doubted the innocence and goodness of his design; that he appears, through the whole tenour of it, to be a loyal subject to his majesty, and devoted to the house of Hanover, and declares himself in a manner peculiarly zealous against the pretender. And if such a writer, in four several treatises on so nice a subject, where a royal patent is concerned, and where it was necessary to speak of England and of liberty, should in one or two places happen to let fall an inadvertent expression, it would be hard to condemn him after all the good he has done, especially when we consider, that he could have no possible design in view either of honour or profit, but purely the good of his country.
Thirdly, it ought to be well considered, whether any one expression in the said pamphlet be really liable to a just exception, much less to be found wicked, malicious, seditious, reflecting upon his majesty and his ministry, etc.
The two points in that pamphlet, which it is said the prosecutors intend chiefly to fix on, are, first, where the author mentions the penner of the king's answer. First, it is well known his majesty is not master of the English tongue; and therefore it is necessary that some other person should be employed to pen what he has to say, or write in that language. Secondly, his majesty's answer is not in the first person, but in the third. It is not said, we are concerned, or our royal predecessors; but his majesty is concerned, and his royal predecessors. By which it is plain, these are properly not the words of his majesty; but supposed to be taken from him, and transmitted hither by one of his ministers. Thirdly, it will be easily seen, that
