“In such language, at such a time, there is no ‘bombastic fustian.’ I could believe that there were men incapable of comprehending the sublime courage, the heroic virtue of such an act; but I did not believe there existed a man in all England who would have the effrontery—the positive and palpable meanness—to stigmatise the hero of that act with a charge of cowardice.
“Such, sir, are the facts connected with this affair. I may at some future time treat you to a few opinions, and review more copiously the history of your conduct in relation to M. Kossuth. Meanwhile, I leave you to purify your soiled escutcheon as you best may.
“I am, sir, yours obediently,
“Mayne Reid.
“February 15th.
“P.S.—February 16th. Sir,—In your journal of this morning, instead of publishing the above letter, you have noticed it in a short paragraph, worthy of the pen that would malign a patriot. But do not imagine that you are to escape thus easily from the unpleasant position in which you have placed yourself. In this country the character of a gentleman, though he be a stranger, is not to be wantonly assailed with impunity, and you, sir, shall be as amenable to the laws of honour and justice as the meanest citizen in the land.
“You say, in relation to your pseudo proclamation, that you ‘had good reason for believing it to be genuine, and shall certainly not discredit it without better authority than that of Mayne Reid.’
“If you had no better authority for publishing it than what is implied by the tenor of the above paragraph, I fancy you will have some difficulty in explaining to your readers why you published it at all, and to your countrymen why—so long as a doubt existed in your mind as to its genuineness—you took advantage of the sentiments expressed by it to defame the character of its reputed author. You take occasion to characterise my letter as ‘absurdly bombastic language.’ It is before the public as above. Let them be the judges; and the only favour I should ask of them would be, to read your editorial article upon the same subject. Having given yours a prior perusal, I feel satisfied that their ears will not be so delicately attuned as to be jarred by the ‘absurdly bombastic’ of mine.
“‘Bombastic’ seems to be a favourite phrase with you, and for the style itself no writer in England is more accustomed to its usage than that mythical personage—the editor of The Times.
“Your sneer at the ‘authority of Mayne Reid,’ is equally characteristic. It is true I am but a plain gentleman, who make my living, like yourself, by literature. But I did not calculate upon the statement of a plain gentleman having any weight with you. In my letter I offered you full proof of my assertions. You do not seem inclined to call them forth.