APPENDIX.

ACertain circumftance,* to which the author of the foregoing piece was an utter ftranger, having happened about the time of its publication, and given rife to rumours equally falfe and foreign to the writer; it appears that Rofcius, or fome of his friends, was pleased to infert the following queries in the Morning Chronicle of July 2d.

pardon,

"CANDOUR prefents her compliments to Mr.- fhe begs his --to Dr. Kenrick, and defires to afk him a few fimple queftions; to which, if he be the Plain-dealer he pretends, he will give a plain and direct answer.

Query I. Whether you are not the author of the eclogue, entitled, Love in the Suds, as well as of the letter prefixed to it?

II. Whether you did not mean, though you have artfully evaded the law, by affecting the translation of a claffical cento, to throw out the most scandalous infinuations against the character of Roscius? III. Whether you were not likewise the author of an infamous, anonymous paragraph in a public paper; for which that

der a juft profecution?

paper is un

IV. Whether you have not openly acknowledged notwithstanding, that you really entertained a very different opinion of Roscius ? V. Whether any cause of dispute, that might subfift between you and Roscius, can authorize fo cruel, fo unmanly an attack?

VI. Whether the brother of Rofcius did not perfonally wait on you to require, in his name, the fatisfaction of a gentleman, which you refused him? CANDOUR."

* Viz. The grofs publication of a direct, abominable charge against Roscius, in the Public Ledger of June 18.

To

To these queries, the author judged it expedient to make the following reply in the fame paper of July 4th.

To CANDOUR.

MADAM,

"Though I think your fignature a mifnomer, to fhew that I am no stranger to the name and quality you affume, I shall not stand on the punctilio of your being an anonymous querift; but answer your feveral queftions explicitly.

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

II.. I did not mean to throw out the moft fcandalous infinuations: on the character of Rofcius, nor any infinuation more fcandalous than his conduct. How far that has been fo, he knows beft, 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 queftion, I have not, to this hour, even feen it. CALUMNY I deteft; but I think vice fhould be exposed to infamy; nor have I fo much false delicacy as to conceive, it should be treated with tenderness in propor-. tion as it is abominable.

IV. I have not acknowledged that I entertain a very different opinion of Rofcius; on the contrary, I declare, that I entertain a very indifferent opinion of him.

V. As to the cause of our difpute, I should be very ready to fubmit it to the publick, were I egotist enough to think it deferved their at

tention.

VI. The brother of Rofcius did perfonally wait on me, to defire I would meet him, the faid Rofcius, who would bring a friend with him; I being at liberty to do the fame;" but as nothing of time, place, or weapon was mentioned, I did not look on this meffage as a challenge; nor well could I, as I never heard of requiring gentleman's fatisfaction by letter of attorney, and the profeffed end of our meeting

turned.

turned merely on a matter of bufinefs.-It is poffible, indeed, the meffenger, otherwise inftructed, might imagine it fuch, especially as, it feems, his head has teemed with nothing but challenges and duels, fince his magnanimous monomachy with one of his brother Rofcius's candle-fnuffers.-That Rofcius himself, however, did not mean to fend me a challenge, is plain, from his folliciting afterwards by letter, a conference in the prefence only of a common friend to both: a requeft that would have been complied with, had not he thought proper, in a most ungentleman-like manner, to make a confidant, in the mean time, of a booby of a bookfeller, who had the folly and impudence to declare that he would, on his [Rofcius's] account, take an opportu nity to do me fome desperate mischief.-Left I should be yet suppofed, from the purport of this laft query, to have any fear of a perfonal encounter with the doughty Rofcius, I require only that it may be on an equal footing. I am neither fo extravagantly fond of life, nor think myself so confequential in it, as to fear the end of it from fuch an antagonist; nor, to say the truth, should I have any qualms of confcience, if nothing lefs will fatisfy him, about putting an end to fo infignificant a being as his but, as "the race is not to the fwift, nor the battle to the ftrong," it is but right to provide against a mishap. Rofcius 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 Rofcius but previously fettle only half his eftate 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.*

1

:

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

*The above pleafantry being mifconftrued by fome of Rofcius's friends to the disadvantage of the author, the latter thought himself under the neceffity of seriously acquainting the former, of his being ready, as he is, at any time, to give him fuch fa tisfaction as a gentleman, who fupposes himself injured, has a right to require.

Qu. I. Whether, from many grofs inftances of misbehaviour, Rofcius hath not long had fufficient reason to suspect the deteftable character of Nyky?

II. Whether, therefore, granting Rofcius to be himself immaculate, he is excufable for his notorious partialities to fuch a character ?

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

W. KENRICK."

Inftead of candidly replying, however, to the above three queries, a very difficult task, indeed, to Rofcius, he caused the Court of King's Bench to be moved for a rule to fhew caufe, why leave should not be given him to file an information against the author for a libel: which being granted of courfe, the fame was exultingly ancunced in the following paragraphs inferted in all the news-papers:

"Yesterday morning Mr. Dunning made a motion in the Court of King's Bench, for a rule to fhew caufe 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 firft day of next term. The poem was read in court by the Clerk of the Crown, and afforded no fmall diversion when it came to that part which reflects upon a certain Chief Juftice, who was prefent all the time.

"Befides Mr. Wallace and Mr. Dunning, who are employed by a great actor, in his profecution of fome deteftable charges which have been lately urged with as much folly as wickedness against his character, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Mansfield are alfo engaged, and the cause now becomes a matter of much expectation with the publick."

To these paragraphs the author judged it neceffary to make the following reply, in the above-mentioned Morning Chronicle; almoft all the rest of the news-papers, by the indefatigable industry

and