moft obvious Method of reviving the proper • Sentiments in the Minds of Men, for what they ought to esteem moft dear, is to fhew, that our Caufe has in it all the San&tions of Honour, Truth, and Juftice; and that we · are, by all the Laws of God and Man, inftated in a condition of enjoying Religion, Life, • Liberty and Property, refcued from the moft imminent Danger of having them all for ever depend upon the Arbitrary Power of a Popish Prince.

I muft here beg leave, Sir, to read the two or three following Lines which are not marked, because they explain this latter part of this laft Paragraph, and how to whom thefe Words are applied, where it is faid, That we are by all the Laws of God and Man, inftated in a Condition of enjoying Religion, Life, Liberty, and Property, refcued from the moft imminent Danger of having them all for ever depend upon the Arbitrary Power of a Popish Prince. The following Paragraph, which determines these words, runs thus,

We fhou'd have been chained down in this abje& Condition, in the Reign of the late • King James, had not God Almighty in Mercy given us the late happy Revolution, by that Glorious Inftrument of his Providence the Great and Memorable King William.

And now, Sir, can any one fay, that we were not inftated in a Condition of enjoying Reli gion, Life, Liberty, and Property, by the late happy Revolution? Or that we were not before in the moft imminent Danger of having them all depend upon the Arbitrary Power of a Popish Prince? I appeal to the Acts of Parliament

In this Mr. Steele

was misinformed. for there did not upon Examination appear any fuch Circumfance of Paul Foley, Worthy Man tho' Efq; but he was a veFather to this Squire Thomas.

ry

Jiament quoted in this Book; and might ap peal, as I am told, to a Report of the Grievances of this Kingdom, under the Reign of King James 11. made to this Houfe by Paul Foley, Efq; Father to the Gentleman who has foremarkably diftinguifh'd himfelf against me this Day. This Report, as I am told, explains by a multitude of Inftances, drawn up in the ftrongest Terms, the feveral Particulars which I have here juft touch'd upon. If the Houfe thinks fit that I fhould in this Place have the Affiftance of the Father against the Son, I will defire that that Report may now be Read: Or, if that be not thought fit, fhall go on with my Defence. And here, Sir, I think I may fave you a great deal of Time, by laying down a General Rule which every one will agree, ought to take place in the Perufal of any Writing. That which I fhall infift on is this; that if an Author's Words, in the obvious and natural Interpretation of them, have a Meaning which is Innocent, they cannot without great Injustice be condemned of another Meaning which is Criminal. If the fame Expreffion may be applied to different Perfons, and according to fuch Application may be conftrued in my Favour or to my Prejudice, why should my Words be applied to hurt me, whe n they may more Naturally be applied in fuch a Manner as is not capable of incurring Cenfure? Thus, Sir, when I mention in the Paragraph I have just now read, The artful and open Attacks of

the

the Enemies of our Conftitution, the Enemies of our prefent Happy Eftablishment, the Terrors which are pronounc'd against those who dare undermine our Liberties; why must all thefe and the like Expreffions be applied to a Minifter, when there are fuch Numbers of Popish Emillaries, Jacobites and Non-jurors, to whom these Expreffions by a Natural and unforced Conftruction are very Applicable? Does not the Suppofition of fuch an Innuendo reflect highly upon a Minifter who has given no Occafion for it? Is a Man Seditious, who speaks in plain and open Terms against the Enemies of our Conftitution and Country? or, is it impoffible to make ufe of those words, without comprehending under them, Perfons whom it is Criminal to attack? By this way of arguing, it is not in the Power of Words to be free from unwarrantable Hints and Innuendos. Thus, Sir, in the next Paragraph, where mention is made, of indirect Arts and mean Subtleties practised to weaken our Securities are not thefe Words as general as poffible, applicable to Multitudes of open Enemies and difaffected Perfons, both in Foreign Dominions and in her Majefty's Kingdoms ? or will any one say that indirect Arts and mean Subtleties can be practifed only by one Man in the Kingdom? When there are two different Interpretations to be put upon any Expreffion, will any Gentleman of Candour and Humanity regard that only which carries Guilt in it? efpecially when the Interpretation which must render fuch Expreffion Criminal is violent and forced, whereas the other that renders them Innocent is obvious and natural? I fhall, after

this

this, beg leave to read, in this Light, the next Paragraph marked in the Crifis, page 2.

I flatter my felf that if the Paffages which happened in thofe Days, the Refolutions of 'the Nation thereupon, and the juft Provifions made from Time to Time, against our falling into the fame Difafters, were fairly 'ftated and laid in one View, all indirect Arts ' and mean Subtleties practifed to weaken our 'Securities would be frustrated, and vanish be'fore the glaring Light of Law and Reason.

I cannot conceive why the other Paragraph that follows page 2d and 3d, fhould have been marked, fince it is no Crime, nor any way tends to Sedition, to fpeak in Honour of Parliaments, or to quote Acts of Parliament. Here it is.

I shall not govern my felf, on this Occasion, by the partial Relations of particular Perfons or Parties, but by the Senfe of the 'whole People, by the Senfe of the Houses of Lords and Commons, the Reprefentative, Body of the whole Nation; in whofe Refolutions, according to the different State of Things, the Condition of the Kingdom, by 'those who had the greatest Stakes in it, has 'been from Time to Time Plainly, Impartially and Pathetically expreffed.

The next Paffage is in the Crifis, page 27.

And all this hath been done in fo open a Manner, and in fo Expreflive and plain Terms, that one cannot but think that our Popith or Jacobite Party, who have been of late fo bold, both in Writing and Speaking against the Settlement of the Crown of Great Britain in the Proteftant Line, and cannot pof

N

fibly

'fibly plead Ignorance of thefe Things, muft have fome unaccountable Encouragement for ⚫ their Support.

I here fay that thofe who write or speak boldly and knowingly contrary to the Tenor of Acts of Parliament, which I have before cited, and which are now in Force, must have some Unaccountable Encouragement for their Support; and the Reafon is very plain, because fuch a Perfon is declared liable to the most ¿ grievous Penalties who does act or speak after fuch a Manner; But whether this unaccountable Encouragement comes from the Pretender himself, the French Court, or the Dukes of Lerain or Savoy, whofe Interest it may be to give them fuch Encouragement, I do not pretend to determine: And I hope it will not be faid that I do pretend to Account for fuch an Encouragement which I do here plainly declare to be Unaccountable.

The two next Paragraphs are only a Narrative or Relation of Matters of Fact, which I conceived I might fet down with that Liberty which is allowed to the most common NewsWriter. Here they follow.

If the beating the Enemy in the Field, and 'being too vigilant for their Councils in Foreign Courts, were effectual Means towards ⚫ending the War, and reducing them to a Condition too low for giving fresh Disturbance to • Europe, the Duke of Marlborough took just Meafures: But, however Unaccountable it may appear to Pofterity, that General was not permitted to enjoy the Fruits of his "Glorious Labours: But, as France chang'd

•her