16
as devoid of the feelings of a gentleman as he is of the courage of a man.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
Montreal, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1834.
(COPY.)
My Dear Sir,—At your request I waited on Mr. Papineau, to learn from him whether he was the author of an article published in the Minerve of Thursday evening the 4th instant, wherein reflections were made injurious to your character; and in the event of his acknowledging the authorship, to demand, in your behalf, that satisfaction to which you thought yourself entitled.
I called at Mr. Papineau's residence twice in the course of yesterday afternoon: he was not at home; but I was informed that I should see him at eight o'clock this morning. I accordingly repeated my visit at the hour named, when he acknowledged himself to be the author of the publication in question; but stated, that his observations were aimed at your public and not private character, and such being the case, he did not feel himself called upon to give any satisfaction.
I may not be able to recall to memory the very words employed during the conversation, but the spirit of his remarks as distinguishing your public from your private character is contained in the previous sentence.
I remain,
My dear Sir,
Truly yours,
To Dr. W. Robertson.
Mr Papineau's address gave rise to another correspondence of a similar nature, which we subjoin:—
To the Editor of the Montreal Herald,
Sir,—In presenting to your readers the accompanying documents, I must offer as a reason for obtruding my private affairs on the public, that my infirm state of health, prevents me from adopting any other mode of noticing Mr. Papineau's conversation with my friend Mr. Holmes.
A partial intimacy growing out of professional relations, must be my apology for having demanded satisfaction from a person, who had so recently submitted to be stigmatized as "a man lost to all sense of honor, and one who had forfeited all pretensions to the character of a gentleman."
Mr. Papineau appears to have refused satisfaction on the ground of my "infamous conduct;" but a reported passage in that person's parliamentary life, of which, though it is not an affair of yesterday, I never heard till this evening, might justify a suspicion that he has not assigned all the reasons of his caution.
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
At the request of Mr. Walker, I waited on Mr. Papineau, and handed to him the communication of which the following is a copy—
Sir,—The remarks which you have hazarded with respect to myself personally, in that portion of your address to the Electors of the West Ward, which appeared in the columns of the last Minerve, call for an appropriate notice on my part.
I will not enter into the merits of what has fallen from you upon this occasion. My friend Mr. Holmes is fully in possession of my sentiments: and to him I would refer you for a further explanation.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Hon. Ls. Jos. Papineau.
I intimated to Mr. Papineau, that, as the friend of Mr. Walker, I was prepared to enter into such arrangements as circumstances might render necessary; to which Mr. Papineau replied, that the conduct of Mr. Walker during the late election had been "a provocative to assassination," and justified the severest language being used in regard to him.—I took the liberty to interrupt Mr. Papineau, observing that any conversation foreign to the object of my mission, namely, to demand satisfaction for the language used in reference to Mr. Walker, was superfluous; and I desired to know whether he would afford that satisfaction. Mr. Papineau replied, "I shall take no notice of Mr. Walker's communication." I warned him of the consequences usual under such circumstances; and, as I was leaving the house, Mr. Papineau observed that the conduct of Mr. Walker and his friends had been infamous.
Saturday.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MINERVE,
I see by the columns of this morning's Herald, that Dr. Robertson, not satisfied with the dishonorable notoriety, which attaches itself to the name of a Justice of the Peace, abusing the powers of his trust for the purpose of inventing the most criminal lies, in order to cause the shedding of the innocent blood of unarmed citizens, seeks another means to be notorious, by sending challenges to those who take the liberty of believing that such conduct deserves censure.
Is not Dr. Robertson aware that although the love of murder has been in his heart, murder, especially that of the 21st May, 1832, is execrated in the hearts of 99 in a 100 of the inhabitants of the Province, and that if after such conduct he has the right to challenge to a duel, any one of those who reproach him with it, he shows that he is prepared and disposed, if such can be effected, to exterminate, by the same means, 99 in a 100 of the people of this country.
Mr. Sydney Bellingham's letter is not long enough by far. He should have given more
