TO SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

Gloucester Lodge, June 7, 1821.

whom I requested to take charge of my letter, that your then situation rendered it impossible for you to accept the second of the alternatives Sir-In a letter bearing your sig-proposed to you (a circumstance which, nature, and purporting to have been I must be permitted to observe, conaddressed by you to the Chairman of siderably aggravated the offence ofa dianer of Parliamentary Reformers fered to me); that the utmost which I on the 4th of April, which was pub- could obtain from you was an engagelished in several of the Newspapers ment to afford me satisfaction, so soon of the following day; a liberty is as the term of your confinement should taken with my name, as little justi- have expired; that the interval must fiable (in my judgment) by differences be full of hazard as to secrecy; that of public opinion, as it is recon- without in any degree impeaching eileable with the ordinary courtesies either your honour, or that of any of private life. The obvious meaning Gentleman whom you might select, of that passage in your letter of which the mere fact (which could hardly be I complain, is, to impute to me, that concealed) of a communication ~bein upholding the present system of tween me or any friend of mine, and Representation in the House of Com- the King's Bench, could not fail to mons, I am actuated by the corrupt | excite suspicion; and that such suspiand dishonourable motive of a personal pecuniary interest.—It cannot be matter of surprise to you, that I should feel myself under the necessity of requiring at your hands a disavowal of the imputation which that passage appears to convey.

Should

cion would necessarily be strengthened by my prolonging my stay in England till the middle of May, after having repeatedly and publicly announced my intention of waiting only for Mr. Lambton's motion of the 17th of April. Yielding for the time (and I know not how I could have done otherwise), to the force of these representations, it remained for me only to keep my own counsel, and to quicken, as much as possible, my return from the Continent. I arrived here yesterday evening. My first business on my arrival has been to. communicate with Lord William Bentinck, who has the goodness to undertake to deliver this letter to you, and to settle on my behalf all necessary arrange

you be unable, or unwilling, to afford me a satisfactory explanation upon this point. I have then to demand of you the only other reparation which an injury of such a nature admits. It can hardly be necessary to state to you, Sir, the reason why this demand has not been sooner made: but I owe it to myself to preclude the possibility of any doubt or misrepresentation, as to the causes of that delay. The first and natural impulse of my own feel-ments on the matter to which it reings, was to address myself to you lates. I assure you, upon my honour, the instant that I had read your letter that Lord William Bentinck is the only in the newspapers. But it was person who has any knowledge of this represented to me by the friend letter, or of my purpose to write it. I

have the honour to be, Sir, your most to make to your letter, than to express obedient servant,

Gloucester Lodge, June 9, 1821. Sir-Lord William Bentinck has just delivered to me the answer, which you have transmitted to his Lordship, through Mr. Kinnaird, to the letter which I addressed to you on Thursday. Lord William Bentinck's opinion (with which We have been requested by Lord: my own feelings entirely coincide) sa- William Bentinck to give insertion to tisfies me that I can have no other reply the following Letter:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING

CHRONICLE.

[parties principally concerned, with which I can truly say Mr. Kinnaird and I mutually flattered ourselves, tha t this transaction had happily terminated. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. BENTINCK.

The same letter mutatis mutandis appeared in The Courier of last night, with the following note addressed by

Park-lane, June 13, 1821. Sir-A letter from Mr. D. Kinnaird, which appeared in your Paper of this day, in reference to the publication of the Correspondence between Mr. Canning and Sir Francis Burdett, requires from me the following explanation :Certainly, the paragraph to which the Editor of The Courier to Lord both our names are signed, though W. Bentinck, which, says the Editor, written by us, was not written as a his Lordship wishes to be annexed to letter to the Editor of the Courier, or his own letter: to any other person. It was intended The Editor of The Courier presents simply to authenticate the corres-his compliments to Lord William Benpondence which it accompanied. The tinck, and has the honour to inform mistake, by which the Editor of the him, with reference to that part of Courier considered it as addressed Mr. Douglas Kinnaird's letter which to himself, is explained by him in his relates to the alleged "forgery" of Paper of this evening. With respect his name, that the mistake originated to the question of publishing, it is in a practice ordinarily adopted in perfectly true that Mr. D. Kinnaird, giving publication to the communicathough publication had his perfect tions of Correspondents, viz. that of assent, and though his authentication causing them to be addressed to the of the correspondence was given with Editor of the Journal in which they that view, declined to be a party to appear. It is surely superfluous to it. But it is equally true, that publica-add, that there could have existed no tion, in some form or other, was always required by Mr. Canning, and was uniformly so stated by me to Mr. Kinnaird, from the moment that there appeared a prospect of the affair being brought to an amicable termination. I regret the mistake into which the Editor of The Courier has fallen, more especially as it has given rise to Mr. Kinnaird's letter, which, although (as I am convinced, from all that has passed between us upon this occasion) without the intention of the writer, seems to detract something from that complete satisfaction to the feelings as well as to the honour of both the

motive of any other kind for thus introducing the Correspondence.

The following is the forgery complained of by Mr. DOUGLAS KINNAIRD.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR-The following Correspondence (Nos. 1, 2, 3,) having passed between Mr. Canning and Sir Francis Burdett, we declare it to be authentic.

W. BENTINCK,

DOUGLAS KINNAIRD. June 11, 1821.

Thus we have all these curious thing is; many as are the poldocuments before us; and, let troons which it palms on the us now see, whether you, Gen-world for men of valour and of tlemen, are ready to acknow-honour; monstrous as it is to ledge, that they too are "West- suppose, that the fighting of a minster's Pride.” duel can make a rogue an honest

As to the practise of duelling, man, and still more monstrous as though I by no means pretend it is to appeal to a pistol for the that it includes any moral offence, decision of an argument: still, it is any thing rather than a trial if a man acknowledges the legiof courage; for, nine times out timacy of this mode of settling of ten, the parties are urged on differences; if he will have the to it by fear; and we accord-advantange attending the repuingly see the most perfect cowards tation of duel-fighting; if he will fighting duels. Shakspeare has admirably illustrated the real character of the duellist in the play, called "What you will."

pretend to merit on account of a supposed readiness in him to fight duels; then, he subjects himself to the laws of duelling, and his

Sir Andrew, a stupid drunken conduct must be judged of by Knight, has fallen into disgrace those laws.

Now, it is clear, that, when the

with his Mistress, he is told; and he is also told, that he must re-complaining party comes, at once, gain his lost ground by "some to the point, and makes disavowal "notable expedient of wit or of the condition, and the express and "valour." Whereupon, after only condition, of not fighting, to pretty nearly ascertaining that disavow is to acknowledge fear his rival will not fight, he sends to fight. This is so plain a thing him a challenge, written in a that it cannot be questioned by "curst and brief" style and any one. If, indeed, the injured, manner. But, despicable as the or pretended injured, party, call

for an explanation, and in civil his power to get this money and to eat and drink, in like manner as the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib.

terms, without accompanying the -call with a statement of the fighting alternative; then, even a high

66

This is the clear, the fair, the

only meaning of the words; and,
now, what
66
says Glory" of
those words in his disavowal, or
disclaimer? Why, that he had

of honour," may explain, and may, if truth will bear him out, disavow. But, to say to a fighter, "you shall disavow or fight," is to cat off the possibility of ho- no intention to make any allusion nourable parley. Upon this prin- whatever to PERSONAL character! The deuce he did not! Well! Let him then keep a glossory-monger to be the bearer of his

ciple all men act. If the honest labourer be told to retract on pain of a slap in the face, nothing but fear of the slap will make him re-dispatches; for, it will hence

forward be extremely dangerous

tract. Here I leave this matter, it to place the smallest degrée of rebeing, in my eyes, of far less importance than the political consequences of this, as Mr. Canning calls it," prompt disavowal." sonal character!

liance on his words as they appear on the paper. Nothing personal! No allusion even to perGood God!

A

ánd

Let us see what " Glory's as- Then this may not be paper, on sertion was. It was this: that which I am writing, nor is this a Mr. Canning defended to the ut-pen that I hold in my hand. My most a system, by the hocus-pocus tricks of which he and his family got much public money; that he espoused a cause by which he and his family eat and drank; that

66

name may not be William ;
even Glory" himself, as he
once curiously enough observed,
in one of his Crown-and-Anchor
harangues, " may be an oyster

as Glory," in his Bar