236 Southern Historical Society Papers
The explanation of the "Lloyd Letter," no doubt, is that it is no more than a copy of the "Duty Letter" first printed in The Sun, the copyist making a number of changes, mostly verbal, from accident or design. The copy was perhaps sent to his son by a father who was an admirer of General Lee, and who, of course, believed the letter genuine. This view of the "Lloyd Letter" leaves the question of the forgery of The Sun letter unaffected by the "Lloyd Letter," and where it was left by the papers read before the Virginia State Bar Association, above referred to. It may be of interest to add this extract from a letter of Bernard Quaritch : "The letter of General Lee has been under the consideration of the British Museum authorities. It must be distinctly understood that there is no doubt whatever that the letter is a forgery, but at the same time, as you state, a most remarkable forgery." And Mr. Lloyd, on whose behalf the letter was sold, writes : "I have received your pamphlets. To an impartial observer they seem to establish, without reasonable doubt, that the letter in question was a forgery." In a later letter Bernard Quaritch adds : "With regard to the handwriting of General Lee's letter, we here in England are in an unfortunate position, as, so far as I can trace, we have no specimen of his handwriting, and we have to depend on inade- quate facsimiles. This is probably the reason that neither the auctioneer nor the original owner was able to definitely decide the question of its authenticity.
CHARLES A. GRAVES.
University of Virginia, Nov. 1, 1917.
