5003. RB to George Goodin Moulton-Barrett
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 30, 13–14.
1 Chichester Road, Upper Wtbourne Terrace.
Jan 2. ’62.
My dear George,
Thank you heartily for your letter—which I take the first minute’s liberty to answer, so busy is the time with me. The sequel to the Boddington affair is characteristic. You will remember I was hurt (& much hurt) at the impertinence & want of feeling to me under the circumstances in which, for the first time after fourteen years’ acquaintance, I was forced to have to do with them. Had they simply & politely said that the legal formality was imperative, you may judge whether I should have objected the least in the world: but after writing for our leave (not the Trustee’s) to sell the shares, [1] —acting forthwith upon that leave & the bare assurance that Arnould would not refuse leave,—it seemed too bad to begin professing scruples when the money had to be accounted for, in face of a document which no sane man could doubt the authenticity of, and which was all they had required (for they never said a word about sending the Bill of Sale for signature till the last moment)—and the delay (of six weeks) in even signifying that they did doubt its authenticity (& then only in reply to a pressing demand of mine)—& more than all, the studied impertinence of their letter—gave me a very decided feeling about those gentlemen. When your opinion concerning the right of Chorley to receive the dividends without his co-trustee’s help—reached me, I saw my advantage. I instantly wrote to B.s that I had “taken legal advice on that point”—& with what result, adding that I directed them to pay Chorley the money forthwith or be prepared for the consequences—using the curtest and least palatable expressions in my power, precisely in order to get them to remonstrate with me for such discourtesy & so enable me to reply “You talk of discourtesy, you who & & &c”—& in short, tell them my whole mind on the matter. No such chance! Here is the answer to a kick, from those who kicked me in return for a bow! “Sir—we have recd yr note of yesterday & are much surprised at the tone of its contents, particularly as we have had a great deal of trouble with the “D.L”. Not wishing to put the Estate to the expense of consulting our lawyers, as to the disposal of the proceeds, we have not done so. We shall therefore pay the dividend from the last voyage when settled, for security’s sake to Mr Chorley as a Trustee, who will no doubt hand it over to you. The shares shall be transferred to the purchaser on receipt of the Bill of Sale from Sir J.A & the proceeds sent to Mr Chorley. We are Sir &c &c”– So, they knock under! I think it will not be worth-while to carry on the warfare a point further with such people: but when they do pay the principal I shall consider whether your notion of interest may not be urged with advantage. (You see, they say they have not yet transferred the Shares—a Boddingtonianism, no doubt.) Mark, I never asked them to pay me from first to last—& in the note used such an ambiguity in the language as might lead them into the belief that Chorley would act in the matter: they would have laughed at me except as behind him: and your “legal advice,” no doubt seemed fresh from some sharp attorney both of us had just fled! Such terrors are in a Boddingtonian conscience!
All best wishes to you, from Pen &
Yours affectionately ever
Robert Browning.
Address: George Moulton Barrett Esq. / Warnicombe House / nr Tiverton / Devon.
Publication: B-GB, pp. 280–282.
Manuscript: Pierpont Morgan Library.
1. In the David Lyon.
___________________
