No. 50. G. £10 10s.
This is a subscription of five guineas for each year: this amount
completes that sum (with the £15 15s. which appeared at p. 65, February
Fors) for each of the five years.
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.
As to the position of the St. George’s Company, it is not a legal
company, if by that you mean a company recognized by law: it has
neither the advantages nor disadvantages of companies incorporated in
accordance with the provisions of the several Acts of Parliament
relating to such matters. It is not a legal trust of a charitable
nature, if by that term be meant a trust which is liable to the
supervision or interference of the Charity Commissioners. It is a
number of persons unincorporated, but associated for other purposes
than that of gain. It is on a similar footing to such a society as that
for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. The Master will be personally
responsible for the debts of the Company contracted by his order. If
you desire to have a legal-Company, or the supervision of the Charity
Commissioners, you must give way in many points which you have hitherto
considered indispensable to your scheme. On the 29th February last we
sent you a specimen of the form in which we proposed to draw up the
memorandum for each Companion to subscribe. If you will return us this
with any remarks upon it which may occur to you, we will at once have
it engrossed, and send it you to be signed by all the Companions.
We were expecting a call from you when you were in town some time
since, and should have then have discussed this subject with you, and
also the subject of the trust deed which will have to be executed by
the Master of the Company.
We will act upon your suggestion, and forward the deed of the Sheffield
property to Mr. Bagshawe. Shall I also send all the title deeds to him
relating to the property? Tell me this.
Faithfully yours,
W. P. Tarrant.
Professor Ruskin,
Arthur Severn, Esq., Herne Hill, S.E.
(Answer.)