The deaths of Long, Wingfield, Eddlestone, Matthews, and of his mother, had narrowed the circle of the poet’s early companions; and, though he talks of each loss in succession as if it had been that of an only friend, we can credit a degree of loneliness, and excuse a certain amount of bitterness in the feelings with which he returned to London.  He had at this time seen very little of the only relative whom he over deeply loved.  He and his half-sister met casually in 1804, and again in the following year.  After her marriage (1807), Byron writes from abroad (1810), regretting having distressed her by his quarrel with Lord Carlisle.  In 1811 she is mentioned as reversionary heiress of his estate.  Towards the close of 1813, there are two allusions which testify to their mutual affection.  Next wo come to the interesting series of letters of 1815-16, published with the Memoir of Mr. Hodgson, to whom, along with Hobhouse and Scrope Davies, his lordship in a will and codicil leaves the management of his property.  Harness appears frequently at this period among his surviving intimates:  to this list there was shortly added another.  In speaking of his Bards and Reviewers, the author makes occasional reference to the possibility of his being called to account for some of his attacks.  His expectation was realized by a letter from the poet Moore, dated Dublin, Jan. 1, 1810, couched in peremptory terms, demanding to know if his lordship avowed the authorship of the insults contained in the poem.  This letter, being entrusted to Mr. Hodgson, was not forwarded to Byron abroad; but shortly after his return, he received another in more conciliatory terms, renewing the complaint.  To this he replied, in a stiff but manly letter, that he had never meant to insult Mr. Moore; but that he was, if necessary, ready to give him satisfaction.  Moore accepting the explanation, somewhat querulously complained of his advances to friendship not being received.  Byron again replied that much as he would feel honoured by Mr. Moore’s acquaintance, he being practically threatened by the irate Irishman could hardly make the first advances.  This called forth a sort of apology; the correspondents met at the house of Mr. Rogers, and out of the somewhat awkward circumstances, owing to the frankness of the “noble author,” as the other ever after delights to call him, arose the life-long intimacy which had such various and lasting results.  Moore has been called a false friend to Byron, and a traitor to his memory.  The judgment is somewhat harsh, but the association between them was unfortunate.  Thomas Moore had some sterling qualities.  His best satirical pieces are inspired by a real indignation, and lit up by a genuine humour.  He was also an exquisite musician in words, and must have been occasionally a fascinating companion.  But he was essentially a worldling, and, as such, a superficial critic.  He encouraged the shallow affectations of his great friend’s weaker work, and recoiled in alarm before the daring