realm? Is refiftance recommended, but expressly only fo far as it is ftrictly LEGAL? Let the impartial public determine, whether this is the language of SEDITION, or can have the least tendency to excite TRAITEROUS infurrections, or whether the Houfe of Commons have not made a false and groundlefs charge.

The general charge that The North Briton, No. 45, is a LIBEL, fcarcely deferves an answer, hecause the term is vague, and fill remains undefined by our law. Every man applies it to what he diflikes. A fpirited fatire will be deemed a libel by a wicked Minifter, and by a corrupt judge, who feel, or who dread the lash. In my opinion the rankeft libel of modern times is the falfe and fulfome Addrefs of the Majority in this House of Com mons on the Preliminary Articles. They faid that they had confidered them with their best attention, they expreffed the strongest fentiments of gratitude, they gave their hearty applaufe, they declared the Peace would be no lefs honourable than profitable, fowi lid, and, in all human probability, permanent. Were the House of Commons ferious in this Addrefs, which was drawn up and prefented, even before any che of the grofs blunders in the Preliminaries had been amended? If they were, the body of the people judged better, and did not hesitate to give their clear opinion, that the glories of the war were fa crificed by an inadequate and infecure PEACE, which

could not fail of foon retrieving the affairs of France. Time has already proved that the nation judged right, and that the PEACE is in almost every part infamous and rotten, contrary to the vain boast in the Minifter's Speech at the beginning of the fame feffion, the utmost care has been taken to remove all occafions of future difputes between my fubjects and thofe of France and Spain, and thereby to add security and permanency to the bleffings of PEACE: a declaration not believed by the nation at the time it was made, and fince, from a variety of facts, known not to be founded on truth. The North Briton did not fuffer the public to be misled. He acknowledged no privileged vehicle of fallacy. He confidered the liberty of the prefs as the bulwark of all our liberties, as inflituted to open the eyes of the people, and he feems to have thought it the duty of a political writer to follow truth where ever it leads. In his behalf I would ask even Lord Marf field, can TRUTH be a LIBEL? Is it fo in the King's Bench? Though it has always found a cold and unwelcome reception from his Lordship, though it has through life proved much more his enemy than his friend, yet furely he has not been used to treat it as a libel. I do not know what the doctrine of the King's Bench Now is, but I am fure that it will be a fatisfactory answer to the honeft part of mankind, who follow the dictates of found fenfe, not the jargon of Law, nor the court flattery of venal

Parliaments, that The North Briton, No. 45, cannot be a LIBEL, because it does not in any one line deviate from truth.

This unlucky paper is likewife faid to contain expreffions of the most unexampled infolence and contumely towards his Majefty, mofi manifeftly tending to alienate the Affections of the People from His Majefty," and by the hirelings of the Ministry it is always in private charged with PERSONAL difrefpect to the King. It is however moft certain that not a single word perfonally disrespectful to his Majesty is to be found in any part of it. On the contrary, the fovereign is mentioned not only in terms of decency, but with that regard and reverence, which is due from a good fubject to a good King-a Prince of fo many great and amiable qualities, whom England truly reveres the perfonal character of our prefent amiable Sovereign makes us eafy and happy that fo great a power is lodged in fuch hands. Are thefe the expreffions of the most unexampled infolence and contumely towards his Majefty, which the Majority in this House of Commons have declared that it contains? Are thefe expreffions mofi manifefly tending to alienate the Affections of the People from his Majefty? The Majority, who could vote this, feem equally fuperior to any regard for truth, or modest fear of detection. The author of that paper, fo far from making any personal attack on his Sovereign, has

even vindicated him perfenally from fome of the late meafures, which were fo feverely cenfured by the judicious and unbiaffed Public. He exclaims with an honeft indignation, what a fhame was it to jee the fecurity of this country, in point of military force, complimented away, CONTRARY TO THE OPINION OF ROYALTY ITSELF, and facrificed to the prejudices, and to the ignorance of a fet of people, the most unfit from every confideration to be confulted on a matter relative to the fecurity of the Houfe of Hanover? When the Speech is mentioned, when the various `abfurdities, and even fallacies of it, are held out to the nation, it is always called, in the language of Parliament, and of the conftitution, the Minifter's Speech, and the author declares that he doubts, whether the impofition is greater on the fovereign, or on the nation: fo tender has he been of the honour of his Prince, fo zealous in his vindication. Minifter is indeed every where treated with the contempt and indignation he has merited, but he is ever carefully diftinguished from the fovereign. Every kingdom in the world has in its turn found noccafion to lament that Princes of the best intentions have been deceived and mifled by wicked and defigning Minifters and Favourites. It has likewife in moft countries been the fate of the 1 few daring patriots, who have honeftly endeavoured to undeceive their fovereign, to feel the heaviest marks of his difpleafure. It is however I think

C

The

rather wonderful among us, even in thefe times, that a paper, which contains the most dutiful expreffions of regard to his Majefty, fhould be treated with fuch unufual feverity, and yet that fo many other publications of the fame date, full of the most deadly venom, fhould pafs totally unregarded. Some of these papers contained the most opprobrious reflections on that true patron of liberty, the late King, whofe memory is embalmed with the tears of Englifomen, while his afhes are rudely trampled upon by others, whom his godlike attribute of mercy had pardoned the crime of unprovoked rebellion. Others were full of the most indecent abuse on our great Proteftant Ally, the King of Pruffia, on the near relation of his prefent Majefly, who has merited fo highly of the nation by fixing the crown in the Houfe of Hanover, on the ftaunchest friends of freedom, the City of London, and on the first characters among us. Yet all these papers have paffed uncenfured by Minifters, Secretaries, and by the two Houses of Parliament.

There only remains one other charge, that the North Briton, No. 45, contains the groffeft afperfions upon both Houses of Parliament, and the most audacious defiance of the AUTHORITY of the whole Legiflature. It is to be lamented that the Majority of either Houfe of Parliament fhould ever lay the just ground of any afperfion, or fall into general contempt with the people. We have feen their ac