The publication of the following letter, with its answer, will, I hope, not cause Mr. Tarrant any further displeasure. I have only in the outset to correct his statement that the payment of £10 14s. 11d. was on my behalf. It is simply payment to another lawyer. And my first statement was absolutely accurate; I never said Mr. Tarrant had himself taxed, but that he had been “employed in taxing”; I do not concern myself with more careful analysis, when the accounts are all in print. My accusation is against the ‘legal profession generally,’ not against a firm which I have chosen as an entirely trustworthy one, to be employed both in St. George’s business and my own. 2, Bond Court, Walbrook, 25th April, 1876. Dear Mr. Ruskin,—I have the April ‘Fors,’ in which I see you have published our account of costs against you, amounting to £47 13s. 4d. The document was yours, and you had a perfect right to lay it before your readers, but you are the first client who has ever thought it necessary to put such a document of mine to such a use. I don’t know, however, that it will do me any injury, although the statement preceding it is somewhat inaccurate, because our costs of the transfer of the Sheffield property were £26 15s. 11d., which included a payment of £10 14s. 11d. made on your behalf, leaving our costs at £16 1s., the other portion of the £47 13s. 4d. being costs relating to the constitution of the St. George’s Company, leaving altogether £29 14s. 11d. only payable to us beyond money paid on your account. It is hardly fair, therefore, to say that I employed myself in taxing the transfer of the property to nearly £50. As to the charge for letters (the writing of which is really not brickmakers’ work), you must bear in mind that the entire of your matters had to be done by correspondence, for which you are fairly chargeable; and I cannot accuse myself of having written a single letter that was unnecessary.