Sir—Although I doubt not your Readers consider the statement made by Mr. Murray, “that nothing had occurred to subvert Lord Byron’s friendly sentiments towards him,” completely refuted by the late exposure in the Examiner, and that the harsh language used by his Lordship, as related by Captain Medwin, is, therefore, no longer a matter of surprise; yet, as a further proof of the authenticity of the Conversations; and until a more formal document arrives, I beg you will give place to the following

“I have just got your letter, and am most anxious to see Murray’s statement, to which you allude, but have no chance of it in this out of the world place, unless you send it to me. As to replying to it, I must (before making up my mind) see what he says. On the subject of Mr. Murray I have been most cautious not to say one word more than my Journal warrants; I have been examining it to day. My notes about the copyright of Cain, Two Foscari, Sardanapalus, are:—

“28th Nov.—Witnessed to-day a deed which I understood to be for the copyright of Cain, Two Foscari, Sardanapalus. Lord Byron observed, that all the four witnesses to it had written books. I remarked that the wonder was to find a person who had not been guilty of so doing.

“Jan. 6.—Speaking of his Plays, Lord Byron said: ‘Murray and I are likely to have a serious quarrel. He sent me a deed, which you may remember witnessing: I did not examine it before I signed it. Well, after its return to England it was discovered (I think he said by Douglas Kinnaird) that it contained a clause, by which I had engaged myself to offer to Mr. Murray all my future compositions.’

“These two extracts I wish to be made public. I have no longer any desire that the latter part of the second should be suppressed. I will stand the consequences. They may appear in a note, or in any way Mr. Colburn may think most advisable. As to answering all the people who may take it into their heads to be angry with me, it would be endless. But I shall never shrink from responsibility, personal or otherwise.”

It must thus be obvious to the impartial Reader, that the apparent inaccuracy respecting the deed can only arise from Lord Byron’s supposing that the deep of which he (Lord Byron) was then speaking, was the same which Captain Medwin had witnessed on the 26th November, and to which Captain Medwin’s name does actually appear as a witness.—I am, Sir,