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 ClГ©ment, 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 BalafrГ©) 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 AbbГ© 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 ВЈ500 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.