of the club, and is not intolerable in a society of gentlemen." Mr. Yates having heard that Mr. Thackeray had adopted this course, wrote to ask the committee to suspend their judgment until he could Consult his friends and prepare his own version of the case to lay before them. This was oh the 19th June; but, on the 23rd, Mr. Yates wrote to the committee, questioning their right to entertain the matter at all. "The article," he said, " may be in exceedingly bad taste, but the committee is not a committee of taste." The committee held a special meeting on the 26th, and came to a decision expressed in certain resolutions. They resolved that it was competent to them to entertain Mr. Thackeray's complaint, that the complaint itself was well grounded, and that the practice of publishing such articles, being reflections by one member of the club against any other, would be fatal to the comfort of tlie club, and intolerable in a society of gentlemen. The committee further resolved that Mr. Yates was bound to make an " ample apology," or retire from the club. Mr. Yates declined either to retire or to apologise, and stated lie would appeal to a general meeting on two questions— first " Whether the case between Mr. Thackeray and himself was such a case as should be submitted to the committee at all;" and secondly, " Whether Mr. Thackeray has.any right to call for an apology from me when he lias so- very arrogantly and coarsely addressed me." The result was, that Mr. Yafes' subscription was returned, and it was intimated to him that he was expelled the club. He has therefore instituted an action against the committee for trespass, iii refusing to allow him to enter tlie club, and this will raise the important question as affecting the rights of members generally, whether the club has the right to expel Mr. Yates or not. It is understood that there will be a large array of legal talent on both sides, and the trial, both from the nature of the issue and the position of the parties, will possess great interest. • The Attorney-General has been retained for the committee of the Garrick Club. Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., is to lead the case on behalf (if the plaintiff, Mr. Edmund Yates.