Swift has been styled the Prince of Journalists. Like most titles whose
aim is to express in modern words the character and achievements of a man
of a past age, this phrase is not of the happiest. Applied to so
extraordinary a man as Jonathan Swift, it is both misleading and
inadequate. At best it embodies but a half-truth. It belongs to that class
of phrases which, in emphasizing a particular side of the character,
sacrifices truth to a superficial cleverness, and so does injustice to the
character as a whole. The vogue such phrases obtain is thus the measure of
the misunderstanding that is current; so that it often becomes necessary
to receive them with caution and to test them with care.

A prince in his art Swift certainly was, but his art was not the art of
the journalist. Swift was a master of literary expression, and of all
forms of that expression which aim at embodying in language the common
life and common facts of men and their common nature. He had his
limitations, of course; but just here lies the power of his special
genius. He never attempted to express what he did not fully comprehend. If
he saw things narrowly, he saw them definitely, and there was no mistaking
the ideas he wished to convey. “He understands himself,” said Dr. Johnson,
“and his reader always understands him.” Within his limitations Swift
swayed a sovereign power. His narrowness of vision, however, did never
blind him to the relations that exist between fact and fact, between
object and subject, between the actual and the possible. At the same time
it was not his province, as it was not his nature, to handle such
relations in the abstract. The bent of his mind was towards the practical
and not the pure reason. The moralist and the statesman went hand in hand
in him—an excellent example of the eighteenth century thinker.

But to say this of Swift is not to say that he was a journalist. The
journalist is the man of the hour writing for the hour in harmony with
popular opinion. Both his text and his heads are ready-made for him. He
follows the beaten road, and only essays new paths when conditions have
become such as to force him along them. Such a man Swift certainly was
not. Journalism was not his way to the goal. If anything, it was, as
Epictetus might have said, but a tavern by the way-side in which he took
occasion to find the means by which the better to attain his goal. If
Swift’s contributions to the literature of his day be journalism, then did
journalism spring full-grown into being, and its history since his time
must be considered as a history of its degeneration. But they were much
more than journalism. That they took the form they did, in contributions
to the periodicals of his day, is but an accident which does not in the
least affect the contributions themselves. These, in reality, constitute a
criticism of the social and political life of the first thirty years of
the English eighteenth century. From the time of the writing of “A Tale of
a Tub” to the days of the Drapier’s Letters, Swift dissected his
countrymen with the pitiless hand of the master-surgeon. So profound was
his knowledge of human anatomy, individual and social, that we shudder now
at the pain he must have inflicted in his unsparing operations. So
accurate was his judgment that we stand amazed at his knowledge, and our
amazement often turns to a species of horror as we see the cuticle flapped
open revealing the crude arrangement beneath. Nor is it to argue too
nicely, to suggest that our present sympathy for the past pain, our
amazement, and our horror, are, after all, our own unconscious tributes to
the power of the man who calls them up, and our confession of the lasting
validity of his criticism.

This is not the power nor is it the kind of criticism that are the
elements of the art of the journalist. Perhaps we should be glad that it
is not; which is but to say that we are content with things as they exist.
It requires a special set of conditions to precipitate a Swift. Happily,
if we will have it so, the conditions in which we find ourselves ask for
that kind of journalist whose function is amply fulfilled when he has
measured the movements of the hour by the somewhat higher standards of the
day. The conditions under which Swift lived demanded a journalist of an
entirely different calibre; and they got him. They obtained a man who
dissolved the petty jealousies of party power in the acid of satire, and
who distilled the affected fears for Church and State in the alembic of a
statesmanship that establishes a nation’s majesty and dignity on the
common welfare of its free people. When Swift, at the beginning of the
November of 1710, was called in to assist the Tory party by undertaking
the work of “The Examiner,” he found a condition of things so involved and
so unstable, that it required the very nicest appreciation, the most
delicate handling, and the boldest of hearts to readjust and re-establish,
without fearful consequences. Harley and St. John were safely housed, and,
apparently, amply protected by a substantial majority. But majorities are
often not the most trustworthy of supports. Apart from the over-confidence
which they inspire, and apart from the danger of a too-enthusiastic
following, such as found expression in the October Club, there was the
danger which might come from the dissatisfaction of the people at large,
should their temper be wrongly gauged; and at this juncture it was not
easy to gauge. The popularity of Marlborough and his victories, on the one
hand, was undoubted. On the other, however, there was the growing opinion
that those victories had been paid for at a price greater than England
could afford. If she had gained reputation and prestige, these could not
fill the mouths of the landed class, gradually growing poorer, and the
members of this class were not of a disposition to restrain their feelings
as they noted the growing prosperity of the Whig stock-jobbers—a
prosperity that was due to the very war which was beggaring them. If the
landed man cried for peace, he was answered by the Whig stock-jobber that
peace meant the ultimate repudiation of the National Debt, with the
certainty of the reign of the Pretender. If the landed man spoke for the
Church, the Whig speculator raised the shout of “No Popery!” The war had
transformed parties into factions, and the ministry stood between a Scylla
of a peace-at-any-price, on the one side, and a Charybdis of a
war-at-any-price on the other; or, if not a war, then a peace so one-sided
that it would be almost impossible to bring it about.

In such troubled waters, and at such a critical juncture, it was given to
Swift to act as pilot to the ship of State. His papers to “The Examiner”
must bear witness to the skill with which he accomplished the task set
before him. His appeal to the people of England for confidence in the
ministry, should be an appeal not alone on behalf of its distinguished and
able members, but also on behalf of a policy by which “the crooked should
be made straight and the rough places plain.” Such was to be the nature of
his appeal, and he made it in a series of essays that turned every
advantage with admirable effect to the side of his clients. Not another
man then living could have done what he did; and we question if either
Harley or St. John ever realized the service he rendered them. The later
careers of these two men furnish no doubtful hints of what might have
happened at this period had Swift been other than the man he was.

But Swift’s “Examiners” did much more than preserve Harley’s head on his
shoulders; they brought the nation to a calmer sense of its position, and
tutored it to a juster appreciation of the men who were using it for
selfish ends. Let us make every allowance for purely special pleadings;
for indulgence in personal feeling against the men who had either
disappointed, injured, or angered him; for the party man affecting or
genuinely feeling party bitterness, for the tricks and subterfuges of the
paid advocate appealing to the passions and weaknesses of those whose
favour he was seeking to win; allowing for these, there are yet left in
these papers a noble spirit of wide-eyed patriotism, and a distinguished
grasp of the meaning of national greatness and national integrity.

The pamphleteers whom he opposed, and who opposed him, were powerless
against Swift. Where they pried with the curiosity and meanness of petty
dealers, Swift’s insight seized on the larger relations, and insisted on
them. Where they “bantered,” cajoled, and sneered, arousing a very mild
irritation, Swift’s scornful invective, and biting satire silenced into
fear the enemies of the Queen’s chosen ministers. Where their jejune
“answers” gained a simper, Swift’s virility of mind, range of power, and
dexterity of handling, compelled a homage. His Whig antagonists had good
reason to dread him. He scoffed at them for an existence that was founded,
not on a devotion to principles, but on a jealousy for the power others
enjoyed. “The bulk of the Whigs appears rather to be linked to a certain
set of persons, than any certain set of principles.” To these persons also
he directed his grim attention, Somers, Cowper, Godolphin, Marlborough,
and Wharton were each drawn with iron stylus and acid. To Wharton he gave
special care (he had some private scores to pay off), and in the character
of Verres, he etched the portrait of a profligate, an unscrupulous
governor, a scoundrel, an infidel to his religion and country, a reckless,
selfish, low-living blackguard. In the Letter to Marcus Crassus,
Marlborough is addressed in language that the simplest farm-labourer could
understand. The letter is a lay sermon on the vice of avarice, and every
point and illustration are taken from Marlborough’s life with such telling
application that Marlborough himself must have taken thought as he read
it. “No man,” Swift finely concludes, “of true valour and true
understanding, upon whom this vice has stolen unawares; when he is
convinced he is guilty, will suffer it to remain in his breast an hour.”

But these attentions to the Whigs as a party and as individuals were,
after all, but the by-play of the skilled orator preparing the minds of
his hearers for the true purpose in hand. That purpose may originally have
been to fix the ministry in the country’s favour; but Swift having
fulfilled it, and so discharged his office, turned it, as indeed he could
not help turning it, and as later in the Drapier’s Letters he turned
another purpose, to the persuasion of an acceptance of those broad
principles which so influenced political thought during the last years of
the reign of Queen Anne. It is with these principles in his mind that Dr.
Johnson confessed that Swift “dictated for a time the political opinions
of the English nation.” He recalled the nation to a consideration of the
Constitution; he attributed to the people (because, of course, they had
elected the new ministry into power) an appreciation of what was best for
the protection of their ancient privileges and rights. The past twenty
years had been a period of mismanagement, in which the Constitution had
been ignored; “but the body of the people is wiser; and by the choice they
have made, shew they do understand our Constitution, and would bring it
back to the old form.” “The nation has groaned under the intolerable
burden of those who sucked her blood for gain. We have carried on wars,
that we might fill the pockets of stock-jobbers. We have revised our
Constitution, and by a great and united national effort, have secured our
Protestant succession, only that we may become the tools of a faction, who
arrogate to themselves the whole merit of what was a national act. We are
governed by upstarts, who are unsettling the landmarks of our social
system, and are displacing the influence of our landed gentry by that of a
class of men who find their profit in our woes.” The rule of the tradesman
must be replaced by the rule of those whose lives are bound up with the
land of their country. The art of government was not “the importation of
nutmegs, and the curing of herrings;” but the political embodiment of the
will of “a Parliament freely chosen, without threatening or corruption,”
and “composed of landed men” whose interests being in the soil would be at
one with the interests of those who lived on the soil. Whigs and Tories
may dispute as they will among themselves as to the best side from which
to defend the country; but the men of the true party are the men of the
National party—they “whose principles in Church and State, are what
I have above related; whose actions are derived from thence, and who have
no attachment to any set of ministers, further than as these are friends
to the Constitution in all its parts; but will do their utmost to save
their Prince and Country, whoever be at the Helm”.[1]

In this spirit and in such wise did Swift temper his time and champion the
cause of those men who had chosen him. This was a kind of “examining” to
which neither the Whigs nor the Tories had been accustomed. It shed quite
a new light on matters, which the country at large was not slow to
appreciate. Throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom “The
Examiner” was welcomed and its appeals responded to. Its success was
notable, even magnificent; but it was not a lasting success. It did the
work that the ministry had intended it to do, and did it unmistakably; but
the principles of this National party were for men of a sterner mould than
either Harley or St. John. Swift had laid a burden on their shoulders
heavier than they could carry, and they fell when they were bereft of his
support. But the work Swift did bears witness to-day to a very unusual
combination of qualities in the genius of this man, whose personality
stands out even above his work. It was ever his fate to serve and never
his happiness to command; but then he had himself accepted servitude when
he donned the robe of the priest.

It is deserving of repeated record to note that Dr. Johnson in admitting
that Swift, in “The Examiner,” had the advantage in argument, adds that
“with regard to wit, I am afraid none of Swift’s papers will be found
equal to those by which Addison opposed him.” To which Monck Mason
pertinently remarks: “The Doctor should have told us what these papers
were which Addison wrote in opposition to Swift’s ‘Examiner;’ for the last
‘Whig Examiner,’ written by Addison, was published October 12th, 1710, and
Swift’s first ‘Examiner’ on the 2nd November following.”[2]

In this volume have been collected those writings of Swift which form his
contributions to the periodicals of his time. Care has been taken to give
the best text and to admit nothing that Swift did not write. In the
preparation of the volume the editor has received such assistance from Mr.
W. Spencer Jackson that it might with stricter justice be said that he had
edited it. He collated the texts, revised the proofs, and supplied most of
the notes. Without his assistance the volume must inevitably have been
further delayed, and the editor gladly takes this occasion to acknowledge
his indebtedness to Mr. Jackson and to thank him for his help.

His further indebtedness must be acknowledged to the researches of those
writers already named in the previously published volumes of this edition,
and also cited in the notes to the present volume.

Temple Scott.

Glen Ridge, New Jersey, U.S.A.

April 8, 1902.

[Footnote 1: “Examiner,” No. 44, p. 290.]

[Footnote 2: “Hist. St. Patrick’s Cathedral,” p. 257, note g.]

CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE TATLER.”

NOTE.

In the original dedication of the first volume of “The Tatler” to Arthur
Maynwaring Richard Steele, its projector and editor, gives characteristic
expression to the motive which prompted him in its establishment. “The
state of conversation and business in this town,” says Steele, “having
been long perplexed with pretenders in both kinds, in order to open men’s
eyes against such abuses, it appeared no unprofitable undertaking to
publish a Paper which should observe upon the manners of the pleasurable,
as well as the busy, part of mankind.” He goes on to say that “the general
purpose of this Paper is to expose the false arts of life, to pull off the
disguises of cunning, vanity, and affectation, and to recommend a general
simplicity in our dress, our discourse, and our behaviour.”

That Steele succeeded in this laudable purpose has been amply made evident
by the effect “The Tatler” had upon his literary successors, both of his
own age and of the generations since his time. “The Tatler” was, if we
except Defoe’s “Weekly Review,” the earliest literary periodical which, in
the language of Scott, “had no small effect in fixing and refining the
character of the English nation.”

Steele conducted his periodical under the name of Isaac Bickerstaff. He
chose this name purposely because he felt, as he himself expressed it,
that “a work of this nature required time to grow into the notice of the
world. It happened very luckily that a little before I had resolved upon
this design, a gentleman had written predictions, and two or three other
pieces in my name, which had rendered it famous through all parts of
Europe; and by an inimitable spirit and humour, raised it to as high a
pitch of reputation as it could possibly arrive at.” The gentleman
referred to is, of course, Swift, whose pamphlets on Partridge had been
the talk of the town.

Steele very kindly ascribes the success of the periodical to this “good
fortune;” and though there may be something in what he said, we, in the
present day, can more justly appreciate the great benefit conferred upon
his countrymen by himself and his co-workers.

The influence of “The Tatler” on contemporary thought is acknowledged by
Gay in his “Present State of Wit,” published in 1711. Gay remarks: “His
writings have set all our wits and men of letters upon a new way of
thinking, of which they had little or no notion before; and though we
cannot yet say that any of them have come up to the beauties of the
original, I think we may venture to affirm that every one of them writes
and thinks much more justly than they did some time since.”

Among the contributors, in addition to the editor himself, were Swift,
Addison, Yalden, John Hughes, William Harrison, and James Greenwood.

It must always remain to a great extent a matter of conjecture as to the
exact authorship of “The Tatler” papers. In the preface to the fourth
volume the authorship of a very few of the articles was admitted. Peter
Wentworth wrote to his brother, Lord Raby, on May 9th, 1709, saying the
Tatlers “are writ by a club of wits, who make it their business to pick up
all the merry stories they can…. Three of the authors are guessed at,
viz.: Swift,… Yalden, and Steele” (“Wentworth Papers,” 85).

Swift’s first recognized prose contribution to “The Tatler” was in No. 32
(June 23rd), and he continued from time to time, as the following reprint
will show, to assist his friend; but, unfortunately, party politics
separated the two, and Swift retired from the venture.

A particular meaning was attached to the place from which the articles in
“The Tatler” were dated. The following notice appeared in the first
number: “All accounts of gallantry, pleasure, and entertainment, shall be
under the article of White’s Chocolate-house; poetry, under that of Will’s
Coffee-house; learning, under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic
news, you will have from St. James’s Coffee-house; and what else I have to
offer on any other subject shall be dated from my own Apartment.”

“The Tatler” was reprinted in Edinburgh as soon as possible after its
publication in London, commencing apparently with No. 130, as No. 31
(Edinburgh, James Watson) is dated April 24th, 1710, and corresponds to
No. 160 of the original edition, April 18th, 1710. [T.S.]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 32.

FROM TUESDAY JUNE 21. TO THURSDAY JUNE 23. 1709.

“To ISAAC BICKERSTAFF ESQ;[1]

June 18. 1709.

“SIR,

“I know not whether you ought to pity or laugh at me; for I am fallen
desperately in love with a professed Platonne, the most
unaccountable creature of her sex. To hear her talk seraphics, and run
over Norris[2] and More,[3] and Milton,[4] and the whole set of
Intellectual Triflers, torments me heartily; for to a lover who
understands metaphors, all this pretty prattle of ideas gives very fine
views of pleasure, which only the dear declaimer prevents, by
understanding them literally. Why should she wish to be a cherubim, when
it is flesh and blood that makes her adorable? If I speak to her, that is
a high breach of the idea of intuition: If I offer at her hand or lip, she
shrinks from the touch like a sensitive plant, and would contract herself
into mere spirit. She calls her chariot, vehicle; her furbelowed scarf,
pinions; her blue manteau and petticoat is her azure dress; and her
footman goes by the name of Oberon. It is my misfortune to be six foot and
a half high, two full spans between the shoulders, thirteen inches
diameter in the calves; and before I was in love, I had a noble stomach,
and usually went to bed sober with two bottles. I am not quite six and
twenty, and my nose is marked truly aquiline. For these reasons, I am in a
very particular manner her aversion. What shall I do? Impudence itself
cannot reclaim her. If I write miserable, she reckons me among the
children of perdition, and discards me her region: If I assume the gross
and substantial, she plays the real ghost with me, and vanishes in a
moment. I had hopes in the hypocrisy of the sex; but perseverance makes it
as bad as a fixed aversion. I desire your opinion, Whether I may not
lawfully play the inquisition upon her, make use of a little force, and
put her to the rack and the torture, only to convince her, she has really
fine limbs, without spoiling or distorting them. I expect your directions,
ere I proceed to dwindle and fall away with despair; which at present I
don’t think advisable, because, if she should recant, she may then hate me
perhaps in the other extreme for my tenuity. I am (with impatience)

“Your most humble servant,

“CHARLES STURDY.”

My patient has put his case with very much warmth, and represented it in
so lively a manner, that I see both his torment and tormentor with great
perspicuity. This order of Platonic ladies are to be dealt with in a
peculiar manner from all the rest of the sex. Flattery is the general way,
and the way in this case; but it is not to be done grossly. Every man that
has wit, and humour, and raillery, can make a good flatterer for woman in
general; but a Platonne is not to be touched with panegyric: she
will tell you, it is a sensuality in the soul to be delighted that way.
You are not therefore to commend, but silently consent to all she does and
says. You are to consider in her the scorn of you is not humour, but
opinion.

There were some years since a set of these ladies who were of quality, and
gave out, that virginity was to be their state of life during this mortal
condition, and therefore resolved to join their fortunes, and erect a
nunnery. The place of residence was pitched upon; and a pretty situation,
full of natural falls and risings of waters, with shady coverts, and
flowery arbours, was approved by seven of the founders. There were as many
of our sex who took the liberty to visit those mansions of intended
severity; among others, a famous rake[5] of that time, who had the grave
way to an excellence. He came in first; but upon seeing a servant coming
towards him, with a design to tell him, this was no place for him or his
companions, up goes my grave impudence to the maid: “Young woman,” said
he, “if any of the ladies are in the way on this side of the house, pray
carry us on the other side towards the gardens: we are, you must know,
gentlemen that are travelling England; after which we shall go into
foreign parts, where some of us have already been.” Here he bows in the
most humble manner, and kissed the girl, who knew not how to behave to
such a sort of carriage. He goes on; “Now you must know we have an
ambition to have it to say, that we have a Protestant nunnery in England:
but pray Mrs. Betty——”—”Sir,” she replied, “my name is
Susan, at your service.”—”Then I heartily beg your pardon——”—”No
offence in the least,” says she, “for I have a cousin-german whose name is
Betty.”[6]—”Indeed,” said he, “I protest to you that was more than I
knew, I spoke at random: But since it happens that I was near in the
right, give me leave to present this gentleman to the favour of a civil
salute.” His friend advances, and so on, till that they had all saluted
her. By this means, the poor girl was in the middle of the crowd of these
fellows, at a loss what to do, without courage to pass through them; and
the Platonics, at several peepholes, pale, trembling, and fretting. Rake
perceived they were observed, and therefore took care to keep Sukey in
chat with questions concerning their way of life; when appeared at last
Madonella,[7] a lady who had writ a fine book concerning the recluse life,
and was the projectrix of the foundation. She approaches into the hall;
and Rake, knowing the dignity of his own mien and aspect, goes deputy from
his company. She begins, “Sir, I am obliged to follow the servant, who was
sent out to know, What affair could make strangers press upon a solitude
which we, who are to inhabit this place, have devoted to Heaven and our
own thoughts?”— “Madam,” replies Rake, (with an air of great
distance, mixed with a certain indifference, by which he could dissemble
dissimulation) “your great intention has made more noise in the world than
you design it should; and we travellers, who have seen many foreign
institutions of this kind, have a curiosity to see, in its first
rudiments, this seat of primitive piety; for such it must be called by
future ages, to the eternal honour of the founders. I have read
Madonella’s excellent and seraphic discourse on this subject.” The lady
immediately answers, “If what I have said could have contributed to raise
any thoughts in you that may make for the advancement of intellectual and
divine conversation, I should think myself extremely happy.” He
immediately fell back with the profoundest veneration; then advancing,
“Are you then that admired lady? If I may approach lips which have uttered
things so sacred—” He salutes her. His friends followed his example.
The devoted within stood in amazement where this would end, to see
Madonella receive their address and their company. But Rake goes on—”We
would not transgress rules; but if we may take the liberty to see the
place you have thought fit to choose for ever, we would go into such parts
of the gardens as is consistent with the severities you have imposed on
yourselves.”

To be short, Madonella permitted Rake to lead her into the assembly of
nuns, followed by his friends, and each took his fair one by the hand,
after due explanation, to walk round the gardens. The conversation turned
upon the lilies, the flowers, the arbours, and the growing vegetables; and
Rake had the solemn impudence, when the whole company stood round him, to
say, “That he sincerely wished men might rise out of the earth like
plants;[8] and that our minds were not of necessity to be sullied with
carnivorous appetites for the generation, as well as support of our
species.” This was spoke with so easy and fixed an assurance, that
Madonella answered, “Sir, under the notion of a pious thought, you deceive
yourself in wishing an institution foreign to that of Providence: These
desires were implanted in us for reverend purposes, in preserving the race
of men, and giving opportunities for making our chastity more heroic.” The
conference was continued in this celestial strain, and carried on so well
by the managers on both sides, that it created a second and a second
interview;[9] and, without entering into further particulars, there was
hardly one of them but was a mother or father that day twelvemonth.

Any unnatural part is long taking up, and as long laying aside; therefore
Mr. Sturdy may assure himself, Platonica will fly for ever from a forward
behaviour; but if he approaches her according to this model, she will fall
in with the necessities of mortal life, and condescend to look with pity
upon an unhappy man, imprisoned in so much body, and urged by such violent
desires.

[Footnote 1: This letter is introduced by the following words:

“White’s Chocolate-house, June 22.

“An Answer to the following letter being absolutely necessary to be
dispatched with all expedition, I must trespass upon all that come with
horary questions into my ante-chamber, to give the gentleman my opinion.”

This paper is written in ridicule of some affected ladies of the period,
who pretended, with rather too much ostentation, to embrace the doctrines
of Platonic Love. Mrs. Mary Astell, a learned and worthy woman, had
embraced this fantastic notion so deeply, that, in an essay upon the
female sex, in 1696, she proposed a sort of female college, in which the
young might be instructed, and ‘ladies nauseating the parade of the
world,’ might find a happy retirement. The plan was disconcerted by Bishop
Burnet, who, understanding that the Queen intended to give £10,000 towards
the establishment, dissuaded her, by an assurance, that it would lead to
the introduction of Popish orders, and be called a nunnery. This lady is
the Madonella of the Tatler…. This paper has been censured as a gross
reflection on Mrs. Astell’s character, but on no very just foundation.
Swift only prophesies the probable issue of such a scheme, as that of the
Protestant nunnery; and it is a violent interpretation of his words to
suppose him to insinuate, that the conclusion had taken place without the
premises. Indeed, the scourge of ridicule is seldom better employed than
on that species of Précieuse, who is anxious to confound the
boundaries which nature has fixed for the employments and studies of the
two sexes. No man was more zealous than Swift for informing the female
mind in those points most becoming and useful to their sex. His “Letter to
a Young Married Lady” and “Thoughts on Education” point out the extent of
those studies. [S.]

Nichols, in his edition of “The Tatler” (1786), ascribes this paper to
“Swift and Addison”; but he thinks the humour of it “certainly originated
in the licentious imagination of the Dean of St. Patrick’s.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: John Norris (1657-1711), Rector of Bemerton, author of “The
Theory and Regulation of Love” (1688), and of many other works. His
correspondence with the famous Platonist, Henry More, is appended to this
“moral essay.” Chalmers speaks of him as “a man of great ingenuity,
learning, and piety”; but Locke refers to him as “an obscure, enthusiastic
man.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Henry More (1614-1687), the famous Cambridge Platonist, and
author of “Philosophicall Poems” (1647), “The Immortality of the Soul”
(1659), and other works of a similar nature. Chalmers notes that “Mr.
Chishall, an eminent bookseller, declared, that Dr. More’s ‘Mystery of
Godliness’ and his other works, ruled all the booksellers of London for
twenty years together.” [T.S. ]]

[Footnote 4: The reference here is to Milton’s “Apology for Smectymnuus.”
Milton and More were, during one year, fellow-students at Christ’s
College, Cambridge. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Said to refer to a Mr. Repington, a well-known wag of the
time, and a member of an old Warwickshire family, of Amington, near
Tamworth. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The Betty here referred to is the Lady Elizabeth Hastings
(1682-1739), daughter of Theophilus, seventh Earl of Huntingdon. In No. 49
of “The Tatler,” Steele refers to her in the famous sentence: “to love her
is a liberal education.” She contributed to Mrs. Astell’s plans for the
establishment of a “Protestant nunnery.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: See previous note. Mrs. Mary Astell (1668-1731) the authoress
of “A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of their true and
greatest Interest” (1694), was the friend of Lady Elizabeth Hastings and
the correspondent of John Norris of Bemerton. There is not the slightest
foundation for the gross and cruel insinuations against her character in
this paper. The libel is repeated in the 59th and 63rd numbers of “The
Tatler.” Her correspondence with Norris was published in 1695, with the
title, “Letters Concerning the Love of God”. Later in life she attacked
Atterbury, Locke, and White Kennett. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The reference here is to Sir Thomas Browne’s “Religio
Medici,” part ii., section 9. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: M. Bournelle—a pseudonym of William Oldisworth—remarks:
“The next interview after a second is still a second; there
is no progress in time to lovers” (“Annotations on ‘The Tatler'”).
Chalmers reads here, “a second and a third interview.” [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 35.

FROM TUESDAY JUNE 28. TO THURSDAY JUNE 30. 1709.

“SIR,[1]

“Not long since[2] you were pleased to give us a chimerical account of the
famous family of Staffs, from whence I suppose you would insinuate,
that it is the most ancient and numerous house in all Europe. But I
positively deny that it is either; and wonder much at your audacious
proceedings in this matter, since it is well known, that our most
illustrious, most renowned, and most celebrated Roman family of Ix,
has enjoyed the precedency to all others from the reign of good old
Saturn. I could say much to the defamation and disgrace of your family;
as, that your relations Distaff and Broomstaff were both
inconsiderate mean persons, one spinning, the other sweeping the streets,
for their daily bread. But I forbear to vent my spleen on objects so much
beneath my indignation. I shall only give the world a catalogue of my
ancestors, and leave them to determine which hath hitherto had, and which
for the future ought to have, the preference.

“First then comes the most famous and popular lady Meretrix, parent
of the fertile family of Bellatrix, Lotrix, Netrix, Nutrix, Obstetrix,
Famulatrix, Coctrix, Ornatrix, Sarcinatrix, Fextrix, Balneatrix,
Portatrix, Saltatrix, Divinatrix, Conjectrix, Comtrix, Debitrix,
Creditrix, Donatrix, Ambulatrix, Mercatrix, Adsectrix, Assectatrix,
Palpatrix, Praeceptrix, Pistrix.

“I am yours,

“ELIZ. POTATRIX.”

[Footnote 1: This letter is introduced:

“From my own Apartment, June 29.

“It would be a very great obligation, and an assistance to my treatise
upon punning, if any one would please to inform me in what class among the
learned, who play with words, to place the author of the following
letter.”

The proposed work had been promised in the 32nd number of “The Tatler,”
where it was stated that, “I shall dedicate this discourse to a gentleman,
my very good friend, who is the Janus of our times, and whom, by his years
and wit, you would take to be of the last age; but by his dress and
morals, of this.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: In the 11th number of “The Tatler,” by Heneage Twisden.
[T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 59.

FROM TUESDAY AUGUST 23. TO THURSDAY AUGUST 25. 1709.

Will’s Coffee-house, August 24.

The author of the ensuing letter, by his name, and the quotations he makes
from the ancients, seems a sort of spy from the old world, whom we moderns
ought to be careful of offending; therefore I must be free, and own it a
fair hit where he takes me, rather than disoblige him.

“SIR, Having a peculiar humour of desiring to be somewhat the better or
wiser for what I read, I am always uneasy when, in any profound writer
(for I read no others) I happen to meet with what I cannot understand.
When this falls out, it is a great grievance to me that I am not able to
consult the author himself about his meaning; for commentators are a sect
that has little share in my esteem. Your elaborate writings have, among
many others, this advantage, that their author is still alive, and ready
(as his extensive charity makes us expect) to explain whatever may be
found in them too sublime for vulgar understandings. This, Sir, makes me
presume to ask you, how the Hampstead hero’s character could be perfectly
new[1] when the last letters came away, and yet Sir John Suckling so well
acquainted with it sixty years ago? I hope, Sir, you will not take this
amiss: I can assure you, I have a profound respect for you; which makes me
write this, with the same disposition with which Longinus bids us read
Homer and Plato.

“‘When in reading,’ says he, ‘any of those celebrated authors, we meet
with a passage to which we cannot well reconcile our reasons, we ought
firmly to believe, that were those great wits present to answer for
themselves, we should to our wonder be convinced, that we only are guilty
of the mistakes we before attributed to them.’ If you think fit to remove
the scruple that now torments me, it will be an encouragement to me to settle
a frequent correspondence with you, several things falling in my way which
would not, perhaps, be altogether foreign to your purpose, and whereon
your thoughts would be very acceptable to

“Your most humble servant,

“OBADIAH GREENHAT.”

[Footnote 1: In No. 57 of “The Tatler” Steele wrote: “Letters from
Hampstead say, there is a coxcomb arrived there, of a kind which is
utterly new. The fellow has courage, which he takes himself to be obliged
to give proofs of every hour he lives. He is ever fighting with the men,
and contradicting the women. A lady, who sent him to me, superscribed him
with this description out of Suckling:

The “description out of Suckling” is from that writer’s rondeau, “A
Soldier.” As the poet died in 1642, Swift ridicules the statement that
this kind of coxcomb was “utterly new.” [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 63.

FROM THURSDAY SEPTEMBER I. TO SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 3, 1709. “SIR,[1]

“It must be allowed, that Esquire Bickerstaff is of all authors the most
ingenuous. There are few, very few, that will own themselves in a mistake,
though all the World sees them to be in downright nonsense. You’ll be
pleased, Sir, to pardon this expression, for the same reason for which you
once desired us to excuse you when you seemed anything dull. Most writers,
like the generality of Paul Lorrain’s[2] saints, seem to place a peculiar
vanity in dying hard. But you, Sir, to show a good example to your
brethren, have not only confessed, but of your own accord mended the
indictment. Nay, you have been so good-natured as to discover beauties in
it, which, I will assure you, he that drew it never dreamed of: And to
make your civility the more accomplished, you have honoured him with the
title of your kinsman,[3] which, though derived by the left hand, he is
not a little proud of. My brother (for such Obadiah is) being at present
very busy about nothing, has ordered me to return you his sincere thanks
for all these favours; and, as a small token of his gratitude, to
communicate to you the following piece of intelligence, which, he thinks,
belongs more properly to you than to any others of our modern historians.

“Madonella, who as it was thought had long since taken her flight
towards the ethereal mansions, still walks, it seems, in the regions of
mortality; where she has found, by deep reflections on the revolution[4]
mentioned in yours of June the 23rd, that where early instructions have
been wanting to imprint true ideas of things on the tender souls of those
of her sex, they are never after able to arrive at such a pitch of
perfection, as to be above the laws of matter and motion; laws which are
considerably enforced by the principles usually imbibed in nurseries and
boarding-schools. To remedy this evil, she has laid the scheme of a
college for young damsels; where, instead of scissors, needles, and
samplers; pens, compasses, quadrants, books, manuscripts, Greek, Latin,
and Hebrew, are to take up their whole time. Only on holidays the students
will, for moderate exercise, be allowed to divert themselves with the use
of some of the lightest and most voluble weapons; and proper care will be
taken to give them at least a superficial tincture of the ancient and
modern Amazonian tactics. Of these military performances, the direction is
undertaken by Epicene,[5] the writer of ‘Memoirs from the Mediterranean,’
who, by the help of some artificial poisons conveyed by smells, has within
these few weeks brought many persons of both sexes to an untimely fate;
and, what is more surprising, has, contrary to her profession, with the
same odours, revived others who had long since been drowned in the
whirlpools of Lethe. Another of the professors is to be a certain lady,
who is now publishing two of the choicest Saxon novels[6], which are said
to have been in as great repute with the ladies of Queen Emma’s Court, as
the ‘Memoirs from the New Atalantis’ are with those of ours. I shall make
it my business to enquire into the progress of this learned institution,
and give you the first notice of their ‘Philosophical Transactions[7], and
Searches after Nature.’

“Yours, &c.

“TOBIAH GREENHAT.”

[Footnote 1: This letter was introduced:

“From my own Apartment, September 2.

“The following letter being a panegyric upon me for a quality which every
man may attain, an acknowledgment of his faults; I thought it for the good
of my fellow writers to publish it.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: The Rev. Paul Lorrain was ordinary of Newgate Prison from
1698 until 1719. He issued the dying speeches and confessions of the
condemned criminals in the form of broadsheets. In these confessions, the
penitence of the criminals was most strongly emphasized, hence the term
“Lorrain’s saints.” Lorrain died in 1719. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Isaac Bickerstaff, commenting on the letter in No. 59,
printed above, says: “I have looked over our pedigree upon the receipt of
this epistle, and find the Greenhats are a-kin to the Staffs. They descend
from Maudlin, the left-handed wife of Nehemiah Bickerstaff, in the reign
of Harry II.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See No. 32 ante. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Mrs. Mary de la Rivière Manley, author of “Memoirs of Europe,
towards the Close of the Eighth Century” (1710), which she dedicated to
Isaac Bickerstaff, and of “Secret Memoirs and Manners … from the New
Atalantis” (1709). She was associated with Swift in the writing of several
pamphlets In support of the Harley Administration, and in his work on “The
Examiner” (see vol. v., pp. 41, 118, and 171 of the present edition of
Swift’s works).

Epicene is an allusion to Ben Jonson’s comedy, “Epicoene; or, the Silent
Woman” (1609).

Mrs. Manley seems to have credited Steele with this attack on her, for she
attacked him, in turn, in her “New Atalantis,” and printed, in her
dedication to the “Memoirs of Europe,” Steele’s denial of the authorship
of this paper. This did not, however, prevent her making new charges
against him. “The Narrative of Guiscard’s Examination,” “A Comment on Dr.
Hare’s Sermon,” and “The Duke of Marlborough’s Vindication,” were written
either by herself, or at the suggestion of, and with instructions from,
Swift. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Mrs. Elizabeth Elstob (1683-1756), a niece of the learned Dr.
Hickes, issued, in 1709, “An English-Saxon Homily on the Birthday of St.
Gregory.” The work was dedicated to Queen Anne. She was a friend of Mary
Granville, afterwards Mrs. Pendarves, and better known as Mrs. Delany.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: An allusion to “Useful Transactions in Philosophy,” etc.,
January and February, 1708/9, which commenced with an article entitled “An
Essay on the Invention of Samplers,” by Mrs. Arabella Manly (sic).
She had a friend, Mrs. Betty Clavel. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 66.

FROM THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 8. TO SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. 1709.

Wills Coffee-house, September 9.

We have been very much perplexed here this evening, by two gentlemen who
took upon them to talk as loud as if it were expected from them to
entertain the company. Their subject was eloquence and graceful action.
Lysander, who is something particular in his way of thinking and speaking,
told us, “a man could not be eloquent without action: for the deportment
of the body, the turn of the eye, and an apt sound to every word that is
uttered, must all conspire to make an accomplished speaker. Action in one
that speaks in public, is the same thing which a good mien is in ordinary
life. Thus, as a certain insensibility in the countenance recommends a
sentence of humour and jest, so it must be a very lively consciousness
that gives grace to great sentiments: For the jest is to be a thing
unexpected; therefore your undesigning manner is a beauty in expressions
of mirth; but when you are to talk on a set subject, the more you are
moved yourself, the more you will move others.

“There is,” said he, “a remarkable example of that kind: Aeschines, a
famous orator of antiquity, had pleaded at Athens in a great cause against
Demosthenes; but having lost it, retired to Rhodes. Eloquence was then the
quality most admired among men; and the magistrates of that place having
heard he had a copy of the speech of Demosthenes, desired him to repeat
both their pleadings. After his own, he recited also the oration of his
antagonist. The people expressed their admiration of both, but more of
that of Demosthenes. ‘If you are,’ said he, ‘thus touched with hearing
only what that great orator said, how would you have been affected had you
seen him speak? for he who hears Demosthenes only, loses much the better
part of the oration.’ Certain it is, that they who speak gracefully, are
very lamely represented, in having their speeches read or repeated by
unskilful people; for there is something native to each man, that is so
inherent to his thoughts and sentiments, which it is hardly possible for
another to give a true idea of. You may observe in common talk, when a
sentence of any man’s is repeated, an acquaintance of his shall
immediately observe, ‘That is so like him, methinks I see how he looked
when he said it.’ But of all the people on the earth, there are none who
puzzle me so much as the clergy of Great Britain, who are, I believe, the
most learned body of men now in the world; and yet this art of speaking,
with the proper ornaments of voice and gesture, is wholly neglected among
them; and I will engage, were a deaf man to behold the greater part of
them preach, he would rather think they were reading the contents only of
some discourse they intended to make, than actually in the body of an
oration, even when they are upon matters of such a nature as one would
believe it were impossible to think of without emotion.

“I own there are exceptions to this general observation, and that the
Dean[1] we heard the other day together, is an orator. He has so much
regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he is to
say to them; and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must
attract your attention. His person it is to be confessed is no small
recommendation; but he is to be highly commended for not losing that
advantage, and adding to the propriety of speech (which might pass the
criticism of Longinus)[2] an action which would have been approved by
Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his
audience[3] who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were
there not explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is
used with the most exact and honest skill: he never attempts your
passions, till he has convinced your reason. All the objections which he
can form, are laid before you and dispersed, before he uses the least
vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon
wins your heart; and never pretends to show the beauty of holiness, till
he has convinced you of the truth of it.

“Would every one of our clergymen be thus careful to recommend truth and
virtue in their proper figures, and show so much concern for them as to
give them all the additional force they were able, it is not possible that
nonsense should have so many hearers as you find it has in dissenting
congregations, for no reason in the world but because it is spoken extempore:
For ordinary minds are wholly governed by their eyes and ears, and there
is no way to come at their hearts but by power over their imagination.
There is my friend and merry companion Daniel[4]: he knows a great deal
better than he speaks, and can form a proper discourse as well as any
orthodox neighbour. But he knows very well, that to bawl out, ‘My
beloved;’ and the words ‘grace! regeneration! sanctification! a new light!
the day! The day! aye, my beloved, the day!’ or rather, ‘the night! The
night is coming! and judgment will come, when we least think of it!’—and
so forth—He knows, to be vehement is the only way to come at his
audience; and Daniel, when he sees my friend Greenhat come in, can give
him a good hint, and cry out, ‘This is only for the saints! the
regenerated!’ By this force of action, though mixed with all the
incoherence and ribaldry imaginable, Daniel can laugh at his diocesan, and
grow fat by voluntary subscription, while the parson of the parish goes to
law for half his dues. Daniel will tell you, ‘It is not the shepherd, but
the sheep with the bell, which the flock follows.’ Another thing, very
wonderful this learned body should omit, is, learning to read; which is a
most necessary part of eloquence in one who is to serve at the altar: for
there is no man but must be sensible, that the lazy tone, and inarticulate
sound of our common readers, depreciates the most proper form of words
that were ever extant in any nation or language, to speak our own wants,
or His power from whom we ask relief.

“There cannot be a greater instance of the power of action than in little
parson Dapper,[5] who is the common relief to all the lazy pulpits in
town. This smart youth has a very good memory, a quick eye, and a clean
handkerchief. Thus equipped, he opens his text, shuts his book fairly,
shows he has no notes in his Bible, opens both palms, and shows all is
fair there too. Thus, with a decisive air, my young man goes on without
hesitation; and though from the beginning to the end of his pretty
discourse, he has not used one proper gesture, yet at the conclusion, the
churchwarden pulls his gloves from off his head; ‘Pray, who is this
extraordinary young man?’ Thus the force of action is such, that it is
more prevalent (even when improper) than all the reason and argument in
the world without it.” This gentleman concluded his discourse by saying,
“I do not doubt but if our preachers would learn to speak, and our readers
to read, within six months’ time we should not have a dissenter within a
mile of a church in Great Britain.”

[Footnote 1: In his original preface to the fourth volume, Steele explains
that “the amiable character of the Dean in the sixty-sixth ‘Tatler,’ was
drawn for Dr. Atterbury.” Steele cites this as a proof of his
impartiality. Scott thinks that it must have cost him “some effort to
permit insertion of a passage so favourable to a Tory divine.” At the time
the character was published Atterbury was Dean of Carlisle and one of the
Queen’s chaplains. He was later created Bishop of Rochester. There is no
doubt that Atterbury was deeply implicated in the various Jacobite plots
for the bringing in of the Pretender. Under a bill of pains and penalties
he was condemned and deprived of all his ecclesiastical offices. In 1723
he left England and died in exile in 1732. His body, however, was
privately buried in Westminster Abbey. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “De Sublimitate,” viii. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: For twenty years Atterbury was preacher at the chapel of
Bridewell Hospital. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Daniel Burgess (1645-1713), the son of a Wiltshire clergyman,
was a schoolmaster in Ireland before he became minister to the
Presbyterian meeting-house people in Brydges Street, Covent Garden. A
chapel was built for him in New Court, Carey Street, Lincoln’s Inn, and
this was destroyed during the Sacheverell riots in 1710. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Dr. Joseph Trapp (1679-1747), professor of poetry at Oxford,
where he published his “Praelectiones Poeticae” (1711-15), He assisted
Sacheverell and became a strong partisan of the High Church party. Swift
thought very little of him. To Stella he writes, he is “a sort of
pretender to wit, a second-rate pamphleteer for the cause, whom they pay
by sending him to Ireland” (January 7th, 1710/1, see vol. ii., p. 96).
This sending to Ireland refers to his chaplaincy to Sir Constantine
Phipps, Lord Chancellor of Ireland (1710-12). On July 17th, 1712, Swift
again speaks of him to Stella: “I have made Trap chaplain to Lord
Bolingbroke, and he is mighty happy and thankful for it” (ibid., p.
379). Trapp afterwards held several preferments in and near London.
[T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 67.

FROM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. TO TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 13. 1709.

From my own Apartment, September 12.

No man can conceive, till he comes to try it, how great a pain it is to be
a public-spirited person. I am sure I am unable to express to the world,
how much anxiety I have suffered, to see of how little benefit my
Lucubrations have been to my fellow-subjects. Men will go on in their own
way in spite of all my labour. I gave Mr. Didapper a private reprimand for
wearing red-heeled shoes, and at the same time was so indulgent as to
connive at him for fourteen days, because I would give him the wearing of
them out; but after all this I am informed, he appeared yesterday with a
new pair of the same sort. I have no better success with Mr.
Whatdee’call[1] as to his buttons: Stentor[2] still roars; and box and
dice rattle as loud as they did before I writ against them. Partridge[3]
walks about at noon-day, and Aesculapius[4] thinks of adding a new lace to
his livery. However, I must still go on in laying these enormities before
men’s eyes, and let them answer for going on in their practice.[5] My
province is much larger than at first sight men would imagine, and I shall
lose no part of my jurisdiction, which extends not only to futurity, but
also is retrospect to things past; and the behaviour of persons who have
long ago acted their parts, is as much liable to my examination, as that
of my own contemporaries.

In order to put the whole race of mankind in their proper distinctions,
according to the opinion their cohabitants conceived of them, I have with
very much care, and depth of meditation, thought fit to erect a Chamber of
Fame, and established certain rules, which are to be observed in admitting
members into this illustrious society. In this Chamber of Fame there are
to be three tables, but of different lengths; the first is to contain
exactly twelve persons; the second, twenty; the third, an hundred. This is
reckoned to be the full number of those who have any competent share of
fame. At the first of these tables are to be placed in their order the
twelve most famous persons in the world, not with regard to the things
they are famous for, but according to the degree of their fame, whether in
valour, wit, or learning. Thus if a scholar be more famous than a soldier,
he is to sit above him. Neither must any preference be given to virtue, if
the person be not equally famous. When the first table is filled, the next
in renown must be seated at the second, and so on in like manner to the
number of twenty; as also in the same order at the third, which is to hold
an hundred. At these tables no regard is to be had to seniority: for if
Julius Caesar shall be judged more famous than Romulus and Scipio, he must
have the precedence. No person who has not been dead an hundred years,
must be offered to a place at any of these tables: and because this is
altogether a lay society, and that sacred persons move upon greater
motives than that of fame, no persons celebrated in Holy Writ, or any
ecclesiastical men whatsoever, are to be introduced here.

At the lower end of the room is to be a side-table for persons of great
fame, but dubious existence, such as Hercules, Theseus, Aeneas, Achilles,
Hector, and others. But because it is apprehended, that there may be great
contention about precedence, the proposer humbly desires the opinion of
the learned towards his assistance in placing every person according to
his rank, that none may have just occasion of offence.

The merits of the cause shall be judged by plurality of voices.

For the more impartial execution of this important affair, it is desired,
that no man will offer his favourite hero, scholar, or poet; and that the
learned will be pleased to send to Mr. Bickerstaff, at Mr. Morphew’s near
Stationers’ Hall, their several lists for the first table only, and in the
order they would have them placed; after which, the composer will compare
the several lists, and make another for the public, wherein every name
shall be ranked according to the voices it has had. Under this chamber is
to be a dark vault for the same number of persons of evil fame.

It is humbly submitted to consideration, whether the project would not be
better, if the persons of true fame meet in a middle room, those of
dubious existence in an upper room, and those of evil fame in a lower dark
room.

It is to be noted, that no historians are to be admitted at any of these
tables, because they are appointed to conduct the several persons to their
seats, and are to be made use of as ushers to the assemblies.

I call upon the learned world to send me their assistance towards this
design, it being a matter of too great moment for any one person to
determine. But I do assure them, their lists shall be examined with great
fidelity, and those that are exposed to the public, made with all the
caution imaginable.

[Footnote 1: “N.B. Mr. How’d’call is desired to leave off those buttons.”—No.
21. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Dr. William Stanley (1647-1731), master of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, was Dean of St. Asaph in 1706-31. In No. 54 of “The
Tatler,” he is described as a person “accustomed to roar and bellow so
terribly loud in the responses that . . . one of our petty canons, a
punning Cambridge scholar, calls his way of worship a Bull-offering.”
In the sixty-first number a further reference is made to him: “A person of
eminent wit and piety [Dr. R. South] wrote to Stentor: ‘Brother Stentor,’
said he, ‘for the repose of the Church, hearken to Bickerstaff; and
consider that, while you are so devout at St. Paul’s, we cannot sleep for
you at St. Peter’s.'” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: John Partridge (1644-1715) cobbler, philomath, and quack, was
the author of “Merlinus Liberatus,” first issued in 1680. He libelled his
master, John Gadbury, in his “Nebulo Anglicanus” (1693), and quarrelled
with George Parker, a fellow-quack and astrologer. It is of him that Swift
wrote his famous “Predictions” (see vol. i. of this edition, p. 298), and
issued his broadside, concluding with the lines:

In No. 59 of “The Tatler,” his death is referred to in harmony with the
tone of Swift’s fun: “The late Partridge, who still denies his death. I am
informed indeed by several that he walks.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The famous Dr. John Radcliffe (1650-1714) who refused the
appointment of physician to King William III., and offended Anne by his
churlish disregard of her requests to attend on her. He fell in love with
a Miss Tempest, one of Queen Anne’s maids of honour. In the 44th number of
“The Tatler” Steele ridicules this attachment by making him address his
mistress in the following words: “O fair! for thee I sit amidst a crowd of
painted deities on my chariot, buttoned in gold, clasped in gold, without
having any value for that beloved metal, but as it adorns the person and
laces the hat of thy dying lover.” Radcliffe attended Swift for his
dizziness, but that did not prevent the latter from referring to him as
“that puppy,” in writing to Stella, for neglecting to attend to Harley’s
wound. He seems to have had a high standing for skill as a physician, and
probably on that account gave himself airs. It is told of him that “during
a long attendance in the family of a particular friend, he regularly
refused the fee pressed upon him at each visit. At length, when the cure
was performed, and the doctor about to give up attendance, the
convalescent patient again proffered him a purse containing the fees for
every day’s visit. The doctor eyed it some time in silence, and at length
extended his hand, exclaiming, ‘Singly, I could have refused them for
ever; but altogether they are irresistible.'” Radcliffe died at Carshalton
in 1714. From his bequests were founded the Radcliffe Infirmary and
Observatory at Oxford. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Scott omits, from his edition, the whole of this paragraph up
to this point. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 68.

FROM TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 13. TO THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15. 1709.

From my own Apartment, September 14.

The progress of our endeavours will of necessity be very much interrupted,
except the learned world will please to send their lists to the Chamber of
Fame with all expedition. There is nothing can so much contribute to
create a noble emulation in our youth, as the honourable mention of such
whose actions have outlived the injuries of time, and recommended
themselves so far to the world, that it is become learning to know the
least circumstance of their affairs. It is a great incentive to see, that
some men have raised themselves so highly above their fellow-creatures;
that the lives of ordinary men are spent in inquiries after the particular
actions of the most illustrious. True it is, that without this impulse to
fame and reputation, our industry would stagnate, and that lively desire
of pleasing each other die away. This opinion was so established in the
heathen world, that their sense of living appeared insipid, except their
being was enlivened with a consciousness, that they were esteemed by the
rest of the world.

Upon examining the proportion of men’s fame for my table of twelve, I
thought it no ill way, since I had laid it down for a rule, that they were
to be ranked simply as they were famous, without regard to their virtue,
to ask my sister Jenny’s advice, and particularly mentioned to her the
name of Aristotle. She immediately told me, he was a very great scholar,
and that she had read him at the boarding-school. She certainly means a
trifle sold by the hawkers, called, “Aristotle’s Problems.” [1] But this
raised a great scruple in me, whether a fame increased by imposition of
others is to be added to his account, or that these excrescencies, which
grow out of his real reputation, and give encouragement to others to pass
things under the covert of his name, should be considered in giving him
his seat in the Chamber? This punctilio is referred to the learned. In the
mean time, so ill-natured are mankind, that I believe I have names already
sent me sufficient to fill up my lists for the dark room, and every one is
apt enough to send in their accounts of ill deservers. This malevolence
does not proceed from a real dislike of virtue, but a diabolical prejudice
against it, which makes men willing to destroy what they care not to
imitate. Thus you see the greatest characters among your acquaintance, and
those you live with, are traduced by all below them in virtue, who never
mention them but with an exception. However, I believe I shall not give
the world much trouble about filling my tables for those of evil fame, for
I have some thoughts of clapping up the sharpers there as fast as I can
lay hold of them.

At present, I am employed in looking over the several notices which I have
received of their manner of dexterity, and the way at dice of making all
rugg, as the cant is. The whole art of securing a die has lately
been sent me by a person who was of the fraternity, but is disabled by the
loss of a finger, by which means he cannot, as he used to do, secure a
die. But I am very much at a loss how to call some of the fair sex, who
are accomplices with the Knights of Industry; for my metaphorical dogs[2]
are easily enough understood; but the feminine gender of dogs has so harsh
a sound, that we know not how to name it. But I am credibly informed, that
there are female dogs as voracious as the males, and make advances to
young fellows, without any other design but coming to a familiarity with
their purses. I have also long lists of persons of condition, who are
certainly of the same regiment with these banditti, and instrumental to
their cheats upon undiscerning men of their own rank. These add their good
reputation to carry on the impostures of those, whose very names would
otherwise be defence enough against falling into their hands. But for the
honour of our nation, these shall be unmentioned, provided we hear no more
of such practices, and that they shall not from henceforward suffer the
society of such, as they know to be the common enemies of order,
discipline, and virtue. If it prove that they go on in encouraging them,
they must be proceeded against according to severest rules of history,
where all is to be laid before the world with impartiality, and without
respect to persons.

“So let the stricken deer go weep.”[3]

[Footnote 1: This was not a translation of Aristotle’s “Problemata,” but
an indecent pamphlet with that title. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: In the 62nd number of “The Tatler” Steele wrote a paper
comparing some of the pests of society, such as the gamblers, to dogs, and
said: “It is humbly proposed that they may be all together transported to
America, where the dogs are few, and the wild beasts many.” Scott notes
that when one of the fraternity referred to threatened Steele with
personal vengeance, Lord Forbes silenced him with these words: “You will
find it safer, sir, in this country, to cut a purse than to cut a throat.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “Why, let the stricken deer go weep.”—Hamlet,
iii. 2. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 70.

FROM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 17. TO TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20. 1709.

“SIR,[1]

“I read with great pleasure in the Tatler[2] of Saturday last the
conversation upon eloquence; permit me to hint to you one thing the great
Roman orator observes upon this subject, Caput enim arbitrabatur
oratoris, (he quotes Menedemus[3] an Athenian) ut ipsis apud quos
ageret talis qualem ipse optaret videretur, id fieri vitae dignitate.[4]
It is the first rule, in oratory, that a man must appear such as he would
persuade others to be, and that can be accomplished only by the force of
his life. I believe it might be of great service to let our public orators
know, that an unnatural gravity, or an unbecoming levity in their
behaviour out of the pulpit, will take very much from the force of their
eloquence in it. Excuse another scrap of Latin; it is from one of the
Fathers: I think it will appear a just observation to all, as it may have
authority with some; Qui autem docent tantum, nec faciunt, ipsi
praeceptis suis detrahunt pondus; Quis enim obtemperet, cum ipsi
praeceptores doceant non obtemperare?[5] I am,

“SIR,

“Your humble servant,

“JONATHAN ROSEHAT.

“P.S. You were complaining in that paper, that the clergy of Great-Britain
had not yet learned to speak; a very great defect indeed; and therefore I
shall think myself a well-deserver of the church in recommending all the
dumb clergy to the famous speaking doctor[6] at Kensington. This ingenious
gentleman, out of compassion to those of a bad utterance, has placed his
whole study in the new-modelling the organs of voice; which art he has so
far advanced, as to be able even to make a good orator of a pair of
bellows. He lately exhibited a specimen of his skill in this way, of which
I was informed by the worthy gentlemen then present, who were at once
delighted and amazed to hear an instrument of so simple an organization
use an exact articulation of words, a just cadency in its sentences, and a
wonderful pathos in its pronunciation; not that he designs to expatiate in
this practice, because he cannot (as he says) apprehend what use it may be
of to mankind, whose benefit he aims at in a more particular manner: and
for the same reason, he will never more instruct the feathered kind, the
parrot having been his last scholar in that way. He has a wonderful
faculty in making and mending echoes, and this he will perform at any time
for the use of the solitary in the country, being a man born for universal
good, and for that reason recommended to your patronage by, Sir, yours,

“PHILALETHES.”

[Footnote 1: This letter appears under the heading: “From my own
Apartment, September 19.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: See “The Tatler,” No. 66, ante. [T. S,]]

[Footnote 3: An Athenian rhetorician who died in Rome about 100 B.C. [T.
S.]]

[Footnote 4: The quotation is not quite correctly given. It is taken from
Cicero, De Oratore, i. 19 (87). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “But those who teach, and do not live in accordance with
their own instructions, take away all the weight from their teaching; for
who will comply with their precepts, when the teachers themselves teach us
not to obey them?” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: James Ford proposed to cure stammerers and even restore
speech to mutes. In the second volume of “The British Apollo” he is
referred to as having “not only recovered several who stammered to a
regular speech, but also brought the deaf and dumb to speak.” [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 71.

FROM TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20. TO THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 22. 1709.

“‘SQUIRE BICKERSTAFF,[1]

“Finding your advice and censure to have a good effect, I desire your
admonition to our vicar and schoolmaster, who in his preaching to his
auditors, stretches his jaws so wide, that instead of instructing youth,
it rather frightens them: likewise in reading prayers, he has such a
careless loll, that people are justly offended at his irreverent posture;
besides the extraordinary charge they are put to in sending their children
to dance, to bring them off of those ill gestures. Another evil faculty he
has, in making the bowling-green his daily residence, instead of his
church, where his curate reads prayers every day. If the weather is fair,
his time is spent in visiting; if cold or wet, in bed, or at least at
home, though within 100 yards of the church. These, out of many such
irregular practices, I write for his reclamation: but two or three things
more before I conclude; to wit, that generally when his curate preaches in
the afternoon, he sleeps sotting in the desk on a hassock. With all this,
he is so extremely proud, that he will go but once to the sick, except
they return his visit.”

[Footnote 1: This letter is dated as from Will’s Coffee-house, September
20. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 230.

FROM TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26. TO THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 28. 1710.

From my own Apartment, September 27.[1]

The following letter has laid before me many great and manifest evils in
the world of letters[2] which I had overlooked; but they open to me a very
busy scene, and it will require no small care and application to amend
errors which are become so universal. The affectation of politeness is
exposed in this epistle with a great deal of wit and discernment; so that
whatever discourses I may fall into hereafter upon the subjects the writer
treats of, I shall at present lay the matter before the World without the
least alteration from the words of my correspondent.

“TO ISAAC BICKERSTAFF ESQ;

“SIR,

“There are some abuses among us of great consequence, the reformation of
which is properly your province, though, as far as I have been conversant
in your papers, you have not yet considered them. These are, the
deplorable ignorance that for some years hath reigned among our English
writers, the great depravity of our taste, and the continual corruption of
our style. I say nothing here of those who handle particular sciences,
divinity, law, physic, and the like; I mean, the traders in history and
politics, and the belles lettres; together with those by whom books
are not translated, but (as the common expressions are) ‘done out of
French, Latin,’ or other language, and ‘made English.’ I cannot but
observe to you, that till of late years a Grub-Street book was always
bound in sheepskin, with suitable print and paper, the price never above a
shilling, and taken off wholly by common tradesmen, or country pedlars,
but now they appear in all sizes and shapes, and in all places. They are
handed about from lapfuls in every coffeehouse to persons of quality, are
shewn in Westminster-Hall and the Court of Requests. You may see them
gilt, and in royal paper, of five or six hundred pages, and rated
accordingly. I would engage to furnish you with a catalogue of English
books published within the compass of seven years past, which at the first
hand would cost you a hundred pounds, wherein you shall not be able to
find ten lines together of common grammar or common sense.

“These two evils, ignorance and want of taste, have produced a third; I
mean, the continual corruption of our English tongue, which, without some
timely remedy, will suffer more by the false refinements of twenty years
past, than it hath been improved in the foregoing hundred: And this is
what I design chiefly to enlarge upon, leaving the former evils to your
animadversion.

“But instead of giving you a list of the late refinements crept into our
language, I here send you the copy of a letter I received some time ago
from a most accomplished person in this way of writing, upon which I shall
make some remarks. It is in these terms.

“‘SIR,

“‘I couldn’t get the things you sent for all about Town.—I thôt to
ha’ come down myself, and then I’d ha’ brôut ‘umn; but I han’t don’t, and
I believe I can’t do’t, that’s pozz.—Tom[3] begins to gi’mself airs
because he’s going with the plenipo’s.—’Tis said, the French King
will bamboozl us agen, which causes many speculations. The Jacks, and
others of that kidney, are very uppish, and alert upon’t, as you may see
by their phizz’s.—Will Hazzard has got the hipps, having lost to the
tune of five hundr’d pound, thô he understands play very well, nobody
better. He has promis’t me upon rep, to leave off play; but you know ’tis
a weakness he’s too apt to give into, thô he has as much wit as any man,
nobody more. He has lain incog ever since.—The mobb’s very quiet
with us now.—I believe you thôt I bantered you in my last like a
country put.—I sha’n’t leave Town this month, &c.’

“This letter is in every point an admirable pattern of the present polite
way of writing; nor is it of less authority for being an epistle. You may
gather every flower in it, with a thousand more of equal sweetness, from
the books, pamphlets, and single papers, offered us every day in the
coffeehouses: And these are the beauties introduced to supply the want of
wit, sense, humour, and learning, which formerly were looked upon as
qualifications for a writer. If a man of wit, who died forty years ago,
were to rise from the grave on purpose, how would he be able to read this
letter? And after he had gone through that difficulty, how would he be
able to understand it? The first thing that strikes your eye is the breaks
at the end of almost every sentence; of which I know not the use, only
that it is a refinement, and very frequently practised. Then you will
observe the abbreviations and elisions, by which consonants of most
obdurate sound are joined together, without one softening vowel to
intervene; and all this only to make one syllable of two, directly
contrary to the example of the Greeks and Romans; altogether of the Gothic
strain, and a natural tendency towards relapsing into barbarity, which
delights in monosyllables, and uniting of mute consonants; as it is
observable in all the Northern languages. And this is still more visible
in the next refinement, which consists in pronouncing the first syllable
in a word that has many, and dismissing the rest; such as phizz, hipps,
mobb,[4] poz., rep. and many more; when we are already overloaded with
monosyllables, which are the disgrace of our language. Thus we cram one
syllable, and cut off the rest; as the owl fattened her mice, after she
had bit off their legs to prevent their running away; and if ours be the
same reason for maiming words, it will certainly answer the end; for I am
sure no other Nation will desire to borrow them. Some words are hitherto
but fairly split, and therefore only in their way to perfection, as incog
and plenipo: But in a short time it is to be hoped they will be
further docked to inc and plen. This reflection has made me
of late years very impatient for a peace, which I believe would save the
lives of many brave words, as well as men. The war has introduced
abundance of polysyllables, which will never be able to live many more
campaigns; Speculations, operations, preliminaries, ambassadors,
palisadoes, communication, circumvallation, battalions, as numerous as
they are, if they attack us too frequently in our coffeehouses, we shall
certainly put them to flight, and cut off the rear.

“The third refinement observable in the letter I send you, consists in the
choice of certain words invented by some pretty fellows; such as banter,
bamboozle, country put, and kidney, as it is there applied;
some of which are now struggling for the vogue, and others are in
possession of it. I have done my utmost for some years past to stop the
progress of mobb and banter, but have been plainly borne
down by numbers, and betrayed by those who promised to assist me.

“In the last place, you are to take notice of certain choice phrases
scattered through the letter; some of them tolerable enough, till they
were worn to rags by servile imitators. You might easily find them, though
they were not in a different print, and therefore I need not disturb them.

“These are the false refinements in our style which you ought to correct:
First, by argument and fair means; but if those fail, I think you are to
make use of your authority as Censor, and by an annual index
expurgatorius expunge all words and phrases that are offensive to good
sense, and condemn those barbarous mutilations of vowels and syllables. In
this last point the usual pretence is, that they spell as they speak; a
noble standard for language! to depend upon the caprice of every coxcomb,
who, because words are the clothing of our thoughts, cuts them out, and
shapes them as he pleases, and changes them oftener than his dress. I
believe, all reasonable people would be content that such refiners were
more sparing in their words, and liberal in their syllables: And upon this
head I should be glad you would bestow some advice upon several young
readers in our churches, who coming up from the University, full fraught
with admiration of our Town politeness, will needs correct the style of
their Prayer-Books. In reading the absolution, they are very careful to
say “Pardons and absolves;” and in the Prayer for the Royal Family,
it must be, endue’um, enrich’um, prosper’um, and bring’um.[5]
Then in their sermons they use all the modern terms of art, sham,
banter, mob, bubble, bully, cutting shuffling, and palming, all
which, and many more of the like stamp, as I have heard them often in the
pulpit from such young sophisters, so I have read them in some of those
sermons that have made most noise of late. The design, it seems, is to
avoid the dreadful imputation of pedantry, to shew us, that they know the
Town, understand men and manners, and have not been poring upon old
unfashionable books in the University.

“I should be glad to see you the instrument of introducing into our style
that simplicity which is the best and truest ornament of most things in
life, which the politer ages always aimed at in their building and dress,
(simplex munditiis) as well as their productions of wit. It is
manifest, that all new, affected modes of speech, whether borrowed from
the Court, the Town, or the theatre, are the first perishing parts in any
language, and, as I could prove by many hundred instances, have been so in
ours. The writings of Hooker,[6] who was a country clergyman, and of
Parsons[7] the Jesuit, both in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, are in a
style that, with very few allowances, would not offend any present reader;
much more clear and intelligible than those of Sir H. Wotton,[8]Sir Robert
Naunton,[9] Osborn,[10] Daniel[11] the historian, and several others who
writ later; but being men of the Court, and affecting the phrases then in
fashion, they are often either not to be understood, or appear perfectly
ridiculous.

“What remedies are to be applied to these evils I have not room to
consider, having, I fear, already taken up most of your paper. Besides, I
think it is our office only to represent abuses, and yours to redress
them.

“I am, with great respect, Sir,

“Your, &c.”

[Footnote 1: In his “Journal to Stella,” Swift writes, under date,
September 18th, 1710: “Came to town; got home early, and began a letter to
‘The Tatler’ about the corruptions of style and writing, &c.” On
September 23rd, he writes again: “I have sent a long letter to
Bickerstaff; let the Bp. of Clogher smoke if he can.” Again on September
29th: “I made a ‘Tatler’ since I came; guess which it is, and whether the
Bp. Of Clogher smokes it.” On October 1st, he asks Stella: “Have you
smoked the ‘Tatler’ that I writ? It is much liked here, and I think it a
pure one.” On the 14th of the same month he refers still again to the
paper which had evidently pleased him: “The Bp. of Clogher has smoked my
‘Tatler’ about shortening of words,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Compare Swift’s “Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Thomas Harley, cousin of the first Earl of Oxford. He was
Secretary of the Treasury, and afterwards minister at Hanover. He died in
1737. (T.S.)]

[Footnote 4: It is interesting to note that Swift, who insisted that the
word “mob” should never be used for “rabble,” wrote “mob” in the 15th
number of “The Examiner,” and in Faulkner’s reprint of 1741 the word was
changed to “rabble.” Scott notes: “The Dean carried on the war against the
word ‘mob’ to the very last. A lady who died in 1788, and was well known
to Swift, used to say that the greatest scrape into which she got with him
was by using the word ‘mob.’ ‘Why do you say that?’ said he, in a passion;
‘never let me hear you say that word again.’ ‘Why, sir,’ said she, ‘what
am I to say?’ ‘The “rabble,” to be sure,’ answered he.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5.] See Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Pembroke (Scott’s edition,
vol. xv., p. 350) where a little more fun is poked at the Bishop of
Clogher, in the same strain. [T.S.]

[Footnote 6: The great Richard Hooker (1554-1600) author of the
“Ecclesiastical Polity.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Robert Parsons (1546-1610) the famous Jesuit missionary, and
the author of a large number of works including the “Conference about the
next Succession” (1594). Several of his books were privately printed by
him at a secret printing press, which he set up in East Ham with the
assistance of the poet Campion. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Sir Henry Wotton (1568-1639) author of “Reliquiae
Wottonianae,” and the friend of John Donne. He was Provost of Eton from
1624 until his death, and distinguished himself as a diplomatist. To him
is ascribed the saying: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad
for the good of his country.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Sir Robert Naunton (1563-1635), Secretary of State in 1618,
and author of “Fragmenta Regalia” published in 1641. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Francis Osborne (1593-1659) wrote “Advice to a Son”
(1656-58), a work that gave him a great reputation. This work was issued
with his other writings in a collected form in 1673. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Samuel Daniel (1562-1619) is said to have succeeded Spenser
as poet-laureate. In addition to his plays and poems (including a history
of the Civil Wars in eight books, 1595-1609) he wrote a History of
England, in two parts (1612-1617). [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 258.

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30. TO SATURDAY DECEMBER 2. 1710.

To ISAAC BICKERSTAFF ESQ;

Nov. 22. 1710.[1]

SIR,

Dining yesterday with Mr. South-British, and Mr. William
North-Briton two gentlemen, who, before you ordered it otherwise,[2]
were known by the names of Mr. English and Mr. William Scott.
Among other things, the maid of the house (who in her time I believe may
have been a North-British warming-pan) brought us up a dish of North-British
collops. We liked our entertainment very well, only we observed the
table-cloth, being not so fine as we could have wished, was North-British
cloth: But the worst of it was, we were disturbed all dinner-time by the
noise of the children, who were playing in the paved court at North-British
hoppers; so we paid our North-Briton[3] sooner than we designed,
and took coach to North-Britain yard, about which place most of us
live. We had indeed gone a-foot, only we were under some apprehensions
lest a North-British mist should wet a South-British man to
the skin.

We think this matter properly expressed, according to the accuracy of the
new style settled by you in one of your late papers. You will please to
give your opinion upon it to,

Sir, Your most humble servants,

J.S. M.P. N.R.

[Footnote 1: This letter appeared originally under the heading: “From my
own Apartment, December I.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: In his “Journal to Stella” (December 2, 1710) Swift writes:
“Steele, the rogue, has done the impudentest thing in the world. He said
something in a ‘Tatler,’ that we ought to use the word Great Britain, and
not England, in common conversation, as, the finest lady in Great Britain,
&c. Upon this Rowe, Prior, and I, sent him a letter, turning this into
ridicule. He has to-day printed the letter, and signed it J.S., M.P. and
N.R. the first letters of our names. Congreve told me to-day, he smoked it
immediately.” The passage referred to by Swift, was a letter, signed
Scoto-Britannus, printed in No. 241 of “The Tatler,” in which it was
objected that a gentleman ended every sentence with the words, “the best
of any man in England,” and called upon him to “mend his phrase, and be
hereafter the wisest of any man in Great Britain.” Writing to Alderman
Barber, under date August 8, 1738, Swift remarks: “The modern phrase
‘Great Britain’ is only to distinguish it from Little Britain where old
clothes and old books are to be bought and sold.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: We paid our scot; i.e., our share of the reckoning.
[T.S.]]

NOTE.

With No. 271 Steele brought his venture to a close. It was issued on
January 2nd, 1710. “I am now,” he wrote, “come to the end of my ambition
in this matter, and have nothing further to say to the world under the
character of Isaac Bickerstaff.” His ostensible reason for thus
terminating so successful an undertaking he put down to the fact that
Bickerstaff was no longer a disguise, and that he could not hope to have
the same influence when it was known who it was that led the movement.
Another reason, however, suggests itself in Steele’s recognition of
Harley’s kindness in not depriving him of his Commissionership of Stamps,
as well as of his Gazetteership for the satires Steele permitted to appear
against Harley in “The Tatler.” That Steele did have something further to
say to the world may be gathered from the fact that two months after “The
Tatler’s” decease he started “The Spectator.”

But “The Tatler” was too good a thing for the publishers to permit to die.
Two days after the issue of No. 271, appeared a No. 272, with the imprint
of John Baker, of “the Black Boy at Paternoster Row.” It extolled the
“Character of Richard Steele, alias Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.,” and promised
to continue in his footsteps, and be delivered regularly to its
subscribers “at 5 in the morning.” On January 6th, 1710, No. 273 was
published by “Isaac Bickerstaff, Jr.” John Baker, however, was not to have
it all his own way, for on January 6th, 1710, Morphew brought out a number—not
a double number, although called “Numbers 272, 273″—and continued it
without intermission on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, until May
19th, when the final number, No. 330, was issued. The date 1711 was first
used on March 31st. Meanwhile, on January 13th, A. Baldwin issued a No. 1
of a “Tatler,” in which the public were informed that Isaac Bickerstaff
had had no intention to discontinue the paper, but would continue to
publish it every Tuesday and Saturday. This was the new “Tatler” in which
Swift was interesting himself on behalf of William Harrison. Writing to
Stella, under date January 11th, he says: “I am setting up a new ‘Tatler,’
little Harrison, whom I have mentioned to you. Others have put him on it,
and I encourage him; and he was with me this morning and evening, showing
me his first, which comes out on Saturday. I doubt he will not succeed,
for I do not much approve his manner; but the scheme is Mr. Secretary St.
John’s and mine, and would have done well enough in good hands.” When the
paper came out he wrote again: “There is not much in it, but I hope he
will mend. You must understand that, upon Steele’s leaving off, there were
two or three scrub Tatlers came out, and one of them holds on still, and
to-day it advertised against Harrison’s; and so there must be disputes
which are genuine, like the strops for razors. I am afraid the little toad
has not the true vein for it.” Apparently, he hadn’t, for later, referring
to another number, Swift writes: “The jackanapes wants a right taste: I
doubt he won’t do.”

With all Swift’s assistance, Harrison did not hold out. He quarrelled with
Baldwin, and went to Morphew and Lillie, the publishers of the original
“Tatler.” Only six numbers bear Baldwin’s imprint, namely, Nos. 1-6, dated
respectively, January 13th, January 16th, January 20th, January 23rd,
January 27th, and February 1st. Harrison’s first number, under Morphew,
was called No. 285 (February 3rd). For a very exhaustive and careful
research into the publications of “The Tatler” and its imitators the
reader is referred to Aitken’s “Life of Sir Richard Steele” (2 vols.,
1889).

William Harrison (1685-1713) was educated at Winchester College and New
College, Oxford. He obtained Addison’s favour by his acquaintance with
“polite literature,” and was introduced by him to Swift. Swift took to him
very kindly, spoke of the young fellow “we are all fond of,” thought him
“a pretty little fellow, with a great deal of wit, good sense, and good
nature,” and interested himself in him to the extent that through him St.
John got Lord Raby to take him to The Hague as his secretary. He returned
with the Barrier Treaty, but without a penny. He had not been paid any of
his salary. Swift heard of this, and immediately went about collecting a
sum of money for his assistance. When, however, he called with the money,
at Harrison’s lodgings in Knightsbridge, he found the poor fellow had died
an hour before.

These contributions to the new “Tatler” are printed from the original
periodical issue with the exception of No. 5, which is taken from the
second edition of the reprint (1720), as no copy of the original issue has
been met with.

[T.S.]

THE TATLER, NUMB. I.

Quis ego sum saltem, si non sum Sosia? Te interrogo. PLAUT.
AMPHITR.[1]

SATURDAY, JANUARY 13. 1711.[2]

It is impossible, perhaps, for the best and wisest amongst us, to keep so
constant a guard upon our temper, but that we may at one time or other lie
open to the strokes of Fortune, and such incidents as we cannot foresee.
With sentiments of this kind I came home to my lodgings last night, much
fatigued with a long and sudden journey from the country, and full of the
ungrateful occasion of it. It was natural for me to have immediate
recourse to my pen and ink; but before I would offer to make use of them,
I resolved deliberately to tell over a hundred, and when I came to the end
of that sum, I found it more advisable to defer drawing up my intended
remonstrance, till I had slept soundly on my resentments. Without any
other preface than this, I shall give the world a fair account of the
treatment I have lately met with, and leave them to judge, whether the
uneasiness I have suffered be inconsistent with the character I have
generally pretended to. About three weeks since, I received an invitation
from a kinsman in Staffordshire, to spend my Christmas in those parts.
Upon taking leave of Mr. Morphew, I put as many papers into his hands as
would serve till my return, and charged him at parting to be very punctual
with the town. In what manner he and Mr. Lillie have been tampered with
since, I cannot say; they have given me my revenge, if I desired any, by
allowing their names to an idle paper, that in all human probability
cannot live a fortnight to an end. Myself, and the family I was with, were
in the midst of gaiety, and a plentiful entertainment, when I received a
letter from my sister Jenny, who, after mentioning some little affairs I
had intrusted to her, goes on thus:—”The inclosed,[2] I believe,
will give you some surprise, as it has already astonished every body here:
Who Mr. Steele is, that subscribes it, I do not know, any more than I can
comprehend what could induce him to it. Morphew and Lillie, I am told, are
both in the secret. I shall not presume to instruct you, but hope you will
use some means to disappoint the ill nature of those who are taking pains
to deprive the world of one of its most reasonable entertainments. I am,
&c.”

I am to thank my sister for her compliment; but be that as it will, I
shall not easily be discouraged from my former undertaking. In pursuance
of it, I was obliged upon this notice to take places in the coach for
myself and my maid with the utmost expedition, lest I should, in a short
time, be rallied out of my existence, as some people will needs fancy Mr.
Partridge has been, and the real Isaac Bickerstaff have passed for a
creature of Mr. Steele’s imagination. This illusion might have hoped for
some tolerable success, if I had not more than once produced my person in
a crowded theatre; and such a person as Mr. Steele, if I am not
misinformed in the gentleman, would hardly think it an advantage to own,
though I should throw him in all the little honour I have gained by my
“Lucubrations.” I may be allowed, perhaps, to understand pleasantry as
well as other men, and can (in the usual phrase) take a jest without being
angry; but I appeal to the world, whether the gentleman has not carried it
too far, and whether he ought not to make a public recantation, if the
credulity of some unthinking people should force me to insist upon it. The
following letter is just come to hand, and I think it not improper to be
inserted in this paper.

“TO ISAAC BICKERSTAFF, ESQ;

“Sir,

“I am extremely glad to hear you are come to town, for in your absence we
were all mightily surprised with an unaccountable paper, signed ‘Richard
Steele,’ who is esteemed by those that know him, to be a man of wit and
honour; and therefore we took it either to be a counterfeit, or a perfect
Christmas frolic of that ingenious gentleman. But then, your paper ceasing
immediately after, we were at a loss what to think: If you were weary of
the work you had so long carried on, and had given this Mr. Steele orders
to signify so to the public, he should have said it in plain terms; but as
that paper is worded, one would be apt to judge, that he had a mind to
persuade the town that there was some analogy between Isaac Bickerstaff
and him. Possibly there may be a secret in this which I cannot enter into;
but I flatter my self that you never had any thoughts of giving over your
labours for the benefit of mankind, when you cannot but know how many
subjects are yet unexhausted, and how many others, as being less obvious,
are wholly untouched. I dare promise, not only for my self, but many other
abler friends, that we shall still continue to furnish you with hints on
all proper occasions, which is all your genius requires. I think, by the
way, you cannot in honour have any more to do with Morphew and Lillie, who
have gone beyond the ordinary pitch of assurance, and transgressed the
very letter of the proverb, by endeavouring to cheat you of your Christian
and surname too. Wishing you, Sir, long to live for our instruction and
diversion, and to the defeating of all impostors, I remain,

“Your most obedient humble servant,

“and affectionate kinsman,

“HUMPHRY WAGSTAFF.”

[Footnote 1: Amphitryon, I. i 282. “Who am I, at all events, if I
am not Sosia? I ask you that.”—H.T. RILEY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This, no doubt, was Steele’s last “Tatler,” No. 271. [T. S.]]

THE TATLER, No. 2.

Alios viri reverentia, vultusque ad continendum populum mire formatus,
alios etiam, quibus ipse interesse non potuit, vis scribendi tamen, et
magni nominis autoritas pervicere.—TULL. EPIST.[1]

FROM SATURD. JAN. 13. TO TUESDAY JAN, l6. 1710.[2]

I remember Ménage,[3] tells a story of Monsieur Racan, who had appointed a
day and hour to meet a certain lady of great wit whom he had never seen,
in order to make an acquaintance between them. “Two of Racan’s friends,
who had heard of the appointment, resolved to play him a trick. The first
went to the lady two hours before the time, said his name was Racan, and
talked with her an hour; they were both mightily pleased, began a great
friendship, and parted with much satisfaction. A few minutes after comes
the second, and sends up the same name; the lady wonders at the meaning,
and tells him, Mr. Racan had just left her. The gentleman says it was some
rascally impostor, and that he had been frequently used in that manner.
The lady is convinced, and they laugh at the oddness of the adventure. She
now calls to mind several passages, which confirm her that the former was
a cheat. He appoints a second meeting, and takes his leave. He was no
sooner gone, but the true Racan comes to the door, and desires, under that
name, to see the lady. She was out of all patience, sends for him up,
rates him for an impostor, and, after a thousand injuries, flings a
slipper at his head. It was impossible to pacify or disabuse her; he was
forced to retire, and it was not without some time, and the intervention
of friends, that they could come to an éclaircissement.” This, as I
take it, is exactly the case with Mr. S[tee]le, the pretended “TATLER”
from Morphew, and myself, only (I presume) the world will be sooner
undeceived than the lady in Ménage. The very day my last paper came out,
my printer brought me another of the same date, called “The Tatler,” by
Isaac Bickerstaff Esq; and, which was still more pleasant, with an
advertisement[4] at the end, calling me the “Female TATLER”: it is
not enough to rob me of my name, but now they must impose a sex on me,
when my years have long since determined me to be of none at all. There is
only one thing wanting in the operation, that they would renew my age, and
then I will heartily forgive them all the rest. In the mean time, whatever
uneasiness I have suffered from the little malice of these men, and my
retirement in the country, the pleasures I have received from the same
occasion, will fairly balance the account. On the one hand, I have been
highly delighted to see my name and character assumed by the scribblers of
the age, in order to recommend themselves to it; and on the other, to
observe the good taste of the town, in distinguishing and exploding them
through every disguise, and sacrificing their trifles to the supposed manes
of Isaac Bickerstaff Esquire. But the greatest merit of my journey into
Staffordshire, is, that it has opened to me a new fund of unreproved
follies and errors that have hitherto lain out of my view, and, by their
situation, escaped my censure. For, as I have lived generally in town, the
images I had of the country were such only as my senses received very
early, and my memory has since preserved with all the advantages they
first appeared in.

Hence it was that I thought our parish church the noblest structure in
England, and the Squire’s Place-House, as we called it, a most magnificent
palace. I had the same opinion of the alms-house in the churchyard, and of
a bridge over the brook that parts our parish from the next. It was the
common vogue of our school, that the master was the best scholar in
Europe, and the usher the second. Not happening to correct these notions,
by comparing them with what I saw when I came into the world, upon
returning back, I began to resume my former imaginations, and expected all
things should appear in the same view as I left them when I was a boy: but
to my utter disappointment I found them wonderfully shrunk, and lessened
almost out of my knowledge. I looked with contempt on the tribes painted
on the church walls, which I once so much admired, and on the carved
chimneypiece in the Squire’s Hall. I found my old master to be a poor
ignorant pedant; and, in short, the whole scene to be extremely changed
for the worse. This I could not help mentioning, because though it be of
no consequence in itself, yet it is certain, that most prejudices are
contracted and retained by this narrow way of thinking, which, in matters
of the greatest moment are hardly shook off: and which we only think true,
because we were made to believe so, before we were capable to distinguish
between truth and falsehood. But there was one prepossession which I
confess to have parted with, much to my regret: I mean the opinion of that
native honesty and simplicity of manners, which I had always imagined to
be inherent in country-people. I soon observed it was with them and us, as
they say of animals; That every species at land has one to resemble it at
sea; for it was easy to discover the seeds and principles of every vice
and folly that one meets with in the more known world, though shooting up
in different forms. I took a fancy out of the several inhabitants round,
to furnish the camp, the bar, and the Exchange, and some certain chocolate
and coffeehouses, with exact parallels to what, in many instances, they
already produce. There was a drunken quarrelsome smith, whom I have a
hundred times fancied at the head of a troop of dragoons. A weaver, within
two doors of my kinsman, was perpetually setting neighbours together by
the ears. I lamented to see how his talents were misplaced, and imagined
what a figure he might make in Westminster-Hall. Goodman Crop of Compton
Farm, wants nothing but a plum and a gold chain to qualify him for the
government of the City. My kinsman’s stable-boy was a gibing companion
that would always have his jest. He would often put cow-itch in the maids’
beds, pull stools from under folks, and lay a coal upon their shoes when
they were asleep. He was at last turned off for some notable piece of
roguery, and when I came away, was loitering among the ale-houses. Bless
me, thought I, what a prodigious wit would this have been with us! I could
have matched all the sharpers between St. James’s and Covent Garden, with
a notable fellow in the same neighbourhood, (since hanged for picking
pockets at fairs) could he have had the advantages of their education. So
nearly are the corruptions of the country allied to those of the town,
with no further difference than what is made by another turn of thought
and method of living!

[Footnote 1: “A reverend aspect, and a countenance formed to command, have
power to restrain some people; while others, who pay no regard to those,
are prevailed upon by the dint of writing, and the authority of a great
name.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Gilles Ménage (1613-1692). The story is given in “Menagiana”
(vol. ii. pp. 49-51, second edition, 1695). C. Sorel, however, in his
“Francion” (1623) tells a similar story of a poet named Saluste, who was
fooled in like manner. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Morphew’s “Tatler” for January 13th, 1710 (No. 276), contains
the following: “Whereas an advertisement was yesterday delivered out by
the author of the late ‘Female Tatler,’ insinuating, [according to his
custom] that he is Isaac Bickerstaff Esq.; This is to give notice, that
this paper is continued to be sold by John Morphew as formerly,” etc.

“The Female Tatler, by Mrs. Crackenthorpe, a Lady that knows every thing,”
had been begun July 8th, 1709, but was now defunct. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, No. 5.

——Laceratque, trahitque Molle pecus VIR.[1]

FROM TUESDAY JAN. 23. TO SATURDAY JAN. 27. 1710.[2]

Amongst other severities I have met with from some critics, the cruellest
for an old man is, that they will not let me be at quiet in my bed, but
pursue me to my very dreams. I must not dream but when they please, nor
upon long continued subjects, however visionary in their own natures;
because there is a manifest moral quite through them, which to produce as
a dream is improbable and unnatural. The pain I might have had from this
objection, is prevented by considering they have missed another, against
which I should have been at a loss to defend myself. They should have
asked me, whether the dreams I publish can properly be called
Lucubrations, which is the name I have given to all my papers, whether in
volumes or half-sheets: so manifest a contradiction in terminis,
that I wonder no sophister ever thought of it: But the other is a cavil. I
remember when I was a boy at school, I have often dreamed out the whole
passages of a day; that I rode a journey, baited, supped, went to bed, and
rose the next morning: and I have known young ladies who could dream a
whole contexture of adventures in one night large enough to make a novel.
In youth the imagination is strong, not mixed with cares, nor tinged with
those passions that most disturb and confound it, such as avarice,
ambition, and many others. Now as old men are said to grow children again,
so in this article of dreaming, I am returned to my childhood. My
imagination is at full ease, without care, avarice, or ambition, to clog
it; by which, among many others, I have this advantage of doubling the
small remainder of my time, and living four-and-twenty hours in the day.
However, the dream I am now going to relate, is as wild as can well be
imagined, and adapted to please these refiners upon sleep, without any
moral that I can discover.

“It happened that my maid left on the table in my bedchamber, one of her
story books (as she calls them) which I took up, and found full of strange
impertinences, fitted to her taste and condition; of poor servants that
came to be ladies, and serving-men of low degree, who married kings’
daughters. Among other things, I met this sage observation, ‘That a lion
would never hurt a true virgin.’ With this medley of nonsense in my fancy
I went to bed, and dreamed that a friend waked me in the morning, and
proposed for pastime to spend a few hours in seeing the parish lions,
which he had not done since he came to town; and because they showed but
once a week, he would not miss the opportunity. I said I would humour him;
though, to speak the truth, I was not fond of those cruel spectacles; and
if it were not so ancient a custom, founded, as I had heard, upon the
wisest maxims, I should be apt to censure the inhumanity of those who
introduced it.” All this will be a riddle to the waking reader, till I
discover the scene my imagination had formed upon the maxim, “That a lion
would never hurt a true virgin.” “I dreamed, that by a law of immemorial
time, a he-lion was kept in every parish at the common charge, and in a
place provided, adjoining to the churchyard: that, before any one of the
fair sex was married, if she affirmed herself to be a virgin, she must on
her wedding day, and in her wedding clothes, perform the ceremony of going
alone into the den, and stay an hour with the lion let loose, and kept
fasting four-and-twenty hours on purpose. At a proper height, above the
den, were convenient galleries for the relations and friends of the young
couple, and open to all spectators. No maiden was forced to offer herself
to the lion; but if she refused, it was a disgrace to marry her, and every
one might have liberty of calling her a whore. And methought it was as
usual a diversion to see the parish lions, as with us to go to a play or
an opera. And it was reckoned convenient to be near the church, either for
marrying the virgin if she escaped the trial, or for burying the bones
when the lion had devoured the rest, as he constantly did.”

To go on therefore with the dream: “We called first (as I remember) to see
St. Dunstan’s lion, but we were told they did not shew to-day: From thence
we went to that of Covent-Garden, which, to my great surprise, we found as
lean as a skeleton, when I expected quite the contrary; but the keeper
said it was no wonder at all, because the poor beast had not got an ounce
of woman’s flesh since he came into the parish. This amazed me more than
the other, and I was forming to myself a mighty veneration for the ladies
in that quarter of the town, when the keeper went on, and said, He
wondered the parish would be at the charge of maintaining a lion for
nothing. Friend, (said I) do you call it nothing, to justify the virtue of
so many ladies, or has your lion lost his distinguishing faculty? Can
there be anything more for the honour of your parish, than that all the
ladies married in your church were pure virgins? That is true, (said he)
and the doctor knows it to his sorrow; for there has not been a couple
married in our church since his worship has been amongst us. The virgins
hereabouts are too wise to venture the claws of the lion; and because
nobody will marry them, have all entered into vows of virginity. So that
in proportion we have much the largest nunnery in the whole town. This
manner of ladies entering into a vow of virginity, because they were not
virgins, I easily conceived; and my dream told me, that the whole kingdom
was full of nunneries, plentifully stocked from the same reason.

“We went to see another lion, where we found much company met in the
gallery; the keeper told us, we should see sport enough, as he called it;
and in a little time, we saw a young beautiful lady put into the den, who
walked up towards the lion with all imaginable security in her
countenance, and looked smiling upon her lover and friends in the gallery;
which I thought nothing extraordinary, because it was never known that any
lion had been mistaken. But, however, we were all disappointed, for the
lion lifted up his right paw, which was the fatal sign, and advancing
forward, seized her by the arm, and began to tear it: The poor lady gave a
terrible shriek, and cried out, ‘The lion is just, I am no true virgin!
Oh! Sappho, Sappho.’ She could say no more, for the lion gave her the coup
de grace, by a squeeze in the throat, and she expired at his feet. The
keeper dragged away her body to feed the animal when the company was gone,
for the parish-lions never used to eat in public. After a little pause,
another lady came on towards the lion in the same manner as the former; we
observed the beast smell her with great diligence, he scratched both her
hands with lifting them to his nose, and clapping a claw on her bosom,
drew blood; however he let her go, and at the same time turned from her
with a sort of contempt, at which she was not a little mortified, and
retired with some confusion to her friends in the gallery. Methought the
whole company immediately understood the meaning of this, that the
easiness of the lady had suffered her to admit certain imprudent and
dangerous familiarities, bordering too much upon what is criminal; neither
was it sure whether the lover then present had not some sharers with him
in those freedoms, of which a lady can never be too sparing.

“This happened to be an extraordinary day, for a third lady came into the
den, laughing loud, playing with her fan, tossing her head, and smiling
round on the young fellows in the gallery. However, the lion leaped on her
with great fury, and we gave her for gone; but on a sudden he let go his
hold, turned from her as if he were nauseated, then gave her a lash with
his tail; after which she returned to the gallery, not the least out of
countenance: and this, it seems, was the usual treatment of coquettes.

“I thought we had now seen enough, but my friend would needs have us go
and visit one or two lions in the city. We called at two or three dens
where they happened not to shew, but we generally found half a score young
girls, between eight and eleven years old, playing with each lion, sitting
on his back, and putting their hands into his mouth; some of them would
now and then get a scratch; but we always discovered, upon examining, that
they had been hoydening with the young apprentices. One of them was
calling to a pretty girl of about twelve years, that stood by us in the
gallery, to come down to the lion, and upon her refusal, said, ‘Ah! Miss
Betty, we could never get you to come near the lion, since you played at
hoop and hide with my brother in the garret.’

“We followed a couple, with the wedding-folks, going to the church of St.
Mary-Axe. The lady, though well stricken in years, extremely crooked and
deformed, was dressed out beyond the gaiety of fifteen; having jumbled
together, as I imagined, all the tawdry remains of aunts, godmothers, and
grandmothers, for some generations past: One of the neighbours whispered
me, that she was an old maid, and had the clearest reputation of any in
the parish. There is nothing strange in that, thought I, but was much
surprised, when I observed afterwards that she went towards the lion with
distrust and concern. The beast was lying down, but upon sight of her,
snuffed up his nose two or three times, and then giving the sign of death,
proceeded instantly to execution. In the midst of her agonies, she was
heard to name the words, ‘Italy’ and ‘artifices,’ with the utmost horror,
and several repeated execrations: and at last concluded, ‘Fool that I was,
to put so much confidence in the toughness of my skin.’

“The keeper immediately set all in order again for another customer, which
happened to be a famous prude, whom her parents after long threatenings,
and much persuasion, had with the extremest difficulty prevailed on to
accept a young handsome goldsmith, that might have pretended to five times
her fortune. The fathers and mothers in the neighbourhood used to quote
her for an example to their daughters. Her elbows were rivetted to her
sides, and her whole person so ordered as to inform everybody that she was
afraid they should touch her. She only dreaded to approach the lion,
because it was a he one, and abhorred to think an animal of that sex
should presume to breathe on her. The sight of a man at twenty yards
distance made her draw back her head. She always sat upon the farther
corner of the chair, though there were six chairs between her and her
lover, and with the door wide open, and her little sister in the room. She
was never saluted but at the tip of her ear, and her father had much ado
to make her dine without her gloves, when there was a man at table. She
entered the den with some fear, which we took to proceed from the height
of her modesty, offended at the sight of so many men in the gallery. The
lion beholding her at a distance, immediately gave the deadly sign; at
which the poor creature (methinks I see her still) miscarried in a fright
before us all. The lion seemed to be surprised as much as we, and gave her
time to make her confession, ‘That she was four months gone, by the
foreman of her father’s shop, that this was her third big belly;’ and when
her friends asked, why she would venture the trial? she said, ‘Her nurse
assured her, that a lion would never hurt a woman with child.'” Upon this
I immediately waked, and could not help wishing, that the deputy-censors
of my late institution were endued with the same instinct as these
parish-lions were.

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 298.[1]

Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes, Emollit mores. OVID.[2]

FROM SATURDAY MARCH 3. TO TUESDAY MARCH 6. 1710.[3]

From my own Apartment in Channel-Row, March 5.

Those inferior duties of life which the French call les petites
morales, or the smaller morals, are with us distinguished by the name
of good manners,[4] or breeding. This I look upon, in the general notion
of it, to be a sort of artificial good sense, adapted to the meanest
capacities, and introduced to make mankind easy in their commerce with
each other. Low and little understandings, without some rules of this
kind, would be perpetually wandering into a thousand indecencies and
irregularities in behaviour, and in their ordinary conversation fall into
the same boisterous familiarities that one observes amongst them, when a
debauch has quite taken away the use of their reason. In other instances,
it is odd to consider, that for want of common discretion the very end of
good breeding is wholly perverted, and civility, intended to make us easy,
is employed in laying chains and fetters upon us, in debarring us of our
wishes, and in crossing our most reasonable desires and inclinations. This
abuse reigns chiefly in the country, as I found to my vexation, when I was
last there, in a visit I made to a neighbour about two miles from my
cousin. As soon as I entered the parlour, they forced me into the great
chair that stood close by a huge fire, and kept me there by force till I
was almost stifled. Then a boy came in great hurry to pull off my boots,
which I in vain opposed, urging that I must return soon after dinner. In
the mean time the good lady whispered her eldest daughter, and slipped a
key into her hand. She returned instantly with a beer glass half full of
aqua mirabilis and syrup of gillyflowers. I took as much as I had a
mind for; but Madam vowed I should drink it off, (for she was sure it
would do me good after coming out of the cold air) and I was forced to
obey, which absolutely took away my stomach. When dinner came in, I had a
mind to sit at a distance from the fire; but they told me, it was as much
as my life was worth, and set me with my back just against it. Though my
appetite was quite gone, I resolved to force down as much as I could, and
desired the leg of a pullet. “Indeed, Mr. Bickerstaff,” says the lady,
“you must eat a wing to oblige me,” and so put a couple upon my plate. I
was persecuted at this rate during the whole meal. As often as I called
for small beer, the master tipped the wink, and the servant brought me a
brimmer of October. Some time after dinner, I ordered my cousin’s man who
came with me to get ready the horses; but it was resolved I should not
stir that night; and when I seemed pretty much bent upon going, they
ordered the stable door to be locked, and the children hid away my cloak
and boots. The next question was, what I would have for supper? I said I
never eat anything at night, but was at last in my own defence obliged to
name the first thing that came into my head. After three hours spent
chiefly in apology for my entertainment, insinuating to me, “That this was
the worst time of the year for provisions, that they were at a great
distance from any market, that they were afraid I should be starved, and
they knew they kept me to my loss,” the lady went, and left me to her
husband (for they took special care I should never be alone.) As soon as
her back was turned, the little misses ran backwards and forwards every
moment; and constantly as they came in or went out, made a curtsy directly
at me, which in good manners I was forced to return with a bow, and “Your
humble servant pretty Miss.” Exactly at eight the mother came up, and
discovered by the redness of her face, that supper was not far off. It was
twice as large as the dinner, and my persecution doubled in proportion. I
desired at my usual hour to go to my repose, and was conducted to my
chamber by the gentleman, his lady, and the whole train of children. They
importuned me to drink something before I went to bed, and upon my
refusing, at last left a bottle of stingo, as they called it, for fear I
should wake and be thirsty in the night. I was forced in the morning to
rise and dress myself in the dark, because they would not suffer my
kinsman’s servant to disturb me at the hour I had desired to be called. I
was now resolved to break through all measures to get away, and after
sitting down to a monstrous breakfast of cold beef, mutton,
neats’-tongues, venison-pasty, and stale beer, took leave of the family;
but the gentleman would needs see me part of my way, and carry me a short
cut through his own grounds, which he told me would save half a mile’s
riding. This last piece of civility had like to have cost me dear, being
once or twice in danger of my neck, by leaping over his ditches, and at
last forced to alight in the dirt, when my horse, having slipped his
bridle, ran away, and took us up more than an hour to recover him again.

It is evident that none of the absurdities I met with in this visit
proceeded from an ill intention, but from a wrong judgment of
complaisance, and a misapplication of the rules of it. I cannot so easily
excuse the more refined critics upon behaviour, who having professed no
other study, are yet infinitely defective in the most material parts of
it. Ned Fashion has been bred all his life about Court, and understands to
a tittle all the punctilios of a drawing-room. He visits most of the fine
women near St. James’s, and upon all occasions says the civilest and
softest things to them of any man breathing. To Mr. Isaac[5] he owes an
easy slide in his bow, and a graceful manner of coming into a room. But in
some other cases he is very far from being a well-bred person: He laughs
at men of far superior understanding to his own, for not being as well
dressed as himself, despises all his acquaintance that are not quality,
and in public places has on that account often avoided taking notice of
some of the best speakers in the House of Commons. He rails strenuously at
both Universities before the members of either, and never is heard to
swear an oath, or break in upon morality or religion, but in the company
of divines. On the other hand, a man of right sense has all the essentials
of good breeding, though he may be wanting in the forms of it. Horatio has
spent most of his time at Oxford. He has a great deal of learning, an
agreeable wit, and as much modesty as serves to adorn without concealing
his other good qualities. In that retired way of living, he seems to have
formed a notion of human nature, as he has found it described in the
writings of the greatest men, not as he is like to meet with it in the
common course of life. Hence it is, that he gives no offence, that he
converses with great deference, candour, and humanity. His bow, I must
confess, is somewhat awkward; but then he has an extensive, universal, and
unaffected knowledge, which makes some amends for it. He would make no
extraordinary figure at a ball; but I can assure the ladies in his behalf,
and for their own consolation, that he has writ better verses on the sex
than any man now living, and is preparing such a poem for the press as
will transmit their praises and his own to many generations.

[Footnote 1: In the reprint of “The Tatler,” volume v., this number was
called No. 20. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Epist. ex Ponto, II. ix. 47-48.

[Footnote 3: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Compare Swift’s “Treatise on Good Manners and Good Breeding.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: A famous dancing-master in those days. [FAULKNER.] He died in
1740. [T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 302.[1]

O Lycida, vivi pervenimus, advena nostri, (Quod numquam veriti sumus)
ut possessor agelli Diceret, Haec mea sunt, veteres migrate coloni.
VIRG.[2]

FROM TUESDAY MARCH 13. TO THURSDAY MARCH 15. 1710.[3]

From my own Apartment in Channel-Row, March 14.

The dignity and distinction of men of wit is seldom enough considered,
either by themselves or others; their own behaviour, and the usage they
meet with, being generally very much of a piece. I have at this time in my
hands an alphabetical list of the beaux esprits about this town,
four or five of whom have made the proper use of their genius, by gaining
the esteem of the best and greatest men, and by turning it to their own
advantage in some establishment of their fortunes, however unequal to
their merit; others satisfying themselves with the honour of having access
to great tables, and of being subject to the call of every man of quality,
who upon occasion wants one to say witty things for the diversion of the
company. This treatment never moves my indignation so much, as when it is
practised by a person, who though he owes his own rise purely to the
reputation of his parts, yet appears to be as much ashamed of it, as a
rich city knight to be denominated from the trade he was first apprenticed
to, and affects the air of a man born to his titles, and consequently
above the character of a wit, or a scholar. If those who possess great
endowments of the mind would set a just value upon themselves, they would
think no man’s acquaintance whatsoever a condescension, nor accept it from
the greatest upon unworthy or ignominious terms. I know a certain lord
that has often invited a set of people, and proposed for their diversion a
buffoon player, and an eminent poet, to be of the party; and which was yet
worse, thought them both sufficiently recompensed by the dinner, and the
honour of his company. This kind of insolence is risen to such a height,
that I my self was the other day sent to by a man with a title, whom I had
never seen, desiring the favour that I would dine with him and half a
dozen of his select friends. I found afterwards, the footman had told my
maid below stairs, that my lord having a mind to be merry, had resolved
right or wrong to send for honest Isaac. I was sufficiently provoked with
the message; however I gave the fellow no other answer, than that “I
believed he had mistaken the person, for I did not remember that his lord
had ever been introduced to me.” I have reason to apprehend that this
abuse hath been owing rather to a meanness of spirit in men of parts, than
to the natural pride or ignorance of their patrons. Young students coming
up to town from the places of their education, are dazzled with the
grandeur they everywhere meet, and making too much haste to distinguish
their parts, instead of waiting to be desired and caressed, are ready to
pay their court at any rate to a great man, whose name they have seen in a
public paper, or the frontispiece of a dedication. It has not always been
thus: wit in polite ages has ever begot either esteem or fear. The hopes
of being celebrated, or the dread of being stigmatized, procured an
universal respect and awe for the persons of such as were allowed to have
the power of distributing fame or infamy where they pleased. Aretine had
all the princes of Europe his tributaries, and when any of them had
committed a folly that laid them open to his censure, they were forced by
some present extraordinary to compound for his silence; of which there is
a famous instance on record. When Charles the Fifth had miscarried in his
African expedition, which was looked upon as the weakest undertaking of
that great Emperor, he sent Aretine[4] a gold chain, who made some
difficulty of accepting it, saying, “It was too small a present in all
reason for so great a folly.” For my own part, in this point I differ from
him, and never could be prevailed upon, by any valuable consideration to
conceal a fault or a folly since I first took the censorship upon me.

Having long considered with my self the ill application that some make of
their talents, I have this day erected a Court of Alienation, by the
statutes of which the next a kin is empowered to beg the parts and
understanding of any such person as can be proved, either by embezzling,
making a wrong use, or no use at all of the said parts and understanding,
not to know the true value thereof: who shall immediately be put out of
possession, and disqualified for ever; the said kinsman giving sufficient
security that he will employ them as the court shall direct. I have set
down under certain heads the several ways by which men prostitute and
abuse their parts, and from thence have framed a table of rules, whereby
the plaintiff may be informed when he has a good title to eject the
defendant. I may in a following paper give the world some account of the
proceedings of this court. I have already got two able critics for my
assessors upon the bench, who, though they have always exercised their
pens in taking off from the wit of others, have never pretended to
challenge any themselves, and consequently are in no danger of being
engaged in making claims, or of having any suits commence against them.
Every writer shall be tried by his peers, throughly versed in that point
wherein he pretends to excel; for which reason the jury can never consist
of above half the ordinary number. I shall in general be very tender how I
put any person out of his wits; but as the management of such possessions
is of great consequence to the world, I shall hold my self obliged to vest
the right in such hands as will answer the great purposes they were
intended for, and leave the former proprietors to seek their fortune in
some other way.

[Footnote 1: Called No. 24 in the reprint of “The Tatler,” vol. v. [T.
S.]]

[Footnote 2: Eclogues, ix. 2-4.

[Footnote 3: I.e. 1710-11. Under date March 14th Swift writes to
Stella: “Little Harrison the ‘Tatler’ came to me, and begged me to dictate
a paper to him, which I was forced in charity to do.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Pietro Aretino (1492-1557), called “the scourge of Princes.”
His prose is fiercely satirical, and his poetry as strongly obscene. His
works were condemned for their indecency and impiety. He received numerous
and valuable gifts from those who were afraid of his criticisms. His
sonnets, written to accompany engravings by Marc Antonio, from designs by
Giulio Romano (1524), largely contributed to his reputation for obscenity.
[T.S.]]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 306.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 22, TO SATURDAY MARCH 24, 1710.[3]

From my own Apartment, March 22.

My other correspondents will excuse me if I give the precedency to a lady,
whose letter, amongst many more, is just come to hand.

“DEAR ISAAC,

“I burn with impatience to know what and who you are. The curiosity of my
whole sex is fallen upon me, and has kept me waking these three nights. I
have dreamed often of you within this fortnight, and every time you
appeared in a different form. As you value my repose, tell me in which of
them I am to be

“Your admirer,

“SYLVIA.”

It is natural for a man who receives a favour of this kind from an unknown
fair, to frame immediately some idea of her person, which being suited to
the opinion we have of our own merit, is commonly as beautiful and perfect
as the most lavish imagination can furnish out. Strongly possessed with
these notions, I have read over Sylvia’s billet; and notwithstanding the
reserve I have had upon this matter, am resolved to go a much greater
length, than I yet ever did, in making my self known to the world, and, in
particular, to my charming correspondent. In order to it I must premise,
that the person produced as mine in the play-house last winter, did in
nowise appertain to me. It was such a one however as agreed well with the
impression my writings had made, and served the purpose I intended it for;
which was to continue the awe and reverence due to the character I was
vested with, and, at the same time, to let my enemies see how much I was
the delight and favourite of this town. This innocent imposture, which I
have all along taken care to carry on, as it then was of some use, has
since been of singular service to me, and by being mentioned in one of my
papers, effectually recovered my egoity out of the hands of some gentlemen
who endeavoured to wrest it from me. This is saying, in short, what I am
not: what I am, and have been for many years, is next to be explained.
Here it will not be improper to remind Sylvia, that there was formerly
such a philosopher as Pythagoras, who, amongst other doctrines, taught the
transmigration of souls, which, if she sincerely believes, she will not be
much startled at the following relation.

I will not trouble her, nor my other readers, with the particulars of all
the lives I have successively passed through since my first entrance into
mortal being, which is now many centuries ago. It is enough that I have in
every one of them opposed myself with the utmost resolution to the follies
and vices of the several ages I have been acquainted with, that I have
often rallied the world into good manners, and kept the greatest princes
in awe of my satire. There is one circumstance which I shall not omit,
though it may seem to reflect on my character, I mean that infinite love
of change which has ever appeared in the disposal of my existence. Since
the days of the Emperor Trajan, I have not been confined to the same
person for twenty years together; but have passed from one abode to
another, much quicker than the Pythagorean system generally allows. By
this means, I have seldom had a body to myself, but have lodged up and
down wherever I found a genius suitable to my own. In this manner I
continued, some time with the top wit of France, at another with that of
Italy, who had a statue erected to his memory in Rome. Towards the end of
the 17th century, I set out for England; but the gentleman I came over in
dying as soon as he got to shore, I was obliged to look out again for a
new habitation. It was not long before I met with one to my mind, for
having mixed myself invisibly with the literati of this kingdom, I
found it was unanimously agreed amongst them, That nobody was endowed with
greater talents than Hiereus;[4] or, consequently, would be better pleased
with my company. I slipped down his throat one night as he was fast
asleep, and the next morning, as soon as he awaked, he fell to writing a
treatise that was received with great applause, though he had the modesty
not to set his name to that nor to any other of our productions. Some time
after, he published a paper of predictions, which were translated into
several languages, and alarmed some of the greatest princes in Europe. To
these he prefixed the name of Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq; which I have been
extremely fond of ever since, and have taken care that most of the
writings I have been concerned in should be distinguished by it; though I
must observe, that there have been many counterfeits imposed upon the
public by this means. This extraordinary man being called out of the
kingdom by affairs of his own, I resolved, however, to continue somewhat
longer in a country where my works had been so well received, and
accordingly bestowed myself with Hilario.[5] His natural wit, his lively
turn of humour, and great penetration into human nature, easily determined
me to this choice, the effects of which were soon after produced in this
paper, called “The Tatler.” I know not how it happened, but in less than
two years’ time Hilario grew weary of my company, and gave me warning to
be gone. In the height of my resentment, I cast my eyes on a young
fellow,[6] of no extraordinary qualifications, whom, for that very reason,
I had the more pride in taking under my direction, and enabling him, by
some means or other, to carry on the work I was before engaged in. Lest he
should grow too vain upon this encouragement, I to this day keep him under
due mortification. I seldom reside with him when any of his friends are at
leisure to receive me, by whose hands, however, he is duly supplied. As I
have passed through many scenes of life, and a long series of years, I
choose to be considered in the character of an old fellow, and take care
that those under my influence should speak consonantly to it. This
account, I presume, will give no small consolation to Sylvia, who may rest
assured, that Isaac Bickerstaff is to be seen in more forms than she
dreamt of; out of which variety she may choose what is most agreeable to
her fancy. On Tuesdays, he is sometimes a black, proper, young gentleman,
with a mole on his left cheek. On Thursdays, a decent well-looking man, of
a middle stature, long flaxen hair, and a florid complexion. On Saturdays,
he is somewhat of the shortest, and may be known from others of that size
by talking in a low voice, and passing through the streets without much
precipitation.

[Footnote 1: No. 28 in the reprint of “The Tatler,” vol. v. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Metamorphoses, xv. 158-161.

J. DRYDEN. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Swift. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Steele. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Harrison. [T.S.]]

CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE EXAMINER.”

NOTE.

The new ministry, which came into power on the fall of the able
administration of Godolphin in 1710, was the famous Oxford ministry headed
by Harley and St. John. The new leaders were well aware that they would
have to use all the means in their power not only to justify themselves to
the English nation, but successfully to defeat the strong opposition which
had such a man as Marlborough for its moving spirit. The address to Queen
Anne from the Commons, showing undoubted evidences of St. John’s hand, was
the first employment of a means by which this ministry hoped to appeal to
the public. But this remarkable literary effort had already been preceded
by the establishment of a weekly political paper, entitled “The Examiner,”
a few weeks before Godolphin’s fall. During the months of August,
September, and October, in which were issued twelve papers, Dr. Freind,
Atterbury, Prior and St. John, were the men employed to arouse the nation
to a necessary condition of discontent. Now that the ministry was in
power, the necessity for continuing these public appeals was felt to be
all the stronger; and Harley’s shrewdness in selecting Swift to take this
important matter in hand shows his ability as a party leader.

The first number of “The Examiner” was issued on August 3rd, 1710, and the
paper was continued until July 26th, 1711. On December 6th, 1711, William
Oldisworth revived it, and issued it weekly until December 18th, 1712,
after which date it was published twice a week until July 26th, 1714,
though it occasionally happened that only one was issued in a week. The
last number was No. 19 of the sixth volume, so that Oldisworth edited
vols. ii., iii., iv., v., and what was published of vol. vi. The death of
the Queen put an end to the publication.

Swift was called to his work about the middle of October of 1710, and his
first paper appeared in No. 14. From that number to No. 45, Swift
continued with unabated zeal and with masterly effect to carry out the
policy of his friends. He also wrote a part of No. 46, and Nos. 16 and 21
of the third volume, which appeared on January 16th and February 2nd,
1712-13. These two last numbers are not included in the present volume;
since they have been printed in the fifth volume of this edition of
Swift’s works with the titles “An Appendix to the Conduct of the Allies”
and “The Vindication of Erasmus Lewis.”

The appearance of “The Examiner” had brought an opposition paper into the
field, entitled “The Whig Examiner,” a periodical that ably maintained its
party’s stand in the face of St. John’s attacks. But this paper only
lasted for five weeks, and when Swift took charge of the Tory organ, the
position of “The Examiner” was entirely altered. As Mr. Churton Collins
ably remarks: “It became a voice of power in every town and in every
hamlet throughout England. It was an appeal made, not to the political
cliques of the metropolis, but to the whole kingdom; and to the whole
kingdom it spoke…. No one who will take the trouble to glance at Swift’s
contributions to ‘The Examiner’ will be surprised at their effect. They
are masterpieces of polemical skill. Every sentence—every word—comes
home. Their logic, adapted to the meanest capacity, smites like a hammer.
Their statements, often a tissue of mere sophistry and assumption, appear
so plausible, that it is difficult even for the cool historian to avoid
being carried away by them. At a time when party spirit was running high,
and few men stopped to weigh evidence, they must have been irresistible.”
(“Jonathan Swift,” 1893, p. 81.)

In his “Memoirs relating to that Change” (vol. v., p 384), Swift gives the
following explanation of the foundation of this paper. “Upon the rise of
this ministry the principal persons in power thought it necessary that
some weekly paper should be published, with just reflections upon former
proceedings, and defending the present measures of Her Majesty. This was
begun about the time of the Lord Godolphin’s removal, under the name of
‘The Examiner.’ … The determination was that I should continue it, which
I did accordingly for about eight months.”

Gay remarks in his pamphlet, “The Present State of Wit, in a Letter to a
Friend in the Country,” 1711: “‘The Examiner’ is a paper which all men,
who speak without prejudice, allow to be well writ. Though his subject
will admit of no great variety, he is continually placing it on so many
different lights, and endeavouring to inculcate the same thing by so many
beautiful changes of expressions, that men who are concerned in no party,
may read him with pleasure. His way of assuming the question in debate is
extremely artful; and his ‘Letter to Crassus’ [No. 28] is, I think, a
masterpiece…. I presume I need not tell you that ‘The Examiner’ carries
much the more sail as ’tis supposed to be writ by the direction, and under
the eye of some great persons who sit at the helm of affairs, and is
consequently looked on as a sort of public notice which way they are
steering us. The reputed author is Dr. S[wif]t, with the assistance
sometimes of Dr. Att[erbur]y and Mr. P[rio]r.” With the fall of
Bolingbroke on the death of Queen Anne and the accession of George I.,
“The Examiner” collapsed. [T.S.]

THE EXAMINER.

NUMB. 14.[1]

FROM THURSDAY OCTOBER 26 TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, 1710.

It is a practice I have generally followed, to converse in equal freedom
with the deserving men of both parties; and it was never without some
contempt, that I have observed persons wholly out of employment, affect to
do otherwise: I doubted whether any man could owe so much to the side he
was of, though he were retained by it; but without some great point of
interest, either in possession or prospect, I thought it was the mark of a
low and narrow spirit.

It is hard, that, for some weeks past, I have been forced in my own
defence, to follow a proceeding that I have so much condemned in others.
But several of my acquaintance among the declining party, are grown so
insufferably peevish and splenetic, profess such violent apprehensions for
the public, and represent the state of things in such formidable ideas,
that I find myself disposed to share in their afflictions, though I know
them to be groundless and imaginary, or, which is worse, purely affected.
To offer them comfort one by one, would be not only an endless, but a
disobliging task. Some of them, I am convinced would be less melancholy,
if there were more occasion. I shall therefore, instead of hearkening to
further complaints, employ some part of this paper for the future, in
letting such men see, that their natural or acquired fears are
ill-grounded, and their artificial ones as ill-intended. That all our
present inconveniencies,[3] are the consequence of the very counsels they
so much admire, which would still have increased, if those had continued:
and that neither our constitution in Church or State, could probably have
been long preserved, without such methods as have been lately taken.

The late revolutions at court, have given room to some specious
objections, which I have heard repeated by well-meaning men, just as they
had taken them up on the credit of others, who have worse designs. They
wonder the Queen would choose to change her ministry at this juncture,[4]
and thereby give uneasiness to a general who has been so long successful
abroad; and might think himself injured, if the entire ministry were not
of his own nomination. That there were few complaints of any consequence
against the late men in power, and none at all in Parliament; which on the
contrary, passed votes in favour of the chief minister. That if her
Majesty had a mind to introduce the other party, it would have been more
seasonable after a peace, which now we have made desperate, by spiriting
the French, who rejoice at these changes, and by the fall of our credit,
which unqualifies us for continuing the war. That the Parliament so
untimely dissolved,[5] had been diligent in their supplies, and dutiful in
their behaviour. That one consequence of these changes appears already in
the fall of the stocks: that we may soon expect more and worse: and
lastly, that all this naturally tends to break the settlement of the
Crown, and call over the Pretender.

These and the like notions are plentifully scattered abroad, by the malice
of a ruined party, to render the Queen and her administration odious, and
to inflame the nation. And these are what, upon occasion, I shall
endeavour to overthrow, by discovering the falsehood and absurdity of
them.

It is a great unhappiness, when in a government constituted like ours, it
should be so brought about, that the continuance of a war, must be for the
interest of vast numbers (peaceable as well as military) who would
otherwise have been as unknown as their original. I think our present
condition of affairs, is admirably described by two verses in Lucan,

which without any great force upon the words, may be thus translated,

“Hence are derived those exorbitant interests and annuities; hence those
large discounts for advances and prompt payment; hence public credit is
shaken, and hence great numbers find their profit in prolonging the war.”

It is odd, that among a free trading people, as we take ourselves to be,
there should so many be found to close in with those counsels, who have
been ever averse from all overtures towards a peace. But yet there is no
great mystery in the matter. Let any man observe the equipages in this
town; he shall find the greater number of those who make a figure, to be a
species of men quite different from any that were ever known before the
Revolution, consisting either of generals and colonels, or of such whose
whole fortunes lie in funds and stocks: so that power, which according to
the old maxim, was used to follow land, is now gone over to money; and the
country gentleman is in the condition of a young heir, out of whose estate
a scrivener receives half the rents for interest, and hath a mortgage on
the whole, and is therefore always ready to feed his vices and
extravagancies while there is any thing left. So that if the war continues
some years longer, a landed man will be little better than a farmer at a
rack rent, to the army, and to the public funds.

It may perhaps be worth inquiring from what beginnings, and by what steps
we have been brought into this desperate condition: and in search of this,
we must run up as high as the Revolution.

Most of the nobility and gentry who invited over the Prince of Orange, or
attended him in his expedition, were true lovers of their country and its
constitution, in Church and State; and were brought to yield to those
breaches in the succession of the crown, out of a regard to the necessity
of the kingdom, and the safety of the people, which did, and could only,
make them lawful; but without intention of drawing such a practice into
precedent, or making it a standing measure by which to proceed in all
times to come; and therefore we find their counsels ever tended to keep
things as much as possible in the old course. But soon after, an under set
of men, who had nothing to lose, and had neither borne the burthen nor
heat of the day, found means to whisper in the king’s ear, that the
principles of loyalty in the Church of England, were wholly inconsistent
with the Revolution.[7] Hence began the early practice of caressing the
dissenters, reviling the universities, as maintainers of arbitrary power,
and reproaching the clergy with the doctrines of divine-right, passive
obedience and non-resistance.[8] At the same time, in order to fasten
wealthy people to the new government, they proposed those pernicious
expedients of borrowing money by vast premiums, and at exorbitant
interest: a practice as old as Eumenes,[9] one of Alexander’s captains,
who setting up for himself after the death of his master, persuaded his
principal officers to lend him great sums, after which they were forced to
follow him for their own security.

This introduced a number of new dexterous men into business and credit: It
was argued, that the war could not last above two or three campaigns, and
that it was easier for the subject to raise a fund for paying interest,
than to tax them annually to the full expense of the war. Several persons
who had small or encumbered estates, sold them, and turned their money
into those funds to great advantage: merchants, as well as other moneyed
men, finding trade was dangerous, pursued the same method: But the war
continuing, and growing more expensive, taxes were increased, and funds
multiplied every year, till they have arrived at the monstrous height we
now behold them. And that which was at first a corruption, is at last
grown necessary, and what every good subject must now fall in with, though
he may be allowed to wish it might soon have an end; because it is with a
kingdom, as with a private fortune, where every new incumbrance adds a
double weight. By this means the wealth of the nation, that used to be
reckoned by the value of land, is now computed by the rise and fall of
stocks: and although the foundation of credit be still the same, and upon
a bottom that can never be shaken; and though all interest be duly paid by
the public, yet through the contrivance and cunning of stock-jobbers,
there has been brought in such a complication of knavery and cozenage,
such a mystery of iniquity, and such an unintelligible jargon of terms to
involve it in, as were never known in any other age or country of the
world. I have heard it affirmed by persons skilled in these calculations,
that if the funds appropriated to the payment of interest and annuities,
were added to the yearly taxes, and the four-shilling aid[10] strictly
exacted in all counties of the kingdom, it would very near, if not fully,
supply the occasions of the war, at least such a part, as in the opinion
of very able persons, had been at that time prudence not to exceed. For I
make it a question, whether any wise prince or state, in the continuance
of a war, which was not purely defensive, or immediately at his own door,
did ever propose that his expense should perpetually exceed what he was
able to impose annually upon his subjects? Neither if the war lasts many
years longer, do I see how the next generation will be able to begin
another, which in the course of human affairs, and according to the
various interests and ambition of princes, may be as necessary for them as
it has been for us. And had our fathers left us as deeply involved as we
are like to leave our children, I appeal to any man, what sort of figure
we should have been able to make these twenty years past. Besides, neither
our enemies, nor allies, are upon the same foot with us in this
particular. France and Holland, our nearest neighbours, and the farthest
engaged, will much sooner recover themselves after a war. The first, by
the absolute power of the prince who being master of the lives and
fortunes of his subjects, will quickly find expedients to pay his debts:
and so will the other, by their prudent administration, the greatness of
their trade, their wonderful parsimony, the willingness of their people to
undergo all kind of taxes, and their justice in applotting as well as
collecting them. But above all, we are to consider that France and Holland
fight in the continent, either upon, or near their own territories, and
the greatest part of the money circulates among themselves; whereas ours
crosses the sea either to Flanders, Spain, or Portugal, and every penny of
it, whether in specie or returns, is so much lost to the nation for ever.

Upon these considerations alone, it was the most prudent course imaginable
in the Queen, to lay hold of the disposition of the people for changing
the Parliament and ministry at this juncture, and extricating herself, as
soon as possible, out of the pupillage of those who found their accounts
only in perpetuating the war. Neither have we the least reason to doubt,
but the ensuing Parliament will assist her Majesty with the utmost
vigour,[11] till her enemies again be brought to sue for peace, and
again offer such terms as will make it both honourable and lasting;
only with this difference, that the Ministry perhaps will not again
refuse them.[12]

[Footnote 1: No. 13 in the reprint. The No. 13 (from Thursday, October 19,
to Thursday, October 26, 1710) of the original is omitted from the
reprint, and the Nos. from 14 to 48 are slipped back one. No. 49 also is
omitted, and Nos. 50 to 52 slipped back two. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Virgil, “Aeneid,” i. 341-2.

[Footnote 3: “The Observator” of Nov. 8th, commenting on this statement,
remarks: “All the inconveniences we labour under at present, are so far
from being the consequence of the counsels of the late ministry, that they
are visibly the consequence of those of the ‘Examiner’s’ party, who
brought the nation to the brink of Popery and slavery, from which they
were delivered by the Revolution; and are pursuing the same measures
again,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See “Memoirs relating to that Change” (vol. v., pp. 359-90).
The Queen’s action in dismissing her ministers and dissolving Parliament
in September was, even to Swift himself, a matter for wonder: “I never
remember,” he writes to Stella (Sept. 20th, 1710), “such bold steps taken
by a Court.” And Tindal, commenting on the change, says: “So sudden and so
entire a change in the ministry is scarce to be found in our history,
especially where men of great abilities had served with such zeal and
success.” (“Hist. of England,” iv. 192.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on September 21st.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: “Pharsalia,” i. 181-2.

Lucan wrote “et concussa,” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Commenting on this passage, “The Observator” of Nov. 8th
remarked: “One would take the author to be some very great man, since he
speaks so contemptuously of both Houses of Parliament; for they actually
found those doctrines, as then preached up, to be inconsistent with the
Revolution, and declared it loudly to the world without whispering.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Writing to the Earl of Peterborough (Feb. 1710/1), Swift
refers to “a pamphlet come out, called ‘A Letter to Jacob Banks,’ showing
that the liberty of Sweden was destroyed by the principle of passive
obedience.” The pamphlet was written by one W. Benson, and bore the title,
“A Letter to Sir J—— B——, By Birth a S——,…
Concerning the late Minehead doctrine,” etc., 1711. “This dispute,” says
Swift to Peterborough, “would soon be ended, if the dunces who write on
each side, would plainly tell us what the object of this passive obedience
is in our country.” (Scott, vol. xv., p. 423.)

See also, on this matter, “Examiner,” Nos. 34 and 40 post. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Eumenes of Cardia was secretary to Alexander the Great, and
distinguished himself both as a statesman and general. He was killed B.C.
316. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The land tax at the time was four shillings in the pound.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: In her speech to Parliament on Nov. 27th, 1710, Anne said:
“The carrying on the war in all its parts, but particularly in Spain, with
the utmost vigour, is the likeliest means, with God’s blessing, to procure
a safe and honourable peace for us and all our allies, whose support and
interest I have truly at heart” (“Journals of House of Lords,” xix, 166).]

[Footnote 12: This is a dig at the Duke of Marlborough, for what the
Tories thought an unnecessarily harsh insistence on the inclusion of a
clause in the preliminaries of the Gertruydenberg Treaty, which it was
thought he must have known would be rejected by Louis. They suspected
Marlborough did this in order to keep the war going, and so permit himself
further opportunities for enriching himself. The treaty for peace, carried
on at Gertruydenberg in 1710, was discussed by Marlborough and Townshend
acting for England, the Marquis de Torcy acting for France, and Buys and
Vanderdussen for the States. Several conferences took place, and
preliminary articles were even signed, but the Allies demanded a security
for the delivering of Spain. This Louis XIV. refused to do, and the
conference broke up in July, 1710. See Swift’s “Conduct of the Allies”
(vol. v., pp. 55-123). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Horace, “Odes,” I. ii. 23, 24. “Our youth will hear,
astonished at our crimes, That Roman armies Romans slew; Our youth, alas!
will then be few.”—A. MAYNWARING. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 15.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, 1710.

I am prevailed on, through the importunity of friends, to interrupt the
scheme I had begun in my last paper, by an Essay upon the Art of Political
Lying. We are told, “the Devil is the father of lies, and was a liar from
the beginning”; so that beyond contradiction, the invention is old: And
which is more, his first essay of it was purely political, employed in
undermining the authority of his Prince, and seducing a third part of the
subjects from their obedience. For which he was driven down from Heaven,
where (as Milton expresseth it) he had been viceroy of a great western
province;[3] and forced to exercise his talent in inferior regions among
other fallen spirits, or poor deluded men, whom he still daily tempts to
his own sin, and will ever do so till he is chained in the bottomless pit.

But though the Devil be the father of lies, he seems, like other great
inventors, to have lost much of his reputation, by the continual
improvements that have been made upon him.

Who first reduced lying into an art, and adapted it to politics, is not so
clear from history, though I have made some diligent enquiries: I shall
therefore consider it only according to the modern system, as it has been
cultivated these twenty years past in the southern part of our own island.

The poets tell us, that after the giants were overthrown by the gods, the
earth in revenge produced her last offspring, which was Fame.[4] And the
fable is thus interpreted; that when tumults and seditions are quieted,
rumours and false reports are plentifully spread through a nation. So that
by this account, lying is the last relief of a routed, earth-born,
rebellious party in a state. But here, the moderns have made great
additions, applying this art to the gaining of power, and preserving it,
as well as revenging themselves after they have lost it: as the same
instruments are made use of by animals to feed themselves when they are
hungry, and bite those that tread upon them.

But the same genealogy cannot always be admitted for political lying;
I shall therefore desire to refine upon it, by adding some circumstances
of its birth and parents. A political lie is sometimes born out of a
discarded statesman’s head, and thence delivered to be nursed and dandled
by the mob. Sometimes it is produced a monster, and licked into
shape; at other times it comes into the world completely formed, and is
spoiled in the licking. It is often born an infant in the regular way, and
requires time to mature it: and often it sees the light in its full
growth, but dwindles away by degrees. Sometimes it is of noble birth; and
sometimes the spawn of a stock-jobber. Here, it screams aloud at
the opening of the womb; and there, it is delivered with a whisper.
I know a lie that now disturbs half the kingdom with its noise, which
though too proud and great at present to own its parents, I can remember
in its whisper-hood. To conclude the nativity of this monster; when it
comes into the world without a sting, it is still-born; and
whenever it loses its sting, it dies.

No wonder, if an infant so miraculous in its birth, should be destined for
great adventures: and accordingly we see it has been the guardian spirit
of a prevailing party for almost twenty years. It can conquer kingdoms
without fighting, and sometimes with the loss of a battle: It gives and
resumes employments; can sink a mountain to a mole-hill, and raise a
mole-hill to a mountain; has presided for many years at committees of
elections; can wash a blackamoor white; make a saint of an atheist, and a
patriot of a profligate; can furnish foreign ministers with intelligence,
and raise or let fall the credit of the nation. This goddess flies with a
huge looking-glass in her hands, to dazzle the crowd, and make them see,
according as she turns it, their ruin in their interest, and their
interest in their ruin. In this glass you will behold your best friends
clad in coats powdered with flower-de-luces[5] and triple crowns;
their girdles hung round with chains, and beads, and wooden shoes: and
your worst enemies adorned with the ensigns of liberty, property,
indulgence, and moderation, and a cornucopia in their hands. Her large
wings, like those of a flying-fish, are of no use but while they are
moist; she therefore dips them in mud, and soaring aloft scatters it in
the eyes of the multitude, flying with great swiftness; but at every turn
is forced to stoop in dirty way for new supplies.

I have been sometimes thinking, if a man had the art of the second sight
for seeing lies, as they have in Scotland for seeing spirits, how
admirably he might entertain himself in this town; to observe the
different shapes, sizes, and colours, of those swarms of lies which buzz
about the heads of some people, like flies about a horse’s ears in summer:
or those legions hovering every afternoon in Popes-head Alley[6], enough
to darken the air; or over a club of discontented grandees, and thence
sent down in cargoes to be scattered at elections.

There is one essential point wherein a political liar differs from others
of the faculty; that he ought to have but a short memory, which is
necessary according to the various occasions he meets with every hour, of
differing from himself, and swearing to both sides of a contradiction, as
he finds the persons disposed, with whom he has to deal. In describing the
virtues and vices of mankind, it is convenient upon every article, to have
some eminent person in our eye, from whence we copy our description. I
have strictly observed this rule; and my imagination this minute
represents before me a certain great man[7] famous for this talent, to the
constant practice of which he owes his twenty years’ reputation of the
most skilful head in England, for the management of nice affairs. The
superiority of his genius consists in nothing else but an inexhaustible
fund of political lies, which he plentifully distributes every minute he
speaks, and by an unparalleled generosity forgets, and consequently
contradicts the next half-hour. He never yet considered whether any
proposition were true or false, but whether it were convenient for the
present minute or company to affirm or deny it; so that if you think to
refine upon him, by interpreting every thing he says, as we do dreams by
the contrary, you are still to seek, and will find yourself equally
deceived, whether you believe him or no: the only remedy is to suppose
that you have heard some inarticulate sounds, without any meaning at all.
And besides, that will take off the horror you might be apt to conceive at
the oaths wherewith he perpetually tags both ends of every proposition:
though at the same time I think he cannot with any justice be taxed for
perjury, when he invokes God and Christ, because he has often fairly given
public notice to the world, that he believes in neither.

Some people may think that such an accomplishment as this, can be of no
great use to the owner or his party, after it has been often practised,
and is become notorious; but they are widely mistaken: Few lies carry the
inventor’s mark; and the most prostitute enemy to truth may spread a
thousand without being known for the author. Besides, as the vilest writer
has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it often
happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work,
and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and Truth comes
limping after it; so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late,
the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect: like a man who has
thought of a good repartee, when the discourse is changed, or the company
parted: or, like a physician who has found out an infallible medicine,
after the patient is dead.

Considering that natural disposition in many men to lie, and in multitudes
to believe, I have been perplexed what to do with that maxim, so frequent
in every body’s mouth, that “Truth will at last prevail.” Here, has this
island of ours, for the greatest part of twenty years, lain under the
influence of such counsels and persons, whose principle and interest it
was to corrupt our manners, blind our understandings, drain our wealth,
and in time destroy our constitution both in Church and State; and we at
last were brought to the very brink of ruin; yet by the means of perpetual
misrepresentations, have never been able to distinguish between our
enemies and friends. We have seen a great part of the nation’s money got
into the hands of those, who by their birth, education and merit, could
pretend no higher than to wear our liveries; while others,[8] who by their
credit, quality and fortune, were only able to give reputation and success
to the Revolution, were not only laid aside, as dangerous and useless; but
loaden with the scandal of Jacobites, men of arbitrary principles, and
pensioners to France; while Truth, who is said to lie in a well, seemed
now to be buried there under a heap of stones. But I remember, it was a
usual complaint among the Whigs, that the bulk of landed men was not in
their interests, which some of the wisest looked on as an ill omen; and we
saw it was with the utmost difficulty that they could preserve a majority,
while the court and ministry were on their side; till they had learned
those admirable expedients for deciding elections, and influencing distant
boroughs by powerful motives from the city. But all this was mere
force and constraint, however upheld by most dexterous artifice and
management: till the people began to apprehend their properties, their
religion, and the monarchy itself in danger; then we saw them greedily
laying hold on the first occasion to interpose. But of this mighty change
in the dispositions of the people, I shall discourse more at large in some
following paper; wherein I shall endeavour to undeceive those deluded or
deluding persons, who hope or pretend, it is only a short madness in the
vulgar, from which they may soon recover. Whereas I believe it will appear
to be very different in its causes, its symptoms, and its consequences;
and prove a great example to illustrate the maxim I lately mentioned, that
“Truth” (however sometimes late) “will at last prevail.”

[Footnote 1: No. 14 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, “Metamorphoses,” xii. 56-61.

[Footnote 3: “Paradise Lost,” v. 708-710. Milton makes Satan say: “We
possess the quarters of the North,” and places his throne in “the limits
of the North.” By speaking of a western province Swift intends
Ireland, then under the government of the Earl of Wharton. This paper may
be read in connection with the 23rd number of “The Examiner,” and the
“Short Character of Wharton” (vol. v., pp. 1-28). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Fama was said to be a daughter of Terra. See Virgil,
“Aeneid,” iv. 173-178. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: A reply to the insinuations that the Tories were sympathetic
to France, and that the Whigs were the true patriots. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The reprint has “Exchange Alley.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Earl of Wharton. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Refers to the Tories generally, and in particular to Sir
Thomas Osborne, Bart. (1631-1712), who was created Duke of Leeds in 1694.
In 1679, as Earl of Danby, he was impeached by the Commons, and imprisoned
in the Tower for five years. “He assisted greatly,” says Scott, “in the
Revolution, yet continued a steady Tory, and avowed at Sacheverell’s
trial, that, had he known the Prince of Orange designed to assume the
crown, he never would have drawn a sword for him.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 16.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, 1710.

It must be avowed, that for some years past, there have been few things
more wanted in England, than such a paper as this ought to be; and such as
I will endeavour to make it, as long as it shall be found of any use,
without entering into the violences of either party. Considering the many
grievous misrepresentations of persons and things, it is highly requisite,
at this juncture, that the people throughout the kingdom, should, if
possible, be set right in their opinions by some impartial hand, which has
never been yet attempted: those who have hitherto undertaken it, being
upon every account the least qualified of all human-kind for such a work.

We live here under a limited monarchy, and under the doctrine and
discipline of an excellent Church: We are unhappily divided into two
parties, both which pretend a mighty zeal for our religion and government,
only they disagree about the means.[3] The evils we must fence against
are, on one side, fanaticism and infidelity in religion; and anarchy,
under the name of a commonwealth, in government: on the other side,
popery, slavery, and the Pretender from France. Now to inform and direct
us in our sentiments, upon these weighty points; here are on one side two
stupid, illiterate scribblers, both of them fanatics by profession; I mean
the “Review”[4] and “Observator.”[5] On the other side we have an open
Nonjuror,[6] whose character and person, as well as good learning and
sense, discovered upon other subjects, do indeed deserve respect and
esteem; but his “Rehearsal,” and the rest of his political papers, are yet
more pernicious than those of the former two. If the generality of the
people know not how to talk or think, till they have read their lesson in
the papers of the week, what a misfortune is it that their duty should be
conveyed to them through such vehicles as those? For let some gentlemen
think what they please, I cannot but suspect, that the two worthies I
first mentioned, have in a degree done mischief among us; the mock
authoritative manner of the one, and the insipid mirth of the other,
however insupportable to reasonable ears, being of a level with great
numbers among the lowest part of mankind. Neither was the author of the
“Rehearsal,” while he continued that paper, less infectious to many
persons of better figure, who perhaps were as well qualified, and much
less prejudiced, to judge for themselves.

It was this reason, that moved me to take the matter out of those rough,
as well as those dirty hands, to let the remote and uninstructed part of
the nation see, that they have been misled on both sides, by mad,
ridiculous extremes, at a wide distance on each side from the truth; while
the right path is so broad and plain, as to be easily kept, if they were
once put into it.

Further, I had lately entered on a resolution to take very little notice
of other papers, unless it were such, where the malice and falsehood, had
so great a mixture of wit and spirit, as would make them dangerous; which
in the present circle of scribbles, from twelvepence to a halfpenny, I
could easily foresee would not very frequently occur. But here again, I am
forced to dispense with my resolution, though it be only to tell my
reader, what measures I am like to take on such occasions for the future.
I was told that the paper called “The Observator,” was twice filled last
week with remarks upon a late “Examiner.”[7] These I read with the first
opportunity, and to speak in the news-writers’ phrase, they gave me
occasion for many speculations. I observed with singular pleasure, the
nature of those things, which the owners of them, usually call answers;
and with what dexterity this matchless author had fallen into the whole
art and cant of them. To transcribe here and there three or four detached
lines of least weight in a discourse, and by a foolish comment mistake
every syllable of the meaning, is what I have known many of a superior
class, to this formidable adversary, entitle an “Answer.”[8] This is what
he has exactly done in about thrice as many words as my whole discourse;
which is so mighty an advantage over me, that I shall by no means engage
in so unequal a combat; but as far as I can judge of my own temper,
entirely dismiss him for the future; heartily wishing he had a match
exactly of his own size to meddle with, who should only have the odds of
truth and honesty; which as I take it, would be an effectual way to
silence him for ever. Upon this occasion, I cannot forbear a short story
of a fanatic farmer who lived in my neighbourhood, and was so great a
disputant in religion, that the servants in all the families thereabouts,
reported, how he had confuted the bishop and all his clergy. I had then a
footman who was fond of reading the Bible, and I borrowed a comment for
him, which he studied so close, that in a month or two I thought him a
match for the farmer. They disputed at several houses, with a ring of
servants and other people always about them, where Ned explained his texts
so full and clear, to the capacity of his audience, and showed the
insignificancy of his adversary’s cant, to the meanest understanding, that
he got the whole country of his side, and the farmer was cured of his itch
of disputation for ever after.

The worst of it is, that this sort of outrageous party-writers I have
above spoke of, are like a couple of make-bates, who inflame small
quarrels by a thousand stories, and by keeping friends at a distance
hinder them from coming to a good understanding, as they certainly would,
if they were suffered to meet and debate between themselves. For let any
one examine a reasonable honest man of either side, upon those opinions in
religion and government, which both parties daily buffet each other about,
he shall hardly find one material point in difference between them. I
would be glad to ask a question about two great men[9] of the late
ministry, how they came to be Whigs? and by what figure of speech, half a
dozen others, lately put into great employments, can be called Tories? I
doubt, whoever would suit the definition to the persons, must make it
directly contrary to what we understood it at the time of the Revolution.

In order to remove these misapprehensions among us, I believe it will be
necessary upon occasion, to detect the malice and falsehood of some
popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week,
and draw an hundred absurd consequences from them.

For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence
in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger,
when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago: and the Queen
herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10]
Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has,
since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then
have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the
two Houses. The Queen’s words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the
Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or thinks
that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor. But that the
Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes that ever
reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a truth, as a man
must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to doubt. The wisest
prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his affairs, and the
present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the craft of ill
designing men: One or two ministers, most in his confidence, may at
first have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by avarice, by
love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to gratify their
passions or interests, from one set of men than another, till they
are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take “seven
spirits more wicked than themselves.” This is a very possible case; and
will not “the last state of such men be worse than the first”? that is to
say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in danger by such
proceedings as these? And shall a faithful subject, who foresees and
trembles at the consequences, be called disaffected, because he
delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly may, that
the danger is not owing to his administration? Or, shall the prince
himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs into other
hands, with the universal applause of his people? As to the vote against
those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it likewise
referred to danger from or under the Queen’s administration, (for I
neither have it by me, nor can suddenly have recourse to it;) but if it
were otherwise, I know not how it can refer to any dangers but what were
past, or at that time present; or how it could affect the future, unless
the senators were all inspired, or at least that majority which
voted it. Neither do I see any crime further than ill manners, to differ
in opinion from a majority of either or both Houses; and that ill manners,
I must confess I have been often guilty of for some years past, though I
hope I never shall again.

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.

P.S. When this paper was going to the press, the printer brought me
two more Observators,[15] wholly taken up in my Examiner
upon lying, which I was at the pains to read; and they are just such an
answer, as the two others I have mentioned. This is all I have to say on
that matter.

[Footnote 1: No. 15 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, “Metamorphoses,” viii. 203-5.

[Footnote 3: See the pamphlets: “The Thoughts of an Honest Tory,” 1710 [by
Bp. Hoadly]; “Faults on both Sides … by way of answer to ‘The Thoughts
of an Honest Tory,'” 1710 [by a Mr. Clements]; and “Faults in the
Fault-Finder: or, a Specimen of Errors in … ‘Faults on Both Sides,'”
1710; etc., etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: “The Review” was edited by Daniel Defoe. He commenced it on
February 19th, 1703/4, as “A Weekly Review of the Affairs of France”; but
about this time it had lost much of its early spring and verve. It was
discontinued after June 11th, 1713. Gay thought, speaking of “The Review,”
that Defoe was “a lively instance of those wits, who, as an ingenious
author says, will endure but one skimming” (“Present State of Wit”).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The Observator” was founded by John Tutchin. The first
number was issued April 1st, 1702, and it appeared, with some intervals,
until July, 1712, though Tutchin himself died in 1707. For his
partisanship for Monmouth poor Tutchin came under the anger of Judge
Jeffreys, who sentenced him to several floggings. Pope’s couplet in the
“Dunciad” has immortalized him:

[Footnote 6: This was the Rev. Charles Leslie, whose periodical, “The
Rehearsal,” was avowedly Jacobite. The paper appeared from August 5th,
1704, until March 26th, 1709. In 1708-9 all the numbers were republished
in four volumes folio, with the title: “A View of the Times, their
Principles and Practices: in the First [Second, etc.] Volume of the
Rehearsals,” and under the pseudonym “Philalethes.” Later he engaged in a
controversy with Bishop Hoadly. See also note on p. 354, vol. v.

Of Swift’s use of the term “Nonjuror,” “The Medley” (June 18th, 1711, No.
38) made the following remarks: “If he speaks of him with relation to his
party, there can be nothing so inconsistent as a Whig and a Nonjuror: and
if he talks of him merely as an author, all the authors in the world are
Nonjurors, but the ingenious divine who writ ‘The Tale of a Tub’ … for
he is the first man who introduced those figures of rhetoric we call
swearing and cursing in print.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “The Observator” for November 8th, 1710 (vol. ix., No. 85),
was filled with more remarks on the fourteenth “Examiner.”
Presumably the issue for November 4th, which is not accessible, commenced
the attack. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A humorous specimen of this kind of an “Answer” was given by
Swift in No. 23 of “The Examiner,” post. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin, who commenced
their political career as Tories, and only became Whigs through the
necessity of identifying their own principles with that of the party which
supported their power. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: On December 6th, 1705, the House of Lords passed the
following resolution: “That the Church of England … is now, by God’s
blessing, under the happy reign of her Majesty, in a most safe and
flourishing condition; and that whoever goes about to suggest and
insinuate, that the Church is in danger under her Majesty’s
administration, is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom”
(“Jls. of House of Lords,” xviii. 43). On December 8th the House of
Commons, by a majority of 212 against 162, agreed to this resolution. In
her speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 5th, 1710, the Queen
said: “The suppressing immorality … is what I have always earnestly
recommended; … but, this being an evil complained of in all times, it is
very injurious to take a pretence from thence, to insinuate that the
Church is in any danger from my administration” (“Jls. Of House of Lords,”
xix. 145). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: James, Duke of Cornwall (1688-1766), known as the Chevalier
de St. George. At one time the belief was current that the wife of James
II. did not give birth to a child, and the “young Pretender” was supposed
to be a son of one Mary Grey (see note on p. 409 of vol. v. of present
edition of Swift’s works). See also: “State-Amusements, Serious and
Hypocritical … Birth of the Pretended Prince of Wales,” 1711;
“Seasonable Queries relating to the Birth and Birthright of a Certain
Person,” 1714; and other pamphlets. In the Act for the Succession to the
Crown (6 Ann. c. 41), he is styled, “the Pretended Prince of Wales.”
History afterwards called him the “Old Pretender” to distinguish him from
Charles Edward, the “bonnie Prince Charlie,” the Young Pretender. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Swift kept his word. See “An Enquiry into … the Queen’s
Last Ministry,” 1715 (Swift’s Works, vol. v., p. 458 sq.), and his
“History of the Four Last Years of the Queen,” 1758. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: By Bishop Burnet in his “Exposition of the Thirty-Nine
Articles.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: The reference here is to the Bill of Rights (1 William and
Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), where it is said: “And thereunto the said Lords
spiritual and temporal and Commons do, in the name of all the people
aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and
posterities, for ever.” In the recital in the Act of Settlement (12 and 13
W. III. c. 2) the words “for ever” are omitted. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: “The Observator” of November 11th and 15th (vol. ix., Nos.
86 and 87). In No. 86 “The Examiner” is given “a spiritual shove,” and,
quoting his statement that a political liar “ought to have but a short
memory” to meet occasions “of differing from himself, and swearing to both
sides of a contradiction,” adds, “the ‘Examiner’ has this essential
qualification of a political liar.” It is amusing to find in the same
issue “The Observator” calling Jezebel a Tory, and Elijah and Naboth,
Whigs! [T.S.]]

NUMB. 17.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, 1710.

Qui sunt boni cives? Qui belli, qui domi de patriâ bene merentes, nisi
qui patriae beneficia meminerunt?[2]

I will employ this present paper upon a subject, which of late hath very
much affected me, which I have considered with a good deal of application,
and made several enquiries about, among those persons who I thought were
best able to inform me; and if I deliver my sentiments with some freedom,
I hope it will be forgiven, while I accompany it with that tenderness
which so nice a point requires.

I said in a former paper (Numb. 14) that one specious objection to the
late removals at court, was the fear of giving uneasiness to a general,
who has been long successful abroad: and accordingly, the common clamour
of tongues and pens for some months past, has run against the baseness,
the inconstancy and ingratitude of the whole kingdom to the Duke of
M[arlborough], in return of the most eminent services that ever were
performed by a subject to his country; not to be equalled in history. And
then to be sure some bitter stroke of detraction against Alexander and
Caesar, who never did us the least injury. Besides, the people that read
Plutarch come upon us with parallels drawn from the Greeks and Romans, who
ungratefully dealt with I know not how many of their most deserving
generals: while the profounder politicians, have seen pamphlets, where
Tacitus and Machiavel have been quoted to shew the danger of too
resplendent a merit. Should a stranger hear these furious outcries of
ingratitude against our general, without knowing the particulars, he would
be apt to enquire where was his tomb, or whether he were allowed Christian
burial? not doubting but we had put him to some ignominious death. Or, has
he been tried for his life, and very narrowly escaped? has he been accused
of high crimes and misdemeanours? has the prince seized on his estate, and
left him to starve? has he been hooted at as he passed the streets, by an
ungrateful mob? have neither honours, offices nor grants, been conferred
on him or his family? have not he and they been barbarously stripped of
them all? have not he and his forces been ill paid abroad? and does not
the prince by a scanty, limited commission, hinder him from pursuing his
own methods in the conduct of the war? has he no power at all of disposing
commissions as he pleases? is he not severely used by the ministry or
Parliament, who yearly call him to a strict account? has the senate ever
thanked him for good success, and have they not always publicly censured
him for the least miscarriage? Will the accusers of the nation join issue
upon any of these particulars, or tell us in what point, our damnable sin
of ingratitude lies? Why, it is plain and clear; for while he is
commanding abroad, the Queen dissolves her Parliament, and changes her
ministry at home: in which universal calamity, no less than two persons[3]
allied by marriage to the general, have lost their places. Whence came
this wonderful sympathy between the civil and military powers? Will the
troops in Flanders refuse to fight, unless they can have their own lord
keeper, their own lord president of the council, their own chief Governor
of Ireland, and their own Parliament? In a kingdom where the people are
free, how came they to be so fond of having their councils under the
influence of their army, or those that lead it? who in all well instituted
states, had no commerce with the civil power, further than to receive
their orders, and obey them without reserve.

When a general is not so popular, either in his army or at home, as one
might expect from a long course of success; it may perhaps be ascribed to
his wisdom, or perhaps to his complexion. The possession of some one
quality, or a defect in some other, will extremely damp the people’s
favour, as well as the love of the soldiers. Besides, this is not an age
to produce favourites of the people, while we live under a Queen who
engrosses all our love, and all our veneration; and where, the only way
for a great general or minister, to acquire any degree of subordinate
affection from the public, must be by all marks of the most entire
submission and respect, to her sacred person and commands;[4] otherwise,
no pretence of great services, either in the field or the cabinet, will be
able to screen them from universal hatred.

But the late ministry was closely joined to the general, by friendship,
interest, alliance, inclination and opinion, which cannot be affirmed of
the present; and the ingratitude of the nation, lies in the people’s
joining as one man, to wish, that such a ministry should be changed. Is it
not at the same time notorious to the whole kingdom, that nothing but a
tender regard to the general, was able to preserve that ministry so long,
till neither God nor man could suffer their continuance? Yet in the
highest ferment of things, we heard few or no reflections upon this great
commander, but all seemed unanimous in wishing he might still be at the
head of the confederate forces; only at the same time, in case he were
resolved to resign, they chose rather to turn their thoughts somewhere
else, than throw up all in despair. And this I cannot but add, in defence
of the people, with regard to the person we are speaking of, that in the
high station he has been for many years past, his real defects (as nothing
human is without them) have in a detracting age been very sparingly
mentioned, either in libels or conversation, and all his successes very
freely and universally applauded.

There is an active and a passive ingratitude; applying both to this
occasion, we may say, the first is, when a prince or people returns good
services with cruelty or ill usage: the other is, when good services are
not at all, or very meanly rewarded. We have already spoke of the former;
let us therefore in the second place, examine how the services of our
general have been rewarded; and whether upon that article, either prince
or people have been guilty of ingratitude?

Those are the most valuable rewards, which are given to us from the
certain knowledge of the donor, that they fit our temper best: I
shall therefore say nothing of the title of Duke, or the Garter, which the
Queen bestowed [on] the general in the beginning of her reign; but I shall
come to more substantial instances, and mention nothing which has not been
given in the face of the world.[5] The lands of Woodstock, may, I believe,
be reckoned worth 40,000l. On the building of Blenheim Castle
200,000l. have been already expended, though it be not yet near
finished. The grant of 5,000l. per ann. on the post-office, is
richly worth 100,000l. His principality in Germany may be computed
at 30,000l. Pictures, jewels, and other gifts from foreign princes,
60,000l. The grant at the Pall-Mall, the rangership, &c. for
want of more certain knowledge, may be called 10,000,l. His own,
and his duchess’s employments at five years value, reckoning only the
known and avowed salaries, are very low rated at 100,000l. Here is
a good deal above half a million of money, and I dare say, those who are
loudest with the clamour of ingratitude, will readily own, that all this
is but a trifle in comparison of what is untold.[6]

The reason of my stating this account is only to convince the world, that
we are not quite so ungrateful either as the Greeks or the Romans. And in
order to adjust this matter with all fairness, I shall confine myself to
the latter, who were much the more generous of the two. A victorious
general of Rome in the height of that empire, having entirely subdued his
enemy, was rewarded with the larger triumph; and perhaps a statue in the
Forum, a bull for a sacrifice, an embroidered garment to appear in: a
crown of laurel, a monumental trophy with inscriptions; sometimes five
hundred or a thousand copper coins were struck on occasion of the victory,
which doing honour to the general, we will place to his account; and
lastly, sometimes, though not very frequently, a triumphal arch. These are
all the rewards that I can call to mind, which a victorious general
received after his return from the most glorious expedition, conquered
some great kingdom, brought the king himself, his family and nobles to
adorn the triumph in chains, and made the kingdom either a Roman province,
or at best a poor depending state, in humble alliance to that empire. Now
of all these rewards, I find but two which were of real profit to the
general; the laurel crown, made and sent him at the charge of the public,
and the embroidered garment; but I cannot find whether this last were paid
for by the senate or the general: however, we will take the more
favourable opinion, and in all the rest, admit the whole expense, as if it
were ready money in the general’s pocket. Now according to these
computations on both sides, we will draw up two fair accounts, the one of
Roman gratitude, and the other of British ingratitude, and set them
together in balance.

This is an account of the visible profits on both sides; and if the Roman
general had any private perquisites, they may be easily discounted, and by
more probable computations, and differ yet more upon the balance; if we
consider, that all the gold and silver for safeguards and contributions,
also all valuable prizes taken in the war were openly exposed in the
triumph, and then lodged in the Capitol for the public service.

So that upon the whole, we are not yet quite so bad at worst, as
the Romans were at best. And I doubt, those who raise this hideous
cry of ingratitude, may be mightily mistaken in the consequence they
propose from such complaints. I remember a saying of Seneca, Multos
ingratos invenimus, plures facimus; “We find many ungrateful persons
in the world, but we make more,” by setting too high a rate upon
our pretensions, and under-valuing the rewards we receive. When
unreasonable bills are brought in, they ought to be taxed, or cut off in
the middle. Where there have been long accounts between two persons, I
have known one of them perpetually making large demands and pressing for
payments, who when the accounts were cast up on both sides, was found to
be creditor for some hundreds. I am thinking if a proclamation were issued
out for every man to send in his bill of merits, and the lowest
price he set them at, what a pretty sum it would amount to, and how many
such islands as this must be sold to pay them. I form my judgment from the
practice of those who sometimes happen to pay themselves, and I dare
affirm, would not be so unjust to take a farthing more than they think is
due to their deserts. I will instance only in one article. A lady of my
acquaintance,[8] appropriated twenty-six pounds a year out of her
allowance, for certain uses, which her woman received, and was to pay to
the lady or her order, as it was called for. But after eight years, it
appeared upon the strictest calculation, that the woman had paid but four
pound a year, and sunk two-and-twenty for her own pocket. It is but
supposing instead of twenty-six pound, twenty-six thousand, and by that
you may judge what the pretensions of modern merit are, where it
happens to be its own paymaster.

[Footnote 1: No. 16 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “Who are the good citizens? Who are they who—whether at
war or at home—deserve well of their country, but those who bear in
mind the benefits she has already conferred upon them?” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The Earl of Sunderland and Lord Godolphin. Sunderland was
succeeded by Dartmouth, in June, as Secretary of State, and Godolphin
returned his staff of treasurer in August, the office being placed in
commission. Sunderland and Godolphin were both related to Marlborough by
marriage. The former married Anne, and the son of the latter Henrietta,
daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See “Memoirs relating to that Change” (Swift’s Works, vol.
v., pp. 367-8). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The Queen’s Message, proposing to grant to the Duke of
Marlborough the Manor of Woodstock and Hundred of Wootton, was read
January 17th, 1704/5. A Bill carrying this proposal into effect was
introduced January 25th, and passed February 3rd. Blenheim House, erected
at the Queen’s expense, was settled to go with the dukedom by a Bill
introduced in the House of Lords, which passed all its stages in the
Commons December 20th, 1706. The pension of £5,000 per annum upon the
revenue of the Post Office, granted by the Queen for her lifetime in
December, 1702—at a time when the Commons expressed their “trouble”
that they could not comply—was made perpetual by a Bill introduced
January 14th, 1706/7, passed January 18th, Royal Assent given January 28th
(see “Journals of House of Commons,” xiv. and xv.). [T.S.] ]

[Footnote 6: A broadside, printed in 1712, entitled, “The D——e
and D—- -s of M——h’s Loss; being an Estimate of their
former Yearly Income,” reckons the duke’s emoluments at £54,825 per annum,
and those of the duchess at £7,500. In the second edition the following
paragraph is added:

“The following sums have been rec’d since the year 1701:

[Footnote 7: In the tenth number of “The Medley” (December 4th, 1710)
occurs the following: “‘The Examiner,’ having it in his thoughts to
publish the falsest, as well as the most impudent paper that ever was
printed, writ a previous discourse about lying, as a necessary
introduction to what was to follow. The first paper was the precept, and
the second was the example. By the falsest paper that ever was printed, I
mean the ‘Examiner’ Numb. 17, in which he pretends to give an account of
what the Duke of Marlborough has got by his services.” The writer in the
“Medley,” admitting even the correctness of the “Examiner’s” sum of
£540,000, sets off against this the value of the several battles won by
the Duke, and “twenty seven towns taken, which being reckoned at 300,000l.
a town (the price that Dunkirk was sold at before it was fortified)
amounts in all, throwing in the battles and the fortifications, to
8,100,000l.” The balance in favour of the Duke, and presumably in
justification of the gifts made him, gave a net result of £7,560,000.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Duchess of Marlborough, who admitted that the comparison
was intended for herself, explained the matter thus: “At the Queen’s
accession to the government, she … desired me to take out of the
privy-purse 2,000l. a year, in order to some purchase for my
advantage … I constantly declined it; until the time, that,
notwithstanding the uncommon regard I had shown to Her Majesty’s interest
and honour in the execution of my trusts, she was pleased to dismiss me
from her service … By the advice of my friends, I sent the Queen one of
her own letters, in which she had pressed me to take the 2,00l. a
year; and I wrote at the same time to ask Her Majesty whether she would
allow me to charge in the privy-purse accounts, which I was to send her,
that yearly sum from the time of the offer, amounting to 18,000l.
Her Majesty was pleased to answer, that I might charge it. This therefore
I did” (“An Account of the Conduct of … Duchess of Marlborough,” 1742,
pp. 293-5). The Duchess of Somerset and Mrs. Masham superseded the Duchess
of Marlborough in January, 1710/1. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 18.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, 1710.

Quas res luxuries in flagitus,… avaritia in rapinis, superbia in
contumeliis efficere potuisset; eas omnes sese hoc uno praetore per
triennium pertulisse aiebant.[2]

When I first undertook this paper, I was resolved to concern myself only
with things, and not with persons. Whether I have kept or broken this
resolution, I cannot recollect; and I will not be at the pains to examine,
but leave the matter to those little antagonists, who may want a topic for
criticism. Thus much I have discovered, that it is in writing as in
building; where, after all our schemes and calculations, we are mightily
deceived in our accounts, and often forced to make use of any materials we
can find, that the work may be kept a going. Besides, to speak my opinion,
the things I have occasion to mention, are so closely linked to persons,
that nothing but Time (the father of Oblivion) can separate them. Let me
put a parallel case: Suppose I should complain, that last week my coach
was within an inch of overturning, in a smooth, even way, and drawn by
very gentle horses; to be sure, all my friends would immediately lay the
fault upon John,[3] because they knew, he then presided in my coach-box.
Again, suppose I should discover some uneasiness to find myself, I knew
not how, over head-and-ears in debt, though I was sure my tenants paid
their rents very well, and that I never spent half my income; they would
certainly advise me to turn off Mr. Oldfox[4] my receiver, and take
another. If, as a justice of peace, I should tell a friend that my
warrants and mittimuses were never drawn up as I would have them; that I
had the misfortune to send an honest man to gaol, and dismiss a knave; he
would bid me no longer trust Charles and Harry,[5] my two clerks, whom he
knew to be ignorant, wilful, assuming and ill-inclined fellows. If I
should add, that my tenants made me very uneasy with their squabbles and
broils among themselves; he would counsel me to cashier Will Bigamy,[6]
the seneschal of my manor. And lastly, if my neighbour and I happened to
have a misunderstanding about the delivery of a message, what could I do
less than strip and discard the blundering or malicious rascal that
carried it?[7]

It is the same thing in the conduct of public affairs, where they have
been managed with rashness or wilfulness, corruption, ignorance or
injustice; barely to relate the facts, at least, while they are fresh in
memory, will as much reflect upon the persons concerned, as if we had told
their names at length.

I have therefore since thought of another expedient, frequently practised
with great safety and success by satirical writers: which is, that of
looking into history for some character bearing a resemblance to the
person we would describe; and with the absolute power of altering, adding
or suppressing what circumstances we please, I conceived we must have very
bad luck, or very little skill to fail. However, some days ago in a
coffee-house, looking into one of the politic weekly papers; I found the
writer had fallen into this scheme, and I happened to light on that part,
where he was describing a person, who from small beginnings grew (as I
remember) to be constable of France, and had a very haughty, imperious
wife.[8] I took the author as a friend to our faction, (for so with great
propriety of speech they call the Queen and ministry, almost the whole
clergy, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom)[9] and I said to a gentleman
near me, that although I knew well enough what persons the author meant,
yet there were several particulars in the husband’s character, which I
could not reconcile, for that of the lady was just and adequate enough;
but it seems I mistook the whole matter, and applied all I had read to a
couple of persons, who were not at that time in the writer’s thoughts.

Now to avoid such a misfortune as this, I have been for some time
consulting Livy and Tacitus, to find out a character of a Princeps
Senatus, a Praetor Urbanus, a Quaestor Aerarius, a Caesari
ab Epistolis, and a Proconsul;[10] but among the worst of them,
I cannot discover one from whom to draw a parallel, without doing injury
to a Roman memory: so that I am compelled to have recourse to Tully. But
this author relating facts only as an orator, I thought it would be best
to observe his method, and make an extract from six harangues of his
against Verres, only still preserving the form of an oration. I remember a
younger brother of mine, who deceased about two months ago, presented the
world with a speech of Alcibiades against an Athenian brewer:[11] Now, I
am told for certain, that in those days there was no ale in Athens; and
therefore that speech, or at least a great part of it, must needs be
spurious. The difference between me and my brother is this; he makes
Alcibiades say a great deal more than he really did, and I make Cicero say
a great deal less.[12] This Verres had been the Roman governor of Sicily
for three years; and on return from his government, the Sicilians
entreated Cicero to impeach him in the Senate, which he accordingly did in
several orations, from whence I have faithfully translated and abstracted
that which follows.

“MY LORDS,[13]

“A pernicious opinion hath for some time prevailed, not only at Rome, but
among our neighbouring nations, that a man who has money enough, though he
be ever so guilty, cannot be condemned in this place. But however
industriously this opinion be spread, to cast an odium on the Senate, we
have brought before your lordships Caius Verres, a person, for his life
and actions, already condemned by all men; but as he hopes, and gives out,
by the influence of his wealth, to be here absolved. In condemning this
man, you have an opportunity of belying that general scandal, of redeeming
the credit lost by former judgments, and recovering the love of the Roman
people, as well as of our neighbours. I have brought a man here before
you, my lords, who is a robber of the public treasure, an overturner of
law and justice, and the disgrace, as well as destruction, of the Sicilian
province: of whom, if you shall determine with equity and due severity,
your authority will remain entire, and upon such an establishment as it
ought to be: but if his great riches will be able to force their way
through that religious reverence and truth, which become so awful an
assembly, I shall, however, obtain thus much, that the defect will be laid
where it ought, and that it shall not be objected that the criminal was
not produced, or that there wanted an orator to accuse him. This man, my
lords, has publicly said, that those ought to be afraid of accusations who
have only robbed enough for their own support and maintenance; but that he
has plundered sufficient to bribe numbers, and that nothing is so high or
so holy which money cannot corrupt. Take that support from him, and he can
have no other left. For what eloquence will be able to defend a man, whose
life has been tainted with so many scandalous vices, and who has been so
long condemned by the universal opinion of the world? To pass over the
foul stains and ignominy of his youth, his corrupt management in all
employments he has borne, his treachery and irreligion, his injustice and
oppression, he has left of late such monuments of his villainies in
Sicily, made such havoc and confusion there, during his government, that
the province cannot by any means be restored to its former state, and
hardly recover itself at all under many years, and by a long succession of
good governors. While this man governed in that island, the Sicilians had
neither the benefit of our laws, nor their own, nor even of common right.
In Sicily, no man now possesses more than what the governor’s lust and
avarice have overlooked, or what he was forced to neglect out of mere
weariness and satiety of oppression. Every thing where he presided, was
determined by his arbitrary will, and the best subjects he treated as
enemies. To recount his abominable debaucheries, would offend any modest
ear, since so many could not preserve their daughters and wives from his
lust. I believe there is no man who ever heard his name, that cannot
relate his enormities. We bring before you in judgment, my lords, a public
robber, an adulterer, a DEFILER OF ALTARS,[14] an enemy of religion, and
of all that is sacred; he sold all employments in Sicily of judicature,
magistracy, and trust, places in the council, and the priesthood itself,
to the highest bidder; and has plundered that island of forty millions of
sesterces. And here I cannot but observe to your lordships, in what manner
Verres passed the day: the morning was spent in taking bribes, and selling
employments, the rest of it in drunkenness and lust. His discourse at
table was scandalously unbecoming the dignity of his station; noise,
brutality, and obsceneness. One particular I cannot omit, that in the high
character of governor of Sicily, upon a solemn day, a day set apart for
public prayer for the safety of the commonwealth; he stole at evening, in
a chair, to a married woman of infamous character,[15] against all decency
and prudence, as well as against all laws both human and divine. Didst
thou think, O Verres, the government of Sicily was given thee with so
large a commission, only by the power of that to break all the bars of
law, modesty, and duty, to suppose all men’s fortunes thine, and leave no
house free from thy rapine, or lust? &c.”

This extract, to deal ingenuously, has cost me more pains than I think it
is worth, having only served to convince me, that modern corruptions are
not to be paralleled by ancient examples, without having recourse to
poetry or fable. For instance, I never read in story of a law enacted to
take away the force of all laws whatsoever;[16] by which a man may safely
commit upon the last of June, what he would infallibly be hanged for if he
committed on the first of July; by which the greatest criminals may
escape, provided they continue long enough in power to antiquate their
crimes, and by stifling them a while, can deceive the legislature into an
amnesty, of which the enactors do not at that time foresee the
consequence. A cautious merchant will be apt to suspect, when he finds a
man who has the repute of a cunning dealer, and with whom he has old
accounts, urging for a general release. When I reflect on this proceeding,
I am not surprised, that those who contrived a parliamentary sponge for
their crimes, are now afraid of a new revolution sponge for their money:
and if it were possible to contrive a sponge that could only affect those
who had need of the other, perhaps it would not be ill employed.

[Footnote 1: No. 17 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, “In Q. Caec.” i. 3: “They said that whatever luxury
could accomplish in the way of vice,… avarice in the way of plunder, or
arrogance in the way of insult, had all been borne by them for the last
three years, while this one man was praetor.”—C.D. YONGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: John Churchill, Duke of Maryborough, who had been
Captain-General since 1702. He was dismissed from all his offices,
December 31st, 1711. The Duke of Ormonde was appointed Commander-in-Chief
on January 4th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Godolphin, Lord-Treasurer, nicknamed Volpone. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Charles, Earl of Sunderland, and Henry Boyle (1670-1725),
were Secretaries of State. Boyle was created Lord Carleton in 1714.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: William; Earl Cowper (1665-1723), was Lord Chancellor under
Godolphin’s administration (1707-1710), and also in 1714-1718. The
“Biographia Britannica” (second edition, vol. iv., p. 389 n.)
refers to a story that Cowper went through an informal marriage in the
early part of his life with a Mrs. Elizabeth Culling, of Hungerfordbury
Park. Cowper’s first wife was Judith, daughter of Sir Robert Booth, of
London; and after her death he married Mary Clavering. See also
“Examiner,” No. 23, post. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Horatio Walpole, secretary to the English Embassy at the
treaty of Gertruydenberg. See Swift’s accusation against him in “The
Conduct of the Allies” (vol. v of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: “The Medley” (Nos. 6 and 7, November 6th and 13th, 1710)
contains a “Story of the Marquiss D’Ancre and his Wife Galigai,” from the
French of M. Le Vassor. The Marquis is there described as “the greatest
cheat in the whole world”; and “Galigai had the insolence to say a
thousand offensive things.” The article was intended as a reflection on
Harley and Mrs. Masham; but Swift takes it as for the Duke and Duchess of
Marlborough. Certainly the character of Galigai may with greater justice
be applied to the Duchess. (See “Histoire du regne de Louis XIII. par M.
Michel Le Vassor.”) Concino Concini, Maréchal D’Ancre, was born at
Florence, and died in 1617. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: “The Medley” was constantly deriding this alleged proportion.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “The Observator” for December 6th remarks: “If the
‘Examiner’ don’t find better parallels for his Princeps Senates,
Praetor Urbanus, Quaestor Aerarius, and Caesari ab Epistolis,
than he has done for his Proconsul, Roger, the gentlemen he aims at may
sleep without disturbance.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: “The Whig Examiner” (No. 3, September 28th, 1710) prints a
speech alleged to have been made by Alcibiades in a contest with an
Athenian brewer named Taureas. The allusion was to the Westminster
election, when General Stanhope was opposed by a brewer named Thomas
Cross. “The Whig Examiner” was written by Addison. Five numbers only were
issued (September 14th to October 12th, 1710). “The light and comic style
of Addison’s parody,” notes Scott, may be compared “with the fierce,
stern, and vindictive tone of Swift’s philippic against the Earl of
Wharton, under the name of Verres.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: “The Medley” (No. 11, December 11th, 1710) remarks of this
adaptation from Cicero, that the writer “has added more rude reflections
of his own than are to be found in that author, whose only fault is his
falling too much into such reflections.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: See also Swift’s “Short Character,” etc. (vol. v., pp. 1-28
of present edition), and note in loco. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Hawkesworth notes: “The story of the Lord Wharton is true;
who, with some other wretches, went into a pulpit, and defiled it in the
most filthy manner.” See also “Examiner,” No. 23, post. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Probably Mrs. Coningsby. See Swift’s “Short Character” (vol.
v., p. 27). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: The “Act for the Queen’s most gracious, general, and free
pardon” was passed in 1708 (7 Ann., c. 22). The Earl of Wharton himself
profited by this Act. A Mr. George Hutchinson gave Wharton £1,000 to
procure his appointment to the office of Register of the Seizures. This
was proved before the House of Commons in May, 1713, and the House
resolved that it was “a scandalous corruption,” and that as it took place
“before the Act of Her Majesty’s most gracious, general, and free pardon;
this House will proceed no further in that matter.” (“Journals of House of
Commons,” vol. xvii., p. 356.) [T.S.]]

NUMB. 19.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, 1710.

Quippe ubi fas versunt atque nefas: tot bella per orbem: Tam multae,
scelerum facies——[2]

I am often violently tempted to let the world freely know who the author
of this paper is; to tell them my name and titles at length; which would
prevent abundance of inconsistent criticisms I daily hear upon it. Those
who are enemies to the notions and opinions I would advance, are sometimes
apt to quarrel with the “Examiner” as defective in point of wit, and
sometimes of truth. At other times they are so generous and candid, to
allow, it is written by a club, and that very great hands have fingers in
it. As for those who only appear its adversaries in print, they give me
but very little pain: The paper I hold lies at my mercy, and I can govern
it as I please; therefore, when I begin to find the wit too bright, the
learning too deep, and the satire too keen for me to deal with, (a very
frequent case no doubt, where a man is constantly attacked by such shrewd
adversaries) I peaceably fold it up, or fling it aside, and read no more.
It would be happy for me to have the same power over people’s tongues, and
not be forced to hear my own work railed at and commended fifty times a
day, affecting all the while a countenance wholly unconcerned, and joining
out of policy or good manners with the judgment of both parties: this, I
confess, is too great a hardship for so bashful and unexperienced a
writer.[3]

But, alas, I lie under another discouragement of much more weight: I was
very unfortunate in the choice of my party when I set up to be a writer;
where is the merit, or what opportunity to discover our wit, our courage,
or our learning, in drawing our pens for the defence of a cause, which the
Queen and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom,
have so unanimously embraced? I am cruelly afraid, we politic authors must
begin to lessen our expenses, and lie for the future at the mercy of our
printers. All hopes now are gone of writing ourselves into places or
pensions. A certain starveling author who worked under the late
administration, told me with a heavy heart, above a month ago, that he and
some others of his brethren had secretly offered their service dog-cheap
to the present ministry, but were all refused, and are now maintained by
contribution, like Jacobites or fanatics. I have been of late employed out
of perfect commiseration, in doing them good offices: for, whereas some
were of opinion that these hungry zealots should not be suffered any
longer in their malapert way to snarl at the present course of public
proceedings; and whereas, others proposed, that they should be limited to
a certain number, and permitted to write for their masters, in the same
manner as counsel are assigned for other criminals; that is, to say
all they can in defence of their client, but not reflect upon the court: I
humbly gave my advice, that they should be suffered to write on, as they
used to do; which I did purely out of regard to their persons: for I hoped
it would keep them out of harm’s way, and prevent them from falling into
evil courses, which though of little consequence to the public, would
certainly be fatal to themselves. If I have room at the bottom of this
paper, I will transcribe a petition to the present ministry, sent me by
one of these authors, in behalf of himself and fourscore others of his
brethren.

For my own part, notwithstanding the little encouragement to be hoped for
at this time from the men in power, I shall continue my paper till either
the world or myself grow weary of it: the latter is easily determined; and
for the former, I shall not leave it to the partiality of either party,
but to the infallible judgment of my printer. One principal end I designed
by it, was to undeceive those well-meaning people, who have been drawn
unaware into a wrong sense of things, either by the common prejudices of
education and company, the great personal qualities of some party leaders,
or the foul misrepresentations that were constantly made of all who durst
differ from them in the smallest article. I have known such men struck
with the thoughts of some late changes, which, as they pretend to think,
were made without any reason visible to the world. In answer to this, it
is not sufficient to allege, what nobody doubts, that a prince may choose
his own servants without giving a reason to his subjects; because it is
certain, that a wise and good prince will not change his ministers without
very important reasons; and a good subject ought to suppose, that in such
a case there are such reasons, though he be not apprised of them,
otherwise he must inwardly tax his prince of capriciousness, inconstancy,
or ill-design. Such reasons indeed, may not be obvious to persons
prejudiced, or at great distance, or short thinkers; and therefore, if
they be no secrets of state, nor any ill consequences to be apprehended
from their publication; it is no uncommendable work in any private hand to
lay them open for the satisfaction of all men. And if what I have already
said, or shall hereafter say of this kind, be thought to reflect upon
persons, though none have been named, I know not how it can possibly be
avoided. The Queen in her speech mentions, “with great concern,” that “the
navy and other offices are burthened with heavy debts, and desires that
the like may be prevented for the time to come.”[4] And, if it be now
possible to prevent the continuance of an evil that has been so long
growing upon us, and is arrived to such a height, surely those corruptions
and mismanagements must have been great which first introduced them,
before our taxes were eaten up by annuities.

If I were able to rip up, and discover in all their colours, only about
eight or nine thousand of the most scandalous abuses,[5] that have been
committed in all parts of public management for twenty years past, by a
certain set of men and their instruments, I should reckon it some service
to my country, and to posterity. But to say the truth, I should be glad
the authors’ names were conveyed to future times along with their actions.
For though the present age may understand well enough the little hints we
give, the parallels we draw, and the characters we describe, yet this will
all be lost to the next. However, if these papers, reduced into a more
durable form, should happen to live till our grandchildren are men, I hope
they may have curiosity enough to consult annals, and compare dates, in
order to find out what names were then intrusted with the conduct of
affairs, in the consequences whereof, themselves will so deeply share;
like a heavy debt in a private family, which often lies an incumbrance
upon an estate for three generations.

But leaving the care of informing posterity to better pens, I shall with
due regard to truth, discretion, and the safety of my person from the men
of the new-fangled moderation, continue to take all proper opportunities
of letting the misled part of the people see how grossly they have been
abused, and in what particulars: I shall also endeavour to convince them,
that the present course we are in, is the most probable means, with the
blessing of God, to extricate ourselves out of all our difficulties.

Among those who are pleased to write or talk against this paper, I have
observed a strange manner of reasoning, which I should be glad to hear
them explain themselves upon. They make no ceremony of exclaiming upon all
occasions against a change of ministry, in so critical and dangerous a
conjuncture. What shall we, who heartily approve and join in those
proceedings, say in defence of them? We own the juncture of affairs to be
as they describe: we are pushed for an answer, and are forced at last
freely to confess, that the corruptions and abuses in every branch of the
administration, were so numerous and intolerable, that all things must
have ended in ruin, without some speedy reformation. This I have already
asserted in a former paper; and the replies I have read or heard, have
been in plain terms to affirm the direct contrary; and not only to defend
and celebrate the late persons and proceedings, but to threaten me with
law and vengeance, for casting reflections on so many great and honourable
men, whose birth, virtue and abilities, whose morals and religion, whose
love of their country and its constitution in Church and State, were so
universally allowed; and all this set off with odious comparisons
reflecting on the present choice. Is not this in plain and direct terms to
tell all the world that the Qu[een] has in a most dangerous crisis turned
out a whole set of the best ministers that ever served a prince, without
any manner of reason but her royal pleasure, and brought in others of a
character directly contrary? And how so vile an opinion as this can
consist with the least pretence to loyalty or good manners, let the world
determine.

I confess myself so little a refiner in the politics, as not to be able to
discover, what other motive besides obedience to the Queen, a sense of
public danger, and a true love of their country, joined with invincible
courage, could spirit those great men, who have now under her Majesty’s
authority undertaken the direction of affairs. What can they expect but
the utmost efforts of malice from a set of enraged domestic adversaries,
perpetually watching over their conduct, crossing all their designs, and
using every art to foment divisions among them, in order to join with the
weakest upon any rupture? The difficulties they must encounter are nine
times more and greater than ever; and the prospects of interest, after the
reapings and gleanings of so many years, nine times less. Every misfortune
at home or abroad, though the necessary consequence of former counsels,
will be imputed to them; and all the good success given to the merit of
former schemes. A sharper has held your cards all the evening, played
booty, and lost your money, and when things are almost desperate, you
employ an honest gentleman to retrieve your losses.

I would ask whether the Queen’s speech does not contain her intentions, in
every particular relating to the public, that a good subject, a Briton and
a Protestant can possibly have at heart? “To carry on the war in all its
parts, particularly in Spain,[6] with the utmost vigour, in order to
procure a safe and honourable peace for us and our allies; to find some
ways of paying the debts on the navy; to support and encourage the Church
of England; to preserve the British constitution according to the Union;
to maintain the indulgence by law allowed to scrupulous consciences; and
to employ none but such as are for the Protestant succession in the house
of Hanover.”[7] It is known enough, that speeches on these occasions, are
ever digested by the advice of those who are in the chief confidence, and
consequently that these are the sentiments of her Majesty’s ministers, as
well as her own; and we see, the two Houses have unanimously agreed with
her in every article. When the least counterpaces[8] are made to any of
these resolutions, it will then be time enough for our malcontents to bawl
out Popery, persecution, arbitrary power, and the Pretender. In the mean
while, it is a little hard to think, that this island can hold but six men
of honesty and ability enough to serve their prince and country; or that
our safety should depend upon their credit, any more than it would upon
the breath in their nostrils. Why should not a revolution in the ministry
be sometimes necessary as well as a revolution in the crown? It is to be
presumed, the former is at least as lawful in itself, and perhaps the
experiment not quite so dangerous. The revolution of the sun about the
earth was formerly thought a necessary expedient to solve appearances,
though it left many difficulties unanswered; till philosophers contrived a
better, which is that of the earth’s revolution about the sun. This is
found upon experience to save much time and labour, to correct many
irregular motions, and is better suited to the respect due from a planet
to a fixed star.

[Footnote 1: No. 18 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Virgil, “Georgics,” i. 505-6:

“For right and wrong we see perverted here: So many wars arise, such
countless forms Of crime and evil agitate the globe.”—R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This remark seems to have tickled the writer of the twelfth
number of “The Medley,” who professed to be transported at the idea of the
“Examiner” being a bashful writer. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: In her speech at the opening of Parliament on November 27th,
1710, the Queen said: “I cannot without great concern mention to you, that
the Navy and other offices are burthened with heavy debts, which so far
affect the public service, that I most earnestly desire you to find some
way to answer those demands, and to prevent the like for the time to
come.” (“Journals of House of Lords,” vol. xix., p. 166.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The Medley” (No. 13, December 25th, 1710) remarks: “When he
… promises to discover ‘only about eight or nine thousand of their most
scandalous abuses,’ without pretending to discover one; and when he
audaciously reviles a general, whose services have been the wonder both of
friends and enemies … all this he calls ‘defending the cause of the Q——
and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom.'”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: It was a general complaint, that the war in Spain had been
neglected, in order to supply that army which was more immediately under
the management of Marlborough. [S.]]

[Footnote 7: The quotation is not given verbatim, but is substantially
correct. See “Journals of House of Lords,” vol. xix., p. 166. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The word is defined by Dr. Murray as “a movement in a
contrary or reverse direction; a movement or step against something.”
[T.S.]]

NUMB. 20.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1710.

When the printer came last week for his copy, he brought along with him a
bundle of those papers,[3] which in the phrase of Whig coffee-houses have
“swinged off” the “Examiner,” most of which I had never seen nor heard of
before. I remember some time ago in one of the “Tatlers” to have read a
letter,[4] wherein several reasons are assigned for the present corruption
and degeneracy of our taste, but I think the writer has omitted the
principal one, which I take to be the prejudice of parties. Neither can I
excuse either side of this infirmity; I have heard the arrantest
drivellers pro and con commended for their smartness even by
men of tolerable judgment; and the best performances exploded as nonsense
and stupidity. This indeed may partly be imputed to policy and prudence;
but it is chiefly owing to that blindness, which prejudice and passion
cast over the understanding: I mention this because I think it properly
within my province in quality of Examiner. And having granted more
than is usual for an enemy to do, I must now take leave to say, that so
weak a cause, and so ruined a faction, were never provided with pens more
resembling their condition, or less suited to their occasions.

This is the more to be wondered at, when we consider they have the full
liberty of the press, that they have no other way left to recover
themselves, and that they want not men of excellent parts to set their
arguments in the best light they will bear. Now if two men would argue on
both sides with fairness, good sense, and good manners, it would be no ill
entertainment to the town, and perhaps be the most effectual means to
reconcile us. But I am apt to think that men of a great genius are hardly
brought to prostitute their pens in a very odious cause; which besides, is
more properly undertaken by noise and impudence, by gross railing and
scurrility, by calumny and lying, and by little trifling cavils and
carpings in the wrong place, which those whifflers use for arguments and
answers.

I was well enough pleased with a story of one of these answerers, who in a
paper[6] last week found many faults with a late calculation of mine.
Being it seems more deep learned than his fellows, he was resolved to
begin his answer with a Latin verse, as well as other folks: His business
was to look out for something against an “Examiner” that would pretend to
tax accounts; and turning over Virgil, he had the luck to find
these words,

so down they went, and out they would have come, if one of his unlucky
prompters had not hindered it.

I here declare once for all, that if these people will not be quiet, I
shall take the bread out of their mouths, and answer the “Examiner”
myself;[8] which I protest I have never yet done, though I have been often
charged with it; neither have those answers been written or published with
my privity, as malicious people are pleased to give out; nor do I believe
the common Whiggish report, that the authors are hired by the ministry to
give my paper a value.

But the friends of this paper have given me more uneasiness with their
impatience, than its enemies by their answers. I heard myself censured
last week by some of the former, for promising to discover the corruptions
in the late administration, but never performing any thing. The latter on
the other side, are thundering out their anathemas against me for
discovering so many. I am at a loss how to decide between these
contraries, and shall therefore proceed after my own way, as I have
hitherto done: my design being of more importance than that of writing
only to gratify the spleen of one side, or provoke that of the other,
though it may occasionally have both effects.

I shall therefore go on to relate some facts that in my humble opinion
were no hindrance to the change of the ministry.

The first I shall mention, was that of introducing certain new phrases
into the court style, which had been very seldom or never made use of in
former times. They usually ran in the following terms: “Madam, I cannot
serve you while such a one is in employment: I desire humbly to resign my
commission, if Mr. ——— continues secretary of state: I
cannot answer that the city will lend money, unless my L— ———
be pr[esiden]t of the c[ounc]il. I must beg leave to surrender, except
——— has the staff. I must not accept the seals, unless
——— comes into the other office.” This has been the
language of late years from subjects to their prince.[9] Thus they stood
upon terms, and must have their own conditions to ruin the nation. Nay,
this dutiful manner of capitulating, had spread so far, that every
understrapper began at length to perk up and assume: he “expected a
regiment”; or “his son must be a major”; or “his brother a collector”,
else he threatened to vote “according to his conscience.”

Another of their glorious attempts, was the clause intended in the bill
for the encouragement of learning;[10] for taking off the obligation upon
fellows of colleges in both Universities to enter upon holy orders: the
design of which, as I have heard the undertakers often confess, was to
remove the care of educating youth out of the hands of the clergy, who are
apt to infuse into their pupils too great a regard for the Church and the
Monarchy. But there was a farther secret in this clause, which may best be
discovered by the first projectors, or at least the garblers of it; and
these are known to be C[o]ll[i]ns[11] and Tindal,[12] in conjunction with
a most pious lawyer their disciple.[13]

What shall we say to their prodigious skill in arithmetic, discovered so
constantly in their decision of elections; where they were able to make
out by the rule of false, that three were more than
three-and-twenty, and fifteen than fifty? Nay it was a maxim which I never
heard any of them dispute, that in determining elections, they were not to
consider where the right lay, but which of the candidates was likelier to
be true to “the cause.” This they used to illustrate by a very apt and
decent similitude, of gaming with a sharper; if you cannot cheat as well
as he, you are certainly undone.

Another cast of their politics was that of endeavouring to impeach an
innocent l[a]dy, for no reason imaginable, but her faithful and diligent
service to the Q[ueen],[14] and the favour her M[ajesty] bore to her upon
that account, when others had acted contrary in so shameful a manner. What
else was the crime? Had she treated her royal mistress with insolence or
neglect? Had she enriched herself by a long practice of bribery, and
obtaining exorbitant grants? Had she engrossed her M[ajest]y’s favours,
without admitting any access but through her means? Had she heaped
employments upon herself, her family and dependants? Had she an imperious,
haughty behaviour? Or, after all, was it a perfect blunder and mistake of
one person for another? I have heard of a man who lay all night on a rough
pavement; and in the morning, wondering what it could possibly be, that
made him rest so ill, happened to see a feather under him, and imputed the
uneasiness of his lodging to that. I remember likewise the story of a
giant in Rabelais,[15] who used to feed upon wind-mills, but was
unfortunately choked with a small lump of fresh butter, before a warm
oven.

And here I cannot but observe how very refined some people are in their
generosity and gratitude. There is a certain great person[16] (I shall not
say of what sex) who for many years past, was the constant mark and butt,
against which our present malcontents used to discharge their resentment:
upon whom they bestowed all the terms of scurrility, that malice, envy and
indignation could invent; whom they publicly accused of every vice that
can possess a human heart: pride, covetousness, ingratitude, oppression,
treachery, dissimulation, violence and fury, all in the highest extremes:
but of late, they have changed their language on a sudden; that person is
now the most faithful and just that ever served a prince; that person,
originally differing from them in principles, as far as east and west, but
united in practice, and falling together, they are now reconciled, and
find twenty resemblances between each other, which they could never
discover before. Tanti est ut placeam tibi perire.[17]

But to return: How could it be longer suffered in a free nation, that all
avenues to preferment should be shut up, except a very few, when one or
two stood constant sentry, who docked all favours they handed down; or
spread a huge invisible net, between the prince and subject, through which
nothing of value could pass? And here I cannot but admire at one
consequence from this management, which is of an extraordinary nature:
Generally speaking, princes who have ill ministers are apt to suffer in
their reputation, as well as in the love of the people: but it was not so
with the Q[ueen]. When the sun is overcast by those clouds he exhales from
the earth, we still acknowledge his light and influence, and at last find
he can dispel and drive them down to the horizon. The wisest prince, by
the necessity of affairs, the misrepresentations of designing men, or the
innocent mistakes, even of a good predecessor, may find himself
encompassed by a crew of courtiers, whom time, opportunity and success,
have miserably corrupted. And if he can save himself and his people from
ruin, under the worst administration, what may not his subjects
hope for, when with their universal applause, he changes hands, and makes
use of the best?

Another great objection with me against the late party, was the cruel
tyranny they put upon conscience, by a barbarous inquisition, refusing to
admit the least toleration or indulgence. They imposed a hundred tests,
but could never be prevailed with to dispense with, or take off the
smallest, nor even admit of occasional conformity;[18] but went on
daily (as their apostle Tindal expresseth it) narrowing their terms of
communion; pronouncing nine parts in ten of the kingdom heretics, and
shutting them out of the pale of their Church. These very men, who talk so
much of a comprehension in religion among us, how came they to allow so
little of it in politics, which is their sole religion? You shall
hear them pretending to bewail the animosities kept up between the Church
of England and Dissenters, where the differences in opinion are so few and
inconsiderable; yet these very sons of moderation were pleased to
excommunicate every man who disagreed with them in the smallest article of
their political creed, or who refused to receive any new article,
how difficult soever to digest, which the leaders imposed at pleasure to
serve their own interest.

I will quit this subject for the present, when I have told one story.[19]
“There was a great king in Scythia, whose dominions were bounded to the
north, by the poor, mountainous territories of a petty lord, who paid
homage as the king’s vassal. The Scythian prime minister being largely
bribed, indirectly obtained his master’s consent to suffer this lord to
build forts, and provide himself with arms, under pretence of preventing
the inroads of the Tartars. This little depending sovereign, finding he
was now in a condition to be troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and
threatened upon every occasion to unite with the Tartars: upon which, the
prime minister, who began to be in pain about his head, proposed a match
betwixt his master, and the only daughter of this tributary lord, which he
had the good luck to bring to pass: and from that time, valued himself as
author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown of absolute
necessity by his corruption.” This passage, cited literally from an old
history of Sarmatia, I thought fit to set down, on purpose to perplex
little smattering remarkers, and put them upon the hunt for an
application.

[Footnote 1: No. 19 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Horace, “Satires,” II. i. 1-3:

[Footnote 3: One of these papers was “The Observator.” The issue for
December 6th (vol. ix., No. 93) dealt largely with “The Examiner’s” attack
on Verres (No. 18, ante), and the following number returned to the
charge, criticizing the attacks made in Nos. 17 and 18 of “The Examiner”
on the Duke of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: This appears to refer to “The Tatler,” No. 183 (June 10th,
1710), where Steele writes: “The ridicule among us runs strong against
laudable actions. Nay, in the ordinary course of things, and the common
regards of life, negligence of the public is an epidemic vice… It were
to be wished, that love of their country were the first principle of
action in men of business.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Virgil, “Aeneid,” ii. 521-2:

[Footnote 6: The paper in all probability was “The Medley,” No. 10
(December 4th), which was mainly devoted to a reply to Swift’s
“calculation” as to the rewards of the Duke of Marlborough. Scott thinks
the answerer may have been Defoe, for in No. 114 (of vol. vii.) of his
“Review of the State of the British Nation,” he has a passage evidently
directed at Swift: “I know another, that is an orator in the Latin, a
walking index of books, has all the libraries in Europe in his head, from
the Vatican at Rome, to the learned collection of Dr. Salmon at
Fleet-Ditch; but at the same time, he is a cynic in behaviour, a fury in
temper, impolite in conversation, abusive and scurrilous in language, and
ungovernable in passion. Is this to be learned? Then may I be still illiterate.
I have been in my time, pretty well master of five languages, and have not
lost them yet, though I write no bill over my door, or set Latin
quotations in the front of the ‘Review.’ But, to my irreparable loss,
I was bred but by halves; for my father, forgetting Juno’s royal academy,
left the language of Billingsgate quite out of my education: hence I am
perfectly illiterate in the polite style of the street, and am not
fit to converse with the porters and carmen of quality, who grace their
diction with the beauties of calling names, and curse their neighbour with
a bonne grace.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “Eclogues,” ix. 30:

[Footnote 8: See No. 23, post. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: See Swift’s account of the intrigues of the Duke of
Marlborough and Lord Godolphin to secure Harley’s dismissal in his
“Memoirs Relating to that Change” (vol. v., pp. 370-371 of present
edition), and “Some Considerations” (vol. v., pp. 421-422, ibid.).]

[Footnote 10: The “Bill for the Encouragement of Learning” was introduced
in the House of Commons, January 11th, 1709/10, passed March 14th, and
obtained royal assent April 5th, 1710. There were several amendments, but
the “Journals of the House of Commons” throw no light on their purport.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Anthony Collins (1676-1729), the deist, who wrote “A
Discourse of Free-Thinking” (1713), which received a reply from Swift (see
vol. iii., pp. 163-192 of present edition). The most thorough reply,
however, was made by Bentley, under the pen-name “Phileleutherus
Lipsiensis.” Collins’s controversies with Dr. Samuel Clarke were the
outcome of the former’s thinking on Locke’s teaching. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was the author of “The Rights of
the Christian Church Asserted” (1706), a work that created a great stir at
the time, and occasioned many replies. Swift deals with him in his
“Remarks upon a Book, intituled, ‘The Rights of the Christian Church'”
(see vol. iii., pp. 79-124, also note on p. 9 of same volume of present
edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: The pious lawyer was John Asgill (1659-1738), who was called
to the bar in 1692. He was elected to Parliament for Bramber (1698-1700
and 1702-1707), but was expelled the House of Commons for blasphemy (see
note on p. 9 of vol. iii, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Mrs. Masham, when Abigail Hill, was appointed
bedchamber-woman to the Princess of Denmark. See vol. v., p. 365 of
present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: The giant Widenostrils had swallowed every pan, kettle,
“dripping-pan, and brass and iron pot in the land, for want of windmills,
which, were his daily food.” But he “choked himself with eating a huge
lump of fresh butter at the mouth of a hot oven, by the advice of
physicians.”—RABELAIS, iv. 17; Motteux’s translation. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Daniel Finch, second Earl of Nottingham (1647-1730), was
Secretary of State (1689-1693 and 1702-1704). He is the Don Diego Dismallo
of “The Tatler” (No. 21). See also vol. v., p. 247, of present edition of
Swift’s works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: “It is worth while to perish that I may give you pleasure.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: The Occasional Conformity Bill was rejected in 1702, and
again in 1703 and 1704. It was, however, passed in 1711; but repealed in
1718. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: “The Medley,” No. 14 (January 1st, 1710) [sic],
translates this story into an account of the Union. It is the same story,
in effect, which gave great offence to the Scotch peers when printed in
“The Public Spirit of the Whigs.” The “Medley’s” version runs: “England
being bounded on the north by a poor mountainous people called Scots, who
were vassals to that crown, and the English prime minister, being largely
bribed, obtained the Q——’s consent for the Scots to arm and
exercise themselves; and they finding they were now in a condition to be
troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every
occasion to join with the French. Upon which the prime minister, who began
to be in pain about his head, set on foot a treaty to unite the two
kingdoms, which he had the good luck to bring to pass, and from that time
valued himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown
of absolute necessity by his corruption.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 21.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 21, 1710.

I am very much at a loss how to proceed upon the subject intended in this
paper, which a new incident has led me to engage in: The subject I mean,
is that of soldiers and the army; but being a matter wholly out of my
trade, I shall handle it in as cautious a manner as I am able.

It is certain, that the art of war hath suffered great changes, almost in
every age and country of the world; however, there are some maxims
relating to it, that will be eternal truths, and which every reasonable
man will allow.

In the early times of Greece and Rome, the armies of those states were
composed of their citizens, who took no pay, because the quarrel was their
own; and therefore the war was usually decided in one campaign; or, if it
lasted longer, however in winter the soldiers returned to their several
callings, and were not distinguished from the rest of the people. The
Gothic governments in Europe, though they were of military institution,
yet observed almost the same method. I shall instance only here in
England. Those who held lands in capite of the king, were obliged
to attend him in his wars with a certain number of men, who all held lands
from them at easy rents on that condition. These fought without pay, and
when the service was over, returned again to their farms. It is recorded
of William Rufus, that being absent in Normandy, and engaged in a war with
his brother, he ordered twenty thousand men to be raised, and sent over
from hence to supply his army;[3] but having struck up a peace before they
were embarked, he gave them leave to disband, on condition they would pay
him ten shillings a man, which amounted to a mighty sum in those days.

Consider a kingdom as a great family, whereof the prince is the father,
and it will appear plainly that mercenary troops are only servants armed,
either to awe the children at home; or else to defend from invaders, the
family who are otherwise employed, and choose to contribute out of their
stock for paying their defenders, rather than leave their affairs to be
neglected in their absence. The art of making soldiery a trade, and
keeping armies in pay, seems in Europe to have had two originals. The
first was usurpation, when popular men destroyed the liberties of their
country, and seized the power into their own hands, which they were forced
to maintain by hiring guards to bridle the people. Such were anciently the
tyrants in most of the small states in Greece, and such were those in
several parts of Italy, about three or four centuries ago, as Machiavel
informs us. The other original of mercenary armies, seems to have risen
from larger kingdoms or commonwealths, which had subdued provinces at a
distance, and were forced to maintain troops upon them, to prevent
insurrections from the natives: Of this sort were Macedon, Carthage and
Rome of old; Venice and Holland at this day; as well as most kingdoms of
Europe. So that mercenary forces in a free state, whether monarchy or
commonwealth, seem only necessary, either for preserving their conquests,
(which in such governments it is not prudent to extend too far) or else
for maintaining a war at distance.

In this last, which at present is our most important case, there are
certain maxims that all wise governments have observed.

The first I shall mention is, that no private man should have a commission
to be general for life,[4] let his merit and services be ever so great.
Or, if a prince be unadvisedly brought to offer such a commission in one
hand, let him (to save time and blood) deliver up his crown with the
other. The Romans in the height and perfection of their government,
usually sent out one of the new consuls to be general against their most
formidable enemy, and recalled the old one, who often returned before the
next election, and according as he had merit was sent to command in some
other part, which perhaps was continued to him for a second, and sometimes
a third year. But if Paulus Aemilius,[5] or Scipio[6] himself, had
presumed to move the Senate to continue their commissions for life, they
certainly would have fallen a sacrifice to the jealousy of the people.
Caesar indeed (between whom and a certain general, some of late with much
discretion have made a parallel) had his command in Gaul continued to him
for five years, and was afterwards made perpetual Dictator, that is to
say, general for life, which gave him the power and the will of utterly
destroying the Roman liberty. But in his time the Romans were very much
degenerated, and great corruptions crept into their morals and discipline.
However, we see there still were some remains of a noble spirit among
them; for when Caesar sent to be chosen consul, notwithstanding his
absence, they decreed he should come in person, give up his command, and
petere more majorum.[7]

It is not impossible but a general may desire such a commission out of
inadvertency, at the instigation of his friends, or perhaps of his
enemies, or merely for the benefit and honour of it, without intending any
such dreadful consequences; and in that case, a wise prince or state may
barely refuse it without shewing any marks of their displeasure. But the
request in its own nature is highly criminal, and ought to be entered so
upon record, to terrify others in time to come from venturing to make it.

Another maxim to be observed by a free state engaged in war, is to keep
the military power in absolute subjection to the civil, nor ever suffer
the former to influence or interfere with the latter. A general and his
army are servants hired by the civil power to act as they are directed
from thence, and with a commission large or limited as the administration
shall think fit; for which they are largely paid in profit and honour. The
whole system by which armies are governed, is quite alien from the
peaceful institutions of states at home; and if the rewards be so inviting
as to tempt a senator to take a post in the army, while he is there on his
duty, he ought to consider himself in no other capacity. I know not any
sort of men so apt as soldiers are, to reprimand those who presume to
interfere in what relates to their trade. When they hear any of us in a
coffeehouse, wondering that such a victory was not pursued, complaining
that such a town cost more men and money than it was worth to take it; or
that such an opportunity was lost, of fighting the enemy; they presently
reprove us, and often with justice enough, for meddling in matters out of
our sphere, and clearly convince us of our mistakes in terms of art that
none of us understand. Nor do we escape so; for they reflect with the
utmost contempt of our ignorance, that we who sit at home in ease and
security, never stirring from our firesides, should pretend from books,
and general reason, to argue upon military affairs; which after all, if we
may judge from the share of intellectuals in some who are said to excel
that way, is not so very profound or difficult a science. But if there be
any weight in what they offer, as perhaps there may be a great deal;
surely these gentlemen have a much weaker pretence to concern themselves
in matters of the cabinet, which are always either far above, or much
beside their capacities. Soldiers may as well pretend to prescribe rules
for trade, to determine points in philosophy, to be moderators in an
assembly of divines, or direct in a court of justice, as to misplace their
talent in examining affairs of state, especially in what relates to the
choice of ministers, who are never so likely to be ill chosen as when
approved by them. It would be endless to shew how pernicious all steps of
this nature have been in many parts and ages of the world. I shall only
produce two at present; one in Rome, and the other in England. The first
is of Caesar, when he came to the city with his soldiers to settle the
ministry, there was an end of their liberty for ever. The second was in
the great rebellion against King Charles the First. The King and both
Houses were agreed upon the terms of a peace, but the officers of the army
(as Ludlow relates it) sets a guard upon the House of Commons, took a list
of the members, and kept all by force out of the House, except those who
were for bringing the King to a trial.[8] Some years after, when they
erected a military government, and ruled the island by major-generals, we
received most admirable instances of their skill in politics. To say the
truth, such formidable sticklers[9] can have but two reasons for desiring
to interfere in the administration; the first is that of Caesar and
Cromwell, of which, God forbid, I should accuse or suspect any body; since
the second is pernicious enough, and that is, to preserve those in power
who are for perpetuating a war, rather than see others advanced, who they
are sure will use all proper means to promote a safe and honourable peace.

Thirdly, Since it is observed of armies, that in the present age they are
brought to some degree of humanity, and a more regular demeanour to each
other and to the world, than in former times; it is certainly a good maxim
to endeavour preserving this temper among them, without which they would
soon degenerate into savages. To this end, it would be prudent among other
things, to forbid that detestable custom of drinking to the damnation or
confusion of any person whatsoever.

Such desperate acts, and the opinions infused along with them, into heads
already inflamed by youth and wine, are enough to scatter madness and
sedition through a whole camp. So seldom upon their knees to pray, and so
often to curse! This is not properly atheism, but a sort of anti-religion
prescribed by the Devil, and which an atheist of common sense would scorn
as an absurdity. I have heard it mentioned as a common practice last
autumn, somewhere or other, to drink damnation and confusion[10] (and this
with circumstances very aggravating and horrid) to the new ministry, and
to those who had any hand in turning out the old; that is to say,
to those persons whom her Majesty has thought fit to employ in her
greatest affairs, with something more than a glance against the Qu[een]
herself. And if it be true that these orgies were attended with certain
doubtful words of standing by their g[enera]l, who without question
abhorred them; let any man consider the consequence of such dispositions,
if they should happen to spread. I could only wish for the honour of the
Army, as well as of the Qu[een] and ministry, that a remedy had been
applied to the disease, in the place and time where it grew. If men of
such principles were able to propagate them in a camp, and were sure of a
general for life, who had any tincture of ambition, we might soon bid
farewell to ministers and parliaments, whether new or old.

I am only sorry such an accident has happened towards the close of a war,
when it is chiefly the interest of those gentlemen who have posts in the
army, to behave themselves in such a manner as might encourage the
legislature to make some provision for them, when there will be no further
need of their services. They are to consider themselves as persons by
their educations unqualified for many other stations of life. Their
fortunes will not suffer them to retain to a party after its fall, nor
have they weight or abilities to help towards its resurrection. Their
future dependence is wholly upon the prince and Parliament, to which they
will never make their way, by solemn execrations of the ministry; a
ministry of the Qu[een]’s own election, and fully answering the wishes of
her people. This unhappy step in some of their brethren, may pass for an
uncontrollable argument, that politics are not their business or their
element. The fortune of war hath raised several persons up to swelling
titles, and great commands over numbers of men, which they are too apt to
transfer along with them into civil life, and appear in all companies as
if it were at the head of their regiments, with a sort of deportment that
ought to have been dropt behind, in that short passage to Harwich. It puts
me in mind of a dialogue in Lucian,[11] where Charon wafting one of their
predecessors over Styx, ordered him to strip off his armour and fine
clothes, yet still thought him too heavy; “But” (said he) “put off
likewise that pride and presumption, those high-swelling words, and that
vain-glory;” because they were of no use on the other side the water. Thus
if all that array of military grandeur were confined to the proper scene,
it would be much more for the interest of the owners, and less offensive
to their fellow subjects.[12]

[Footnote: 1: No. 20 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, “Metamorphoses,” xiii. 353:

[Footnote 3: A.D. 1093. See Matthew Paris. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Lord Campbell, in his “Lives of the Chancellors” (vol. iv.,
p. 322), states that Marlborough, in order to increase the confidence of
the allies, proposed “he should receive a patent as commander-in-chief for
life.” On consulting with Lord Chancellor Cowper he was told that such a
proceeding would be unconstitutional. Marlborough, however, petitioned the
Queen, who rejected his application. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Aemilius Paulus, the celebrated Roman general, and conqueror
of Macedonia, was twice consul, and died B.C. 160. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Scipio Africanus, the greatest of Roman generals and the
conqueror of Carthage, who died c. B.C. 184. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Julius Caesar “applied to the Senate to be exempted from the
usual law, and to become a candidate in his absence” (“Dict. of Greek and
Roman Biog.”). This was strongly opposed; so that to be a candidate it was
necessary for him “to solicit after the custom of his ancestors.” [T.S.]

The “Examiner” seems to allude to the remarkable, and, to say the least,
imprudent, article in “The Tatler,” No. 37. Such a passage, published by
so warm an adherent of Marlborough as Steele, gives credit to Macpherson’s
assertion, that there really was some intention of maintaining the Duke in
power, by his influence in the army. It is even affirmed, that under
pretence his commission under the great seal could not be superseded by
the Queen’s order of dismissal, it was designed that he should assemble
the troops which were in town, and secure the court and capital. To
prevent which, his commission was superseded by another under the great
seal being issued as speedily as possible. The industrious editor of “The
Tatler,” in 1786, is of opinion, that the article was written by Addison;
but the violent counsels which it intimates seem less congenial to his
character than to that of Steele, a less reflecting man, and bred a
soldier. It is worthy of notice, that the passage is cancelled in all
subsequent editions of “The Tatler,” till restored from the original folio
in that of 1786. This evidently implies Steele’s own sense, that more was
meant than met the ear; and it affords a presumptive proof, that very
violent measures had at least been proposed, if not agreed upon, by some
of Marlborough’s adherents. [S.]]

[Footnote 8: General Ireton and Colonel Pride placed guards outside the
entrances to the House of Commons “that none might be permitted to pass
into the House but such as had continued faithful to the public interest”
(Ludlow’s “Memoirs,” vol. i., p. 270). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The judges of the field, in a formal duel, whose duty it was
to interfere when the rules of judicial combat were violated, were called
sticklers, from the wooden truncheons which they held in their hands.
Hence the verb to stickle. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: In his “Journal to Stella” Swift writes, under date December
13th, 1710: “You hear the havoc making in the army: Meredyth, Macartney,
and Col. Honeywood, are obliged to sell their commands at half value, and
leave the army, for drinking destruction to the present ministry,” etc.
(see vol. ii., p. 71, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: “Dialogues of the Dead. X. Charon, Hermes, and a number of
Ghosts.” Hermes required Lampichus to leave behind him his pride, folly,
insolence, etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Of this paper “The Medley,” No. 14 (January 1st, 1710 [sic]),
says: “He not only writes whatever he believes or knows to be false, but
plainly shows ’tis his business and duty to do so, and that this alone is
the merit of his service.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 22.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 21, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 28, 1710.[2]

Whoever is a true lover of our constitution, must needs be pleased to see
what successful endeavours are daily made to restore it in every branch to
its ancient form, from the languishing condition it hath long lain in, and
with such deadly symptoms.

I have already handled some abuses during the late management, and shall
in convenient time go on with the rest. Hitherto I have confined myself to
those of the State; but with the good leave of those who think it a matter
of small moment, I shall now take liberty to say something of the
Church.[4]

For several years past, there hath not I think in Europe, been any society
of men upon so unhappy a foot, as the clergy of England, nor more hardly
treated, by those very persons from whom they deserved much better
quarter, and in whose power they chiefly had put it to use them so ill. I
would not willingly misrepresent facts; but I think it generally allowed
by enemies and friends, that the bold and brave defences made before the
Revolution against those many invasions of our rights, proceeded
principally from the clergy; who are likewise known to have rejected all
advances made them to close with the measures at that time concerting;
while the Dissenters, to gratify their ambition and revenge, fell into the
basest compliances with the court, approved of all proceedings by their
numerous and fulsome addresses, and took employments and commissions by
virtue of the dispensing power, against the direct laws of the land.[5]
All this is so true, that if ever the Pretender comes in, they will, next
to those of his own religion, have the fairest claim and pretensions to
his favour, from their merit and eminent services to his supposed father,
who, without such encouragement, would probably never have been misled to
go the lengths he did. It should likewise be remembered to the everlasting
honour of the London divines, that in those dangerous times, they writ and
published the best collection of arguments against Popery, that ever
appeared in the world. At the Revolution, the body of the clergy joined
heartily in the common cause (except a few, whose sufferings perhaps have
atoned for their mistakes) like men who are content to go about, for
avoiding a gulf or a precipice, but come into the old straight road again
as soon as they can. But another temper had now begun to prevail. For as
in the reign of K. Charles the First, several well-meaning people were
ready to join in reforming some abuses; while others who had deeper
designs, were still calling out for a thorough reformation, which ended at
last in the ruin of the kingdom; so after the late king’s coming to the
throne, there was a restless cry from men of the same principles, for a
thorough revolution, which as some were carrying it on, must have ended in
the destruction of the Monarchy and Church.

What a violent humour hath run ever since against the clergy, and from
what corner spread and fomented, is, I believe, manifest to all men. It
looked like a set quarrel against Christianity, and if we call to mind
several of the leaders, it must in a great measure have been actually so.
Nothing was more common in writing and conversation, than to hear that
reverend body charged in gross with what was utterly inconsistent:
despised for their poverty, hated for their riches; reproached with
avarice, and taxed with luxury; accused for promoting arbitrary power, and
resisting the prerogative; censured for their pride, and scorned for their
meanness of spirit. The representatives of the lower clergy railed at for
disputing the power of the bishops, by the known abhorrers of episcopacy;
and abused for doing nothing in their convocations, by those very men who
helped to bind up their hands. The vice, the folly, the ignorance of every
single man, were laid upon the character; their jurisdiction, censures and
discipline trampled under foot, yet mighty complaints against their
excessive power.[6] The men of wit employed to turn the priesthood itself
into ridicule. In short, groaning every where under the weight of poverty,
oppression, contempt and obloquy. A fair return for the time and money
spent in their education to fit them for the service of the Altar; and a
fair encouragement for worthy men to come into the Church. However, it may
be some comfort for persons of that holy function, that their Divine
Founder as well as His harbinger, met with the like reception. “John came
neither eating nor drinking, and they say he hath a devil; the Son of Man
came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a glutton and a
wine-bibber, &c.”

In this deplorable state of the clergy, nothing but the hand of
Providence, working by its glorious instrument, the QUEEN, could have been
able to turn the people’s hearts so surprisingly in their favour. This
Princess, destined for the safety of Europe, and a blessing to her
subjects, began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church;[7] and
it was hoped the nation would have followed such an example, which nothing
could have prevented, but the false politics of a set of men, who form
their maxims upon those of every tottering commonwealth, which is always
struggling for life, subsisting by expedients, and often at the mercy of
any powerful neighbour. These men take it into their imagination, that
trade can never flourish unless the country becomes a common receptacle
for all nations, religions and languages; a system only proper for small
popular states, but altogether unworthy, and below the dignity of an
imperial crown; which with us is best upheld by a monarch in possession of
his just prerogative, a senate of nobles and of commons, and a clergy
established in its due rights with a suitable maintenance by law. But
these men come with the spirit of shopkeepers to frame rules for the
administration of kingdoms; or, as if they thought the whole art of
government consisted in the importation of nutmegs, and the curing of
herrings. Such an island as ours can afford enough to support the majesty
of a crown, the honour of a nobility, and the dignity of a magistracy; we
can encourage arts and sciences, maintain our bishops and clergy, and
suffer our gentry to live in a decent, hospitable manner; yet still there
will remain hands sufficient for trade and manufactures, which do always
indeed deserve the best encouragement, but not to a degree of sending
every living soul into the warehouse or the workhouse.

This pedantry of republican politics hath done infinite mischief among us.
To this we owe those noble schemes of treating Christianity as a system of
speculative opinions, which no man should be bound to believe; of making
the being and the worship of God, a creature of the state. In consequence
of these, that the teachers of religion ought to hold their maintenance at
pleasure, or live by the alms and charitable collection of the people, and
be equally encouraged of all opinions: that they should be prescribed what
to teach, by those who are to learn from them; and, upon default, have a
staff and a pair of shoes left at their door;[8] with many other projects
of equal piety, wisdom, and good nature.

But, God be thanked, they and their schemes are vanished, and “their
places shall know them no more.” When I think of that inundation of
atheism, infidelity, profaneness and licentiousness which were like to
overwhelm us, from what mouths and hearts it first proceeded, and how the
people joined with the Queen’s endeavours to divert this flood, I cannot
but reflect on that remarkable passage in the Revelation,[9] where “the
serpent with seven heads cast out of his mouth water after the woman like
a flood, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood: But the
earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up
the flood which the dragon had cast out of his mouth.” For the Queen
having changed her ministry suitable to her own wisdom, and the wishes of
her subjects, and having called a free Parliament; at the same time
summoned the convocation, by her royal writ,[10] “as in all times had been
accustomed,” and soon after their meeting, sent a most gracious letter[11]
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be communicated to the bishops and
clergy of his province; taking notice of “the loose and profane principles
which had been openly scattered and propagated among her subjects: that
the consultations of the clergy were particularly requisite to repress and
prevent such daring attempts, for which her subjects, from all parts of
the kingdom, have shown their just abhorrence. She hopes, the endeavours
of the clergy, in this respect, will not be unsuccessful; and for her
part, is ready to give them all fit encouragement, to proceed in the
dispatch of such business as properly belongs to them; and to grant them
powers requisite to carry on so good a work.” In conclusion, “earnestly
recommending to them, to avoid disputes, and determining to do all that in
her lies to compose and extinguish them.”

It is to be hoped, that this last part of her Majesty’s letter, will be
the first she will please to execute; for, it seems, this very letter
created the first dispute.[12] The fact whereof is thus related: The Upper
House having formed an address to the QUEEN, before they received her
Majesty’s letter, sent both address and letter together, to the Lower
House, with a message, excusing their not mentioning the letter in the
address, because this was formed before the other was received:[l3] The
Lower House returned them, with a desire, that an address might be formed,
with due regard and acknowledgments for the letter. After some
difficulties, the same address was sent down again with a clause inserted,
making some short mention of the said letter. This the Lower House did not
think sufficient, and sent it back again with the same request: whereupon
the archbishop, after a short consultation with some of his
brethren, immediately adjourned the convocation for a month, and no
address at all was sent to the QUEEN.

I understand not ecclesiastical affairs well enough to comment upon this
matter;[14] but it seems to me, that all methods of doing service to the
Church and kingdom, by means of a convocation, may be at any time eluded,
if there be no remedy against such an incident. And if this proceeding be
agreeable to the institution, spiritual assemblies must needs be strangely
contrived, very different from any lay senate yet known in the world.
Surely, from the nature of such a synod, it must be a very unhappy
circumstance, when the majority of the bishops draws one way, and that of
the lower clergy another. The latter, I think, are not at this time
suspected for any principles bordering upon those professed by enemies to
episcopacy; and if they happen to differ from the greater part of the
present set of bishops, I doubt it will call some things to mind, that may
turn the scale of general favour on the inferior clergy’s side, who with a
profound duty to her Majesty, are perfectly pleased with the present turn
of affairs. Besides, curious people will be apt to enquire into the dates
of some promotions, to call to mind what designs were then upon the anvil,
and from thence make malicious deductions. Perhaps they will observe the
manner of voting on the bishops’ bench, and compare it with what shall
pass in the upper house of convocation. There is, however, one comfort,
that under the present dispositions of the kingdom, a dislike to the
proceedings of any of their lordships, even to the number of a majority,
will be purely personal, and not turned to the disadvantage of the order.
And for my part, as I am a true lover of the Church, I had rather find the
inclinations of the people favourable to episcopacy in general, than see a
majority of prelates cried up by those who are known enemies to the
character. Nor, indeed, hath anything given me more offence for several
years past, than to observe how some of that bench have been caressed by
certain persons; and others of them openly celebrated by the infamous pens
of atheists, republicans and fanatics.

Time and mortality can only remedy these inconveniencies in the Church,
which are not to be cured like those in the State, by a change of
ministry. If we may guess the temper of a convocation, from the choice of
a prolocutor,[15] as it is usual to do that of a House of Commons by the
speaker, we may expect great things from that reverend body, who have done
themselves much reputation, by pitching upon a gentleman of so much piety,
wit and learning, for that office; and one who is so thoroughly versed in
those parts of knowledge which are proper for it. I am sorry that the
three Latin speeches, delivered upon presenting the prolocutor, were not
made public;[16] they might perhaps have given us some light into the
dispositions of each house: and besides, one of them is said to be so
peculiar in the style and matter, as might have made up in entertainment
what it wanted in instruction.

[Footnote 1: No. 21 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Under date January 1st, 1710/1, Swift writes to Stella: “Get
the ‘Examiners,’ and read them; the last nine or ten are full of the
reasons for the late change, and of the abuses of the last ministry; and
the great men assure me they are all true. They are written by their
encouragement and direction” (vol. ii., p. 88, of present edition).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3:

[Footnote 4: A pamphlet, ascribed to W. Wotton, was issued in reply to
this paper. It was entitled, “The Case of the Present Convocation
Consider’d; In Answer to the Examiner’s Unfair Representation of it, and
Unjust Reflections upon it.” 1711.]

[Footnote 5: The Dissenters were at first disposed to make common cause
with the Catholics in favour of the dispensing power claimed by James II.;
and an address from the Presbyterians went so far as to praise the king
for having “restored to God His empire over conscience.” [S.]]

[Footnote 6: “The Case etc. Consider’d,” remarks: “The boldest, and the
most insolent book of that sort, is the ‘Rights of the Church’ … Yet how
long was Dr. T[inda]ll, then Fellow of All Souls, suffered at Oxford after
the ‘Rights’ appeared?” Dr. Matthew Tindal, author of “The Rights of the
Christian Church” (1706), was a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, from
1678 till his death in 1733. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “At this time [February, 1703/4] Queen Anne gave up the first-fruits
and tenths, which had long been possessed by the crown, to be
appropriated to a fund for the increase of small livings. This fund is
known as Queen Anne’s Bounty” (Lathbury’s “Hist. of Convocation,” second
edition, p. 386). The Queen’s Message to Parliament was dated February
7th, 1703/4, and the Bill was introduced February 17th, and received the
royal assent April 3rd, 1704. See also Swift’s “Answer” in the following
number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A hint to withdraw. [T.S.] This is said to have been the mode
in which the governors of a Dutch province were wont to give intimation to
those who intermeddled with state affairs, that they would do wisely to
withdraw themselves from the state. [S.]]

[Footnote 9: Swift notices his own misquotation in the succeeding number (q.v.).
See a further reference to the subject in No. 26. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Convocation was assembled on November 25th, and the Latin
sermon preached by Kennet. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Queen Anne’s letter was printed in “The Daily Courant” for
December 19th. It is dated December 12th, and says: “It is with great
grief of heart we observe the scandalous attempts which of late years have
been made to infect the minds of our good subjects by loose and profane
principles openly scattered and propagated among them. We think the
consultations of the clergy particularly requisite to repress these daring
attempts and to prevent the like for the future. The just abhorrence that
our subjects from all parts of the kingdom have expressed of such wicked
principles and their abettors, give us good ground to hope that the
endeavours of the clergy in this respect will not be unsuccessful. For our
part we are ready to give them all fitting encouragement to proceed in the
dispatch of such business as properly belongs to them, and to grant them
such powers as shall be thought requisite,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: The Queen’s letter was intended to put an end to disputes in
Convocation. She expressed her hope that her royal intentions would not be
frustrated “by any unseasonable disputes between the two Houses of
Convocation about unnecessary forms and methods of proceeding.” She
earnestly recommended that such disputes might cease. The bishops prepared
an address, but the Lower House insisted “on the enlarging the fourth
paragraph, and upon answering the several heads of the Queen’s letter”
(Chamberlen’s “History of Queen Anne,” p. 365, and “Daily Courant,” Dec.
19th). The real reason for the disputes between the two Houses at this
time lay in the fact that the Upper House, owing to Tenison’s influence,
was largely Low Church in sympathy, whereas the Lower House, with
Atterbury as its leader, was of the High Church party. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Dr. Smalridge (1662-1719) called for the Queen’s letter to
be read. The Archbishop prorogued Convocation for two days, and then again
until January 17th. An address to the Queen was presented on January 26th
(Lathbury’s “History of Convocation,” second edition, p. 407). Smalridge
was Dean of Carlisle, 1711-13, and Bishop of Bristol, 1714-19. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: “The Case etc. Consider’d” quotes on the title-page: “Jude
10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: “Dr. Atterbury, in preference to Dr. Kennet, was chosen
prolocutor by a great majority.”—TINDAL, iv. 206. [T.S.]]

Footnote 16: The Latin speeches were made on December 6th, when the
prolocutor was presented to the Archbishop, by Dr. Smalridge, Atterbury,
and Tenison. The one speech to which Swift refers may have been Tenison’s,
whose style was fairly dull. [T.S.]

NUMB. 23.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 28, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 4, 1710.[2]

Nullae sunt occultiores insidiae, quam eae quae latent in simulatione
officii, aut in aliquo necessitudinis nomine.[3]

The following answer is written in the true style, and with the usual
candour of such pieces; which I have imitated to the best of my skill, and
doubt not but the reader will be extremely satisfied with it.

The Examiner cross-examined, or, A full Answer to the last Examiner.

If I durst be so bold with this author, I would gladly ask him a familiar
question; Pray, Sir, who made you an Examiner? He talks in one of his
insipid papers, of eight or nine thousand corruptions,[4] while we
were at the head of affairs, yet, in all this time, he has hardly produced
fifty:

Parturiunt montes, &c.[5]

But I shall confine myself, at present, to his last paper. He tells us,
“The Queen began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church.” Here’s
priestcraft with a witness; this is the constant language of your
highfliers, to call those who are hired to teach the religion of the
magistrate by the name of the Church.[6] But this is not all; for, in
the very next line he says, “It was hoped the nation would have followed
this example.” You see the faction begins already to speak out; this is an
open demand for the abbey-lands; this furious zealot would have us
priest-ridden again, like our popish ancestors: but, it is to be hoped the
government will take timely care to suppress such audacious attempts, else
we have spent so much blood and treasure to very little purpose, in
maintaining religion and Revolution. But what can we expect from a man,
who at one blow endeavours to ruin our trade? “A country” (says he) “may
flourish” (these are his own words) “without being the common receptacle
for all nations, religions, and languages.” What! We must immediately
banish or murder the Palatines; forbid all foreign merchants, not only the
Exchange, but the kingdom; persecute the Dissenters with fire and faggot,
and make it high-treason to speak any other tongue but English. In another
place he talks of a “serpent with seven heads,” which is a manifest
corruption of the text; for the words “seven heads” are not
mentioned in that verse.[7] However, we know what serpent he would mean; a
serpent with fourteen legs; or, indeed, no serpent at all, but seven great
men, who were the best ministers, the truest Protestants, and the most
disinterested patriots that ever served a prince.[8] But nothing is so
inconsistent as this writer; I know not whether to call him a Whig or a
Tory, a Protestant or a Papist; he finds fault with convocations; says,
“they are assemblies strangely contrived;” and yet lays the fault upon us,
that we bound their hands: I wish we could have bound their tongues too;
but as fast as their hands were bound, they could make a shift to hold
their pens, and have their share in the guilt of ruining the hopefullest
party and ministry that ever prescribed to a crown. This captious
gentleman is angry to “see a majority of prelates cried up by those who
are enemies to the character”; now I always thought, that the concessions
of enemies were more to a man’s advantage than the praise of his friends.
“Time and mortality,” he says, “can only remedy these inconveniencies in
the Church.” That is, in other words, when certain bishops are dead, we
shall have others of our own stamp. Not so fast; you are not yet so sure
of your game. We have already got one comfortable loss in Spain, though by
a G[enera]l of our own.[9] For joy of which, our J[un]to had a merry
meeting at the house of their great proselyte, on the very day we received
the happy news. One or two more such blows would, perhaps, set us right
again, and then we can employ “mortality” as well as others. He concludes
with wishing, that “three letters, spoke when the prolocutor was
presented, were made public.” I suppose he would be content with one, and
that is more than we shall humour him to grant. However, I hope he will
allow it possible to have grace, without either eloquence or Latin, which
is all I shall say to his malicious innuendo.

Having thus, I hope, given a full and satisfactory answer to the
Examiner’s last paper, I shall now go on to a more important affair; which
is, to prove, by several undeniable instances, that the late m[inist]ry,
and their abettors, were true friends to the Church. It is yet, I confess,
a secret to the clergy, wherein this friendship did consist. For
information therefore of that reverend body, that they may never forget
their benefactors, as well as of all others who may be equally ignorant, I
have determined to display our merits to the world upon that
weighty article. And I could wish, that what I am to say were to be
written in brass, for an eternal memorial; the rather, because for the
future, the Church must endeavour to stand unsupported by those patrons,
who expired in doing it their last good office, and will never rise to
preserve it any more.

Let us therefore produce the pious endeavours of these church-defenders,
who were its patrons by their power and authority, as well as ornaments of
it by their exemplary lives.

First, St. Paul tells us, “there must be heresies in the Church, that the
truth may be manifest”; and therefore, by due course of reasoning, the
more heresies there are, the more manifest will the truth be made. This
being maturely considered by these lovers of the Church, they endeavoured
to propagate as many heresies as they could, that the light of truth might
shine the clearer.

Secondly, To shew their zeal for the Church’s defence, they took the care
of it entirely out of the hands of God Almighty (because that was a
foreign jurisdiction) and made it their own creature, depending altogether
upon them; and issued out their orders to Tindal, and others, to give
public notice of it.

Thirdly, Because charity is the most celebrated of all Christian virtues,
therefore they extended theirs beyond all bounds; and instead of shutting
the Church against Dissenters, were ready to open it to all comers, and
break down its walls, rather than that any should want room to enter. The
strength of a state, we know, consists in the number of people, how
different soever in their callings; and why should not the strength of a
Church consist in the same, how different soever in their creeds? For that
reason, they charitably attempted to abolish the test, which tied up so
many hands from getting employments, in order to protect the Church.

I know very well that this attempt is objected to us as a crime, by
several malignant Tories, and denied as a slander by many unthinking
people among ourselves. The latter are apt in their defence to ask such
questions as these; Was your test repealed?[10] Had we not a majority?
Might we not have done it if we pleased? To which the others answer, You
did what you could; you prepared the way, but you found a fatal impediment
from that quarter, whence the sanction of the law must come, and therefore
to save your credit, you condemned a paper to be burnt which yourselves
had brought in.[11] But alas! the miscarriage of that noble project for
the safety of the Church, had another original; the knowledge whereof
depends upon a piece of secret history that I shall now lay open.

These church-protectors had directed a Presbyterian preacher to draw up a
bill for repealing the test; it was accordingly done with great art, and
in the preamble, several expressions of civility to the established
Church; and when it came to the qualifications of all those who were to
enter on any office, the compiler had taken special care to make them
large enough for all Christians whatsoever, by transcribing the very words
(only formed into an oath) which Quakers are obliged to profess by a
former Act of Parliament; as I shall here set them down.[12] “I A.B.
profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the
true God, and in the Holy Spirit one God blessed for evermore; and do
acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given
by divine inspiration.” This bill was carried to the chief leaders for
their approbation, with these terrible words turned into an oath: What
should they do? Those few among them who fancied they believed in God,
were sure they did not believe in Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or one
syllable of the Bible; and they were as sure that every body knew their
opinion in those matters, which indeed they had been always too sincere to
disguise; how therefore could they take such an oath as that, without
ruining their reputation with Tindal, Toland,[13] Coward,[14] Collins,
Clendon,[15] and all the tribe of free-thinkers, and so give a scandal to
weak unbelievers. Upon this nice point of honour and conscience the matter
was hushed, the project for repealing the test let fall, and the Sacrament
left as the smaller evil of the two.

Fourthly, These pillars of the Church, because “the harvest was great, and
the labourers few,” and because they would ease the bishops from that
grievous trouble of laying on hands: were willing to allow that power to
all men whatsoever, to prevent that terrible consequence of unchurching
those, who thought a hand from under a cloak as effectual as from
lawn-sleeves. And indeed, what could more contribute to the advancement of
true religion, than a bill of general naturalization for priesthood?

Fifthly, In order to fix religion in the minds of men, because truth never
appears so fair as when confronted with falsehood; they directed books to
be published, that denied the being of a God, the divinity of the Second
and Third Person, the truth of all revelation, and the immortality of the
soul. To this we owe that great sense of religion, that respect and
kindness to the clergy, and that true love of virtue so manifest of late
years among the youth of our nation. Nor could anything be more discreet,
than to leave the merits of each cause to such wise impartial judges, who
might otherwise fall under the slavery of believing by education and
prejudice.

Sixthly, Because nothing so much distracts the thoughts, as too great a
variety of subjects; therefore they had kindly prepared a bill, to
prescribe the clergy what subjects they should preach upon, and in what
manner, that they might be at no loss; and this no doubt, was a proper
work for such hands, so thoroughly versed in the theory and practice of
all Christian duties.

Seventhly, To save trouble and expense to the clergy, they contrived that
convocations should meet as seldom as possible; and when they were
suffered to assemble, would never allow them to meddle with any business;
because they said, the office of a clergyman was enough to take up the
whole man. For the same reason they were very desirous to excuse the
bishops from sitting in Parliament, that they might be at more leisure to
stay at home and look after their clergy.

I shall mention at present but one more instance of their pious zeal for
the Church. They had somewhere heard the maxim, that Sanguis martyrum
est semen ecclesiae;[16] therefore in order to sow this seed, they
began with impeaching a clergyman: and that it might be a true martyrdom
in every circumstance, they proceeded as much as possible against common
law,[17] which the long-robe part of the managers knew was in a hundred
instances directly contrary to all their positions, and were sufficiently
warned of it beforehand; but their love of the Church prevailed. Neither
was this impeachment an affair taken up on a sudden. For, a certain great
person (whose Character has been lately published by some stupid and lying
writer)[18] who very much distinguished himself by his zeal in forwarding
this impeachment, had several years ago endeavoured to persuade the late
King to give way to just such another attempt. He told his Majesty, there
was a certain clergyman preached very dangerous sermons, and that the only
way to put a stop to such insolence, was to impeach him in Parliament. The
King enquired the character of the man; “O, sir,” said my lord, “the most
violent, hot, positive fellow in England; so extremely wilful, that I
believe he would be heartily glad to be a martyr.” The King answered, “Is
it so? Then I am resolved to disappoint him”; and would never hear more of
the matter; by which that hopeful project unhappily miscarried.

I have hitherto confined myself to those endeavours for the good of the
Church, which were common to all the leaders and principal men of our
party; but if my paper were not drawing towards an end, I could produce
several instances of particular persons, who by their exemplary lives and
actions have confirmed the character so justly due to the whole body. I
shall at present mention only two, and illustrate the merits of each by a
matter of fact.

That worthy patriot, and true lover of the Church, whom the late
“Examiner” is supposed to reflect on under the name of Verres,[19] felt a
pious impulse to be a benefactor to the Cathedral of Gloucester, but how
to do it in the most decent, generous manner, was the question. At last he
thought of an expedient: One morning or night he stole into the Church,
mounted upon the altar, and there did that which in cleanly phrase is
called disburthening of nature: He was discovered, prosecuted, and
condemned to pay a thousand pounds, which sum was all employed to support
the Church, as, no doubt, the benefactor meant it.

There is another person whom the same writer is thought to point at under
the name of Will Bigamy.[20] This gentleman, knowing that marriage fees
were a considerable perquisite to the clergy, found out a way of improving
them cent. per cent. for the good of the Church. His invention was
to marry a second wife while the first was alive, convincing her of the
lawfulness by such arguments, as he did not doubt would make others follow
the same example: These he had drawn up in writing with intention to
publish for the general good; and it is hoped he may now have leisure to
finish them.[21]

[Footnote 1: No. 22 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I. e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, “in Verrem,” II. i. 15: “There are no intrigues more
difficult to guard against than those which are concealed under a pretence
of duty, or under the name of some intimate connexion.”—C.D. YONGE.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See No. 19, ante (not quoted correctly). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Horace, “Ars Poetica,” 139:

“The mountains laboured with prodigious throes.”—P. FRANCIS. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: See No. 22, ante. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The serpent, or dragon, is said to have seven heads in an
earlier verse of the same chapter. See Rev. xii., 3, 9, 15. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Earl of Sunderland and Henry Boyle (Secretaries of
State), Earl of Godolphin (Lord Treasurer), Lord Somers (President of the
Council), Lord Cowper (Lord Chancellor), Duke of Marlborough (Captain
General), and Horatio Walpole (Secretary of War). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: General Stanhope, at Brihuega, was surprised and compelled to
surrender on December 9th, 1710. Oldmixon’s “Sequel” (p. 452) remarks:
“The misfortune which happened to General Stanhope at Brihuega, where he
was surrounded by the French and Spanish, armies, and after a most gallant
defence, obliged to surrender himself with several English battalions
prisoners of war, was some relief to high-church; … they did not stick
to rejoice at it.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Test Act was passed in 1672 and repealed only in 1828.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This paper was a pamphlet by Charles Leslie, published
October, 1708, which was condemned to be burnt by the House of Commons in
January, 1709/10. It was entitled, “A Letter from a Gentleman in Scotland
to his Friend in England, against the Sacramental Test.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: This declaration was prescribed by the Act I William and
Mary, c. 18, s. 13. It was repealed in 1871. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: John Toland, author of “Christianity not Mysterious” (1696)
and other works. See note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: William Coward (1656-1725), physician, was the author of
“Second Thoughts Concerning Human Soul” (1702), and “The Grand Essay; or A
Vindication of Reason and Religion” (1703/4). Both these works were
ordered by the House of Commons to be burnt, March 17th, 1703/4. See also
note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: John Clendon was the author of “A Treatise of the Word
Person” (17-09/10) which the House of Commons ordered to be burnt, March
24, 17-09/10. See also note on p. 185 of vol. iii. of present edition.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: For preaching a sermon at St. Paul’s on “Perils from false
brethren” (November 5th, 1709), Dr. Sacheverell was, on the complaint of
Mr. Dolben (December 13th), impeached in the House of Commons on December
14th, 1709, and in the House of Lords on December 15th. The sermon was
printed and widely circulated, and Sacheverell received for it the thanks
of the Lord Mayor. Mr. Dolben objected to Godolphin being referred to as
Volpone. Out of this arose the famous Sacheverell trial, so disastrous in
its effect on the Whig ministry. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: Lord Wharton. See vol. v., pp. 1-28 of present edition of
Swift’s Works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: Lord Wharton. But see correction in No. 25, post.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: See previous note on Lord Cowper. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: Cowper was at this time out of office. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 24.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 4, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 11, 1710.[2]

Bellum ita suscipiatur, ut nihil aliud nisi Pax quaesita videatur.[3]

I am satisfied, that no reasonable man of either party, can justly be
offended at any thing I said in one of my papers relating to the Army;[4]
from the maxims I there laid down, perhaps many persons may conclude, that
I had a mind the world should think, there had been occasion given by some
late abuses among men of that calling; and they conclude right. For my
intention is, that my hints may be understood, and my quotations and
allegories applied; and I am in some pain to think, that in the Orcades on
one side, and the western coasts of Ireland on the other, the “Examiner”
may want a key in several parts, which I wish I could furnish them with.
As for the French king, I am under no concern at all; I hear he has left
off reading my papers, and by what he has found in them, dislikes our
proceedings more than ever, and intends either to make great additions to
his armies, or propose new terms for a peace: So false is that which is
commonly reported, of his mighty satisfaction in our change of ministry:
And I think it clear that his late letter of “Thanks to the Tories of
Great Britain,”[5] must either have been extorted from him against his
judgment, or was a cast of his politics to set the people against the
present ministry, wherein it has wonderfully succeeded.

But though I have never heard, or never regarded any objections made
against that paper, which mentions the army; yet I intended this as a sort
of apology for it. And first, I declare, (because we live in a mistaking
world) that in hinting at some proceedings, wherein a few persons are said
to be concerned, I did not intend to charge them upon the body of the
army. I have too much detested that barbarous injustice among the writers
of a late party, to be ever guilty of it myself; I mean the accusing
societies for the crimes of a few. On the other side, I must take leave to
believe, that armies are no more exempt from corruptions than other
numbers of men. The maxims proposed were occasionally introduced by the
report of certain facts, which I am bound to believe is true, because I am
sure, considering what has passed, it would be a crime to think otherwise.
All posts in the army, all employments at court, and many others, are (or
ought to be) given and resumed at the mere pleasure of the prince; yet
when I see a great officer broke, a change made in the court or the
ministry, and this under the most just and gracious Princess that ever
reigned, I must naturally conclude it is done upon prudent considerations,
and for some great demerit in the sufferers. But then; is not the
punishment sufficient? Is it generous or charitable to trample on the
unfortunate, and expose their faults to the world in the strongest
colours? And would it not suit better with magnanimity as well as common
good-nature, to leave them at quiet to their own thoughts and repentance?
Yes without question, provided it could be so contrived that their very
names, as well as actions, might be forgotten for ever; such an act
of oblivion would be for the honour of our nation, and beget a better
opinion of us with posterity; and then I might have spared the world and
myself the trouble of examining. But at present, there is a cruel
dilemma in the case: The friends and abettors of the late ministry are
every day publishing their praises to the world, and casting reflections
upon the present persons in power. This is so barefaced an aspersion upon
the Q[ueen], that I know not how any good subject can with patience endure
it, though he were ever so indifferent with regard to the opinions in
dispute. Shall they who have lost all power and love of the people, be
allowed to scatter their poison; and shall not those, who are, at least,
of the strongest side, be suffered to bring an antidote? And how can we
undeceive the deluded remainder, but by letting them see, that those
discarded statesmen were justly laid aside, and producing as many
instances to prove it as we can? not from any personal hatred to them, but
in justification to the best of queens. The many scurrilities I have heard
and read against this poor paper of mine, are in such a strain, that
considering the present state of affairs, they look like a jest. They
usually run after the following manner: “What? shall this insolent writer
presume to censure the late ministry, the ablest, the most faithful, and
truest lovers of their country, and its constitution that ever served a
prince? Shall he reflect on the best H[ouse] of C[ommons] that ever sat
within those walls? Has not the Queen changed both for a ministry and
Parliament of Jacobites and highfliers, who are selling us to France, and
bringing over the Pretender?” This is the very sum and force of all their
reasonings, and this their method of complaining against the “Examiner.”
In them it is humble and loyal to reflect upon the Q[ueen] and the
ministry, and Parliament she has chosen with the universal applause of her
people; in us it is insolent to defend her Majesty and her choice,
or to answer their objections, by shewing the reasons why those changes
were necessary.

The same style has been used in the late case relating to some gentlemen
in the army;[6] such a clamour was raised by a set of men, who had the
boldness to tax the administration with cruelty and injustice, that I
thought it necessary to interfere a little, by shewing the ill
consequences that might arise from some proceedings, though without
application to particular persons. And what do they offer in answer?
Nothing but a few poor common-places against calumny and informers, which
might have been full as just and seasonable in a plot against the sacred
person of the Q[ueen].

But, by the way; why are these idle people so indiscreet to name those two
words, which afford occasion of laying open to the world such an infamous
scene of subornation and perjury, as well as calumny and informing, as I
believe is without example: when a whole cabal attempted an action,
wherein a condemned criminal refused to join with them for the reward of
his life?[7] Not that I disapprove their sagacity, who could foretell so
long before, by what hand they should one day fall, and therefore thought
any means justifiable by which they might prevent it.

But waiving this at present, it must be owned in justice to the army, that
those violences did not proceed so far among them as some have believed;
nor ought the madness of a few to be laid at their doors. For the rest, I
am so far from denying the due praises to those victorious troops, who did
their part in procuring so many victories for the allies, that I could
wish every officer and private soldier had their full share of honour in
proportion to their deserts; being thus far of the Athenians’ mind, who
when it was proposed that the statue of Miltiades should be set up alone
in some public place of the city, said they would agree to it, whenever
he conquered alone, but not before. Neither do I at all blame the
officers of the army, for preferring in their hearts the late ministry
before the present; or, if wishing alone could be of any use, to wish
their continuance, because then they might be secure of the war’s
continuance too: whereas, since affairs have been put into other hands,
they may perhaps lie under some apprehensions of a peace, which no army,
especially in a course of success, was ever inclined to, and which all
wise states have in such a juncture, chiefly endeavoured. This is a point
wherein the civil and military politics have always disagreed. And for
that reason, I affirmed it necessary in all free governments, that the
latter should be absolutely in subjection to the former; otherwise, one of
these two inconveniencies must arise, either to be perpetually in war, or
to turn the civil institution into a military.

I am ready to allow all that has been said of the valour and experience of
our troops, who have fully contributed their part to the great successes
abroad; nor is it their fault, that those important victories had no
better consequences at home, though it may be their advantage. War is
their trade and business: to improve and cultivate the advantages of
success, is an affair of the cabinet; and the neglect of this, whether
proceeding from weakness or corruption, according to the usual uncertainty
of wars, may be of the most fatal consequence to a nation. For, pray let
me represent our condition in such a light, as I believe both parties will
allow, though perhaps not the consequences I shall deduce from it. We have
been for above nine years, blessed with a QUEEN, who besides all virtues
that can enter into the composition of a private person, possesses every
regal quality that can contribute to make a people happy: of great wisdom,
yet ready to receive the advice of her counsellors: of much discernment in
choosing proper instruments, when she follows her own judgment, and only
capable of being deceived by that excess of goodness which makes her judge
of others by herself. Frugal in her management in order to contribute to
the public, which in proportion she does, and that voluntarily, beyond any
of her subjects; but from her own nature, generous and charitable to all
that want or deserve; and in order to exercise those virtues, denying
herself all entertainments of expense which many others enjoy. Then if we
look abroad, at least in Flanders, our arms have been crowned with
perpetual success in battles and sieges, not to mention several fortunate
actions in Spain. These facts being thus stated, which none can deny, it
is natural to ask how we have improved such advantages, and to what
account they have turned? I shall use no discouraging terms. When a
patient grows daily worse by the tampering of mountebanks, there is
nothing left but to call in the best physicians before the case grows
desperate: But I would ask, whether France or any other kingdom, would
have made so little use of such prodigious opportunities, the fruits
whereof could never have fallen to the ground, without the extremist
degree of folly and corruption, and where those have lain, let the world
judge? Instead of aiming at peace, while we had the advantage of the war,
which has been the perpetual maxim of all wise states, it has been
reckoned factious and malignant even to express our wishes for it; and
such a condition imposed, as was never offered to any prince who had an
inch of ground to dispute; Quae enim est conditio pacis; in qua ei cum
quo pacem facias, nihil concedi potest?[8]

It is not obvious to conceive what could move men who sat at home, and
were called to consult upon the good of the kingdom, to be so utterly
averse from putting an end to a long expensive war, which the victorious,
as well as conquered side, were heartily weary of. Few or none of them
were men of the sword; they had no share in the honour; they had made
large fortunes, and were at the head of all affairs. But they well knew by
what tenure they held their power; that the Qu[een] saw through their
designs, that they had entirely lost the hearts of the clergy; that the
landed men were against them; that they were detested by the body of the
people; and that nothing bore them up but their credit with the bank and
other stocks, which would be neither formidable nor necessary when the war
was at an end. For these reasons they resolved to disappoint all overtures
of a peace, till they and their party should be so deeply rooted as to
make it impossible to shake them. To this end, they began to precipitate
matters so fast, as in a little time must have ruined the constitution, if
the crown had not interposed, and rather ventured the accidental effects
of their malice, than such dreadful consequences of their power. And
indeed, had the former danger been greater than some hoped or feared, I
see no difficulty in the choice, which was the same with his, who said,
“he had rather be devoured by wolves than by rats.” I therefore still
insist that we cannot wonder at, or find fault with the army, for
concurring with a ministry who was for prolonging the war. The inclination
is natural in them all, pardonable in those who have not yet made their
fortunes, and as lawful in the rest, as love of power or love of money can
make it. But as natural, as pardonable, and as lawful as this inclination
is, when it is not under check of the civil power, or when a corrupt
ministry joins in giving it too great a scope, the consequence can be
nothing less than infallible ruin and slavery to a state.

After I had finished this Paper, the printer sent me two small pamphlets,
called “The Management of the War,”[9] written with some
plausibility, much artifice, and abundance of misrepresentation, as well
as direct falsehoods in point of fact. These I have thought worth Examining,
which I shall accordingly do when I find an opportunity.

[Footnote 1: No. 23 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, “De Officiis,” i. 23: “In the undertaking of a war
there should be such a prospect, as if the only end of it were peace.”—
SIR R. L’ESTRANGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See “Examiner,” No. 21. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Scott mistakes this as the pretended letter quoted in “The
Medley,” No. 14. Swift refers to a half sheet printed for A. Baldwin in
the latter part of 1710, and entitled: “The French King’s Thanks to the
Tories of Great-Britain.” It was ascribed to Hoadly.

In this print Louis XIV. is made to thank the Tories for “what hath given
me too deep and lasting impressions of respect, and gratitude, ever to be
forgotten. If I should endeavour to recount all the numerous obligations I
have to you, I should not know where to begin, nor where to make an
end…. To you and your predecessors I owe that supineness and negligence
of the English court, which, gave me opportunity and ability to form and
prosecute my designs.” Alluding to William III. he says: “To you I owed
the impotence of his life and the comfort of his death. At that juncture
how vast were my hopes?… But a princess ascended your throne, whom you
seemed to court with some personal fondness … She had a general whom her
predecessor had wrought into the confidence and favour of the Allies….
It is with pleasure I have observed, that every victory he hath obtained
abroad, hath been retrieved by your management at home…. What a figure
have your tumults, your addresses, and the progresses of your Doctor, made
in my Gazettes? What comfort have I received from them?… And with what
impatience do we now wait for that dissolution, with the hopes of which
you have so long flattered us ?… Blessed be the engines, to which so
glorious events are owing. Republican, Antimonarchical, Danger of the
Church, Non-resistance, Hereditary and Divine Right, words of force and
energy!… How great are my obligations to all these!” In a postscript,
King Louis is made to say further: “My Brother of England [i.e. the
Pretender] … thanks you for … your late loyal addresses; your open
avowal in them of that unlimited non-resistance by which he keeps up his
claim,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: “Lieut.-Gen. Meredith, Major-Gen. Macartney, and Brigadier
Honeywood were superseded, upon an information laid before the Q——,
that these three gentlemen had, in their cups, drank Damnation and
Confusion to the new ministry, and to those who had any hand in turning
out of the old.”—TINDAL, iv. 195. See also No. 21 and note, p. 127.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: William Gregg, a clerk in Harley’s office, who was convicted
of a treasonable correspondence with France. See Swift’s “Some Remarks,”
etc., in vol. v., p. 38, of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: “For what condition of peace is that in which nothing is
conceded him with whom you are making peace?” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The two pamphlets referred to were both written by Dr.
Francis Hare, chaplain-general to the Duke of Marlborough, and afterwards
Bishop of Chichester. The first was dated November 23rd, 1710, and was
entitled, “The Management of the War. In a Letter to a Tory-Member.” The
second was called, “The Management of the War. In a Second Letter to a
Tory-Member,” and was dated November 30th, 1710. The pamphlets are again
referred to in the twenty-ninth number of “The Examiner,” where the writer
states that on second thoughts he has decided to deal with them “in a
discourse by itself.” This he did. See note on p. 184. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 25.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 11, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 18, 1710.[2]

Hopes are natural to most men, especially to sanguine complexions, and
among the various changes that happen in the course of public affairs,
they are seldom without some grounds: Even in desperate cases, where it is
impossible they should have any foundation, they are often affected, to
keep a countenance, and make an enemy think we have some resource which
they know nothing of. This appears to have been for some months past the
condition of those people, whom I am forced, for want of other phrases, to
called the ruined party. They have taken up since their fall, some
real, and some pretended hopes. When the E. of S[underlan]d was discarded,
they hoped her M[ajesty] would proceed no farther in the change of
her ministry, and had the insolence to misrepresent her words to foreign
states. They hoped, nobody durst advise the dissolution of the
Parliament. When this was done, and further alterations made at Court,
they hoped and endeavoured to ruin the credit of the nation. They
likewise hoped that we should have some terrible loss abroad, which
would force us to unravel all, and begin again upon their bottom. But, of
all their hopes, whether real or assumed, there is none more
extraordinary than that which they now would seem to place their whole
confidence in: that this great turn of affairs was only occasioned by a
short madness of the people, from which they will recover in a little
time, when their eyes are open, and they grow cool and sober enough to
consider the truth of things, and how much they have been deceived. It is
not improbable, that some few of the deepest sighted among these
reasoners, are well enough convinced how vain all such hopes must
be: but for the rest, the wisest of them seem to have been very ill judges
of the people’s dispositions, the want of which knowledge was a principal
occasion to hasten their ruin; for surely had they suspected which way the
popular current inclined, they never would have run against it by that
impeachment. I therefore conclude, they generally are so blind, as to
imagine some comfort from this fantastical opinion, that the people of
England are at present distracted, but will shortly come to their senses
again.

For the service therefore of our adversaries and friends, I shall briefly
examine this point, by shewing what are the causes and symptoms of
a people’s madness, and how it differs from their natural bent and
inclination.

It is Machiavel’s observation, that the people when left to their own
judgment, do seldom mistake their true interests; and indeed they
naturally love the constitution they are born under, never desiring to
change but under great oppressions. However, they are to be deceived by
several means. It has often happened in Greece, and sometimes in Rome,
that those very men who have contributed to shake off a former tyranny,
have, instead of restoring the old constitution, deluded the People into a
worse and more ignominious slavery. Besides, all great changes have the
same effect upon commonwealths that thunder has upon liquors, making the
dregs fly up to the top: the lowest plebeians rise to the head of affairs,
and there preserve themselves by representing the nobles and other friends
to the old government, as enemies to the public. The encouraging of new
mysteries and new deities, with the pretences of further purity in
religion, hath likewise been a frequent topic to mislead the people. And,
not to mention more, the promoting false reports of dangers from abroad,
hath often served to prevent them from fencing against real dangers at
home. By these and the like arts, in conjunction with a great depravity of
manners, and a weak or corrupt administration, the madness of the people
hath risen to such a height as to break in pieces the whole frame of the
best instituted governments. But however, such great frenzies being
artificially raised, are a perfect force and constraint upon human nature,
and under a wise steady prince, will certainly decline of themselves,
settling like the sea after a storm, and then the true bent and genius of
the people will appear. Ancient and modern story are full of instances to
illustrate what I say. In our own island we had a great example of a long
madness in the people, kept up by a thousand artifices like intoxicating
medicines, till the constitution was destroyed; yet the malignity being
spent, and the humour exhausted that served to foment it; before the
usurpers could fix upon a new scheme, the people suddenly recovered, and
peaceably restored the old constitution.

From what I have offered, it will be easy to decide, whether this late
change in the dispositions of the people were a new madness, or a recovery
from an old one. Neither do I see how it can be proved that such a change
had in any circumstance the least symptoms of madness, whether my
description of it be right or no. It is agreed, that the truest way of
judging the dispositions of the people in the choice of their
representatives, is by computing the county-elections; and in these, it is
manifest that five in six are entirely for the present measures; although
the court was so far from interposing its credit, that there was no change
in the admiralty, not above one or two in the lieutenancy, nor any other
methods used to influence elections.[4] The free unextorted addresses[5]
sent some time before from every part of the kingdom, plainly shewed what
sort of bent the people had taken, and from what motives. The election of
members for this great city,[6] carried contrary to all conjecture,
against the united interest of those two great bodies, the Bank and East
India Company, was another convincing argument. Besides, the Whigs
themselves have always confessed, that the bulk of landed men in England
was generally of Tories. So that this change must be allowed to be
according to the natural genius and disposition of the people, whether it
were just and reasonable in itself or not.

Notwithstanding all which, you shall frequently hear the partisans of the
late men in power, gravely and decisively pronounce, that the present
ministry cannot possibly stand.[7] Now, they who affirm this, if they
believe themselves, must ground their opinion, upon the iniquity of the last
being so far established, and deeply rooted, that no endeavours of honest
men, will be able to restore things to their former state. Or else these
reasoners have been so misled by twenty years’ mismanagement, that they
have forgot our constitution, and talk as if our monarchy and revolution
began together. But the body of the people is wiser, and by the choice
they have made, shew they do understand our constitution, and would
bring it back to the old form; which if the new ministers take care to
maintain, they will and ought to stand, otherwise they may fall like their
predecessors. But I think we may easily foresee what a Parliament freely
chosen, without threatening or corruption, is likely to do, when no man
shall be in any danger to lose his place by the freedom of his voice.

But, who are those advancers of this opinion, that the present ministry
cannot hold? It must be either such as are afraid to be called to an
account, in case it should hold; or those who keep offices, from which
others, better qualified, were removed; and may reasonably apprehend to be
turned out, for worthier men to come in their places, since perhaps it
will be necessary to make some changes, that the public business of the
nation may go on: or lastly, stock-jobbers, who industriously spread such
reports that actions may fall, and their friends buy to advantage.

Yet these hopes, thus freely expressed, as they are more sincere, so they
are more supportable, than when they appear under the disguise and
pretence of fears. Some of these gentlemen are employed to shake their
heads in proper companies; to doubt where all this will end; to be in
mighty pain for the nation; to shew how impossible it is, that the public
credit can be supported: to pray that all may do well in whatever hands;
but very much to doubt that the Pretender is at the bottom. I know not any
thing so nearly resembling this behaviour, as what I have often seen among
the friends of a sick man, whose interest it is that he should die: The
physicians protest they see no danger; the symptoms are good, the
medicines answer expectation; yet still they are not to be comforted; they
whisper, he is a gone man; it is not possible he should hold out; he has
perfect death in his face; they never liked this doctor: At last the
patient recovers, and their joy is as false as their grief.

I believe there is no man so sanguine, who did not apprehend some ill
consequences from the late change, though not in any proportion to the
good ones: but it is manifest, the former have proved much fewer and
lighter than were expected, either at home or abroad, by the fears of our
friends, or the hopes of our enemies. Those remedies that stir the humours
in a diseased body, are at first more painful than the malady itself; yet
certain death is the consequence of deferring them too long. Actions have
fallen, and the loans are said to come in slowly. But beside, that
something of this must have been, whether there had been any change or no;
beside, that the surprise of every change, for the better as well as the
worse, is apt to affect credit for a while; there is a further reason,
which is plain and scandalous. When the late party was at the helm, those
who were called the Tories, never put their resentments in balance with
the safety of the nation, but cheerfully contributed to the common cause.
Now the scene is changed, the fallen party seems to act from very
different motives: they have given the word about; they will keep
their money and be passive; and in this point stand upon the same foot
with Papists and Nonjurors. What would have become of the public, if the
present great majority had acted thus, during the late administration? Had
acted thus, before the others were masters of that wealth they have
squeezed out of the landed men, and with the strength of that, would now
hold the kingdom at defiance?

Thus much I have thought fit to say, without pointing reflections upon any
particular person; which I have hitherto but sparingly done, and that only
towards those whose characters are too profligate, that the managing of
them should be of any consequence: Besides as it is a talent I am not
naturally fond of, so, in the subjects I treat, it is generally needless.
If I display the effects of avarice and ambition, of bribery and
corruption, of gross immorality and irreligion, those who are the least
conversant in things, will easily know where to apply them. Not that I lay
any weight upon the objections of such who charge me with this proceeding:
it is notorious enough that the writers of the other side were the first
aggressors. Not to mention their scurrilous libels many years ago,
directly levelled at particular persons; how many papers do now come out
every week, full of rude invectives against the present ministry, with the
first and last letters of their names to prevent mistakes? It is good
sometimes to let these people see, that we neither want spirit nor
materials to retaliate; and therefore in this point alone, I shall
follow their example, whenever I find myself sufficiently provoked; only
with one addition, that whatever charges I bring, either general or
particular, shall be religiously true, either upon avowed facts which none
can deny, or such as I can prove from my own knowledge.

Being resolved publicly to acknowledge any mistakes I have been guilty of;
I do here humbly desire the reader’s pardon for one of mighty importance,
about a fact in one of my papers, said to be done in the cathedral of
Gloucester.[8] A whole Hydra of errors in two words: For as I am since
informed, it was neither in the cathedral, nor city, nor county of
Gloucester, but some other church of that diocese. If I had ever met any
other objection of equal weight, though from the meanest hands, I should
certainly have answered it.

[Footnote 1: No. 24 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “The merest trifles affect our spirits, and fill us with hope
or fear.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to that Change,” etc., vol. v.,
p. 386 of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The general ferment soon after [1710, summer] broke out into
numerous addresses, of very different style and tenor, that were presented
to the Queen. … The high-church addresses not only exceeded the others
in number, but were also far better received; as complimenting the Queen
with a more extensive prerogative, and an hereditary title” (Chamberlen’s
“History of Queen Anne,” p. 347). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: At the general election in October and November, 1710, the
City of London returned four Tories: Sir Wm. Withers, Sir R. Hoare, Sir G.
Newland, and Mr. John Cass. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Harley’s ministry continued in power until July, 1714.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: This act of Wharton’s was alluded to by the Duke of Leeds in
the House of Lords on December 6th, 1705. See Dartmouth’s note on Burnet’s
“Own Times,” vol. ii., p. 435, and compare “History of Parliament,” and
“Journals of House of Lords.” When the Duke of Leeds insinuated pretty
plainly to Wharton the nature of his offence, Dartmouth remarks that the
“Lord Wharton was very silent for the rest of that day, and desired no
further explanations.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 26.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 18, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 25, 1710-11.

[Greek: Dialexamenoi tina haesuchae, to men sumpan epi te tae dunas eia
kai kata ton echthron sunomosan.]

Summissa quaedam voce collocuti sunt; quorum summa erat de dominatione
sibi confirmanda, ac inimicis delendis conjuratio.[2]

Not many days ago I observed a knot of discontented gentlemen cursing the
Tories to Hell for their uncharitableness, in affirming, that if the late
ministry had continued to this time, we should have had neither Church nor
Monarchy left. They are usually so candid as to call that the opinion of a
party, which they hear in a coffeehouse, or over a bottle from some warm
young people, whom it is odds but they have provoked to say more than they
believed, by some positions as absurd and ridiculous of their own. And so
it proved in this very instance: for, asking one of these gentlemen, what
it was that provoked those he had been disputing with, to advance such a
paradox? he assured me in a very calm manner, it was nothing in the world,
but that himself and some others of the company had made it appear, that
the design of the present P[arliamen]t and m[inistr]y, was to bring in
Popery, arbitrary power, and the Pretender: which I take to be an opinion
fifty times more improbable, as well as more uncharitable, than what is
charged upon the Whigs: because I defy our adversaries to produce one
single reason for suspecting such designs in the persons now at the helm;
whereas I can upon demand produce twenty to shew, that some late men had
strong views towards a commonwealth, and the alteration of the Church.

It is natural indeed, when a storm is over, that has only untiled our
houses, and blown down some of our chimneys, to consider what further
mischiefs might have ensued, if it had lasted longer. However, in the
present case, I am not of the opinion above-mentioned; I believe the
Church and State might have lasted somewhat longer, though the late
enemies to both had done their worst: I can hardly conceive how things
would have been so soon ripe for a new revolution. I am convinced, that if
they had offered to make such large and sudden strides, it must have come
to blows, and according to the computation we have now reason to think a
right one, I can partly guess what would have been the issue. Besides, we
are sure the Q[uee]n would have interposed before they came to
extremities, and as little as they regarded the regal authority, would
have been a check in their career.

But instead of this question; What would have been the consequence if the
late ministry had continued? I will propose another, which will be more
useful for us to consider; and that is, What we may reasonably expect they
will do, if ever they come into power again? This, we know, is the design
and endeavour of all those scribbles that daily fly about in their favour;
of all the false, insolent, and scandalous libels against the present
administration; and of all those engines set at work to sink the actions,
and blow up the public credit. As for those who shew their inclinations by
writing, there is one consideration, which I wonder does not sometimes
affect them: for how can they forbear having a good opinion of the
gentleness and innocence of those, who permit them to employ their pens as
they do? It puts me in mind of an insolent pragmatical orator somewhere in
Greece, who railing with great freedom at the chief men in the state, was
answered by one who had been very instrumental in recovering the liberty
of the city, that “he thanked the gods they had now arrived to the
condition he always wished them, when every man in that city might
securely say what they pleased.” I wish these gentlemen would however
compare the liberty they take with what their masters used to give: how
many messengers and warrants would have gone out against any that durst
have opened their lips, or drawn their pens, against the persons and
proceedings of their juntoes and cabals? How would their weekly writers
have been calling out for prosecution and punishment? We remember when a
poor nickname,[3] borrowed from an old play of Ben Jonson, and mentioned
in a sermon without any particular application, was made use of as a
motive to spur an impeachment. But after all, it must be confessed, they
had reasons to be thus severe, which their successors have not: their
faults would never endure the light; and to have exposed them sooner,
would have raised the kingdom against the actors, before the time.

But, to come to the subject I have now undertaken; which is to examine,
what the consequences would be, upon supposition that the Whigs were now
restored to their power. I already imagine the present free P[arliamen]t
dissolved, and another of a different epithet met, by the force of money
and management. I read immediately a dozen or two stinging votes against
the proceedings of the late ministry. The bill now to be repealed would
then be re-enacted, and the birthright of an Englishman reduced again to
the value of twelvepence.[4] But to give the reader a stronger imagination
of such a scene; let me represent the designs of some men, lately
endeavoured and projected, in the form of a paper of votes.

“Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for repealing the Sacramental Test.

“A petition of T[in]d[a]l, C[o]ll[in]s, Cl[en]d[o]n, C[o]w[ar]d,
T[o]l[a]nd,[5] in behalf of themselves and many hundreds of their
disciples, some of which are Members of this honourable H[ouse], desiring
that leave be given to bring in a Bill for qualifying Atheists, Deists and
Socinians, to serve their Country in any employment.

“Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the prayer
of the said petition, and that Mr. L[ec]h[me]re[6] do prepare and bring it
in.

“Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for removing the education of youth
out of the hands of the Clergy.

“Another, to forbid the Clergy preaching certain duties in religion,
especially obedience to Princes.

“Another, to take away the jurisdiction of Bishops.

“Another, for constituting a General for life; with instructions to the
committee, that care may be taken to make the war last as long as the life
of the said General.

“A Bill of Attainder against C[harles] D[uke] of Sh[rewsbury], J[ohn]
D[uke] of B[uckingham], L[aurence] E[arl] of R[ochester], Sir S[imon]
H[arcourt], k[nigh]t, R[obert] H[arley], H[enry] S[t. John],[7] Esqs;
A[bigail] M[asham], spinster,[8] and others, for high treason against the
j[u]nto.

“Resolved, That S[ara]h D[uchess] of M[arlborough] hath been a most
dutiful, just, and grateful servant to Her M[ajest]y.

“Resolved, That to advise the dissolution of a W[hi]g Parliament, or the
removal of a W[hi]g Ministry, was in order to bring in Popery and the
Pretender; and that the said advice was high treason.

“Resolved, That by the original compact the Government of this Realm is by
a junto, and a K[ing] or Qu[een]; but the Administration solely in the
junto.

“Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for further limiting the Prerogative.

“Ordered, That it be a standing order of this H[ouse] that the merit of
elections be not determined by the number of voices, or right of electors,
but by weight; and that one Whig shall weigh down ten Tories.

“A motion being made, and the question being put, that when a Whig is
detected of manifest bribery, and his competitor being a Tory, has ten to
one a majority, there shall be a new election; it passed in the negative.

“Resolved, That for a K[ing] or Q[ueen] of this Realm, to read or examine
a paper brought them to be signed by a j[un]to Minister, is arbitrary and
illegal, and a violation of the liberties of the people.”

These and the like reformations would, in all probability, be the first
fruits of the Whigs’ resurrection; and what structures such able artists
might in a short time build upon such foundations, I leave others to
conjecture. All hopes of a peace cut off; the nation industriously
involved in further debts to a degree, that none would dare undertake the
management of affairs, but those whose interest lay in ruining the
constitution. I do not see how the wisest prince under such necessities
could be able to extricate himself. Then, as to the Church, the bishops
would by degrees be dismissed, first from the Parliament, next from their
revenues, and at last from their office; and the clergy, instead of their
idle claim of independency on the state, would be forced to depend for
their daily bread on every individual. But what system of future
government was designed; whether it were already digested, or would have
been left for time and incidents to mature, I shall not now Examine.
Only upon this occasion I cannot help reflecting on a fact, which it is
probable, the reader knows as well as myself. There was a picture drawn
some time ago, representing five persons as large as the life, sitting at
council together like a Pentarchy. A void space was left for a sixth,
which was to have been the Qu[een], to whom they intended that honour: but
her M[ajest]y having since fallen under their displeasure, they have made
a shift to crowd in two better friends in her place, which makes it a
complete Heptarchy.[9] This piece is now in the country, reserved till
better times, and hangs in a hall, among the pictures of Cromwell,
Bradshaw, Ireton, and some other predecessors.

I must now desire leave to say something to a gentleman, who has been
pleased to publish a discourse against a paper of mine relating to the
convocation.[10] He promises to set me right, without any undue
reflections or undecent language. I suppose he means in comparison with
others, who pretend to answer the “Examiner”: So far he is right; but if
he thinks he has behaved himself as becomes a candid antagonist, I believe
he is mistaken. He says, in his title-page, my “representations are
unfair, and my reflections unjust.” And his conclusion is yet more
severe,[11] where he “doubts I and my friends are enraged against the
Dutch, because they preserved us from Popery and arbitrary power at the
Revolution; and since that time, from being overrun by the exorbitant
power of France, and becoming a prey to the Pretender.” Because this
author seems in general to write with an honest meaning, I would seriously
put to him the question, whether he thinks I and my friends are for
Popery, arbitrary power, France and the Pretender? I omit other instances
of smaller moment, which however do not suit in my opinion with due
reflection or decent language. The fact relating to the convocation, came
from a good hand, and I do not find this author differs from me in any
material circumstance about it. My reflections were no more than what
might be obvious to any other gentleman, who had heard of their late
proceedings. If the notion be right which this author gives us of a Lower
House of Convocation, it is a very melancholy one,[12] and to me seems
utterly inconsistent with that of a body of men whom he owns to have a
negative; and therefore, since a great majority of the clergy differs from
him in several points he advances, I shall rather choose to be of their
opinion than his. I fancy, when the whole synod met in one house, as this
writer affirms, they were upon a better foot with their bishops, and
therefore whether this treatment so extremely de haut en bas, since
their exclusion, be suitable to primitive custom or primitive humility
towards brethren, is not my business to enquire. One may allow the divine
or apostolic right of Episcopacy, and their great superiority over
presbyters, and yet dispute the methods of exercising the latter, which
being of human institution, are subject to encroachments and usurpations.
I know, every clergyman in a diocese has a good deal of dependence upon
his bishop, and owes him canonical obedience: but I was apt to think, when
the whole representative of the clergy met in a synod, they were
considered in another light, at least since they are allowed to have a
negative. If I am mistaken, I desire to be excused, as talking out of my
trade: only there is one thing wherein I entirely differ from this author.
Since in the disputes about privileges, one side must recede; where so
very few privileges remain, it is a hundred to one odds, the encroachments
are not on the inferior clergy’s side; and no man can blame them for
insisting on the small number that is left. There is one fact wherein I
must take occasion to set this author right; that the person who first
moved the QUEEN to remit the first-fruits and tenths to the clergy, was an
eminent instrument in the late turn of affairs;[13] and as I am told, has
lately prevailed to have the same favour granted for the clergy of
Ireland.[14]

But I must beg leave to inform the author, that this paper is not intended
for the management of controversy, which would be of very little import to
most readers, and only misspend time, that I would gladly employ to better
purposes. For where it is a man’s business to entertain a whole room-full,
it is unmannerly to apply himself to a particular person, and turn his
back upon the rest of the company.

[Footnote 1: No. 25 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “They met and whispered together; and their entire aim was
the confirmation of their own power and an oath for the destruction of
their enemies.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The following is the passage in Sacheverell’s sermon in which
the nickname is used: “What dependence can there be upon a man of no
principles? … In what moving and lively colours does the holy Psalmist
paint out the crafty insidiousness of such wily Volpones!” Godolphin, in
spite of Somers’s protest against such action, brought about the
preacher’s impeachment, for this description of himself, as he took it.
See also vol. v., p. 219 and note of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: An attempt was made to repeal the Act for Naturalizing
Foreign Protestants (7 Ann. c. 5), which received the royal assent, March
23rd, 170-8/9, by a Bill which passed the House of Commons, January 31st,
171-0/1, but was thrown out by the Lords, February 5th. Persons
naturalized under this Act had to pay a fee of one shilling on taking the
prescribed oath of allegiance. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: See Nos. 20 and 23, ante, and notes pp. 118 and 141.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Nicholas Lechmere (1675-1727), member for Appleby (1708-10),
Cockermouth (1710-17), and Tewkesbury (1717-21), was one of the managers
in the impeachment of Sacheverell. He, with Addison, Hoadly, and Minshull
corrected Steele’s draft of “The Crisis” for publication. He was created
Lord Lechmere in 1721, after he had held the offices of solicitor-general
(1714-18) and attorney-general (1718-20). See also vol. v., p. 326 note,
of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “R.H. H.S. Esqs;” in both editions. In Faulkner’s collected
reprint the second name was altered to William Shippen, and Scott follows
Faulkner; but there can be no doubt that the initials were intended for
St. John, since the persons named were those who succeeded to the places
of the dismissed ministers. Shippen was a prominent member of the October
Club, but he did not hold any public office. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: In No. 19 of “The Medley,” the writer calls “The Examiner” to
account for writing Abigail Masham, spinster. She was then Mrs.
Masham. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: See No. 23, ante, and notes p. 138. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “The Case of the Present Convocation Consider’d; In Answer
to the Examiner’s Unfair Representation of it, and Unjust Reflections upon
it.” 1711, See note p. 129. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: “They [the Dutch] have a right to put us in mind, that
without their assistance in 1688, Popery and arbitrary power must, without
a miracle, have over-run us; and that even since that time, we must have
sunk under the exorbitant power of France, and our Church and Queen must
have been a prey to a Pretender imposed upon us by this exorbitant power,
if that tottering commonwealth … had not heartily joined with us…. But
I forget my self, and I doubt, allege those very things in their favour,
for which the ‘Examiner’ and his friends, are the most enraged against
them.” (“The Case,” etc., p. 24). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: They [i.e. the bishops] say that the prolocutor is
“the referendary of the lower house, i.e. one who is to carry
messages and admonitions from the upper house to the lower, and to
represent their sense, and to carry their petitions to the upper: That
originally the synod met all in one house in this, as it still does in the
other province.” (“The Case,” etc., p. 14). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Bishop Burnet had made a similar proposal to Queen Mary
several years before, “so that she was fully resolved, if ever she had
lived to see peace and settlement, … to have applied it to the
augmentation of small benefices.” He had also laid it very fully before
the Princess of Denmark in the reign of King William (“Hist. Own Times,”
ii. 370).

“This very project … was first set on foot by a great minister in the
last reign. It was then far advanced, and would have been finished, had he
stayed but a few months longer in the ministry” (“The Case,” etc., p. 23).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Swift’s own Memorial to Harley, petitioning the Queen to
surrender the first-fruits in Ireland is given in Scott’s edition (vol.
xv., pp. 381-4). It was on behalf of these first-fruits that Swift came to
England, in 1707, on a commission from Archbishop King. Then he made his
application as a Whig to a Whig government, but failing with Somers and
Halifax both in this and in his hopes for advancement, he joined Harley’s
fortunes. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 27.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 25, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 1, 1710-11.[2]

Ea autem est gloria, laus recte factorum, magnorumque in rempublicam
meritorum: Quae cum optimi cujusque, tum etiam multitudinis testimonio
comprobatur.[3]

I am thinking, what a mighty advantage it is to be entertained as a writer
to a ruined cause. I remember a fanatic preacher, who was inclined to come
into the Church, and take orders; but upon mature thoughts was diverted
from that design, when he considered that the collections of the godly
were a much heartier and readier penny, than he could get by wrangling for
tithes. He certainly had reason, and the two cases are parallel. If you
write in defence of a fallen party, you are maintained by contribution as
a necessary person, you have little more to do than to carp and cavil at
those who hold the pen on the other side; you are sure to be celebrated
and caressed by all your party, to a man. You may affirm and deny what you
please, without truth or probability, since it is but loss of time to
contradict you. Besides, commiseration is often on your side, and you have
a pretence to be thought honest and disinterested, for adhering to friends
in distress. After which, if your party ever happens to turn up again, you
have a strong fund of merit towards making your fortune. Then, you never
fail to be well furnished with materials, every one bringing in his quota,
and falsehood being naturally more plentiful than truth. Not to mention
the wonderful delight of libelling men in power, and hugging yourself in a
corner with mighty satisfaction for what you have done.

It is quite otherwise with us, who engage as volunteers in the service of
a flourishing ministry, in full credit with the Q[uee]n, and beloved by
the people, because they have no sinister ends or dangerous designs, but
pursue with steadiness and resolution the true interests of both. Upon
which account they little want or desire our assistance; and we may write
till the world is weary of reading, without having our pretences allowed
either to a place or a pension: besides, we are refused the common benefit
of the party, to have our works cried up of course; the readers of our own
side being as ungentle and hard to please, as if we writ against them; and
our papers never make their way in the world, but barely in proportion to
their merit. The design of their labours who write on the conquered
side, is likewise of greater importance than ours; they are like cordials
for dying men, which must be repeated; whereas ours are, in the Scripture
phrase, but “meat for babes”: at least, all I can pretend, is to undeceive
the ignorant and those at distance; but their task is to keep up the
sinking spirits of a whole party.

After such reflections, I cannot be angry with those gentlemen for
perpetually writing against me: it furnishes them largely with topics, and
is besides, their proper business: neither is it affectation, or
altogether scorn, that I do not reply. But as things are, we both act
suitable to our several provinces: mine is, by laying open some
corruptions in the late management, to set those who are ignorant, right
in their opinions of persons and things: it is theirs to cover with
fig-leaves all the faults of their friends, as well as they can: When I
have produced my facts, and offered my arguments, I have nothing farther
to advance; it is their office to deny and disprove; and then let the
world decide. If I were as they, my chief endeavour should certainly be to
batter down the “Examiner,” therefore I cannot but approve their design,
Besides, they have indeed another reason for barking incessantly at this
paper: they have in their prints openly taxed a most ingenious person as
author of it;[4] one who is in great and very deserved reputation with the
world, both on account of his poetical works, and his talents for public
business. They were wise enough to consider, what a sanction it would give
their performances, to fall under the animadversion of such a pen; and
have therefore used all the forms of provocation commonly practised by
little obscure pedants, who are fond of distinguishing themselves by the
fame of an adversary. So nice a taste have these judicious critics, in
pretending to discover an author by his style and manner of thinking: not
to mention the justice and candour of exhausting all the stale topics of
scurrility in reviling a paper, and then flinging at a venture the whole
load upon one who is entirely innocent; and whose greatest fault, perhaps,
is too much gentleness toward a party, from whose leaders he has received
quite contrary treatment.

The concern I have for the ease and reputation of so deserving a
gentleman, hath at length forced me, much against my interest and
inclination, to let these angry people know who is not the author
of the “Examiner.”[5] For, I observed, the opinion began to spread, and I
chose rather to sacrifice the honour I received by it, than let
injudicious people entitle him to a performance, that perhaps he might
have reason to be ashamed of: still faithfully promising, never to disturb
those worthy advocates; but suffer them in quiet to roar on at the
“Examiner,” if they or their party find any ease in it; as physicians say
there is, to people in torment, such as men in the gout, or women in
labour.

However, I must acknowledge myself indebted to them for one hint, which I
shall now pursue, though in a different manner. Since the fall of the late
ministry, I have seen many papers filled with their encomiums; I conceive,
in imitation of those who write the lives of famous men, where, after
their deaths, immediately follow their characters. When I saw the poor
virtues thus dealt at random, I thought the disposers had flung their
names, like valentines into a hat, to be drawn as fortune pleased, by the
j[u]nto and their friends. There, Crassus[6] drew liberty and gratitude;
Fulvia,[7] humility and gentleness; Clodius,[8] piety and justice;
Gracchus,[9] loyalty to his prince; Cinna,[10] love of his country and
constitution; and so of the rest. Or, to quit this allegory, I have often
seen of late, the whole set of discarded statesmen, celebrated by their
judicious hirelings, for those very qualities which their admirers owned
they chiefly wanted. Did these heroes put off and lock up their virtues
when they came into employment, and have they now resumed them since their
dismissions? If they wore them, I am sure it was under their
greatness, and without ever once convincing the world of their visibility
or influence.

But why should not the present ministry find a pen to praise them as well
as the last? This is what I shall now undertake, and it may be more
impartial in me, from whom they have deserved so little. I have, without
being called, served them half a year in quality of champion,[11] and
by help of the Qu[een] and a majority of nine in ten of the kingdom, have
been able to protect them against a routed cabal of hated politicians,
with a dozen of scribblers at their head; yet so far have they been from
rewarding me suitable to my deserts, that to this day they never so much
as sent to the printer to enquire who I was; though I have known a time
and a ministry, where a person of half my merit and consideration would
have had fifty promises, and in the mean time a pension settled on him,
whereof the first quarter should be honestly paid. Therefore my
resentments shall so far prevail, that in praising those who are now at
the head of affairs, I shall at the same time take notice of their
defects.

Was any man more eminent in his profession than the present l[or]d
k[eepe]r,[12] or more distinguished by his eloquence and great abilities
in the House of Commons? And will not his enemies allow him to be fully
equal to the great station he now adorns? But then it must be granted,
that he is wholly ignorant in the speculative as well as practical part of
polygamy: he knows not how to metamorphose a sober man into a lunatic:[13]
he is no freethinker in religion, nor has courage to be patron of an
atheistical book,[14] while he is guardian of the Qu[een]’s conscience.
Though after all, to speak my private opinion, I cannot think these such
mighty objections to his character, as some would pretend.

The person who now presides at the council,[15] is descended from a great
and honourable father, not from the dregs of the people; he was at the
head of the treasury for some years, and rather chose to enrich his prince
than himself. In the height of favour and credit, he sacrificed the
greatest employment in the kingdom to his conscience and honour: he has
been always firm in his loyalty and religion, zealous for supporting the
prerogative of the crown, and preserving the liberties of the people. But
then, his best friends must own that he is neither Deist nor Socinian: he
has never conversed with T[o]l[a]nd, to open and enlarge his thoughts, and
dispel the prejudices of education; nor was he ever able to arrive at that
perfection of gallantry, to ruin and imprison the husband, in order to
keep the wife without disturbance.[16]

The present l[or]d st[ewa]rd[17] has been always distinguished for his wit
and knowledge; is of consummate wisdom and experience in affairs; has
continued constant to the true interest of the nation, which he espoused
from the beginning, and is every way qualified to support the dignity of
his office: but in point of oratory must give place to his
predecessor.[18]

The D. of Sh[rewsbur]y[19] was highly instrumental in bringing about the
Revolution, in which service he freely exposed his life and fortune. He
has ever been the favourite of the nation, being possessed of all the
amiable qualities that can accomplish a great man; but in the
agreeableness and fragrancy of his person, and the profoundness of his
politics, must be allowed to fall very short of ——.[20]

Mr. H[arley] had the honour of being chosen Speaker successively to three
Parliaments;[21] he was the first of late years, that ventured to restore
the forgotten custom of treating his PRINCE with duty and respect. Easy
and disengaged in private conversation, with such a weight of affairs upon
his shoulders;[22] of great learning, and as great a favourer and
protector of it; intrepid by nature, as well as by the consciousness of
his own integrity, and a despiser of money; pursuing the true interest of
his PRINCE and country against all obstacles. Sagacious to view into the
remotest consequences of things, by which all difficulties fly before him.
A firm friend, and a placable enemy, sacrificing his justest resentments,
not only to public good, but to common intercession and acknowledgment.
Yet with all these virtues it must be granted, there is some mixture of
human infirmity: His greatest admirers must confess his skill at cards and
dice to be very low and superficial: in horse-racing he is utterly
ignorant:[23] then, to save a few millions to the public, he never regards
how many worthy citizens he hinders from making up their plum. And surely
there is one thing never to be forgiven him, that he delights to have his
table filled with black coats, whom he uses as if they were gentlemen.

My Lord D[artmouth][24] is a man of letters, full of good sense, good
nature and honour, of strict virtue and regularity in life; but labours
under one great defect, that he treats his clerks with more civility and
good manners, than others, in his station, have done the Qu[een].[25]

Omitting some others, I will close this character of the present ministry,
with that of Mr. S[t. John],[26] who from his youth applying those
admirable talents of nature and improvements of art to public business,
grew eminent in court and Parliament at an age when the generality of
mankind is employed in trifles and folly. It is to be lamented, that he
has not yet procured himself a busy, important countenance, nor learned
that profound part of wisdom, to be difficult of access. Besides, he has
clearly mistaken the true use of books, which he has thumbed and spoiled
with reading, when he ought to have multiplied them on his shelves:[27]
not like a great man of my acquaintance, who knew a book by the back,
better than a friend by the face, though he had never conversed with the
former, and often with the latter.

[Footnote 1: No. 26 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Writing to Stella, under date February 3rd, 1710/1, Swift
says: “They are plaguy Whigs, especially the sister Armstrong [Mrs.
Armstrong, Lady Lucy’s sister], the most insupportable of all women
pretending to wit, without any taste. She was running down the last
‘Examiner,’ the prettiest I had read, with a character of the present
ministry” (vol. ii., p. 112 of present edition.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “For that is true glory and praise for noble deeds that
deserve well of the state, when they not only win the approval of the best
men but also that of the multitude.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: It was reported that the author of “The Examiner” was Matthew
Prior, late under-secretary of state. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: To Stella Swift wrote in his “Journal,” under date February
9th:—”The account you give of that weekly paper [i.e. ‘The
Examiner,’] agrees with us here. Mr. Prior was like to be insulted in the
street for being supposed the author of it, but one of the last papers
cleared him. Nobody knows who it is, but those few in the secret. I
suppose the ministry and the printer” (vol. ii., p. 116 of present
edition).]

[Footnote 6: The Duke of Marlborough. See “The Examiner,” No. 28, p. 177.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Earl of Wharton, notorious for his profligacy. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: This may refer to Godolphin. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Probably Earl Cowper. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This applies to the paper. “The Examiner” had existed for
six months, but Swift had written it for only three months, at this time.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Sir Simon Harcourt (1661?-1727) who was lord chancellor,
1713-14. He was made lord keeper, October 19th, 1710, after Cowper
resigned the chancellorship. In the Sacheverell trial Harcourt was the
doctor’s counsel. He was created Baron Harcourt in 1711. See also note on
p. 213 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: This refers to the case of Richard, fifth Viscount Wenman,
against whom Cowper, in 1709, granted a commission of lunacy. He was under
the care of Francis Wroughton, Esq., whose sister, Susannah, he had
married in the early part of 1709. His brother-in-law sued him for payment
of his sister’s portion, and asked that trustees be appointed for his
estate. Cowper decided against Wenman, and the commission granted.

The case is referred to in No. 40 of “The Tatler” (July 12th, 1709).
Campbell says (“Chancellors,” iv. 330) the commission “very properly
issued.” Luttrell in his “Diary” (July 30th, 1709) notes that “the jury
yesterday brought it in that he [Wenman] was no idiot” (vi. 470). Lord
Wenman died November 28th, 1729. See also Nos. 18 and 23, ante, and
note, p. 101. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Tindal dedicated to Cowper “a pious work which was not
altogether orthodox” (Campbell’s “Chancellors,” iv. 330). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Laurence Hyde (1641-1711), created Earl of Rochester in
1682, was appointed lord president of the council, September 21st, 1710,
succeeding Somers. See also No. 41, post. Swift unkindly sneers at
Somers’s low birth. See note on Somers on p. 29 of vol. i. of present
edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Mrs. Manley, in her “Memoirs of Europe towards the Close of
the Eighth Century,” has something very characteristic to say on this
subject. Speaking of Somers under the name Cicero, she says: “Cicero,
Madam, is by birth a plebeian” … “Cicero himself, an oracle of wisdom,
was whirled about by his lusts, at the pleasure of a fantastic worn-out
mistress. He prostituted his inimitable sense, reason, and good nature,
either to revenge, or reward, as her caprice directed; and what made this
commerce more detestable, this mistress of his was a wife!” … “that she
was the wife of an injured friend! a friend who passionately loved her,
and had tenderly obliged him, rather heightened his desires” (i., 200;
ii., 54, 83). The mistress is said to be Mrs. Blunt, daughter of Sir R.
Fanshaw. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: John Sheffield (1647-1721), third Earl of Mulgrave, was
created Marquess of Normanby, 1694, and Duke of Buckingham and Normanby in
1702/3. He succeeded the Duke of Devonshire as lord steward of the
household on September 21st, 1710. He was the author of a poetical “Essay
on Poetry,” and an interesting prose “Account of the Revolution.” As
patron to Dryden he received the dedication of that poet’s “Aurengzebe.”
Pope edited his collected works in 1722-23. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: William Cavendish (1673?-1729) succeeded his father as
second Duke of Devonshire in 1707. He was lord steward, 1707-10, and lord
president, 1716-17.]

[Footnote 19: Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, is styled by Swift
elsewhere (Letter to Archbishop King, October 20th, 1713; Scott’s edition,
xvi. 71), “the finest gentleman we have” (see note on p. 377 of vol. v. of
present edition). He was lord chamberlain, 1710-14. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: Henry de Grey (1664?-1740) succeeded his father as eleventh
Earl of Kent in 1702. He was created Marquess of Kent, 1706, and Duke of
Kent, 1710. He held the office of lord chamberlain of the household from
1704 to 1710. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: Harley was first chosen Speaker, February 10th, 1700/1, for
a Parliament that lasted nine months; then again, December 30th, 1701, for
a Parliament that lasted only six months; and finally October 20th or
21st, 1702. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 22: “The Queen dismissed the Earl of Godolphin from being lord
treasurer, and put the treasury in commission: Lord Powlet was the first
in form, but Mr. Harley was the person with whom the secret was lodged”
(Burnet, “Own Times,” ii. 552-3). He was appointed August 10th, 1710.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 23: Godolphin was very devoted to the turf. See Swift’s poem
entitled, “The Virtues of Sid Hamet’s Rod” (Aldine edition, iii. 10).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 24: William Legge (1672-1750) succeeded his father as second
Lord Dartmouth in 1691, and was created Earl of Dartmouth in 1711. On June
14th, 1710, he was appointed secretary of state in place of the Earl of
Sunderland. See note on p. 229 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 25: The Earl of Sunderland was rude and overbearing in his
manner towards the Queen. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 26: Henry St. John (1678-1751) was created Viscount Bolingbroke
in 1712. He was secretary of war, 1704-1708, and secretary of state,
1710-14. In 1715 he was attainted and left England to enter the service of
the Pretender. See also Swift’s “An Enquiry,” etc. (vol. v., p. 430 of
present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 27: “Those more early acquaintance of yours, your books, which a
friend of ours once wittily said, ‘Your L—p had mistaken the true
use of, by thumbing and spoiling them with reading'” (“A Letter to the Rt.
Hon. the Ld. Viscount B—ke,” 1714-15). [T.S.]]

NUMB. 28.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 1, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 8, 1710-11.

Caput est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici, ut avaritiae
pellatur etiam minima suspicio.[2]

There is no vice which mankind carries to such wild extremes as that of
avarice: Those two which seem to rival it in this point, are lust and
ambition: but, the former is checked by difficulties and diseases,
destroys itself by its own pursuits, and usually declines with old age:
and the latter requiring courage, conduct and fortune in a high degree,
and meeting with a thousand dangers and oppositions, succeeds too seldom
in an age to fall under common observation. Or, is avarice perhaps the
same passion with ambition, only placed in more ignoble and dastardly
minds, by which the object is changed from power to money? Or it may be,
that one man pursues power in order to wealth, and another wealth in order
to power; which last is the safer way, though longer about, and suiting
with every period as well as condition of life, is more generally
followed.

However it be, the extremes of this passion are certainly more frequent
than of any other, and often to a degree so absurd and ridiculous, that if
it were not for their frequency, they could hardly obtain belief. The stage,
which carries other follies and vices beyond nature and probability, falls
very short in the representations of avarice; nor are there any
extravagances in this kind described by ancient or modern comedies, which
are not outdone by an hundred instances, commonly told, among ourselves.

I am ready to conclude from hence, that a vice which keeps so firm a hold
upon human nature, and governs it with so unlimited a tyranny, since it
cannot be wholly eradicated, ought at least to be confined to particular
objects, to thrift and penury, to private fraud and extortion, and never
suffered to prey upon the public; and should certainly be rejected as the
most unqualifying circumstance for any employment, where bribery and
corruption can possibly enter.

If the mischiefs of this vice, in a public station, were confined to
enriching only those particular persons employed, the evil would be more
supportable; but it is usually quite otherwise. When a steward defrauds
his lord, he must connive at the rest of the servants, while they are
following the same practice in their several spheres; so that in some
families you may observe a subordination of knaves in a link downwards to
the very helper in the stables, all cheating by concert, and with
impunity: And even if this were all, perhaps the master could bear it
without being undone; but it so happens, that for every shilling the
servant gets by his iniquity, the master loses twenty; the perquisites of
servants being but small compositions for suffering shopkeepers to bring
in what bills they please.[3] It is exactly the same thing in a state: an
avaricious man in office is in confederacy with the whole clan of
his district or dependence, which in modern terms of art is called, “To
live, and let live;” and yet their gains are the smallest part of
the public’s loss. Give a guinea to a knavish land-waiter, and he shall
connive at the merchant for cheating the Queen of an hundred. A brewer
gives a bribe to have the privilege of selling drink to the Navy; but the
fraud is ten times greater than the bribe, and the public is at the whole
loss.[4]

Moralists make two kinds of avarice; that of Catiline, alieni appetens,
sui profusus;[5] and the other more generally understood by that name;
which is, the endless desire of hoarding: But I take the former to be more
dangerous in a state, because it mingles well with ambition, which I think
the latter cannot; for though the same breast may be capable of admitting
both, it is not able to cultivate them; and where the love of heaping
wealth prevails, there is not in my opinion, much to be apprehended from
ambition. The disgrace of that sordid vice is sooner apt to spread than
any other, and is always attended with the hatred and scorn of the people:
so that whenever those two passions happen to meet in the same subject, it
is not unlikely that Providence hath placed avarice to be a check upon
ambition; and I have reason to think, some great ministers of state have
been of my opinion.

The divine authority of Holy Writ, the precepts of philosophers, the
lashes and ridicule of satirical poets, have been all employed in
exploding this insatiable thirst of money, and all equally controlled by
the daily practice of mankind. Nothing new remains to be said upon the
occasion, and if there did, I must remember my character, that I am an Examiner
only, and not a Reformer.

However, in those cases where the frailties of particular men do nearly
affect the public welfare, such as a prime minister of state, or a great
general of an army; methinks there should be some expedient contrived, to
let them know impartially what is the world’s opinion in the point:
Encompassed with a crowd of depending flatterers, they are many degrees
blinder to their own faults than the common infirmities of human nature
can plead in their excuse; Advice dares not be offered, or is wholly lost,
or returned with hatred: and whatever appears in public against their
prevailing vice, goes for nothing; being either not applied, or passing
only for libel and slander, proceeding from the malice and envy of a
party.

I have sometimes thought, that if I had lived at Rome in the time of the
first Triumvirate, I should have been tempted to write a letter, as from
an unknown hand, to those three great men, who had then usurped the
sovereign power; wherein I would freely and sincerely tell each of them
that fault which I conceived was most odious, and of most consequence to
the commonwealth: That, to Crassus, should have been sent to him after his
conquests in Mesopotamia, and in the following terms.[6]

“To Marcus Crassus, health.

“If you apply as you ought, what I now write,[7] you will be more
obliged to me than to all the world, hardly excepting your parents or your
country. I intend to tell you, without disguise or prejudice, the opinion
which the world has entertained of you: and to let you see I write this
without any sort of ill will, you shall first hear the sentiments they
have to your advantage. No man disputes the gracefulness of your person;
you are allowed to have a good and clear understanding, cultivated by the
knowledge of men and manners, though not by literature. You are no ill
orator in the Senate; you are said to excel in the art of bridling and
subduing your anger, and stifling or concealing your resentments. You have
been a most successful general, of long experience, great conduct, and
much personal courage. You have gained many important victories for the
commonwealth, and forced the strongest towns in Mesopotamia to surrender,
for which frequent supplications have been decreed by the Senate. Yet with
all these qualities, and this merit, give me leave to say, you are neither
beloved by the patricians, or plebeians at home, nor by the officers or
private soldiers of your own army abroad: And, do you know, Crassus, that
this is owing to a fault, of which you may cure yourself, by one minutes
reflection? What shall I say? You are the richest person in the
commonwealth; you have no male child, your daughters are all married to
wealthy patricians; you are far in the decline of life; and yet you are
deeply stained with that odious and ignoble vice of covetousness:[8] It is
affirmed, that you descend even to the meanest and most scandalous degrees
of it; and while you possess so many millions, while you are daily
acquiring so many more, you are solicitous how to save a single sesterce,
of which a hundred ignominious instances are produced, and in all men’s
mouths. I will only mention that passage of the buskins,[9] which after
abundance of persuasion, you would hardly suffer to be cut from your legs,
when they were so wet and cold, that to have kept them on, would have
endangered your life.

“Instead of using the common arguments to dissuade you from this weakness,
I will endeavour to convince you, that you are really guilty of it, and
leave the cure to your own good sense. For perhaps, you are not yet
persuaded that this is your crime, you have probably never yet been
reproached for it to your face, and what you are now told, comes from one
unknown, and it may be, from an enemy. You will allow yourself indeed to
be prudent in the management of your fortune; you are not a prodigal, like
Clodius[10] or Catiline, but surely that deserves not the name of avarice.
I will inform you how to be convinced. Disguise your person; go among the
common people in Rome; introduce discourses about yourself; inquire your
own character; do the same in your camp, walk about it in the evening,
hearken at every tent, and if you do not hear every mouth censuring,
lamenting, cursing this vice in you, and even you for this vice, conclude
yourself innocent. If you are not yet persuaded, send for Atticus,[11]
Servius Sulpicius, Cato or Brutus, they are all your friends; conjure them
to tell you ingenuously which is your great fault, and which they would
chiefly wish you to correct; if they do not all agree in their verdict, in
the name of all the gods, you are acquitted.

“When your adversaries reflect how far you are gone in this vice, they are
tempted to talk as if we owed our success, not to your courage or conduct,
but to those veteran troops you command, who are able to conquer under any
general, with so many brave and experienced officers to lead them.
Besides, we know the consequences your avarice hath often occasioned. The
soldier hath been starving for bread, surrounded with plenty, and in an
enemy’s country, but all under safeguards and contributions; which if you
had sometimes pleased to have exchanged for provisions, might at the
expense of a few talents in a campaign, have so endeared you to the army,
that they would have desired you to lead them to the utmost limits of
Asia. But you rather chose to confine your conquests within the fruitful
country of Mesopotamia, where plenty of money might be raised. How far
that fatal greediness of gold may have influenced you, in breaking off the
treaty[12] with the old Parthian King Orodes,[13] you best can tell; your
enemies charge you with it, your friends offer nothing material in your
defence; and all agree, there is nothing so pernicious, which the extremes
of avarice may not be able to inspire.

“The moment you quit this vice, you will be a truly great man; and still
there will imperfections enough remain to convince us, you are not a god.
Farewell.”

Perhaps a letter of this nature, sent to so reasonable a man as Crassus,
might have put him upon Examining into himself, and correcting that
little sordid appetite, so utterly inconsistent with all pretences to a
hero. A youth in the heat of blood may plead with some shew of reason,
that he is not able to subdue his lusts; An ambitious man may use the same
arguments for his love of power, or perhaps other arguments to justify it.
But, excess of avarice hath neither of these pleas to offer; it is not to
be justified, and cannot pretend temptation for excuse: Whence can the
temptation come? Reason disclaims it altogether, and it cannot be said to
lodge in the blood, or the animal spirits. So that I conclude, no man of
true valour and true understanding, upon whom this vice has stolen
unawares, when he is convinced he is guilty, will suffer it to remain in
his breast an hour.

[Footnote 1: No. 27 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “It is of the greatest importance in the discharge of every
office of trade, or of the public treasury, that the least suspicion of
avarice should be avoided.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The Commissioners for examining the public accounts reported
to the House of Commons (December 21st, 1711) that the Duke of Marlborough
had received from Sir Solomon de Medina (army contractor for bread) and
his predecessor, during the years 1702 to 1711, a sum of £63,319 3s. 7d.
“In this report was contained the deposition of Sir Solomon Medina,
charging the Duke of Marlborough and Adam Cardonell, his secretary, of
various peculations, with regard to the contracts for bread and
bread-wagons for the army in Flanders.” The Duke admitted the fact in a
letter to the Queen, dated November 10th, 1711, but said that the whole
sum had “been constantly employed for the service of the public, in
keeping secret correspondence, and in getting intelligence of the enemy’s
motions and designs” (Macpherson’s “Great Britain,” ii. 512; Tindal’s
“History,” iv. 232; and “Journals of House of Commons,” xvii. 16). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See the remarks in No. 39, post, p.250. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Sallust, “Catiline,” 5. “Greedy of what was not his own,
lavish of what was.” Catiline was extravagant and profligate, and quite
unscrupulous in the pursuit of his many pleasures. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: A most severe censure on the Duke of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Commenting on this “The Medley” (No. 20, February 12th, 1711)
remarks: “Of all that ever made it their business to defame, there never
was such a bungler sure as my friend. He writes a letter now to Crassus,
as a man marked out for destruction, because that hint was given him six
months ago; and does not seem to know yet that he is still employed, and
that in attacking him, he affronts the Q[uee]n.”

Writing to Stella, under date February 18th, Swift says: “Lord Rivers,
talking to me the other day, cursed the paper called ‘The Examiner,’ for
speaking civilly of the Duke of Marlborough: this I happened to talk of to
the Secretary [St. John], who blamed the warmth of that lord, and some
others, and swore, that, if their advice were followed, they would be
blown up in twenty-four hours” (vol. ii., p. 123 of present edition).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: To Stella Swift writes somewhat later (March 7th): “Yes, I do
read the ‘Examiners,’ and they are written very finely as you judge. I do
not think they are too severe on the Duke; they only tax him of avarice,
and his avarice has ruined us. You may count upon all things in them to be
true. The author has said, it is not Prior; but perhaps it may be
Atterbury” (vol. ii., p. 133 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Wet stockings. [FAULKNER.]]

[Footnote 10: Clodius Albinus, the Roman general, died 197 A.D. The
reference here is to the Earl of Wharton (see No. 27, ante, p.
169). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: T. Pomponius Atticus, the friend and correspondent of
Cicero. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: The Treaty of Gertruydenberg (see No. 14, ante, and
note on p. 77; see also note on pp. 201-2 of vol. v. of present edition).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Orodes I. (Arsaces XIV.), King of Parthia, defeated Crassus,
B.C. 53. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 29.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 8, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 15, 1710-11.

Inultus ut tu riseris Cotyttia?[2]

An Answer to the “Letter to the Examiner.”[3]

London, Feb. 15, 1710/11.

Sir,

Though I have wanted leisure to acknowledge the honour of a letter you
were pleased to write to me about six months ago; yet I have been very
careful in obeying some of your commands, and am going on as fast as I can
with the rest. I wish you had thought fit to have conveyed them to me by a
more private hand, than that of the printing-house: for though I was
pleased with a pattern of style and spirit which I proposed to imitate,
yet I was sorry the world should be a witness how far I fell short in
both.

I am afraid you did not consider what an abundance of work you have cut
out for me; neither am I at all comforted by the promise you are so kind
to make, that when I have performed my task,[4] “D[olbe]n shall blush in
his grave among the dead, W[alpo]le among the living, and even Vol[pon]e
shall feel some remorse.” How the gentleman in his grave may have kept his
countenance, I cannot inform you, having no acquaintance at all with the
sexton; but for the other two, I take leave to assure you, there have not
yet appeared the least signs of blushing or remorse in either, though some
very good opportunities have offered, if they had thought fit to accept
them; so that with your permission, I had rather engage to continue this
work till they are in their graves too, which I am sure will happen much
sooner than the other.

You desire I would collect “some of those indignities offered last year to
her M[ajest]y.” I am ready to oblige you; and have got a pretty tolerable
collection by me, which I am in doubt whether to publish by itself in a
large volume in folio, or scatter them here and there occasionally in my
papers. Though indeed I am sometimes thinking to stifle them altogether;
because such a history will be apt to give foreigners a monstrous opinion
of our country. But since it is your absolute opinion, the world should be
informed; I will with the first occasion pick out a few choice instances,
and let them take their chance in the ensuing papers. I have likewise in
my cabinet certain quires of paper filled with facts of corruption,
mismanagement, cowardice, treachery, avarice, ambition, and the like, with
an alphabetical table, to save trouble. And perhaps you will not wonder at
the care I take to be so well provided, when you consider the vast expense
I am at: I feed weekly two or three wit-starved writers, who have no other
visible support; besides several others that live upon my offals. In
short, I am like a nurse who suckles twins at one time, and has likewise
one or two whelps constantly to draw her breasts.

I must needs confess, (and it is with grief I speak it) that I have been
the innocent cause of a great circulation of dullness: at the same time, I
have often wondered how it has come to pass, that these industrious
people, after poring so constantly upon the “Examiner,”[5] a paper writ
with plain sense, and in a tolerable style, have made so little
improvement. I am sure it would have fallen out quite otherwise with me;
for, by what I have seen of their performances (and I am credibly informed
they are all of a piece) if I had perused them till now, I should have
been fit for little but to make an advocate in the same cause.

You, Sir, perhaps will wonder, as most others do, what end these angry
folks propose, in writing perpetually against the “Examiner”: it is not to
beget a better opinion of the late ministry, or with any hope to convince
the world that I am in the wrong in any one fact I relate; they know all
that to be lost labour; and yet their design is important enough: they
would fain provoke me by all sort of methods, within the length of their
capacity, to answer their papers; which would render mine wholly useless
to the public; for if it once came to rejoinder and reply, we should be
all upon a level, and then their work would be done.

There is one gentleman indeed, who has written three small pamphlets upon
“the Management of the War,” and “the Treaty of Peace:”[6] These I had
intended to have bestowed a paper in Examining, and could easily
have made it appear, that whatever he says of truth, relates nothing at
all to the evils we complain of, or controls one syllable of what I have
ever advanced. Nobody that I know of did ever dispute the Duke of
M[arlboroug]h’s courage, conduct or success, they have been always
unquestionable, and will continue to be so, in spite of the malice of his
enemies, or, which is yet more, the weakness of his advocates. The
nation only wished to see him taken out of ill hands, and put into better.
But, what is all this to the conduct of the late m[i]n[i]stry, the
shameful mismanagements in Spain, or the wrong steps in the treaty of
peace, the secret of which will not bear the light, and is consequently by
this author very poorly defended? These and many other things I would have
shewn; but upon second thoughts determined to have done it in a discourse
by itself,[7] rather than take up room here, and break into the design of
this paper, from whence I have resolved to banish controversy as much as
possible. But the postscript to his third pamphlet was enough to disgust
me from having any dealings at all with such a writer; unless that part
was left to some footman[8] he had picked up among the boys who follow the
camp, whose character it would suit much better than that of the supposed
author.[9] At least, the foul language, the idle impotent menace, and the
gross perverting of an innocent expression in the 4th “Examiner,”[10]
joined to that respect I shall ever have for the function of a divine,
would incline me to believe so. But when he turns off his footman, and
disclaims that postscript, I will tear it out, and see how far the rest
deserves to be considered.

But, Sir, I labour under a much greater difficulty, upon which I should be
glad to hear your advice. I am worried on one side by the Whigs for being
too severe, and by the Tories on the other for being too gentle. I have
formerly hinted a complaint of this; but having lately received two
peculiar letters, among many others, I thought nothing could better
represent my condition, or the opinion which the warm men of both sides
have of my conduct, than to send you a transcript of each. The former is
exactly in these words.

“To the ‘Examiner.’

“MR. EXAMINER,

“By your continual reflecting upon the conduct of the late
m[i]n[i]stry, and by your encomiums on the present, it is as clear as the
sun at noon- day, that your are a Jesuit or Nonjuror, employed by the
friends of the Pretender, to endeavour to introduce Popery, and slavery,
and arbitrary power, and to infringe the sacred Act of Toleration of
Dissenters. Now, Sir, since the most ingenious authors who write weekly
against you, are not able to teach you better manners, I would have you to
know, that those great and excellent men, as low as you think them at
present, do not want friends that will take the first proper occasion to
cut your throat, as all such enemies to moderation ought to be served. It
is well you have cleared another person[11] from being author of your
cursed libels; though d—mme, perhaps after all, that may be a
bamboozle too. However I hope we shall soon ferret you out. Therefore I
advise you as a friend, to let fall your pen, and retire betimes; for our
patience is now at an end. It is enough to lose our power and employments,
without setting the whole nation against us. Consider three years is the
life of a party; and d—mme, every dog has his day, and it will be
our turn next; therefore take warning, and learn to sleep in a whole skin,
or whenever we are uppermost, by G—d you shall find no mercy.”

The other letter was in the following terms.

“To the ‘Examiner.’

“SIR,,

“I am a country member, and constantly send a dozen of your papers down
to my electors. I have read them all, but I confess not with the
satisfaction I expected. It is plain you know a great deal more than you
write; why will you not let us have it all out? We are told, that the
Qu[een] has been a long time treated with insolence by those she has most
obliged; Pray, Sir, let us have a few good stories upon that head. We have
been cheated of several millions; why will you not set a mark on the
knaves who are guilty, and shew us what ways they took to rob the public
at such a rate? Inform us how we came to be disappointed of peace about
two years ago: In short, turn the whole mystery of iniquity inside-out,
that every body may have a view of it. But above all, explain to us, what
was at the bottom of that same impeachment: I am sure I never liked it;
for at that very time, a dissenting preacher in our neighbourhood, came
often to see our parson; it could be for no good, for he would walk about
the barns and stables, and desire to look into the church, as who should
say, These will shortly be mine; and we all believed he was then
contriving some alterations against he got into possession: And I shall
never forget, that a Whig justice offered me then very high for my
bishop’s lease. I must be so bold to tell you, Sir, that you are too
favourable: I am sure, there was no living in quiet for us while they were
in the saddle. I was turned out of the commission, and called a Jacobite,
though it cost me a thousand pound in joining with the Prince of Orange at
the Revolution. The discoveries I would have you make, are of some facts
for which they ought to be hanged; not that I value their heads, but I
would see them exposed, which may be done upon the owners’ shoulders, as
well as upon a pole, &c.”

These, Sir, are the sentiments of a whole party on one side, and of
considerable numbers on the other: however, taking the medium
between these extremes, I think to go on as I have hitherto done, though I
am sensible my paper would be more popular, if I did not lean too much to
the favourable side. For nothing delights the people more than to see
their oppressors humbled, and all their actions, painted with proper
colours, set out in open view. Exactos tyrannos densum humeris bibit
aure vulgus.[12]

But as for the Whigs, I am in some doubt whether this mighty concern they
shew for the honour of the late ministry, may not be affected, at least
whether their masters will thank them for their zeal in such a cause. It
is I think, a known story of a gentleman who fought another for calling
him “son of a whore;” but the lady desired her son to make no more
quarrels upon that subject, because it was true. For pray, Sir;
does it not look like a jest, that such a pernicious crew, after draining
our wealth, and discovering the most destructive designs against our
Church and State, instead of thanking fortune that they are got off safe
in their persons and plunder, should hire these bullies of the pen to
defend their reputations? I remember I thought it the hardest case in the
world, when a poor acquaintance of mine, having fallen among sharpers,
where he lost all his money, and then complaining he was cheated, got a
good beating into the bargain, for offering to affront gentlemen. I
believe the only reason why these purloiners of the public, cause such a
clutter to be made about their reputations, is to prevent inquisitions,
that might tend towards making them refund: like those women they call
shoplifters, who when they are challenged for their thefts, appear to be
mighty angry and affronted, for fear of being searched.

I will dismiss you, Sir, when I have taken notice of one particular.
Perhaps you may have observed in the tolerated factious papers of the
week, that the E[arl] of R[ochester][13] is frequently reflected on for
having been ecclesiastical commissioner and lord treasurer, in the reign
of the late King James. The fact is true; and it will not be denied to his
immortal honour, that because he could not comply with the measures then
taking, he resigned both those employments; of which the latter was
immediately supplied by a commission, composed of two popish lords and the
present E[ar]l of G[o]d[o]l[phi]n.[14]

[Footnote 1: No. 28 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Horace, “Epodes,” xvii. 56.

[Footnote 3: “A Letter to the Examiner. Printed in the year, 1710,”
appeared shortly after the issue of the second number of “The Examiner.”
It was attributed to St. John. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The writer of the “Letter” invited the “Examiner” to “paint
… the present state of the war abroad, and expose to public view those
principles upon which, of late, it has been carried on … Collect some
few of the indignities which have been this year offered to her
Majesty…. When this is done, D——n shall blush in his grave
among the dead, W——le among the living, and even Vol——e
shall feel some remorse.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The Medley” treated “The Examiner” with scant courtesy, and
never failed to cast ridicule on its work. In No. 21 (February 19th, 1711)
the writer says: “No man of common sense ever thought any body wrote the
paper but Abel Roper, or some of his allies, there being not one quality
in ‘The Examiner’ which Abel has not eminently distinguished himself by
since he set up for a political writer. ‘Tis true, Abel is the more modest
of the two, and it never entered into his head to say, as my friend does
of his paper, ‘Tis writ with plain sense and in a tolerable style.'” In
No. 23 (March 5th) he says: “There is indeed a great resemblance between
his brother Abel and himself; and I find a great dispute among the party,
to which of them to give the preference. They are both news writers, as
they utter things which no body ever heard of but from their papers.”

Abel Roper conducted the Tory paper called “The Post Boy.” (See note on p.
290 of vol. v. of present edition.) [T.S.] ]

[Footnote 6: Two of these pamphlets were already referred to in a
postscript to No. 24 of “The Examiner” (see note, p. 151). The third was
“The Negotiations for a Treaty of Peace, in 1709. Consider’d, In a Third
Letter to a Tory-Member. Part the First.” Dated December 22nd, 1710, The
“Fourth Letter” was dated January 10th, 1710/11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: It may be that Swift’s intention was carried out in two
pamphlets, one entitled, “An Examination of the Management of the War. In
a Letter to My Lord * * *,” published March 3rd, 1710/1; and the other
styled, “An Examination of the Third and Fourth Letters to a Tory Member,
relating to the Negociations for a Treaty of Peace in 1709. In a Second
Letter to My Lord * * *” [With a Postscript to the Medley’s Footman],
published March 15th of the same year. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The postscript to “An Examination of the Third and Fourth
Letters” mentions a pamphlet, “An Answer to the Examination of the
Management of the War,” by the Medley’s Footman. “The Medley,” No. 21
(February 19th), remarks: “He could also prove there were wrong steps in
the Treaty of Peace, the Allies would have all; but he won’t do it,
because he is treated like a footman.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: I. e. Dr. Francis Hare. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Dr. Hare, in the postscript to his third pamphlet, said:
“The Examiner is extremely mistaken, if he thinks I shall enter the lists
with so prostitute a writer, who can neither speak truth, nor knows when
he hears it.” He calls the writer “a mercenary scribbler,” and speaks of
his paper as “weekly libels.” He then quotes an expression from the fourth
number (published before Swift undertook “The Examiner”), and concludes by
saying that he had met more than his match in the ingenious writer of “The
Medley,” even were he much abler than he is.

The fourth “Examiner” had printed a “Letter from the Country,” in which
the following passage occurs: “Can any wise people think it possible, that
the Crown should be so mad as to choose ministers, who would not support
public credit? … This is such a wildness as is never … to be met with
in the Roman story; except in a devouring Sejanus at home, or an ambitious
Catiline at the head of a mercenary army.”

The writer of “An Examination of the Third and Fourth Letters,” says: “The
words indeed are in the paper quoted, that is, ‘The Examiner,’ No. 4, but
the application is certainly the proper thought of the author of the
postscript” (p. 28). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: I. e. Prior. See No. 27, p. 168. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, was lord treasurer from
168 4/5 to 168 6/7, when five commissioners were appointed: Lord Belasyse,
Lord Godolphin, Lord Dover, Sir John Ernle (chancellor of the exchequer),
and Sir Stephen Foxe. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: “The Medley,” No. 22 (February 26th, 1711) remarks on this:
“He might have said with as much truth, ’twas supplied by my Lord G——
and two Protestant knights, Sir Stephen Fox and Sir John Ernle.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 30.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 15, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1710-11.

Laus summa in fortunae bonis, non extulisse se in potestate, non fuisse
insolentem in pecuniâ, non se praetulisse aliis propter abundantiam
fortunae.[2]

I am conscious to myself that I write this paper with no other intention
but that of doing good: I never received injury from the late ministry,
nor advantage from the present, further than in common with every good
subject. There were among the former one or two, who must be allowed to
have possessed very valuable qualities; but proceeding by a system of
politics, which our constitution could not suffer; and discovering a
contempt of all religion, but especially of that which hath been so
happily established among us ever since the Reformation, they seem to have
been justly suspected of no very good inclinations to either.

It is possible, that a man may speculatively prefer the constitution of
another country, or an Utopia of his own, before that of the nation where
he is born and lives; yet from considering the dangers of innovation, the
corruptions of mankind, and the frequent impossibility of reducing ideas
to practice, he may join heartily in preserving the present order of
things, and be a true friend to the government already settled. So in
religion; a man may perhaps have little or none of it at heart; yet if he
conceals his opinions, if he endeavours to make no proselytes, advances no
impious tenets in writing or discourse: if, according to the common
atheistical notion, he believes religion to be only a contrivance of
politicians for keeping the vulgar in awe, and that the present model is
better adjusted than any other to so useful an end: though the condition
of such a man as to his own future state be very deplorable; yet
Providence, which often works good out of evil, can make even such a man
an instrument for contributing toward the preservation of the Church.

On the other side, I take a state to be truly in danger, both as to its
religion and government, when a set of ambitious politicians, bred up in a
hatred to the constitution, and a contempt for all religion, are forced
upon exerting these qualities in order to keep or increase their power, by
widening their bottom, and taking in (like Mahomet) some principles from
every party, that is any way discontented at the present faith and
settlement; which was manifestly our case. Upon this occasion I remember
to have asked some considerable Whigs, whether it did not bring a
disreputation upon their body, to have the whole herd of Presbyterians,
Independents, Atheists, Anabaptists, Deists, Quakers and Socinians, openly
and universally listed under their banners? They answered, that all this
was absolutely necessary, in order to make a balance against the Tories,
and all little enough: for indeed, it was as much as they could possibly
do, though assisted with the absolute power of disposing every employment;
while the bulk of English gentry kept firm to their old principles in
Church and State.

But notwithstanding whatever I have hitherto said, I am informed, several
among the Whigs continue still so refractory, that they will hardly allow
the heads of their party to have entertained any designs of ruining the
constitution, or that they would have endeavoured it, if they had
continued in power, I beg their pardon if I have discovered a secret; but
who could imagine they ever intended it should be one, after those overt
acts with which they thought fit to conclude their farce? But perhaps they
now find it convenient to deny vigorously, that the question may
remain; “Why was the old ministry changed?” which they urge on without
ceasing, as if no occasion in the least had been given, but that all were
owing to the insinuations of crafty men, practising upon the weakness of
an easy pr[inc]e. I shall therefore offer among a hundred, one reason for
this change, which I think would justify any monarch that ever reigned,
for the like proceeding.

It is notorious enough, how highly princes have been blamed in the
histories of all countries, particularly of our own; upon the account of
minions; who have been ever justly odious to the people, for their
insolence and avarice, and engrossing the favour of their masters. Whoever
has been the least conversant in the English story cannot but have heard
of Gaveston[3], the Spencers[4], and the Earl of Oxford[5]; who by the
excess and abuse of their power, cost the princes they served, or rather
governed, their crowns and lives. However, in the case of minions, it must
at least be acknowledged that the prince is pleased and happy, though his
subjects be aggrieved; and he has the plea of friendship to excuse him,
which is a disposition of generous minds. Besides, a wise minion, though
he be haughty to others, is humble and insinuating to his master, and
cultivates his favour by obedience and respect. But our misfortune
has been a great deal worse: we have suffered for some years under the
oppression, the avarice and insolence of those, for whom the Qu[ee]n had
neither esteem nor friendship; who rather seemed to snatch their own dues,
than receive the favour of their sovereign, and were so far from returning
respect, that they forgot common good manners. They imposed on their
prince, by urging the necessity of affairs of their own creating: they
first raised difficulties, and then offered them as arguments to keep
themselves in power. They united themselves against nature and principle,
to a party they had always abhorred, and which was now content to come in
upon any terms, leaving them and their creatures in full possession of the
court. Then they urged the formidable strength of that party, and the
dangers which must follow by disobliging of it. So that it seems almost a
miracle, how a prince, thus besieged on all sides, could alone have
courage and prudence enough to extricate herself.

And indeed there is a point of history relating to this matter, which well
deserves to be considered. When her M[ajest]y came to the crown, she took
into favour and employment, several persons who were esteemed the best
friends of the old constitution; among whom none were reckoned further
gone in the high church principles (as they are usually called) than two
or three, who had at that time most credit, and ever since, till within
these few months, possessed all power at court. So that the first umbrage
given to the Whigs, and the pretences for clamouring against France and
the Pretender, were derived from them. And I believe nothing appeared then
more unlikely, than that such different opinions should ever incorporate;
that party having upon former occasions treated those very persons with
enmity enough. But some l[or]ds then about court, and in the Qu[een]’s
good graces, not able to endure those growing impositions upon the prince
and people, presumed to interpose, and were consequently soon removed and
disgraced: However, when a most exorbitant grant was proposed,[6]
antecedent to any visible merit, it miscarried in Parliament, for want of
being seconded by those who had most credit in the House, and who having
always opposed the like excesses in a former reign, thought it their duty
to do so still, to shew the world that the dislike was not against persons
but things. But this was to cross the oligarchy in the tenderest point, a
point which outweighed all considerations of duty and gratitude to their
prince, or regard to the constitution. And therefore after having in
several private meetings concerted measures with their old enemies, and
granted as well as received conditions, they began to change their style
and their countenance, and to put it as a maxim in the mouths of their
emissaries, that England must be saved by the Whigs. This unnatural league
was afterwards cultivated by another incident; I mean the Act of
Security,[7] and the consequences of it, which every body knows; when (to
use the words of my correspondent)[8] “the sovereign authority was
parcelled out among a faction, and made the purchase of indemnity for an
offending M[iniste]r:” Thus the union of the two kingdoms improved that
between the ministry and the j[u]nto, which was afterwards cemented by
their mutual danger in that storm they so narrowly escaped about three
years ago;[9] but however was not quite perfected till the Prince’s
death;[10] and then they went lovingly on together, both satisfied with
their several shares, at full liberty to gratify their predominant
inclinations; the first, their avarice and ambition; the other, their
models of innovation in Church and State.

Therefore, whoever thinks fit to revive that baffled question, “Why was
the late ministry changed?” may receive the following answer; That it was
become necessary by the insolence and avarice of some about the Qu[een],
who in order to perpetuate their tyranny had made a monstrous alliance
with those who profess principles destructive to our religion and
government: If this will not suffice, let him make an abstract of all the
abuses I have mentioned in my former papers, and view them together; after
which if he still remains unsatisfied, let him suspend his opinion a few
weeks longer. Though after all, I think the question as trifling as that
of the Papists, when they ask us, “where was our religion before Luther?”
And indeed, the ministry was changed for the same reason that religion was
reformed, because a thousand corruptions had crept into the discipline and
doctrine of the state, by the pride, the avarice, the fraud, and the
ambition of those who administered to us in secular affairs.

I heard myself censured the other day in a coffee-house, for seeming to
glance in the letter to Crassus,[11] against a great man, who is still in
employment, and likely to continue so. What if I had really intended that
such an application should be given it? I cannot perceive how I could be
justly blamed for so gentle a reproof. If I saw a handsome young fellow
going to a ball at court with a great smut upon his face, could he take it
ill in me to point out the place, and desire him with abundance of good
words to pull out his handkerchief and wipe it off; or bring him to a
glass, where he might plainly see it with his own eyes? Does any man think
I shall suffer my pen to inveigh against vices, only because they are
charged upon persons who are no longer in power? Every body knows, that
certain vices are more or less pernicious, according to the stations of
those who possess them. For example, lewdness and intemperance are not of
so bad consequences in a town rake as a divine. Cowardice in a lawyer is
more supportable than in an officer of the army. If I should find fault
with an admiral because he wanted politeness, or an alderman for not
understanding Greek; that indeed would be to go out of my way, for an
occasion of quarrelling; but excessive avarice in a g[enera]l, is I think
the greatest defect he can be liable to, next to those of courage and
conduct, and may be attended with the most ruinous consequences, as it was
in Crassus, who to that vice alone owed the destruction of himself and his
army.[12] It is the same thing in praising men’s excellencies, which are
more or less valuable, as the person you commend has occasion to employ
them. A man may perhaps mean honestly, yet if he be not able to spell, he
shall never have my vote for a secretary: Another may have wit and
learning in a post where honesty, with plain common sense, are of much
more use: You may praise a soldier for his skill at chess, because it is
said to be a military game, and the emblem of drawing up an army; but this
to a tr[easure]r would be no more a compliment, than if you called him a
gamester or a jockey.[13]

P.S. I received a letter relating to Mr. Greenshields; the person who sent
it may know, that I will say something to it in the next paper.

[Footnote 1: No. 29 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “Tractanda in laudationibus etiam haec sunt naturae et
fortunae bona, in quibus est summa laus: non extulisse,” etc.—CICERO,
De Oratore ii. 84.

“These blessings of nature and fortune fall within the province of
panegyric, the highest strain of which is, that a man possessed power
without pride, riches without insolence, and the fullness of fortune
without the arrogance of greatness.”—W. GUTHRIE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, the favourite of Edward II.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Hugh le Despencer, Earl of Winchester, and his son of the
same name, both favourites of Edward II., and both hanged in 1326. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, favourite of Richard II.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: See No. 17, ante, and note, p. 95. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Bill of Security passed the Scottish Parliament in 1703,
but was refused the Royal Assent. It provided for the separation of the
Crowns of England and Scotland unless security was given to the latter for
full religious and commercial independence. It was again passed in 1704.
(See also note in vol. v., p. 336 of present edition.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The writer of the “Letter” does not ascribe this result to
the Act of Security, but to the Queen raising some of her servants to the
highest degree of power who were unable “to associate with, men of
honester principles than themselves,” which led to “subjection to the will
of an arbitrary junto and to the caprice of an insolent woman.” [T. S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin threatened to
resign in February, 1707/8, unless Harley was dismissed. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Prince George died October 28th, 1708. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: “The Medley,” No. 20 (February 12th) was largely taken up
with remarks on this letter, which appeared in “The Examiner,” No. 28. See
passage there quoted in the note, p. 177. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Crassus was defeated by Orodes, King of Parthia, through the
treachery of Ariamnes. After Crassus was beheaded Orodes caused molten
gold to be poured into his mouth. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Godolphin. See No. 27, ante, p. 172. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 31.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, TO THURSDAY MARCH 1, 1710-11.

Quae enim domus tam stabilis, quae tam firma civitas est, quae non
odiis atque discidiis funditus possit everti?[2]

If we examine what societies of men are in closest union among themselves,
we shall find them either to be those who are engaged in some evil design,
or who labour under one common misfortune: Thus the troops of banditti
in several countries abroad, the knots of highwaymen in our own nation,
the several tribes of sharpers, thieves and pickpockets, with many others,
are so firmly knit together, that nothing is more difficult than to break
or dissolve their several gangs. So likewise those who are
fellow-sufferers under any misfortune, whether it be in reality or
opinion, are usually contracted into a very strict union; as we may
observe in the Papists throughout this kingdom, under those real
difficulties which are justly put on them; and in the several schisms of
Presbyterians, and other sects, under that grievous persecution of the
modern kind, called want of power. And the reason why such confederacies,
are kept so sacred and inviolable, is very plain, because in each of those
cases I have mentioned, the whole body is moved by one common spirit, in
pursuit of one general end, and the interest of individuals is not crossed
by each other, or by the whole.

Now, both these motives are joined to unite the high-flying Whigs at
present: they have been always engaged in an evil design, and of late they
are faster rivetted by that terrible calamity, the loss of power. So that
whatever designs a mischievous crew of dark confederates may possibly
entertain, who will stop at no means to compass them, may be justly
apprehended from these.

On the other side, those who wish well to the public, and would gladly
contribute to its service, are apt to differ in their opinions about the
methods of promoting it, and when their party flourishes, are sometimes
envious at those in power, ready to overvalue their own merit, and be
impatient till it is rewarded by the measure they have prescribed for
themselves. There is a further topic of contention, which a ruling party
is apt to fall into, in relation to retrospections, and enquiry into past
miscarriages; wherein some are thought too warm and zealous; others too
cool and remiss; while in the meantime these divisions are industriously
fomented by the discarded faction; which though it be an old practice,
hath been much improved in the schools of the Jesuits, who when they
despaired of perverting this nation to popery, by arguments or plots
against the state, sent their emissaries to subdivide us into schisms.[3]
And this expedient is now with great propriety taken up by our men of
incensed moderation, because they suppose themselves able to attack the
strongest of our subdivisions, and so subdue us one after another. Nothing
better resembles this proceeding, than that famous combat between the
Horatii and Curiatii,[4] where two of the former being killed, the third,
who remained entire and untouched, was able to kill his three wounded
adversaries, after he had divided them by a stratagem. I well know with
how tender a hand all this should be touched; yet at the same time I think
it my duty to warn the friends as well as expose the enemies of the public
weal, and to begin preaching up union upon the first suspicion that any
steps are made to disturb it.

But the two chief subjects of discontent, which, in most great changes, in
the management of public affairs, are apt to breed differences among those
who are in possession, are what I have just now mentioned; a desire of
punishing the corruptions of former managers; and the rewarding merit,
among those who have been any way instrumental or consenting to the
change. The first of these is a point so nice, that I shall purposely
waive it; but the latter I take to fall properly within my district: By
merit I here understand that value which every man puts upon his own
deservings from the public. And I believe there could not be a more
difficult employment found out, than that of paymaster general to this
sort of merit; or a more noisy, crowded place, than a court of judicature,
erected to settle and adjust every man’s claim upon that article. I
imagine, if this had fallen into the fancy of the ancient poets, they
would have dressed it up after their manner into an agreeable fiction, and
given us a genealogy and description of merit, perhaps not very different
from that which follows.

A Poetical Genealogy and Description of MERIT.

That true Merit, was the son of Virtue and Honour; but that there was
likewise a spurious child who usurped the name, and whose parents were
Vanity and Impudence. That, at a distance, there was a great resemblance
between them, and they were often mistaken for each other. That the
bastard issue had a loud shrill voice, which was perpetually employed in
cravings and complaints; while the other never spoke louder than a
whisper, and was often so bashful that he could not speak at all. That in
all great assemblies, the false Merit would step before the true, and
stand just in his way; was constantly at court, or great men’s levees, or
whispering in some minister’s ear. That the more you fed him, the more
hungry and importunate he grew. That he often passed for the true son of
Virtue and Honour, and the genuine for an impostor. That he was born
distorted and a dwarf, but by force of art appeared of a handsome shape,
and taller than the usual size; and that none but those who were wise and
good, as well as vigilant, could discover his littleness or deformity.
That the true Merit had been often forced to the indignity of applying to
the false, for his credit with those in power, and to keep himself from
starving. That he filled the antechambers with a crew of his dependants
and creatures, such as projectors, schematises, occasional converts to a
party, prostitute flatterers, starveling writers, buffoons, shallow
politicians, empty orators, and the like, who all owned him for their
patron, and grew discontented if they were not immediately fed.

This metaphorical description of false Merit, is, I doubt, calculated for
most countries in Christendom; and as to our own, I believe it may be said
with a sufficient reserve of charity, that we are fully able to reward
every man among us according to his real deservings. And I think I may
add, without suspicion of flattery, that never any prince had a ministry
with a better judgment to distinguish between false and real merit, than
that which is now at the helm; or whose inclination as well as interest it
is to encourage the latter. And it ought to be observed, that those great
and excellent persons we see at the head of affairs, are of the Qu[een]’s
own personal voluntary choice; not forced upon her by any insolent,
overgrown favourite; or by the pretended necessity of complying with an
unruly faction.

Yet these are the persons whom those scandals to the press, in their daily
pamphlets and papers, openly revile at so ignominious a rate, as I believe
was never tolerated before under any government. For surely no lawful
power derived from a prince, should be so far affronted, as to leave those
who are in authority exposed to every scurrilous libeller. Because in this
point I make a mighty difference between those who are in, and
those who are out of power; not upon any regard to their persons,
but the stations they are placed in by the sovereign. And if my
distinction be right, I think I might appeal to any man, whether if a
stranger were to read the invectives which are daily published against the
present ministry, and the outrageous fury of the authors against me for
censuring the last; he would not conclude the Whigs to be at this
time in full possession of power and favour, and the Tories entirely at
mercy? But all this now ceases to be a wonder, since the Qu[een] herself
is no longer spared; witness the libel published some days ago under the
title of “A Letter to Sir J[aco]b B[an]ks,”[5] where the reflections upon
her sacred Majesty are much more plain and direct, than ever the
“Examiner” thought fit to publish against the most obnoxious persons in a
m[inistr]y, discarded for endeavouring the ruin of their prince and
country. Caesar indeed threatened to hang the pirates for presuming to
disturb him while he was their prisoner aboard their ship.[6] But it was
Caesar who did so, and he did it to a crew of public robbers; and it
became the greatness of his spirit, for he lived to execute what he had
threatened. Had they been in his power, and sent such a message, it
could be imputed to nothing but the extremes of impudence, folly or
madness.

I had a letter last week relating to Mr. Greenshields[7] an Episcopal
clergyman of Scotland, and the writer seems to be a gentleman of that part
of Britain. I remember formerly to have read a printed account of Mr.
Greenshields’s case, who has been prosecuted and silenced for no other
reason beside reading divine service, after the manner of the Church of
England, to his own congregation, who desired it: though, as the gentleman
who writes to me says, there is no law in Scotland against those meetings;
and he adds, that the sentence pronounced against Mr. Greenshields, “will
soon be affirmed, if some care be not taken to prevent it.” I am
altogether uninformed in the particulars of this case, and besides to
treat it justly, would not come within the compass of my paper; therefore
I could wish the gentleman would undertake it in a discourse by itself;
and I should be glad he would inform the public in one fact, whether
Episcopal assemblies are freely allowed in Scotland? It is notorious that
abundance of their clergy fled from thence some years ago into England and
Ireland, as from a persecution; but it was alleged by their enemies, that
they refused to take the oaths to the government, which however none of
them scrupled when they came among us. It is somewhat extraordinary to see
our Whigs and fanatics keep such a stir about the sacred Act of
Toleration, while their brethren will not allow a connivance in so near a
neighbourhood; especially if what the gentleman insists on in his letter
be true, that nine parts in ten of the nobility and gentry, and two in
three of the commons, be Episcopal; of which one argument he offers, is
the present choice of their representatives in both Houses, though opposed
to the utmost by the preachings, threatenings and anathemas of the kirk.
Such usage to a majority, may, as he thinks, be of dangerous consequence;
and I entirely agree with him. If these be the principles of high kirk,
God preserve at least the southern parts from their tyranny!

[Footnote 1: No. 30 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, “De Amicitiâ,” vii. “For what family is so firmly
rooted, what state so strong, as not to be liable to complete overthrow
from hatred and strife.”—G.H. Wells. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Refers to the October Club. See Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to
that Change,” etc. (vol. v., pp. 385-6 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The contest is the subject of one of Macaulay’s “Lays.” Three
brothers named Horatius fought with three named Curiatius, and the fight
resulted in Publius Horatius being the sole survivor. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: In his letter to the Earl of Peterborough, dated February,
1710/1 (Scott, vol. xv., pp. 422-3), Swift speaks more favourably of this
pamphlet. His remarks to the Earl throw considerable light on Swift’s own
position as a Tory: “The piece is shrewdly written; and, in my opinion,
not to be answered, otherwise than by disclaiming that sort of passive
obedience which the Tories are charged with. This dispute would soon be
ended, if the dunces who write on each side would plainly tell us what the
object of this passive obedience is in our country; for I dare swear nine
in ten of the Whigs will allow it to be the legislature, and as many of
the Tories deny it to the prince alone; and I hardly ever saw a Whig and a
Tory together, whom I could not immediately reconcile on that article when
I made them explain themselves.”

The pamphlet was written by a Mr. Benson in reply to Sir Jacob Banks, who,
as member for Minehead, had, in 1709-10 presented an address from his
constituents in which it was pretty broadly avowed that subjects must obey
their monarch, since he was responsible to God alone. The writer of the
letter institutes a clever parallel between England and Sweden. See note
to No. 14, ante, and No. 34, post, pp. 75 and 216. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Julius Caesar was captured by pirates off the coast of
Miletus (c. 75 B.C.) and held to ransom. The threat of crucifixion
he then held out to his captors he afterwards fulfilled. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Rev. James Greenshields was imprisoned (September 15th,
1709) for conducting in Edinburgh the service according to the English
Prayer Book. He appealed to the House of Lords, and the judgment against
him was reversed, March 1st. 1710/1 (“Journals of House of Lords,” xix).
[T.S.]]

NUMB. 32.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 1, TO THURSDAY MARCH 8, 1710-11.

I had last week sent me by an unknown hand, a passage out of Plato,[3]
with some hints how to apply it. That author puts a fable into the mouth
of Aristophanes, with an account of the original of love. That, mankind
was at first created with four arms and legs, and all other parts double
to what they are now; till Jupiter, as a punishment for his sins, cleft
him in two with a thunderbolt, since which time we are always looking for
our other half; and this is the cause of love. But Jupiter
threatened, that if they did not mend their manners, he would give them
t’other slit, and leave them to hop about in the shape of figures in basso
relievo. The effect of this last threatening, my correspondent
imagines, is now come to pass; and that as the first splitting was the
original of love, by inclining us to search for our t’other half, so the
second was the cause of hatred, by prompting us to fly from our other
side, and dividing the same body into two, gave each slice the name of a
party.

I approve the fable and application, with this refinement upon it. For
parties do not only split a nation, but every individual among them,
leaving each but half their strength, and wit, and honesty, and good
nature; but one eye and ear for their sight and hearing, and equally
lopping the rest of the senses: Where parties are pretty equal in a state,
no man can perceive one bad quality in his own, or good one in his
adversaries. Besides, party being a dry disagreeable subject, it renders
conversation insipid or sour, and confines invention. I speak not here of
the leaders, but the insignificant crowd of followers in a party, who have
been the instruments of mixing it in every condition and circumstance of
life. As the zealots among the Jews bound the law about their foreheads,
and wrists, and hems of their garments; so the women among us have got the
distinguishing marks of party in their muffs, their fans, and their
furbelows. The Whig ladies put on their patches in a different manner from
the Tories.[4] They have made schisms in the playhouse, and each have
their particular sides at the opera: and when a man changes his party, he
must infallibly count upon the loss of his mistress. I asked a gentleman
the other day, how he liked such a lady? but he would not give me his
opinion till I had answered him whether she were a Whig or a Tory. Mr.——[5]
since he is known to visit the present m[inist]ry, and lay some time under
a suspicion of writing the “Examiner,” is no longer a man of wit; his very
poems have contracted a stupidity many years after they were printed.

Having lately ventured upon a metaphorical genealogy of Merit, I thought
it would be proper to add another of Party, or rather, of Faction, (to
avoid mistake) not telling the reader whether it be my own or a quotation,
till I know how it is approved; but whether I read or dreamed it, the
fable is as follows.

“Liberty, the daughter of Oppression, after having brought forth
several fair children, as Riches, Arts, Learning, Trade, and many others,
was at last delivered of her youngest daughter, called Faction; whom Juno,
doing the office of the midwife, distorted in its birth, out of envy to
the mother, from whence it derived its peevishness and sickly
constitution. However, as it is often the nature of parents to grow most
fond of their youngest and disagreeablest children, so it happened with
Liberty, who doted on this daughter to such a degree, that by her good
will she would never suffer the girl to be out of her sight. As Miss
Faction grew up, she became so termagant and froward, that there was no
enduring her any longer in Heaven. Jupiter gave her warning to be gone;
and her mother rather than forsake her, took the whole family down to
earth. She landed at first in Greece, was expelled by degrees through all
the Cities by her daughter’s ill-conduct; fled afterwards to Italy, and
being banished thence, took shelter among the Goths, with whom she passed
into most parts of Europe; but driven out every where, she began to lose
esteem, and her daughter’s faults were imputed to herself. So that at this
time, she has hardly a place in the world to retire to. One would wonder
what strange qualities this daughter must possess, sufficient to blast the
influence of so divine a mother, and the rest of her children: She always
affected to keep mean and scandalous company; valuing nobody, but just as
they agreed with her in every capricious opinion she thought fit to take
up; and rigorously exacting compliance, though she changed her sentiments
ever so often. Her great employment was to breed discord among friends and
relations, and make up monstrous alliances between those whose
dispositions least resembled each other. Whoever offered to contradict
her, though in the most insignificant trifle, she would be sure to
distinguish by some ignominious appellation, and allow them to have
neither honour, wit, beauty, learning, honesty or common sense. She
intruded into all companies at the most unseasonable times, mixed at
balls, assemblies, and other parties of pleasure; haunted every coffee-
house and bookseller’s shop, and by her perpetual talking filled all
places with disturbance and confusion. She buzzed about the merchant in
the Exchange, the divine in his pulpit, and the shopkeeper behind his
counter. Above all, she frequented public assemblies, where she sat in the
shape of an obscene, ominous bird, ready to prompt her friends as they
spoke.”

If I understand this fable of Faction right, it ought to be applied to
those who set themselves up against the true interest and constitution of
their country; which I wish the undertakers for the late m[inistr]y would
please to take notice of; or tell us by what figure of speech they pretend
to call so great and unforced a majority, with the Qu[een] at the
head, by the name of “the Faction”: which is unlike the phrase of the
Nonjurors, who dignifying one or two deprived bishops, and half a score
clergymen of the same stamp, with the title of the “Church of England,”
exclude all the rest as schismatics; or like the Presbyterians, laying the
same accusation, with equal justice, against the established religion.

And here it may be worth inquiring what are the true characteristics of a
faction, or how it is to be distinguished from that great body of the
people who are friends to the constitution? The heads of a faction, are
usually a set of upstarts, or men ruined in their fortunes, whom some
great change in a government, did at first, out of their obscurity produce
upon the stage. They associate themselves with those who dislike the old
establishment, religious and civil. They are full of new schemes in
politics and divinity; they have an incurable hatred against the old
nobility, and strengthen their party by dependants raised from the lowest
of the people; they have several ways of working themselves into power;
but they are sure to be called when a corrupt administration wants to be
supported, against those who are endeavouring at a reformation; and they
firmly observe that celebrated maxim of preserving power by the same arts
it is attained. They act with the spirit of those who believe their time
is but short; and their first care is to heap up immense riches at the
public expense; in which they have two ends, beside that common one of
insatiable avarice; which are, to make themselves necessary, and to keep
the Commonwealth in dependence: Thus they hope to compass their design,
which is, instead of fitting their principles to the constitution, to
alter and adjust the constitution to their own pernicious principles.

It is easy determining by this test, to which side the name of faction
most properly belongs. But however, I will give them any system of law or
regal government, from William the Conqueror to this present time, to try
whether they can tally it with their late models; excepting only that of
Cromwell, whom perhaps they will reckon for a monarch.

If the present ministry, and so great a majority in the Parliament and
Kingdom, be only a faction, it must appear by some actions which answers
the idea we usually conceive from that word. Have they abused the
prerogatives of the prince, or invaded the rights and liberties of the
subject? Have they offered at any dangerous innovations in Church or
State? Have they broached any doctrines of heresy, rebellion or tyranny?
Have any of them treated their sovereign with insolence, engrossed and
sold all her favours, or deceived her by base, gross misrepresentations of
her most faithful servants? These are the arts of a faction, and whoever
has practised them, they and their followers must take up with the name.

It is usually reckoned a Whig principle to appeal to the people; but that
is only when they have been so wise as to poison their understandings
beforehand: Will they now stand to this appeal, and be determined by their
vox populi, to which side their title of faction belongs? And that
the people are now left to the natural freedom of their understanding and
choice, I believe our adversaries will hardly deny. They will now refuse
this appeal, and it is reasonable they should; and I will further add,
that if our people resembled the old Grecians, there might be danger in
such a trial. A pragmatical orator told a great man at Athens, that
whenever the people were in their rage, they would certainly tear him to
pieces; “Yes,” says the other, “and they will do the same to you, whenever
they are in their wits.” But God be thanked, our populace is more merciful
in their nature, and at present under better direction; and the orators
among us have attempted to confound both prerogative and law, in their
sovereign’s presence, and before the highest court of judicature, without
any hazard to their persons.

[Footnote 1: No. 31 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Horace, “Satires,” II. vi. 77-8. “To club his part in pithy
tales.”—P. FRANCIS. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The “Symposium,” 189-192. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See “The Spectator,” No. 81 (June 2nd, 1711): “Their patches
were placed in those different situations, as party signals to distinguish
friends from foes.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Matthew Prior. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 33.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 8, TO THURSDAY MARCH 15, 1710-11.[2]

Non ea est medicina, cum sanae parti corporis scalpellum adhibetur,
atque integrae; carnificina est ista, et crudelitas. Hi medentur
Reipublicae qui exsecant pestem aliquam, tanquam strumam Civitatis.[3]

I am diverted from the general subject of my discourses, to reflect upon
an event of a very extraordinary and surprising nature: A great minister,
in high confidence with the Queen, under whose management the weight of
affairs at present is in a great measure supposed to lie; sitting in
council, in a royal palace, with a dozen of the chief officers of the
state, is stabbed at the very board,[4] in the execution of his office, by
the hand of a French Papist, then under examination for high treason. The
assassin redoubles his blow, to make sure work; and concluding the
chancellor was dispatched, goes on with the same rage to murder a
principal secretary of state: and that whole noble assembly are forced to
rise, and draw their swords in their own defence, as if a wild beast had
been let loose among them.

This fact hath some circumstances of aggravation not to be paralleled by
any of the like kind we meet with in history. Caesar’s murder being
performed in the Senate, comes nearest to the case; but that was an affair
concerted by great numbers of the chief senators, who were likewise the
actors in it, and not the work of a vile, single ruffian. Harry the Third
of France was stabbed by an enthusiastic friar,[5] whom he suffered to
approach his person, while those who attended him stood at some distance.
His successor met the same fate in a coach, where neither he nor his
nobles, in such a confinement, were able to defend themselves. In our own
country we have, I think, but one instance of this sort, which has made
any noise, I mean that of Felton, about fourscore years ago: but he took
the opportunity to stab the Duke of Buckingham in passing through a dark
lobby, from one room to another:[6] The blow was neither seen nor heard,
and the murderer might have escaped, if his own concern and horror, as it
is usual in such cases, had not betrayed him. Besides, that act of Felton
will admit of some extenuation, from the motives he is said to have had:
but this attempt of Guiscard seems to have outdone them all in every
heightening circumstance, except the difference of persons between a king
and a great minister: for I give no allowance at all to the difference of
success (which however is yet uncertain and depending) nor think it the
least alleviation to the crime, whatever it may be to the punishment.

I am sensible, it is ill arguing from particulars to generals, and that we
ought not to charge upon a nation the crimes of a few desperate villains
it is so unfortunate to produce: Yet at the same time it must be avowed,
that the French have for these last centuries, been somewhat too liberal
of their daggers, upon the persons of their greatest men; such as the
Admiral de Coligny,[7] the Dukes of Guise,[8] father and son, and the two
kings I last mentioned. I have sometimes wondered how a people, whose
genius seems wholly turned to singing and dancing, and prating, to vanity
and impertinence; who lay so much weight upon modes and gestures; whose
essentialities are generally so very superficial; who are usually so
serious upon trifles, and so trifling upon what is serious, have been
capable of committing such solid villanies; more suitable to the gravity
of a Spaniard, or silence and thoughtfulness of an Italian: unless it be,
that in a nation naturally so full of themselves, and of so restless
imaginations, when any of them happen to be of a morose and gloomy
constitution, that huddle of confused thoughts, for want of evaporating,
usually terminates in rage or despair. D’Avila[9] observes, that Jacques
Clément was a sort of buffoon, whom the rest of the friars used to make
sport with: but at last, giving his folly a serious turn, it ended in
enthusiasm, and qualified him for that desperate act of murdering his
king.

But in the Marquis de Guiscard there seems to have been a complication of
ingredients for such an attempt: He had committed several enormities in
France, was extremely prodigal and vicious; of a dark melancholy
complexion, and cloudy countenance, such as in vulgar physiognomy is
called an ill look. For the rest, his talents were very mean, having a
sort of inferior cunning, but very small abilities; so that a great man of
the late m[inist]ry, by whom he was invited over,[10] and with much
discretion raised at first step from a profligate popish priest to a
lieutenant-general, and colonel of a regiment of horse, was forced at last
to drop him for shame.[11]

Had such an accident happened[12] under that m[inis]try, and to so
considerable a member of it, they would have immediately charged it upon
the whole body of those they are pleased to call “the faction.” This would
have been styled a high-church principle; the clergy would have been
accused as promoters and abettors of the fact; com[mittee]s would have
been sent to promise the criminal his life provided they might have
liberty to direct and dictate his confession: and a black list would have
been printed of all those who had been ever seen in the murderer’s
company. But the present men in power hate and despise all such detestable
arts, which they might now turn upon their adversaries with much more
plausibility, than ever these did their honourable negotiations with
Gregg.[13]

And here it may be worth observing how unanimous a concurrence there is
between some persons once in great power, and a French Papist; both
agreeing in the great end of taking away Mr. Harley’s life, though
differing in their methods: the first proceeding by subornation, the other
by violence; wherein Guiscard seems to have the advantage, as aiming no
further than his life; while the others designed to destroy at once both
that and his reputation. The malice of both against this gentleman seems
to have risen from the same cause, his discovering designs against the
government. It was Mr. Harley who detected the treasonable correspondence
of Gregg, and secured him betimes; when a certain great man who shall be
nameless, had, out of the depth of his politics, sent him a caution to
make his escape; which would certainly have fixed the appearance of
guilt[14] upon Mr. Harley: but when that was prevented, they would have
enticed the condemned criminal with promise of a pardon, to write and sign
an accusation against the secretary. But to use Gregg’s own expression,
“His death was nothing near so ignominious, as would have been such a life
that must be saved by prostituting his conscience.” The same gentleman
lies now stabbed by his other enemy, a Popish spy, whose treason he has
discovered. God preserve the rest of her Majesty’s ministers from such
Protestants, and from such Papists!

I shall take occasion to hint at some particularities in this surprising
fact, for the sake of those at distance, or who may not be thoroughly
informed.[15] The murderer confessed in Newgate, that his chief design was
against Mr. Secretary St. John, who happened to change seats with Mr.
Harley, for more convenience of examining the criminal:[16] and being
asked what provoked him to stab the chancellor? he said, that not being
able to come at the secretary, as he intended, it was some satisfaction to
murder the person whom he thought Mr. St. John loved best.[17]

And here, if Mr. Harley has still any enemies left, whom his blood spilt
in the public service cannot reconcile, I hope they will at least admire
his magnanimity, which is a quality esteemed even in an enemy: and I think
there are few greater instances of it to be found in story. After the
wound was given, he was observed neither to change his countenance, nor
discover any concern or disorder in his speech: he rose up, and walked
along the room while he was able, with the greatest tranquillity, during
the midst of the confusion. When the surgeon came, he took him aside, and
desired he would inform him freely whether the wound were mortal, because
in that case, he said, he had some affairs to settle, relating to his
family. The blade of the penknife, broken by the violence of the blow
against a rib, within a quarter of an inch of the handle, was dropt out (I
know not whether from the wound, or his clothes) as the surgeon was going
to dress him; he ordered it to be taken up, and wiping it himself, gave it
some body to keep, saying, he thought “it now properly belonging to him.”
He shewed no sort of resentment, or spoke one violent word against
Guiscard, but appeared all the while the least concerned of any in the
company—a state of mind, which in such an exigency, nothing but
innocence can give, and is truly worthy of a Christian philosopher.

If there be really so great a difference in principle between the
high-flying Whigs, and the friends of France, I cannot but repeat the
question, how come they to join in the destruction of the same man? Can
his death be possibly for the interest of both? or have they both the same
quarrel against him, that he is perpetually discovering and preventing the
treacherous designs of our enemies? However it be, this great minister may
now say with St. Paul, that he hath been “in perils by his own countrymen,
and in perils by strangers.”

In the midst of so melancholy a subject, I cannot but congratulate with
our own country, that such a savage monster as the Marquis de Guiscard, is
none of her production; a wretch perhaps more detestable in his own
nature, than even this barbarous act has been yet able to represent him to
the world. For there are good reasons to believe, from several
circumstances, that he had intentions of a deeper dye, than those he
happened to execute;[18] I mean such as every good subject must tremble to
think on. He hath of late been frequently seen going up the back stairs at
court, and walking alone in an outer room adjoining to her Ma[jest]y’s
bed-chamber. He has often and earnestly pressed for some time to have
access to the Qu[een], even since his correspondence with France; and he
has now given such a proof of his disposition, as leaves it easy to guess
what was before in his thoughts, and what he was capable of attempting.

It is humbly to be hoped, that the legislature[19] will interpose on so
extraordinary an occasion as this, and direct a punishment[20] some way
proportionable to so execrable a crime.

[Footnote 1: No. 32 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: To this number the writer of “The Political State of Great
Britain” made a pretty tart reply. In the issue for April, 1711, pp.
315-320 he says: “One of the Tory writers, shall I call him? or rather
libellers—one who presumptuously sets up for an Examiner—who,
in order, as he fondly expects, to make his court to some men in power,
with equal insolence and malice, makes it his weekly business to slander
the moderate party; who, without the least provocation, brandishes his
virulent pen against the best men … instances in the murders of Caesar,
Henry III. and Henry IV. of France, and of the Duke of Buckingham; and
having extenuated the last, ‘from the motives Felton is said to have had,’
he concludes,” etc. The writer further goes on to say: “As to the
imputation of villanous assassinations, which the Examiner charges so home
on the French nation, I am heartily sorry he has given them so fair an
opportunity to retort the unfair and unjust argument from particulars to
generals. For, without mentioning Felton, whose crime this writer has
endeavoured to extenuate, no foreign records can afford a greater
number of murders, parricides, and, to use the Examiner’s expression,
solid villanies, than our English history.” Swift retorted on this writer
in No. 42, post, pp. 276, 277. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, “Pro Sestio,” 65. “But that is not a remedy when the
knife is applied to some sound and healthy part of the body; that is the
act of an executioner and mere inhumanity. Those are the men who really
apply healing remedies to the republic, who cut out some pestilence as if
it were a wen on the person of the state.”—C.D. YONGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: This refers to the attempted assassination of Harley and St.
John by the Marquis de Guiscard. See Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to that
Change,” etc. (vol. v., pp. 387-9 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Henri III. was assassinated by Jacques Clément, a Dominican
friar, August 1st, 1589. Henri IV. was assassinated by François Ravaillac,
May 14th, 1610. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: George Villiers, fourth Duke of Buckingham, was stabbed by
Lieut. John Felton, August 23rd, 1628. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Admiral de Coligny was assassinated August 23rd, 1572.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Francois de Lorraine, Due de Guise, was shot in 1563. His son
and successor (Henri le Balafré) was killed December 23rd, 1588. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Davila was the author of “Historia delle Guerre Civili di
Francia” (c. 1630). He was assassinated in 1631. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “The first thing I would beg of this libeller,” asks “The
Medley” (No. 25, March 19th, 1711), “is to make out what he affirms of his
being ‘invited over.’ If he would but prove that one particular, I would
forgive him all his lies past and yet to come.”

Of course. Swift’s extreme phrase of “invited over” referred to the fact
that Guiscard had a Whig commission in the army. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Antoine de Guiscard, at one time Abbé de la Bourlie, was
born in 1658. For misconduct he was compelled, in 1703, to forsake his
benefice and his country, and he undertook the cause of the Protestant
Camisards in the Cevennes, in their insurrection against Louis XIV. It is
known that he had been envoy to Turin, and had received a pension from
Holland. On taking refuge in England he obtained a pension from the
government, and by means of the influence of the Duke of Ormonde, who was
his brother’s friend, became a frequenter in fashionable circles. The
death, however, of his friend Count Briançon seems to have deprived him of
means. He fell into bad ways, became poor, and solicited a pension from
the Queen, through St. John whose acquaintance he had made. A pension of
£500 was granted him; but this sum Harley reduced. Afraid that even this
means of a livelihood would be taken from him he opened a treasonable
correspondence with one Moreau, a Parisian banker. The rest of the story
of this poor wretch’s life may be gathered from the excellent account of
the Harley-Guiscard incident given by W. Sichel in his “Bolingbroke and
his Times” (pp. 308-313).

N. Luttrell has several entries in his Diary relating to Guiscard and the
attempted assassination of Harley, and there is a long account of him in
Boyer’s “Political State” (vol. i., pp. 275-314). See also Portland MS.,
vol. iv., Wentworth Papers, and Swift’s “Journal to Stella,” and “Some
Remarks,” etc. (vol. v. of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: “Had such an accident … against the secretary.” The writer
of “A Letter to the Seven Lords” (1711) quotes this passage, and remarks
that “The Examiner” “intended seriously to charge you all, with
subornation, in order to proceed to murder.” See also Swift’s “Some
Remarks,” etc. (vol. v., pp. 29-53 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: See note on p. 263. Also note on p. 30 of vol. v. of present
edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: William Gregg declared in his last confession that Mr.
Harley “was not privy to my writing to France, directly nor indirectly,”
and he thanked God for touching his “conscience so powerfully … as to
prevent my prostituting the same to save my life.”—”William Gregg’s
Paper,” “Published by Authority,” 1708. Gregg told the Rev. Paul Lorrain
“that he was profferred his life, and a great reward, if he would accuse
his master” (F. Hoffman’s “Secret Transactions,” 1711, p. 8). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Swift furnished Mrs. Manley with hints for her pamphlet
entitled, “A True Narrative Of what pass’d at the Examination Of the
Marquis De Guiscard,” 1711. See note on p. 41 of vol. v. of present
edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: “The matter was thus represented in the weekly paper called
‘The Examiner’; which Mr. St. John perused before it was printed, but made
no alteration in that passage.” Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to that Change,”
etc. (vol v., p. 389 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: Guiscard could hardly have been aware of St. John’s true
sentiments towards Harley. In 1717 Bolingbroke, writing in his “Letter to
Sir William Windham,” says: “I abhorred Oxford to that degree, that I
could not bear to be joined with him in any case” (edit. 1753, p. 94). And
yet, when it was feared that Harley might die from his wound, St. John
remarked to Swift that “he was but an ill dissembler” and Harley’s life
was “absolutely necessary.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: “It was thought he had a design against the Queen’s person,
for he had tried by all the ways that he could contrive to be admitted to
speak with her in private.” (BURNET’S “Own Times,” ii., 566). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: An Act to make an Attempt on the Life of a Privy Councillor
in the Execution of his Office to be Felony without Benefit of Clergy (9
Ann. c. 21). This Act, which indemnified all those who had caused
Guiscard’s death, was recommended in a Royal Message, March 14th,
introduced April 5th, passed the House of Commons, April 19th, and
received the Royal Assent, May 16th, 1711. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: Writing to Stella, under date March 15th, Swift says: “I am
sorry he [Guiscard] is dying; for they had found out a way to hang him. He
certainly had an intention to murder the Queen.” Two days later he says:
“The coroner’s inquest have found that he was killed by bruises received
from a messenger, so to clear the cabinet counsellors from whom he
received his wounds.” (Vol. ii., p. 139 of present edition.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: “He who profaned thy body by a wound Must pay the penalty of
death.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 34.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 15, TO THURSDAY MARCH 22, 1710-11.

De Libertate retinenda, qua certe nihil est dulcius, tibi assentior.[2]

The apologies of the ancient Fathers are reckoned to have been the most
useful parts of their writings, and to have done greatest service to the
Christian religion, because they removed those misrepresentations which
had done it most injury. The methods these writers took, was openly and
freely to discover every point of their faith, to detect the falsehood of
their accusers, and to charge nothing upon their adversaries but what they
were sure to make good. This example has been ill followed of later times;
the Papists since the Reformation using all arts to palliate the
absurdities of their tenets, and loading the Reformers with a thousand
calumnies; the consequence of which has been only a more various, wide,
and inveterate separation. It is the same thing in civil schisms: a Whig
forms an image of a Tory, just after the thing he most abhors, and that
image serves to represent the whole body.

I am not sensible of any material difference there is between those who
call themselves the Old Whigs, and a great majority of the present Tories;
at least by all I could ever find, from examining several persons of each
denomination. But it must be confessed that the present body of Whigs, as
they now constitute that party, is a very odd mixture of mankind, being
forced to enlarge their bottom by taking in every heterodox professor
either in religion or government, whose opinions they were obliged to
encourage for fear of lessening their number; while the bulk of the landed
men and people were entirely of the old sentiments. However, they still
pretended a due regard to the monarchy and the Church, even at the time
when they were making the largest steps towards the ruin of both: but not
being able to wipe off the many accusations laid to their charge, they
endeavoured, by throwing of scandal, to make the Tories appear blacker
than themselves, that so the people might join with them, as the
smaller evil of the two.

But among all the reproaches which the Whigs have flung upon their
adversaries, there is none hath done them more service than that of passive
obedience, as they represent it, with the consequences of
non-resistance, arbitrary power, indefeasible right, tyranny, popery, and
what not? There is no accusation which has passed with more plausibility
than this, nor any that is supported with less justice. In order therefore
to undeceive those who have been misled by false representations, I
thought it would be no improper undertaking to set this matter in a fair
light, which I think has not yet been done. A Whig asks whether you hold
passive obedience? you affirm it: he then immediately cries out, “You are
a Jacobite, a friend of France and the Pretender;” because he makes you
answerable for the definition he has formed of that term, however
different it be from what you understand. I will therefore give two
descriptions of passive obedience; the first as it is falsely charged by
the Whigs; the other as it is really professed by the Tories, at least by
nineteen in twenty of all I ever conversed with.

Passive Obedience as charged by the Whigs.

The doctrine of passive obedience is to believe that a king, even in a
limited monarchy, holding his power only from God, is only answerable to
Him. That such a king is above all law, that the cruellest tyrant must be
submitted to in all things; and if his commands be ever so unlawful, you
must neither fly nor resist, nor use any other weapons than prayers and
tears. Though he should force your wife or daughter, murder your children
before your face, or cut off five hundred heads in a morning for his
diversion, you are still to wish him a long prosperous reign, and to be
patient under all his cruelties, with the same resignation as under a
plague or a famine; because to resist him would be to resist God in the
person of His vicegerent. If a king of England should go through the
streets of London, in order to murder every man he met, passive obedience
commands them to submit. All laws made to limit him signify nothing,
though passed by his own consent, if he thinks fit to break them. God will
indeed call him to a severe account, but the whole people, united to a
man, cannot presume to hold his hands, or offer him the least active
disobedience. The people were certainly created for him, and not he for
the people. His next heir, though worse than what I have described, though
a fool or a madman, has a divine undefeasible right to succeed him, which
no law can disannul; nay though he should kill his father upon the throne,
he is immediately king to all intents and purposes, the possession of the
crown wiping off all stains. But whosoever sits on the throne without this
title, though never so peaceably, and by consent of former kings and
parliaments, is an usurper, while there is any where in the world another
person who hath a nearer hereditary right, and the whole kingdom lies
under mortal sin till that heir be restored; because he has a divine title
which no human law can defeat.

This and a great deal more hath, in a thousand papers[3] and pamphlets,
been laid to that doctrine of passive obedience, which the Whigs are
pleased to charge upon us. This is what they perpetually are instilling
into the people to believe, as the undoubted principles by which the
present ministry, and a great majority in Parliament, do at this time
proceed. This is what they accuse the clergy of delivering from the
pulpits, and of preaching up as doctrines absolutely necessary to
salvation. And whoever affirms in general, that passive obedience is due
to the supreme power, he is presently loaden by our candid adversaries
with such consequences as these. Let us therefore see what this doctrine
is, when stripped of such misrepresentations, by describing it as really
taught and practised by the Tories, and then it will appear what grounds
our adversaries have to accuse us upon this article.

Passive Obedience, as professed and practised by the Tories.

They think that in every government, whether monarchy or republic,
there is placed a supreme, absolute, unlimited power, to which passive
obedience is due. That wherever is entrusted the power of making laws,
that power is without all bounds, can repeal or enact at pleasure whatever
laws it thinks fit, and justly demands universal obedience and
non-resistance. That among us, as every body knows, this power is lodged
in the king or queen, together with the lords and commons of the kingdom;
and therefore all decrees whatsoever, made by that power, are to be
actively or passively obeyed. That the administration or executive part of
this power is in England solely entrusted with the prince, who in
administering those laws, ought to be no more resisted than the
legislative power itself. But they do not conceive the same absolute
passive obedience to be due to a limited prince’s commands, when they are
directly contrary to the laws he has consented to, and sworn to maintain.
The crown may be sued as well as a private person; and if an arbitrary
king of England should send his officers to seize my lands or goods
against law, I can lawfully resist them. The ministers by whom he acts are
liable to prosecution and impeachment, though his own person be sacred.
But if he interposes his royal authority to support their insolence, I see
no remedy, till it grows a general grievance, or till the body of the
people have reason to apprehend it will be so; after which it becomes a
case of necessity, and then I suppose a free people may assert their own
rights, yet without any violation to the person or lawful power of the
prince. But although the Tories allow all this, and did justify it by the
share they had in the Revolution, yet they see no reason for entering upon
so ungrateful a subject, or raising controversies upon it, as if we were
in daily apprehensions of tyranny, under the reign of so excellent a
princess, and while we have so many laws[4] of late years made to limit
the prerogative; when according to the judgment of those who know our
constitution best, things rather seem to lean to the other extreme, which
is equally to be avoided. As to the succession; the Tories think an
hereditary right to be the best in its own nature, and most agreeable to
our old constitution; yet at the same time they allow it to be defeasible
by Act of Parliament, and so is Magna Charta too, if the
legislature thinks fit; which is a truth so manifest, that no man who
understands the nature of government, can be in doubt concerning it.

These I take to be the sentiments of a great majority among the Tories,
with respect to passive obedience: and if the Whigs insist, from the
writings or common talk of warm and ignorant men, to form a judgment of
the whole body, according to the first account I have here given, I will
engage to produce as many of their side, who are utterly against passive
obedience even to the legislature; who will assert the last resort of
power to be in the people, against those whom they have chosen and trusted
as their representatives, with the prince at the head; and who will put
wild improbable cases to shew the reasonableness and necessity of
resisting the legislative power, in such imaginary junctures. Than which
however nothing can be more idle; for I dare undertake in any system of
government, either speculative or practic, that was ever yet in the world,
from Plato’s “Republic” to Harrington’s “Oceana,”[5] to put such
difficulties as cannot be answered.

All the other calumnies raised by the Whigs may be as easily wiped off;
and I have charity to wish they could as fully answer the just accusations
we have against them. Dodwell, Hicks, and Lesley,[6] are gravely quoted,
to prove that the Tories design to bring in the Pretender; and if I should
quote them to prove that the same thing is intended by the Whigs, it would
be full as reasonable, since I am sure they have at least as much to do
with Nonjurors as we. But our objections against the Whigs are built upon
their constant practice for many years, whereof I have produced a hundred
instances, against any single one of which no answer hath yet been
attempted, though I have been curious enough to look into all the papers I
could meet with that are writ against the “Examiner”; such a task as I
hope no man thinks I would undergo for any other end, but that of finding
an opportunity to own and rectify my mistakes; as I would be ready to do
upon call of the meanest adversary. Upon which occasion, I shall take
leave to add a few words.

I flattered myself last Thursday, from the nature of my subject, and the
inoffensive manner I handled it, that I should have one week’s respite
from those merciless pens, whose severity will some time break my heart;
but I am deceived, and find them more violent than ever. They charge me
with two lies and a blunder. The first lie is a truth, that Guiscard was
invited over:[7] but it is of no consequence; I do not tax it as a fault;
such sort of men have often been serviceable: I only blamed the
indiscretion of raising a profligate abbot, at the first step, to a
lieutenant-general and colonel of a regiment of horse, without staying
some reasonable time, as is usual in such cases, till he had given some
proofs of his fidelity, as well as of that interest and credit he
pretended to have in his country: But that is said to be another lie, for
he was a Papist, and could not have a regiment. However this other lie is
a truth too; for a regiment he had, and paid by us, to his agent Monsieur
Le Bas, for his use. The third is a blunder, that I say Guiscard’s design
was against Mr. Secretary St. John, and yet my reasonings upon it, are, as
if it were personal against Mr. Harley. But I say no such thing, and my
reasonings are just; I relate only what Guiscard said in Newgate, because
it was a particularity the reader might be curious to know (and
accordingly it lies in a paragraph by itself, after my reflections)[8] but
I never meant to be answerable for what Guiscard said, or thought it of
weight enough for me to draw conclusions from thence, when I had the
Address of both Houses to direct me better; where it is expressly said,[9]
“That Mr. Harley’s fidelity to her Majesty, and zeal for her service, have
drawn upon him the hatred of all the abettors of Popery and faction.”[10]
This is what I believe, and what I shall stick to.

But alas, these are not the passages which have raised so much fury
against me. One or two mistakes in facts of no importance, or a single
blunder, would not have provoked them; they are not so tender of my
reputation as a writer. All their outrage is occasioned by those passages
in that paper, which they do not in the least pretend to answer, and with
the utmost reluctancy are forced to mention. They take abundance of pains
to clear Guiscard from a design against Mr. Harley’s life, but offer not
one argument to clear their other friends, who in the business of Gregg,
were equally guilty of the same design against the same person; whose
tongues were very swords, and whose penknives were axes.

[Footnote 1: No. 33 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, “Ep. ad Att.,” xv. 13. “As to the maintenance of
liberty—surely the most precious thing in the world—I agree
with you.”—E.S. SHUCKBURGH.]

[Footnote 3: The following pamphlets may be instanced:—”Julian the
Apostate,” [by S. Johnson], 1682; “[Passive Obedience] A Sermon preached
before the … Lord Mayor,” etc., by B. Calamy, 1683; “Passive Obedience
Stated and Asserted,” by T. Pomfret, 1683; “The Doctrine of
Non-Resistance,” [by E. Bohun], 1689; “History of Passive Obedience,” [by
A. Seller], 1689; “A Discourse concerning the Unreasonableness,” etc. [by
E. Stillingfleet], 1689; “Christianity, a Doctrine of the Cross,” [by J.
Kettlewell], 1691; and “The Measures of Submission,” by B. Hoadly, 1706.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject (1
Will. and Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), and the Act for the Further Limitation of
the Crown (12 and 13 Will. III. c. 2), limited the power of the Crown in
various respects. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The Commonwealth of Oceana,” by James Harrington, 1656.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Henry Dodwell (1641-1711), non-juror, and author of “An
Admonitory Discourse … Schism” (1704), “Occasional Communion” (1705),
etc.

George Hickes (1642-1715), non-juror. Dean of Worcester (1683-91), and
author of “The Pretences of the Prince of Wales Examined, and Rejected”
(1701).

Charles Leslie, see No. 16, ante, and note, p. 85. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “Such, a vile slanderer is the ‘Examiner,’ who says: ‘he was
invited over by the late ministry, preferred to a regiment, and made
lieut.-general,’ when there is an Act of Parliament against Papists being
so.”—”The Medley,” No. 25 (March 19th). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: See No. 33, ante, p. 212. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: This is fairly quoted, changing the person. See Swift’s
remarks in the following number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “A Letter to the Seven Lords” says: “The Examiner knows you
are as much intended by ‘faction,’ as Guiscard was by ‘Popery.'” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 35.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 22, TO THURSDAY MARCH 29, 1711.

I begin to be heartily weary of my employment as Examiner; which I
wish the m[inist]ry would consider, with half so much concern as I do, and
assign me some other with less pains, and a larger pension. There may soon
be a vacancy, either on the bench, in the revenue, or the army, and I am
equally qualified for each: but this trade of Examining, I
apprehend may at one time or other go near to sour my temper. I did lately
propose that some of those ingenious pens, which are engaged on the other
side, might be employed to succeed me, and I undertook to bring them over
for t’other crown; but it was answered, that those gentlemen do
much better service in the stations where they are. It was added, that
abundance of abuses yet remained to be laid open to the world, which I had
often promised to do, but was too much diverted by other subjects that
came into my head. On the other side, the advice of some friends, and the
threats of many enemies, have put me upon considering what would become of
me if times should alter. This I have done very maturely, and the
result is, that I am in no manner of pain. I grant, that what I have said
upon occasion, concerning the late men in power, may be called satire by
some unthinking people, as long as that faction is down; but if ever they
come into play again, I must give them warning beforehand, that I shall
expect to be a favourite, and that those pretended advocates of theirs,
will be pilloried for libellers. For I appeal to any man, whether I ever
charged that party, or its leaders, with one single action or design,
which (if we may judge by their former practices) they will not openly
profess, be proud of, and score up for merit, when they come again to the
head of affairs? I said, they were insolent to the Qu[een]; will they not
value themselves upon that, as an argument to prove them bold assertors of
the people’s liberty? I affirmed they were against a peace; will they be
angry with me for setting forth the refinements of their politics, in
pursuing the only method left to preserve them in power? I said,
they had involved the nation in debts, and engrossed much of its money;
they go beyond me, and boast they have got it all, and the credit too. I
have urged the probability of their intending great alterations in
religion and government: if they destroy both at their next coming, will
they not reckon my foretelling it, rather as a panegyric than an affront?
I said,[3] they had formerly a design against Mr. H[arle]y’s life: if they
were now in power, would they not immediately cut off his head, and thank
me for justifying the sincerity of their intentions? In short, there is
nothing I ever said of those worthy patriots, which may not be as well
excused; therefore, as soon as they resume their places, I positively
design to put in my claim; and, I think, may do it with much better grace,
than many of that party who now make their court to the present
m[inist]ry. I know two or three great men, at whose levees you may daily
observe a score of the most forward faces, which every body is ashamed of,
except those that wear them. But I conceive my pretensions will be upon a
very different foot: Let me offer a parallel case. Suppose, King Charles
the First had entirely subdued the rebels at Naseby, and reduced the
kingdom to his obedience: whoever had gone about to reason, from the
former conduct of those saints, that if the victory had fallen on
their side, they would have murdered their prince, destroyed monarchy and
the Church and made the king’s party compound for their estates as
delinquents; would have been called a false, uncharitable libeller, by
those very persons who afterwards gloried in all this, and called it the
“work of the Lord,” when they happened to succeed. I remember there was a
person fined and imprisoned for scandalum magnatum, because he said
the Duke of York was a Papist; but when that prince came to be king, and
made open profession of his religion, he had the justice immediately to
release his prisoner, who in his opinion had put a compliment upon him,
and not a reproach: and therefore Colonel Titus,[4] who had warmly
asserted the same thing in Parliament, was made a privy-councillor.

By this rule, if that which, for some politic reasons, is now called
scandal upon the late m[inist]ry, proves one day to be only an abstract of
such a character as they will assume and be proud of; I think I may fairly
offer my pretensions, and hope for their favour. And I am the more
confirmed in this notion by what I have observed in those papers, that
come weekly out against the “Examiner.” The authors are perpetually
telling me of my ingratitude to my masters, that I blunder, and betray the
cause; and write with more bitterness against those that hire me, than
against the Whigs. Now I took all this at first only for so many strains
of wit, and pretty paradoxes to divert the reader; but upon further
thinking I find they are serious. I imagined I had complimented the
present ministry for their dutiful behaviour to the Queen; for their love
of the old constitution in Church and State; for their generosity and
justice, and for their desire of a speedy, honourable peace: but it seems
I am mistaken, and they reckon all this for satire, because it is directly
contrary to the practice of all those whom they set up to defend, and
utterly against all their notions of a good ministry. Therefore I cannot
but think they have reason on their side: for suppose I should write the
character of an honest, a religious, and a learned man; and send the first
to Newgate, the second to the Grecian Coffee-house, and the last to
White’s;[5] would they not all pass for satires, and justly enough, among
the companies to whom they were sent?

Having therefore employed several papers in such sort of panegyrics, and
but very few on what they understand to be satires; I shall henceforth
upon occasion be more liberal of the latter, of which they are like to
have a taste, in the remainder of this present paper.

Among all the advantages which the kingdom hath received by the late
change of ministry, the greatest must be allowed to be the calling of the
present Parliament, upon the dissolution of the last. It is acknowledged,
that this excellent assembly hath entirely recovered the honour of
P[arliamen]ts, which had been unhappily prostituted for some years past by
the factious proceedings of an unnatural majority, in concert with a most
corrupt administration. It is plain, by the present choice of members,
that the electors of England, when left to themselves, do rightly
understand their true interest. The moderate Whigs begin to be convinced
that we have been all this while in wrong hands, and that things are now
as they should be. And as the present House of Commons is the best
representative of the nation that hath ever been summoned in our memories;
so they have taken care in their first session, by that noble Bill of
Qualification,[6] that future Parliaments should be composed of landed
men, and our properties lie no more at mercy of those who have none
themselves, or at least only what is transient or imaginary. If there be
any gratitude in posterity, the memory of this assembly will be always
celebrated; if otherwise, at least we, who share in the blessings they
derive to us, ought with grateful hearts to acknowledge them.

I design, in some following papers, to draw up a list (for I can do no
more) of the great things this Parliament hath already performed, the many
abuses they have detected; their justice in deciding elections without
regard of party; their cheerfulness and address in raising supplies for
the war, and at the same time providing for the nation’s debts; their duty
to the Queen, and their kindness to the Church. In the mean time I cannot
forbear mentioning two particulars, which in my opinion do discover, in
some measure, the temper of the present Parliament; and bear analogy to
those passages related by Plutarch, in the lives of certain great men;
which, as himself observes, “Though they be not of actions which make any
great noise or figure in history, yet give more light into the characters
of persons, than we could receive from an account of their most renowned
achievements.”

Something like this may be observed from two late instances of decency and
good nature, in that illustrious assembly I am speaking of. The first was,
when after that inhuman attempt upon Mr. Harley, they were pleased to vote
an Address to the Queen,[7] wherein they express their utmost detestation
of the fact, their high esteem and great concern for that able minister,
and justly impute his misfortunes to that zeal for her Majesty’s service,
which had “drawn upon him the hatred of all the abettors of Popery and
faction.” I dare affirm, that so distinguishing a mark of honour and good
will from such a Parliament, was more acceptable to a person of Mr.
H[arle]y’s generous nature, than the most bountiful grant that was ever
yet made to a subject; as her Majesty’s answer, filled with gracious
expressions in his favour, adds more to his real glory, than any titles
she could bestow. The prince and representatives of the whole kingdom,
join in their concern for so important a life. These are the true rewards
of virtue, and this is the commerce between noble spirits, in a coin which
the giver knows where to bestow, and the receiver how to value, though
neither avarice nor ambition would be able to comprehend its worth.

The other instance I intended to produce of decency and good nature, in
the present House of Commons, relates to their most worthy Speaker;[8] who
having unfortunately lost his eldest son,[9] the assembly, moved with a
generous pity for so sensible an affliction, adjourned themselves for a
week, that so good a servant of the public, might have some interval to
wipe away a father’s tears: And indeed that gentleman has too just an
occasion for his grief, by the death of a son, who had already acquired so
great a reputation for every amiable quality, and who might have lived to
be so great an honour and an ornament to his ancient family.

Before I conclude, I must desire one favour of the reader, that when he
thinks it worth his while to peruse any paper writ against the “Examiner,”
he will not form his judgment by any mangled quotation out of it which he
finds in such papers, but be so just to read the paragraph referred to;
which I am confident will be found a sufficient answer to all that ever
those papers can object. At least I have seen above fifty of them, and
never yet observed one single quotation transcribed with common candour.

[Footnote: 1 No. 34 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote: 2 Virgil, “Aeneid,” i. 461-2. “Even here Has merit its reward.
Woe wakens tears, And mortal sufferings touch the heart of man.”—R.
KENNEDY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See No. 33, ante, p. 211. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Silas Titus (1622-1704) was the author of “Killing no
Murder,” published in 1657. He sat in Parliament successively for
Ludgershall, Lostwithiel, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Ludlow, In
1688 he was made a privy councillor. In his notes on Burnet Swift says:
“Titus was the greatest rogue in England” (Burnet’s “Own Times,” i. 11).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: For the signification of these coffee-houses see the remarks
prefixed to the “Tatlers” in this volume, p. 4. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: An Act for Securing the Freedom of Parliaments (9 Ann. c. 5)
provided that English members should show a land qualification. It was
introduced December 13th, 1710, and received the Royal Assent, February
28th. See also No. 45, post, p. 294. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Address to the Queen was presented on March 13th, Swift
somewhat strengthens the language of the address, the original words
stating that the Houses had “to our great concern been informed,” etc.;
and “we cannot but be most deeply affected to find such an instance of
inveterate malice, against one employed in your Majesty’s council,” etc.
The Queen, in her reply, referred to “that barbarous attempt on Mr.
Harley, whose zeal and fidelity in my service must appear yet more
eminently by that horrid endeavour,” etc.—”Journals of House of
Lords,” xix.; “Journals of House of Commons,” xvi. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: William Bromley (1664-1732) was Speaker from 1710 till 1713.
See note on p. 334 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Clobery Bromley (1688-1711) was elected M.P. for Coventry,
December, 1710. Only a few days before his death he had been appointed one
of the commissioners to examine the public accounts. “The House being
informed [March 20th] that Clobery Bromley, Esq., son to the Speaker, died
that morning; out of respect to the father, and to give him time, both to
perform the funeral rites, and to indulge his just affliction, they
thought fit to adjourn to” the 26th.—”Hist. and Proc. of House of
Commons,” iv. 199.

Swift wrote to Stella on the matter under date March 20th, 1711: “The
Speaker’s eldest son is just dead of the small pox, and the House is
adjourned a week, to give him time to wipe off his tears. I think it very
handsomely done; but I believe one reason is, that they want Mr. Harley so
much” (vol. ii., p. 141 of present edition). [T.S.]]

NUMB. 36.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 29, TO THURSDAY APRIL 5, 1711.

Nullo suo peccato impediantur, quo minus alterius peccata demonstrare
possint.[2]

I have been considering the old constitution of this kingdom, comparing it
with the monarchies and republics whereof we meet so many accounts in
ancient story, and with those at present in most parts of Europe: I have
considered our religion, established here by the legislature soon after
the Reformation: I have likewise examined the genius and disposition of
the people, under that reasonable freedom they possess: Then I have turned
my reflections upon those two great divisions of Whig and Tory, (which,
some way or other, take in the whole kingdom) with the principles they
both profess, as well as those wherewith they reproach one another. From
all this, I endeavour to determine, from which side her present M[ajest]y
may reasonably hope for most security to her person and government, and to
which she ought, in prudence, to trust the administration of her affairs.
If these two rivals were really no more than parties, according to
the common acceptation of the word, I should agree with those politicians
who think, a prince descends from his dignity by putting himself at the
head of either; and that his wisest course is, to keep them in a balance;
raising or depressing either as it best suited with his designs. But when
the visible interest of his crown and kingdom lies on one side, and when
the other is but a faction, raised and strengthened by incidents and
intrigues, and by deceiving the people with false representations of
things; he ought, in prudence, to take the first opportunity of opening
his subjects’ eyes, and declaring himself in favour of those, who are for
preserving the civil and religious rights of the nation, wherewith his own
are so interwoven.

This was certainly our case: for I do not take the heads, advocates, and
followers of the Whigs, to make up, strictly speaking, a national party;
being patched up of heterogeneous, inconsistent parts, whom nothing served
to unite but the common interest of sharing in the spoil and plunder of
the people; the present dread of their adversaries, by whom they
apprehended to be called to an account, and that general conspiracy, of
endeavouring to overturn the Church and State; which, however, if they
could have compassed, they would certainly have fallen out among
themselves, and broke in pieces, as their predecessors did, after
they destroyed the monarchy and religion. For, how could a Whig, who is
against all discipline, agree with a Presbyterian, that carries it higher
than the Papists themselves? How could a Socinian adjust his models to
either? Or how could any of these cement with a Deist or Freethinker, when
they came to consult upon settling points of faith? Neither would they
have agreed better in their systems of government, where some would have
been for a king, under the limitations of a Duke of Venice; others for a
Dutch republic; a third party for an aristocracy, and most of them all for
some new fabric of their own contriving.

But however, let us consider them as a party, and under those general
tenets wherein they agreed, and which they publicly owned, without
charging them with any that they pretend to deny. Then let us Examine
those principles of the Tories, which their adversaries allow them to
profess, and do not pretend to tax them with any actions contrary to those
professions: after which, let the reader judge from which of these two
parties a prince hath most to fear; and whether her M[ajest]y did not
consider the ease, the safety and dignity of her person, the security of
her crown, and the transmission of monarchy to her Protestant successors,
when she put her affairs into the present hands.

Suppose the matter were now entire; the Qu[een] to make her choice, and
for that end, should order the principles on both sides to be fairly laid
before her. First, I conceive the Whigs would grant, that they have
naturally no very great veneration for crowned heads; that they allow, the
person of the prince may, upon many occasions, be resisted by arms; and
that they do not condemn the war raised against King Charles the First, or
own it to be a rebellion, though they would be thought to blame his
murder. They do not think the prerogative to be yet sufficiently limited,
and have therefore taken care (as a particular mark of their veneration
for the illustrious house of Hanover) to clip it closer against next
reign; which, consequently, they would be glad to see done in the present:
not to mention, that the majority of them, if it were put to the vote,
would allow, that they prefer a commonwealth before a monarchy. As to
religion; their universal, undisputed maxim is, that it ought to make no
distinction at all among Protestants; and in the word Protestant they
include every body who is not a Papist, and who will, by an oath, give
security to the government. Union in discipline and doctrine, the
offensive sin of schism, the notion of a Church and a hierarchy, they
laugh at as foppery, cant and priestcraft. They see no necessity at all
that there should be a national faith; and what we usually call by that
name, they only style the “religion of the magistrate.”[3] Since the
Dissenters and we agree in the main, why should the difference of a few
speculative points, or modes of dress, incapacitate them from serving
their prince and country, in a juncture when we ought to have all hands up
against the common enemy? And why should they be forced to take the
sacrament from our clergy’s hands, and in our posture, or indeed why
compelled to receive it at all, when they take an employment which has
nothing to do with religion?

These are the notions which most of that party avow, and which they do not
endeavour to disguise or set off with false colours, or complain of being
misrepresented about, I have here placed them on purpose, in the same
light which themselves do, in the very apologies they make for what we
accuse them of; and how inviting even these doctrines are, for such a
monarch to close with, as our law, both statute and common, understands a
King of England to be, let others decide. But then, if to these we should
add other opinions, which most of their own writers justify, and which
their universal practice has given a sanction to, they are no more than
what a prince might reasonably expect, as the natural consequence of those
avowed principles. For when such persons are at the head of affairs, the
low opinion they have of princes, will certainly tempt them to violate
that respect they ought to bear; and at the same time, their own want of
duty to their sovereign is largely made up, by exacting greater
submissions to themselves from their fellow-subjects: it being
indisputably true, that the same principle of pride and ambition makes a
man treat his equals with insolence, in the same proportion as he affronts
his superiors; as both Prince and people have sufficiently felt from the
late m[inist]ry.

Then from their confessed notions of religion, as above related, I see no
reason to wonder, why they countenanced not only all sorts of Dissenters,
but the several gradations of freethinkers among us (all which were openly
enrolled in their party); nor why they were so very averse from the
present established form of worship, which by prescribing obedience to
princes from the topic of conscience, would be sure to thwart all their
schemes of innovation.

One thing I might add, as another acknowledged maxim in that party, and in
my opinion, as dangerous to the constitution as any I have mentioned; I
mean, that of preferring, on all occasions, the moneyed interest before
the landed; which they were so far from denying, that they would gravely
debate the reasonableness and justice of it; and at the rate they went on,
might in a little time have found a majority of representatives, fitly
qualified to lay those heavy burthens on the rest of the nation, which
themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.

However, to deal impartially, there are some motives which might compel a
prince, under the necessity of affairs, to deliver himself over to that
party. They were said to possess the great bulk of cash, and
consequently of credit in the nation, and the heads of them had the
reputation of presiding over those societies who have the great direction
of both:[4] so that all applications for loans to the public service, upon
any emergency, must be made through them; and it might prove highly
dangerous to disoblige them, because in that case, it was not to be
doubted, that they would be obstinate and malicious, ready to obstruct all
affairs, not only by shutting their own purses, but by endeavouring to
sink credit, though with some present imaginary loss to themselves, only
to shew, it was a creature of their own.

From this summary of Whig-principles and dispositions, we find what a
prince may reasonably fear and hope from that party. Let us now very
briefly consider, the doctrines of the Tories, which their adversaries
will not dispute. As they prefer a well-regulated monarchy before all
other forms of government; so they think it next to impossible to alter
that institution here, without involving our whole island in blood and
desolation. They believe, that the prerogative of a sovereign ought, at
least, to be held as sacred and inviolable as the rights of his people, if
only for this reason, because without a due share of power, he will not be
able to protect them. They think, that by many known laws of this realm,
both statute and common, neither the person, nor lawful authority of the
prince, ought, upon any pretence whatsoever, to be resisted or disobeyed.
Their sentiments, in relation to the Church, are known enough, and will
not be controverted, being just the reverse to what I have delivered as
the doctrine and practice of the Whigs upon that article.

But here I must likewise deal impartially too, and add one principle as a
characteristic of the Tories, which has much discouraged some princes from
making use of them in affairs. Give the Whigs but power enough to insult
their sovereign, engross his favours to themselves, and to oppress and
plunder their fellow-subjects; they presently grow into good humour and
good language towards the crown; profess they will stand by it with their
lives and fortunes; and whatever rudenesses they may be guilty of in
private, yet they assure the world, that there never was so gracious a
monarch. But to the shame of the Tories, it must be confessed, that
nothing of all this hath been ever observed in them; in or out of favour,
you see no alteration, further than a little cheerfulness or cloud in
their countenances; the highest employments can add nothing to their
loyalty, but their behaviour to their prince, as well as their expressions
of love and duty, are, in all conditions, exactly the same.

Having thus impartially stated the avowed principles of Whig and Tory; let
the reader determine, as he pleases, to which of these two a wise prince
may, with most safety to himself and the public, trust his person and his
affairs; and whether it were rashness or prudence in her M[ajest]y to make
those changes in the ministry, which have been so highly extolled by some,
and condemned by others.

[Footnote 1: No. 35 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “None are prevented by their own faults from pointing out the
faults of another.”—H.T. RILEY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See Swift’s “Letter Concerning the Sacramental Test” (vol.
iv., p. 11 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Bank and the East India Company. The former was so
decidedly in the Whig interest, that the great Doctor Sacheverell, on
appearing to give his vote for choosing governors and directors for the
Bank, was very rudely treated. Nor were the ministry successful in an
attempt made about that time to put these great companies under Tory
management. [S.] And see No. 25, ante, pp. 154-5. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 37.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 5, TO THURSDAY APRIL 12, 1711.

I write this paper for the sake of the Dissenters, whom I take to be the
most spreading branch of the Whig party, that professeth Christianity, and
the only one that seems to be zealous for any particular system of it; the
bulk of those we call the Low Church, being generally indifferent, and
undetermined in that point; and the other subdivisions having not yet
taken either the Old or New Testament into their scheme. By the Dissenters
therefore, it will easily be understood, that I mean the Presbyterians, as
they include the sects of Anabaptists, Independents, and others, which
have been melted down into them since the Restoration. This sect, in order
to make itself national, having gone so far as to raise a Rebellion,
murder their king, destroy monarchy and the Church, was afterwards broken
in pieces by its own divisions; which made way for the king’s return from
his exile. However, the zealous among them did still entertain hopes of
recovering the “dominion of grace;” whereof I have read a remarkable
passage, in a book published about the year 1661 and written by one of
their own side. As one of the regicides was going to his execution, a
friend asked him, whether he thought the cause would revive? He answered,
“The cause is in the bosom of Christ, and as sure as Christ rose from the
dead, so sure will the cause revive also.”[3] And therefore the
Nonconformists were strictly watched and restrained by penal laws, during
the reign of King Charles the Second; the court and kingdom looking on
them as a faction, ready to join in any design against the government in
Church or State: And surely this was reasonable enough, while so many
continued alive, who had voted, and fought, and preached against both, and
gave no proof that they had changed their principles. The Nonconformists
were then exactly upon the same foot with our Nonjurors now, whom we
double tax, forbid their conventicles, and keep under hatches; without
thinking ourselves possessed with a persecuting spirit, because we know
they want nothing but the power to ruin us. This, in my opinion, should
altogether silence the Dissenters’ complaints of persecution under King
Charles the Second; or make them shew us wherein they differed, at that
time, from what our Jacobites are now.

Their inclinations to the Church were soon discovered, when King James the
Second succeeded to the crown, with whom they unanimously joined in its
ruin, to revenge themselves for that restraint they had most justly
suffered in the foregoing reign; not from the persecuting temper of the
clergy, as their clamours would suggest, but the prudence and caution of
the legislature. The same indulgence against law, was made use of by them
and the Papists, and they amicably employed their power, as in defence of
one common interest.

But the Revolution happening soon after, served to wash away the memory of
the rebellion; upon which, the run against Popery, was, no doubt, as just
and seasonable, as that of fanaticism, after the Restoration: and the
dread of Popery, being then our latest danger, and consequently the most
fresh upon our spirits, all mouths were open against that; the Dissenters
were rewarded with an indulgence by law; the rebellion and king’s murder
were now no longer a reproach; the former was only a civil war, and
whoever durst call it a rebellion, was a Jacobite, and friend to France.
This was the more unexpected, because the Revolution being wholly brought
about by Church of England hands, they hoped one good consequence of it,
would be the relieving us from the encroachments of Dissenters, as well as
those of Papists, since both had equally confederated towards our ruin;
and therefore, when the crown was new settled, it was hoped at least that
the rest of the constitution would be restored. But this affair took a
very different turn; the Dissenters had just made a shift to save a tide,
and joined with the Prince of Orange, when they found all was desperate
with their protector King James. And observing a party, then forming
against the old principles in Church and State, under the name of Whigs
and Low-Churchmen, they listed themselves of it, where they have ever
since continued.

It is therefore, upon the foot they now are, that I would apply myself to
them, and desire they would consider the different circumstances at
present, from what they were under, when they began their designs against
the Church and monarchy, about seventy years ago. At that juncture they
made up the body of the party, and whosoever joined with them from
principles of revenge, discontent, ambition, or love of change, were all
forced to shelter under their denomination; united heartily in the
pretences of a further and purer Reformation in religion, and of advancing
the “great work” (as the cant was then) “that God was about to do in these
nations,” received the systems of doctrine and discipline prescribed by
the Scots, and readily took the Covenant;[4] so that there appeared no
division among them, till after the common enemy was subdued.

But now their case is quite otherwise, and I can hardly think it worth
being of a party, upon the terms they have been received of late years;
for suppose the whole faction should at length succeed in their design of
destroying the Church; are they so weak to imagine, that the new modelling
of religion, would be put into their hands? Would their brethren, the
Low-Churchmen and Freethinkers, submit to their discipline, their synods
or their classes, and divide the lands of bishops, or deans and chapters,
among them? How can they help observing that their allies, instead of
pretending more sanctity than other men, are some of them for levelling
all religion, and the rest for abolishing it? Is it not manifest, that
they have been treated by their confederates, exactly after the same
manner, as they were by King James the Second, made instruments to ruin
the Church, not for their sakes, but under a pretended project of
universal freedom in opinion, to advance the dark designs of those who
employ them? For, excepting the anti-monarchical principle, and a few
false notions about liberty, I see but little agreement betwixt them; and
even in these, I believe, it would be impossible to contrive a frame of
government, that would please them all, if they had it now in their power
to try. But however, to be sure, the Presbyterian institution would never
obtain. For, suppose they should, in imitation of their predecessors,
propose to have no King but our Saviour Christ, the whole clan of
Freethinkers would immediately object, and refuse His authority. Neither
would their Low-Church brethren use them better, as well knowing what
enemies they are to that doctrine of unlimited toleration, wherever they
are suffered to preside. So that upon the whole, I do not see, as their
present circumstances stand, where the Dissenters can find better quarter,
than from the Church of England.

Besides, I leave it to their consideration, whether, with all their zeal
against the Church, they ought not to shew a little decency, and how far
it consists with their reputation, to act in concert with such
confederates. It was reckoned a very infamous proceeding in the present
most Christian king, to assist the Turk against the Emperor: policy, and
reasons of state, were not allowed sufficient excuses, for taking part
with an infidel against a believer. It is one of the Dissenters’ quarrels
against the Church, that she is not enough reformed from Popery; yet they
boldly entered into a league with Papists and a popish prince, to destroy
her. They profess much sanctity, and object against the wicked lives of
some of our members; yet they have been long, and still continue, in
strict combination with libertines and atheists, to contrive our ruin.
What if the Jews should multiply, and become a formidable party among us?
Would the Dissenters join in alliance with them likewise, because they
agree already in some general principles, and because the Jews are allowed
to be a “stiffnecked and rebellious people”?

It is the part of wise men to conceal their passions, when they are not in
circumstances of exerting them to purpose: the arts of getting power, and
preserving indulgence, are very different. For the former, the reasonable
hopes of the Dissenters, seem to be at an end; their comrades, the Whigs
and Freethinkers, are just in a condition proper to be forsaken; and the
Parliament, as well as the body of the people, will be deluded no longer.
Besides, it sometimes happens for a cause to be exhausted and worn out, as
that of the Whigs in general, seems at present to be: the nation has had
enough of it. It is as vain to hope restoring that decayed interest, as
for a man of sixty to talk of entering on a new scene of life, that is
only proper for youth and vigour. New circumstances and new men must
arise, as well as new occasions, which are not like to happen in our time.
So that the Dissenters have no game left, at present, but to secure their
indulgence: in order to which, I will be so bold to offer them some
advice.

First, That until some late proceedings are a little forgot, they would
take care not to provoke, by any violence of tongue or pen, so great a
majority, as there is now against them, nor keep up any longer that
combination with their broken allies, but disperse themselves, and lie
dormant against some better opportunity: I have shewn, they could have got
no advantage if the late party had prevailed; and they will certainly lose
none by its fall, unless through their own fault. They pretend a mighty
veneration for the Queen; let them give proof of it, by quitting the
ruined interest of those who have used her so ill; and by a due respect to
the persons she is pleased to trust at present with her affairs: When they
can no longer hope to govern, when struggling can do them no good, and may
possibly hurt them, what is left but to be silent and passive?

Secondly, Though there be no law (beside that of God Almighty) against occasional
conformity,[5] it would be prudence in the Dissenters to use it as
tenderly as they can: for, besides the infamous hypocrisy of the thing
itself, too frequent practice would perhaps make a remedy necessary. And
after all they have said to justify themselves in this point, it still
continues hard to conceive, how those consciences can pretend to be
scrupulous, upon which an employment has more power than the love of
unity.

In the last place, I am humbly of opinion, That the Dissenters would do
well to drop that lesson they have learned from their directors, of
affecting to be under horrible apprehensions, that the Tories are in the
interests of the Pretender, and would be ready to embrace the first
opportunity of inviting him over. It is with the worst grace in the world,
that they offer to join in the cry upon this article: as if those, who
alone stood in the gap against all the encroachments of Popery and
arbitrary power, are not more likely to keep out both, than a set of
schismatics, who to gratify their ambition and revenge, did, by the
meanest compliances, encourage and spirit up that unfortunate prince, to
fell upon such measures, as must, at last, have ended in the ruin of our
liberty and religion.

I wish those who give themselves the trouble to write to the “Examiner”
would consider whether what they send be proper for such a paper to take
notice of: I had one letter last week, written, as I suppose, by a divine,
to desire I would offer some reasons against a Bill now before the
Parliament for Ascertaining the Tithe of Hops;[6] from which the writer
apprehends great damage to the clergy, especially the poorer vicars: If it
be, as he says, (and he seems to argue very reasonably upon it) the
convocation now sitting, will, no doubt, upon due application, represent
the matter to the House of Commons; and he may expect all justice and
favour from that great body, who have already appeared so tender of their
rights.

A gentleman, likewise, who hath sent me several letters, relating to
personal hardships he received from some of the late ministry; is advised
to publish a narrative of them, they being too large, and not proper for
this paper.

[Footnote 1: No. 36 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “Three different forms, of threefold threads combined, The
selfsame day in common ruin joined.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: It is recorded in “The Speeches and Prayers of … Mr. John
Carew,” 1660, and in “Rebels no Saints,” 1661, that at the execution of
John Carew, on October 15th, 1660: “One asked him if he thought there
would be a resurrection of the cause? He answered, he died in the faith of
that, as much as he did that his body should rise again.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Scotch General Assembly approved the “Solemn League and
Covenant” on August 17th, 1643; it was publicly taken by the House of
Commons at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, on September 25th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Such a law was passed December 20th, 1711. It was entitled
“An Act for preserving the Protestant Religion” (10 Ann, c. 6), and
required persons appointed to various offices to conform to the Church of
England for one year and to receive the Sacrament three times. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Leave was given for a Bill for Ascertaining the Tithe of
Hops, March 26th, 1711, and the Bill was presented May 10th. It does not
appear to have gone any further. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 38.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 12, TO THURSDAY APRIL 19, 1711.

I am glad to observe, that several among the Whigs have begun very much to
change their language of late. The style is now among the reasonable part
of them, when they meet a man in business, or a Member of Parliament;
“Well, gentlemen, if you go on as you have hitherto done, we shall no
longer have any pretence to complain.” They find, it seems, that there
have been yet no overtures made to bring in the Pretender, nor any
preparatory steps towards it. They read no enslaving votes, nor bills
brought in to endanger the subject. The indulgence to scrupulous
consciences,[3] is again confirmed from the throne, inviolably preserved,
and not the least whisper offered that may affect it. All care is taken to
support the war; supplies cheerfully granted, and funds readily subscribed
to, in spite of the little arts made use of to discredit them. The just
resentments of some, which are laudable in themselves, and which at
another juncture it might be proper to give way to, have been softened or
diverted by the calmness of others. So that upon the article of present
management, I do not see how any objection of weight can well be raised.

However, our adversaries still allege, that this great success was wholly
unexpected, and out of all probable view. That in public affairs, we ought
least of all others, to judge by events; that the attempt of changing a
ministry, during the difficulties of a long war, was rash and
inconsiderate: That if the Qu[een] were disposed by her inclinations, or
from any personal dislike, for such a change, it might have been done with
more safety, in a time of peace: That if it had miscarried by any of those
incidents, which in all appearance might have intervened, the consequences
would perhaps have ruined the whole confederacy; and, therefore, however
it hath now succeeded, the experiment was too dangerous to try.

But this is what we can by no means allow them. We never will admit
rashness or chance to have produced all this harmony and order. It is
visible to the world, that the several steps towards this change were
slowly taken, and with the utmost caution. The movers observed as they
went on, how matters would bear, and advanced no farther at first, than so
as they might be able to stop or go back, if circumstances were not
mature. Things were grown to such a height, that it was no longer the
question, whether a person who aimed at an employment, were a Whig or a
Tory, much less, whether he had merit or proper abilities for what he
pretended to: he must owe his preferment only to the favourites; and the
crown was so far from nominating, that they would not allow it a negative.
This, the Qu[een] was resolved no longer to endure, and began to break
into their prescription, by bestowing one or two places of consequence,[4]
without consulting her ephori; after they had fixed them for others, and
concluded as usually, that all their business was to signify their
pleasure to her M[ajest]y. But though the persons the Qu[een] had chosen,
were such as no objection could well be raised against upon the score of
party; yet the oligarchy took the alarm;[5] their sovereign authority was,
it seems, called in question; they grew into anger and discontent, as if
their undoubted rights were violated. All former obligations to their
sovereign now became cancelled; and they put themselves upon the foot of
people, who were hardly used after the most eminent services.

I believe all men, who know any thing in politics, will agree, that a
prince thus treated, by those he has most confided in, and perpetually
loaded with his favours, ought to extricate himself as soon as possible;
and is then only blamable in his choice of time, when he defers one minute
after it is in his power; because, from the monstrous encroachments of
exorbitant avarice and ambition, he cannot tell how long it may continue
to be so. And it will be found, upon enquiring into history, that most of
those princes, who have been ruined by favourites, have owed their
misfortune to the neglect of early remedies; deferring to struggle till
they were quite sunk.

The Whigs are every day cursing the ungovernable rage, the haughty pride,
and unsatiable covetousness of a certain person,[6] as the cause of their
fall; and are apt to tell their thoughts, that one single removal might
have set all things right. But the interests of that single person, were
found, upon experience, so complicated and woven with the rest, by love,
by awe, by marriage, by alliance, that they would rather confound heaven
and earth, than dissolve such an union.

I have always heard and understood, that a king of England, possessed of
his people’s hearts, at the head of a free Parliament, and in full
agreement with a great majority, made the true figure in the world that
such a monarch ought to do, and pursued the real interest of himself and
his kingdom. Will they allow her M[ajest]y to be in those circumstances at
present? And was it not plain by the addresses sent from all parts of the
island,[7] and by the visible disposition of the people, that such a
Parliament would undoubtedly be chosen? And so it proved, without the
court’s using any arts to influence elections.

What people then, are these in a corner, to whom the constitution must
truckle? If the whole nation’s credit cannot supply funds for the war,
without humble application from the entire legislature to a few retailers
of money, it is high time we should sue for a peace. What new maxims are
these, which neither we nor our forefathers ever heard of before, and
which no wise institution would ever allow? Must our laws from
henceforward pass the Bank and East India Company, or have their royal
assent before they are in force?

To hear some of those worthy reasoners talking of credit, that she is so
nice, so squeamish, so capricious; you would think they were describing a
lady troubled with vapours or the colick, to be only removed by a course
of steel, and swallowing a bullet. By the narrowness of their thoughts,
one would imagine they conceived the world to be no wider than Exchange
Alley. It is probable they may have such a sickly dame among them, and it
is well if she has no worse diseases, considering what hands she passes
through. But the national credit is of another complexion; of sound
health, and an even temper, her life and existence being a quintessence
drawn from the vitals of the whole kingdom. And we find these
money-politicians, after all their noise, to be of the same opinion, by
the court they paid her, when she lately appeared to them in the form of a
lottery.[8]

As to that mighty error in politics, they charge upon the Qu[een], for
changing her ministry in the height of a war, I suppose, it is only looked
upon as an error under a Whiggish administration; otherwise, the late King
has much to answer for, who did it pretty frequently. And it is well
known, that the late ministry of famous memory, was brought in during this
present war,[9] only with this circumstance, that two or three of the
chief, did first change their own principles, and then took in suitable
companions.

But however, I see no reason why the Tories should not value their wisdom
by events, as well as the Whigs. Nothing was ever thought a more
precipitate rash counsel, than that of altering the coin at the juncture
it was done;[10] yet the prudence of the undertaking was sufficiently
justified by the success. Perhaps it will be said, that the attempt was
necessary, because the whole species of money, was so grievously clipped
and counterfeit. And, is not her Majesty’s authority as sacred as her
coin? And has not that been most scandalously clipped and mangled, and
often counterfeited too?

It is another grievous complaint of the Whigs, that their late friends,
and the whole party, are treated with abundance of severity in print, and
in particular by the “Examiner.” They think it hard, that when they are
wholly deprived of power, hated by the people, and out of all hope of
re-establishing themselves, their infirmities should be so often
displayed, in order to render them yet more odious to mankind. This is
what they employ their writers to set forth in their papers of the week;
and it is humoursome enough to observe one page taken up in railing at the
“Examiner” for his invectives against a discarded ministry; and the other
side filled with the falsest and vilest abuses, against those who are now
in the highest power and credit with their sovereign, and whose least
breath would scatter them into silence and obscurity. However, though I
have indeed often wondered to see so much licentiousness taken and
connived at, and am sure it would not be suffered in any other country of
Christendom; yet I never once invoked the assistance of the gaol or the
pillory, which upon the least provocation, was the usual style during
their tyranny. There hath not passed a week these twenty years without
some malicious paper, scattered in every coffee-house by the emissaries of
that party, whether it were down or up. I believe, they will not pretend
to object the same thing to us. Nor do I remember any constant weekly
paper, with reflections on the late ministry or j[u]nto. They have many
weak, defenceless parts, they have not been used to a regular attack, and
therefore it is that they are so ill able to endure one, when it comes to
be their turn. So that they complain more of a few months’ truths from us,
than we did of all their scandal and malice, for twice as many years.

I cannot forbear observing upon this occasion, that those worthy authors I
am speaking of, seem to me, not fairly to represent the sentiments of
their party; who in disputing with us, do generally give up several of the
late m[inist]ry, and freely own many of their failings. They confess the
monstrous debt upon the navy, to have been caused by most scandalous
mismanagement; they allow the insolence of some, and the avarice of
others, to have been insupportable: but these gentlemen are most liberal
in their praises to those persons, and upon those very articles, where
their wisest friends give up the point. They gravely tell us, that such a
one was the most faithful servant that ever any prince had; another the
most dutiful, a third the most generous, and a fourth of the greatest
integrity. So that I look upon these champions, rather as retained by a
cabal than a party, which I desire the reasonable men among them would
please to consider.

[Footnote 1: No. 37 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, “Ep. ad Att.,” ix. 5. “I am always more affected by
the causes of events than by the events themselves.”—E.S.
SHUCKBURGH. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “I am resolved … to maintain the indulgence by law allowed
to scrupulous consciences” (Queen Anne’s Speech, November 27th, 1710).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Queen appointed Earl Rivers to the lieutenancy of the
Tower without the Duke of Marlborough’s concurrence. See “Memoirs Relating
to that Change,” etc. (vol. v., pp. 375-7 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “Upon the fall of that great minister and favourite
[Godolphin], that whole party became dispirited, and seemed to expect the
worst that could follow”. (Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to that Change,”
etc., vol v., p. 378 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “The bulk of the high-church, or Tory-party … were both
very industrious in procuring addresses, which, under the pretence of
expressing their loyalty to the Queen, and affection to the Church
established, were mainly levelled, like so many batteries, against the
ministry and Parliament,” etc. (Boyer’s “Annals of Queen Anne,” ix.
158-9). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: An Act for reviving … certain Duties (9 Ann., c. 6),
provided that £1,500,000 should be raised “by way of a lottery.” It was
introduced February 15th, and received the Royal Assent March 6th, 1710/1
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Queen appointed a ministry with Lord Godolphin as lord
treasurer in the first months of her reign, May-July, 1702. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The clipping of coin had become so widespread that it was
absolutely imperative that steps should be taken to readjust matters. It
was resolved, therefore, in 1695, to call in all light money and recoin
it. The matter was placed in charge of the then chancellor of the
exchequer, Charles Montague, afterwards Earl of Halifax, and he, with the
assistance of Sir Isaac Newton, successfully accomplished the very arduous
task. It cost the nation about £2,200,000, and a considerable
inconvenience owing to lack of coins. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 39.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 19, TO THURSDAY APRIL 26, 1711.

Indignum est in ed civitate, quae legibus continetur, discedi a
legibus.[2]

I[3] have been often considering how it comes to pass, that the dexterity
of mankind in evil, should always outgrow, not only the prudence and
caution of private persons, but the continual expedients of the wisest
laws contrived to prevent it. I cannot imagine a knave to possess a
greater share of natural wit or genius, than an honest man. I have known
very notable sharpers at play, who upon all other occasions, were as great
dunces, as human shape can well allow; and I believe, the same might be
observed among the other knots of thieves and pickpockets, about this
town. The proposition however is certainly true, and to be confirmed by an
hundred instances. A scrivener, an attorney, a stock-jobber, and many
other retailers of fraud, shall not only be able to overreach others, much
wiser than themselves, but find out new inventions, to elude the force of
any law made against them. I suppose, the reason of this may be, that as
the aggressor is said to have generally the advantage of the defender; so
the makers of the law, which is to defend our rights, have usually not so
much industry or vigour, as those whose interest leads them to attack it.
Besides, it rarely happens that men are rewarded by the public for their
justice and virtue; neither do those who act upon such principles, expect
any recompense till the next world: whereas fraud, where it succeeds,
gives present pay; and this is allowed the greatest spur imaginable both
to labour and invention. When a law is made to stop some growing evil, the
wits of those, whose interest it is to break it with secrecy or impunity,
are immediately at work; and even among those who pretend to fairer
characters, many would gladly find means to avoid, what they would not be
thought to violate. They desire to reap the advantage, if possible,
without the shame, or at least, without the danger. This art is what I
take that dexterous race of men, sprung up soon after the Revolution, to
have studied with great application ever since, and to have arrived at
great perfection in it. According to the doctrine of some Romish casuists,
they have found out quam propè ad peccatum sine peccato possint
accedere.[3] They can tell how to go within an inch of an impeachment,
and yet come back untouched. They know what degree of corruption will just
forfeit an employment, and whether the bribe you receive be sufficient to
set you right, and put something in your pocket besides. How much to a
penny, you may safely cheat the Qu[ee]n, whether forty, fifty or sixty per
cent. according to the station you are in, and the dispositions of the
persons in office, below and above you. They have computed the price you
may securely take or give for a place, or what part of the salary you
ought to reserve. They can discreetly distribute five hundred pounds in a
small borough, without any danger from the statutes, against bribing
elections. They can manage a bargain for an office, by a third, fourth or
fifth hand, so that you shall not know whom to accuse; and win a thousand
guineas at play, in spite of the dice, and send away the loser satisfied:
They can pass the most exorbitant accounts, overpay the creditor with half
his demands, and sink the rest.

It would be endless to relate, or rather indeed impossible to discover,
the several arts which curious men have found out to enrich themselves, by
defrauding the public, in defiance of the law. The military men, both by
sea and land, have equally cultivated this most useful science: neither
hath it been altogether neglected by the other sex; of which, on the
contrary, I could produce an instance, that would make ours blush to be so
far outdone.

Besides, to confess the truth, our laws themselves are extremely defective
in many articles, which I take to be one ill effect of our best
possession, liberty. Some years ago, the ambassador of a great prince was
arrested,[4] and outrages committed on his person in our streets, without
any possibility of redress from Westminster-Hall, or the prerogative of
the sovereign; and the legislature was forced to provide a remedy against
the like evils in times to come. A commissioner of the stamped paper[5]
was lately discovered to have notoriously cheated the public of great sums
for many years, by counterfeiting the stamps, which the law had made
capital. But the aggravation of his crime, proved to be the cause that
saved his life; and that additional heightening circumstance of betraying
his trust, was found to be a legal defence. I am assured, that the
notorious cheat of the brewers at Portsmouth,[6] detected about two months
ago in Parliament, cannot by any law now in force, be punished in any
degree, equal to the guilt and infamy of it. Nay, what is almost
incredible, had Guiscard survived his detestable attempt upon Mr. Harley’s
person, all the inflaming circumstances of the fact, would not have
sufficed, in the opinion of many lawyers, to have punished him with
death;[7] and the public must have lain under this dilemma, either to
condemn him by a law, ex post facto (which would have been of
dangerous consequence, and form an ignominious precedent) or undergo the
mortification to see the greatest villain upon earth escape unpunished, to
the infinite triumph and delight of Popery and faction. But even this is
not to be wondered at, when we consider, that of all the insolences
offered to the Qu[een] since the Act of Indemnity, (at least, that ever
came to my ears) I can hardly instance above two or three, which, by the
letter of the law could amount to high treason.

From these defects in our laws, and the want of some discretionary power
safely lodged, to exert upon emergencies; as well as from the great
acquirements of able men, to elude the penalties of those laws they break,
it is no wonder, the injuries done to the public, are so seldom redressed.
But besides, no individual suffers, by any wrong he does to the
commonwealth, in proportion to the advantage he gains by doing it. There
are seven or eight millions who contribute to the loss, while the whole
gain is sunk among a few. The damage suffered by the public, is not so
immediately or heavily felt by particular persons, and the zeal of
prosecution is apt to drop and be lost among numbers.

But imagine a set of politicians for many years at the head of affairs,
the game visibly their own, and by consequence acting with great security:
may not these be sometimes tempted to forget their caution, by length of
time, by excess of avarice and ambition, by the insolence or violence of
their nature, or perhaps by a mere contempt for their adversaries? May not
such motives as these, put them often upon actions directly against the
law, such as no evasions can be found for, and which will lay them fully
open to the vengeance of a prevailing interest, whenever they are out of
power? It is answered in the affirmative. And here we cannot refuse the
late m[inistr]y their due praises, who foreseeing a storm, provided for
their own safety, by two admirable expedients, by which, with great
prudence, they have escaped the punishments due to pernicious counsels and
corrupt management. The first, was to procure, under pretences hardly
specious, a general Act of Indemnity,[8] which cuts off all impeachments.
The second, was yet more refined: suppose, for instance, a counsel is to
be pursued, which is necessary to carry on the dangerous designs of a
prevailing party, to preserve them in power, to gratify the immeasurable
appetites of a few leaders, civil and military, though by hazarding the
ruin of the whole nation: this counsel, desperate in itself, unprecedented
in the nature of it, they procure a majority to form into an address,[9]
which makes it look like the sense of the nation. Under that shelter they
carry on their work, and lie secure against after-reckonings.

I must be so free to tell my meaning in this, that among other things, I
understand it of the address made to the Qu[een] about three years ago, to
desire that her M[ajest]y would not consent to a peace, without the entire
restitution of Sp[ai]n.[10] A proceeding, which to people abroad, must
look like the highest strain of temerity, folly, and gasconade. But we at
home, who allow the promoters of that advice to be no fools, can easily
comprehend the depth and mystery of it. They were assured by this means,
to pin down the war upon us, consequently to increase their own power and
wealth, and multiply difficulties on the Qu[een] and kingdom, till they
had fixed their party too firmly to be shaken, whenever they should find
themselves disposed to reverse their address, and give us leave to wish
for a peace.

If any man entertains a more favourable opinion of this monstrous step in
politics; I would ask him what we must do, in case we find it impossible
to recover Spain? Those among the Whigs who believe a God, will confess,
that the events of war lie in His hands; and the rest of them, who
acknowledge no such power, will allow, that Fortune hath too great a share
in the good or ill success of military actions, to let a wise man reason
upon them, as if they were entirely in his power. If Providence shall
think fit to refuse success to our arms, with how ill a grace, with what
shame and confusion, shall we be obliged to recant that precipitate
address, unless the world will be so charitable to consider, that
parliaments among us, differ as much as princes, and that by the fatal
conjunction of many unhappy circumstances, it is very possible for our
island to be represented sometimes by those who have the least pretensions
to it. So little truth or justice there is in what some pretend to
advance, that the actions of former senates, ought always to be treated
with respect by the latter; that those assemblies are all equally
venerable, and no one to be preferred before another: by which argument,
the Parliament that began the rebellion against King Charles the First,
voted his trial, and appointed his murderers, ought to be remembered with
respect.

But to return from this digression; it is very plain, that considering the
defectiveness of our laws, the variety of cases, the weakness of the
prerogative, the power or the cunning of ill-designing men, it is
possible, that many great abuses may be visibly committed, which cannot be
legally punished: especially if we add to this, that some enquiries might
probably involve those, whom upon other accounts, it is not thought
convenient to disturb. Therefore, it is very false reasoning, especially
in the management of public affairs, to argue that men are innocent,
because the law hath not pronounced them guilty.

I am apt to think, it was to supply such defects as these, that satire was
first introduced into the world; whereby those whom neither religion, nor
natural virtue, nor fear of punishment, were able to keep within the
bounds of their duty, might be withheld by the shame of having their
crimes exposed to open view in the strongest colours, and themselves
rendered odious to mankind. Perhaps all this may be little regarded by
such hardened and abandoned natures as I have to deal with; but, next to
taming or binding a savage animal, the best service you can do the
neighbourhood, is to give them warning, either to arm themselves, or not
come in its way.

Could I have hoped for any signs of remorse from the leaders of that
faction, I should very gladly have changed my style, and forgot or passed
by their million of enormities. But they are every day more fond of
discovering their impotent zeal and malice: witness their conduct in the
city about a fortnight ago,[11] which had no other end imaginable, beside
that of perplexing our affairs, and endeavouring to make things desperate,
that themselves may be thought necessary. While they continue in this
frantic mood, I shall not forbear to treat them as they deserve; that is
to say, as the inveterate, irreconcilable enemies to our country and its
constitution.

[Footnote 1: No. 38 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “It is a shameful thing in a state which is governed by laws,
that there should be any departure from them.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This paper called forth a reply which was printed in two
forms, one with the title: “A Few Words upon the Examiner’s Scandalous
Peace” (London, 1711), and the other, “Reflections upon the Examiner’s
Scandalous Peace” (London: A. Baldwin, 1711). A careful comparison of
these pamphlets shows that the text corresponds page for page. The author
commences: “Though ‘The Examiner’ be certainly the most trifling,
scurrilous, and malicious writer that ever appeared, yet, in spite of all
his gross untruths and absurd notions, by assuming to himself an air of
authority, and speaking in the person of one employed by the ministry, he
sometimes gives a kind of weight to what he says, so as to make
impressions of terror upon honest minds.” Then, after quoting several of
the Queen’s Speeches to Parliament, and the Addresses in reply, he
observes: “The ‘Examiner’ is resolved to continue so faithful to his
principal quality of speaking untruths, that he has industriously taken
care not to recite truly the very Address he makes it his business to rail
at;” and he points out that it was not the “restitution of Spain,” but the
restoration of the Spanish Monarchy to the House of Austria that was
desired. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “How near to sin they can go without actually sinning.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Muscovite Ambassador (A.A. Matveof) was arrested and
taken out of his coach by violence. A Bill was brought into the House of
Commons “for preserving the Privileges of Ambassadors,” February 7th,
1708/9, and obtained the Royal Assent, April 21st, 1709 (7 Ann. c. 12).

Matveof, it seemed, was arrested by his creditors, who feared that, since
he had taken leave at Court, they would never be paid. Peter the Great was
angry at the indignity thus offered his representative, and was only
unwillingly pacified by the above Act. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Richard Dyet, J.P., “is discovered to have counterfeited
stamped paper, in which he was a commissioner; and, with his accomplices,
has cheated the Queen of £100,000” (Swift’s “Journal to Stella,” October
3rd, 1710, vol. ii., p. 20 of present edition). He was tried for felony at
the Old Bailey, January 13th, 1710/1, and was acquitted, because his
offence was only a breach of trust. He was, however, re-committed for
trial on the charge of misdemeanour. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: “Some very considerable abuses,” the chancellor of the
exchequer informed the House of Commons on January 3rd, 1710/1, “have been
discovered in the victualling.” It appears that the seamen in the navy
were allowed seven pints of beer per day, during the time they were on
board. In port, of course the sailors were permitted to go ashore, but the
allowance was still charged to the ship’s account; and became a perquisite
of the purser. It often happened that the contractors did not send in the
full amount of beer paid for, but gave the purser money in exchange for
the difference. The scandal was brought to the attention of the House as
stated, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the abuse. On
February 15th the House considered the committee’s report, and it was
found that Thomas Ridge, Member for Portsmouth, contracted to supply 5,513
tons of beer, and had delivered only 3,213. Several other brewers of
Portsmouth had been guilty of the same fraud. Mr. Ridge was expelled the
House the same day. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: See Swift’s “Journal,” quoted in notes to No. 33, ante,
p. 214. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: This Act was passed in 1708. See No. 18, ante, and
note, p. 105. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Address from both Houses, presented to the Queen,
February 18th, 1709/10, prayed that she “would be pleased to order the
Duke of Marlborough’s immediate departure for Holland, where his presence
will be equally necessary, to assist at the negotiations of peace, and to
hasten the preparations for an early campaign,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Address of both Houses to the Queen, presented on
December 23rd, 1707, urged: “That nothing could restore a just balance of
power in Europe, but the reducing the whole Spanish monarchy to the
obedience of the House of Austria; and … That no peace can be honourable
or safe, for your Majesty or your allies, if Spain, the West Indies, or
any part of the Spanish Monarchy, be suffered to remain under the power of
the House of Bourbon.” The resolutions as carried in the House of Lords on
December 19th did not include the words “or any part of the Spanish
Monarchy”; these words were introduced on a motion by Somers who was in
the chair when the Select Committee met on December 20th to embody the
resolutions in proper form. The altered resolution was quickly hurried
through the Lords and agreed to by the Commons, and the Address as amended
was presented to the Queen. By this bold move Somers prolonged the war
indefinitely. See also note at the commencement of this number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This refers to the election of the governor and directors of
the Bank of England on April 12th and 13th. All the Whig candidates were
returned, and Sir H. Furnese was on the same day chosen Alderman for
Bridge Within. See also No. 41, post, p. 267, [T.S.]]

NUMB. 40.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 26, TO THURSDAY MAY 3, 1711.

There have been certain topics of reproach, liberally bestowed for some
years past, by the Whigs and Tories, upon each other. We charge the former
with a design of destroying the established Church, and introducing
fanaticism and freethinking in its stead. We accuse them as enemies to
monarchy; as endeavouring to undermine the present form of government, and
to build a commonwealth, or some new scheme of their own, upon its ruins.
On the other side, their clamours against us, may be summed up in those
three formidable words, Popery, Arbitrary Power, and the Pretender. Our
accusations against them we endeavour to make good by certain overt acts;
such as their perpetually abusing the whole body of the clergy; their
declared contempt for the very order of priesthood; their aversion for
episcopacy; the public encouragement and patronage they gave to Tindall,
Toland, and other atheistical writers; their appearing as professed
advocates, retained by the Dissenters, excusing their separation, and
laying the guilt of it to the obstinacy of the Church; their frequent
endeavours to repeal the test, and their setting up the indulgence to
scrupulous consciences, as a point of greater importance than the
established worship. The regard they bear to our monarchy, hath appeared
by their open ridiculing the martyrdom of King Charles the First, in their
Calves-head Clubs,[3] their common discourses and their pamphlets: their
denying the unnatural war raised against that prince, to have been a
rebellion; their justifying his murder in the allowed papers of the week;
their industry in publishing and spreading seditious and republican
tracts; such as Ludlow’s “Memoirs,” Sidney “Of Government,”[4] and many
others; their endless lopping of the prerogative, and mincing into nothing
her M[ajest]y’s titles to the crown.

What proofs they bring for our endeavouring to introduce Popery, arbitrary
power, and the Pretender, I cannot readily tell, and would be glad to
hear; however, those important words having by dexterous management, been
found of mighty service to their cause, though applied with little colour,
either of reason or justice; I have been considering whether they may not
be adapted to more proper objects.

As to Popery, which is the first of these, to deal plainly, I can hardly
think there is any set of men among us, except the professors of it, who
have any direct intention to introduce it among us: but the question is,
whether the principles and practices of us, or the Whigs, be most likely
to make way for it? It is allowed, on all hands, that among the methods
concerted at Rome, for bringing over England into the bosom of the
Catholic Church; one of the chief was, to send Jesuits and other
emissaries, in lay habits, who personating tradesmen and mechanics, should
mix with the people, and under the pretence of a further and purer
reformation, endeavour to divide us into as many sects as possible, which
would either put us under the necessity of returning to our old errors, to
preserve peace at home; or by our divisions make way for some powerful
neighbour, with the assistance of the Pope’s permission, and a consecrated
banner, to convert and enslave us at once. If this hath been reckoned good
politics (and it was the best the Jesuit schools could invent) I appeal to
any man, whether the Whigs, for many years past, have not been employed in
the very same work? They professed on all occasions, that they knew no
reason why any one system of speculative opinions (as they termed the
doctrines of the Church) should be established by law more than another;
or why employments should be confined to the religion of the magistrate,
and that called the Church established. The grand maxim they laid down
was, That no man, for the sake of a few notions and ceremonies, under the
names of doctrine and discipline, should be denied the liberty of serving
his country: as if places would go a begging, unless Brownists, Familists,
Sweet-singers, Quakers, Anabaptists and Muggletonians, would take them off
our hands.

I have been sometimes imagining this scheme brought to perfection, and how
diverting it would look to see half a dozen Sweet-singers on the bench in
their ermines, and two or three Quakers with their white staves at court.
I can only say, this project is the very counterpart of the late King
James’s design, which he took up as the best method for introducing his
own religion, under the pretext of an universal liberty of conscience, and
that no difference in religion, should make any in his favour.
Accordingly, to save appearances, he dealt some employments among
Dissenters of most denominations; and what he did was, no doubt, in
pursuance of the best advice he could get at home or abroad; and the
Church thought it the most dangerous step he could take for her
destruction. It is true, King James admitted Papists among the rest, which
the Whigs would not; but this is sufficiently made up by a material
circumstance, wherein they seem to have much outdone that prince, and to
have carried their liberty of conscience to a higher point, having granted
it to all the classes of Freethinkers, which the nice conscience of a
Popish prince would not give him leave to do; and was therein mightily
overseen; because it is agreed by the learned, that there is but a very
narrow step from atheism, to the other extreme, superstition. So that upon
the whole, whether the Whigs had any real design of bringing in Popery or
no, it is very plain, that they took the most effectual step towards it;
and if the Jesuits had been their immediate directors, they could not have
taught them better, nor have found apter scholars.

Their second accusation is, That we encourage and maintain arbitrary power
in princes, and promote enslaving doctrines among the people. This they go
about to prove by instances, producing the particular opinions of certain
divines in King Charles the Second’s reign; a decree of Oxford
University,[5] and some few writers since the Revolution. What they mean,
is the principle of passive obedience and non-resistance, which those who
affirm, did, I believe, never intend should include arbitrary power.
However, though I am sensible that it is not reckoned prudent in a
dispute, to make any concessions without the last necessity; yet I do
agree, that in my own private opinion, some writers did carry that tenet
of passive obedience to a height, which seemed hardly consistent with the
liberties of a country, whose laws can be neither enacted nor repealed,
without the consent of the whole people. I mean not those who affirm it
due in general, as it certainly is to the Legislature, but such as fix it
entirely in the prince’s person. This last has, I believe, been done by a
very few; but when the Whigs quote authors to prove it upon us, they bring
in all who mention it as a duty in general, without applying it to
princes, abstracted from their senate.

By thus freely declaring my own sentiments of passive obedience, it will
at least appear, that I do not write for a party: neither do I, upon any
occasion, pretend to speak their sentiments, but my own. The majority of
the two Houses, and the present ministry (if those be a party) seem to me
in all their proceedings, to pursue the real interest of Church and State:
and if I shall happen to differ from particular persons among them, in a
single notion about government, I suppose they will not, upon that
account, explode me and my paper. However, as an answer once for all, to
the tedious scurrilities of those idle people, who affirm, I am hired and
directed what to write;[6] I must here inform them, that their censure is
an effect of their principles: The present m[inistr]y are under no
necessity of employing prostitute pens; they have no dark designs to
promote, by advancing heterodox opinions.

But (to return) suppose two or three private divines, under King Charles
the Second, did a little overstrain the doctrine of passive obedience to
princes; some allowance might be given to the memory of that unnatural
rebellion against his father, and the dismal consequences of resistance.
It is plain, by the proceedings of the Churchmen before and at the
Revolution, that this doctrine was never designed to introduce arbitrary
power.[7]

I look upon the Whigs and Dissenters to be exactly of the same political
faith; let us, therefore, see what share each of them had in advancing
arbitrary power. It is manifest, that the fanatics made Cromwell the most
absolute tyrant in Christendom:[8] The Rump abolished the House of Lords;
the army abolished the Rump; and by this army of saints, he
governed. The Dissenters took liberty of conscience and employments from
the late King James, as an acknowledgment of his dispensing power; which
makes a King of England as absolute as the Turk. The Whigs, under the late
king, perpetually declared for keeping up a standing army, in times of
peace; which has in all ages been the first and great step to the ruin of
liberty. They were, besides, discovering every day their inclinations to
destroy the rights of the Church; and declared their opinion, in all
companies, against the bishops sitting in the House of Peers: which was
exactly copying after their predecessors of ‘Forty-one. I need not say
their real intentions were to make the king absolute, but whatever be the
designs of innovating men, they usually end in a tyranny: as we may see by
an hundred examples in Greece, and in the later commonwealths of Italy,
mentioned by Machiavel.

In the third place, the Whigs accuse us of a design to bring in the
Pretender; and to give it a greater air of probability, they suppose the
Qu[een] to be a party in this design; which however, is no very
extraordinary supposition in those who have advanced such singular
paradoxes concerning Gregg and Guiscard. Upon this article, their charge
is general, without ever offering to produce an instance. But I verily
think, and believe it will appear no paradox, that if ever he be brought
in, the Whigs are his men. For, first, it is an undoubted truth, that a
year or two after the Revolution, several leaders of that party had their
pardons sent them by the late King James,[9] and had entered upon measures
to restore him, on account of some disobligations they received from King
William. Besides, I would ask, whether those who are under the greatest
ties of gratitude to King James, are not at this day become the most
zealous Whigs? And of what party those are now, who kept a long
correspondence with St. Germains?

It is likewise very observable of late, that the Whigs upon all occasions,
profess their belief of the Pretender’s being no impostor, but a real
prince, born of the late Queen’s body:[10] which whether it be true or
false, is very unseasonably advanced, considering the weight such an
opinion must have with the vulgar, if they once thoroughly believe it.
Neither is it at all improbable, that the Pretender himself puts his chief
hopes in the friendship he expects from the Dissenters and Whigs, by his
choice to invade the kingdom when the latter were most in credit: and he
had reason to count upon the former, from the gracious treatment they
received from his supposed father, and their joyful acceptance of it. But
further, what could be more consistent with the Whiggish notion of a
revolution-principle, than to bring in the Pretender? A
revolution-principle, as their writings and discourses have taught us to
define it, is a principle perpetually disposing men to revolutions: and
this is suitable to the famous saying of a great Whig, “That the more
revolutions the better”; which how odd a maxim soever in appearance, I
take to be the true characteristic of the party.

A dog loves to turn round often; yet after certain revolutions, he lies
down to rest: but heads, under the dominion of the moon, are for perpetual
changes, and perpetual revolutions: besides, the Whigs owe all their
wealth to wars and revolutions; like the girl at Bartholomew-fair, who
gets a penny by turning round a hundred times, with swords in her
hands.[11]

To conclude, the Whigs have a natural faculty of bringing in pretenders,
and will therefore probably endeavour to bring in the great one at last:
How many pretenders to wit, honour, nobility, politics, have they
brought in these last twenty years? In short, they have been sometimes
able to procure a majority of pretenders in Parliament; and wanted nothing
to render the work complete, except a Pretender at their head.

[Footnote 1: No. 39 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Juvenal, “Satires,” ii. 24.

[Footnote 3: The Calves-Head Club “was erected by an impudent set of
people, who have their feast of calves-heads in several parts of the town,
on the 30th of January; in derision of the day, and defiance of monarchy”
(“Secret History of the Calves-Head Club,” 1703). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: These works can hardly be called “tracts.” Algernon Sidney’s
“Discourses concerning Government” (1698), is a portly folio of 467 pages,
and Ludlow’s “Memoirs” (1698-9) occupy three stout octavo volumes. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: On July 21st, 1683, the University of Oxford passed a decree
condemning as “false, seditious, and impious,” a series of twenty-seven
propositions, among which were the following:

“All civil authority is derived originally from the people.”

“The King has but a co-ordinate power, and may be over-ruled by the Lords
and Commons.”

“Wicked kings and tyrants ought to be put to death.”

“King Charles the First was lawfully put to death.”

The decree was reprinted in 1709/10 with the title, “An Entire Confutation
of Mr. Hoadley’s Book, of the Original of Government.” It was burnt by the
order of the House of Lords, dated March 23rd, 1709/10. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: In a letter to Dr. Chenevix, Bishop of Waterford (dated May
23rd, 1758), Lord Chesterfield, speaking of Swift’s “Last Four Years,”
says that it “is a party pamphlet, founded on the lie of the day, which,
as Lord Bolingbroke who had read it often assured me, was coined and
delivered out to him, to write ‘Examiners’ and other political papers upon”
(Chesterfield’s “Works,” ii. 498, edit. 1777). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: From this and many previous passages it is obvious, that, in
joining the Tories, Swift reserved to himself the right of putting his own
interpretation upon the speculative points of their political creed. [S.]]

[Footnote 8: See Swift’s “Presbyterians’ Plea of Merit,” and note, vol.
iv., p. 36, of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: James II. sent a Declaration to England, dated April 20th,
1692, in which he promised to pardon all those who should return to their
duty. He made a few exceptions, and among these were Ormonde, Sunderland,
Nottingham, Churchill, etc. It is said that of Churchill James remarked
that he never could forgive him until he should efface the memory of his
ingratitude by some eminent service. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “The Pretended Prince of Wales,” as he is styled in several
Acts of Parliament, was first called “the Pretender” in Queen Anne’s
speech to Parliament on March 11th, 1707/8. She then said: “The French
fleet sailed from Dunkirk, Tuesday, at three in the morning, northward,
with the Pretender on board.” The same epithet is employed in the
Addresses by the two Houses in reply to this speech.

It was currently reported that he was not a son of James II. and Queen
Mary. Several pamphlets were written by “W. Fuller,” to prove that he was
the son of a gentlewoman named Grey, who was brought to England from
Ireland in 1688 by the Countess of Tyrconnel. See also note on p. 409 of
vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: An exhibition described at length in Ward’s “London Spy.”
The wonder and dexterity of the feat consisted in the damsel sustaining a
number of drawn swords upright upon her hands, shoulders, and neck, and
turning round so nimbly as to make the spectators giddy. [S.]]

NUMB. 41.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MAY 3, TO THURSDAY MAY 10, 1711.[2]

I took up a paper[4] some days ago in a coffee-house; and if the
correctness of the style, and a superior spirit in it, had not immediately
undeceived me, I should have been apt to imagine, I had been reading an
“Examiner.” In this paper, there were several important propositions
advanced. For instance, that “Providence raised up Mr. H[arle]y to be an
instrument of great good, in a very critical juncture, when it was much
wanted.” That, “his very enemies acknowledge his eminent abilities, and
distinguishing merit, by their unwearied and restless endeavours against
his person and reputation”: That “they have had an inveterate malice
against both”: That he “has been wonderfully preserved from some
unparalleled attempts”; with more to the same purpose. I immediately
computed by rules of arithmetic, that in the last cited words there was
something more intended than the attempt of Guiscard, which I think can
properly pass but for one of the “some.” And, though I dare not
pretend to guess the author’s meaning; yet the expression allows such a
latitude, that I would venture to hold a wager, most readers, both Whig
and Tory, have agreed with me, that this plural number must, in all
probability, among other facts, take in the business of Gregg.[5]

See now the difference of styles. Had I been to have told my thoughts on
this occasion; instead of saying how Mr. H[arle]y was “treated by some
persons,” and “preserved from some unparalleled attempts”; I should with
intolerable bluntness and ill manners, have told a formal story, of a
com[mitt]ee[6] sent to a condemned criminal in Newgate, to bribe him with
a pardon, on condition he would swear high treason against his master, who
discovered his correspondence, and secured his person, when a certain
grave politician had given him warning to make his escape: and by this
means I should have drawn a whole swarm of hedge-writers to exhaust their
catalogue of scurrilities against me as a liar, and a slanderer. But with
submission to the author of that forementioned paper, I think he has
carried that expression to the utmost it will bear: for after all this
noise, I know of but two “attempts” against Mr. H[arle]y, that can really
be called “unparalleled,” which are those aforesaid of Gregg and Guiscard;
and as to the rest, I will engage to parallel them from the story of
Catiline, and others I could produce.

However, I cannot but observe, with infinite pleasure, that a great part
of what I have charged upon the late prevailing faction, and for affirming
which, I have been adorned with so many decent epithets, hath been
sufficiently confirmed at several times, by the resolutions of one or the
other House of Parliament.[7] I may therefore now say, I hope, with good
authority, that there have been “some unparalleled attempts” against Mr.
Harley. That the late ministry were justly to blame in some management,
which occasioned the unfortunate battle of Almanza,[8] and the
disappointment at Toulon.[9] That the public has been grievously wronged
by most notorious frauds, during the Whig administration. That those who
advised the bringing in the Palatines,[10] were enemies to the kingdom.
That the late managers of the revenue have not duly passed their
accounts,[11] for a great part of thirty-five millions, and ought not to
be trusted in such employments any more. Perhaps in a little time, I may
venture to affirm some other paradoxes of this kind, and produce the same
vouchers. And perhaps also, if it had not been so busy a period, instead
of one “Examiner,” the late ministry might have had above four hundred,
each of whose little fingers would be heavier than my loins. It makes me
think of Neptune’s threat to the winds:

Thus when these sons of Aeolus, had almost sunk the ship with the tempests
they raised, it was necessary to smooth the ocean, and secure the vessel,
instead of pursuing the offenders.

But I observe the general expectation at present, instead of dwelling any
longer upon conjectures who is to be punished for past miscarriages, seems
bent upon the rewards intended to those, who have been so highly
instrumental in rescuing our constitution from its late dangers. It is the
observation of Tacitus, in the life of Agricola, that his eminent services
had raised a general opinion of his being designed, by the emperor, for
praetor of Britain. Nullis in hoc suis sermonibus, sed quia par
videbatur: and then he adds, Non semper errat fama, aliquando et
eligit.[13] The judgment of a wise prince, and the general disposition
of the people, do often point at the same person; and sometimes the
popular wishes, do even foretell the reward intended for some superior
merit. Thus among several deserving persons, there are two,[14] whom the
public vogue hath in a peculiar manner singled out, as designed very soon
to receive the choicest marks of the royal favour. One of them to be
placed in a very high station, and both to increase the number of our
nobility. This, I say, is the general conjecture; for I pretend to none,
nor will be chargeable if it be not fulfilled; since it is enough for
their honour, that the nation thinks them worthy of the greatest rewards.

Upon this occasion I cannot but take notice, that of all the heresies in
politics, profusely scattered by the partisans of the late administration,
none ever displeased me more, or seemed to have more dangerous
consequences to monarchy, than that pernicious talent so much affected, of
discovering a contempt for birth, family, and ancient nobility. All the
threadbare topics of poets and orators were displayed to discover to us,
that merit and virtue were the only nobility; and that the advantages of
blood, could not make a knave or a fool either honest or wise. Most
popular commotions we read of in histories of Greece and Rome, took their
rise from unjust quarrels to the nobles; and in the latter, the plebeians’
encroachments on the patricians, were the first cause of their ruin.

Suppose there be nothing but opinion in the difference of blood; every
body knows, that authority is very much founded on opinion. But surely,
that difference is not wholly imaginary. The advantages of a liberal
education, of choosing the best companions to converse with; not being
under the necessity of practising little mean tricks by a scanty
allowance; the enlarging of thought, and acquiring the knowledge of men
and things by travel; the example of ancestors inciting to great and good
actions. These are usually some of the opportunities, that fall in the way
of those who are born, of what we call the better families; and allowing
genius to be equal in them and the vulgar, the odds are clearly on their
side. Nay, we may observe in some, who by the appearance of merit, or
favour of fortune, have risen to great stations, from an obscure birth,
that they have still retained some sordid vices of their parentage or
education, either insatiable avarice, or ignominious falsehood and
corruption.

To say the truth, the great neglect of education, in several noble
families, whose sons are suffered to pass the most improvable seasons of
their youth, in vice and idleness, have too much lessened their
reputation; but even this misfortune we owe, among all the rest, to that
Whiggish practice of reviling the Universities, under the pretence of
their instilling pedantry, narrow principles, and high-church doctrines.

I would not be thought to undervalue merit and virtue, wherever they are
to be found; but will allow them capable of the highest dignities in a
state, when they are in a very great degree of eminence. A pearl holds its
value though it be found in a dunghill; but however, that is not the most
probable place to search for it. Nay, I will go farther, and admit, that a
man of quality without merit, is just so much the worse for his quality;
which at once sets his vices in a more public view, and reproaches him for
them. But on the other side, I doubt, those who are always undervaluing
the advantages of birth, and celebrating personal merit, have principally
an eye to their own, which they are fully satisfied with, and which nobody
will dispute with them about; whereas they cannot, without impudence and
folly, pretend to be nobly born: because this is a secret too easily
discovered: for no men’s parentage is so nicely inquired into, as that of
assuming upstarts; especially when they affect to make it better than it
is, as they often do, or behave themselves with insolence.

But whatever may be the opinion of others upon this subject, whose
philosophical scorn for blood and families, reaches even to those that are
royal, or perhaps took its rise from a Whiggish contempt of the latter; I
am pleased to find two such instances of extraordinary merit, as I have
mentioned, joined with ancient and honourable birth, which whether it be
of real or imaginary value, hath been held in veneration by all wise,
polite states, both ancient and modern. And, as much a foppery, as men
pretend to think it, nothing is more observable in those who rise to great
place or wealth, from mean originals, than their mighty solicitude to
convince the world that they are not so low as is commonly believed. They
are glad to find it made out by some strained genealogy, that they have
some remote alliance with better families. Cromwell himself was pleased
with the impudence of a flatterer, who undertook to prove him descended
from a branch of the royal stem. I know a citizen,[15] who adds or alters
a letter in his name with every plum he acquires: he now wants but the
change of a vowel, to be allied to a sovereign prince in Italy; and that
perhaps he may contrive to be done, by a mistake of the graver upon
his tombstone.

When I am upon this subject of nobility, I am sorry for the occasion given
me, to mention the loss of a person who was so great an ornament to it, as
the late lord president;[16] who began early to distinguish himself in the
public service, and passed through the highest employments of state, in
the most difficult times, with great abilities and untainted honour. As he
was of a good old age, his principles of religion and loyalty had received
no mixture from late infusions, but were instilled into him by his
illustrious father, and other noble spirits, who had exposed their lives
and fortunes for the royal martyr.

His first great action was, like Scipio, to defend his father,[18] when
oppressed by numbers; and his filial piety was not only rewarded with long
life, but with a son, who upon the like occasion, would have shewn the
same resolution. No man ever preserved his dignity better when he was out
of power, nor shewed more affability while he was in. To conclude: his
character (which I do not here pretend to draw) is such, as his nearest
friends may safely trust to the most impartial pen; nor wants the least of
that allowance which, they say, is required for those who are dead.

[Footnote 1: No. 40 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Writing to Stella, May 14th, 1711, Swift informs her: “Dr.
Freind was with me, and pulled out a twopenny pamphlet just published
called ‘The State of Wit,’ giving a character of all the papers that have
come out of late. The author seems to be a Whig, yet he speaks very highly
of a paper called ‘The Examiner,’ and says the supposed author of it is
Dr. Swift” (vol. ii., p. 176, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Horace, “Odes,” III. xxiv. 21.

[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: “The Congratulatory Speech of William Bromley, Esq., …
together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Answer.”—See also
No. 42, post, pp. 273-4. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: See No. 33, ante, pp. 207-14. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The writer of “A Letter to the Seven Lords” says this means
“that there was a committee of seven lords, sent to a condemned criminal
in Newgate, to bribe him with a pardon, on condition he would swear high
treason, against his master.”

In Hoffman’s “Secret Transactions” (pp. 14, 15) the matter is thus
referred to: “Who those persons were that offered Gregg his life, with
great preferments and advantages (if he would but accuse his master) may
not uneasily be guessed at, for most of the time he was locked up none but
people of note, were permitted to come near him, who made him strange
promises, and often repeated them.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: “He does, with his own impudence, and with the malice of a
devil, bring in both Houses of P—— to say and mean the same
thing…. It is matter of wonder … to see the greatest ministers of
state we ever had (till now) treated by a poor paper-pedlar, every
Thursday, like the veriest rascals in the kingdom…. I could, if it were
needful, bring a great many instances, of this licentious way of the scum
of mankind’s treating the greatest peers in the nation” (“A Letter to the
Seven Lords”). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Earl of Galway was defeated by the Duke of Berwick at
this battle on April 25th, 1707. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Allies, under the Duke of Savoy, unsuccessfully laid
siege to Toulon from July 26th to August 21st, 1707. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Palatines, who were mostly Lutherans, came over to
England in great numbers in May and June of 1709. So large was the
immigration that the House of Commons, on April 14th, 1711, passed a
resolution declaring that the inviting and bringing over of the Palatines
“at the public expense, was an extravagant and unreasonable charge to the
kingdom, and a scandalous misapplication of the public money.” Whoever
advised it, said the resolution, “was an enemy to the Queen and this
kingdom.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: A Committee, appointed January 13th, 1710/1, reported in
April, 1711, that accounts for £35,302,107 18s. 9-5/8d.(sic)
had not been passed. On February 21st, 1711/2, the auditors presented a
statement which showed that of these accounts (which went back to 1681),
£6,133,571 had then been passed, and that a considerable portion of
the remainder was waiting for technicalities only. On June 11th, 1713, it
was reported that £24,624,436 had been either passed or “adjusted.”
See “Journals of House of Commons,” xvi., xvii. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Virgil, “Aeneid,” i. 135. “Whom I—but first this
uproar must be quelled.”—R. KENNEDY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Tacitus, “Agricola,” 9. (Tacitus wrote “Haud semper,” etc.)
“An opinion not founded upon any suggestions of his own, but upon his
being thought equal to the station. Common fame does not always err,
sometimes it even directs a choice” (“Oxford Translation” revised).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Harley, who was created Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer,
May 23rd, 1711, and Sir Simon Harcourt, made Baron Harcourt, September
3rd, 1711. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Sir Henry Furnese (1658-1712), Bart. He obtained his
baronetcy June 18th, 1707, and was the first to receive that dignity since
the Union. He sat in the House as Member for Bramber and Sandwich, and was
twice expelled. He was, however, re-elected for Sandwich and represented
that constituency until his death on November 30th, 1712.

The variety of ways in which his name has been spelt is quite remarkable.
In the “Calendar of State Papers” for 1691 and 1692, the name is given as
Furness, Furnese, and Furnes. The “Journals of the House of Commons,”
recording his expulsion, speaks of him as Furnesse. When he was knighted
(October 11th, 1691), the “Gazette” of October 19th printed it Furnace,
and when he was made a baronet, the same journal had it Furnese. In the
official “Return of Names of Members,” the name is given successively as,
Furnace, Furnac, Furnice, Furnise, Furness and Furnese. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, second son of the first
Earl of Clarendon (see No. 27, ante, p. 170). He undertook the
defence of his father when the latter was impeached by the House of
Commons, October 30th, 1667, on a charge of high treason. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: Virgil, “Aeneid,” vi. 648-9.

[Footnote 18: “When the tumultuous perplexed charge of accumulated
treasons was preferred against him by the Commons; his son Laurence, then
a Member of that House, stept forth with this brave defiance to his
accusers, that, if they could make out any proof of any one single
article, he would, as he was authorized, join in the condemnation of his
father” (Burton’s “Genuineness of Clarendon’s History,” p. 111). [T.S.]]

NUMB. 42.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MAY 10, TO THURSDAY MAY 17, 1711.

I never let slip an opportunity of endeavouring to convince the world,
that I am not partial, and to confound the idle reproach of my being hired
or directed what to write in defence of the present ministry,[3] or for
detecting the practices of the former. When I first undertook this paper,
I firmly resolved, that if ever I observed any gross neglect, abuse or
corruption in the public management, which might give any just offence to
reasonable people, I would take notice of it with that innocent boldness
which becomes an honest man, and a true lover of his country; at the same
time preserving the respect due to persons so highly entrusted by so wise
and excellent a Queen. I know not how such a liberty might have been
resented; but I thank God there has been no occasion given me to exercise
it; for I can safely affirm, that I have with the utmost rigour, examined
all the actions of the present ministry, as far as they fall under general
cognizance, without being able to accuse them of one ill or mistaken step.
Observing indeed some time ago, that seeds of dissension[4] had been
plentifully scattered from a certain corner, and fearing they began to
rise and spread, I immediately writ a paper on the subject; which I
treated with that warmth I thought it required: but the prudence of those
at the helm soon prevented this growing evil; and at present it seems
likely to have no consequences.

I have had indeed for some time a small occasion of quarrelling, which I
thought too inconsiderable for a formal subject of complaint, though I
have hinted at it more than once. But it is grown at present to as great a
height, as a matter of that nature can possibly bear; and therefore I
conceive it high time that an effectual stop should be put to it. I have
been amazed at the flaming licentiousness of several weekly papers, which
for some months past, have been chiefly employed in barefaced scurrilities
against those who are in the greatest trust and favour with the Qu[een],
with the first and last letters of their names frequently printed; or some
periphrasis describing their station, or other innuendoes, contrived too
plain to be mistaken. The consequence of which is, (and it is natural it
should be so) that their long impunity hath rendered them still more
audacious.

At this time I particularly intend a paper called the “Medley”; whose
indefatigable, incessant railings against me, I never thought convenient
to take notice of, because it would have diverted my design, which I
thought was of public use.[5] Besides, I never yet observed that writer,
or those writers, (for it is every way a “Medley”) to argue against any
one material point or fact that I had advanced, or make one fair
quotation. And after all, I knew very well how soon the world grow weary
of controversy. It is plain to me, that three or four hands at least have
been joined at times in that worthy composition; but the outlines as well
as the finishing, seem to have been always the work of the same pen, as it
is visible from half a score beauties of style inseparable from it. But
who these Meddlers are, or where the judicious leaders have picked them
up, I shall never go about to conjecture: factious rancour, false wit,
abandoned scurrility, impudent falsehood, and servile pedantry, having so
many fathers, and so few to own them, that curiosity herself would not be
at the pains to guess. It is the first time I ever did myself the honour
to mention that admirable paper: nor could I imagine any occasion likely
to happen, that would make it necessary for me to engage with such an
adversary. This paper is weekly published, and as appears by the number,
has been so for several months, and is next to the “Observator,”[6]
allowed to be the best production of the party. Last week my printer
brought me that of May 7, Numb. 32. where there are two paragraphs[7]
relating to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and to Mr. Harley; which,
as little as I am inclined to engage with such an antagonist, I cannot let
pass, without failing in my duty to the public: and if those in power will
suffer such infamous insinuations to pass with impunity, they act without
precedent from any age or country of the world.

I desire to open this matter, and leave the Whigs themselves to determine
upon it. The House of Commons resolved, nemine contradicente, that
the Speaker should congratulate Mr. Harley’s escape and recovery[8] in the
name of the House, upon his first attendance on their service. This is
accordingly done; and the speech, together with the chancellor of the
exchequer’s, are printed by order of the House.[9] The author of the
“Medley” takes this speech to task the very next week after it is
published, telling us, in the aforesaid paper, that the Speaker’s
commending Mr. Harley, for being “an instrument of great good” to the
nation, was “ill-chosen flattery”; because Mr. Harley had brought the
“nation under great difficulties, to say no more:” He says, that when the
Speaker tells Mr. Harley, that Providence has “wonderfully preserved” him
“from some unparalleled attempts” (for that the “Medley” alludes to) he
only “revives a false and groundless calumny upon other men”; which is “an
instance of impotent, but inveterate malice,”[10] that makes him [the
Speaker] “still appear more vile and contemptible.” This is an extract
from his first paragraph. In the next this writer says, that the Speaker’s
“praying to God for the continuance of Mr. Harley’s life, as an invaluable
blessing,[11] was a fulsome piece of insincerity, which exposes him to
shame and derision”; because he is “known to bear ill will to Mr. Harley,
to have an extreme bad opinion of him, and to think him an obstructor of
those fine measures he would bring about.”

I now appeal to the Whigs themselves, whether a great minister of state,
in high favour with the Qu[een], and a Speaker of the House of Commons,
were ever publicly treated after so extraordinary a manner, in the most
licentious times? For this is not a clandestine libel stolen into the
world, but openly printed and sold, with the bookseller’s name and place
of abode at the bottom. And the juncture is admirable, when Mr. H[arle]y
is generally believed upon the very point to be made an earl, and promoted
to the most important station of the kingdom:[12] nay, the very marks of
esteem he hath so lately received from the whole representative body of
the people, are called “ill-chosen flattery,” and “a fulsome piece of
insincerity,” exposing the donors “to shame and derision.”

Does this intrepid writer think he has sufficiently disguised the matter,
by that stale artifice of altering the story, and putting it as a supposed
case? Did any man who ever saw the congratulatory speech, read either of
those paragraphs in the “Medley,” without interpreting them just as I have
done? Will the author declare upon his great sincerity, that he never had
any such meaning? Is it enough, that a jury at Westminster-Hall would,
perhaps, not find him guilty of defaming the Speaker and Mr. Harley in
that paper? which however, I am much in doubt of too; and must think the
law very defective, if the reputation of such persons must lie at the
mercy of such pens. I do not remember to have seen any libel, supposed to
be writ with caution and double meaning, in order to prevent prosecution,
delivered under so thin a cover, or so unartificially made up as this;
whether it were from an apprehension of his readers’ dullness, or an
effect of his own. He hath transcribed the very phrases of the Speaker,
and put them in a different character, for fear they might pass
unobserved, and to prevent all possibility of being mistaken. I shall be
pleased to see him have recourse to the old evasion, and say, that I who
make the application, am chargeable with the abuse: let any reader of
either party be judge. But I cannot forbear asserting, as my opinion, that
for a m[inist]ry to endure such open calumny, without calling the author
to account, is next to deserving it. And this is an omission I venture to
charge upon the present m[inist]ry, who are too apt to despise little
things, which however have not always little consequences.

When this paper was first undertaken, one design, among others, was, to Examine
some of those writings so frequently published with an evil tendency,
either to religion or government; but I was long diverted by other
enquiries, which I thought more immediately necessary, to animadvert upon
men’s actions, rather than their speculations: to shew the necessity there
was of changing the ministry, that our constitution in Church and State
might be preserved; to expose some dangerous principles and practices
under the former administration, and prove by many instances, that those
who are now at the helm, are entirely in the true interest of prince and
people. This I may modestly hope, hath in some measure been already done,
sufficient to answer the end proposed, which was to inform the ignorant
and those at distance, and to convince such as are not engaged in a party,
from other motives than that of conscience. I know not whether I shall
have any appetite to continue this work much longer; if I do, perhaps some
time may be spent in exposing and overturning the false reasonings of
those who engage their pens on the other side, without losing time in
vindicating myself against their scurrilities, much less in retorting
them. Of this sort there is a certain humble companion, a French maître
de langues,[13] who every month publishes an extract from votes,
newspapers, speeches and proclamations, larded with some insipid remarks
of his own; which he calls “The Political State of Great Britain:”[14]
This ingenious piece he tells us himself, is constantly translated into
French, and printed in Holland, where the Dutch, no doubt, conceive most
noble sentiments of us, conveyed through such a vehicle. It is observable
in his account for April, that the vanity, so predominant in many of his
nation, has made him more concerned for the honour of Guiscard, than the
safety of Mr. H[arle]y: And for fear we should think the worse of his
country upon that assassin’s account,[15] he tells us, there have been
more murders, parricides and villanies, committed in England, than any
other part of the world. I cannot imagine how an illiterate foreigner, who
is neither master of our language, or indeed of common sense, and who is
devoted to a faction, I suppose, for no other reason, but his having more
Whig customers than Tories, should take it into his head to write politic
tracts of our affairs. But I presume, he builds upon the foundation of
having being called to an account for his insolence in one of his former
monthly productions,[16] which is a method that seldom fails of giving
some vogue to the foolishest composition. If such a work must be done, I
wish some tolerable hand would undertake it; and that we would not suffer
a little whiffling Frenchman to neglect his trade of teaching his language
to our children, and presume to instruct foreigners in our politics.

[Footnote 1: No. 41 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See No. 40, ante, and note, p. 259. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: In “A Discourse of the Contests and Dissensions … Athens
and Rome,” 1701 (vol. i., pp. 227-270, of present edition). See also
Swift’s reference to this pamphlet in his “Memoirs Relating to that
Change,” etc. (vol. v., p. 379). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “The Medley,” under Maynwaring, with occasional help from
Addison and Steele, seems to have been published for the sole purpose of
replying to the “Examiner.” No. 40 (July 2nd, 1711) begins: “The
‘Examiner’ is grown so insipid and contemptible that my acquaintance are
offended at my troubling myself about him.” No. 45 (the final number,
August 6th, 1711) expresses the writer’s “deep concern” for the loss of
his “dear friend ‘The Examiner,’ who has at once left the world and me,
quite unprovided for so great a blow.” When the “Examiner” was revived by
W. Oldisworth in December, 1711, it was soon followed by a reappearance of
“The Medley.” It started afresh with Numb. I. on March 3rd, 1712 (i.e.
1711/2), and continued until August 4th, 1712, the date of the publication
of Numb. XLV. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: See No. 16, ante, and note p. 85. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The two paragraphs appeared in No. 32 of “The Medley,” and
the writer introduces them by a reference to “praise and censure, which I
choose out of all the rest, because it only concerns the ‘Examiner’ to be
well instructed in them, he having no other business but to flatter the
new m[inistry], and abuse the old.” The first paragraph runs:

“In the first place, whenever any body would praise another, all he can
say will have no weight or effect, if it be not true or probable. If
therefore, for example, my friend should take it into his head to commend
a man, for having been an instrument of great good to a nation,
when in truth that very person had brought that same nation under great
difficulties, to say no more; such ill-chosen flattery would be of no use
or moment, nor add the least credit to the person so commended. Or if he
should take that occasion to revive any false and groundless calumny upon
other men, or another party of men; such an instance of impotent but
inveterate malice, would make him still appear more vile and
contemptible. The reason of all which is, that what he said was neither
just, proper, nor real, and therefore must needs want the force of true
eloquence, which consists in nothing else but in well representing things
as they really are. I advise therefore my friend, before he praises any
more of his heroes, to learn the common rules of writing; and particularly
to read over and over a certain chapter in Aristotle’s first book of
Rhetoric, where are given very proper and necessary directions, for
praising a man who has done nothing that he ought to be praised for.”

There is no reference here to the Speaker. The reference is to the
“Examiner”; nor is there any mention of Providence having wonderfully
preserved him from some unparalleled attempts.

The second paragraph runs:

“But the ancients did not think it enough for men to speak what was true
or probable, they required further that their orators should be heartily
in earnest; and that they should have all those motions and affections in
their own minds which they endeavoured to raise in others. He that thinks,
says Cicero, to warm others with his eloquence, must first be warm
himself. And Quintilian says, We must first be affected ourselves, before
we can move others. This made Pliny’s panegyric upon Trajan so well
received by his hearers, because every body knew the wonderful esteem and
affection which he had for the person he commended: and therefore, when he
concluded with a prayer to Jupiter, that he would take care of the life
and safety of that great and good man, which he said contained in it all
other blessings; though the expression was so high, it passed very well
with those that heard him, as being agreeable to the known sentiments and
affection of the speaker. Whereas, if my friend should be known to bear
ill-will to another person, or to have an extreme bad opinion of him, or
to think him an abstractor of those fine measures he would bring about,
and should yet in one of his panegyrics pray to God for the continuance of
that very person’s life, as ‘an invaluable blessing‘; such a
fulsome piece of insincerity would only expose him to shame and derision.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The House of Commons resolved on April 11th, that the Speaker
should congratulate Mr. Harley when he was able to attend the House. This
was done on April 26th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The House of Commons, on April 27th, ordered, “That Mr.
Speaker be desired to print his congratulatory speech … with the Answer
of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the same.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Speaker thanks God that Harley’s enemies had “not been
able to accomplish what their inveterate, but impotent, malice, had
designed.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: The Speaker prayed that Providence might “continue still to
preserve so invaluable a life.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Harley was appointed lord treasurer, May 30th, 1711, and
created Earl of Oxford, May 23rd. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Abel Boyer (1667-1729), author of a French dictionary, a
French grammar, “History of William III.,” “History of Queen Anne,” “The
Political State,” “The Post Boy” (1705-9), and many other works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: “The Political State of Great Britain” was started in
January, 1710/1, and continued monthly until 1740. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: See No. 33, ante, and note, p. 207. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Boyer appeared before the House of Lords, March 6th, 1710/1,
and owned that he was the compiler of “The Political State of Great
Britain.” He was kept in custody till March 12th, when he was reprimanded,
and discharged after he had paid his fees. His offence was that “an
account is pretended to be given of the Debates and Proceedings of this
House” (“Journals of House of Lords,” xix). The third number of “The
Political State,” Boyer issued on March 17th, giving his reason for the
delay in its appearance: “An unavoidable and unvoluntary avocation, of
which I may give you an account hereafter, has obliged me to write to you
a fortnight later than usual.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 43.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MAY 17, TO THURSDAY MAY 24, 1711.

Several letters have been lately sent me, desiring I would make honourable
mention of the pious design of building fifty churches, in several parts
of London and Westminster, where they are most wanted; occasioned by an
address of the convocation to the Queen,[3] and recommended by her Majesty
to the House of Commons; who immediately promised, they would enable her
“to accomplish so excellent a design,” and are now preparing a Bill
accordingly. I thought to have deferred any notice of this important
affair till the end of this session; at which time I proposed to deliver a
particular account of the great and useful things already performed by
this present Parliament. But in compliance to those who give themselves
the trouble of advising me; and partly convinced by the reasons they
offer; I am content to bestow a paper upon a subject, that indeed so well
deserves it.

The clergy, and whoever else have a true concern for the constitution of
the Church, cannot but be highly pleased with one prospect in this new
scene of public affairs. They may very well remember the time, when every
session of Parliament, was like a cloud hanging over their heads; and if
it happened to pass without bursting into some storm upon the Church, we
thanked God, and thought it an happy escape till the next meeting; upon
which we resumed our secret apprehensions, though we were not allowed to
believe any danger. Things are now altered; the Parliament takes the
necessities of the Church into consideration, receives the proposals of
the clergy met in convocation, and amidst all the exigencies of a long
expensive war, and under the pressure of heavy debts, finds a supply for
erecting fifty edifices for the service of God. And it appears by the
address of the Commons to her Majesty upon this occasion (wherein they
discovered a true spirit of religion) that the applying the money granted
“to accomplish so excellent a design,”[4] would, in their opinion, be the
most effectual way of carrying on the war; that it would (to use their own
words) “be a means of drawing down blessings on her Majesty’s
undertakings, as it adds to the number of those places, where the prayers
of her devout and faithful subjects, will be daily offered up to God, for
the prosperity of her government at home, and the success of her arms
abroad.”

I am sometimes hoping, that we are not naturally so bad a people, as we
have appeared for some years past. Faction, in order to support itself, is
generally forced to make use of such abominable instruments, that as long
as it prevails, the genius of a nation is overpressed, and cannot appear
to exert itself: but when that is broke and suppressed, when things
return to the old course, mankind will naturally fall to act from
principles of reason and religion. The Romans, upon a great victory, or
escape from public danger, frequently built a temple in honour of some
god, to whose peculiar favour they imputed their success or delivery: and
sometimes the general did the like, at his own expense, to acquit
himself of some pious vow he had made. How little of any thing resembling
this hath been done by us after all our victories! and perhaps for that
reason, among others, they have turned to so little account. But what
could we expect? We acted all along as if we believed nothing of a God or
His providence; and therefore it was consistent to offer up our edifices
only to those, whom we looked upon as givers of all victory, in His stead.

I have computed, that fifty churches may be built by a medium, at six
thousand pound for a church; which is somewhat under the price of a
subject’s palace: yet perhaps the care of above two hundred thousand
souls, with the benefit of their prayers for the prosperity of their Queen
and country, may be almost put in the balance with the domestic
convenience, or even magnificence of any subject whatsoever.

Sir William Petty, who under the name of Captain Graunt, published some
observations upon bills of mortality about five years after the
Restoration;[5] tells us, the parishes in London, were even then so
unequally divided, that some were two hundred times larger than others.
Since that time, the increase of trade, the frequency of Parliaments, the
desire of living in the metropolis, together with that genius for
building, which began after the fire, and hath ever since continued, have
prodigiously enlarged this town on all sides, where it was capable of
increase; and those tracts of land built into streets, have generally
continued of the same parish they belonged to, while they lay in fields;
so that the care of above thirty thousand souls, hath been sometimes
committed to one minister, whose church would hardly contain the twentieth
part of his flock: neither, I think, was any family in those parishes
obliged to pay above a groat a year to their spiritual pastor. Some few of
those parishes have been since divided; in others were erected chapels of
ease, where a preacher is maintained by general contribution. Such poor
shifts and expedients, to the infinite shame and scandal, of so vast and
flourishing a city, have been thought sufficient for the service of God
and religion; as if they were circumstances wholly indifferent.

This defect, among other consequences of it, hath made schism a sort of
necessary evil, there being at least three hundred thousand inhabitants in
this town, whom the churches would not be able to contain, if the people
were ever so well disposed: and in a city not overstocked with zeal, the
only way to preserve any degree of religion, is to make all attendance
upon the duties of it, as easy and cheap as possible: whereas on the
contrary, in the larger parishes, the press is so great, and the
pew-keeper’s tax so exorbitant, that those who love to save trouble and
money, either stay at home, or retire to the conventicles. I believe there
are few examples in any Christian country of so great a neglect for
religion; and the dissenting teachers have made their advantages largely
by it, “sowing tares among the wheat while men slept;” being much more
expert at procuring contributions, which is a trade they are bred up in,
than men of a liberal education.

And to say truth, the way practised by several parishes in and about this
town, of maintaining their clergy by voluntary subscriptions, is not only
an indignity to the character, but hath many pernicious consequences
attending it; such a precarious dependence, subjecting a clergyman, who
hath not more than ordinary spirit and resolution, to many inconveniences,
which are obvious to imagine: but this defect will, no doubt, be remedied
by the wisdom and piety of the present Parliament; and a tax laid upon
every house in a parish, for the support of their pastor. Neither indeed
can it be conceived, why a house, whose purchase is not reckoned above
one-third less than land of the same yearly rent, should not pay a
twentieth part annually (which is half tithe) to the support of the
minister. One thing I could wish, that in fixing the maintenance to the
several ministers in these new intended parishes, no determinate sum of
money may be named, which in all perpetuities ought by any means to be
avoided; but rather a tax in proportion to the rent of each house, though
it be but a twentieth or even a thirtieth part. The contrary of this, I am
told, was done in several parishes of the city after the fire; where the
incumbent and his successors were to receive for ever a certain sum; for
example, one or two hundred pounds a year. But the lawgivers did not
consider, that what we call at present, one hundred pounds, will, in
process of time, have not the intrinsic value of twenty; as twenty pounds
now are hardly equal to forty shillings, three hundred years ago. There
are a thousand instances of this all over England, in reserved rents
applied to hospitals, in old chiefries, and even among the clergy
themselves, in those payments which, I think, they call a modus.[6]

As no prince had ever better dispositions than her present Majesty, for
the advancement of true religion, so there was never any age that produced
greater occasions to employ them on. It is an unspeakable misfortune, that
any designs of so excellent a Queen, should be checked by the necessities
of a long and ruinous war, which the folly or corruption of modern
politicians have involved us in, against all the maxims whereby our
country flourished so many hundred years: else her Majesty’s care of
religion would certainly have reached even to her American plantations.
Those noble countries, stocked by numbers from hence, whereof too many are
in no very great reputation for faith or morals, will be a perpetual
reproach to us, till some better care is taken for cultivating
Christianity among them. If the governors of those several colonies were
obliged, at certain times, to transmit an exact representation of the
state of religion, in their several districts; and the legislature here
would, in a time of leisure, take that affair under their consideration,
it might be perfected with little difficulty, and be a great addition to
the glories of her Majesty’s reign.

But to waive further speculations upon so remote a scene, while we have
subjects enough to employ them on at home; it is to be hoped, the clergy
will not let slip any proper opportunity of improving the pious
dispositions of the Queen and kingdom, for the advantage of the Church;
when by the example of times past, they consider how rarely such
conjunctures are like to happen. What if some method were thought on
towards repairing of churches? for which there is like to be too frequent
occasions, those ancient Gothic structures, throughout this kingdom, going
every year to decay. That expedient of repairing or rebuilding them by
charitable collections, seems in my opinion not very suitable, either to
the dignity and usefulness of the work, or to the honour of our country;
since it might be so easily done, with very little charge to the public,
in a much more decent and honourable manner, while Parliaments are so
frequently called. But these and other regulations must be left to a time
of peace, which I shall humbly presume to wish may soon be our share,
however offensive it may be to any, either abroad or at home, who are
gainers by the war.

[Footnote 1: No. 42 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Horace, “Odes,” III. vi. 1-3.

[Footnote 3: The minister and churchwardens of Greenwich applied to the
House of Commons on February 14th, 1710/1, for aid in the rebuilding of
their church. The House referred the application to a committee. On
February 28th the lower house of Convocation sent a deputation to the
Speaker expressing their satisfaction at what had been done. On his
reporting this to the House on the following day, they expressed their
readiness to receive information. The lower house of Convocation prepared
a scheme and presented it to the Speaker on March 9th; this was referred
to the committee on the 10th. Acting on a hint received from the court,
the bishops and clergy presented an Address to the Queen on March 26th,
and this was followed by a Message from Her Majesty, on the 29th, to the
House of Commons, recommending that Parliament should undertake “the great
and necessary work of building more churches.” On April 9th the House of
Commons replied in an Address, promising to make provision, and resolved,
on May 1st, to grant a supply for building fifty new churches in or about
London and Westminster. On May 8th it fixed the amount at a sum “not
exceeding £350,000.” In pursuance of this a Bill was introduced on May
18th, which received the Royal Assent on June 12th (9 Ann. c. 17). This
Bill granted £350,000 (to be raised by a duty on coals) for building fifty
new churches in London and Westminster.

In this connection it is interesting to remember that Swift, two years
before, had recommended the building of more churches as part of his
suggestions for “the advancement of religion.” See his “Project for the
Advancement of Religion” (vol. iii., p. 45 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: In their Address, on April 9th, 1711, the House of Commons
said: “Neither the long expensive war, in which we are engaged, nor the
pressure of heavy debts, under which we labour, shall hinder us from
granting to your Majesty whatever is necessary, to accomplish so excellent
a design, which, we hope, may be a means of drawing down blessings from
Heaven on all your Majesty’s other undertakings, as it adds to the number
of those places, where the prayers of your devout and faithful subjects
will be daily offered up to God, for the prosperity of your Majesty’s
government at home, and the success of your arms abroad.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: “Natural and Political Observations … upon the Bills of
Mortality.” By John Graunt, 1662. The writer says in chap. x. that
Cripplegate parish was two hundred times as big as some of the parishes in
the city. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: An abbreviation of modus decimandi, a composition in
lieu of payment of tithes. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 44.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MAY 24, TO THURSDAY MAY 31, 1711.

Having been forced in my papers to use the cant-words of Whig and Tory,
which have so often varied their significations, for twenty years past; I
think it necessary to say something of the several changes those two terms
have undergone since that period; and then to tell the reader what I have
always understood by each of them, since I undertook this work. I reckon
that these sorts of conceited appellations, are usually invented by the
vulgar; who not troubling themselves to examine through the merits of a
cause, are consequently the most violent partisans of what they espouse;
and in their quarrels, usually proceed to their beloved argument of calling
names, till at length they light upon one which is sure to stick; and
in time, each party grows proud of that appellation, which their
adversaries at first intended for a reproach. Of this kind were the
Prasini and Veneti,[3] the Guelfs and Ghibellines,[4] Huguenots and
Papists, Roundheads and Cavaliers,[5] with many others, of ancient and
modern date. Among us of late there seems to have been a barrenness of
invention in this point, the words Whig and Tory,[6] though they are not
much above thirty years old, having been pressed to the service of many
successions of parties, with very different ideas fastened to them. This
distinction, I think, began towards the latter part of King Charles the
Second’s reign, was dropped during that of his successor, and then revived
at the Revolution, since which it has perpetually flourished, though
applied to very different kinds of principles and persons. In that
Convention of Lords and Commons,[7] some of both Houses were for a regency
to the Prince of Orange, with a reservation of style and title to the
absent king, which should be made use of in all public acts. Others, when
they were brought to allow the throne vacant, thought the succession
should immediately go to the next heir, according to the fundamental laws
of the kingdom, as if the last king were actually dead. And though the
dissenting lords (in whose House the chief opposition was) did at last
yield both those points, took the oaths to the new king, and many of them
employments, yet they were looked upon with an evil eye by the warm
zealots of the other side; neither did the court ever heartily favour any
of them, though some were of the most eminent for abilities and virtue,
and served that prince, both in his councils and his army, with untainted
faith. It was apprehended, at the same time, and perhaps it might have
been true, that many of the clergy would have been better pleased with
that scheme of a regency, or at least an uninterrupted lineal succession,
for the sake of those whose consciences were truly scrupulous; and they
thought there were some circumstances, in the case of the deprived
bishops,[8] that looked a little hard, or at least deserved commiseration.

These, and other the like reflections did, as I conceive, revive the
denominations of Whig and Tory.

Some time after the Revolution the distinction of high and low-church came
in, which was raised by the Dissenters, in order to break the Church
party, by dividing the members into high and low; and the opinions raised,
that the high joined with the Papists, inclined the low to fall in with
the Dissenters.

And here I shall take leave to produce some principles, which in the
several periods of the late reign, served to denote a man of one or the
other party. To be against a standing army in time of peace, was all
high-church, Tory and Tantivy.[9] To differ from a majority of b[isho]ps
was the same. To raise the prerogative above law for serving a turn, was
low-church and Whig. The opinion of the majority in the House of Commons,
especially of the country-party or landed interest, was high-flying[10]
and rank Tory. To exalt the king’s supremacy beyond all precedent, was
low-church, Whiggish and moderate. To make the least doubt of the
pretended prince being supposititious, and a tiler’s son, was, in their
phrase, “top and topgallant,” and perfect Jacobitism. To resume the most
exorbitant grants, that were ever given to a set of profligate favourites,
and apply them to the public, was the very quintessence of Toryism;
notwithstanding those grants were known to be acquired, by sacrificing the
honour and the wealth of England.

In most of these principles, the two parties seem to have shifted
opinions, since their institution under King Charles the Second, and
indeed to have gone very different from what was expected from each, even
at the time of the Revolution. But as to that concerning the Pretender,
the Whigs have so far renounced it, that they are grown the great
advocates for his legitimacy: which gives me the opportunity of
vindicating a noble d[uke] who was accused of a blunder in the House, when
upon a certain lord’s mentioning the pretended Prince, his g[race] told
the lords, he “must be plain with them, and call that person, not the
pretended prince, but the pretended impostor:” which was so far from a
blunder in that polite l[or]d, as his ill-willers give out, that it was
only a refined way of delivering the avowed sentiments of his whole party.

But to return, this was the state of principles when the Qu[een] came to
the crown; some time after which, it pleased certain great persons, who
had been all their lives in the altitude of Tory-profession, to enter into
a treaty with the Whigs, from whom they could get better terms than from
their old friends, who began to be resty, and would not allow monopolies
of power and favour; nor consent to carry on the war entirely at the
expense of this nation, that they might have pensions from abroad; while
another people, more immediately concerned in the war, traded with the
enemy as in times of peace. Whereas, the other party, whose case appeared
then as desperate, was ready to yield to any conditions that would bring
them into play. And I cannot help affirming, that this nation was made a
sacrifice to the immeasurable appetite of power and wealth in a very few,
that shall be nameless, who in every step they made, acted directly
against what they had always professed. And if his Royal Highness the
Prince[11] had died some years sooner (who was a perpetual check in their
career) it is dreadful to think how far they might have proceeded.

Since that time, the bulk of the Whigs appears rather to be linked to a
certain set of persons, than any certain set of principles: so that if I
were to define a member of that party, I would say, he was one “who
believed in the late m[inist]ry.” And therefore, whatever I have affirmed
of Whigs in any of these papers, or objected against them, ought to be
understood, either of those who were partisans of the late men in power,
and privy to their designs; or such who joined with them, from a hatred to
our monarchy and Church, as unbelievers and Dissenters of all sizes; or
men in office, who had been guilty of much corruption, and dreaded a
change; which would not only put a stop to further abuses for the future,
but might, perhaps, introduce examinations of what was past. Or those who
had been too highly obliged, to quit their supporters with any common
decency. Or lastly, the money-traders, who could never hope to make their
markets so well of premiums and exorbitant interest, and high
remittances, under any other administration.

Under these heads, may be reduced the whole body of those whom I have all
along understood for Whigs: for I do not include within this number, any
of those who have been misled by ignorance, or seduced by plausible
pretences, to think better of that sort of men than they deserve, and to
apprehend mighty danger from their disgrace: because, I believe, the
greatest part of such well-meaning people, are now thoroughly converted.

And indeed, it must be allowed, that those two fantastic names of Whig and
Tory, have at present very little relation to those opinions, which were
at first thought to distinguish them. Whoever formerly professed himself
to approve the Revolution, to be against the Pretender, to justify the
succession in the house of Hanover, to think the British monarchy not
absolute, but limited by laws, which the executive power could not
dispense with, and to allow an indulgence to scrupulous consciences; such
a man was content to be called a Whig. On the other side, whoever asserted
the Queen’s hereditary right; that the persons of princes were sacred;
their lawful authority not to be resisted on any pretence; nor even their
usurpations, without the most extreme necessity: that breaches in the
succession were highly dangerous; that schism was a great evil, both in
itself and its consequences; that the ruin of the Church, would probably
be attended with that of the State; that no power should be trusted with
those who are not of the established religion; such a man was usually
called a Tory. Now, though the opinions of both these are very consistent,
and I really think are maintained at present by a great majority of the
kingdom; yet, according as men apprehend the danger greater, either from
the Pretender and his party, or from the violence and cunning of other
enemies to the constitution; so their common discourses and reasonings,
turn either to the first or second set of these opinions I have mentioned,
and are consequently styled either Whigs or Tories. Which is, as if two
brothers apprehended their house would be set upon, but disagreed about
the place from whence they thought the robbers would come, and therefore
would go on different sides to defend it. They must needs weaken and
expose themselves by such a separation; and so did we, only our case was
worse: for in order to keep off a weak, remote enemy, from whom we could
not suddenly apprehend any danger, we took a nearer and a stronger one
into the house. I make no comparison at all between the two enemies:
Popery and slavery are without doubt the greatest and most dreadful of
any; but I may venture to affirm, that the fear of these, have not, at
least since the Revolution, been so close and pressing upon us, as that
from another faction; excepting only one short period, when the leaders of
that very faction, invited the abdicating king to return; of which I have
formerly taken notice.

Having thus declared what sort of persons I have always meant, under the
denomination of Whigs, it will be easy to shew whom I understand by
Tories. Such whose principles in Church and State, are what I have above
related; whose actions are derived from thence, and who have no attachment
to any set of ministers, further than as these are friends to the
constitution in all its parts, but will do their utmost to save their
prince and country, whoever be at the helm.

By these descriptions of Whig and Tory, I am sensible those names are
given to several persons very undeservedly; and that many a man is called
by one or the other, who has not the least title to the blame or praise I
have bestowed on each of them throughout my papers.

[Footnote 1: No. 43 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: There were four factions, or parties, distinguished by their
colours, which contended in the ancient circus at Constantinople. The
white and the red were the most ancient. In the sixth century the
dissension between the green (or Prasini) and the blue (or Veneti) was so
violent, that 40,000 men were killed, and the factions were abolished from
that time. See also Gibbon’s “Rome,” chap. xl. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Guelfs were the Papal and popular party in Italy, and the
Ghibellines were the imperial and aristocratic. It is said that these
names were first used as war cries at the battle of Weinsberg in 1140.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: These terms came into use about 1641. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Writing under date, 1681, Burnet says “At this time the
distinguishing names of Whig and Tory came to be the denominations of the
parties” (“Hist. Own Times,” i. 499) [T.S.]

Whig a more was a nick name given to the western peasantry of
Scotland, from then using the words frequently in driving strings of
horses. Hence, as connected with Calvinistical principles in religion, and
republican doctrines in policy, it was given as a term of reproach to the
opposition party in the latter years of Charles II. These retorted upon
the courtiers the word Tory, signifying an Irish free-booter, and
particularly applicable to the Roman Catholic followers of the Duke of
York. [S]

Macaulay’s explanation of the origin of these two terms is somewhat
different from that given by Scott. “In Scotland,” he says, “some of the
persecuted Covenanters, driven mad by oppression, had lately murdered the
Primate, had taken aims against the government,” etc. “These zealots were
most numerous among the rustics of the western lowlands, who were vulgarly
called Whigs. Thus the appellation of Whig was fastened on the
Presbyterian zealots of Scotland, and was transferred to those English
politicians who showed a disposition to oppose the court, and to treat
Protestant Nonconformists with indulgence. The bogs of Ireland, at the
same time, afforded a refuge to Popish outlaws, much resembling those who
were afterwards known as Whiteboys. These men were then called Tories. The
name of Tory was therefore given to Englishmen who refused to concur in
excluding a Roman Catholic prince from the throne.” (“History of England,”
vol. i, chap. ii) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Convention was summoned by the Prince of Orange in
December, 1688. After a lengthened debate they resolved, on February 12th,
1688/9, that the Prince and Princess of Orange should “be declared King
and Queen.” The Sovereigns were proclaimed on February 13th, and on the
20th the Convention was voted a Parliament. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The bishops who were deprived for refusing to take the oath
of allegiance to King William were: Sancroft, the Archbishop of
Canterbury; Ken, Bishop of Bath; White, Bishop of Peterborough; Turner,
Bishop of Ely; Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester; and Lloyd, Bishop of
Norwich. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Writing to Stella, under date October 10th, 1711, Swift
complains that “The Protestant Post-Boy” says “that an ambitious tantivy,
missing of his towering hopes of preferment in Ireland, is come over to
vent his spleen on the late ministry,” etc. (vol. ii., p. 258, of present
edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “The most virtuous and pious enemy to their wicked
principles [i.e., to those of the Calves-Head Club] is always cried
down as a high-flyer, a Papist, and a traitor to his country” (“Secret
History of the Calves-Head Club,” 7th edit., 1709). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Prince George of Denmark died October 28th, 1708. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 45.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MAY 31, TO THURSDAY JUNE 7, 1711.[2]

Whoever calls to mind the clamour and the calumny, the artificial fears
and jealousies, the shameful misrepresentation of persons and of things,
that were raised and spread by the leaders and instruments of a certain
party, upon the change of the last ministry, and dissolution of
Parliament; if he be a true lover of his country, must feel a mighty
pleasure, though mixed with some indignation, to see the wishes, the
conjectures, the endeavours, of an inveterate faction entirely
disappointed; and this important period wholly spent, in restoring the
prerogative to the prince, liberty to the subject, in reforming past
abuses, preventing future, supplying old deficiencies, providing for
debts, restoring the clergy to their rights, and taking care of the
necessities of the Church: and all this unattended with any of those
misfortunes which some men hoped for, while they pretended to fear.

For my own part, I must confess, the difficulties appeared so great to me,
from such a noise and shew of opposition, that I thought nothing but the
absolute necessity of affairs, could ever justify so daring an attempt.
But, a wise and good prince, at the head of an able ministry, and of a
senate freely chosen; all united to pursue the true interest of their
country, is a power, against which, the little inferior politics of any
faction, will be able to make no long resistance. To this we may add one
additional strength, which in the opinion of our adversaries, is the
greatest and justest of any; I mean the vox populi, so indisputably
declarative on the same side. I am apt to think, when these discarded
politicians begin seriously to consider all this, they will think it
proper to give out, and reserve their wisdom for some more convenient
juncture.

It was pleasant enough to observe, that those who were the chief
instruments of raising the noise, who started fears, bespoke dangers, and
formed ominous prognostics, in order scare the allies, to spirit the
French, and fright ignorant people at home; made use of those very
opinions themselves had broached, for arguments to prove, that the change
of ministers was dangerous and unseasonable. But if a house be swept, the
more occasion there is for such a work, the more dust it will raise; if it
be going to ruin, the repairs, however necessary, will make a noise, and
disturb the neighbourhood a while. And as to the rejoicings made in
France,[4] if it be true, that they had any, upon the news of those
alterations among us; their joy was grounded upon the same hopes with that
of the Whigs, who comforted themselves, that a change of ministry and
Parliament, would infallibly put us all into confusion, increase our
divisions, and destroy our credit; wherein, I suppose, by this time they
are equally undeceived.

But this long session, being in a manner ended,[5] which several
circumstances, and one accident, altogether unforeseen, have drawn out
beyond the usual time; it may be some small piece of justice to so
excellent an assembly, barely to mention a few of those great things they
have done for the service of their QUEEN and country; which I shall take
notice of, just as they come to my memory.

The credit of the nation began mightily to suffer by a discount upon
exchequer bills, which have been generally reckoned the surest and most
sacred of all securities. The present lord treasurer, then a member of the
House of Commons, proposed a method, which was immediately complied with,
of raising them to a par with specie;[6] and so they have
ever since continued.

The British colonies of Nevis and St. Christopher’s,[7] had been miserably
plundered by the French, their houses burnt, their plantations destroyed,
and many of the inhabitants carried away prisoners: they had often, for
some years past, applied in vain for relief from hence; till the present
Parliament, considering their condition as a case of justice and mercy,
voted them one hundred thousand pound by way of recompense, in some
manner, for their sufferings.

Some persons, whom the voice of the nation authorizes me to call her
enemies, taking advantage of the general Naturalization Act, had invited
over a great number of foreigners of all religions, under the name of
Palatines;[8] who understood no trade or handicraft, yet rather chose to
beg than labour;[9] who besides infesting our streets, bred contagious
diseases, by which we lost in natives, thrice the number of what we gained
in foreigners. The House of Commons, as a remedy against this evil,
brought in a bill for repealing that Act of general Naturalization, which,
to the surprise of most people, was rejected by the L[or]ds.[10] And upon
this occasion, I must allow myself to have been justly rebuked by one of
my weekly monitors, for pretending in a former paper, to hope that law
would be repealed; wherein the Commons being disappointed, took care
however to send many of the Palatines away, and to represent their being
invited over, as a pernicious counsel.[11]

The Qualification Bill,[12] incapacitating all men to serve in Parliament,
who have not some estate in land, either in possession or certain
reversion, is perhaps the greatest security that ever was contrived for
preserving the constitution, which otherwise might, in a little time, lie
wholly at the mercy of the moneyed interest: And since much the greatest
part of the taxes is paid, either immediately from land, or from the
productions of it, it is but common justice, that those who are the
proprietors, should appoint what portion of it ought to go to the support
of the public; otherwise, the engrossers of money, would be apt to lay
heavy loads on others, which themselves never touch with one of their
fingers.

The public debts were so prodigiously increased, by the negligence and
corruption of those who had been managers of the revenue; that the late
m[iniste]rs, like careless men, who run out their fortunes, were so far
from any thoughts of payment, as they had not the courage to state or
compute them. The Parliament found that thirty-five millions had never
been accounted for; and that the debt on the navy, wholly unprovided for,
amounted to nine millions.[13] The late chancellor of the exchequer,
suitable to his transcendent genius for public affairs, proposed a fund to
be security for that immense debt, which is now confirmed by a law, and is
likely to prove the greatest restoration and establishment of the
kingdom’s credit.[14] Nor content with this, the legislature hath
appointed commissioners of accompts, to inspect into past mismanagements
of the public money, and prevent them for the future.[15]

I have, in a former paper, mentioned the Act for building fifty new
Churches in London and Westminster,[16] with a fund appropriated for that
pious and noble work. But while I am mentioning acts of piety, it would be
unjust to conceal my lord high treasurer’s concern for religion, which
have extended even to another kingdom: his lordship having some months
ago, obtained of her Majesty a remission of the first-fruits and tenths to
the clergy of Ireland,[17] as he is known to have formerly done for that
reverend body in this kingdom.

The Act for carrying on a Trade to the South-Sea,[18] proposed by the same
great person, whose thoughts are perpetually employed, and always with
success, on the good of his country, will, in all probability, if duly
executed, be of mighty advantage to the kingdom, and an everlasting honour
to the present Parliament.[19]

I might go on further, and mention that seasonable law against excessive
gaming;[20] the putting a stop to that scandalous fraud of false musters
in the Guards;[21] the diligent and effectual enquiry made by the Commons
into several gross abuses.[22] I might produce many instances of their
impartial justice in deciding controverted election, against former
example, and great provocations to retaliate.[23] I might shew their
cheerful readiness in granting such vast supplies; their great unanimity,
not to be broken by all the arts of a malicious and cunning faction; their
unfeigned duty to the QUEEN; and lastly, that representation made to her
Majesty from the House of Commons, discovering such a spirit and
disposition in that noble assembly, to redress all those evils, which a
long mal-administration had brought upon us.[24]

It is probable, that trusting only to my memory, I may have omitted many
things of great importance; neither do I pretend further in the compass of
this paper, than to give the world some general, however imperfect idea,
how worthily this great assembly hath discharged the trust of those who so
freely chose them; and what we may reasonably hope and expect from the
piety, courage, wisdom, and loyalty of such excellent patriots, in a time
so fruitful of occasions to exert the greatest abilities.

And now I conceive the main design I had in writing these papers, is fully
executed. A great majority of the nation is at length thoroughly
convinced, that the Qu[een] proceeded with the highest wisdom, in changing
her ministry and Parliament. That under a former administration, the
greatest abuses of all kinds were committed, and the most dangerous
attempts against the constitution for some time intended. The whole
kingdom finds the present persons in power, directly and openly pursuing
the true service of their QUEEN and country; and to be such whom their
most bitter enemies cannot tax with bribery, covetousness, ambition,
pride, insolence, or any pernicious principles in religion or government.

For my own particular, those little barking pens which have so constantly
pursued me, I take to be of no further consequence to what I have writ,
than the scoffing slaves of old, placed behind the chariot, to put the
general in mind of his mortality;[25] which was but a thing of form, and
made no stop or disturbance in the shew. However, if those perpetual
snarlers against me, had the same design, I must own they have effectually
compassed it; since nothing can well be more mortifying, than to reflect
that I am of the same species with creatures capable of uttering so much
scurrility, dullness, falsehood and impertinence, to the scandal and
disgrace of human nature.

[Footnote 1: No. 44 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: To Stella, about this time, Swift wrote giving a decided hint
of the end of his term on “The Examiner.” Under date June 7th, 1711, he
says: “As for the ‘Examiner,’ I have heard a whisper, that after that of
this day, which tells what this Parliament has done, you will hardly find
them so good. I prophesy they will be trash for the future; and methinks
in this day’s ‘Examiner’ the author talks doubtfully, as if he would write
no more” (vol. ii., pp. 192-3 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “Great is the power, great the name, of a Senate which is
unanimous in its opinions.”—H.T. RILEY, [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See No. 24, ante, and note on p. 145. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The session did not actually close till June 12th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The House of Commons had resolved on January 16th, 1710/1, to
provide for converting all non-specie exchequer bills into specie. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Act for licensing and regulating hackney coaches, etc. (9
Ann. c. 16) provided that a sum of £103,003 11s. 4d. should
be distributed among those proprietors and inhabitants of Nevis and St.
Christopher’s who had suffered “very great losses by a late invasion of
the French.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: See note on p. 264. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: A petition was presented to the House of Commons on January
15th, 1710/1, against the Palatines as likely to spread disease and to
become chargeable to the parish. [T.S.]

The exactions of the French armies in the Palatinate, in the year 1709,
drove from their habitations six or seven thousand persons of all
descriptions and professions, who came into Holland with a view of
emigrating to British America. It was never accurately ascertained, with
what view, or by whose persuasions, their course was changed, but, by
direction from the English ministers, they were furnished with shipping to
come to England. In the settlements, they would have been a valuable
colony; but in the vicinity of London, this huge accession to the poor of
the metropolis was a burthen and a nuisance. They were encamped on
Blackheath, near Greenwich, where, so soon as their countrymen heard that
they were supported by British charity, the number of the fugitives began
to increase by recruits from the Continent, till government prohibited
further importation. A general Naturalization Act, passed in favour of the
French Protestants, greatly encouraged this influx of strangers. This
matter was inquired into by the Tory Parliament, who voted, that the
bringing over the Palatines was an oppression on the nation, and a waste
of the public money, and that he who advised it was an enemy to his
country. The unfortunate fugitives had been already dispersed; some of
them to North America, some to Ireland, and some through Britain. The
pretence alleged for the vote against them, was the apprehension expressed
by the guardians of the poor in several parishes, that they might
introduce contagious diseases; but the real reason was a wish to gratify
the prejudice of the common people against foreigners, and to dimmish the
number of Dissenters. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: See No. 26, ante, and note on p. 160. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: On the invitation of the lord lieutenant 3,000 Palatines
were sent into Ireland in August, 1709, and 800 in the following February.
Many of them subsequently returned to England in the hope that they would
be sent to Carolina. Large numbers had been brought to England from
Holland at the Queen’s expense, after the passing of the Naturalization
Act. The government spent £22,275 in transporting 3,300 of them to
New York and establishing them there, undertaking to maintain them until
they could provide for themselves. These sums were to be repaid within
four years. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: See No. 35, ante, and note on p. 225. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: See No. 41, ante, and note on p. 264. The debt on the
navy is a portion of the thirty-five millions referred to. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Harley proposed a scheme, on May 2nd, 1711, by which all
public and national debts and deficiencies were to be satisfied.
Resolutions were passed on May 3rd, and a Bill brought in on the 17th,
which was the origin of the celebrated South Sea scheme referred to later
in the text. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: The Bill for examining the Public Accounts (9 Ann. c. 18)
became law on May 16th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: See No. 43, ante, pp. 278 et seq. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: On August 15th, 1711, Swift wrote to Archbishop King: “He
[the lord treasurer] told me, ‘he had lately received a letter from the
bishops of Ireland, subscribed (as I remember) by seventeen, acknowledging
his favour about the first-fruits'” (Scott’s edition, xv. 465). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: The South Sea Company was established in pursuance of the
Act 9 Ann. c. 15. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: The disastrous results of the South Sea scheme, when the
company failed in 1720-21, are matter of history. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: A Bill for the better preventing of Excessive and Deceitful
Gaming, was introduced January 25th, 1710/1, passed April 11th, and
obtained the Royal Assent, May 16th (9 Ann. c. 19). A similar bill, which
had passed the House of Commons in 1709/10, was dropped in the House of
Lords. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: A committee of the House of Commons was appointed, on
February 5th, 1710/1 to inquire into alleged false musters in the Guards.
A petition was presented to the House on February 13th, complaining that
tradesmen were listed in Her Majesty’s Guards “to screen and protect them
from their creditors.” A clause was inserted in the Recruiting Bill to
remedy this evil (10 Ann. c. 12; see sec. 39), and the House passed a
strong resolution against the practice, on May 26th, when considering the
report of the committee. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 22: The House of Commons, on June 4th, presented a
representation to the Queen on mismanagements and abuses. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 23: A large number of petitions to the House of Commons
concerning controverted elections had been considered in December, 1710.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 24: Towards the close of the very long representation addressed
to the Queen on June 4th, the Commons said: “We … beseech your Majesty
… that you would employ in places of authority and trust such only, as
have given good testimonies of their duty to your Majesty, and of their
affection to the true interest of your kingdom.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 25: In a Roman triumph a slave accompanied the victorious
general to whisper in his ear: “Remember that thou art but a man.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 46.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JUNE 7, TO THURSDAY JUNE 14, 1711.[2]

When a general has conquered an army, and reduced a country to obedience,
he often finds it necessary to send out small bodies, in order to take in
petty castles and forts, and beat little straggling parties, which are
otherwise, apt to make head and infest the neighbourhood: This case
exactly resembles mine; I count the main body of the Whigs entirely
subdued; at least, till they appear with new reinforcements, I shall
reckon them as such; and therefore do now find myself at leisure to Examine
inferior abuses. The business I have left, is, to fall on those wretches
that will be still keeping the war on foot, when they have no country to
defend, no forces to bring into the field, nor any thing remaining, but
their bare good-will towards faction and mischief: I mean, the present set
of writers, whom I have suffered, without molestation, so long to infest
the town. Were there not a concurrence from prejudice, party, weak
understanding, and misrepresentation, I should think them too
inconsiderable in themselves to deserve correction: But as my endeavour
hath been to expose the gross impositions of the fallen party, I will give
a taste, in the following petition, of the sincerity of these their
factors, to shew how little those writers for the Whigs were guided by
conscience or honour, their business being only to gratify a prevailing
interest.

“To the Right Honourable the present M[inist]ry, the humble Petition of
the Party Writers to the late M[inist]ry.

“HUMBLY SHEWETH,

“That your petitioners have served their time to the trade of writing
pamphlets and weekly papers, in defence of the Whigs, against the Church
of England, and the Christian religion, and her Majesty’s prerogative, and
her title to the crown: That since the late change of ministry, and
meeting of this Parliament, the said trade is mightily fallen off, and the
call for the said pamphlets and papers, much less than formerly; and it is
feared, to our further prejudice, that the ‘Examiner’ may discontinue
writing, whereby some of your petitioners will be brought to utter
distress, forasmuch as through false quotations, noted absurdities, and
other legal abuses, many of your petitioners, to their great comfort and
support, were enabled to pick up a weekly subsistence out of the said
‘Examiner.’

“That your said poor petitioners, did humbly offer your Honours to write
in defence of the late change of ministry and Parliament, much cheaper
than they did for your predecessors, which your Honours were pleased to
refuse.

“Notwithstanding which offer, your petitioners are under daily
apprehension, that your Honours will forbid them to follow the said trade
any longer; by which your petitioners, to the number of fourscore, with
their wives and families, will inevitably starve, having been bound to no
other calling.

“Your petitioners desire your Honours will tenderly consider the
premisses, and suffer your said petitioners to continue their trade (those
who set them at work, being still willing to employ them, though at lower
rates) and your said petitioners will give security to make use of the
same stuff, and dress it in the same manner, as they always did, and no
other. And your petitioners” &c.

[Footnote 1: No. 45 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: In his “Journal to Stella,” under date June 22nd, 1711, Swift
writes: “Yesterday’s was a sad ‘Examiner,’ and last week was very
indifferent, though, some little scraps of the old spirit, as if he had
given some hints; but yesterday’s is all trash. It is plain the hand is
changed.” (vol. ii., p, 195).

On November 2nd he gives the following account: “I have sent to Leigh the
set of ‘Examiners’; the first thirteen were written by several hands; some
good, some bad; the next three-and-thirty were all by one hand, that makes
forty-six: then that author, whoever he was, laid it down on purpose to
confound guessers; and the last six were written by a woman” (vol. ii., p.
273). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Horace, “Satires,” II. i. 45. “‘Better not touch me, friend,’
I loud exclaim.”—P. FRANCIS. [T.S.]]

CONTRIBUTION TO “THE SPECTATOR.”

NOTE.

“THE SPECTATOR,” projected by Steele, assisted and made famous by Addison,
was first started on March 1st, 1710/1, and continued to be issued daily
until December 6th, 1712. An interval of eighteen months then occurred,
during six of which these two writers were busy with “The Guardian.” On
June 18th, 1714, however, “The Spectator” was resumed, and appeared daily
until its final number on December 20th of that year. As with “The
Tatler,” so with “The Spectator,” its success proved too great a
temptation to be resisted; so that we find a spurious “Spectator” also.
This was begun on Monday, January 3rd, 1714/5, and concluded August 3rd of
the same year. Its sixty numbers (for it was issued twice a week) were
afterwards published as “The Spectator, volume ninth and last.” The
principal writer to this spurious edition was said to be Dr. George
Sewell.

Of the contributions to Steele’s “Spectator,” by far the greater number
were written by the projector and Addison. The other contributors were
Eustace Budgell, John Hughes, John Byrom, Henry Grove, Thomas Parnell,
“Orator” Henley, Dr. Zachary Pearce, Philip Yorke, and a few others whose
identity is doubtful. Swift’s contribution consisted of one paper only,
and (probably) a single paragraph in another. [T.S.]

THE SPECTATOR, NUMB. L.[1]

FRIDAY, APRIL 27. 1711.

When the four Indian kings[3] were in this country about a twelvemonth
ago, I often mixed with the rabble and followed them a whole day together,
being wonderfully struck with the sight of everything that is new or
uncommon. I have, since their departure, employed a friend to make many
enquiries of their landlord the upholsterer[4] relating to their manners
and conversation, as also concerning the remarks which they made in this
country: for next to the forming a right notion of such strangers, I
should be desirous of learning what ideas they have conceived of us.

The upholsterer finding my friend very inquisitive about these his
lodgers, brought him some time since a little bundle of papers, which he
assured him were written by King Sa Ga Yean Qua Rash Tow, and, as he
supposes, left behind by some mistake. These papers are now translated,
and contain abundance of very odd observations, which I find this little
fraternity of kings made during their stay in the isle of Great Britain. I
shall present my reader with a short specimen of them in this paper, and
may perhaps communicate more to him hereafter. In the article of London
are the following words, which without doubt are meant of the church of
St. Paul.

“On the most rising part of the town there stands a huge house, big enough
to contain the whole nation of which I am king. Our good brother E Tow O
Koam king of the Rivers, is of opinion it was made by the hands of that
great God to whom it is consecrated. The kings of Granajah and of the Six
Nations believe that it was created with the earth, and produced on the
same day with the sun and moon. But for my own part, by the best
information that I could get of this matter, I am apt to think that this
prodigious pile was fashioned into the shape it now bears by several tools
and instruments; of which they have a wonderful variety in this country.
It was probably at first an huge mis-shapen rock that grew upon the top of
the hill, which the natives of the country (after having cut it into a
kind of regular figure) bored and hollowed with incredible pains and
industry, till they had wrought in it all those beautiful vaults and
caverns into which it is divided at this day. As soon as this rock was
thus curiously scooped to their liking, a prodigious number of hands must
have been employed in chipping the outside of it, which is now as smooth
as polished marble;[5] and is in several places hewn out into pillars that
stand like the trunks of so many trees bound about the top with garlands
of leaves. It is probable that when this great work was begun, which must
have been many hundred years ago, there was some religion among this
people; for they give it the name of a temple, and have a tradition that
it was designed for men to pay their devotions in. And indeed, there are
several reasons which make us think, that the natives of this Country had
formerly among them some sort of worship; for they set apart every seventh
day as sacred: but upon my going into one of those holy houses on that
day, I could not observe any circumstance of devotion in their behaviour:
There was indeed a man in black who was mounted above the rest, and seemed
to utter something with a great deal of vehemence; but as for those
underneath him, instead of paying their worship to the Deity of the place,
they were most of them bowing and curtsying to one another, and a
considerable number of them fast asleep.

“The Queen of the country appointed two men to attend us, that had enough
of our language to make themselves understood in some few particulars. But
we soon perceived these two were great enemies to one another, and did not
always agree in the same story. We could make a shift to gather out of one
of them, that this island was very much infested with a monstrous kind of
animals, in the shape of men, called Whigs; and he often told us, that he
hoped we should meet with none of them in our way, for that if we did,
they would be apt to knock us down for being kings.

“Our other interpreter used to talk very much of a kind of animal called a
Tory, that was as great a monster as the Whig, and would treat us as ill
for being foreigners.[6] These two creatures, it seems, are born with a
secret antipathy to one another, and engage when they meet as naturally as
the elephant and the rhinoceros. But as we saw none of either of these
species, we are apt to think that our guides deceived us with
misrepresentations and fictions, and amused us with an account of such
monsters as are not really in their country.

“These particulars we made a shift to pick out from the discourse of our
interpreters; which we put together as well as we could, being able to
understand but here and there a word of what they said, and afterwards
making up the meaning of it among ourselves. The men of the country are
very cunning and ingenious in handicraft works; but withal so very idle,
that we often saw young lusty raw-boned fellows carried up and down the
streets in little covered rooms by a couple of porters who are hired for
that service. Their dress is likewise very barbarous, for they almost
strangle themselves about the neck, and bind their bodies with many
ligatures, that we are apt to think are the occasion of several distempers
among them which our country is entirely free from. Instead of those
beautiful feathers with which we adorn our heads, they often buy up a
monstrous bush of hair, which covers their heads, and falls down in a
large fleece below the middle of their backs; with which they walk up and
down the streets, and are as proud of it as if it was of their own growth.

“We were invited to one of their public diversions, where we hoped to have
seen the great men of their country running down a stag or pitching a bar,
that we might have discovered who were the men of the greatest perfections
in their country;[7] but instead of that, they conveyed us into an huge
room lighted up with abundance of candles, where this lazy people sat
still above three hours to see several feats of ingenuity performed by
others, who it seems were paid for it.

“As for the women of the country, not being able to talk with them, we
could only make our remarks upon them at a distance. They let the hair of
their heads grow to a great length; but as the men make a great show with
heads of hair that are none of their own, the women, who they say have
very fine heads of hair, tie it up in a knot and cover it from being seen.
The women look like angels, and would be more beautiful than the sun, were
it not for little black spots[8] that are apt to break out in their faces,
and sometimes rise in very odd figures. I have observed that those little
blemishes wear off very soon; but when they disappear in one part of the
face, they are very apt to break out in another, insomuch that I have seen
a spot upon the forehead in the afternoon, which was upon the chin in the
morning.”

The author then proceeds to shew the absurdity of breeches and petticoats,
with many other curious observations, which I shall reserve for another
occasion. I cannot however conclude this paper without taking notice, that
amidst these wild remarks there now and then appears something very
reasonable. I cannot likewise forbear observing, that we are all guilty in
some measure of the same narrow way of thinking which we meet with in this
abstract of the Indian journal; when we fancy the customs, dresses, and
manners of other countries are ridiculous and extravagant, if they do not
resemble those of our own.[9]

[Footnote 1: On March 16th, 1711, Swift writes to Stella: “Have you seen
the ‘Spectator’ yet, a paper that comes out every day? ‘Tis written by Mr.
Steele, who seems to have gathered new life, and have a new fund of wit;
it is in the same nature as his ‘Tatlers,’ and they have all of them had
something pretty. I believe Addison and he club.” On April 28th he writes
again: “‘The Spectator’ is written by Steele with Addison’s help: ’tis
often very pretty. Yesterday it was made of a noble hint I gave him long
ago for his ‘Tatlers,’ about an Indian supposed to write his travels into
England. I repent he ever had it. I intended to have written a book on
that subject. I believe he has spent it all in one paper, and all the
under hints there are mine too” (vol. ii., pp. 139 and 166 of present
edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Juvenal, “Satires,” xiv. 321.

[Footnote 3: Steele’s paper on the four Indian kings appeared in “The
Tatler” for May 13th, 1710 (No. 171):—”Who can convince the world
that four kings shall come over here, and He at the Two Crowns and
Cushion, and one of them fall sick, and the place be called King Street,
and all this by mere accident?”—The so-called kings were four
Iroquois chiefs who came over to see Queen Anne. The Queen saw them on
April 19th, 1710. During their visit here Colonel Schuyler and Colonel
Francis Nicholson were appointed to attend them. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: They lodged over the shop of Mr. Arne—father of Dr.
Arne and Mrs. Cibber—in King Street, Covent Garden. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The edition of 1712 has, “as the surface of a pebble.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: In “The Tatler” for February 4th, 1709/10 (No. 129), Steele
prints a letter from “Pasquin of Rome,” in which he says: “It would also
be very acceptable here to receive an account of those two religious
orders which are lately sprung up amongst you, the Whigs and the Tories,
with the points of doctrine, severities in discipline, penances,
mortifications, and good works, by which they differ one from another.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The edition of 1712 has: “the persons of the greatest
abilities among them.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: See “The Spectator,” No. 81, and “The Examiner,” No. 32. The
“black spots” are the patches ladies stuck on their faces. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: This paper is signed “C.”, in the edition of 1712, which is
one of the signatures used by Addison. See, however, Swift’s “Journal,”
quoted above. [T.S.]]

[The following paragraph in “The Spectator,” No. 575 Monday, August 2.
1714. is believed to have been contributed by Swift.]

“The following question is started by one of the schoolmen. Supposing the
whole body of the earth were a great ball or mass of the finest sand, and
that a single grain or particle of this sand should be annihilated every
thousand years. Supposing then that you had it in your choice to be happy
all the while this prodigious mass of sand was consuming by this slow
method till there was not a grain of it left, on condition you were to be
miserable for ever after; or, supposing that you might be happy for ever
after, on condition you would be miserable till the whole mass of sand
were thus annihilated at the rate of one sand in a thousand years: Which
of these two cases would you make your choice?”

CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE INTELLIGENCER.”

NOTE.

“THE INTELLIGENCER” was published in Dublin, commencing May 11th, 1728,
and continued for nineteen numbers. On June 12th, 1731, Swift, writing to
Pope, gives some account of its inception, and the amount of writing he
did for it: “Two or three of us had a fancy, three years ago, to write a
weekly paper, and call it an ‘Intelligencer.’ But it continued not long;
for the whole volume (it was reprinted in London, and I find you have seen
it) was the work only of two, myself, and Dr. Sheridan. If we could have
got some ingenious young man to have been the manager, who should have
published all that might be sent him, it might have continued longer, for
there were hints enough. But the printer here could not afford such a
young man one farthing for his trouble, the sale being so small, and the
price one halfpenny; and so it dropped. In the volume you saw, (to answer
your questions,) the 1, 3, 5, 7, were mine. Of the 8th I writ only the
verses, (very uncorrect, but against a fellow we all hated [Richard
Tighe],) the 9th mine, the 10th only the verses, and of those not the four
last slovenly lines; the 15th is a pamphlet of mine printed before, with
Dr. Sheridan’s preface, merely for laziness, not to disappoint the town:
and so was the 19th, which contains only a parcel of facts relating purely
to the miseries of Ireland, and wholly useless and unentertaining”
(Scott’s edition, xvii. 375-6).

Of the contributions thus acknowledged, Nos. 1, 3, and 19 are reprinted
here from the original edition; Nos. 5 and 7 were included by Pope in the
fourth volume of “Miscellanies,” under the title “An Essay on the Fates of
Clergymen”; No. 9 he entitled “An Essay on Modern Education”; No. 15 was a
reprint of the pamphlet “A Short View of the State of Ireland”—
these will be found in this edition under the above titles. The verses in
No. 8 (“Mad Mullinix and Timothy”) and in No. 10 (“Tim and the Fables”)
are in Swift’s “Poems,” Aldine edition, vol. iii., pp. 132-43.

The nineteen numbers of “The Intelligencer” were collected and published
in one volume, which was reprinted in London in 1729, “and sold by A. Moor
in St. Paul’s Church-yard.” Monck Mason never saw a copy of the London
reprint referred to by Swift. He had in his possession the original
papers; “they are twenty in number,” he says; “the last is double.” The
second London edition, published in 12mo in 1730, as “printed for Francis
Cogan, at the Middle-Temple-Gate in Fleet-street,” includes No. 20, “Dean
Smedley, gone to seek his Fortune,” and also a poem, “The Pheasant and the
Lark. A Fable.” In the poem, several writers are compared to birds, Swift
being the nightingale:

The poem was written by Swift’s friend, Dr. Delany. The title-page of this
second edition ascribes the authorship, “By the Author of a Tale of a
Tub.”

“The Intelligencer,” in the words of W. Monck Mason, “served as a vehicle
of satire against the Dean’s political and literary enemies; of these the
chief were, Richard Tighe, Sir Thomas Prendergast, and Jonathan Smedley,
Dean of Clogher” (“Hist, and Antiq. of St. Patrick’s,” pp. 376-7). [T.S.]

THE INTELLIGENCER, NUMB. 1.[1]

SATURDAY, MAY 11, TO BE CONTINUED WEEKLY.

It may be said, without offence to other cities, of much greater
consequence in the world, that our town of Dublin doth not want its due
proportion of folly, and vice, both native and imported; and as to those
imported, we have the advantage to receive them last, and consequently
after our happy manner to improve, and refine upon them.

But, because there are many effects of folly and vice among us, whereof
some are general, others confined to smaller numbers, and others again,
perhaps to a few individuals; there is a society lately established, who
at great expense, have erected an office of Intelligence, from which they
are to receive weekly information of all important events and
singularities, which this famous metropolis can furnish. Strict
injunctions are given to have the truest information: in order to which,
certain qualified persons are employed to attend upon duty in their
several posts; some at the play-house, others in churches, some at balls,
assemblies, coffee-houses, and meetings for quadrille,[2] some at the
several courts of justice, both spiritual and temporal, some at the
college, some upon my lord mayor, and aldermen in their public affairs;
lastly, some to converse with favourite chamber-maids, and to frequent
those ale-houses, and brandy-shops, where the footmen of great families
meet in a morning; only the barracks and Parliament-house are excepted;
because we have yet found no enfans perdus bold enough to venture
their persons at either. Out of these and some other store-houses, we hope
to gather materials enough to inform, or divert, or correct, or vex the
town.

But as facts, passages, and adventures of all kinds, are like to have the
greatest share in our paper, whereof we cannot always answer for the
truth; due care shall be taken to have them applied to feigned names,
whereby all just offence will be removed; for if none be guilty, none will
have cause to blush or be angry; if otherwise, then the guilty person is
safe for the future upon his present amendment, and safe for the present,
from all but his own conscience.

There is another resolution taken among us, which I fear will give a
greater and more general discontent, and is of so singular a nature, that
I have hardly confidence enough to mention it, although it be absolutely
necessary by way of apology, for so bold and unpopular an attempt. But so
it is, that we have taken a desperate counsel to produce into the world
every distinguished action, either of justice, prudence, generosity,
charity, friendship, or public spirit, which comes well attested to us.
And although we shall neither here be so daring as to assign names, yet we
shall hardly forbear to give some hints, that perhaps to the great
displeasure of such deserving persons may endanger a discovery. For we
think that even virtue itself, should submit to such a mortification, as
by its visibility and example, will render it more useful to the world.
But however, the readers of these papers, need not be in pain of being
overcharged, with so dull and ungrateful a subject. And yet who knows, but
such an occasion may be offered to us, once in a year or two, after we
shall have settled a correspondence round the kingdom.

But after all our boasts of materials, sent us by our several emissaries,
we may probably soon fall short, if the town will not be pleased to lend
us further assistance toward entertaining itself. The world best knows its
own faults and virtues, and whatever is sent shall be faithfully returned
back, only a little embellished according to the custom of authors. We do
therefore demand and expect continual advertisements in great numbers, to
be sent to the printer of this paper, who hath employed a judicious
secretary to collect such as may be most useful for the public.

And although we do not intend to expose our own persons by mentioning
names, yet we are so far from requiring the same caution in our
correspondents, that on the contrary, we expressly charge and command
them, in all the facts they send us, to set down the names, titles, and
places of abode at length; together with a very particular description of
the persons, dresses, and dispositions of the several lords, ladies,
squires, madams, lawyers, gamesters, toupees, sots, wits, rakes, and
informers, whom they shall have occasion to mention; otherwise it will not
be possible for us to adjust our style to the different qualities, and
capacities of the persons concerned, and treat them with the respect or
familiarity, that may be due to their stations and characters, which we
are determined to observe with the utmost strictness, that none may have
cause to complain.

[Footnote 1: In the “Contents” to both the editions of 1729 and 1730, this
is called “Introduction.” Each of the numbers has a special title in this
table, as follows:

[Footnote 2: A fashionable card game of the time. See also Swift’s poem,
“The Journal of a Modern Lady” (Aldine edition, vol. i., pp. 214-23), and
“A New Proposal for the better regulation … of Quadrille,” written by
Dr. Josiah Hort, Bp. of Kilmore, in 1735/6 (afterwards Abp. of Tuam), and
included by Scott in his edition of Swift (vii. 372-7). [T.S.]]

THE INTELLIGENCER, NUMB. III.[1]

The players having now almost done with the comedy, called the “Beggar’s
Opera,”[3] for this season, it may be no unpleasant speculation, to
reflect a little upon this dramatic piece, so singular in the subject, and
the manner, so much an original, and which hath frequently given so very
agreeable an entertainment.[4]

Although an evil taste be very apt to prevail, both here, and in London,
yet there is a point which whoever can rightly touch, will never fail of
pleasing a very great majority; so great, that the dislikers, out of
dullness or affectation will be silent, and forced to fall in with the
herd; the point I mean, is what we call humour, which in its perfection is
allowed to be much preferable to wit, if it be not rather the most useful,
and agreeable species of it.

I agree with Sir William Temple, that the word is peculiar to our English
tongue, but I differ from him in the opinion, that the thing itself is
peculiar to the English nation,[5] because the contrary may be found in
many Spanish, Italian and French productions, and particularly, whoever
hath a taste for true humour, will find a hundred instances of it in those
volumes printed in France, under the name of Le Théâtre Italien,[6]
to say nothing of Rabelais, Cervantes, and many others.

Now I take the comedy or farce, (or whatever name the critics will allow
it) called the “Beggar’s Opera”; to excel in this article of humour; and,
upon that merit, to have met with such prodigious success both here, and
in England.

As to poetry, eloquence and music, which are said to have most power over
the minds of men, it is certain that very few have a taste or judgment of
the excellencies of the two former, and if a man succeeds in either, it is
upon the authority of those few judges, that lend their taste to the bulk
of readers, who have none of their own. I am told there are as few good
judges in music, and that among those who crowd the operas, nine in ten go
thither merely out of curiosity, fashion, or affectation.

But a taste for humour is in some manner fixed to the very nature of man,
and generally obvious to the vulgar, except upon subjects too refined, and
superior to their understanding.

And as this taste of humour is purely natural, so is humour itself,
neither is it a talent confined to men of wit, or learning; for we observe
it sometimes among common servants, and the meanest of the people, while
the very owners are often ignorant of the gift they possess.

I know very well, that this happy talent is contemptibly treated by
critics, under the name of low humour, or low comedy; but I know likewise,
that the Spaniards and Italians, who are allowed to have the most wit of
any nation in Europe, do most excel in it, and do most esteem it.

By what disposition of the mind, what influence of the stars, or what
situation of the climate this endowment is bestowed upon mankind, may be a
question fit for philosophers to discuss. It is certainly the best
ingredient toward that kind of satire, which is most useful, and gives the
least offence; which instead of lashing, laughs men out of their follies,
and vices, and is the character which gives Horace the preference to
Juvenal.

And although some things are too serious, solemn or sacred to be turned
into ridicule, yet the abuses of them are certainly not, since it is
allowed that corruption in religion, politics, and law, may be proper
topics for this kind of satire.

There are two ends that men propose in writing satire, one of them less
noble than the other, as regarding nothing further than personal
satisfaction, and pleasure of the writer; but without any view towards
personal malice; the other is a public spirit, prompting men of genius and
virtue, to mend the world as far as they are able. And as both these ends
are innocent, so the latter is highly commendable. With regard to the
former, I demand whether I have not as good a title to laugh, as men have
to be ridiculous, and to expose vice, as another hath to be vicious. If I
ridicule the follies and corruptions of a court, a ministry, or a senate;
are they not amply paid by pensions, titles, and power, while I expect and
desire no other reward, than that of laughing with a few friends in a
corner. Yet, if those who take offence, think me in the wrong, I am ready
to change the scene with them, whenever they please.

But if my design be to make mankind better, then I think it is my duty, at
least I am sure it is the interest of those very courts and ministers,
whose follies or vices I ridicule, to reward me for my good intentions;
for, if it be reckoned a high point of wisdom to get the laughers on our
side, it is much more easy, as well as wise to get those on our side, who
can make millions laugh when they please.

My reason for mentioning courts, and ministers, (whom I never think on,
but with the most profound veneration) is because an opinion obtains that
in the “Beggar’s Opera” there appears to be some reflection upon courtiers
and statesmen, whereof I am by no means a judge[7].

It is true indeed that Mr. Gay, the author of this piece, hath been
somewhat singular in the course of his fortunes, for it hath happened,
that after fourteen years attending the court, with a large stock of real
merit, a modest, and agreeable conversation, a hundred promises, and five
hundred friends [he] hath failed of preferment, and upon a very weighty
reason. He lay under the suspicion of having written a libel, or lampoon
against a great m[inister][8]. It is true that great m[inister] was
demonstratively convinced, and publicly owned his conviction, that Mr. Gay
was not the author; but having lain under the suspicion, it seemed very
just, that he should suffer the punishment; because in this most reformed
age, the virtues of a great m[inister] are no more to be suspected, than
the chastity of Caesar’s wife.

It must be allowed, that the “Beggar’s Opera” is not the first of Mr.
Gay’s works, wherein he hath been faulty, with regard to courtiers and
statesmen. For, to omit his other pieces even in his Fables, published
within two years past, and dedicated to the Duke of Cumberland, for which
he was promised a reward[9]; he hath been thought somewhat too bold upon
courtiers. And although it is highly probable, he meant only the courtiers
of former times, yet he acted unwarily, by not considering that the
malignity of some people might misinterpret what he said to the
disadvantage of present persons, and affairs.

But I have now done with Mr. Gay as a politician, and shall consider him
henceforward only as author of the “Beggar’s Opera,” wherein he hath by a
turn of humour, entirely new, placed vices of all kinds in the strongest
and most odious light; and thereby done eminent service, both to religion
and morality. This appears from the unparalleled success he hath met with.
All ranks parties and denominations of men, either crowding to see his
opera, or reading it with delight in their closets, even ministers of
state, whom he is thought to have most offended (next to those whom the
actors more immediately represent) appearing frequently at the theatre,
from a consciousness of their own innocence, and to convince the world how
unjust a parallel, malice, envy, and disaffection to the government have
made.

I am assured that several worthy clergymen in this city, went privately to
see the “Beggar’s Opera” represented; and that the fleering coxcombs in
the pit, amused themselves with making discoveries, and spreading the
names of those gentlemen round the audience.

I shall not pretend to vindicate a clergyman, who would appear openly in
his habit at a theatre, among such a vicious crew, as would probably stand
round him, and at such lewd comedies, and profane tragedies as are often
represented. Besides I know very well, that persons of their function are
bound to avoid the appearance of evil, or of giving cause of offence. But
when the lords chancellors, who are keepers of the king’s conscience, when
the judges of the land, whose title is reverend, when ladies, who
are bound by the rules of their sex, to the strictest decency, appear in
the theatre without censure, I cannot understand, why a young clergyman
who goes concealed out of curiosity to see an innocent and moral play,
should be so highly condemned; nor do I much approve the rigour of a great
p[rela]te, who said, “he hoped none of his clergy were there.” I am glad
to hear there are no weightier objections against that reverend body,
planted in this city, and I wish there never may. But I should be very
sorry that any of them should be so weak, as to imitate a court chaplain
in England, who preached against the “Beggar’s Opera,” which will probably
do more good than a thousand sermons of so stupid, so injudicious, and so
prostitute a divine[10].

In this happy performance of Mr. Gay, all the characters are just, and
none of them carried beyond nature, or hardly beyond practice. It
discovers the whole system of that commonwealth, or that imperium in
imperio of iniquity, established among us, by which neither our lives,
nor our properties are secure, either in the highways, or in public
assemblies, or even in our own houses. It shews the miserable lives, and
the constant fate of those abandoned wretches; for how little they sell
their lives and souls; betrayed by their whores, their comrades, and the
receivers and purchasers of these thefts and robberies. This comedy
contains likewise a satire, which, although it doth by no means affect the
present age, yet might have been useful in the former, and may possibly be
so in ages to come. I mean where the author takes occasion of comparing
those common robbers to robbers of the public;[11] and their several
stratagems of betraying, undermining, and hanging each other,[12] to the
several arts of politicians in times of corruption.

This comedy likewise exposeth with great justice, that unnatural taste for
Italian music among us,[13] which is wholly unsuitable to our northern
climate, and the genius of the people, whereby we are over-run with
Italian effeminacy, and Italian nonsense. An old gentleman said to me,
that many years ago, when the practice of an unnatural vice grew so
frequent in London, that many were prosecuted for it, he was sure it would
be a forerunner[14] of Italian operas, and singers; and then we should
want nothing but stabbing or poisoning, to make us perfect Italians.

Upon the whole, I deliver my judgment, that nothing but servile attachment
to a party, affectation of singularity, lamentable dullness, mistaken
zeal, or studied hypocrisy, can have the least reasonable objection
against this excellent moral performance of the celebrated Mr. Gay.

[Footnote 1: See title in note above, p. 313. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: “He will go among the people, and will draw a crowd
together.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” was produced by Rich at the
Theatre Royal in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, January 29th, 1727/8, and published
in book form in 1728. It was shortly afterwards performed in Dublin, Bath,
and other places. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Writing to Pope, May 10th, 1728, Swift says: “Mr. Gay’s Opera
has been acted here twenty times, and my lord lieutenant tells me it is
very well performed; he has seen it often, and approves it much…. ‘The
Beggar’s Opera’ has done its task, discedat uti conviva satur”
(Scott’s edition, xvii. 188-9). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: In his essay “Of Poetry,” Sir William Temple, writing of
dramatic poetry, says: “Yet I am deceived, if our English has not in some
kind excelled both the modern and the ancient, which has been by force of
a vein natural perhaps to our country, and which with us is called humour,
a word peculiar to our language too, and hard to be expressed in any
other;” etc.—”Works,” vol. i., p. 247 (1720). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: “Le Théâtre Italian, ou le Recueil de toutes les Comédies et
Scènes Françoises, qui out été jouées sur le Théâtre Italian.” The
collection was edited by Evariste Gherardi, and published in 1695. Two
further volumes were issued in 1698, the third containing complete plays.
The collection was afterwards extended to six volumes. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: A modern writer says of it: “It bristles with keen,
well-pointed satire on the corrupt and venal politicians and courtiers of
the day” (W.H. Husk in Grove’s “Dict. of Music”).[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: In the character of Robin of Bagshot Gay intended Sir Robert
Walpole.[T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Gay’s “Fables” was first published in 1727, with a dedication
“To his Highness William Duke of Cumberland.” The Fables are said to have
been “invented for his amusement.” Cumberland was the second son of
George, Prince of Wales, and was afterwards known as “the butcher.”[T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Dr. Thomas Herring, preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, and
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, preached a sermon against “The
Beggar’s Opera” in March, 1727-8. It is referred to in a letter to the
“Whitehall Evening Post,” dated March 30th, 1728, reprinted in the
Appendix to “Letters from Dr. T. Herring to W. Duncombe,” 1777. As
Archbishop of York, Herring interested himself greatly, during the
rebellion of 1745, in forming an association for the defence of the
liberties of the people and the constitution of the country. Writing to
Swift, under date May 16th, 1728, Gay remarks: “I suppose you must have
heard, that I had the honour to have had a sermon preached against my
works by a court-chaplain, which I look upon as no small addition to my
fame” (Scott, xvii. 194). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: The edition of 1729 has “those common robbers of the
public.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Peachum says: “Can it be expected that we should hang our
acquaintance for nothing, when our betters will hardly save theirs without
being paid for it?”—Act II., sc. x. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: The rivalry between Handel and the Italian composers had
then been keen for nearly twenty years. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: The edition of 1729 has “the fore-runner.” [T.S.]]

THE INTELLIGENCER, NUMB. XIX[1].

Having on the 12th of October last, received a letter signed ANDREW
DEALER, and PATRICK PENNYLESS; I believe the following
PAPER, just come to my hands, will be a sufficient answer to it[2].

SIR,

I am a country gentleman, and a Member of Parliament, with an estate of
about 1400l. a year, which as a Northern landlord, I receive from
above two hundred tenants, and my lands having been let, near twenty years
ago, the rents, till very lately, were esteemed to be not above half
value; yet by the intolerable scarcity of silver[4], I lie under the
greatest difficulties in receiving them, as well as in paying my
labourers, or buying any thing necessary for my family from tradesmen, who
are not able to be long out of their money. But the sufferings of me, and
those of my rank, are trifles in comparison, of what the meaner sort
undergo; such as the buyers and sellers, at fairs, and markets; the
shopkeepers in every town, the farmers in general. All those who travel
with fish, poultry, pedlary-ware, and other conveniencies to sell: But
more especially handicrafts-men, who work for us by the day, and common
labourers, whom I have already mentioned. Both these kinds of people, I am
forced to employ, till their wages amount to a double pistole,[5] or a
moidore, (for we hardly have any gold of lower value left among us) to
divide it among themselves as they can; and this is generally done at an
ale-house or brandy shop; where, besides the cost of getting drunk, (which
is usually the case) they must pay tenpence or a shilling, for changing
their piece into silver, to some huckstering fellow, who follows that
trade. But what is infinitely worse, those poor men for want of due
payment, are forced to take up their oatmeal, and other necessaries of
life, at almost double value, and consequently are not able, to discharge
half their score, especially under the scarceness of corn, for two years
past, and the melancholy disappointment of the present crop.

The causes of this, and a thousand other evils, are clear and manifest to
you and all other thinking men, though hidden from the vulgar: these
indeed complain of hard times, the dearth of corn, the want of money, the
badness of seasons; that their goods bear no price, and the poor cannot
find work; but their weak reasonings never carry them to the hatred, and
contempt, borne us by our neighbours, and brethren, without the least
grounds of provocation, who rejoice at our sufferings, although sometimes
to their own disadvantage; of the dead weight upon every beneficial branch
of our trade;[6] of half our revenues sent annually to England, and many
other grievances peculiar to this unhappy kingdom, excepted for our sins,
which keep us from enjoying the common benefits of mankind, as you and
some other lovers of their country, have so often observed, with such good
inclinations, and so little effect.

It is true indeed, that under our circumstances in general, this complaint
for the want of silver, may appear as ridiculous, as for a man to be
impatient, about a cut finger, when he is struck with the plague; and yet
a poor fellow going to the gallows, may be allowed to feel the smart of
wasps, while he is upon Tyburn Road. This misfortune is too urging,[7] and
vexatious in every kind of small traffic, and so hourly pressing upon all
persons in the country whatsoever, that a hundred inconveniences, of
perhaps greater moment in themselves, have been timely[8] submitted to,
with far less disquietude and murmurs. And the case seems yet the harder,
if it be true, what many skilful men assert, that nothing is more easy,
than a remedy; and, that the want of silver, in proportion to the little
gold remaining among us, is altogether as unnecessary, as it is
inconvenient. A person of distinction assured me very lately, that, in
discoursing with the lord lieutenant,[9] before his last return to
England, his excellency said, “He had pressed the matter often, in proper
time and place, and to proper persons; and could not see any difficulty of
the least moment, that could prevent us from being easy upon that
article.”[10]

Whoever carries to England, twenty-seven English shillings, and brings
back one moidore, of full weight, is a gainer of ninepence Irish; in a
guinea, the advantage is threepence, and twopence in a pistole. The
BANKERS, who are generally masters of all our gold, and silver, with this
advantage, have sent over as much of the latter, as came into their hands.
The value of one thousand moidores in silver, would thus amount in clear
profit, to 37l. 10,s. The shopkeepers, and other traders,
who go to London to buy goods, followed the same practice, by which we
have been driven into this insupportable distress.

To a common thinker, it should seem, that nothing would be more easy, than
for the government to redress this evil, at any time they shall please.
When the value of guineas was lowered in England, from 21s. 6d.
to only 21s.[11] the consequences to this kingdom, were obvious,
and manifest to us all; and a sober man, may be allowed at least to
wonder, though he dare not complain, why a new regulation of coin among
us, was not then made; much more, why it hath never been since. It would
surely require no very profound skill in algebra, to reduce the difference
of ninepence in thirty shillings, or threepence in a guinea, to less than
a farthing; and so small a fraction could be no temptation, either to
bankers, to hazard their silver at sea, or tradesmen to load themselves
with it, in their journeys to England. In my humble opinion, it would be
no unseasonable condescension, if the government would graciously please,
to signify to the poor loyal Protestant subjects of Ireland, either that
this miserable want of silver, is not possible to be remedied in any
degree, by the nicest skill in arithmetic; or else, that it doth not stand
with the good pleasure of England, to suffer any silver at all among us.
In the former case, it would be madness, to expect impossibilities: and in
the other, we must submit: For, lives, and fortunes are always at the
mercy of the CONQUEROR.

The question hath been often put in printed papers, by the DRAPIER,[12]
and others, or perhaps by the same WRITER, under different styles, why
this kingdom should not be permitted to have a mint of its own, for the
coinage of gold, silver, and copper, which is a power exercised by many
bishops, and every petty prince in Germany. But this question hath never
been answered, nor the least application that I have heard of, made to the
Crown from hence, for the grant of a public mint, although it stands upon
record, that several cities, and corporations here, had the liberty of
coining silver. I can see no reasons, why we alone of all nations, are
thus restrained, but such as I dare not mention; only thus far, I may
venture, that Ireland is the first imperial kingdom, since Nimrod, which
ever wanted power, to coin their own money.

I know very well, that in England it is lawful for any subject, to
petition either the Prince, or the Parliament, provided it be done in a
dutiful, and regular manner; but what is lawful for a subject of Ireland,
I profess I cannot determine; nor will undertake, that your printer shall
not be prosecuted, in a court of justice, for publishing my wishes, that a
poor shopkeeper might be able to change a guinea, or a moidore, when a
customer comes for a crown’s worth of goods. I have known less crimes
punished with the utmost severity, under the title of disaffection: And, I
cannot but approve the wisdom of the ancients, who, after Astraea had fled
from the earth,[13] at least took care to provide three upright judges for
Hell. Men’s ears among us, are indeed grown so nice, that whoever happens
to think out of fashion, in what relates to the welfare of this kingdom,
dare not so much as complain of the toothache, lest our weak and busy
dabblers in politic should be ready to swear against him for disaffection.

There was a method practised by Sir Ambrose Crawley,[14] the great dealer
in iron-works, which I wonder the gentlemen o£ our country, under this
great exigence, have not thought fit to imitate. In the several towns, and
villages, where he dealt, and many miles round, he gave notes, instead of
money, from twopence, to twenty shillings, which passed current in all
shops, and markets, as well as in houses, where meat, or drink was sold. I
see no reason, why the like practice, may not be introduced among us, with
some degree of success, or at least may not serve, as a poor expedient, in
this our blessed age of paper, which, as it dischargeth all our greatest
payments, may be equally useful in the smaller, and may just keep us
alive, till an English Act of Parliament shall forbid it.

I have been told, that among some of our poorest American colonies, upon
the continent, the people enjoy the liberty of cutting the little money
among them into halves, and quarters, for the conveniences of small
traffic. How happy should we be in comparison of our present condition, if
the like privilege, were granted to us, of employing the shears, for want
of a mint, upon our foreign gold; by clipping it into half-crowns, and
shillings, and even lower denominations; for beggars must be content to
live upon scraps; and it would be our felicity, that these scraps would
never[15] be exported to other countries, while any thing better was left.

If neither of these projects will avail, I see nothing left us, but to
truck and barter our goods, like the wild Indians, with each other, or
with our too powerful neighbours; only with this disadvantage on our side,
that the Indians enjoy the product of their own land, whereas the better
half of ours is sent away without so much as a recompense in bugles, or
glass, in return.

It must needs be a very comfortable circumstance, in the present juncture,
that some thousand families are gone, or going, or preparing to go, from
hence, and settle themselves in America. The poorer sort, for want of
work; the farmers whose beneficial bargains, are now become a rack-rent,
too hard to be borne. And those who have any ready money, or can purchase
any, by the sale of their goods, or leases; because they find their
fortunes hourly decaying; that their goods will bear no price, and that
few or none, have any money to buy the very necessaries of life, are
hastening to follow their departed neighbours. It is true, corn among us,
carries a very high price; but it is for the same reason, that rats, and
cats, and dead horses, have been often bought for gold, in a town
besieged.

There is a person of quality in my neighbourhood, who twenty years ago,
when he was just come to age, being unexperienced, and of a generous
temper, let his lands, even as times went then, at a low rate, to able
tenants, and consequently by the rise of land, since that time, looked
upon his estate, to be set at half value. But numbers of these tenants, or
their descendants are now offering to sell their leases by cant, even
those which were for lives, some of them renewable for ever, and some
fee-farms, which the landlord himself hath bought in, at half the price
they would have yielded seven years ago. And some leases let at the same
time, for lives, have been given up to him, without any consideration at
all.

This is the most favourable face of things at present among us, I say,
among us of the North, who are esteemed the only thriving people of the
kingdom: And how far, and how soon, this misery and desolation may spread,
is easy to foresee.

The vast sums of money daily carried off, by our numerous adventurers to
America, have deprived us of our gold in these parts, almost as much as of
our silver.

And the good wives who came[16] to our houses, offer us their pieces of
linen, upon which their whole dependence lies, for so little profit, that
it can neither half pay their rents, nor half support their families.

It is remarkable, that this enthusiasm spread among our northern people,
of sheltering themselves in the continent of America, hath no other
foundation, than their present insupportable condition at home. I have
made all possible inquiries, to learn what encouragement our people have
met with, by any intelligence from those plantations, sufficient to make
them undertake so tedious, and hazardous a voyage in all seasons of the
year; and so ill accommodated in their ships, that many of them have died
miserably in their passage; but, could never get one satisfactory answer.
Somebody, they know not who, had written a letter to his friend, or
cousin, from thence, inviting him by all means, to come over; that it was
a fine fruitful country, and to be held for ever, at a penny an acre. But
the truth of the fact is this, The English established in those colonies,
are in great want of men to inhabit that tract of ground, which lies
between them, and the wild Indians, who are not reduced under their
dominion. We read of some barbarous people, whom the Romans placed in
their armies, for no other service, than to blunt their enemies’ swords,
and afterwards to fill up trenches with their dead bodies. And thus our
people who transport themselves, are settled in those interjacent tracts,
as a screen against the insults of the savages, and many have as much
land, as they can clear from the woods, at a very reasonable rate, if they
can afford to pay about a hundred years’ purchase by their labour. Now
beside the fox’s reasons which inclines all those, who have already
ventured thither, to represent everything, in a false light, as well for
justifying their own conduct, as for getting companions, in their misery;
so, the governing people in those plantations, have wisely provided,[17]
that no letters shall be suffered to pass from thence hither, without
being first viewed by the council, by which our people here, are wholly
deceived in the opinions, they have of the happy condition of their
friends, gone before them. This was accidentally discovered some months
ago, by an honest man who having transported himself, and family thither,
and finding all things directly contrary to his hope, had the luck to
convey a private note, by a faithful hand, to his relation here,
entreating him, not to think of such a voyage, and to discourage all his
friends from attempting it. Yet this, although it be a truth well known,
hath produced very little effects; which is no manner of wonder, for as it
is natural to a man in a fever to turn often, although without any hope of
ease, or when he is pursued to leap down a precipice, to avoid an enemy
just at his back; so, men in the extremest degree of misery, and want,
will naturally fly to the first appearance of relief, let it be ever so
vain, or visionary.

You may observe, that I have very superficially touched the subject I
began with, and with the utmost caution: for I know how criminal the least
complaint hath been thought, however seasonable or just, or honestly
intended, which hath forced me to offer up my daily prayers, that it may
never, at least in my time, be interpreted by innuendoes as a false
scandalous, seditious, and disaffected action, for a man to roar under an
acute fit of the gout, which beside the loss and the danger, would be very
inconvenient to one of my age, so severely afflicted with that distemper.

I wish you good success, but I can promise you little, in an ungrateful
office you have taken up, without the least view, either to reputation or
profit. Perhaps your comfort is, that none but villains, and betrayers of
their country, can be your enemies. Upon which, I have little to say,
having not the honour, to be acquainted with many of that sort, and
therefore, as you easily may believe, am compelled to lead a very retired
life.

[Footnote 1: See title for this in note above to No. 1, p. 313. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: No. 19 of “The Intelligencer” is a reprint of a tract which I
have not been able to find. It appeared again in 1736 under the title: “A
Letter from the Revd. J.S.D.S.P.D. to a Country Gentleman in the North of
Ireland.”[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: “Apud Donati Vitam,” 17:

[Footnote 4: Writing to Dr. Sheridan, under date September 18th, 1728,
Swift says: “I think the sufferings of the country for want of silver
deserves a paper, since the remedy is so easy, and those in power so
negligent” (Scott, xvii. 204). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The price of the pistole in Ireland was fixed at 18s.
6d., the double pistole at £1 17s., and the moidore
£1 10s. These prices were fixed by order of the Lords
Justices, July 30th, 1712. In 1737 the moidore was reduced to £1 9s.
3d. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: “A Letter,” etc., referred to in note on preceding page, has:
“They consider not the dead weight upon every beneficial branch of our
trade; that half our revenues are annually sent to England; with many
other grievances peculiar to this unhappy kingdom; which keep us,” etc.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The 1736 edition of “A Letter,” etc., has “is so urging.”
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The 1736 edition of “A Letter,” etc., has “tamely.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: John Carteret (1690-1763) succeeded his father as second
Baron Carteret in 1695, and his mother as Earl Granville in 1744. He was
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from 1724 to 1730. See Swift’s “Vindication of
… Lord Carteret” in vol. vi. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: “A Letter,” etc. (1736 edition), has “being made easy upon
this article.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: On December 22nd, 1717, the price of the guinea was reduced,
by a proclamation, from 21s. 6d. to 21s. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: See vol. vii. of present edition of Swift’s Works, dealing
with the Drapier Letters. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Astraea withdrew from the earth at the close of the Golden
Age. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Sir Ambrose Crowley (or Crawley), Liveryman of the Drapers’
Company and Alderman for Dowgate Ward, sat in Parliament for Andover in
1713. He was satirized in “The Spectator” (No. 299, February 12th, 1711/2)
as Sir John Enville, and in “The Tatler” (No. 73, September 27th, 1709) as
Sir Arthur de Bradley. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: “A Letter,” etc. (1736), has “could never.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: The reprint of 1730, and “A Letter,” etc. (1736), have “who
come.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: “A Letter,” etc. (1736), has: “The governing people in those
plantations, have also wisely provided,” etc. [T.S.]]

THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT

VOL. IX

By Jonathan Swift, D.D.

> CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE TATLER,” “THE EXAMINER,” “THE SPECTATOR,” AND “THE INTELLIGENCER”

LONDON GEORGE BELL AND SONS 1902

CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

INTRODUCTION

CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE TATLER.”

NOTE.

THE TATLER, NUMB. 32.

FROM TUESDAY JUNE 21. TO THURSDAY JUNE 23. 1709.

“SIR,

“CHARLES STURDY.”

THE TATLER, NUMB. 35.

FROM TUESDAY JUNE 28. TO THURSDAY JUNE 30. 1709.

“SIR,[1]

“ELIZ. POTATRIX.”

THE TATLER, NUMB. 59.

FROM TUESDAY AUGUST 23. TO THURSDAY AUGUST 25. 1709.

“OBADIAH GREENHAT.”

THE TATLER, NUMB. 63.

“TOBIAH GREENHAT.”

THE TATLER, NUMB. 66.

FROM THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 8. TO SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. 1709.

THE TATLER, NUMB. 67.

FROM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. TO TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 13. 1709.

THE TATLER, NUMB. 68.

FROM TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 13. TO THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 15. 1709.

THE TATLER, NUMB. 70.

FROM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 17. TO TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20. 1709.

“SIR,[1]

“SIR,

“JONATHAN ROSEHAT.

“PHILALETHES.”

THE TATLER, NUMB. 71.

FROM TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20. TO THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 22. 1709.

“‘SQUIRE BICKERSTAFF,[1]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 230.

“TO ISAAC BICKERSTAFF ESQ;

“SIR,

“‘SIR,

THE TATLER, NUMB. 258.

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30. TO SATURDAY DECEMBER 2. 1710.

SIR,

NOTE.

[T.S.]

THE TATLER, NUMB. I.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 13. 1711.[2]

“TO ISAAC BICKERSTAFF, ESQ;

“HUMPHRY WAGSTAFF.”

THE TATLER, No. 2.

THE TATLER, No. 5.

FROM TUESDAY JAN. 23. TO SATURDAY JAN. 27. 1710.[2]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 298.[1]

FROM SATURDAY MARCH 3. TO TUESDAY MARCH 6. 1710.[3]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 302.[1]

FROM TUESDAY MARCH 13. TO THURSDAY MARCH 15. 1710.[3]

THE TATLER, NUMB. 306.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 22, TO SATURDAY MARCH 24, 1710.[3]

“DEAR ISAAC,

“SYLVIA.”

CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE EXAMINER.”

NOTE.

THE EXAMINER.

NUMB. 14.[1]

FROM THURSDAY OCTOBER 26 TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, 1710.

NUMB. 15.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, 1710.

NUMB. 16.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, 1710.

NUMB. 17.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, 1710.

NUMB. 18.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, 1710.

“MY LORDS,[13]

NUMB. 19.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, 1710.

NUMB. 20.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1710.

NUMB. 21.[1]

>
CONTRIBUTIONS TO “THE TATLER,” “THE EXAMINER,” “THE SPECTATOR,” AND “THE
INTELLIGENCER”

CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE,
LONDON.