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 ВЈ1,500,000 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 ВЈ2,200,000, 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 propГЁ 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 ВЈ100,000" (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.