AustLit logo

AustLit

The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.

Works By

Preview all
1 To Onlooker 'Quid Pro Quo' , 1827 single work correspondence
— Appears in: The Australian , 27 January no. 165 1827; (p. 2)
'"Quid pro quo" desires to inform ''Onlooker" that [in] his attempt to identify him with "Spectator", he betrays a palpable error that commits either his judgment or his candour. "Quid Pro Quo" distinctly disclaims not only such identity, but all knowledge of "Spectator", the truth of which the Editor of The Australian can probably certify.'
1 To 'Spectator,' - (Impromptu.) : 'Two Dozen' i "Your verses, most fastidious 'Spectator,'", 'Quid Pro Quo' , 1827 single work poetry
— Appears in: The Australian , 17 January no. 162 1827; (p. 4)
'Reply to ['Lines Written on Reading Those Luminous Poems Designated Aurora Australis!'].' (Webby)
1 'Three Dozen', or, 'A Pipe for a Tobacconist' i "I first adventure, follow me who list,", 'Quid Pro Quo' , 1827 single work poetry satire
— Appears in: The Gleaner , 30 June 1827; (p. 4) The Gleaner , 22 September 1827; (p. 2-3)

A satirical attack on Sydney merchant Horton James (the 'tobacconist'), who had outraged Laurence Hynes Halloran by comments made in a letter published in the Australian on 3 February, 1827, which supposedly defamed Halloran's daughter. James subsequently sued Robert Howe, editor of the Sydney Gazette, for publishing Halloran's intemperate letter of reply, and this poem was presumably written by Halloran in response to the outcome of the trial. Notably, the poem itself became the subject of a second libel action brought by James, this time against Halloran, as editor and publisher of the Gleaner.

X