on an account of this matter, and that he would come and demand it in person. Accordingly, he and Charles Ford, esq., went the next morning, and found the said Levi in a great surprise at the report, who declared "he had never given the least occasion for it, and that he would go to all the coffeehouses in town to do Mr. Lewis justice." He was asked by Mr. Lewis "whether Mr. Skelton had named from what places and persons he had brought those services? Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, answered, "he was positive Mr. Skelton had neither named person nor place." Here Mr. Skelton was called in; and Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, confirmed what he had said in his hearing. Mr. Lewis then desired he would give him in writing what he had declared before the company; but Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, excused it as unnecessary, "because he had already said he would do him justice in all the coffeehouses in town." On the other hand, Mr. Lewis insisted to have it in writing, as being less troublesome; and to this Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, replied, "that he would give his answer by three o'clock in the afternoon." Accordingly, Mr. Ford went to his house at the time appointed, but did not find him at home; and, in the mean time, the said Levi went to White's chocolate-house, where, notwithstanding all he had before denied, he spread the above-mentioned report afresh, with several additional circumstances, as, "that when Mr. Skelton and the earl of Sussex came to his house, they stayed with him a considerable time, and drank tea."

The earl of Peterborough, uncle to the said Mr. Skelton, thought himself obliged to inquire into the truth of this matter; and, after some search, found Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, at the Thatched-house tavern, where he denied everything again to his lordship, as he had done in the morning to Mr. Ford, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Skelton.

This affair coming to the knowledge of the queen, her majesty was pleased to order an examination of it by some lords of the council. Their lordships appointed Wednesday the 28th of January last for this inquiry; and gave notice for attendance to the said Levi, alias Lewis, and several other persons who had knowledge of the matter. When Mr. Levi, alias Lewis, was called in, he declared, "that Mr. Skelton told him he had services for him from France, but did not name any persons." William Pulteney, esq., who was summoned, affirmed "that he had told him Mr. Skelton named the earls of Perth and Melfort." Here Levi, alias Lewis, appeared in confusion, for he had entreated Mr. Pulteney not to say

he had named any names, "for he would not stand it;" but Mr. Pulteney answered, "you may give yourself the lie; I will not." The earl of Sussex declared "he did not go out of his coach, and that his son-in-law, Mr. Skelton, had not been gone half a minute before he returned to the coach." Mr. Skelton declared "that he knew Mr. Lewis by sight perfectly well; that he immediately saw his mistake; that he said nothing to him but the words first mentioned; and that he had not brought Mr. Lewis any service from any person whatsoever." The earl of Finlater, and other persons summoned, declared "that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Skelton were personally known to each other," which rendered it wholly improbable that Mr. Skelton should mistake him; so that the whole matter appeared to be only a foolish and malicious invention of the said Levi, alias Lewis, who, when called to an account, utterly disowned it.

If Mr. Levi's view, in broaching this incoherent slander, was to make his court to any particular persons, he has been extremely disappointed; since all men of principle, laying aside the distinction of opinions, in politics, have entirely agreed in abandoning him, which I observe with a great deal of pleasure, as it is for the honor of humankind. But as neither virtue nor vice are wholly engrossed by either party, the good qualities of the mind, whatever bias they may receive by mistaken principles or mistaken politics, will not be extinguished. When I reflect on this, I cannot, without being a very partial writer, forbear doing justice to William Pulteney, esq., who, being desired by this same Mr. Levi to drop one part of what ́he knew, refused it with disdain. Men of honor will always side with the truth; of which the behavior of Mr. Pulteney, and of a great number of gentlemen of worth and quality, are undeniable instances.

I am only sorry that the unhappy author of this report seems left so entirely desolate of all his acquaintance, that he has nothing but his own conduct to direct him, and consequently is so far from acknowledging his iniquity and repentance to the world, that in the Daily Courant of Saturday last he has published a Narrative, as he calls it, of what passed between him and Mr. Skelton, wherein he recedes from some part of his former confession. This Narrative is drawn up by way of answer to an advertisement in the same paper two days before, which advertisement was couched in very moderate terms, and such as Mr. Levi ought in all prudence to have ac

quiesced in. I freely acquit everybody but himself from any share in this miserable proceeding; and can foretel him that, as his prevaricating manner of adhering to some part of his story will not convince one rational person of his veracity, so neither will anybody interpret it otherwise than as a blunder of a helpless creature left to itself, who endeavors to get out of one difficulty by plunging into a greater. It is therefore for the sake of this poor young man that I shall set before him, in the plainest manner I am able, some few inconsistencies in that Narrative of his, the truth of which he says he is ready to attest upon oath, which whether he would avoid by an oath only upon the Gospels, himself can best determine.

Mr. Levi says, in the aforesaid Narrative in the Daily Courant, "That Mr. Skelton, mistaking him for Mr. Lewis, told him he had several services to him from France, and named the names of several persons, which he (Levi) will not be positive to." Is it possible that among several names he cannot be positive so much as to one, after having named the earls of Perth, Middleton, and Melfort so often at White's and the coffeehouses? Again, he declared “That my lord Sussex came in with Mr. Skelton; that both drank tea with him;" and therefore whatever words passed my lord Sussex must be a witness to. But his lordship declares before the council "That he never stirred out of the coach, and that Mr. Skelton, in going, returning, and talking with Levi, was not absent half a minute." Therefore now, in his printed Narrative, he contradicts that essential circumstance of my lord Sussex coming in along with Mr. Skelton, so that we are here to suppose that this discourse passed only between him and Mr. Skelton, without any third person for a witness, and therefore he thought he might safely affirm what he pleased. Besides, the nature of their discourse, as Mr. Levi reports it, makes this part of his Narrative impossible and absurd, because the truth of it turns upon Mr. Skelton's mistaking him for the real Mr. Lewis; and it happens that seven persons of quality were by in a room where Mr. Lewis and Mr. Skelton were half an hour in company, and saw them talk together. It happens likewise that the real and counterfeit Lewis have no more resemblance to each other in their persons than they have in their understandings, their truth, their reputation, or their principles. Besides, in this Narrative Mr. Levi directly affirms what he directly denied to the earl of Peterborough, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Lewis himself; to whom

he twice or thrice expressly affirmed that Mr Skelton had not named either place or person.

There is one circumstance in Levi's Narrative which may deceive the reader. He says "Mr. Skelton was taken into the diningroom;" this dining-room is a ground-room next the street, and Mr. Skelton never went further than the door of it. His many prevarications in this whole affair, and the many thousand various ways of telling his story, are too tedious to be related. I shall therefore conclude with one remark. By the true account given in this paper it appears that Mr. Skelton, finding his mistake before he spoke a word, begged Mr. Levi's pardon, and, by way of apology, told him "his visit was intended to Mr. Lewis of my lord Dartmouth's office, to thank him for the service he had done him in passing the privy seal." It is probable that Mr. Levi's low intellectuals were deluded by the word service, which he took as compliments from some persons, and then it was easy to find names. Thus, what his ignorance and simplicity misled him to begin, his malice taught him to propagate.

I have been the more solicitous to set this matter in a clear light, because, Mr. Lewis being employed and trusted in public affairs, if this report had prevailed persons of the first rank might possibly have been wounded through his sides.

A PREFACE TO TIE

BISHOP OF SARUM'S INTRODUCTION

TO THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

BY GREGORY MISOSARUM.

Spargere voces

In vulgum ambiguas, et quærere conscius arma.

The Bishop of Sarum's "Introduction" was a pamphlet which he published as an alarm to warn the nation of the approach of popery. Swift, who seems to have disliked the bishop with something more than political aversion, treats him like one whom he is glad of an opportunity to insult.--JOHNSON.

TO THE BOOKSELLER.

MR. MORPHEW,-Your care in putting an advertisement in the Examiner has been of very great use to me. I now send you my Preface to the bishop of Sarum's Introduction to his third volume, which I desire you to print in such a form as in the bookseller's phrase will make a sixpenny touch, hoping it will give such a public notice of my design, that it may come into the hands of those who perhaps look not into the bishop's Introduction. I desire you will prefix to this a passage out of Virgil, which does so perfectly agree with my present thoughts of his lordship, that I cannot express them better nor more truly than those words do. I am, sir, your most humble servant, G. MISOSARUM.

A PREFACE, &c.

THIS way of publishing introductions to books that are God knows when to come out, is either wholly new, or so long unpractised that my small reading cannot trace it. However, we are to suppose that a person of his lordship's great age and experience

The Bishop's Introduction is prefaced with a letter to his bookseller, of which this is a burlesque.