[
{
"key": "N2BBUVX9",
"version": 2762,
"library": {
"type": "group",
"id": 297982,
"name": "z. EdSysONE Praxis - Project - Ultimate Compendium of Countries",
"links": {
"alternate": {
"href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/z._edsysone_praxis_-_project_-_ultimate_compendium_of_countries",
"type": "text/html"
}
}
},
"links": {
"self": {
"href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/297982/items/N2BBUVX9",
"type": "application/json"
},
"alternate": {
"href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/z._edsysone_praxis_-_project_-_ultimate_compendium_of_countries/items/N2BBUVX9",
"type": "text/html"
},
"up": {
"href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/297982/items/ZGWNX9BU",
"type": "application/json"
}
},
"meta": {
"createdByUser": {
"id": 37652,
"username": "jacob-walker",
"name": "Jacob J. Walker",
"links": {
"alternate": {
"href": "https://www.zotero.org/jacob-walker",
"type": "text/html"
}
}
},
"numChildren": 0
},
"data": {
"key": "N2BBUVX9",
"version": 2762,
"parentItem": "ZGWNX9BU",
"itemType": "note",
"note": "Paragraph with loophole
\n
From the song embedded in the pamphlet:
\n
\n“No Bill our Consciences shall bind,
We’ll disappoint their spiteful Aim.
No Law’s so strong, but we can find
A Loophole to evade the same.”
\n
\n
\n
What it’s saying in context of the whole book
\n
The Whigs Feast is a Tory-leaning lampoon of Whig politics in Queen Anne’s last years. The pamphlet frames a mock “feast” (with toasts, a printed bill of fare, emblems, and a concluding song) to ridicule Whigs for celebrating a Catholic (“Popish”) war hero while styling themselves the guardians of Protestantism. The table of contents and preliminaries make clear the satirical design—a staged “entertainment” with allegorical dishes, emblems, and verses.
\n
Within that frame, the song speaks in a swaggering, partisan voice and boasts that Whigs can always find a legal way around any restriction—a “loophole”—to reach their political ends. In the immediate political climate of 1711–1712, this digs at the controversy over “occasional conformity,” whereby dissenters would take Anglican communion just often enough to qualify for public office under the Test and Corporation Acts. The Tory ministry pushed the Occasional Conformity Act (1711) precisely to close that perceived loophole; contemporaries on both sides described the practice as an evasion of the law. The lyric’s couplet distills that charge: the Whig cause, it sneers, will “evade” whatever statute is passed. Wikipediatextbase.scriptorium.ro
\n
The satirical target also includes the Whigs’ courting of Prince Eugene during his 1712 London visit, which Tories read as factional theatre against the government’s peace policy. That is why the title calls him a “Popish general,” and why the pamphlet’s “feast” is presented as a partisan spectacle rather than a neutral civic honor.
\n
Direct quotation (the paragraph with “loophole”):
\n
\n“I cannot but think this opinion of his a little extraordinary, becauſe of the great facility there may be either of an infant’s being put upon committing a miſchief of this kind; or of any perſon’s counterfeiting madneſs for that very purpoſe: we know too, of how unlimited an age an infant in Law is, provided he be under twenty one years: ſo that methinks, where ſo general and publick a miſchief is to be prevented, no loophole for eſcaping ought to be admitted.”
\n
\n
What it’s saying in context of the book:
This paragraph occurs in the essay “Observations on the Statute of Treasons (25 Edward III)” in Volume II of Sheffield’s collected works. In this section he critiques Lord Coke’s view that infants and the insane fall outside the statute’s reach. Sheffield argues that such categorical exclusions invite fraud (e.g., feigned insanity) and would create an escape hatch from punishment—hence “no loophole for escaping ought to be admitted.”
\n
More broadly, Volume II gathers Sheffield’s political memoirs, speeches, letters, and essays. The “Observations” essay takes a cautious, constitutional line: it praises the 25 Edw. III statute for limiting treason to specified cases and warns against judges or later statutes that casually expand its scope; determinations beyond the statute should be left to Parliament and used sparingly. In other words, he wants treason law to be narrow and settled—but without technical exceptions that would let true offenders slip through.
\n
Paragraph with “loophole(s)” (pp. 382–383, October 1727):
\n
\n“The Reader may except, if he pleaſes, out of my Liſt of Companies and Offices, the Poſt Office and the Exciſe Office, becauſe the Commiſſioners, and all other Perſons employed in thoſe Offices, are strictly prohibited, by ſeveral Acts of Parliament, under ſevere Penalties, to intermeddle or concern themſelves, directly or indirectly, in any Elections: But I muſt beg leave to take Notice, that there are few Laws which have no Loopholes, and do not lie open to ſome Evaſions; that, in the preſent Caſe, moſt Perſons, who have a Dependance on theſe Officers, have Senſe enough to judge, without any Directions, on which Side they muſt vote, in order to merit Favour and Encouragement; that a Wink or a Nod will often do as well as explicit Commands; or that if verbal Orders are ſometimes neceſſary, they may be convey’d to as much Purpoſe, by a truſty, third Hand, as if delivered by the Great Man Himſelf. We do not want Inſtances of ſome Men in theſe Offices (particularly in the Poſt Office) who have acted in Defiance of theſe Reſtraints, when they knew it would be taken well at Court; nay I could mention one Man, who had the Confidence to do it, at a late Election for a neighbouring County, even contrary to the known Inclination of a certain great Perſon, whom it is always his Duty as well as his Intereſt not to diſpleaſe.”
\n
\n
What it’s talking about (context of the whole book):
\n
The Political State of Great Britain was Boyer’s monthly chronicle, compiling diplomatic news, reprinted documents, and pointed political commentary. In Vol. XXXIV (covering mid‑1727 through year‑end), Boyer prints, summarizes, and comments on European negotiations around Gibraltar, British‑Spanish tensions, and domestic political maneuvering during the accession year of George II. The quoted passage comes from an election‑commentary section in the October issue that reflects on the fiercely contested City of London poll. The writer concedes that statute law forbids Post Office and Excise officials from meddling in elections, but argues that patronage and dependence create “loopholes”—informal signals (“a Wink or a Nod”) and indirect orders that let powerful offices influence votes while avoiding the letter of the law. Immediately after this paragraph the piece returns to the “City Election” explicitly, using that lens to argue that even against such pressure, a substantial body of “independant, uncorrupt Citizens” held firm
\n
Here’s a careful reading/transcription of the dictionary slip you shared (modernizing only the long “ſ” to “s” and preserving Johnson’s punctuation and line breaks):
\n
\nLO’OPHOLE. n. s. [loop and hole.]
1. Aperture; hole to give a passage.
The Indian herdsman shunning heat,
Shelters in cool, and tends his pasturing herds;
At loopholes cut through thickest shade. — Milton’s Par. Lost.
Ere the blabbing Eastern scout
The nice morn on the Indian steep,
From her cabin’d loophole peep. — Milton.
Walk not near yon corner house by night; for there are
blunderbusses planted in every loophole, that go off at the
squeaking of a fiddle. — Dryden’s Spanish Friar.
2. A shift; an evasion.
Needless, or needful, I not now contend,
For still you have a loophole for a friend. — Dryden.
\nLO’OPHOLED. adj. [from loophole.]* Full of holes; full of openings, or void spaces.
This uneasy loopholed gaol,
In which y’ are hamper’d by the fetlock,
Cannot but put y’ in mind of wedlock: — Hudibras, p. ii.
\n
\n
What it’s saying, in plain English
\n
\n
So the entry documents both the architectural/fortification sense and the now-familiar figurative “escape clause” sense, plus the adjective loopholed
\n
Paragraph containing “loophole”:
\n
\n“Moſt certain it is, and Obſervation will make it good, That the Souls of Men, while they are in theſe mortal Bodies, are as ſo many Priſoners immur’d in ſeveral Priſons, with their ſingle Loopholes looking into ſeveral Quarters, and therefore are able pronounce no further than their proper Proſpect will give them Leave. So the ſeveral Complexions of Men’s Bodies diſpoſe or invite them to an eaſy and happy Diſcovery of ſome Things, when yet notwithſtanding if you confer with them concerning other‑ſome, that lie not within their Proſpect, or the Limits of their natural Genius, they will be enforced either to acknowledge their Ignorance; or, if they will take upon them to judge, (which is the more frequent) they will abundantly diſcover their Error and Miſtake.”
\n
\n
What it means in the context of the whole book
\n
This 32‑page pamphlet is an eighteenth‑century abridgment of Henry More’s Enthusiasmus Triumphatus (1656), a classic critique of religious “enthusiasm” (i.e., mistaking natural passions or melancholy for divine inspiration). The title page explicitly presents it as an extract “from a learned piece of a late eminent writer,” and library catalogues identify that writer as Henry More. Folger CatalogUGent Library
\n
Throughout, the author explains enthusiasm as a psychological and bodily distemper: fervor that springs from temperament and “melancholy” rather than from the Holy Spirit. He prescribes temperance, humility, and reason as antidotes and differentiates genuine piety (universal, scriptural, prudent) from delusive rapture.
\n
Within that argument, the “loopholes” passage is a key metaphor. Here loopholes means the narrow slits or apertures of a prison or fortification (the older architectural sense), not a legal escape clause. Souls, “immur’d” in bodies, each look out through only a single small opening; our limited bodily temperaments and perspectives let us see a slice of truth but tempt us to over‑judge matters beyond our view. The image supports the book’s central plea: be wary of confident pronouncements that go beyond one’s “proper Prospect,” and submit fervor to the discipline of reason
\n
Paragraph(s) containing “loophole”
\n
\n- \nProceedings of the Political Club — “On the pawnbrokers bill” (April 1746):\n
\n
\n
\n“In short, Sir, if this bill should pass without any loophole, as it now evidently has, and as most of our laws, I think, have, it would be impossible for a pawnbroker to lend money to any but those of his intimate acquaintance; and by such a confined trade no pawnbroker could expect to live. The consequence of which would be this: we should have multitudes of low people, such as alehouse-keepers, gin-shop or chandler-shop keepers, and the like, that would privately lend money upon pawns. Among such it would be much easier for thieves and highwaymen to dispose of what they had stolen or robbed, and by such the poor would be much more grievously oppressed.”
\n
\n
\n- \nProceedings of the Political Club — same debate (April 1746):\n
\n
\n
\n“This therefore can be no objection against our passing the bill into a law; and if the last clause should be thought to furnish pawnbrokers with a loophole, we may either leave it out entirely, or alter it so as to prevent any evasion of the law we intend to make.”
\n
\n
\n
What it means in the context of the whole book
\n
This 1746 volume of The Scots Magazine is an annual compilation of the monthly issues, each mixing news, public documents, lists (“New Books,” prices, mortality bills), and set pieces such as the long‑running “Proceedings of the Political Club.” That feature gives stylized, pseudonymous speeches (e.g., “C. Marcius Coriolanus,” “A. Hostilius Cato”) that mirror real parliamentary controversies. In April 1746 the Club debates a bill to regulate pawnbrokers—licensing, recording borrowers’ names and abodes, penalties, and a proviso that the act “shall not extend to bankers.” Within that debate, loophole is used figuratively to mean a gap or escape in a statute that would allow evasion, not the architectural slit in a wall. One speaker worries that a perfectly airtight bill (one “without any loophole”) would drive pawnbroking underground, worsening crime and harming the poor; another concedes that a particular last clause might create a “loophole” and suggests removing or tightening it to prevent evasions. Together, the two uses show the magazine’s engagement with legal‑administrative language and the mid‑18th‑century policy argument over how to curb theft without destroying a credit mechanism for the poor. (See the volume’s front matter and the April header for the Political Club section.)
\n
Paragraph containing “loophole” (from your PDF; line-break hyphens normalized)
\n
\nIn short, Sir, if this Bill should pass without any Loophole, as it now evidently has, and as most of our Laws, I think, have, it would be impossible for a Pawnbroker to lend Money to any but those of his intimate Acquaintance; and by such a confined Trade no Pawnbroker could expect to live; the Consequence of which would be this: We should have Multitudes of low People, such as Alehouse-keepers, Gin-shop or Chandler-shop-keepers, and the like, that would privately lend Money upon Pawns: Among such it would be much easier for Thieves and Highwaymen to dispose of what they had stolen or robb’d; and by such the Poor would be much more grievously oppressed.
\n
\n
What it’s doing in the context of the whole book
\n
The London Magazine’s long-running “Political Club” feature was a thinly veiled stand-in for parliamentary debates (printed in dialogue/brief-speech form to sidestep reporting restrictions). In the March 1746 installment, members argue over a proposed Pawnbrokers Bill. The speaker here warns that a statute drafted “without any Loophole”—i.e., without exceptions or escape-clauses—would cripple legitimate pawnbroking and push small loans underground to alehouses and chandler’s shops, thereby abetting thieves and harming the poor. So “loophole” is used in a fully figurative/legal sense (an “out” in the law), not the architectural slit—exactly the semantic shift you’re tracing in early- to mid-18th-century print culture.
\n
Paragraph containing “loophole” (verbatim from your PDF)
\n
\n…plot and conspiracy, as from too great a liberty they all took, of saying whatever came into their thoughts: he shou’d have reserv’d for himself this loophole in case of necessity: but, in spite of his teeth, notwithstanding all his evations he must have recourse to that at last. Let us then examin whether he be not more sincere in the remainder…
\n
\n
(running head “The Provincial Letters,” printed p. 69.)
\n
What it’s doing in the context of the whole book
\n
This is Gabriel Daniel’s anti-Jansenist reply to Pascal’s Provincial Letters, staged as conversations between “Cleander” and “Eudoxus.” Here loophole is purely figurative—a rhetorical escape hatch the author says Pascal should have kept for himself, since his charges against the Jesuits can’t be sustained without retreating to some exception. It’s a good witness to the 17th/18th-century metaphorical sense: not a wall-slit, but a means of evasion in argument.
\n