A Humble Attempt at Scurrility - 17
HOWEVER, setting aside the “blundering Simplicity” of our Author, who stiles Mr. H—s a “Welsh Squire,” tho’ he was born in Pennsylvania, I shall proceed to the next Sentence, which is indeed a curious One. It is there said, that Mr. H—s” by calling for a Gentleman of Character to enter the Lists with him, is made to pay himself the Compliment of being a Gentleman of Character, and to allow Mr. A—n to be the same, tho’ the Author of the Remarks had asserted the direct contrary.” On this I would just observe, that if Mr. H—s did really call Mr. A—n a Gentleman of Character, he then certainly might call himself so, without incurring the Imputation of paying himself a Compliment. But as he really did not make use of that Appellation to Mr. A—n, he stands totally clear of the Charge. His Words are, “if Mr. A—n, OR any Gentleman of Character.” Here is a very plain Distinction made by him, and it is evident he could not intend to compliment Mr. A—n with that Title; for, if he had, he would have said,” or any other Gentleman of Character, &c.”— The Author of the Remarks likewise stands as clear of the Charge of having “asserted that Mr. A—n was not a Gentleman of Character,” for he has asserted no such Thing. It must, however, be allowed, that he pointed out some Parts of Mr. A—n’s Conduct which prove he has not always acted up to the Character of a Gentleman.
WE are next told, “that the greatest Part of the Charges in the Answer are taken from the Protest, which has been signed not only by Mr. A—n, but nine other Gentlemen of undisputed Character, and therefore any further Signing would have been unnecessary.” This also is a gross Misrepresentation; for scarce a Tenth Part of the Charges are taken from the Protest. A considerable
