To The Editor The Times.
Sir,-If the words wlhich) I aru represented in your paper of toj day to have uittered at Bo-w-street, wvith cnnsiderable warimth, have unfortunately Conveyed to the public an i-'ea thatl rheant then as a challenge. prnmit me, throu-jh the same medium, to det1are, upon my honeur as a zentlerna-sand, what x value infinitely tmore. as a Cfiristiantthat I did not mean them to be cansidered in tbat lights I amn wr lt awaTe that, worded as they are in your paper, they are scarcelY susceptible of any faveurable interpretaion. But I do nor ac'nowledge tihat I used any other mode o! cxpres-ion thuta the ftbl- lowing:-" Sir, y ou are a l'renchmfan, and not understanding our langu~ge priefect'v. conceive words to be insulting to your feelings that rce only intende Sbe descriptive of your actions. But if k have expresscd myself ini stronger languaze than voeur conduct im warr.anted,s do not bre so boisterous here,bat call upain me at hrl*4efor. any IXesther explanation ;" meaning, had thte gendeman 1'3id, cnd that I had fouxrsi upon refteuion my word,t to have been 'jnjustified by the occasion, to apologize for them wvithout the least I resitation. as a CShristipn never blushes to o aehen rcmlert-fti-onsc^i.ous of his error. I an, Sir, with mruch respect, your humble se-,".., DANIFAL FRENflI'. -n I. . ., IX, I)voflEnzr.estrcet, (ueen-squar3 Jity 2',4II TO TO 7R PDI TOR_OF TIlE TTMEBS