Next day but one appeared another letter from Lord Kemms, stating that every “fact” contained in Mr. Black’s letter was untrue—that he had never given permission for his name to be published—that he had never known it was so published, until some time after his return from the Continent, when he happened to meet with a prospectus of the “Protector Bread and Flour Company (Limited),” and then for the first time became aware of the use which had been made of his name. He considered that in the interests of the general public, he was bound openly to state the nature of the fraud which had been practised. He pointed confidently for authentication of his statement, if authentication were necessary, to the fact of his never having been registered even as a shareholder; and he declared he had given both Mr. Dudley and Mr. Black ample opportunity of explaining the line of conduct which had been pursued. This epistle immediately elicited two in reply: one from Arthur Dudley, to the effect that Lord Kemms was mistaken in imagining he had afforded an opportunity either for discussion or explanation. “Not,” added Arthur, “that it would have been in my power to give his Lordship any information on the subject, as I am in utter ignorance of the facts of the case; but, had this been otherwise, I should still have failed to obtain a hearing.” Mr. Black followed suit by remarking, that a nobleman who could consider seeing a prospectus “having his attention called,” might reasonably be supposed ignorant of the true meaning of words, and through the whole of his letter gave his Lordship the benefit of this doubt. Mr. Black stated that though shares had been duly allotted, whilst Lord Kemms was abroad, registration of course was difficult; that his name, failing the legal qualifications, had remained on the Direction as a matter of courtesy, since, having failed to take any steps to constitute himself a director, by attendance or otherwise, the business of the Company had been conducted without his presence or concurrence, to which circumstance, Mr. Black adroitly more than hinted, Lord Kemms’s ill-humour was attributable. To these letters Lord Kemms replied in a singularly confused epistle, which branched off from the question really at issue, to vague statements concerning companies in general, and limited liability in particular. Mr. Raidsford being a much cleverer contractor than author, really did his Lordship an immense deal of mischief over these letters, and, although the editor of the _Times_ kindly spared the owner of Kemms Park nearly a column of small type, and stated at the foot, “we can insert no more letters on this subject,” thus leaving the ball with his Lordship, still that general public, with which Lord Kemms had been so eagerly anxious to set himself right, was greatly divided in opinion, and vexed in spirit as to who was to blame—whether Lord Kemms, or Mr. Black, or both, or neither.