"In reprehending others you should ever be cautious of falling
into the error you condemn. In yesterday's paper you indirectly
charge me, among others, with having "urged a detestable charge
with as much folly as wickedness against a certain great
actor."--What other people have done I know not, nor does it
concern me; but I may safely defy all the Lawyers in
Westminster-Hall fairly to deduce such a charge as you hint at
from the eclogue in question. In this respect it is certainly as
innocent as the great actor's Jubilee Ode! But granting it
otherwise with any one else, how can you take upon you to say that
such a charge is urged _foolishly and wickedly_? Can _you_ know it
to be false or groundless? And if not, on what grounds do you
charge the accusers with _folly_ and _wickedness?_ Why does not
the CANDOUR of the great actor, reply to the Queries put to him in
your paper of Saturday last? But no; unable to justify himself at
the bar of the publick, he flies for refuge to the quirks and
quibbles of Westminster-Hall; and even this at the latter end of a
term, in order to deceive the town into a notion that the court
will countenance his prosecution. Why was not his motion made
sooner, that cause might have been shewn in time, and the futility
of it made immediately evident? Believe me, Sir, before an end is
put to this business, the publick will be better enabled to judge
on which side the _folly_ and _wickedness_ lies, than you appear
to do at present.
I am,
yours, &c.
W. K.