eat good" to the
nation, was "ill-chosen flattery"; because Mr. Harley had brought the
"nation under great difficulties, to say no more:" He says, that when the
Speaker tells Mr. Harley, that Providence has "wonderfully preserved" him
"from some unparalleled attempts" (for that the "Medley" alludes to) he
only "revives a false and groundless calumny upon other men"; which is
"an instance of impotent, but inveterate malice,"[10] that makes him [the
Speaker] "still appear more vile and contemptible." This is an extract
from his first paragraph. In the next this writer says, that the
Speaker's "praying to God for the continuance of Mr. Harley's life, as an
invaluable blessing,[11] was a fulsome piece of insincerity, which
exposes him to shame and derision"; because he is "known to bear ill will
to Mr. Harley, to have an extreme bad opinion of him, and to think him an
obstructor of those fine measures he would bring about."

I now appeal to the Whigs themselves, whether a great minister of state,
in high favour with the Qu[een], and a Speaker of the House of Commons,
were ever publicly treated after so extraordinary a manner, in the most
licentious times? For this is not a clandestine libel stolen into the
world, but openly printed and sold, with the bookseller's name and place
of abode at the bottom. And the juncture is admirable, when Mr. H[arle]y
is generally believed upon the very point to be made an earl, and
promoted to the most important station of the kingdom:[12] nay, the very
marks of esteem he hath so lately received from the whole representative
body of the people, are called "ill-chosen flattery," and "a fulsome
piece of insincerity," exposing the donors "to shame and derision."

Does this intrepid writer think he has sufficiently disguised the matter,
by that stale artifice of altering the story, and putting it as a
supposed case? Did any man who ever saw the congratulatory speech, read
either of those paragraphs in the "Medley," without interpreting them
just as I have done? Will the author declare upon his great sincerity,
that he never had any such meaning? Is it enough, that a jury at
Westminster-Hall would, perhaps, not find him guilty of defaming the
Speaker and Mr. Harley in that paper? which however, I am much in doubt
of too; and must think the law very defective, if the reputation of such
persons must lie at the mercy of such pens. I do not remember to have
seen any libel, supposed to be writ with ca