a popish plot on foot: the duke of York, a known papist, was presumptive heir to the crown: the house of commons would not hear of any expedient for securing their religion under a popish prince, nor would the king, or lords, consent to a bill of exclusion; the French king was in the height of his grandeur, and the vigour of his age. At this day the presumptive heir, with that whole illustrious family, are protestants; the popish pretender excluded for ever by several acts of parliament; and every person in the smallest employment, as well as the members of both houses, obliged to abjure him. The French king is at the lowest ebb of life; his armies have been conquered, and his towns won from him for ten years together; and his kingdom is in danger of being torn by divisions during a long minority. Are these cases parallel? or are we now in more danger of France and popery than we were thirty years ago? what can be the motive for advancing such false, such detestable assertions? what conclusions would his lordship draw from such premises as these? if injurious appellations were of any advantage to a cause, (as the style of our adversaries would make us believe) what appellations would those deserve, who thus endeavour to sow the seeds of sedition, and are impatient to see the fruits? But, saith he, the deaf adder stoppeth her ears, let the charmer charm never so wisely. True my lord, there are indeed too many adders in this nation's bosom; adders in all shapes, and in all habits, whom neither the queen nor parliament can charm to loyalty, truth, religion, or honour.
Among other instances produced by him of the dismal condition we are in, he offers one which could
