Produced by G. Graustein and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced
from images provided by the Million Book Project.






THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT

VOL. IX

GEORGE BELL & SONS
LONDON: YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN
CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.

[Illustration: _Jonathan Swift from the picture by Charles Jervas in the
Bodlean Library Oxford_]


THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.

EDITED BY TEMPLE SCOTT

VOL IX

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

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.]



CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO "THE TATLER"
Introductory Note
No. 32, June 23, 1709
    35,  "  30,  "
    59, Aug. 25,  "
    65, Sept. 3,  "
    66,  "  10,  "
    67,  "  13,  "
    68,  "  15,  "
    70,  "  22,  "
    71,  "  22,  "
   230, Sept. 28, 1710
   258, Dec.  2,  "

Note to Harrison's "Tatler"
No. 1 (of vol. v.), Jan. 13, 1710-11
    2 (    "    ),   "   16,   "
    5 (    "    ),   "   27,   "
No. 298 (vol. v., No. 20), March 6, 1710-11
    302 (vol. v., No. 24),  "  15    "
    306 (vol. v., No. 28),  "  24    "

CONTRIBUTIONS TO "THE EXAMINER"
Introductory Note
No. 14 (13), Nov. 2, 1710
    15 (14),  "  9,     "
    16 (15),  " 16,     "
    17 (16),  " 23,     "
    18 (17),  " 30,     "
    19 (18), Dec. 7,    "
    20 (19),  " 14,     "
    21 (20),  " 21,     "
    22 (21),  " 28,     "
    23 (22), Jan. 4, 1710-11
    24 (23),  " 11,     "
    25 (24),  " 18,     "
    26 (25),  " 25,     "
    27 (26), Feb. 1,    "
    28 (27),  "  8,     "
    29 (28), Feb  15, 1710 11
    30 (29),  "   22,   "
    31 (30), March 1,   "
    32 (31),  "    8,   "
    33 (32),  "   15,   "
    34 (33),  "   22,   "
    35 (34),  "   29, 1711
    36 (35), April 5,   "
    37 (36),  "   12,   "
    38 (37),  "   19,   "
    39 (38),  "   26,   "
    40 (39), May   3,   "
    41 (40),  "   10,   "
    42 (41),  "   17,   "
    43 (42),  "   24,   "
    44 (43),  "   31,   "
    45 (44), June  7,   "
    46 (45),  "   14,   "

CONTRIBUTIONS TO "THE SPECTATOR"
  Introductory Note
  No  50, April 27, 1711 (The Four Indian Kings)
  Paragraph from No 575, August 2, 1714

CONTRIBUTIONS TO "THE INTELLIGENCER"
  Introductory Note
  No 1, May 11, 1728 (Introduction)
     3, A Vindication of Mr. Gay, and the Beggar's Opera
    19, The Hardships of the Irish being deprived of their
         Silver, and decoyed into America

             *   *   *   *   *


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:

"'I am a man of war and might,
And know thus much, that I can fight,
Whether I am i' th' wrong or right.
  Devoutly.
'No woman under Heaven I fear,
New oaths I can exactly swear;
And forty healths my brains will bear,
 Most stoutly.'"

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:

  "Here, five feet deep, lies on his back,
  A cobler, starmonger, and quack,
  Who to the stars in pure good will
  Does to his best look upward still:
  Weep, all you customers that use
  His pills, his almanacks, or shoes."

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 1:
    "Manditque, trahitque
Molle pecus."
                       _Aeneid_, ix. 340-341.
"Devours and tears the peaceful flock."
                                    [T.S.]]

[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.

"An understanding in the liberal arts
Softens men's manners."
                         [T.S.]]

[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.

  "O Lycidas,
  We never thought, yet have we lived to see
  A stranger seize our farm, and say, 'Tis mine,
  Begone, ye old inhabitants."--C.R. KENNEDY.
  [T.S.]]

[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]


  _Morte carent animae; semperque, priore relictâ
  Sede, novis domibus habitant vivuntque receptae.
  Ipse ego (nam memini) Trojani tempore belli
  Panthoides Euphorbus eram_--
  OVID. MET.[2]

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.

  "Nor dies the spirit, but new life repeats
  In other forms, and only changes seats.
    Ev'n I, who these mysterious truths declare,
  Was once Euphorbus in the Trojan war."

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.

  --_Longa est injuria, longae
  Ambages, sed summa sequar fastigia rerum_.[2]


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,

  _Hinc usura vorax, avidumque in tempore foenus,
  Hinc concussa fides, et multis utile bellum_,[6]

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]

  _Audiet pugnas vitio parentum
  Rara Juventus_.[13]

[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.

  "Her whole tale of wrong
  'Twere tedious to relate. But I will give
  The leading facts."--R. KENNEDY.
  [T.S.]]

[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.

  "Hence debt unthrifty, careless to repay,
  And usury still watching for its day:
  Hence perjuries in every wrangling court;
  And war, the needy bankrupt's last resort,"
  N. ROWE.

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.

  _E quibis hi vacuas implent sermonibus aures,
  Hi narrata ferunt alio: mensuraque ficti
  Crescit, et auditis aliquid novus adjicit autor,
  Illic Credulitas, illic temerarius Error,
  Vanaque Laetitia est, consternatique Timores,
  Seditioque recens, dubioque autore susurri._[2]


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.

"The troubled air with empty sounds they beat.
Intent to hear, and eager to repeat.
Error sits brooding there, with added train
Of vain Credulity, and Joys as vain:
Suspicion, with Sedition joined, are near,
And Rumours raised, and Murmurs mixed, and panic Fear."
                               J. DRYDEN.
[T.S.]]

[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.


  ---_medioque ut limite curras,
  Icare, ait, moneo: ne si demissior ibis,
  Unda gravet pennas, si celsior, ignis adurat._[2]


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.

            "My boy, take care
  To wing your course along the middle air:
  If low, the surges wet your flagging plumes;
  If high, the sun the melting wax consumes."
                             S. CROXALL.
[T.S.]]

[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:

  "Earless on high stood unabashed De Foe,
  And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below."
  [T.S.]]

[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 40,000_l_. On the building of Blenheim
Castle 200,000_l_. have been already expended, though it be not yet near
finished. The grant of 5,000_l. per ann._ on the post-office, is richly
worth 100,000_l_. His principality in Germany may be computed at
30,000_l_. Pictures, jewels, and other gifts from foreign princes,
60,000_l_. 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 100,000_l_. 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.

A BILL OF ROMAN GRATITUDE.

                                             l.   s.   d.
Imprimis for frankincense and earthen pots
to burn it in                                 4   10    0
A bull for sacrifice                          8    0    0
An embroidered garment                       50    0    0
A crown of laurel                             0    0    2
A statue                                    100    0    0
A trophy                                     80    0    0
A thousand copper medals value half pence
a piece                                       2    1    8
A triumphal arch                            500    0    0
A triumphal car, valued as a modern coach   100    0    0
Casual charges at the triumph               150    0    0
                                            -------------
                                Sum total   994   11   10

A BILL OF BRITISH INGRATITUDE.

                                             l.   s.   d.
Imprimis Woodstock                       40,000    0    0
Blenheim                                200,000    0    0
Post-office grant                       100,000    0    0
Mildenheim                               30,000    0    0
Pictures, jewels, &c.                    60,000    0    0
Pall-Mall grant, &c.                     10,000    0    0
Employments                             100,000    0    0
                                        -----------------
                         Sum total[7]   540,000    0    0

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:

"Receiv'd on Accompt of Bread and Bread-waggons    £63,319  3  7
Receiv'd 10,000,_l_. by Annual Contingencies       100,000  0  0
Receiv'd by 2 and 1/2 _per cent_, from the
payment of Troops                                  460,062  6  7-3/4
                                                   -----------------
                                                   623,381  10 2-3/4"
                                                   -----------------]


[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
300,000_l_. a town (the price that Dunkirk was sold at before it was
fortified) amounts in all, throwing in the battles and the
fortifications, to 8,100,000_l_." 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 2,000_l_. 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 2,00_l_. 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 18,000_l_. 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.


  _Sunt quibus in Satira videor nimis acer, et ultra
  Legem tendere opus: sine nervis altera, quicquid
  Composui, pars esse putat----_[2]


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.

  _Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
  Tempus eget----_[5]

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,

  ------_fugiant examina taxos;_[7]

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:

  "There are, to whom too poignant I appear;
  Beyond the laws of satire too severe.
  My lines are weak, unsinewed, others say."--P. FRANCIS.
  [T.S.]]

[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:

  "'Tis not such aid or such defence as thine
  The time demands."---R. KENNEDY.
  [T.S.]]

[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:

  "So may thy bees the poisonous yew forgo."
             ARCHDN. F. WRANGHAM.
  [T.S.]]

[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.

  _----Pugnacem scirent sapiente minorem._[2]

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:

"Well assured, that art
And conduct were of war the better part."
                       J. DRYDEN.
[T.S.]]

[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]

_Nam et, majorum instituta tueri sacris, ceremoniisque retinendis,
  sapientis est.
                --Ruituraque semper
                Stat (mirum!) moles--_[3]


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:

"For it is the part of a wise man to defend the institutions of his
forefathers, and uphold the sacred rites and ceremonies.
                And ever threatening to fall
                The mass--a marvel--stands."
[T.S.]]

[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]

  _Parva momenta in spem metumque impellunt animos._[3]

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.

  "Safely shalt thou Cotytto's rites
    Divulge?"--J. DUNCOMBE.

   [T.S.]]

[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 12: Horace, "Odes," II. xiii. 31-2.
                    "Tyrants slain,
In thicker crowds the shadowy throng
Drink deeper down the martial song."--P. FRANCIS.
[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.

  _----Garrit aniles
  Ex re fabellas_.[2]




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.

  _Et quicunque tuum violavit vulnere corpus,
  Morte luat merita_----[21]


[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.

  _--Sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi;
  Sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem mortalia tangunt._[2]


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.


  _Tres species tam dissimiles, tria talia texta
  Una dies dedit exitio----_[2]


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.

  _Semper causae eventorum magis movent quam ipsa eventa.[2]_

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.

  _Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?_[2]

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.

  "Who his spleen could rein,
  And hear the Gracchi of the mob complain?"--W. GIFFORD.

  [T.S.]]

[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]


  _Dos est magna parentium virtus._[3]

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:

  _Quos ego--sed motos praestat componere fluctus._[12]

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.

            ----_Pulcherrima proles,
  Magnanimi heroes nati melioribus annis._[17]

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.

  "The lovers there for dowry claim
  The father's virtue, and the mother's fame."
                               P. FRANCIS.

[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 18_s._ 9-5/8_d._(_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.

  "Warriors, high souled, in better ages born,
  Great Teucer's noble race, these plains adorn."--J.M. KING.

  [T.S.]]

[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.


  _------Quem cur distringere coner,
  Tutus ab infestis latronibus?_[2]


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 2: Horace, "Satires," II. i. 41-2.
          "Safe it lies
Within the sheath, till villains round me rise."--P. FRANCIS.
[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.

  _Delicta majorum immeritus lues,
  Romane; donec templa refeceris,
      Aedesque labentes deorum_----[2]



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.

  "Those ills your ancestors have done,
   Romans, are now become your own;
   And they will cost you dear,
   Unless you soon repair
   The falling temples which the gods provoke."

  EARL OF ROSCOMMON (1672). [T.S.]]

[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.


  _Scilicet, ut possem curvo dignoscere rectum._[2]

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 2: Horace, "Epistles," II. ii. 44.
"Fair truth from falsehood to discern."--P. FRANCIS.
 [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]

  _Magna vis est, magnum nomen, unum et idem sentieritis Senatus._[3]

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 11_s._ 4_d._ 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]

  _Melius non tangere clamo_.[3]

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]


  _Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit._
  JUV.[2]

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.

    "Nature and wisdom never are at strife."--W. GIFFORD.

  [T.S.]]

[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:

  "At length the nightingale was heard,
  For voice and wisdom long revered,
  Esteemed of all the wise and good,
  The guardian genius of the wood;" etc.

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:

No. I. Introduction.
II. The Inhospitable Temper of 'Squire Wether.
III. A Vindication of Mr. Gay, and the Beggar's Opera.
IV. The Folly of Gaming.
V. A Description of what the World calls Discretion.
VI. A Representation of the Present Condition of Ireland.
VII. The Character of Corusodes and Eugenio.
VIII. A Dialogue between Mullinix and Timothy.
IX. The foolish Methods of Education among the Nobility.
X. Tim and Gay's Fables.
XI. Proposals in Prose and Verse for, An Universal View of all the
eminent Writers on the Holy Scriptures, &c.
XII. Sir Ralph the Patriot turned Courtier.
XIII. The Art of Story-Telling.
XIV. Prometheus's Art of Man-making: And the Tale of the T--d.
XV. The Services the Drapier has done his Country, and the Steps taken to
ruin it.
XVI. The Adventures of the three Brothers, George, Patrick, and Andrew.
XVII. The Marks of Ireland's Poverty, shewn to be evident Proofs of its
Riches.
XVIII. St. Andrew's Day, and the Drapier's Birth-Day.
XIX. The Hardships of the Irish being deprived of their Silver, and
decoyed into America.
[XX. Dean Smedley, gone to seek his Fortune.
The Pheasant and the Lark. A Fable.]-[T.S.]]

[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]

  --_Ipse per omnes
  Ibit personas, et turbam reddet in unam._[2]

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]._

  _Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves._
  VlRG.[3]

SIR,

I am a country gentleman, and a Member of Parliament, with an estate of
about 1400_l_. 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 37_l_. 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 21_s_.
6_d_. to only 21_s_.[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.

I am Sir,
Your most obedient,
Humble servant,

A. NORTH.

County of Down,
Dec. 2d. 1728.


[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:

  "Thus do ye sheep grow fleeces for others."--W.F.H. KING.

  [T.S.]]

[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 18_s_.
6_d_., the double pistole at _£_1 17_s_., and the moidore _£_1 10_s_.
These prices were fixed by order of the Lords Justices, July 30th, 1712.
In 1737 the moidore was reduced to _£_1 9_s_. 3_d_. [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 21_s_. 6_d_. to 21_s_. [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.]]





INDEX.

ALMANZA, battle of
Anne, Queen, her change of ministry in 1710;
  and the Church;
  establishment of Queen Anne's bounty;
  letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Aretino, Pietro.
Army, essays on the.
Asgill, John.
Astell, Mrs. Mary.
Atterbury, Bishop, his character in "The Tatler";
  contributes to "The Examiner";
  his influence in Convocation.
Avarice, essay on.

Bank, the, in the Whig interest.
"Banks, Sir Jacob, Letter to".
Bickerstaff, Isaac, Steele's pseudonym.
Birth, value of.
Boyer, Abel.
Boyle, Henry.
Bromley, Clobery.
Bromley, William, speaker;
  "Congratulatory Speech of".
Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, assassination of.
Buckingham and Normanby, John, Duke of.
Burgess, Daniel.
Burnet, Bishop.

Caesar, Julius.
Calves-Head Club, the.
Carew, John, speech at the execution of.
Carteret, Lord.
Chamber of Fame.
Charles V. and Aretino.
Church, the, resolution in Parliament as to the state of;;
  essay on
  answer to essay on;
  the Whigs and.
Churches, scheme for building new.
Clément, Jacques.
Clendon, John.
Coffee-houses, signification of the.
Coin, clipping of.
Coligny, Admiral de, assassination of.
Collins, Anthony.
Coningsby, Mrs.
Court of Alienation.
Coward, William.
Cowper, Earl.
Crackanthorpe, Mrs.
Crassus, Marcus, the Duke of Marlborough attacked under the name of.
Crawley, Sir Ambrose.

D'Ancre, Maréchal.
Daniel, Samuel.
Dartmouth, Lord.
Davila.
Defoe, Daniel, edited "The Review".
Devonshire, William, 2nd Duke of.
Dissenters, the,
  under James II.;
  essay on;
  Whigs and.
Dodwell, Henry.
Dyet, Richard.

Eloquence, essay on;
  further references to,
Elstob, Mrs. Elizabeth.
English tongue, corruption of the.
Eumenes.
"Examiner, The," establishment of.
"Examiner, Letter to the."

Faction,
  fable of;
  true characteristics of.
Felton, John.
"Female Tatler, The".
Ford, James.
Freind, Dr.
"French King's Thanks to the Tories of Great Britain, The".
Furnese, Sir Henry.

Gay, John,
  on "The Examiner";
  vindication of his "Beggar's Opera";
  his fables.
George, Prince, of Denmark.
Gertruydenberg, treaty of.
Godolphin, Lord, his change of politics;
  dismissal of;
  nicknamed "Volpone";
  his intrigues against Harley;
  as "Gracchus";
  devoted to the turf;
  ministry of.
Good manners, essay on.
Greenshields, Rev. James.
Gregg, William.
Guiscard, Marquis de;
  account of.
Guise, Dukes of, assassination of,.

Harcourt, Sir Simon.
Hare, Dr. Francis.
Harley, Robert, attempted assassination of;
  made Earl of Oxford;
  the Speaker's congratulation on his escape;
  his scheme for securing debts;
  his remission of first-fruits to the Irish Clergy.
Harley, Thomas,
Harrison, William, contributed to "The Tatler";
  new issue of "The Tatler" by.
Hastings, Lady Elizabeth.
Henry III, of France, assassination of.
Henry IV. of France, assassination of.
Herring, Dr. Thomas.
Hickes, George.
Honeywood, General, superseded.
Hooker, Richard.

Indemnity, Act of (1708).
Indian Kings, the, in London.
"Intelligencer, The".
Ireland, scarcity of silver in.
Isaac, Mr., a dancing-master.
Italian music, the taste for.

James II., King, and the Dissenters;
  and the Whigs.

Kent, Duke of.

Learning, Bill for the Encouragement of.
Lechmere, Nicholas.
Leeds, Duke of.
Leslie, Rev. Charles.
"Lewis, Erasmus, The Vindication of".
Lions, dream of the.
Lorrain, Paul.
Louis XIV.

Macartney, General, superseded.
Madonella.
"Management of the War, The," pamphlets by Dr. Hare.
Manley, Mrs., attacked as "Madonella";
  her "Memoirs of Europe".
Marlborough, Duke of
  the Treaty of Gertruydenberg;
  his change of politics;
  rewards and grants to;
  his intrigues against Harley;
  his proposal to be made Commander-in-chief for life;
  attacked by Swift under the name of "Crassus";
  charged with peculations with regard to bread contracts;
  threatened resignation of in 1708.
Marlborough, Duchess of.
Masham, Mrs.
Matveof, Muscovite Ambassador, arrest of.
Medina, Sir Solomon de, and the Duke of Marlborough.
"Medley, The," attack by Swift on;
  and see notes to "The Examiner," _passim_
Ménage, Gilles.
Meredith, General, superseded.
Merit, genealogy and description of.
Milton, John.
Ministry, reasons for the change of;
"Mob," Swift's dislike of the word.
More, Henry.
Morphew, the publisher.

Naturalization Act.
Naunton, Sir Robert.
Nevis.
Norris, John.
Nottingham, Earl of.

"Observator, The".
Occasional Conformity Bill, the.
October Club, the.
Oldisworth, William;
  revival of "The Examiner" by.
Osborne, Francis.
Oxford University, decree of.

Palatines, the.
Parsons, Robert.
Partridge, John.
Passive obedience, doctrine of;
  according to the Whigs;
  according to the Tories;
Peace, Address to the Queen concerning (1707).
People, madness of the.
Peterborough, Earl of, letter from Swift to.
Petty, Sir William.
Platonic ladies.
Political Lying, the Art of.
"Political State of Great Britain, The"
Popery, the Tories and.
Pretender, the, party capital made out of;
  and the Whigs.
Prior, Matthew, contributes to "The Examiner";
  stated to be the author of "The Examiner".

Qualification Bill.

Racan, Mons.
Radcliffe, Dr John.
"Rehearsal, The".
Repington, Mr.
"Review, The".
Ridge, Thomas.
Rivers, Earl, appointed Lieutenant of the Tower.
Rochester, Laurence Hyde, Earl of.
Roper, Abel, suspected as author of "The Examiner".

Sacheverell, Dr.
St. Christopher's.
St John, Henry, and "The Examiner,"
  character of;
  "A Letter to The Examiner" attributed to;
  attempted assassination of;
  his hatred of Harley.
Scythia, story of the king of.
Security, Bill of.
Sewell, Dr. George.
Shippen, William.
Shrewsbury, Charles, Duke of.
Silver, scarcity of, in Ireland.
Smalridge, Dr.
Somers, Lord.
South Sea Company, establishment of the.
"Spectator, The".
Stanhope, General.
Stanley, Dr William.
Steele, Richard, and "The Tatler";
  article on Marlborough in "The Taller" by;
  and "The Spectator".
Suckling, Sir John.
Sunderland, Earl of.
Swift, Jonathan, his contributions to "The Tatler";
  supports Harrison with the new "Tatler";
  his contentions to "The Examiner";
  his memorial to Harley regarding the first-fruits in Ireland;
  his contribution to "The Spectator";
  his contributions to "The Intelligencer".

"Tatler, The," founding and success of;
  authorship of papers in;
  discontinued by Steele;
  new issues of.
Taxes, increase of.
Temple, Sir William, on humour.
Temson, Archbp.
Test Act, the.
Tindal, Matthew.
Titus, Colonel Silas.
Toland, John.
Tones, principles of the, explained.
Tory, origin of the word.
Toulon, siege of.
Trapp, Dr. Joseph.
Tutchin, John, editor of "The Observator".
Twisden, Heneage.

Verres (Lord Wharton).

Walpole, Horatio.
War, many people interested in continuance of the;
  pamphlets on the management of the.
Wenman, Viscount.
Wharton, Lord;
  as "Clodius";
  attacked by Swift under the name of Verres;
  desecration of a church by.
Whig and Tory, designation of the words.
"Whig Examiner, The".
Whigs, principles of the, explained;
  and Dissenters;
  and the Pretender.
Wotton, Sir Henry.
Wotton, W., his "Case of the Present Convocation considered".