of mistaken or insidious malecontents, than the real publication can. And, if any thing were by this or any other history to be shown essentially erroneous in our politicks; who, that calls himself a Briton, can be deemed such an impious slave, as to conceal the destructive evil? The editor of this work disdains and abhors the servile thought; and wishes to live no longer, than he dares to think speak, write, and, in all things, to act worthy of a Briton.
From this regard to truth and to his country, the editor of this history was glad of an opportunity of rescuing such a writing from those who meant to suppress it: the common cause, in his estimation, required and demanded it should be done; and the sooner it is published he judged, the better: for if the conduct of the queen and her ministers does not deserve the obloquy that has been long industriously cast upon it; what is more just than to vindicate it? what more reasonable, than that this should be done while living witnesses may yet be called, to prove or disprove the several allegations and assertions; since in a few years more, such witnesses may be as much wanting as to prevent a canonization, which is therefore prudently procrastinated for above an age? Let us then coolly hear what is to be said on this side the question, and judge like Britons.
The editor would not be thought to justify the author of this history, in all points, or even to attempt to acquit him of unbecoming prejudices and partiality: without being deeply versed in history or politicks; he can see his author, in many instances, blinded with passions, that disgrace the historian; and blending, with phrases worthy of a Cæsar or a
Cicero,
