“I am, sir, your obedient servant,

“A.  B. C.”

The Editor of the Cornhill Magazine.

“Theatre royal, Donnybrook.

“Sir,—­I have just read in the Cornhill Magazine for January, the first portion of a Tale written by you, and entitled Lovel the Widower.

“In the production in question you employ all your malicious spite (and you have great capabilities that way) in trying to degrade the character of the corps de ballet.  When you imply that the majority of ballet-girls have villas taken for them in the Regent’s Park, I say you tell A deliberate falsehood.

“Haveing been brought up to the stage from infancy, and though now an actress, haveing been seven years principal dancer at the opera, I am competent to speak on the subject.  I am only surprised that so vile a libeller as yourself should be allowed to preside at the Dramatic Fund dinner on the 22nd instant.  I think it would be much better if you were to reform your own life, instead of telling lies of those who are immeasurably your superiors.

“Yours in supreme disgust,

“A.  D.”

The signatures of the respected writers are altered, and for the site of their Theatre Royal an adjacent place is named, which (as I may have been falsely informed) used to be famous for quarrels, thumps, and broken heads.  But, I say, is this an easy chair to sit on, when you are liable to have a pair of such shillelaghs flung at it?  And, prithee, what was all the quarrel about?  In the little history of “Lovel the Widower” I described, and brought to condign punishment, a certain wretch of a ballet-dancer, who lived splendidly for a while on ill-gotten gains, had an accident, and lost her beauty, and died poor, deserted, ugly, and every way odious.  In the same page, other little ballet-dancers are described, wearing homely clothing, doing their duty, and carrying their humble savings to the family at home.  But nothing will content my dear correspondents but to have me declare that the majority of ballet-dancers have villas in the Regent’s Park, and to convict me of “deliberate falsehood.”  Suppose, for instance, I had chosen to introduce a red-haired washerwoman into a story?  I might get an expostulatory letter saying, “Sir, in stating that the majority of washerwomen are red-haired, you are a liar! and you had best not speak of ladies who are immeasurably your superiors.”  Or suppose I had ventured to describe an illiterate haberdasher?  One of the craft might write to me, “Sir, in describing haberdashers as illiterate, you utter a wilful falsehood.  Haberdashers use much better English than authors.”  It is a mistake, to be sure.  I have never said what my correspondents say I say.  There is the text under their noses, but what if they choose to read it their own way?  “Hurroo, lads! here’s for a fight.  There’s a bald head peeping out of the hut.  There’s a bald head!  It must be Tim Malone’s.”  And whack! come down both the bludgeons at once.