informed him, (the only one whose name 
I had then learnt) as a man of veracity, 
and -therefore incapable of being the 
author of this falsehood, [ never doubted; 
yet to be certain, I put the question to 
him, and received, as I expected, an 
answer in the negative, a condemnation 
ef such an insinuation, and an explana- 
tion of-the passages which he had written 
for that review. ‘To prevent misunder- 
standing, or misrepresentation, I farther 
mentioned the name of the person al- 
luded to. I also threatened him, in the 
case of justice being refused me, to 
take proper measures to justify myself, 
acquainting him with my knowledge of 
the whole of his critical life and labours, 
which he vainly and studiously endea- 
vours to keep secret. FT asked him (not 
from mere suspicion) if he had never 
written criticisms on lis awn works, and 
requested anonymously their insertion : 
for I continued, “I think you must be 
acquainted with the practice, or you 
would not so readily invent such an ac- 
cusation against one who can, if re- 
quired, deny it upon oath.” I concluded 
with a few fines, explanatory of the rea- 
son of the slight manner of finishing my 
largest drawing, and sent it  super- 
scribed: Joun LawpsreEr, esq. Queen 
Anne-street, Eust, duted June 7, 1809; 
and signed with my name and address.” 
Instead of an answer, I received the 
following ambiguous note: 
“ Queen Anne-street East, June&, 1809. 
SIR, ; 
«T have just received from vou such a 
letter, as you have no right to expect an 
answer to. Yct there is one passage in 
it which disposes me to recommend. to 
your consideration, the propriety of ad- 
- dressing yourself to the editor of the pub. 
lication, of which you complain. 
“Your's, &c. J. LanpseEr. 
# James Ermes, Esq.” : 
Ts this, Sir, the answer of an innocent 
person, to an unjust accusatien? Does 
It notimmedictely, without farther proof, 
fix the fabricated tale on the man; ‘and 
does it not also prove incapacity of de- 
fence? TF intmediately rejoined, that, had 
I not been well- convinced: of his being 
the author of the calumny of which f 
complained, I should not have written to 
him individually; that I had no wish 
for a dispute with any man; but unless £ 
had farther assurances of justice being 
rendered me, than his letter afforded, [ 
should certainly act in my owt defence, in 
4 . 
Mfr. E lmes’s Reply to the false 
Elmes’s Architectural drawing, 
| [Oct. ly } 
the manner I first stated. I therefore 
desired he would excuse me from follow. | 
ing his recommendation. These remarks 
produced a reply from him to the fol- 
lowing effect:—that “ from the manner 
of my letter, I had no right to expect - 
from him an answer.” Then why did he 
answer me? | 
cusation, or answering any of my ques- 
tions, the right of demanding which I 
will leave on issue With any reasonable - 
man; he continues his unaccountable in- 
veteracy against me, by unclosing the yet 
green wounds sustained by the recently 
aitlicting loss of a most amiable and ac- 
complished wife; by hypocritically insi- 
nuauiny, that my recent loss had perhaps 
rendered my mind irritable, while it may 
have blunted my reasoning faculties, 
Good God! is this the conduct, the he-. 
haviour of a true critic, in aliberal and, 
impartial review ;/a man of feeling; ora 
gentleman? Neflect, continues this ex-~ 
pert equivocator, ‘that if you should 
hereafter find yourself in the wrong, 
what cause of repentance you will have 
been heaping on your own head. Think, 
if E'should be able to falsify, what. you 
have the temerity to insinuate’—(This 
I deny, for I do not, like him insinuate ; 
on the contrary, [ boldly charged and ac- 
cused him of what he does not, and 
cannot deny,). “how little right you * 
have to expect favours from me, and 
how much jess to demand them in the 
imperious tone which you have assumed.” 
So, in this modest gentleman’s opinion, 
to demand justice, is to solicit favors: , 
and to expect favours from him, of whom 
one of his present friends, a very few days 
since observed to me, that when some 
critics dipt their pens in gall, Mr. Land- 
seer dipt his in aqua-fortis. sor 
I should have followed up my inten- 
tions of self-justification immediately; but 
‘I heard that he promised verbally, (what. 
I erroneously hoped he did not like to 
commit to paper,) that it should be rec- 
tified the next month; and in full con- 
fidence I waited the result. And what 
is it? He proves himself the most perfect 
adept in “equivocation and ambiguity 
that ever I met with. Not having already 
sufficiently injured and insulted me, he 
devotes a whole page, at the beginning of 
the Magazine, to the following articl, 
“ To the Public. f 
“A person has called upon one of the 
Instead of denying my ac- | 
\: 
N . . , 
gentlemen concerned in this work, ta ~ 
assure him that the Critique on Mr. 
conceived 
which we . 
