168 
and in no way refer to or imply any public opinion on the 
original social scandal which produced it. In the last biography, 
perhaps detecting the weakness in the great authority so often used, 
it is remarked that—Mrs. Lefanu ‘“ wrote in good faith and her 
statement of facts is at once lucid and conclusive. With regard 
to her opinions or conjectures her testimony cannot have any 
special weight with any competent critic.” Yet when the 
“lucid and conclusive facts” are examined they too are found to 
be nearly all conjecture, and some entirely untrue, only just 
equal in weight with her opinions. This document should never 
have been published or accepted as history without close 
examination. 
Other reports got into circulation reflecting on the veracity of 
Sheridan, who had been found tripping on the other occasions. 
This he in turn did not like. As before by reason of the contradic- 
tions, an official investigation was made, an impartial relation drawn 
up and deposited with Mr. Wade, and submitted to Mr. Barnett 
and Captain Paumier, and through Mr. Brereton declared to be 
true and impartial, “upon the whole as accurate as could be 
expected.” Mathews was declared to have discovered as much 
genuine, cool, and intrepid resolution as man could do. 
Sheridan was thus again beaten with his denials, his ‘‘ account 
did not disprove anything material.”* \When Sheridan left Bath 
the old position of the combatants was reversed, Mathews now 
retained the field. Sheridan, like Mathews before, chafed at 
his defeat and became irritated at the decisions against him ~ 
and by reports and gossip not in his favour. ‘Thus from 
Waltham he wrote asking were there any reports about after 
I left Bath, to which was answered 4th September, 1772, none 
had been heard. This did not satisfy, and he seemed deter- 
mined to stir up another quarrel with somebody. “Let me 
entreat you to be calm and compose your mind,” wrote his 
* Moore p. 65—93. 
