185 
also to close the attempted condemnation with—‘* apparently 
however nothing worse was thought of Mathews by most of his 
contemporaries than that he had acted somewhat rashly and 
in very bad taste.”* 
Just so again ; and it is the contemporary 
opinion which should be sought and which must be taken. 
With the above conclusions of the two biographers and the 
contemporary opinions herein brought together for the first 
time, this accusation, the imagination of an interested, scheming 
and jealous youth endeavouring to cover his own foolish act, must 
in all fairness be newly weighed. Three times the charges made 
by this youth against Mathews, after official enquiry, were found to 
be untrue. It may well be then that this other was equally so. 
Besides that Mathews’ veracity was never doubted, after the official 
enquiry which followed the second duel he was declared to have 
“ discovered as much genuine, cool, and intrepid resolution as 
man could do,”t was forgiven his defeat, and was at once 
reinstated in society and remained a valued and prominent 
social leader in Bath for nearly fifty years. Young Sheridan’s 
attempt to revive the quarrel with somebody or anybody, 
although ineffectual kept the subject privately somewhat alive 
until the end of 1772 and the beginning of 1773- The 
“Mathews party” however was too strong for him, opinion 
was against him, and so he came to hate the place. 
There is one other insinuation repeated in the latest, which 
reads,—‘ Mathews is said to have been rich and married,” and— 
“lived in Bath as a bachelor.” First note the—is said—this 
being the sole authority for the statement,—and then, as a 
bachelor, he must have been without his wife. He clearly did 
no such thing. There is no warrant put this lowest form of 
gossip for such scandal. 
It is difficult now to follow the remaining social side of the 
| ae 
* Rae, 174. + Moore, 67. 
