[* _New Witness_, Vol. I, p. 655.]

I am so swift to seize affronts,
My spirit is so high,
Whoever has insulted me
Some foreigner must die.

I brought a libel action,
For the Times had called me "thief,"
Against a paper in Bordeaux,
A paper called _Le Juif_.

_The Nation_ called me "cannibal"
I could not let it pass--
I got a retractation
From a journal in Alsace.

And when _The Morning Post_ raked up
Some murders I'd devised,
A Polish organ of finance
At once apologised.

I know the charges varied much;
At times, I am afraid
_The Frankfurt Frank_ withdrew a charge
The _Outlook_ had not made.

And what the true injustice
Of the _Standard's_ words had been,
Was not correctly altered
In the _Young Turk's Magazine_.

I know it sounds confusing--
But as Mr. Lammle said,
The anger of a gentleman
Is boiling in my head.

The hearing of the case against _Le Matin_ came on March 19. As that
paper had withdrawn and apologised only three days after printing the
story, there was no actual necessity for statements by Rufus Isaacs
and Samuel. But they had decided to answer Maxse's question, to admit
the dealings in American Marconis which they had not mentioned to the
House of Commons: or rather to get their lawyer to tell the story and
then answer his questions on the matter in a Court case where there
could be no cross-examination because the Defendants were not
contesting the case. Sir Edward Carson mentioned the American
purchase at the end of a long speech and almost as an afterthought--
"really the matter is so removed from the charges made in the libel
that I only go into it at all . . . because of the position of the
Attorney-General and because he wishes in the fullest way to state
this deal, so that it may not be said that he keeps anything
whatsoever back." As _The Times_ remarked (9 June, 1913): "The fact
was stated casually, as though it had been a matter at once trifling
and irrelevant. Only persons of the most scrupulous honour, who
desired that nothing whatsoever should remain hid would, it was
suggested, have thought necessary to mention it at all."

The statement was not really as full as Carson's phrasing would seem
to suggest. The court was told that Rufus Isaacs had bought 10,000
shares--but not from whom he had bought them: that he had paid market
price, but not what the price was, nor that the shares wer