subject; I hope there is no man in England so much a Whig as to be of his opinion. Mr Steele concludes his letter to you with a story about king William and his French dogkeeper, "who gave that prince a gun loaden only with powder, and then pretended to wonder how his majesty could miss his aim: which was no argument against the king's reputation for shooting very finely." This he would have you apply, by allowing her majesty to be a wise prince, but deceived by wicked counsellors, who are in the interest of France. Her majesty's aim was peace, which I think she has not missed; and God be thanked, she has got it, without any more expense, either of shot or powder. Her dog-keepers, for some years past, had directed her gun against her friends, and at last loaded it so deep, that it was in danger to burst in her hands. You may please to observe, that Mr Steele calls this dog-keeper a minister; which, with humble submission, is a gross impropriety of speech. The word is derived from the Latin, where it properly signifies a servant; but in English is never made use of otherwise than to denominate those who are employed in the service of church or state; so that the appellation, as he directs it, is no less absurd than it would be for you, Mr Bailiff, to send your apprentice for a pot of ale, and give him the title of your envoy; to call a petty constable a magistrate, or the common hangman a minister of justice. I confess, when I was choqued* at this word in reading the paragraph, a gentleman offered his conjecture, that it might possibly be intended for a reflection *This is the original mode of spelling shock'd. or jest: but, if there be any thing farther in it than a want of understanding our language, I take it to be only a refinement upon the old levelling principle of the Whigs. Thus, in their opinion, a dog-keeper is as much a minister as any secretary of state: and thus Mr Steele, and my lord-treasurer, are both fellow subjects. I confess, I have known some ministers, whose birth, or qualities, or both, were such, that nothing but the capriciousness of fortune, and the iniquity of the times, could ever have raised them above the station of dog-keepers, and to whose administration I should be loth to entrust a dog I had any value for: because, by the rule of proportion, they, who treated their prince like a slave, would have used their fellow subjects like dogs; and yet how they would treat a dog, I can find no similitude to express; yet, I well remember, they maintained a large number, whom they taught to fawn upon themselves, and bark at their mistress. However, while they were in service, I wish they had only kept her majesty's dogs, and not been trusted with her guns. And thus much by way of comment upon this worthy story of king William and his dog-keeper. I have now, Mr Bailiff, explained to you all the difficult parts in Mr Steele's letter. As for the importance of Dunkirk, and when it shall be demolished, or whether it shall be demolished or not, neither he, nor you, nor I, have any thing to do in the matter. Let us all say what we please, her majesty will think herself the best judge, and her ministers the best advisers: neither has Mr Steele pretended to prove, that any law, ecclesiastical or civil, statute or common, is broken by keeping Dunkirk undemolished, so long as the queen shall think it best for the ser |