The author refutes a falsity advanced by Mr D’anvers in the Craftsman of the 13th of Dec. wherein, speaking of the riot-act, he says, “That an election of Church-wardens hath been already made a handle for putting this law in execution. That the master of a small vessel was kept a whole year in prison, to the loss of his voyage, and almost the ruin of his family, upon happening to go thro’ the church-yard, from visiting a friend, an hour after the proclamation was read. Nay, that the poor man might have run the hazard of his life, as well as have been put to further expences, if his late Majesty had not been graciously pleas’d to grant him a Noli prosequi.”
The falsehood of this story the Free Briton thus corrects.—The gentlemen of Greenwich disagreeing upon the choice of a church-warden at Easter 1722, a poll was demanded and a scrutiny afterwards agreed on. The scrutineers met, but a number of dissolute persons tumultuously assembling at the same time, insulted the justices in a rude and outragious manner, (justice Savory receiving a blow on the back by a great stone) so that it was thought proper to read the proclamation in order to disperse them. Among the rioters was Charles Curtis, master of a small vessel. He was with them before, at, and after the proclamation was read, and very notorious by his behaviour; was several times admonished by the justices to depart; and as often very civilly acquainted by them with the ill consequence of his continuance in that riotous assembly. But notwithstanding their repeated admonitions, he still continued, and was found among the rioters an hour and a half after the Proclamation was read, and being even then advised to leave that place, and to avoid the fatal consequence, the said Curtis, still refused to depart, and insisted with uncommon insolence, that he was as much about his business in that place as the justices themselves. Whereupon he was apprehended, committed to Maidstone Gaol, try’d, and convicted, but in compassion to his family his punishment was suspended; but a Noli prosequi was never granted.
The aim of the Free Briton, in this paper, is to shew the inconclusive reasoning of the Craftsman from matters of fact falsely asserted.
Free Briton, Jan. 14. No. 59.
In the conclusion of this paper is a letter by way of reply to the Craftsman, Jan. 9. wherein that author calls upon the Free Briton to justify the administration for breaking with the Emperor. To which the Free Briton answers, that it will be full time to make a defence when such measures are undertaken; that their insolence is astonishing, in imputing the same crimes to our ministers for which themselves have deserved a halter. Asks the Craftsman whether he imagines the ministry are so fond of the Emperor on the sudden, as to sacrifice the trade of Spain, and abandon all the powers of Europe, only to run into his arms?
In Feb. last an outcry was rais’d on a pretended discovery that the ministry were making up at Vienna by an implicit guarantee of the Emperor’s succession to the Austrian Netherlands, as he should settle it; yet this could not be obtain’d of the British councils; and now we are told we are ready to lurch all our allies for his sake.
The authors of the Craftsman allow that this Treaty-breaking measure would be right, provided a certain great man was removed. As if national compacts could be dissolv’d by the change of the ministers: The nation must answer for the faith of treaties. Grants that such a conduct might be expected, should this ministry be chang’d.
It does not redound to the shame of those who made the treaty of Seville, that the parties have allow’d the Emperor a reasonable time to come into their measures; which if they had not, they would have been charg’d with rashness, precipitation, and every enormity. Concludes with mentioning several injuries and insults that this nation has suffer’d from the Imperial quarter.
Free Briton, Jan. 21.
He applies Job’s saying to his friends, Will you lye for God? to the Craftsman, Will you lye for liberty and country? and asks, if he demands impunity for defamatory falsehood?