to other thrones, and have no power in limiting its own? How can a senator, capable of doing honour to sir Thomas Hanmer, be guilty of such ridiculous inconsistencies? "The author of the Conduct of the Allies (says he) has dared to drop insinuations about altering the succession." The author of the Conduct of the Allies writes sense and English; neither of which the author of the Crisis understands. The former thinks "it wrong in point of policy to call in a foreign power to be guarantee of our succession, because it puts it out of the power of our own legislature to change our succession, without the consent of that prince or state, who is guarantee, whatever necessity may happen in future times." Now, if it be high treason to affirm by writing, that the legislature has no such power; and if Mr. Steele thinks it strange that Britain should be debarred this privilege, what could be the crime of putting such a case, that in future ages, a necessity might happen of limiting the succession, as well as it has happened already?
When Mr. Steele "reflects upon the many solemn, strong barriers (to our succession) of laws and oaths, &c. he thinks all fear vanishes before them." I think so too, provided the epithet solemn goes for nothing; because, although I have often heard of a solemn day, a solemn feast, and a solemn coxcomb, yet I can conceive no idea to myself of a solemn barrier. However, be that as it will, his thoughts it seems will not let him rest, but, before he is aware, he asks himself several questions; and, since he cannot resolve them, I will endeavour to give him what satisfaction I am able. The first is, what are the marks of a lasting security? To which I answer, that
