Mr. Hamer.
I ItI ItJstice to our Reporter wc ptblish tle following answer, which hehas sent, to the paragraphi ta-rnished by Mr. Ilamer: we have b'cc' fturnished with various particulars respecting Mtr. Hamer ; but .OT tIle present, (smIst, shall witthhohl tlhem :1- With reference:w paragraph put fbrth by Mr. Samuel Ban- f{ird la:aicr,contradic:ing in ito very measured terrmt, that part of our report of Mr. Fa;ntleroy's case ptiblished oni Mlonday, in which Ii namne is mentioned, wve must s,y, that Mr. Hamer's zeal in stepping torward, in refutation of any supposed or real attack upon his reputation, is higihly laudable ; but realiv we never meant in that statement to make afv imputation against Air. Hanier, we merely mentioned wvhat M'lr. Fauntleroy had said, anti the credit of the thing, with which wve have nothing to (lo for the most part- nor dld we even pledge ourselves t'or it_.rests entirely between Air. lamer and Alr. Fanntleroy. WVhat sve mentioned 'was, that Mr. Fauntleroy expressed himself, that Mr. Blamer's inquiring for him at the prison, and applying fir an order at this office to visit hi.), was one of the only two annoyances to which he had been subjected sinre his committal. M1'c nowv upon strict inquiry give the words of i\lr. Fauntleroy :_ " I understand a person nmmeil Hamer applied fir at orcler to see rue, and I have been troubletl by his calling on ame here, and sendinig me a message that he wanted to see me on par- ftular busines5; but I declined seeing himn, because I know nothing of the man, fuirther than his having lodged a sum of money some short time ago in c-ur house, which he chiefly drew out again, and afterwards asked mne to discount some bills; but as he can have no possible business with me individually, I sent a reply to him when he called here, referring him to my partners." There is one part of this statement, and one only, for which we vouch, because we both saw and heard Mlr. Hanmer on the occasion- r.amelr, that lie ciine to Marlborough-street office, and rep4resenting bimieff as a particular friendl of IM r. Faunitleroy's (althottgh he says is hii paragraph that ha never spoke to thiat gentleman but once in his life), applied for an orler to visit hirn in the prison, which he did not get. On the 'vhole, we cannot help thiniking that Mr. Hr.- mer hts been, on this occasion, unnecessarily tenacious ; an;d we certainly feel no disposition to ?ive him further materials for expla- nrLion; but, as we before said, we are fully aware that Mllr. Hainer did make the application at this office ; and we are equally aware that Mr. Ularke, of Y'orkshire, accompanied by his solicitor. made an a!plication at this uffice niot long agn. we believe, at onte of the periods tOat Mr. Laiiecr resid(ed in Surrey." AIR. ME R.