"Another Evidence.] I went to Edwin's coffee-houfe in St. Michael's-alley. I faw the Votes, at another table in the room, abufed (as has been related.) I afked the woman, who had abused the Votes?' Her husband answered, Somebody has < played the rogue with them.' Three at the other table were gone, but the faid, That a Minister called for pen and ink, and wrote it.'

"Mr. Loe again.] I faw the Minifter write upon the Votes, and cross them. I know not the Parfon's name; but his brother has a living in Leicestershire, and his name is Jofeph Pagget."

In confequence of this information, the perfon accused was fent for in cuftody; but it does not appear what became of him. The clamour, however, excited by the adherents of the Duke, did not deter the Houfe from proceeding with the bill; and, on the third reading, the following debate arose.

"Sir Leoline Jenkins.] This bill is of the greatest consequence that can come into Parliament, and withal, you are about to do an act of injuftice, great and fevere, upon the offender. But, by the way, I will offer fomething of the prudential confideration of it, but crave leave to enter my diffent to the juftice of it, and the oath of allegiance I have taken to his Majefty. I will not offer to your confideration, that this Prince you are about to difable to fucceed, &c. is the fon of a King, a glorious Martyr, a Prince that has fought your battles, and no crime against him in your eye, but his being perverted to popery from the Proteftant religion. But the difficulty I ftruggle against is, fo great a defire in the House to pass this bill. But I cannot fatisfy myself in the juftice of this way of proceeding. What is effential justice to a man in his place? It is always effential juftice to hear a perfon before you condemn him. God, though he knew the heart and crimes of Adam, did not condemn him before he had heard him. It feems hard to me, that this law against the Duke should come ex poft facto, which is not only banishment, but difinherifon; a thing ftrange in our books of law, that there fhould be two punishments for one crime. I obferve next, that by the fundamentals of the Government, how can you make a King by Parliaments? I have always taken it, that the Government had its original, not from the People, but from God. Religion yefts that veneration in us for the Government, that it will be much lefs, when we fee it from the people, and not from God immediately. Several fettlements have been made by Act of Parliament, of entail of the Crown, which still do affert the Succeflor; but no precedent can be found, where a Prince in proximity of blood to the Crown

has been fet afide. I do not know how to reconcile this to the oath of allegiance I have taken to the King, and fo often repeated, which is always taken in the fenfe of the Lawgiver and Impofer. The perfon is next in blood to fucceed to the Crown, and when I fwear allegiance, it is not only to the King, but his Heirs and Succeffors; and there can be no interregnum in our Government. When one King is dead, the other next in brood muft fucceed; and who can difpenfe with my oath of allegiance? All the Members of the House make profeffion of being of the church of England. I am afraid the church of England will receive a great blow by this bill. The reafon of one of the great beauties of the church of England, is, that it is fafe and fecure in the matter of allegiance to all-Government muft be either active or paffive. If we are to defend a King made by act of parliament, as this bill imports, that law will receive a blemish; for we are not to do evil that good may come of it, if there be any good in the bill! But I know of none; and therefore I move to throw it out."

When we confider the abfurdity, the baseness, and the falfity of this harangue, we are amazed that it was not received with the highest indignation. It is fcarce credible, that any one fhould ever have had the impudence to affert in the face of an English Parliament, that no precedent could be found, where a Prince in proximity of blood to the Crown, had been fet afide. The infamous arguments, however, of this wretched Lawyer, and worthlefs Citizen, were in part answered by the late Attorney-General,

"Sir William Jones.] It is abfolutely neceflary that you pass this bill; it is far from my nature to inflict any fevere punishment; but this bill is not a punishment without hearing the Duke (as has been alledged.) We do not punish the Duke as a criminal, but we are preventing the evil that is likely to befal us from that religion he profeffes. Jenkins made an argument against this bill, from the oath of allegiance, as if we were perjured in maintaining this bill. It is the first time I ever heard that thofe oaths were to bring in popery, but to fecure us from popery; and he urges much the point of lawful Succeffor to the Crown.' But is any man the King's lawful Succeffor till the King is dead? Nemo eft Hæres Viventis, is a maxim in Jenkins's own law (the civil.) But when I take the oath of allegiance, that oath did never bind to above one person at a time. I am not obliged to any allegiance till that Succeffor comes to act. Therefore, I am not at all afraid that this bill is against the oath of allegiance.As to the objection of Prefumptive Heir,' &c. I never, in all my life, in books, met with fuch an expreffion,

expreffion. Sometimes there is mention made of "Heir apparent,' and I wonder that any man fhould call the Duke fo, when it may be but a name. As to the other objection, that this bill may fall to the ground, because it is like the act of perpetuity of the late long Parliament,' there is no reason for that confequence. There is no need of executing this bill in the King's life time. Then only this law is in force, after the King's decease. One thing farther is objected, That if this bill pafs the Parliament, there will be a fort of "loyal men," who will not obey this law: I have a wrong notion of this word "loyal," if that be fo. He is loyal to the King that obeys his laws; and he is otherwife that does not. This is a thing that may terrify a man that underftands not the nature of it. It is for the benefit of the King and protestant religion, 'that this bill pafs, and I am for it."

These arguments, no doubt, had their weight. After many tedious and futile harangues by the Partizans on each fide, which we have neither room nor inclination to abridge, the bill paffed; and Lord Ruffel was fent up with it to the Lords. The Lords, however, thought proper to throw it out; and we may venture to pronounce, that the part which Lord Ruffel took in the bill of Exclufion, was, in a great meafure, the cause of his death in the year 1683, when he was beheaded for treafon, after a fhew of tryal, by a packel Jury and corrupt Judges. Soon after, the gallant Sydney, who fupported the fame noble principles, was facrificed by the fame vile inftruments.

On the death of Charles, the Duke of York was proclaimed King, by the title of James the fecond; and having fummoned a Parliament, fuch arts were used, and the elections fo fuccefffully managed, that the King faid, There were not above forty Members but fuch as he himfelf wished for.'

He proved, however, to have been fomewhat mistaken in his calculation, for he did not find them altogether fo obfequious as he hoped. For they would not allow him to dispense with the Teft Act, which they oppofed very ftrongly in their address of thanks for the fuppreffion of the late rebellion. To this the King made the following anfwer.

"I did not expect fuch an addrefs from the House of Commons, having fo lately recommended to your confideration the great advantages a good understanding between us had produced in a very fhort time, and given you warning of fears and jealoufies amongst ourselves.

"I had reafon to hope, that the reputation God had bleffed me with in the world, would have created and confirmed a greater

confidence in you of me, and of all that I fay to you: ́but, however, you proceed on your part, I will be fteady in all my promifes I have made to you, and be very juft to my word in this, and all my other speeches."

The Parliament, however, were too wife to rely on his royal word, which he had more than once forfeited; and the King finding both Houfes fo fixed, that he could carry nothing in either of them, without giving way to the Teft, he prorogued the Parliament, and kept it on foot by repeated prorogations for about a year and a half, without holding a feffion.

We must not omit to take notice, that Mr. Grey, the Compiler of these Debates, not being a Member of King James's Parliament, the proceedings therein are taken from the Journals of the House, and the Hiftories of the Times. The debates of this Parliament, however, contain nothing very interesting: but the King's arbitrary proceedings after the prorogation, raifed fuch a glorious fpirit of liberty, as made way for the happy Revolution, which will be the subject of the remaining article.

[To be concluded in our next.]

Poems and Tranflations, by Francis Hoyland, B. A. 4to. 2s. Bristow.

TH

Nefutum valo, nolo Polypofum.

Give me a nofe like other people,

Not one fo large as Strafburg steeple.

MART.

HIS Gentleman, who petitions for a competence of nofe, has most cruelly disappointed us by his motto. On fight of fo droll a fign, we expected to have been entertained within, in the Cervantian or Shandyan tafte, and were not a little furprized when the first thing that prefented itself was, the 104th Pfalm!

The

Lord remember David and all his troubles! What has he not endured from pious Poets, and wicked Hiftorians? while thofe have murdered his writings, and thefe his reputation! grandeur, the majefty, the fublimity of his poetry, have been totally loft in every attempt to reduce them to modern numbers; and his images have either languished under imbecillity, or have been diftorted by bombaft.

He

He, as a curtain, ftretch'd on high,

The vaft cerulean canopy,

And gave with fires to glow:

'Twas he, tremendous Potentate,
Built on the waves his hall of ftate,
Wide as the waters flow.

In the early ftate of poetry, when the analogy of ftyle and fentiment were as little regarded as any other refinement, this mixture of expreffion, the grand with the familiar, was frequently admitted; but he must know very little of the genius of modern poetry, or of the reigning tafte, who can expect any toleration for it now. Thus, in the ftanza above-quoted, when the Tranflator mentions the Almighty's building a hall of ftate upon the waves, the image becomes ridiculous, because the analogy of ftyle and fentiment is destroyed.

He walks upon the wings of wind,
And leaves the rapid ftorms behind :
Their Monarch's awful will
Seraphs await in dread fufpenfe;

And, fwitter than the lightning's glance,
His mighty word fulfil.

In the Bible tranflation thus. Who maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the wings of the wind. Who maketh his angels fpirits: his minifters a flaming fire. This is very great; but Mr. Hoyland, in his tranflation, has blundered the first part, and has mifunderstood-the latter. While he represents the Almighty as walking upon the wings of wind, which is badly expreffed, he tells us at the fame time, that he leaves the forms behind; by which he must neceffarily infer, that the wind goes before the ftorm; which is neither fenfe nor philofophy.

The other verfe, viz. He maketh his angels fpirits, and his minifters a flaming fire, the Tranflator has not understood; therefore his paraphrafe is altogether foreign to the purpose. This verfe is, in the Hebrew, an Hypallage, and the expreffion when inverted, will unfold this fenfe. He maketh fpirits [q. f. the winds before-mentioned his meffengers; and flaming fires [q. f. lightning, &c.] his minifters.- -This is much the most obvious interpretation, and it is perfectly agreeable to the subject which the royal Writer had before him, viz. the power and grandeur of the Supreme Being in the vifible creation.

The two following ftanzas are more correct, and are not without poetical merit:

But when the fable hand of night

Has quench'd the fickly rays of light,