The next attack upon me is based on certain "strange stories," which the critic says he has heard. For myself, considering the strange people with whom he associates, I entertain not the slightest doubt in the world that he has been crammed with "strange stories," and that he firmly believes them. In fact, he reminds me strongly of an anecdote related by Vossius, who, as Charles the Second observed, would believe anything but the Gospel. So this critic, who has no appetite whatever for plain truth, will swallow "strange stories" by the bushel. For example, with an earnestness which does great credit to his simplicity, he believes that the British officers in Shoa, with the few rank and file under their command, assisted the king in making prisoners among the Gallas. He believes, too, of course, that the field-piece, which had been presented to the king, and was therefore no longer under the control of the embassy, was employed to batter down villages, and, in one word, to effect the triumph of Sahela Selassie over his refractory subjects and heathen neighbours. I feel for the distress his humanity must have suffered, and all through the "strange stories" to which he lends so greedy an ear! But let him be re-assured. The slaughter was not perpetrated by means of the galloper gun, which went not on the expedition at all, but was left by the king at his palace newly erected near Yeolo, the place of rendezvous. (N.B. This is not meant as a translation.) There were no "rounds of _artillery_" in the case, and the escort of British soldiers was taken with us, not to join in the foray, but to protect our own tents. Neither is this "memorable circumstance." "omitted in my volumes," as asserted by the veracious critic. It is distinctly stated for the information of those who are able to read, and the conduct of one of the privates stands specially recorded, who was urged by the Amhara to destroy a Galla. [As a military man, and an Engineer officer to boot, I may perhaps be permitted to suggest, although with the utmost deference to the reviewer and his anonymous authorities, that the term "ammunition" might here have been employed with advantage. But perhaps he may consider "rounds of _artillery_" to be a more _classical_ expression!]