a disputation with every wandering Blasphemer.  Much must depend upon the circumstances.”  And when the good lady mixed flirtation with piety, and irritability with both, he wrote:  “The Duke of Wellington presents His Compliments to Miss J. She is quite mistaken.  He has no Lock of Hair of Hers.  He never had one."[34] The Letter of Condolence is a branch of the art of letter-writing which requires very delicate handling.  This was evidently felt by the Oxford Don who, writing to condole with a father on the death of his undergraduate son, concluded his tribute of sympathy by saying:  “At the same time, I feel it my duty to tell you that your son would not in any case have been allowed to return next term, as he had failed to pass Responsions.”

Curtness in letter-writing does not necessarily indicate oddity.  It often is the most judicious method of avoiding interminable correspondence.  When one of Bishop Thorold’s clergy wrote to beg leave of absence from his duties in order that he might make a long tour in the East, he received for all reply:  “Dear—­,—­Go to Jericho.—­Yours, A.W.R.”  At a moment when scarlet fever was ravaging Haileybury, and suggestions for treatment were pouring in by every post, the Head Master had a lithographed answer prepared, which ran:  “Dear Sir,—­I am obliged by your opinions, and retain my own.”  An admirable answer was made by another Head Master to a pompous matron, who wrote that, before she sent her boy to his school, she must ask if he was very particular about the social antecedents of his pupils:  “Dear Madam, as long as your son behaves himself and his fees are paid, no questions will be asked about his social antecedents.”

Sydney Smith’s reply, when Lord Houghton, then young “Dicky Milnes,” wrote him an angry letter about some supposed unfriendliness, was a model of mature and genial wisdom:  “Dear Milnes,—­Never lose your good temper, which is one of your best qualities.”  When the then Dean of Hereford wrote a solemn letter to Lord John Russell, announcing that he and his colleagues would refuse to elect Dr. Hampden to the See, Lord John replied:  “Sir,—­I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 22nd inst., in which you intimate to me your intention of violating the law.”  Some years ago Lady——­, who is well known as an ardent worker in the interests of the Roman Church, wrote to the Duke of——­, a sturdy Protestant, that she was greatly interested in a Roman Catholic Charity, and, knowing the Duke’s wide benevolence, had ventured to put down his name for L100.  The Duke wrote back:  “Dear Lady——­,—­It is a curious coincidence that, just before I got your letter, I had put down your name for a like sum to the English Mission for converting Irish Catholics; so no money need pass between us.”  But perhaps the supreme honours of curt correspondence belong to Mr. Bright.  Let one instance suffice.  Having been calumniated by a Tory orator at Barrow, Mr. Bright wrote as follows about his traducer:  “He may not know that he is ignorant, but he cannot be ignorant that he lies.  And after such a speech the meeting thanked him—­I presume because they enjoyed what he had given them.  I think the speaker was named Smith.  He is a discredit to the numerous family of that name.”