Accidentally mentioning to a friend who knows the injustice of the imputation referred to in the annexed letter that I should contradict it in a public refutation of certain Tory calmunies under which I conceive I have too long remained silent, he insisted on the propriety of my addressing you in preference. This being the first time I think that my name has appeared in the Edinburgh Review there is a seeming of hostility in coupling me with infamy and though it would be grateful to me that the Review should rectify its own mistake yet unless you oblige me by a line through the Post office intimating the probablility I shall despair of such correction. The kindness of that intimation will give me sincere pleasure. I solemnly assure you that the charge is wholly unfounded nor can I conceive cause for the attack but if you desire explanation of any point connected with the subject you shall have it without reserve.2
5 Nov. 1823
Note: [On the verso of this draft is a thoroughly edited and then lined-through draft of a letter "To the Editor of the Edinburgh Review" which was likely going to be the "public refutation" Hone mentions in his draft to Jeffrey. Immediately below this short draft is the following:]
Extract from
Edinburgh Review
We see no reason for congratulating the friends
of public honour or public morals in the fact that Hone or Benbow is enriched
with the spoils of Moore or Byron. Fame is very good as garnish, but something
more immediate is required. The literary thief knows he cannot be indicted;
himself a pauper, he laughs at the damages of an action; & it must be an odd
book indeed, of a popular nature, from which a doubt, which some possible
chancellor may not think reasonable may be extracted.3