You address me as a “publisher” – I am not one.
You write to me of a certain publication as being mine – It is not mine – I never saw it.
You did not receive an answer to your former, which is to the purport of your present letter, because I presumed you would discover, by the title of the work you impute to me, that you had written to me by mistake, instead of the author of the information upon which you “charged, as there set forth.”
From you writing to-day, being Quarter day, I fear you have an eye to business – under that suspicion I give you an immediate answer, as above – and further, as below.
If “The Trade” “doubt” against the Act of Parliament, which, upon its being produced to you by the person on whom you distrained, induced you to “refund the difference” of your over-charge to him, -- and if, since then, they have occasioned you to doubt, that you did wrong first, and were right in doing right afterwards, I am of opinion that you were improperly moved after you had been properly fixed.
And, further, I am of opinion, notwithstanding to the contrary in any publication, that the Act is a fixture not to be moved.
Furthermore, I advise, under the circumstances, that you and each of “the Trade,” to forthwith burn every such publication, and, severally & respectively buy a copy of the said Act of Parliament, & be guided solely by that.
Moreover, Having given this my legal opinion and advise, without a fee, I am lastly moreover of opinion, that, for the delivery hereof, the officer is entitled to the sum of Two pence, and no more, as, upon reference to the statute in such case made and provided, will more fully & at large appear.
Finally, I am firmly of opinion, that, a hundred years hance, you will not repent having paid the said sum of Two pence and no more, to the said officer, as aforesaid.