sense? If not, what may be the consequences?
As to what the Craftsman had granted, that the fulness of time was come to desert one ally, and to Mr. Osborne's reasons for such desertion, he replies by demanding, Whether it was not equally reasonable long ago?
Osborne had ask'd ——— if upon the non-execution of this treaty, occasion'd by the different views of the allies, another court should grow stubborn, what must we do? This the Craftsman answers by another question, that is, whether the different views of the allies do not proceed from their different interefts?
Craftsman, Jan. 23, No. 238.
From the Minutes of Mr. Oldcastle.
THis paper continues remarks on Q. Elizabeth's reign; and is a long Encomium on her management of treaties with foreign powers, which she always conducted in such a manner as was best suited to the good of her people and the honour and dignity of the nation. Her Ministry went wisely and steadily on to their own great purposes of preserving the peace of Europe, and the trade and prosperity of the Kingdom. (See Free Brit. p. 8, 326.)
Craftsman, Jan. 30, No. 239.
MAintains the liberty of the Press, in opposition to those who argue for the necessity of some restraint, which, if granted, he says, might be made use of to destroy all news papers whatsoever, except the Gazette.
After repeating most of the points in debate, he defends his Hague letter (for which the government thought fit to call him to an account) in as much as there was nothing in it asserted, but only supposed; and adds, he has as much right to reason upon suppositions as Mr. Osborne; and to censure the conduct of ministers, as he hath to approve it; for unless the right is reciprocal, the liberty of the press is no liberty at all.
As to what Mr. Walsingham had allow'd, that we have a right to reason upon political affairs, tho' not to lay down false facts; he replies, that he has asserted no falshoods, and only exercised the natural right of every Free Briton, to offer his opinion on affairs.
Concludes with saying, that if he should be call'd upon to defend himself in a court of justice he must submit to the law, and abide the judgment of his country. See p. 298.
London Journal. Jan. 2. No. 596.
against the Craftsman, No. 233.
THE Craftsman having in his said Journal advanced several arguments for the disbanding the Army and repealing the Riot Act, the Author of the London Journal undertakes here to confute them. He admits that a Government ought to have no more power than is necessary for the safety and protection, the preservation and happiness of the people, but adds that the laws alone, without a power to execute, and provide against all sudden emergencies, and possible dangers, will not answer these ends. Asserts that the possibility of powers being abused is not a sufficient reason to strip the Government of such a security, or to lodge the safety of the King in the affections of the people, which are variable and easily seduced, and (as the Craftsman allows) very precarious, when he makes a doubt whether his present Majesty enjoys them. Not only Armies and Riot Acts, but even the very law itself, by ill designing men may be used for our destruction, which were made for our safety. But must we part with the law, because we may suffer by the law? Every nation round us is arm'd, and must we alone stand naked and defenceless? If the liberties of many nations have been destroy'd by standing armies, the liberties of many have been preserv'd by them. Men-tion,
