troversy, that subornation was practised in the business of Gregg: This manifestly appears from those few facts I have mentioned: Let the Whigs agree among them where to fix it. Nay 'tis plain, by the great endeavours made to stifle his last speech, that they would have suborned the poor man even after he was dead: And is this a matter now to be called in question, much less to be denied?

He compares the examination of Guiscard with that of Gregg, talks of several great persons who examined the former in prison, and promised him the queen's pardon if he would make a full discovery. Then the author puts the case, "How wicked it would be to charge these honourable councillors with suborning Guiscard by promises of life, &c. to accuse the innocent, and betray his friends." Does it any where appear that those noble persons who examined Guiscard, put leading questions to him, or pointed out where they would have him fix an accusation? Did they name some mortal enemy of their own, and then "drop words of pardon and reward, if he would accuse him"? Did Guiscard leave any paper behind him, to justify the innocence of some great person whom he was tempted to accuse. Yet perhaps I could think of certain people, who were much more likely to act in concert with Guiscard, than ever Mr. Harley was to be confederate with Gregg. I can imagine several who wished the penknife in Mr. Harley's heart, though Guiscard alone was desperate enough to attempt it. Who were those, that by their discourses, as well as countenances, discovered their joy when the blow was struck? Who were those that went out, or stood silent, when the address and congratulation were voted? And who were those that refined so far as to make Mr. Harley confederate with his own assassin ?

There is one point which this author affirms more than once or twice in a transient way, as if he would have us suppose it a thing granted; but is of such a weight, that it wants nothing but truth to make the late change of ministry a very useless and dangerous proceeding: For so it must be allowed, if, as he affirms, "Affairs are still under the like management, and must be so, because there is no better; that this set of men must take the same courses in their ministration with their predecessors, or ten times worse; that the new servants go on in the old methods, and give

the same counsel and advice, on the like occasions, with the old ones;" with more to the same purpose. A man may affirm, without being of the cabinet, that every syllable of this is absolutely false; unless he means, that money is still raised by parliament, and borrowed upon new funds; that the Duke of Marlborough still commands the army; that we have a treasurer, keeper, president, and secretaries, as we had before; and that because the council meets much about the same times and places as formerly, therefore they "give the same advice, and pursue the same measures." What does he think of finding funds to pay the old unprovided-for debt of the navy, and erecting a company for the South Sea trade? What does he think of Mr. Hill's expedition to preserve our trade in the West Indies?' What, of the methods taken to make our allies pay their quotas to the war, which was a thing so scandalously either neglected, connived at, or encouraged? What, of the care to retrench the exorbitant expenses of the Spanish war? What, of those many abuses and corruptions at home, which have been so narrowly enquired into, and in a good part redressed? Evils so deeply radicated, must require some time to remedy them, and cannot be all set right in a few months. Besides, there are some circumstances known by the names of honour, probity, good sense, great capacity for business; as likewise, certain principles of religion and loyalty, the want or possession of all which, will make a mighty difference even in the pursuit of the same measures. There is also one characteristic which will ever distinguish the late ministry from the present, That the former sacrificing all regards to the increase of their wealth and power, found those were no otherwise to be preserved, but by continuance of the war; whereas the interest, as well as inclinations of the present, dispose them to make use of the first opportunities for a safe and honourable peace.

The writer goes on upon another parallel case, which is the modern way of reflecting upon a prince and ministry. He tells us, That "the Queen was brought to discard her old officers through the multitude of complaints, secret teasings, and importunate clamours of a rout of people, led by their

priests, and spirited underhand by crafty emissaries." Would not any one who reads this imagine, that the whole rabble, with the clergy at their head, were whispering in the Queen's ear, or came in disguise to "desire a word with Her Majesty," like the army of the two kings of Brentford? The unbiassed majority of the nobility and gentry of the kingdom, are called, by this son of obscurity, "a rout of people," and the clergy their leaders. We have often accused that party for their evil talent of railing perpetually against the clergy, which they discovered at first without any visible reason or provocation, as conscious of the designs they had in view, and therefore wisely began by vilifying those whom they intended to destroy. I have observed formerly, that the party malice against the clergy hath been so blind and furious, as to charge them with crimes wholly inconsistent. I find they are still in the same disposition, and that this writer hath received "direction from his superiors," to pursue the old style upon that article. Accordingly, in the paragraph I am now upon, he represents that reverend body as leaders, cullies, and tools. First he says, That "rout of secret teasers" (meaning the nobility and gentry of the kingdom) were "led by the priests." Then he assures us, that the Queen will, in a year or two, begin to consider, "Who it was that cheated those poor priests." And in case Her Majesty should have a mind to bring in the old ministry again, he comforts his party, That "the priests are seldom wanting to become the tools of cunning managers." I desire to know in what sense he would have us to understand, that "these poor priests" have been cheated? Are they cheated by a fund established for building 50 churches? Or by the Queen's letter empowering them to proceed on the business proper for a convocation? What one single advantage could they possibly lose by this change? They are still indeed abused every day in print, but it is by those who are without the power to hurt them; the serpent has lost his sting, is trodden under foot, and its hissing is contemned. But he con

fidently affirms, That when it shall be thought fit to restore the old ministry, "the priests will not be wanting to become the tools of their cunning managers." This I cannot by any means allow, unless they have some hidden reserve of cunning which hath never yet been produced. The cunningest

managers I ever knew among them, are of all others most detested by the clergy: Neither do I remember they have been ever able to make any of them tools, except by making them bishops; even those few they were able to seduce, would not be their tools at a lower rate.

:

But because this author, and others of his standard, affect to make use of that word tool, when they have a mind to be shrewd and satirical; I desire once for all to set them right. A tool and an instrument, in the metaphorical sense, differ thus the former, is an engine in the hands of knaves, the latter in those of wise and honest men. The greatest ministers are instruments in the hands of princes, and so are princes themselves in the hands of God; and in this sense the clergy are ready to be instruments of any good to the prince or people. But that the clergy of England, since the Reformation, have at any time been the tools of a party, is a calumny which history and constant experience, will immediately confute. Schismatic and fanatic preachers, have indeed been perpetually employed that way with good success; by the faction against King Charles I. to murder their prince, and ruin the monarchy; by King James II. to bring in Popery; and ever since the Revolution, to advance the unmeasurable appetite of power and wealth, among a set of profligate upstarts. But in all these three instances, the established clergy (except a very few, like tares among wheat, and those generally sown by the enemy) were so far from being tools, that in the first, they were persecuted, imprisoned and deprived; and in the two others, they were great instruments, under God, for preserving our religion and liberty.

In the same paragraph, which contains a project for turning out the present ministry, and restoring the last, he owns, that the Queen is "now served with more obsequious words, more humble adorations, and a more seeming resignation to her will and pleasure, than she was before." And indeed if this be not true, Her Majesty has the worst luck of any prince in Christendom. The reverse of these phrases I take to be "rude expressions, insolent behaviour, and a real opposition to Her Majesty's most just and reasonable commands," which are the mildest terms that the demeanour of some late persons towards their prince can deserve, in return of the highest favours that subjects ever received, whereof a

hundred particulars might be produced. So that according to our author's way of reasoning, I will put a parallel case in my turn. I have a servant to whom I am exceedingly kind, I reward him infinitely above his merit. Besides which, he and his family snap every thing they can lay their hands on ; they will let none come near me, but themselves and dependants; they misrepresent my best friends as my greatest enemies; besides, they are so saucy and malapert, there is no speaking to them; so far from any respect, that they treat me as an inferior. At last I pluck up spirit, turn them all out of doors, and take in new ones, who are content with what I allow them, though I have less to spare than formerly; give me their best advice when I ask it, are constantly in the way, do what I bid them, make a bow when they come in and go out, and always give me a respectful answer. I suppose the writer of the letter would tell me that my present domestics were indeed a little more civil, but the former were better servants.

There are two things wherewith this author is peculiarly angry. First, at "the licentious way of the scum of mankind treating the greatest peers in the nation." Secondly, that "these hedge-writers" (a phrase I unwillingly lend him, because it cost me some pains to invent) "seldom speak a word against any of the late ministry, but they presently fall to compliment my lord treasurer, and others in great places." On the first, he brings but one instance, but I could produce a good many hundred; what does he think of the "Observator," the "Review," and the "Medley"? In his own impartial judgment, may not they as fairly bid for being the "scum of mankind," as the "Examiner"? and have they not treated at least as many, and almost as great peers, in as infamous a manner? I grant indeed, that through the great defect of truth, genius, learning, and common sense among the libellers of that party, they being of no entertainment to the world, after serving the present turn, were immediately forgotten. But this we can remember in gross, that there was not a great man in England, distinguished for his love to the monarchy or the church, who under the appellations of Tory, Jacobite, Highflier, and other cant words, was not represented as a public enemy, and loaden by name with all manner of obloquy. Nay have they not even disturbed the