own case, I shall leave that writer to defend himself. The second he mentions, considering the strength of his arguments, and the closeness of his reasoning, deserved a little more regard from the Plebeian, who, it seems, with much ado went through the performance. This would certainly have been true, had he gone through it with a design to answer it.

Having routed Baronius, and confounded Bellarmine, pass we on to the next, said the country curate to his admiring audience. Our author pursues his conquests with the same satisfaction and intrepidity. In the first place, he is angry with a writer for assuming the name of the Old Whig, who may more justly recriminate upon this author for taking that of the Plebeian, a title which he is by no means fond of retaining, if we may give credit to many shrewd guessers. But he tells the Old Whig, that he expected from that title no less than the utmost wrath and indignation against the House of Lords. How does this agree with the censure he passes upon him afterwards, for treating that species in such a manner as he dares not venture to repeat? I must however remind this author of the milk with which he nurses our nobles, not to omit his stagnated pool; passages of such a nature, that, in imitation of the author, I shall despatch them with an Horresco referens!

The author, in the next paragraph, gives us a definition of the point in debate, viz. that it is a jumble and a hodgepodge; a most clear, comprehensive, and elegant account of

the matter!

The author then continues his animosities against the Ephori of Lacedæmon; but this passage I shall waive for two reasons: First, because it is nothing to the purpose; Secondly, because I am informed there are two or three keen disputants, who will return a proper answer to it, when they have discovered the author.

The Plebeian proceeds to detect the imaginary mistake in the Old Whig, for having asserted that there. has been as great an alteration in one branch of the legislature, as is now proposed to be made in another. A fact immediately puts an end to a dispute, and, in the case before us, stands thus:

The question now is, whether the restraining the number of the House of Commons to what it is at present, was not as great an alteration in that branch of the legislature, as the restriction now proposed would be to the other branch of the legislature, should it take place in it. To which I shall add the following question: Whether the inconveniences,, arising from that continual increase in the House of Commons, did not make the restraint upon it prudent and necessary; and, Whether, if the like inconveniences arise from this perpetually increasing House of Lords, it is not as necessary and as prudent to put a stop to it? As for the little towns of Watchet and Dunster, our author can draw nothing from them to the advantage of his cause, if he can bestow labour and time enough, of which he finds it necessary to be very sparing in this argument, to peruse the printed list of counties and boroughs, to whom the privilege of sending representatives to parliament was granted or restored by the several princes above-mentioned; and to answer the short query proposed to him at the end of it, with relation to Queen Elizabeth :

After having proposed these questions in plain terms, I come, in the next place, to one of the Plebeian's, which is carried on in metaphor, till it ends in something that is past my understanding. But these retrenchments being now made, the question, says he, at present is, whether the Commons ought to go on stripping the Crown of every jewel, till it becomes less resplendent than the Doge of Venice's coronet, or less comfortable than the Sword-bearer's cap of Maintenance? I shall only confront this metaphorical query with one that is adapted to men of ordinary capacities. "These retrenchments being made, whether the Commons ought to accept the offer of the Crown, to part with a prerogative that is still exorbitant and dangerous to the community ?"

But our author's chief concern is for the poor House of

Commons, whom he represents as naked and defenceless, when the Crown, by losing this prerogative, would be less able to protect them against the power of a House of Lords. Who forbears laughing, when the Spanish friar represents LITTLE DICKEY, under the person of Gomez, insulting the colonel that was able to fright him out of his wits with a single frown? This Gomez, says he, flew upon him like a dragon, got him down, the devil being strong in him, and gave him bastinado on bastinado, and buffet upon buffet, which the poor meek colonel, being prostrate, suffered with a most Christian patience. The improbability of the fact never fails to raise mirth in the audience; and one may venture to answer for a British House of Commons, if we may guess from its conduct hitherto, that it will scarce be either so tame or so weak, as our author supposes.

The Plebeian, to turn off the force of the remark upon another paragraph, has recourse to a shift that is of great use to controversial writers, by affirming that his antagonist mistakes his meaning. Let the impartial reader judge whether an answer, that proves this alteration would not be detrimental to the House of Peers, is not suited to an objection which says in so many words, that it would be detrimental to the House itself. But, says the Plebeian in this his reply to the Old Whig, it will not be detrimental to them in point of power, but it will be detrimental on account of those talents which ought to accompany power, the want of which the Commons will feel in their judicature. Which is, in other words, "I do not mean when I say that it will be detrimental to the House of Peers itself, that it will be detrimental to the Peers, but that it will be detrimental to the Commons." I appeal to any man, whether the Old Whig ignorantly mistook the natural sense of those words, or whether the Plebeian ignorantly expressed that which he now says was his meaning in those words. The Plebeian having in his former paper represented, that this old standing body of Peers, without receiving numerous additions from time to time, would become corrupt and offensive like a stagnated pool, tells us here in excuse for them, that they will be offensive to others, but not perceive it themselves. If I could suppose, with the author, that they would ever be in this lamentable pickle, I should be of his opinion, that they

ought to be sweetened by such wholesome, pure, and fresh streams as are continually passing into them.

The Plebeian next objects to the Old Whig's calculation of the probable extinction of two titles, taking one year with another. By the calculation generally received, says this author, I suppose he means the list published by way of prelude to this project. Whereas, the Old Whig could not take that list for his calculation, but formed his calculation from that list, and from the nature of the alteration which is proposed. This objection will immediately vanish upon discovering the fallacy of the Plebeian's argument. He supposes no greater number of extinctions would happen among the English Lords, were their numbers settled at 184, than happened in that body when they were only 59, 104, 142, 153, 162, or 168. At this rate of calculating, the Plebeian will be sure of gaining his point, and affirms very truly that the extinctions by a just medium amount to no more than a Peer and a half for every year. But I appeal to honest Mr. Wingate, who was never looked upon as a party-writer, whether my calculation will not appear very just, if examined by his golden rule, and other curious operations of arithmetic, which are to be met with in his works; especially when the bill, as it evidently tends to multiply extinctions, by preventing the Peerage from running into collateral lines, or descending to females, will more than answer my computation, if I should have the misfortune to disagree with the Plebeian about some very minute fraction of a Lord, that might happen in the space of 116 years. As for those contingent vacancies which may be made by the edge of the law, our author regards the uncertainty of them as a very uncomfortable prospect to the candidates for Patrician honours, since they may have time enough to try all their patience, if they live in hopes of such an expedient for their promotion. The ascertaining of this point is indeed what I am not equal to, and must therefore leave it to the masters of political calculation. But our author is afraid, that if such lucky opportunities of extinction should happen, Lords may still sit with their heads on, unless a seasonable increase may be made to them in such critical junctures. This, I must confess, is to me one very great reason for the 'The well-known arithmetician.

secure,

alteration proposed; being fully of opinion with the Old Whig, as expressed in the following words, "Is this inconvenience better prevented in a House of Peers on the bottom it now stands ? Can any who has been a good minister be if the Crown should add a sufficient number of his enemies to those who sit in judgment upon him? Or is a bad minister in any danger, when he may be sheltered by the addition of a sufficient number of his friends ?" The Plebeian's answer to this passage is highly satisfactory: In either of these cases, says he, the utmost iniquity must be supposed in the Crown, which I must confess I cannot bring myself to do, and therefore my argument remains entire. I very much approve of the author's dutiful and submissive behaviour to the Crown, which puts one in mind of the worthy alderman, who, upon hearing a member of the common council call the emperor Nero a monster of cruelty, told him, he ought not to speak disrespectfully of a crowned head. But if the author will only go such lengths with me, as to allow there ever has been a bad sovereign, or, not to shock him with such a supposition, that there ever has been a wicked ministry, and that it is not utterly impossible but there may be such in times to come, my argument stands entire. God be thanked, we are now blessed with a good king, and with the prospect of such for our days, but cannot answer for those who are yet unborn, since they will still be men, and therefore liable to imperfection.

The Plebeian was hard-set by the answer of the Old Whig to his arguments, That the limitation of the number of the Lords would run the Constitution into an aristocracy, and has therefore very prudently shuffled the consideration of that point under another head, where he forgets the Old Whig's reply to what was urged against his opinion in that case, so that he has visibly given up the point which was most material in his first Plebeian. The Old Whig's remark therefore still stands out against him unanswered, and plainly turns his own ill consequence upon him, by showing there is a visible tendency to an aristocracy as the Constitution now stands, which would be taken away by the alteration proposed. But it is ungenerous to insult a baffled adversary; I shall therefore proceed to the next particular in dispute.

The Old Whig affirms, that the power of giving money