were a neglect) is here called an omission[1], and care is taken to supply it in the next general treaty of peace. I mention this occasionally, because I have some stubborn doubts within me, whether it were a wilful omission or not. Neither do I herein reflect in the least upon the memory of his late majesty, whom I entirely acquit of any imputation upon this matter. But when I recollect the behaviour, the language, and the principles of some certain persons in those days, and compare them with that omission; I am tempted to draw some conclusions, which a certain party would be more ready to call false and malicious, than to prove them so.
I must here take leave (because it will not otherwise fall in my way) to say a few words in return to a gentleman, I know not of what character or calling, who has done me the honour to write three discourses against that treatise of The Conduct of the Allies, &c. and promises, for my comfort, to conclude all in a fourth. I pity answerers with all my heart, for the many disadvantages they lie under. My book did a world of mischief (as he calls it) before his first part could possibly come out; and so went on through the kingdom, while his limped slowly after; and if it arrived at all, was too late; for people's opinions were already fixed. His manner of answering me is thus: of those facts which he pretends to examine, some he resolutely denies, others he endeavours to extenuate; and the rest he distorts with such unnatural terms, that I would engage, by the same method, to disprove any history
- ↑ Article XX.
either
