b.
2/43
the new matter brought forward by the Memorialists it is better to clear up Some minor inaccuracies in their comments on that reply. I admit it has little connection with the main question whether I devoted eleven Paragraphs, as they state, or more to refuting an apertion, viz. that I had put up the Licensing farm to sale and granted it to the highest bidder. or whether I had stated in the last paragraph of my reply, that a refutation of apertion was the "one single object" to which they say the whole of that pretended reply to the former Memorial was devoted.
As a matter of curiosity however it may be worthy of note that the last paragraph of my reply makes no such apertion. On the contrary it founds my claim on their attention on their misstatement of a particular fact, whilst it craves indulgence for "the additional remarks" made. and I presume the fact of my introducing those remarks proved them to be at least an object and possibly a very important object of the so-called "pretended reply." I admit the justice of applying a similar arithmetical computation of the number of Paragraphs in which a statement is repeated, as a test of the value attributed to, or the force really meant to be given to such