This article is interesting in that it not only sheds some light on the origin of this song, and some related songs, but it illustrates how copyright law was enforced at the time. I had been under the impression that copyright, before the 20th century, was largely unenforced and unenforceable, but that apparently was not the case.

From The Bookseller, No. 89, (London: Publishers' Association, Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland, May 31, 1865), page 290:

Curious Copyright Case.—D'Alcorn versus Sheard.—The following curious case, illustrative of the history of a song and its commercial value, was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, on the 27th instant. As any abridgement would spoil some of the points, we give the report in extenso.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged infringement of copyright in the popular song known as "Jolly Dogs" or "Slap-bang."

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., said the plaintiff was a music publisher in Rathbone-place, and the defendant carried on a similar business in Holborn. In October, 1864, the plaintiff bought the copyright of the song in question of Mr. Harry Copeland, who had written it; and at great expense the plaintiff brought the song fully under the notice of the public; the "Great Vance" was induced to sing it, and it was now a most popular song. The full name of the song was, "Jolly dogs; we're all jolly dogs; such jolly dogs are we; or, slap bang, here we are again!" and in February, 1865, the defendant published a polka called "The Slap bang, here we are again Polka;" and in the course of the dance the dancers were to sing "Slap bang, here we are again; what jolly folks are we." The plaintiff did not claim any copyright in the music of his song; but the infringement he complained of was the use of words so similar to those of his song.

Mr. D'Alcorn, the plaintiff, said that he had spent upwards of £100 in bringing his song before the public. The selling price was 1s. 3d. a copy, the cost being about 1½ d. The defendant published his polka at 6d. The sale of witness's song rose from 200 a week in October to 600 in February, and afterwards rapidly sank until it got down to 100 in May. He had himself sold permission to a person to publish a "Slap bang" polka for £10 10s., and had refused the offer of £21 for permission to publish a set of quadrilles with the same title. He thought his copyright was now worth £300, and that it would have been worth £300 or £400 more had it not been injured by the defendant's publication.

Mr. Harry Copeland said that he composed the words of the plaintiff's song. It had attained great popularity—a fact which did not say much for the taste of the British public, for though he had written 100 songs this was the worst of them all (laughter.)

Mr. Hawkins.—If the public had song your best, then, it must have driven them mad with ecstasy (renewed laughter). What is your best?

Witness.—I think the one founded upon Mr. Sala's story of "Twice Round the Clock."

Mr. Hawkins.—What do you call it?

Witness.—I call it "London."

Mr. Hawkins (to his junior).—Make a note of that (loud laughter).

Cross-examined.—He frequently heard the air played in the streets, much to his annoyance.

Mr. James.—Annoyance! Why, I should have thought it was immortality.

Witness continued.—He first sung it in Dublin in 1864; but the medical students kicked up such a row, and broke so many glasses, that he was not allowed to continue singing it (laughter). He afterwards sang it at Brighton, where it was a "hit." He sold the copyright to the plaintiff for a guinea, and thought himself remarkably well paid (laughter); but he should add that plaintiff had given him several pounds since in consequence of the great popularity and sale of the song.

Mr. Penniket, Mr. Vance, comic singer; Mr. W. West, "a delineator of negro character and stump orator;" Mr. Barnard Isaacson, musical director; and Mr. Wm. B. Wright, comedian, were examined upon the question of copyright in the song, and also in reference to its popularity, and the damage done by the defendant's publication.

In cross-examination it appeared that the music was almost identical with that of an obscene song called "The Bungalow."

Questions were also asked with the view of showing that words similar to the refrain of the plaintiffs song had sometimes been used when singing the "Bungalow," in a song called "Slap Bang, or the Adventures of Solomon Slip stitch," and in the song in the pantomime of Hey Diddle Diddle, performed at the Surrey Theatre.

Most of the witnesses denied knowledge of the circumstances suggested by the questions, as distinguishing the plaintiff's song from the other compositions.

Mr. H. James addressed the jury for the defendant, contending that there was no copyright in the chorus of the plaintiff's song, inasmuch as the words had been used in a song written long before that of the plaintiff. Even if there were copyright, he contended that the defendant's polka did not amount to an infringement.

Mr. Henry James Whymark, a composer of songs, said that in 1858 he wrote a song, called "Slap-bang, or the Adventures of Solomon Slipstitch." In the song there were the words, "Here we are again, love, here we are again, what jolly folks are we." He sung this song at all the concert rooms in London; and he sold to a person named Roberts the right to sing it for 3s., and he gave another person named Walker permission to sing it.

Cross-examined.—The words of the song which he had just mentioned did not occur in the chorus.

Mr. Walter Thomas, the proprietor of a concert room at Liverpool, said that he had received the song "Bungalow" from a captain who brought it from America. He sung it and it became very popular in Liverpool; and he substituted the words "Slap-bang, here we are again," for an objectionable chorus. Afterwards the song was generally known by the name of "Slap-bang."

Other evidence was given to the effect that the "Bungalow" had been sung in America by Mat. Peel's troupe, with the chorus "Here we are again, here we are again, all on a summer's day," and that at Christmas, 1861, in the pantomime at the Surrey Theatre, the song was introduced with a chorus similar to the plaintiff's.

Verdict for the defendant.