isement,
attracted wide notice, and _Punch_ devoted in all considerable space to
the prosecution of this mistaken campaign. Unfortunately for Buckingham,
a member of the Institute, a Mr. George Jones--who had published a good
deal of dramatic nonsense under the title of "Tecumseh"--came to his
support with a ridiculous, inflated letter, which _Punch_ promptly
printed with the signature engraved in facsimile. Thereupon Jones,
finding the doubtful honour of publicity unexpectedly thrust upon him,
denounced the letter as a forgery; so _Punch_, had it lithographed and
circulated among the members, "just to show how good the forgery was."
Jones forthwith began an action for libel, which _Punch_ defended. The
genuineness of the document, however, was established, and Jones
withdrew from the action, paying all costs.

The sins of Jones were naturally added to Buckingham's account, and the
latter decided--as Leech once effectively threatened to do--to "draw"
and defend himself. He published a pamphlet entitled "The Slanders of
_Punch_" felicitously quoting as his motto from Proverbs xxvi. 18, "As a
mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that
deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?"--he appealed for
justice to the public, and especially to "the 200,000 readers of
_Punch_" denouncing the persecution, and making known the fact that
Jerrold had originally applied for membership of his Institute, but had
failed to take up his election, whereupon his name was erased from the
books. Ten thousand handbills were circulated, and six thousand copies
of the threepenny pamphlet, in various editions, were sold. _Punch's_
answer was a whole page of savage, biting satire from Jerrold (p. 241,
Vol. IX.), which, however, was too bombastic and "ultrafluvial" to be
wholly effective. Thackeray's page article on "John Jones's Remonstrance
about the Buckingham Business" (p. 261) was far more to the
point--amusing, politic, and shrewd--and drew the quarrel within its
proper limits, by imparting to it a more jocular tone. Addressing the
paper, he says, "At page 241 you are absolutely serious. That page of
_Punch_ is a take-in. _Punch_ ought never to be virtuously indignant or
absolutely serious;" and with these words, re-affirming the maxim which
_Punch_ had forgotten in his heat, he restored peace, patched up the
paper's reputation for good-humour, and with a skilful word covered its
retreat.

But _Punch_ fou