hairy annex'd to that crime by the fiatate) and that ke did drink King George's health in the ?r?fince of the Pro∨ which being d?m'd an a?onr, he ask- and to ? his rdon for it, offend make him ? . . other honourable flusharon. But, as to all the other articles, he utterly denie? himfell to be ?ilty of any of them, having many undeniable te?imonie? to viMicate his innocences whenever he ?ould have an opportunity? ?rticularly, in anfwer to what is alled?'d a? him in the venth article [which relates to him fingly] Mr. Meadowcourt f61emnly declares, that he was fo fae from being ?n abetter and encourager of an ucho�- rices, as are menuon d to ru? u ?nd down t? ht h- . P g ?eet ?th drawn fwords m their hands, to the great terror of the to?nfmen and chdars, fi that he was not even an eye-?itu? of them } and he cllallenges an of thole ma animous tow?fmeg or ?hotam w?o were fn htend at the fight of there naked g . fwords, to fly that they fiw him e?ther as an courager or a Com?nio? ?f thole o?cer$, in what- ev? was done by them m the Rreet, whi?, no doubt, they would have done, if they co?d, after he had ?ut them into fuch badi& fear. In th?s, and every oth? ?rt?cular (exc?t thole two before-mention'd) he c?ld undeniably have purged him?lf ?om the guilt laid to big charge.? But proving and d?r?ng are not academical th?s of proceding--; the dull {brms of Hall being too tedious for the litergti to ?bfcrve.? If you would be mquitted by them, you mult plead guilty, <d rubmir. ?pon the expiration o? the t?o yea?.�, Mr do?co?rt made application to the then Proaa, ]nve tofgpplicate for his grace, and procced to his (mailer o? a?s) degree. The Prof,'s antwet wasi that he thought it rea?nable he ?ould have leavc i but t?t he codd not grabt it him? wigout Mr. , G 6 ?it?'?
�
