26, Upper Hamilton Terrace,
St. John's Wood,
N.W.8.

17th May 1929.

Edgar H. Wells, Esq,
41A, East 47 Street,
NEW YORK CITY.

Dear Mr Wells,

I have been very interested to read the article in "Scribner".
I did not know of its existence. It has enabled me to identify the "Studies
for Jasper's Head" which are illustrated on page 523, and I send you the
drawing herewith to be added to the collection. This was not with the rest
of the collection amongst my Father's papers, nor did it seem to have
sufficient artistic importance as an example of his work, but now that I see
from the magazine article that he regarded it as belonging to the collection
and sufficiently important to be reproduced in "Scribner", obviously Mr Gimbel
should have it.

I have also been able to identify the drawing "In Rochester
Cathedral" which is illustrated on page 526. This is my Father's work.
Again, it was not with the other drawings, but it can very well be said to
belong to the collection, and Mr Gimbel is welcome to have it. I send it
herewith.

The "Nuns' House" reproduced on page 527 is not my Father's

work; indeed the article so states.

The last illustration, "Dickens' Chair", I can find no original of. In any case, as Mr Gimbel states, it does not belong properly to the collection; none the less Mr Gimbel has a larger version of it in item 2 mentioned in the memorandum sent you on the 27th June 1928 by Messrs Treherne Higgins & Co.

I note Mr Gimbel's remarks concerning my brother Geoffrey's letter to you of the 17th March 1928. Messrs Treherne Higgins & Co writing you on the 19th February this year have explained that all we can do with regard to the correspondence referred to by my brother is to send you a newspaper cutting of the letter to "The Times" marked in my Father's handwriting and the draft in his handwriting of an intended letter to the late Lord Curzon - though whether it actually went in this form, I have no means of knowing. They are enclosed herewith.

The other papers which my brother Geoffrey refers to as not having at that time been seen by you are now all in your possession (see Treherne Higgins & Co's letter to you of the 19th February 1929, second page). There are no others. My brother's remark that they do not seem highly important meant that, not being our Father's work, they had not the same importance to us as the drawings and sketches in the collection, but I can readily understand they are important for Mr Gimbel's purpose.

I hope this letter clears up Mr Gimbel's queries satisfactorily.

Believe me,