been in the main correct.
It appears that not only were the three gentlemen who went to the
Fine Art Society's Gallery to look at Mr. Whistler's etchings
guiltless of offence, but that the object of their going there
was actually less to show that Mr. Whistler _was_ than that he
was _not_ the author of the etchings which for a moment had
puzzled them.

"For this, indeed, they seem to have given each other--in the
presence of the blundering assistant, of course--three very
distinct reasons.

"Firstly, that, as already stated, Mr. Seymour Haden had quite
seriously written to Mr. Duveneck to buy the etchings.

"Secondly, that they at once accepted as satisfactory and
sufficient the explanation given them of Mr. Whistler's
obligations to the Fine Art Society; and, thirdly, though this
count appears to have somehow slipped altogether out of the
indictment--they were one and all of opinion that, taken all
round, the Duveneck etchings were the _best of the two (sic)_!!!

"It is a pity a clever man like Mr. Whistler is yet not clever
enough to see that while habitual public attacks on a _near
relative_ cannot fail to be, to the majority of people,
unpalatable, they are likely to be, when directed against a
brother etcher, even _suspecte_."

I did not at the time "see my way" to publishing the paragraph "as it
stands," but, having subsequently received the following
correspondence, I think it only right to give Mr. Piker's paragraph
publicity, along with the letters subjoined:--

"THE FINE ART SOCIETY,"
148 NEW BOND STREET.
March 18, 1881.

[Sidenote: Letter from Mr. Huish to Mr. Haden.]

"To Seymour Haden, Esq.--My dear Sir,--Mr. Whistler has called upon me
respecting your visit here yesterday with Mr. Legros and Dr. Hamilton,
the purport of which had been communicated to him by Mr. Brown."

"He is naturally indignant that, knowing, as you apparently did, that
he was under an engagement not to publish for a certain time any
etchings of Venice except those issued by us, you should suggest that
they were his work, and had been sent in by him under a _nom de
plume_."

"He considers that it is damaging to his reputation in connection with
us, and he requests me to write and ask you whether you adhere to your
op