never, and until very recently since my return, received but half pay. This part of your letter I should not have regarded, were it not to shew with what boldness, facility, and _sang froid_, you can make assertions unsustained even by the shadow of truth; but, if you had made yourself acquainted with the circumstances relative to my _half pay_, you would have found that not one cent of it was received by me. The government was so good as to pay the amount to my unfortunate female family, whose kindest entertainment you have frequently enjoyed. Poor unfortunate children! whose ancestors, every man of them, did contribute every disposable shilling of their property, many of them their lives, and all of them their best exertions, to establish the independence of their country, should now be told that the small amount of my half pay was considered, by an officer of high rank, too much for them! You have been good enough to inform me that, on my return to this country, my "_efforts_," as you have been pleased to call them, "to re-instate myself in the service were known, and became a subject of conversation with officers, as well as others;" and, but for those "efforts," it is _more than probable_ you would not have _spoken of me_. This would indeed have displayed a wonderful degree of lenity and courtesy on your part, of which I could not have failed to be duly sensible. But, sir, I beg leave to ask how, and where, did you get your information, that such "efforts" were made by me; and even admit they were, why should you _alone_, disclaiming, as you pretend to do, all "_personal enmity_" against me, have made yourself so _particularly busy_ on the occasion? Was it because your inflated pride led you to believe that the weight of your influence was greater than that of any other officer of the navy, or that you were more tenacious of its honor and "respectability," than the rest of the officers were? You assure me, however, 'that, in the interchange of opinion with other officers respecting me, you have never met with more than one who did not entirely concur with you in the opinion you have expressed of me.' Indeed! and what is the reason? It is because I suppose you are most commonly attended by a train of dependents, who, to enjoy the sunshine of your favour, act as _caterers_ for your vanity; and, revolving around you like _satellites_, borrow their chief consequence from the countenance you may _condescend_ to bestow upon them. You, at length, arrive at the main point; the "object" of my letter of the 23d ultimo, which you might have reached by a much _shorter route_, and have saved me the fatigue of being compelled, in self defence, to travel with you so far as you have gone. The language of defiance, represented to have been used by you, 'that you would cheerfully meet me in the field, and hoped I would yet act like a man,' are disavowed by you. And you further deny having ever invited me to the