Another topic of great use to these weekly inflamers, is the young Pretender[11] in France, to whom their whole party is in a high measure indebted for all their greatness; and whenever it lies in their power, they may perhaps return their acknowledgments, as out of their zeal for frequent revolutions, they were ready to do to his supposed father:  which is a piece of secret history, that I hope will one day see the light; and I am sure it shall, if ever I am master of it, without regarding whose ears may tingle.[12] But at present, the word Pretender is a term of art in their possession:  A secretary of state cannot desire leave to resign, but the Pretender is at bottom:  the Queen cannot dissolve a Parliament, but it is a plot to dethrone herself, and bring in the Pretender.  Half a score stock-jobbers are playing the knave in Exchange-Alley, and there goes the Pretender with a sponge.  One would be apt to think they bawl out the Pretender so often, to take off the terror; or tell so many lies about him, to slacken our caution, that when he is really coming, by their connivance, we may not believe them; as the boy served the shepherds about the coming of the wolf.  Or perhaps they scare us with the Pretender, because they think he may be like some diseases, that come with a fright.  Do they not believe that the Queen’s present ministry love her Majesty, at least as well as some others loved the Church?  And why is it not as great mark of disaffection now to say the Queen is in danger, as it was some months ago to affirm the same of the Church?  Suppose it be a false opinion, that the Queen’s right is hereditary and indefeasible; yet how is it possible that those who hold and believe that doctrine, can be in the Pretender’s interest?  His title is weakened by every argument that strengthens hers.  It is as plain as the words of an Act of Parliament can make it, that her present Majesty is heir to the survivor of the late King and Queen her sister.  Is not that an hereditary right?  What need we explain it any further?  I have known an Article of Faith expounded in much looser and more general terms, and that by an author whose opinions are very much followed by a certain party.[13] Suppose we go further, and examine the word indefeasible, with which some writers of late have made themselves so merry:  I confess it is hard to conceive, how any law which the supreme power makes, may not by the same power be repealed:  so that I shall not determine, whether the Queen’s right be indefeasible or no.  But this I will maintain, that whoever affirms it so, is not guilty of a crime.  For in that settlement of the crown after the Revolution, where her present Majesty is named in remainder,[14] there are (as near as I can remember) these remarkable words, “to which we bind ourselves and our posterity for ever.”  Lawyers may explain this, or call them words of form, as they please:  and reasoners may argue that such an obligation is against the very nature of government; but a plain reader, who takes the words in their natural meaning, may be excused, in thinking a right so confirmed, is indefeasible; and if there be an absurdity in such an opinion, he is not to answer for it.