183 
‘Sheridan after the second duel are entirely his own expressions ; 
his wish was father to the thought, as from the unusual character 
‘of the fight he considered his son almost murdered. But 
Mathews on his return had no such experiences, he held his 
‘own ; and more, his conduct was approved. 
Mrs. Lefanu’s narrative, written after Mathews’ death puts 
Mathews always in the worst light. The charge that he had 
‘“nersecuted Miss Linley with unlawful addresses,” or as the latest 
‘improvement elaborates it,—he tormented and terrified the gentle 
Miss Linley with obnoxious and ungentlemanly addresses—has 
been accepted, and notwithstanding the—‘‘it is said ”—treated as 
fact and copied and reprinted, without thought or investigation ; 
without attempted verification. Whilst accepting and using the 
‘Lefanu narrative freely and willingly, the latest biographer seems 
ito have had some misgivings as already noticed. The same 
‘writer too says of Moore, he was always ready to glean but not 
particular about the source or authority of his information. Why 
then use him? Why should these statements continue to be 
echoed? Such testimony is worse than useless, serving only to 
propagate untruth. Sir said Dr. Johnson, many things that are 
false are transmitted from book to book and gain credit in the 
world. 
-There appeared later another letter or narrative purporting 
‘to be from or by Elizabeth Sheridan (Mrs. H. Lefanu) but 
which on examination has been declared a forgery. It is 
-an elaboration of Lefanu’s published account but stronger 
in expression as seems to be the general drift of additional 
work on this subject. Yet this too has been used* as the 
‘basis of the story agaist Mathews. The “Dictionary of 
National Biography,” under Sheridan, Elizabeth, mentions this 
letter as appearing in the Gentkman’s Magazine for Oct. 
1815, and then as noticed as a forgery in the Atheneum 
* Octogenarian. 
