t the statute of
the 13th of Elizabeth. If such _praemunire_ be, pray, answer me, who
has most incurred it? In the mean time, do me the favour to look into
the statute-book, and see if you can find the statute; you know
yourselves, or you have been told it, that this statute is virtually
repealed, by that of the 1st of king James, acknowledging his
immediate lawful and undoubted right to this imperial crown, as the
next lineal heir; those last words are an implicit anti-declaration to
the statute in queen Elizabeth, which, for that reason, is now omitted
in our books. The lawful authority of an House of Commons I
acknowledge; but without fear and trembling, as my Reflectors would
have it. For why should I fear my representatives? they are summoned
to consult about the public good, and not to frighten those who chose
them. It is for you to tremble, who libel the supreme authority of the
nation. But we knavish coxcombs and villains are to know, say my
authors, that "a vote is the opinion of that House." Lord help our
understandings, that know not this without their telling! What
Englishman, do you think, does not honour his representatives, and
wish a parliament void of heat and animosities, to secure the quiet of
the nation? You cite his majesty's declaration against those that dare
trifle with parliaments; a declaration, by the way, which you
endeavoured not to have read publicly in churches, with a threatening
to those that did it. "But we still declare (says his majesty) that no
irregularities of parliament shall make us out of love with them." Are
not you unfortunate quoters? why now should you rub up the remembrance
of those irregularities mentioned in that declaration, which caused,
as the king informs us, its dissolution?

The next paragraph is already answered; it is only a clumsy
commendation of the Duke of Monmouth, copied after Mr Hunt, and a
proof that he is unlike the Duke of Guise.

After having done my drudgery for me, and having most officiously
proved, that the English duke is no parallel for the French, which I
am sure he is not, they are next to do their own business, which is,
that I meant a parallel betwixt Henry III. and our most gracious
sovereign. But, as fallacies are always couched in general
propositions, they plead the whole course of the drama, which, they
say, seems to insinuate my intentions. One may see to what a miserable
shift they are driven, when, for want of any one instance, to whi