commons in particular; whom he taxes with falsehood and absurdity, as well as myself, though in a more respectful manner, and by a sort of irony. The whole kingdom had given the same interpretation that I had done, to some certain passages in the address from both houses, upon the attempt of Guiscard; friends and enemies agreed in applying the word faction. But the speaker is much clearer; talks (as I have mentioned in another place) of some unparallelled attempts, and uses other terms that come pretty home to the point. As to what the parliament affirms, this author makes it first as absurd and impracticable as he can; and then pretends to yield, as pressed by so great an authority; and explains their meaning into nonsense, in order to bring them off from reflecting upon his party. Then for the speaker, this writer says, he is but a single man; and, because his speech was in words too direct to avoid[1], he advises him to save his honour and virtue, by owning a solecism in speech; and to write less correctly, rather than mean maliciously. What an expedient this advocate has found to remove the load of an accusation! He answers, "The crime is horrible; that great men ought not to be thus insolently charged." I reply, "That the parliament and speaker appear, in many points, to be of the same opinion." He rejoins, "That he is pressed by too great an authority; that perhaps those wise assemblies, and that honourable gentleman (who besides is but a single man) may probably speak nonsense; they must either deliver a solecism, or
- ↑ This word is improperly used here, both in point of sense and grammar. It should be too direct to be avoided.
