"Cambridge, October 27. 1811.
"Sir,
"Your letter followed me from Notts, to this place, which will
account for the delay of my reply. Your former letter I never had
the honour to receive;--be assured, in whatever part of the world
it had found me, I should have deemed it my duty to return and
answer it in person.
"The advertisement you mention, I know nothing of.--At the time of
your meeting with Mr. Jeffrey, I had recently entered College, 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.