Mr Pauncefote's assertions so relate to threats being used, relying, however, as he evidently did upon the imperfect statement of his Clerk: But I have very much to regret that in your letter of the 16th Instant you should so positively assert that "There is no reason to doubt, as you do doubt, Mr Pauncefote's statement that the money was offered at the Treasury on the 3rd Instant" when there is not a single sentence, not a single word in my second communication that can bear such an interpretation. Indeed, let me draw your attention to the first Paragraph of my letter as before, it does not convey inferentially to your mind the admission that a clerk did call to pay Mr Pauncefote's Rate, but that he misunderstood what might in substance have been said to him, i.e., that the warrant to recover the amount overdue had passed from the Treasury to the Board of Summary Jurisdiction to whom application had been made.
As to my statement that I had no doubt that the occupant of Lot W: 145 "was and is included in the List" submitted on the 4th Instant to the Court, I conceived in that case, although I had no doubt in my mind upon the matter, that in the absence of Mr Hyndman, my only reliable authority in such cases, being dependent on his staff for information, it would not have been wise to express myself in more positive terms when, owing to Mr Hyndman's having omitted before he left the Treasury to retain a copy of the Papers put in Court.
The fourth paragraph of your letter contains the following sentence: "So much for your first explanatory paragraph."