1809.] 
Number 798. <A_ perspective view of 
one of a series of designs, for the im- 
provement of Westminster, now before 
the honourable the commissioners for the 
said purpose, being a design for a wie 
umphal arch, &c. at the eyd of Great 
George-street, in the situation of the 
present Storey’s gate. It would not 
perhaps be easy to write a more iromcal 
account of this design, than the fellow- 
ing, which has been sent to us fer serious 
insertion.” Then follows, between in- 
verted commas, as-a quotation, a long 
panegyric on this performance of mine, 
and at the conclusion the following apos- 
trophe froni the ‘liberal and impartial” 
reviewer.——“ Bravo, now let St. Paul’s 
Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey, hide 
their diminished heads.—The truth is, 
that this design is neither an elevation, 
hor a perspective.view, but a coufused 
and incoherent jumble of both, calcu- 
lated only to impose on the ignorant ;” 
ard soon, 1n a strain completely in oppo- 
sition to the pretendedly-quoted critique, 
finishing with, ‘Oa the whole this is a 
poor performance, very unfit, in our ¢sti- 
mation, to be now before the honour- 
able commissioners for improving West- 
minster, or before the cane? 
Whio does not conclude from the prelude 
to the favorable critique, that I wrote it; 
sent if to this ‘liberal and impartial” 
review for insertion; but the conductor 
of the department of ee painting, sculp- 
ture, and the fine arts!” was too honest 
to accept ready-made critiques by au- 
thors on their own works, without ex- 
posing such ma]-practices to the deserved 
indignation of his readers? Such f con- 
fess was the only impression the para- 
graph made on me; but I shuddered at the 
falsehood, and could not at first conceive 
whom I could have so mortally offended, 
as to draw down upon myself such un- 
lawful weapons, such poisoned arrows, 
Whom couldI have so violently enraged, 
as to turn a professed “ liberal and im- 
partial” critic into a Mohock, to enable 
himself to be a match for me? In plain 
hard truth, no one, Sir. 
laid my hand seriously on my heart, and 
could not call up the remembrance of a 
person that I was at enmity with, or that 
leven suspected could be so with me. A 
similar-conclusion was drawn from these 
false’ iusinuations, by ali that I have 
known to rcad them. I have heen taxed 
with the meanness of such conduct, and 
by some was told I was rightly served, 
But 1 am happy in stating that, upon 
Insinuations of a Revie 
I reflected, and _ 
& Bren i 2 
wer of the Fine Aris; 251 
simply denying the fact, 1 was instantly! 
believed, as I trust Lalways shall be, till 
I am convicted of a falsehood. 
My suspicions, however, from my 
knowledge ef past facts of ** liberal and 
impartial reviews ef works of art,” im- 
mediately fixed themselves upon a resi= 
less self-tormented engraver, whom the 
public have long known.and discouraged, 
as an envious calumniator of rival merit 3 
who commenced and failed in a ‘ quar- 
terly review of works of art;” after- 
wards contributed to a lady-like produc- 
tion of Mr. Ackerman’s; and is at pre- 
sent the John Dennis in art of this 
“ liberal and impartial review of painting, 
sculpture, and the fine arts.” I think 
the author of this new plastic classifica- 
tion deserves as much honour for his 
hew arrangement, as Linnzus ever re- 
ceived for his excellent system of botany. 
T enquired, and was informed, of the 
fact answering my suspicions. Still IT 
could not account for his attacking me, 
being unknown_to bim; i had never seen 
him, heard him, corresponded with hin, 
or ever in my life come in contact with | 
him; whom: | purgosely shunned for his 
unanuable qualities. 1 therefore directed 
a letter to his private residence, not for 
his acknowledgement of the fact, being 
thoroughly convinced of lis being the 
author, and altogether the inventor of 
the tale (for such it really is), but to pro 
cure justice for myself. My letter com- 
menced with a recital of my suspicions, 
and subsequent conviction, requiring his 
answers to the following questions, as 1 
wished only to satisfy my friends, and: 
not to ohtrude myseli- before the public, 
First, —whether he did not know it at pre- 
sent, as well as at the time of his writing 
the article, that his assertion of its being 
sent him for insertion was false, and thaé 
it neither came from me, or with my know= 
ledge, or wish? Next, whether he did on 
did not mean to justify me in his next Num= 
ber? Also, was it not writien by himself, 
by his desire, or. by one of those who 
wrote, for him. My reason for this 
last question arose from a knowledge 
that two gentiemen were employed’ 
by him, to go round the rooms of the 
Royal Academy, and mark catalogues 
with their opinions, as he was fearful of 
being seen engaged in the task himself ; 
and [ had reason to think that 1t was to 
the fair opinion of one of those, that he 
twisted and applied the story ofits being 
sent him, for the puypose of calumniating 
me. One of these gentlemen, I farther. 
infurmed 
{ 
i) 
