is still in the hands of the printer, cannot possibly have fallen
into the fingers of your incautious contributor!

The early telegram is doubtless the ambition of this smart, though
premature and restless one--but he is wanting in habit, and unhappy in
his haste!--What will you? The _Pall Mall_ and the people have been
imposed upon.

Be good enough, Sir, to insert this note, lest the public suppose,
upon your authority, that the "Ten o'Clock," as yet unseen in the
window of Piccadilly, has, in consequence of this sudden summing up,
been hurriedly withdrawn from circulation.--I am, Sir,

[Illustration]

_The Advantage of Explanation_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, March 31, 1888.]

Sir--Just three weeks after publication Mr. Whistler "finds himself
obliged to notice the critical review of the 'Ten o'Clock' that
appeared in your paper." He points out that "what is still in the
hands of the printer cannot possibly have fallen into the fingers of
your incautious contributor." I do not pretend to be acquainted with
the multitudinous matters that may be in the hands of his publishers'
printers. But I can declare--and you, Sir, will corroborate me--that a
printed copy of Mr. Whistler's smart but misleading lecture was placed
in my hands for review, and, moreover, that the notice did not appear
until the pamphlet was duly advertised by Messrs. Chatto and Windus as
ready. It is, of course, a matter of regret to me if, as Mr. Whistler
suggests, his publishers' interests are likely to suffer from the
review; but if an author's work, in the reviewer's opinion, be
full of rash statement and mischievous doctrine, the publishers must
submit to the risk of frank criticism. But it will be observed that
Mr. Whistler is merely seeking to create an impression that your
Reviewer never saw the work he criticized, which is surely not a
creditable position to take up, even by a sensitive man writhing under
adverse criticism.--I am, Sir, most obediently,

YOUR REVIEWER.

_Testimony_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 7, 1888.]

Sir--My apologies, I pray you, to the much disturbed gentleman, "Your
Reviewer," who complains that I have allowed "just three weeks" to go
by without noticing his writing.

Let me hasten, lest he be f