They usually run after the following manner: "What? shall this insolent writer presume to censure the late ministry, the ablest, the most faithful, and truest lovers of their country, and its constitution that ever served a prince? Shall he reflect on the best H[ouse] of C[ommons] that ever sat within those walls? Has not the Queen changed both for a ministry and Parliament of Jacobites and highfliers, who are selling us to France, and bringing over the Pretender?" This is the very sum and force of all their reasonings, and this their method of complaining against the "Examiner." In _them_ it is humble and loyal to reflect upon the Q[ueen] and the ministry, and Parliament she has chosen with the universal applause of her people; in _us_ it is insolent to defend her Majesty and her choice, or to answer their objections, by shewing the reasons why those changes were necessary. The same style has been used in the late case relating to some gentlemen in the army;[6] such a clamour was raised by a set of men, who had the boldness to tax the administration with cruelty and injustice, that I thought it necessary to interfere a little, by shewing the ill consequences that might arise from some proceedings, though without application to particular persons. And what do they offer in answer? Nothing but a few poor common-places against calumny and informers, which might have been full as just and seasonable in a plot against the sacred person of the Q[ueen]. But, by the way; why are these idle people so indiscreet to name those two words, which afford occasion of laying open to the world such an infamous scene of subornation and perjury, as well as calumny and informing, as I believe is without example: when a whole cabal attempted an action, wherein a condemned criminal refused to join with them for the reward of his life?[7] Not that I disapprove their sagacity, who could foretell so long before, by what hand they should one day fall, and therefore thought any means justifiable by which they might prevent it.