and remember to have heard and read a number of squibs on the occasion; and from the recollection of these I derived all my knowledge on the subject, without the slightest idea of ‘giving the lie’ to an address which I never beheld.  When I put my name to the production, which has occasioned this correspondence, I became responsible to all whom it might concern,—­to explain where it requires explanation, and, where insufficiently, or too sufficiently explicit, at all events to satisfy.  My situation leaves me no choice; it rests with the injured and the angry to obtain reparation in their own way.

“With regard to the passage in question, you were certainly not the person towards whom I felt personally hostile.  On the contrary, my whole thoughts were engrossed by one, whom I had reason to consider as my worst literary enemy, nor could I foresee that his former antagonist was about to become his champion.  You do not specify what you would wish to have done:  I can neither retract nor apologise for a charge of falsehood which I never advanced.

     “In the beginning of the week, I shall be at No. 8.  St. James’s
     Street.—­Neither the letter nor the friend to whom you stated your
     intention ever made their appearance.

“Your friend, Mr. Rogers, or any other gentleman delegated by you, will find me most ready to adopt any conciliatory proposition which shall not compromise my own honour,—­or, failing in that, to make the atonement you deem it necessary to require.

     “I have the honour to be, Sir,

     “Your most obedient, humble servant,

     “BYRON.”

[Footnote 32:  Finding two different draughts of this letter among my papers, I cannot be quite certain as to some of the terms employed; but have little doubt that they are here given correctly.]

* * * * *

In my reply to this, I commenced by saying that his Lordship’s letter was, upon the whole, as satisfactory as I could expect.  It contained all that, in the strict diplomatique of explanation, could be required, namely,—­that he had never seen the statement which I supposed him wilfully to have contradicted,—­that he had no intention of bringing against me any charge of falsehood, and that the objectionable passage of his work was not levelled personally at me.  This, I added, was all the explanation I had a right to expect, and I was, of course, satisfied with it.

I then entered into some detail relative to the transmission of my first letter from Dublin,—­giving, as my reason for descending to these minute particulars, that I did not, I must confess, feel quite easy under the manner in which his Lordship had noticed the miscarriage of that first application to him.

My reply concluded thus:—­“As your Lordship does not show any wish to proceed beyond the rigid formulary of explanation, it is not for me to make any further advances.  We Irishmen, in businesses of this kind, seldom know any medium between decided hostility and decided friendship;—­but, as any approaches towards the latter alternative must now depend entirely on your Lordship, I have only to repeat that I am satisfied with your letter, and that I have the honour to be,” &c. &c.