1º. The accuracy of that gentleman’s narrative concerns my Justification very little, except in one part. I published it whole as he gave it to me, because I thought it threw light upon the subject. I think so still, and I see nothing in your lordship’s observation to make me doubt its general correctness. But it was only the part which I printed in italics that concerned me. I had described a remarkable combat of cavalry, wherein the hostile squadrons _had twice passed through each other_, and then the British put the French to flight. Your lordship ridiculed this as a nursery tale; you called my description of it a “_country dance_,” and you still call it my “_scenic effect_.” Did the hostile masses meet twice, and did the British then put their opponents to flight? These were the real questions. The unusual fact of two cavalry bodies charging through each other, was the point in dispute; it is scenic, but is it true? Now my first authority, whom I have designated as an “_eye-witness_,” was colonel Colborne; my second authority colonel Dogherty of the thirteenth dragoons, an _actor_; and when your lordship so coolly says the latter’s statement does not afford “the slightest support to my scenic description,” I must take the liberty of laughing at you. Why, my lord, you really seem disposed to treat common sense as if it were a subaltern. Colonel Dogherty bears me out even to the letter; for as the second charge took place with the same violence that the third did, if the hostile bodies had not passed through to their original position, the French must have fled towards the allied army; but they fled towards Badajos. The English must therefore have passed through and turned, and it was then that in the personal conflict with the sabre which followed the second charge the thirteenth dragoons defeated the French.