farther deſign than writing for her own amuſement, and diverſion in the country, without intending particular reflexions, or characters; when this was not believed, and the contrary urged againſt her by ſeveral circumſtances, ſhe ſaid, ‘then it muſt be by inſpiration, becauſe knowing her own innocence, ſhe could account for it no other way.’ The ſecretary replied,’ ‘that inſpiration uſed to be upon a good account, and her writings were ſtark naught.’ She, with an air of penitence, ‘acknowledged, that his lordſhip’s obſervation might be true, but that there were evil angels, as well as good, ſo that nevertheleſs what ſhe had wrote, might ſtill be by inſpiration.’
In conſequence of this examination, our authoreſs was cloſe ſhut up in a meſſenger’s houſe, without being allowed pen, ink, and paper. However her council ſued out her Habeas Corpus at the King’s-Bench Bar, and ſhe was admitted to bail.
Whether thoſe in power were aſhamed to bring a woman to her trial, for writing a few amorous trifles, or our laws were defective, as was generally conjectured, becauſe ſhe had diſguiſed her ſatire under romantic names, and a feigned ſcene of action, ſhe was diſcharged, after ſeveral times expoſing her in perſon, to croſs the court before the Bench of Judges, with her three attendants, the Printer, and two Publiſhers.
Not long after this a total change of the miniſtry enſued, the ſtateſmen to whom ſhe had been obnoxious were removed, and conſequently all her fears upon that ſcore diſſipated; her native gaiety, and good humour returned, and ſhe again employed herſelf in writing a tragedy for the ſtage, and reſolved never more to deal in politics, as being much out of the natural ſphere of a woman: ſhe was perſuaded it was folly in one in her ſtation, to diſoblige any party by a pen equally qualified to divert all.
