As to the riot act, he says that power is necessary to prevent riots and tumults, and to disperse the people when so assembled. To this purpose a law is made which tells them the consequences of it; a proper officer gives them warning; and if after this they will stay and be hang’d, ’tis their own fault. He allows, that shou’d a Justice of the peace assume the liberty of reading the proclamation where a member of parliament is chusing, he ought to be hang’d. He don’t see how this act can injure us any other way; for while the constitution is preserv’d, and our liberties taken care of by the government, the people can’t be unjustly hurt by it. The remaining part of his discourse is spent in setting forth the unreasonableness of repealing this act, from the behaviour of the authors of the _Craftsman_ and their abettors, who by their conduct in exciting uneasiness in the people, have made it necessary to continue it in force. _London Journal_, _Jan. 9_, No. 597. Contains remarks upon a paper in the _Craftsman_, called, _An extract of a letter from the ~Hague~_. The author begins with observing, that tho’ the pretence of the _Craftsman_ is liberty and patriotism, yet his real design is opposition to the court. He then reflects on the _Craftsman_’s incoherent way of arguing, just as it serves to vent his spleen; for according to him the ministry are never right when they do what he counts wrong, and always wrong when they do what the _Craftsman_ counts right. When we were broken with the Emperor we were quite wrong, and now we are going to unite with the Emperor we are equally wrong. This paper, or letter, the _Journalist_ says, is made up of mere conjectures, and suppositions; or else insinuations, unsupported by facts or reason: justifies our ministry from the aspersion that we are undoing what we have been doing these five years; and insists that we have been continuing to do the same thing, that is, pursuing the peace and happiness of the nation by different means, as alterations happen’d, or circumstances varied. He then answers the _Craftsman_’s charge of deserting one ally, by supposing that this ally may have views inconsistent with the two other allies, and so stand disposed to act contrary to the design of that treaty and our interest. _England_ is not obliged to execute the treaty, unless the other allies will act their part. The _Craftsman_ charges the ministry with obstinate perseverance in bad measures, and now with a precipitate alteration of councils. This the author of this _Journal_ denies, and says, it should be more justly called, a wise and prudent accommodating themselves to the late unfortunate juncture of affairs. Changing hands is not an alteration of councils, but a conduct which wise and honest men ought to observe. _London Journal_, _Jan. 16._ No. 598. _Reflections on the present State of Affairs, occasion’d by the ~Craftsman~, Jan. 9._