fe^ reply to Misolr antes < Sept. ig» 



^he fruits of his ovvn inaccuracy. I employ this ex- 

 prefsion because I am unwilling, and unauthorised to 

 charge him with any settled intention to deceive. 



In my second letter, when speaking of James I. 

 I have faid, " had it been pofsible that the life of such 

 *' a prince, and the tranquillity of this country, could 

 ** have been prolonged to the present day, it is be- 

 ** yond the power of Britifti vanity to conceive the 

 " accumulated progrefs of Britifli opulence." When 

 this sentence is to be quoted by Misohroptes, he first 

 mangles and interlines it, and then perverts it to a 

 different meaning. I fliall not take up your time by 

 quoting him, as the paper is already in the hands of 

 your readers. 



Again, he charges me with saying that lord Cha- 

 tham was " the worst minister that ever any nation 

 *' was cursed with " I never said or thought any 

 such thing ; to quote falsely is perhaps the worst in- 

 fliroity that any author was ever cursed with. I said, 

 and I adhere to my afsertion, that " with a more de- 

 " structive minister, no nation was ever cursed ;" 

 that is to say, that no minifter ever spent public mo- 

 ney faster. " But to call him the most prodigal of 

 statesmen, or the worst ot ministers, was a piece of 

 folly reserved for Misobrontes. 



Again, lie accuses me with terming " Walpole the 

 " best of miiiistors." He is himself the first person 

 that ever said so. 



La, rericehrk, 1 TlMOTHY ThUNDERPROOF *. 



iepi. 3. 1792. S 



• The Edilo. will a-'init .1 reply from Misobron-'-s if he desires it, if 

 Aiort and written with modsriiuon j iuid here he hopet the alteicatloo 

 ■will end. 



