Love In The Suds: A Town Eclogue Part 6

"Though I think your signature a misnomer, to shew that I a no stranger to the name and quality you a.s.sume, I shall not stand on the punctilio of your being an _anonymous_ querist; but answer your several questions explicitly.

I. I am the author of the eclogue you mention.

II. I did not mean to throw out the _most_ scandalous insinuations on the character of Roscius, nor any insinuation _more_ scandalous than his conduct. How far that has been so, he knows best, and is left to make the application.

III. An _infamous_ paragraph I _cannot_ write; and an _anonymous_ one I _will not_ write, to prejudice my greatest enemy. As to that in question, I have not, to this hour, even seen it. CALUMNY I _detest_; but I think _vice_ should be exposed to _infamy_, nor have I so much _false delicacy_ as to conceive, it should be treated with _tenderness_ in proportion as it is _abominable_.

IV. I have not acknowledged that I entertain a _very different_ opinion of Roscius; on the contrary, I declare, that I entertain a _very indifferent_ opinion of him.

V. As to the cause of our dispute, I should be very ready to submit it to the publick, were I egotist enough to think it deserved their attention.

VI. The brother of Roscius _did personally wait_ on me, to desire I would meet "him, the said Roscius, who would bring a friend with him; I being at liberty to do the same;" but as nothing of time, place, or weapon was mentioned, I did not look on this message as a challenge; nor well could I, as I never heard of requiring _gentleman's satisfaction_ by _letter of attorney_, and the professed end of our meeting turned merely on a matter of business.--It is possible, indeed, the messenger, otherwise instructed, might _imagine_ it such, especially as, it seems, his head has teemed with nothing but challenges and duels, since his magnanimous monomachy with one of his brother Roscius's candle-snuffers.--That Roscius himself, however, did not mean to send me a challenge, is plain, from his solliciting afterwards by letter, a conference in the presence only of a common friend to both: a request that would have been complied with, had not he thought proper, in a most ungentleman-like manner, to make a confidant, in the meantime, of a b.o.o.by of a bookseller, who had the folly and impudence to declare that he would, on _his_ [Roscius's] account, _take an opportunity_ to do _me_ some desperate mischief.--Lest I should be yet supposed, from the purport of this last query, to have any fear of a personal encounter with the doughty Roscius, I require only that it may be on an equal footing. I am neither so extravagantly fond of life, nor think myself so consequential in it, as to fear the end of it from such an antagonist; nor, to say the truth, should I have any qualms of conscience, if nothing less will satisfy him, about putting an end to so insignificant a being as his: but, as "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong," it is but right to provide against a mishap. Roscius has a large fortune, and little or no family to leave it to: I have a large family, and little or no fortune to leave it. Let Roscius but previously settle _only half_ his estate on my heirs, on condition that _he_ deprives them of a protector, and I will meet him to-morrow, and engage at his own weapons, not only him, but his brother George into the bargain.[36]

And now, Madam CANDOUR, give me leave to ask _you_ a question or two, in my turn.

[36] The above pleasantry being misconstrued by some of Roscius's friends to the disadvantage of the author, the latter thought himself under the necessity of seriously acquainting the former, of his being ready, as he is, at any time, to give him such satisfaction as a gentleman, who supposes himself injured, has a right to require.

_Qu._ I. Whether, from many gross instances of misbehaviour, _Roscius_ hath not long had sufficient reason to suspect the detestable character of _Nyky_?

II. Whether, therefore, granting Roscius to be himself _immaculate_, he is excusable for his notorious partialities to such a character?

III. Whether he has any right to complain of unjust severity, in being ludicrously reproached with such partialities, by a writer, whom he hath treated, even in favour of that very wretch, with disrespect, with insolence, with injustice.

W. KENRICK."

Instead of _candidly_ replying, however, to the above three queries, a very difficult task, indeed, to Roscius, he caused the Court of King's Bench to be moved for a rule to shew cause, why leave should not be given him to file an information against the author for a libel: which being granted of course, the same was exultingly announced in the following paragraphs inserted in all the news-papers:

"Yesterday morning Mr. Dunning made a motion in the Court of King's Bench, for a rule to shew cause why an information should not be laid against the author of Love in the Suds. When the court was pleased to grant a rule for the first day of next term. The poem was read in court by the Clerk of the Crown, and afforded no small diversion when it came to that part which reflects upon a certain Chief Justice, who was present all the time.

"Besides Mr. Wallace and Mr. Dunning, who are employed by great actor, in his prosecution of some detestable charges which have been lately urged with _as much folly as wickedness_ against his character, Mr.

Murphy and Mr. Mansfield are also engaged, and the cause now becomes a matter of much expectation with the publick."

To these paragraphs the author judged it necessary to make the following reply, in the above-mentioned Morning Chronicle; almost all the rest of the news-papers, by the indefatigable industry and powerful influence of Roscius, a proprietor in most of them, being shut against him.

The AUTHOR of LOVE in the SUDS to the PRINTER of the MORNING CHRONICLE.

SIR,

"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 Sat.u.r.day 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.

FINISH.