Ibid. Burnet, upon the examination of Mitchell before the privy-council for the intended assassination of Archbishop Sharp, it being first proposed to cut off the prisoner’s right hand, and then his left:—­Lord Rothes, who was a pleasant man, said, “How shall he wipe his breech then?” This is not very decent to be mentioned in such a work, if it were not necessary.—­Swift.  As decent as a thousand other passages; so he might have spared his apology.

P. 414. Burnet, in the last article of the above trial, observes:—­ But the judge, who hated Sharp, as he went up to the bench, passing by the prisoner said to him, “Confess nothing, unless you are sure of your limbs as well as of your life.”—­Swift.  A rare judge.

Ibid. Burnet, mentioning Mackenzie’s appointment as king’s advocate, says of him:—­He has published many books, some of law, but all full of faults; for he was a slight and superficial man.—­Swift.  Envious and base.

P. 416. Burnet, speaking of the execution of the above Mitchell for the attempt against Sharp, says:—­Yet Duke Lauderdale had a chaplain, Hickes, afterwards Dean of Worcester, who published a false and partial relation of this matter, in order to the justifying of it—­Swift.  A learned, pious man.[4]

[Footnote 4:  The “Ravillac [sic] Redivivus” of Hickes, is, notwithstanding his learning and piety, in every respect deserving of the censures passed upon it by Burnet. [S.]]

P. 425. Burnet. [Titus Oates] got to be a chaplain in one of the king’s ships, from which he was dismissed upon complaint of some unnatural practices, not to be named.—­Swift.  Only sodomy.

P. 434. Burnet.  He [Staley] was cast.—­Swift.  Anglice, found guilty.

P. 441. Burnet, on the impeachment of Lord Danby:—­Maynard, an ancient and eminent lawyer, explained the words of the statute of 25 Edward III. that the courts of law could not proceed but upon one of the crimes there enumerated:  But the Parliament had still a power, by the clause in that Act, to declare what they thought was treason.—­Swift.  Yes, by a new Act, but not with a retrospect; therefore Maynard was a knave or a fool, with all his law.

P. 442. Burnet.  This indeed would have justified the King, if it had been demanded above board.—­Swift.  Style of a gamester.

P. 451. Burnet.  Yet many thought, that, what doctrines soever men might by a subtlety of speculation be earned into, the approaches of death, with the seriousness that appeared in their deportment, must needs work so much on the probity and candour which seemed footed in human nature, etc.—­Swift. Credat Judaeus Apella.

P. 455. Burnet, the Bill of Exclusion disinherited:—­the next heir, which certainly the King and Parliament might do, as well as any private man might disinherit his next heir.—­Swift. That is not always true.  Yet it was certainly in the power of King and Parliament to exclude the next heir.