This introduced a number of new dexterous men into business and credit:
It was argued, that the war could not last above two or three campaigns,
and that it was easier for the subject to raise a fund for paying
interest, than to tax them annually to the full expense of the war.
Several persons who had small or encumbered estates, sold them, and
turned their money into those funds to great advantage: merchants, as
well as other moneyed men, finding trade was dangerous, pursued the same
method: But the war continuing, and growing more expensive, taxes were
increased, and funds multiplied every year, till they have arrived at the
monstrous height we now behold them. And that which was at first a
corruption, is at last grown necessary, and what every good subject must
now fall in with, though he may be allowed to wish it might soon have an
end; because it is with a kingdom, as with a private fortune, where every
new incumbrance adds a double weight. By this means the wealth of the
nation, that used to be reckoned by the value of land, is now computed by
the rise and fall of stocks: and although the foundation of credit be
still the same, and upon a bottom that can never be shaken; and though
all interest be duly paid by the public, yet through the contrivance and
cunning of stock-jobbers, there has been brought in such a complication
of knavery and cozenage, such a mystery of iniquity, and such an
unintelligible jargon of terms to involve it in, as were never known in
any other age or country of the world. I have heard it affirmed by
persons skilled in these calculations, that if the funds appropriated to
the payment of interest and annuities, were added to the yearly taxes,
and the four-shilling aid[10] strictly exacted in all counties of the
kingdom, it would very near, if not fully, supply the occasions of the
war, at least such a part, as in the opinion of very able persons, had
been at that time prudence not to exceed. For I make it a question,
whether any wise prince or state, in the continuance of a war, which was
not purely defensive, or immediately at his own door, did ever propose
that his expense should perpetually exceed what he was able to impose
annually upon his subjects? Neither if the war lasts many years longer,
do I see how the next generation will be able to begin another, which in
the course of human affairs, and according to the various interests and
ambition of princes, may be as necessary for them as it has been for us.
And had our fathers left us as deeply involved as we are like to leave
our children, I appeal to any man, what sort of figure we should have
been able to make these twenty years past. Besides, neither our enemies,
nor allies, are upon the same foot with us in this particular. France and
Holland, our nearest neighbours, and the farthest engaged, will much
sooner recover themselves after a war. The first, by the absolute power
of the prince who being master of the lives and fortunes of his subjects,
will quickly find expedients to pay his debts: and so will the other, by
their prudent administration, the greatness of their trade, their
wonderful parsimony, the willingness of their people to undergo all kind
of taxes, and their justice in applotting as well as collecting them. But
above all, we are to consider that France and Holland fight in the
continent, either upon, or near their own territories, and the greatest
part of the money circulates among themselves; whereas ours crosses the
sea either to Flanders, Spain, or Portugal, and every penny of it,
whether in specie or returns, is so much lost to the nation for ever.
Upon these considerations alone, it was the most prudent course
imaginable in the Queen, to lay hold of the disposition of the people for
changing the Parliament and ministry at this juncture, and extricating
herself, as soon as possible, out of the pupillage of those who found
their accounts only in perpetuating the war. Neither have we the least
reason to doubt, but the ensuing Parliament will assist her Majesty with
the utmost vigour,[11] till her enemies _again_ be brought to sue for
peace, and _again_ offer such terms as will make it both honourable and
lasting; only with this difference, that the Ministry perhaps will not
_again_ refuse them.[12]
_Audiet pugnas vitio parentum
Rara Juventus_.[13]
[Footnote 1: No. 13 in the reprint. The No. 13 (from Thursday, October
19, to Thursday, October 26, 1710) of the original is omitted from the
reprint, and the Nos. from 14 to 48 are slipped back one. No. 49 also
is omitted, and Nos. 50 to 52 slipped back two. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Virgil, "Aeneid," i. 341-2.
"Her whole tale of wrong
'Twere tedious to relate. But I will give
The leading facts."--R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: "The Observator" of Nov. 8th, commenting on this statement,
remarks: "All the inconveniences we labour under at present, are so far
from being the consequence of the counsels of the late ministry, that
they are visibly the consequence of those of the 'Examiner's' party,
who brought the nation to the brink of Popery and slavery, from which
they were delivered by the Revolution; and are pursuing the same
measures again," etc. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: See "Memoirs relating to that Change" (vol. v., pp. 359-90).
The Queen's action in dismissing her ministers and dissolving Parliament
in September was, even to Swift himself, a matter for wonder:
"I never remember," he writes to Stella (Sept. 20th, 1710), "such
bold steps taken by a Court." And Tindal, commenting on the change,
says: "So sudden and so entire a change in the ministry is scarce to be
found in our history, especially where men of great abilities had served
with such zeal and success." ("Hist. of England," iv. 192.) [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on September 21st.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: "Pharsalia," i. 181-2.
"Hence debt unthrifty, careless to repay,
And usury still watching for its day:
Hence perjuries in every wrangling court;
And war, the needy bankrupt's last resort,"
N. ROWE.
Lucan wrote "_et_ concussa," [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: Commenting on this passage, "The Observator" of Nov. 8th
remarked: "One would take the author to be some very great man, since
he speaks so contemptuously of both Houses of Parliament; for they
actually found those doctrines, as then preached up, to be inconsistent
with the Revolution, and declared it loudly to the world without
whispering." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: Writing to the Earl of Peterborough (Feb. 1710/1), Swift
refers to "a pamphlet come out, called 'A Letter to Jacob Banks,' showing
that the liberty of Sweden was destroyed by the principle of passive
obedience." The pamphlet was written by one W. Benson, and bore
the title, "A Letter to Sir J---- B----, By Birth a S----,... Concerning
the late Minehead doctrine," etc., 1711. "This dispute," says
Swift to Peterborough, "would soon be ended, if the dunces who write
on each side, would plainly tell us what the object of this passive
obedience is in our country." (Scott, vol. xv., p. 423.)
See also, on this matter, "Examiner," Nos. 34 and 40 _post_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: Eumenes of Cardia was secretary to Alexander the Great, and
distinguished himself both as a statesman and general. He was killed
B.C. 316. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: The land tax at the time was four shillings in the pound.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: In her speech to Parliament on Nov. 27th, 1710, Anne said:
"The carrying on the war in all its parts, but particularly in Spain,
with the utmost vigour, is the likeliest means, with God's blessing, to
procure a safe and honourable peace for us and all our allies, whose
support and interest I have truly at heart" ("Journals of House of
Lords," xix, 166).]
[Footnote 12: This is a dig at the Duke of Marlborough, for what the
Tories thought an unnecessarily harsh insistence on the inclusion of a
clause in the preliminaries of the Gertruydenberg Treaty, which it was
thought he must have known would be rejected by Louis. They suspected
Marlborough did this in order to keep the war going, and so permit
himself further opportunities for enriching himself. The treaty for
peace, carried on at Gertruydenberg in 1710, was discussed by Marlborough
and Townshend acting for England, the Marquis de Torcy acting for France,
and Buys and Vanderdussen for the States. Several conferences took place,
and preliminary articles were even signed, but the Allies demanded a
security for the delivering of Spain. This Louis XIV. refused to do, and
the conference broke up in July, 1710. See Swift's "Conduct of the Allies"
(vol. v., pp. 55-123). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Horace, "Odes," I. ii. 23, 24.
"Our youth will hear, astonished at our crimes,
That Roman armies Romans slew;
Our youth, alas! will then be few."--A. MAYNWARING.
[T.S.]]
NUMB. 15.[1]
FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, 1710.
_E quibis hi vacuas implent sermonibus aures,
Hi narrata ferunt alio: mensuraque ficti
Crescit, et auditis aliquid novus adjicit autor,
Illic Credulitas, illic temerarius Error,
Vanaque Laetitia est, consternatique Timores,
Seditioque recens, dubioque autore susurri._[2]
I am prevailed on, through the importunity of friends, to interrupt the
scheme I had begun in my last paper, by an Essay upon the Art of
Political Lying. We are told, "the Devil is the father of lies, and was a
liar from the beginning"; so that beyond contradiction, the invention is
old: And which is more, his first essay of it was purely political,
employed in undermining the authority of his Prince, and seducing a third
part of the subjects from their obedience. For which he was driven down
from Heaven, where (as Milton expresseth it) he had been viceroy of a
great western province;[3] and forced to exercise his talent in inferior
regions among other fallen spirits, or poor deluded men, whom he still
daily tempts to his own sin, and will ever do so till he is chained in
the bottomless pit.
But though the Devil be the father of lies, he seems, like other great
inventors, to have lost much of his reputation, by the continual
improvements that have been made upon him.
Who first reduced lying into an art, and adapted it to politics, is not
so clear from history, though I have made some diligent enquiries: I
shall therefore consider it only according to the modern system, as it
has been cultivated these twenty years past in the southern part of our
own island.
The poets tell us, that after the giants were overthrown by the gods, the
earth in revenge produced her last offspring, which was Fame.[4] And the
fable is thus interpreted; that when tumults and seditions are quieted,
rumours and false reports are plentifully spread through a nation. So
that by this account, _lying_ is the last relief of a routed, earth-born,
rebellious party in a state. But here, the moderns have made great
additions, applying this art to the gaining of power, and preserving it,
as well as revenging themselves after they have lost it: as the same
instruments are made use of by animals to feed themselves when they are
hungry, and bite those that tread upon them.
But the same genealogy cannot always be admitted for _political lying;_ I
shall therefore desire to refine upon it, by adding some circumstances of
its birth and parents. A political lie is sometimes born out of a
discarded statesman's head, and thence delivered to be nursed and dandled
by the mob. Sometimes it is produced a monster, and _licked_ into shape;
at other times it comes into the world completely formed, and is spoiled
in the licking. It is often born an infant in the regular way, and
requires time to mature it: and often it sees the light in its full
growth, but dwindles away by degrees. Sometimes it is of noble birth; and
sometimes the spawn of a stock-jobber. _Here_, it screams aloud at the
opening of the womb; and _there_, it is delivered with a whisper. I know
a lie that now disturbs half the kingdom with its noise, which though too
proud and great at present to own its parents, I can remember in its
whisper-hood. To conclude the nativity of this monster; when it comes
into the world without a _sting_, it is still-born; and whenever it loses
its sting, it dies.
No wonder, if an infant so miraculous in its birth, should be destined
for great adventures: and accordingly we see it has been the guardian
spirit of a prevailing party for almost twenty years. It can conquer
kingdoms without fighting, and sometimes with the loss of a battle: It
gives and resumes employments; can sink a mountain to a mole-hill, and
raise a mole-hill to a mountain; has presided for many years at
committees of elections; can wash a blackamoor white; make a saint of an
atheist, and a patriot of a profligate; can furnish foreign ministers
with intelligence, and raise or let fall the credit of the nation. This
goddess flies with a huge looking-glass in her hands, to dazzle the
crowd, and make them see, according as she turns it, their ruin in their
interest, and their interest in their ruin. In this glass you will behold
your best friends clad in coats powdered with _flower-de-luces_[5] and
triple crowns; their girdles hung round with chains, and beads, and
wooden shoes: and your worst enemies adorned with the ensigns of liberty,
property, indulgence, and moderation, and a cornucopia in their hands.
Her large wings, like those of a flying-fish, are of no use but while
they are moist; she therefore dips them in mud, and soaring aloft
scatters it in the eyes of the multitude, flying with great swiftness;
but at every turn is forced to stoop in dirty way for new supplies.
I have been sometimes thinking, if a man had the art of the second sight
for seeing lies, as they have in Scotland for seeing spirits, how
admirably he might entertain himself in this town; to observe the
different shapes, sizes, and colours, of those swarms of lies which buzz
about the heads of some people, like flies about a horse's ears in
summer: or those legions hovering every afternoon in Popes-head Alley[6],
enough to darken the air; or over a club of discontented grandees, and
thence sent down in cargoes to be scattered at elections.
There is one essential point wherein a political liar differs from others
of the faculty; that he ought to have but a short memory, which is
necessary according to the various occasions he meets with every hour, of
differing from himself, and swearing to both sides of a contradiction, as
he finds the persons disposed, with whom he has to deal. In describing
the virtues and vices of mankind, it is convenient upon every article, to
have some eminent person in our eye, from whence we copy our description.
I have strictly observed this rule; and my imagination this minute
represents before me a certain great man[7] famous for this talent, to
the constant practice of which he owes his twenty years' reputation of
the most skilful head in England, for the management of nice affairs. The
superiority of his genius consists in nothing else but an inexhaustible
fund of political lies, which he plentifully distributes every minute he
speaks, and by an unparalleled generosity forgets, and consequently
contradicts the next half-hour. He never yet considered whether any
proposition were true or false, but whether it were convenient for the
present minute or company to affirm or deny it; so that if you think to
refine upon him, by interpreting every thing he says, as we do dreams by
the contrary, you are still to seek, and will find yourself equally
deceived, whether you believe him or no: the only remedy is to suppose
that you have heard some inarticulate sounds, without any meaning at all.
And besides, that will take off the horror you might be apt to conceive
at the oaths wherewith he perpetually tags both ends of every
proposition: though at the same time I think he cannot with any justice
be taxed for perjury, when he invokes God and Christ, because he has
often fairly given public notice to the world, that he believes in
neither.
Some people may think that such an accomplishment as this, can be of no
great use to the owner or his party, after it has been often practised,
and is become notorious; but they are widely mistaken: Few lies carry the
inventor's mark; and the most prostitute enemy to truth may spread a
thousand without being known for the author. Besides, as the vilest
writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it
often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done
its work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and
Truth comes limping after it; so that when men come to be undeceived, it
is too late, the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect: like a
man who has thought of a good repartee, when the discourse is changed, or
the company parted: or, like a physician who has found out an infallible
medicine, after the patient is dead.
Considering that natural disposition in many men to lie, and in
multitudes to believe, I have been perplexed what to do with that maxim,
so frequent in every body's mouth, that "Truth will at last prevail."
Here, has this island of ours, for the greatest part of twenty years,
lain under the influence of such counsels and persons, whose principle
and interest it was to corrupt our manners, blind our understandings,
drain our wealth, and in time destroy our constitution both in Church and
State; and we at last were brought to the very brink of ruin; yet by the
means of perpetual misrepresentations, have never been able to
distinguish between our enemies and friends. We have seen a great part of
the nation's money got into the hands of those, who by their birth,
education and merit, could pretend no higher than to wear our liveries;
while others,[8] who by their credit, quality and fortune, were only able
to give reputation and success to the Revolution, were not only laid
aside, as dangerous and useless; but loaden with the scandal of
Jacobites, men of arbitrary principles, and pensioners to France; while
Truth, who is said to lie in a well, seemed now to be buried there under
a heap of stones. But I remember, it was a usual complaint among the
Whigs, that the bulk of landed men was not in their interests, which some
of the wisest looked on as an ill omen; and we saw it was with the utmost
difficulty that they could preserve a majority, while the court and
ministry were on their side; till they had learned those admirable
expedients for deciding elections, and influencing distant boroughs by
_powerful motives_ from the city. But all this was mere force and
constraint, however upheld by most dexterous artifice and management:
till the people began to apprehend their properties, their religion, and
the monarchy itself in danger; then we saw them greedily laying hold on
the first occasion to interpose. But of this mighty change in the
dispositions of the people, I shall discourse more at large in some
following paper; wherein I shall endeavour to undeceive those deluded or
deluding persons, who hope or pretend, it is only a short madness in the
vulgar, from which they may soon recover. Whereas I believe it will
appear to be very different in its causes, its symptoms, and its
consequences; and prove a great example to illustrate the maxim I lately
mentioned, that "Truth" (however sometimes late) "will at last prevail."
[Footnote 1: No. 14 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," xii. 56-61.
"The troubled air with empty sounds they beat.
Intent to hear, and eager to repeat.
Error sits brooding there, with added train
Of vain Credulity, and Joys as vain:
Suspicion, with Sedition joined, are near,
And Rumours raised, and Murmurs mixed, and panic Fear."
J. DRYDEN.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: "Paradise Lost," v. 708-710. Milton makes Satan say: "We
possess the quarters of the North," and places his throne in "the limits
of the North." By speaking of a _western_ province Swift intends Ireland,
then under the government of the Earl of Wharton. This paper may be read
in connection with the 23rd number of "The Examiner," and the "Short
Character of Wharton" (vol. v., pp. 1-28). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: Fama was said to be a daughter of Terra. See Virgil,
"Aeneid," iv. 173-178. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: A reply to the insinuations that the Tories were sympathetic
to France, and that the Whigs were the true patriots. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: The reprint has "Exchange Alley." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The Earl of Wharton. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: Refers to the Tories generally, and in particular to Sir
Thomas Osborne, Bart. (1631-1712), who was created Duke of Leeds in 1694.
In 1679, as Earl of Danby, he was impeached by the Commons, and
imprisoned in the Tower for five years. "He assisted greatly," says
Scott, "in the Revolution, yet continued a steady Tory, and avowed at
Sacheverell's trial, that, had he known the Prince of Orange designed
to assume the crown, he never would have drawn a sword for him."
[T.S.]]
NUMB. 16.[1]
FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, 1710.
---_medioque ut limite curras,
Icare, ait, moneo: ne si demissior ibis,
Unda gravet pennas, si celsior, ignis adurat._[2]
It must be avowed, that for some years past, there have been few things
more wanted in England, than such a paper as this ought to be; and such
as I will endeavour to make it, as long as it shall be found of any use,
without entering into the violences of either party. Considering the many
grievous misrepresentations of persons and things, it is highly
requisite, at this juncture, that the people throughout the kingdom,
should, if possible, be set right in their opinions by some impartial
hand, which has never been yet attempted: those who have hitherto
undertaken it, being upon every account the least qualified of all
human-kind for such a work.
We live here under a limited monarchy, and under the doctrine and
discipline of an excellent Church: We are unhappily divided into two
parties, both which pretend a mighty zeal for our religion and
government, only they disagree about the means.[3] The evils we must
fence against are, on one side, fanaticism and infidelity in religion;
and anarchy, under the name of a commonwealth, in government: on the
other side, popery, slavery, and the Pretender from France. Now to inform
and direct us in our sentiments, upon these weighty points; here are on
one side two stupid, illiterate scribblers, both of them fanatics by
profession; I mean the "Review"[4] and "Observator."[5] On the other side
we have an open Nonjuror,[6] whose character and person, as well as good
learning and sense, discovered upon other subjects, do indeed deserve
respect and esteem; but his "Rehearsal," and the rest of his political
papers, are yet more pernicious than those of the former two. If the
generality of the people know not how to talk or think, till they have
read their lesson in the papers of the week, what a misfortune is it that
their duty should be conveyed to them through such vehicles as those? For
let some gentlemen think what they please, I cannot but suspect, that the
two worthies I first mentioned, have in a degree done mischief among us;
the mock authoritative manner of the one, and the insipid mirth of the
other, however insupportable to reasonable ears, being of a level with
great numbers among the lowest part of mankind. Neither was the author of
the "Rehearsal," while he continued that paper, less infectious to many
persons of better figure, who perhaps were as well qualified, and much
less prejudiced, to judge for themselves.
It was this reason, that moved me to take the matter out of those rough,
as well as those dirty hands, to let the remote and uninstructed part of
the nation see, that they have been misled on both sides, by mad,
ridiculous extremes, at a wide distance on each side from the truth;
while the right path is so broad and plain, as to be easily kept, if they
were once put into it.
Further, I had lately entered on a resolution to take very little notice
of other papers, unless it were such, where the malice and falsehood, had
so great a mixture of wit and spirit, as would make them dangerous; which
in the present circle of scribbles, from twelvepence to a halfpenny, I
could easily foresee would not very frequently occur. But here again, I
am forced to dispense with my resolution, though it be only to tell my
reader, what measures I am like to take on such occasions for the future.
I was told that the paper called "The Observator," was twice filled last
week with remarks upon a late "Examiner."[7] These I read with the first
opportunity, and to speak in the news-writers' phrase, they gave me
occasion for many speculations. I observed with singular pleasure, the
nature of those things, which the owners of them, usually call _answers_;
and with what dexterity this matchless author had fallen into the whole
art and cant of them. To transcribe here and there three or four detached
lines of least weight in a discourse, and by a foolish comment mistake
every syllable of the meaning, is what I have known many of a superior
class, to this formidable adversary, entitle an "Answer."[8] This is what
he has exactly done in about thrice as many words as my whole discourse;
which is so mighty an advantage over me, that I shall by no means engage
in so unequal a combat; but as far as I can judge of my own temper,
entirely dismiss him for the future; heartily wishing he had a match
exactly of his own size to meddle with, who should only have the odds of
truth and honesty; which as I take it, would be an effectual way to
silence him for ever. Upon this occasion, I cannot forbear a short story
of a fanatic farmer who lived in my neighbourhood, and was so great a
disputant in religion, that the servants in all the families thereabouts,
reported, how he had confuted the bishop and all his clergy. I had then a
footman who was fond of reading the Bible, and I borrowed a comment for
him, which he studied so close, that in a month or two I thought him a
match for the farmer. They disputed at several houses, with a ring of
servants and other people always about them, where Ned explained his
texts so full and clear, to the capacity of his audience, and showed the
insignificancy of his adversary's cant, to the meanest understanding,
that he got the whole country of his side, and the farmer was cured of
his itch of disputation for ever after.
The worst of it is, that this sort of outrageous party-writers I have
above spoke of, are like a couple of make-bates, who inflame small
quarrels by a thousand stories, and by keeping friends at a distance
hinder them from coming to a good understanding, as they certainly would,
if they were suffered to meet and debate between themselves. For let any
one examine a reasonable honest man of either side, upon those opinions
in religion and government, which both parties daily buffet each other
about, he shall hardly find one material point in difference between
them. I would be glad to ask a question about two great men[9] of the
late ministry, how they came to be Whigs? and by what figure of speech,
half a dozen others, lately put into great employments, can be called
Tories? I doubt, whoever would suit the definition to the persons, must
make it directly contrary to what we understood it at the time of the
Revolution.
In order to remove these misapprehensions among us, I believe it will be
necessary upon occasion, to detect the malice and falsehood of some
popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week,
and draw an hundred absurd consequences from them.
For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence
in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger,
when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago: and the Queen
herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10]
Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has,
since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then
have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the
two Houses. The Queen's words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the
Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or
thinks that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor. But
that the Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes
that ever reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a
truth, as a man must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to
doubt. The wisest prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his
affairs, and the present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the
craft of ill designing men: One or two ministers, most in his confidence,
may _at first_ have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by
avarice, by love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to
gratify their passions or interests, from _one set of men_ than another,
till they are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take
"seven spirits more wicked than themselves." This is a very possible
case; and will not "the last state of such men be worse than the first"?
that is to say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in
danger by such proceedings as these? And shall a faithful subject, who
foresees and trembles at the consequences, be called _disaffected_,
because he delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly
may, that the danger is not owing to his administration? Or, shall the
prince himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs
into other hands, with the universal applause of his people? As to the
vote against those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it
likewise referred to danger from or under the Queen's administration,
(for I neither have it by me, nor can suddenly have recourse to it;) but
if it were otherwise, I know not how it can refer to any dangers but what
were past, or at that time present; or how it could affect the future,
unless the senators were all _inspired_, or at least that majority which
voted it. Neither do I see any crime further than ill manners, to differ
in opinion from a majority of either or both Houses; and that ill
manners, I must confess I have been often guilty of for some years past,
though I hope I never shall again.
Another topic of great use to these weekly inflamers, is the young
Pretender[11] in France, to whom their whole party is in a high measure
indebted for all their greatness; and whenever it lies in their power,
they may perhaps return their acknowledgments, as out of their zeal for
frequent revolutions, they were ready to do to his supposed father:
which is a piece of secret history, that I hope will one day see the
light; and I am sure it shall, if ever I am master of it, without
regarding whose ears may tingle.[12] But at present, the word _Pretender_
is a term of art in their possession: A secretary of state cannot desire
leave to resign, but the Pretender is at bottom: the Queen cannot
dissolve a Parliament, but it is a plot to dethrone herself, and bring in
the Pretender. Half a score stock-jobbers are playing the knave in
Exchange-Alley, and there goes the Pretender with a sponge. One would be
apt to think they bawl out the Pretender so often, to take off the
terror; or tell so many lies about him, to slacken our caution, that when
he is really coming, _by their connivance_, we may not believe them; as
the boy served the shepherds about the coming of the wolf. Or perhaps
they scare us with the Pretender, because they think he may be like some
diseases, that come with a fright. Do they not believe that the Queen's
present ministry love her Majesty, at least as well as _some others_
loved the Church? And why is it not as great mark of disaffection now to
say the Queen is in danger, as it was some months ago to affirm the same
of the Church? Suppose it be a false opinion, that the Queen's right is
hereditary and indefeasible; yet how is it possible that those who hold
and believe that doctrine, can be in the Pretender's interest? His title
is weakened by every argument that strengthens hers. It is as plain as
the words of an Act of Parliament can make it, that her present Majesty
is heir to the survivor of the late King and Queen her sister. Is not
that an hereditary right? What need we explain it any further? I have
known an Article of Faith expounded in much looser and more general
terms, and that by an author whose opinions are very much followed by a
certain party.[13] Suppose we go further, and examine the word
_indefeasible_, with which some writers of late have made themselves so
merry: I confess it is hard to conceive, how any law which the supreme
power makes, may not by the same power be repealed: so that I shall not
determine, whether the Queen's right be indefeasible or no. But this I
will maintain, that whoever affirms it so, is not guilty of a crime. For
in that settlement of the crown after the Revolution, where her present
Majesty is named in remainder,[14] there are (as near as I can remember)
these remarkable words, "to which we bind ourselves and our posterity for
ever." Lawyers may explain this, or call them words of form, as they
please: and reasoners may argue that such an obligation is against the
very nature of government; but a plain reader, who takes the words in
their natural meaning, may be excused, in thinking a right so confirmed,
is _indefeasible_; and if there be an absurdity in such an opinion, he is
not to answer for it.
_P.S._ When this paper was going to the press, the printer brought me two
more _Observators_,[15] wholly taken up in my _Examiner_ upon lying,
which I was at the pains to read; and they are just such an answer, as
the two others I have mentioned. This is all I have to say on that
matter.
[Footnote 1: No. 15 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," viii. 203-5.
"My boy, take care
To wing your course along the middle air:
If low, the surges wet your flagging plumes;
If high, the sun the melting wax consumes."
S. CROXALL.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: See the pamphlets: "The Thoughts of an Honest Tory," 1710
[by Bp. Hoadly]; "Faults on both Sides ... by way of answer to
'The Thoughts of an Honest Tory,'" 1710 [by a Mr. Clements]; and
"Faults in the Fault-Finder: or, a Specimen of Errors in ... 'Faults
on Both Sides,'" 1710; etc., etc. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: "The Review" was edited by Daniel Defoe. He commenced
it on February 19th, 1703/4, as "A Weekly Review of the Affairs of
France"; but about this time it had lost much of its early spring and
verve. It was discontinued after June 11th, 1713. Gay thought,
speaking of "The Review," that Defoe was "a lively instance of
those wits, who, as an ingenious author says, will endure but one
skimming" ("Present State of Wit"). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: "The Observator" was founded by John Tutchin. The first
number was issued April 1st, 1702, and it appeared, with some intervals,
until July, 1712, though Tutchin himself died in 1707. For his
partisanship for Monmouth poor Tutchin came under the anger of Judge
Jeffreys, who sentenced him to several floggings. Pope's couplet in
the "Dunciad" has immortalized him:
"Earless on high stood unabashed De Foe,
And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below."
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: This was the Rev. Charles Leslie, whose periodical, "The
Rehearsal," was avowedly Jacobite. The paper appeared from August
5th, 1704, until March 26th, 1709. In 1708-9 all the numbers were
republished in four volumes folio, with the title: "A View of the
Times, their Principles and Practices: in the First [Second, etc.]
Volume of the Rehearsals," and under the pseudonym "Philalethes."
Later he engaged in a controversy with Bishop Hoadly. See also
note on p. 354, vol. v.
Of Swift's use of the term "Nonjuror," "The Medley" (June 18th,
1711, No. 38) made the following remarks: "If he speaks of him with
relation to his party, there can be nothing so inconsistent as a Whig
and a Nonjuror: and if he talks of him merely as an author, all the
authors in the world are Nonjurors, but the ingenious divine who writ
'The Tale of a Tub' ... for he is the first man who introduced those
figures of rhetoric we call swearing and cursing in print." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: "The Observator" for November 8th, 1710 (vol. ix., No. 85),
was filled with _more_ remarks on the fourteenth "Examiner." Presumably
the issue for November 4th, which is not accessible, commenced the
attack. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: A humorous specimen of this kind of an "Answer" was given by
Swift in No. 23 of "The Examiner," _post._ [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin, who commenced
their political career as Tories, and only became Whigs through the
necessity of identifying their own principles with that of the party
which supported their power. [S.]]
[Footnote 10: On December 6th, 1705, the House of Lords passed the
following resolution: "That the Church of England ... is now, by God's
blessing, under the happy reign of her Majesty, in a most safe and
flourishing condition; and that whoever goes about to suggest and
insinuate, that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's
administration, is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom"
("Jls. of House of Lords," xviii. 43). On December 8th the House of
Commons, by a majority of 212 against 162, agreed to this resolution. In
her speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 5th, 1710, the Queen
said: "The suppressing immorality ... is what I have always earnestly
recommended; ... but, this being an evil complained of in all times, it
is very injurious to take a pretence from thence, to insinuate that the
Church is in any danger from my administration" ("Jls. Of House of
Lords," xix. 145). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: James, Duke of Cornwall (1688-1766), known as the Chevalier
de St. George. At one time the belief was current that the wife of James
II. did not give birth to a child, and the "young Pretender" was supposed
to be a son of one Mary Grey (see note on p. 409 of vol. v. of present
edition of Swift's works). See also: "State-Amusements, Serious and
Hypocritical ... Birth of the Pretended Prince of Wales," 1711;
"Seasonable Queries relating to the Birth and Birthright of a Certain
Person," 1714; and other pamphlets. In the Act for the Succession to the
Crown (6 Ann. c. 41), he is styled, "the Pretended Prince of Wales."
History afterwards called him the "Old Pretender" to distinguish him from
Charles Edward, the "bonnie Prince Charlie," the Young Pretender. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: Swift kept his word. See "An Enquiry into ... the Queen's
Last Ministry," 1715 (Swift's Works, vol. v., p. 458 _sq._), and his
"History of the Four Last Years of the Queen," 1758. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: By Bishop Burnet in his "Exposition of the Thirty-Nine
Articles." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: The reference here is to the Bill of Rights (1 William and
Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), where it is said: "And thereunto the said Lords
spiritual and temporal and Commons do, in the name of all the people
aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and
posterities, for ever." In the recital in the Act of Settlement (12 and
13 W. III. c. 2) the words "for ever" are omitted. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: "The Observator" of November 11th and 15th (vol. ix., Nos.
86 and 87). In No. 86 "The Examiner" is given "a spiritual shove," and,
quoting his statement that a political liar "ought to have but a short
memory" to meet occasions "of differing from himself, and swearing to
both sides of a contradiction," adds, "the 'Examiner' has this essential
qualification of a political liar." It is amusing to find in the same
issue "The Observator" calling Jezebel a Tory, and Elijah and Naboth,
Whigs! [T.S.]]
NUMB. 17.[1]
FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, 1710.
_Qui sunt boni cives? Qui belli, qui domi de patriГў bene merentes, nisi
qui patriae beneficia meminerunt?_[2]
I will employ this present paper upon a subject, which of late hath very
much affected me, which I have considered with a good deal of
application, and made several enquiries about, among those persons who I
thought were best able to inform me; and if I deliver my sentiments with
some freedom, I hope it will be forgiven, while I accompany it with that
tenderness which so nice a point requires.
I said in a former paper (Numb. 14) that one specious objection to the
late removals at court, was the fear of giving uneasiness to a general,
who has been long successful abroad: and accordingly, the common clamour
of tongues and pens for some months past, has run against the baseness,
the inconstancy and ingratitude of the whole kingdom to the Duke of
M[arlborough], in return of the most eminent services that ever were
performed by a subject to his country; not to be equalled in history. And
then to be sure some bitter stroke of detraction against Alexander and
Caesar, who never did us the least injury. Besides, the people that read
Plutarch come upon us with parallels drawn from the Greeks and Romans,
who ungratefully dealt with I know not how many of their most deserving
generals: while the profounder politicians, have seen pamphlets, where
Tacitus and Machiavel have been quoted to shew the danger of too
resplendent a merit. Should a stranger hear these furious outcries of
ingratitude against our general, without knowing the particulars, he
would be apt to enquire where was his tomb, or whether he were allowed
Christian burial? not doubting but we had put him to some ignominious
death. Or, has he been tried for his life, and very narrowly escaped? has
he been accused of high crimes and misdemeanours? has the prince seized
on his estate, and left him to starve? has he been hooted at as he passed
the streets, by an ungrateful mob? have neither honours, offices nor
grants, been conferred on him or his family? have not he and they been
barbarously stripped of them all? have not he and his forces been ill
paid abroad? and does not the prince by a scanty, limited commission,
hinder him from pursuing his own methods in the conduct of the war?
has he no power at all of disposing commissions as he pleases? is he not
severely used by the ministry or Parliament, who yearly call him to a
strict account? has the senate ever thanked him for good success, and
have they not always publicly censured him for the least miscarriage?
Will the accusers of the nation join issue upon any of these particulars,
or tell us in what point, our damnable sin of ingratitude lies? Why, it
is plain and clear; for while he is commanding abroad, the Queen
dissolves her Parliament, and changes her ministry at home: in which
universal calamity, no less than two persons[3] allied by marriage to the
general, have lost their places. Whence came this wonderful sympathy
between the civil and military powers? Will the troops in Flanders refuse
to fight, unless they can have their own lord keeper, their own lord
president of the council, their own chief Governor of Ireland, and their
own Parliament? In a kingdom where the people are free, how came they to
be so fond of having their councils under the influence of their army, or
those that lead it? who in all well instituted states, had no commerce
with the civil power, further than to receive their orders, and obey them
without reserve.
When a general is not so popular, either in his army or at home, as one
might expect from a long course of success; it may perhaps be ascribed to
his wisdom, or perhaps to his complexion. The possession of some one
quality, or a defect in some other, will extremely damp the people's
favour, as well as the love of the soldiers. Besides, this is not an age
to produce favourites of the people, while we live under a Queen who
engrosses all our love, and all our veneration; and where, the only way
for a great general or minister, to acquire any degree of subordinate
affection from the public, must be by all marks of the most entire
submission and respect, to her sacred person and commands;[4] otherwise,
no pretence of great services, either in the field or the cabinet, will
be able to screen them from universal hatred.
But the late ministry was closely joined to the general, by friendship,
interest, alliance, inclination and opinion, which cannot be affirmed of
the present; and the ingratitude of the nation, lies in the people's
joining as one man, to wish, that such a ministry should be changed. Is
it not at the same time notorious to the whole kingdom, that nothing but
a tender regard to the general, was able to preserve that ministry so
long, till neither God nor man could suffer their continuance? Yet in the
highest ferment of things, we heard few or no reflections upon this great
commander, but all seemed unanimous in wishing he might still be at the
head of the confederate forces; only at the same time, in case he were
resolved to resign, they chose rather to turn their thoughts somewhere
else, than throw up all in despair. And this I cannot but add, in defence
of the people, with regard to the person we are speaking of, that in the
high station he has been for many years past, his real defects (as
nothing human is without them) have in a detracting age been very
sparingly mentioned, either in libels or conversation, and all his
successes very freely and universally applauded.
There is an active and a passive ingratitude; applying both to this
occasion, we may say, the first is, when a prince or people returns good
services with cruelty or ill usage: the other is, when good services are
not at all, or very meanly rewarded. We have already spoke of the former;
let us therefore in the second place, examine how the services of our
general have been rewarded; and whether upon that article, either prince
or people have been guilty of ingratitude?
Those are the most valuable rewards, which are given to us from the
certain knowledge of the donor, that they _fit our temper best:_ I shall
therefore say nothing of the title of Duke, or the Garter, which the
Queen bestowed [on] the general in the beginning of her reign; but I
shall come to more substantial instances, and mention nothing which has
not been given in the face of the world.[5] The lands of Woodstock, may,
I believe, be reckoned worth 40,000_l_. On the building of Blenheim
Castle 200,000_l_. have been already expended, though it be not yet near
finished. The grant of 5,000_l. per ann._ on the post-office, is richly
worth 100,000_l_. His principality in Germany may be computed at
30,000_l_. Pictures, jewels, and other gifts from foreign princes,
60,000_l_. The grant at the Pall-Mall, the rangership, &c. for want of
more certain knowledge, may be called 10,000,_l_. His own, and his
duchess's employments at five years value, reckoning only the known and
avowed salaries, are very low rated at 100,000_l_. Here is a good deal
above half a million of money, and I dare say, those who are loudest with
the clamour of ingratitude, will readily own, that all this is but a
trifle in comparison of what is untold.[6]
The reason of my stating this account is only to convince the world, that
we are not quite so ungrateful either as the Greeks or the Romans. And in
order to adjust this matter with all fairness, I shall confine myself to
the latter, who were much the more generous of the two. A victorious
general of Rome in the height of that empire, having entirely subdued his
enemy, was rewarded with the larger triumph; and perhaps a statue in the
Forum, a bull for a sacrifice, an embroidered garment to appear in: a
crown of laurel, a monumental trophy with inscriptions; sometimes five
hundred or a thousand copper coins were struck on occasion of the
victory, which doing honour to the general, we will place to his account;
and lastly, sometimes, though not very frequently, a triumphal arch.
These are all the rewards that I can call to mind, which a victorious
general received after his return from the most glorious expedition,
conquered some great kingdom, brought the king himself, his family and
nobles to adorn the triumph in chains, and made the kingdom either a
Roman province, or at best a poor depending state, in humble alliance to
that empire. Now of all these rewards, I find but two which were of real
profit to the general; the laurel crown, made and sent him at the charge
of the public, and the embroidered garment; but I cannot find whether
this last were paid for by the senate or the general: however, we will
take the more favourable opinion, and in all the rest, admit the whole
expense, as if it were ready money in the general's pocket. Now according
to these computations on both sides, we will draw up two fair accounts,
the one of Roman gratitude, and the other of British ingratitude, and set
them together in balance.
A BILL OF ROMAN GRATITUDE.
l. s. d.
Imprimis for frankincense and earthen pots
to burn it in 4 10 0
A bull for sacrifice 8 0 0
An embroidered garment 50 0 0
A crown of laurel 0 0 2
A statue 100 0 0
A trophy 80 0 0
A thousand copper medals value half pence
a piece 2 1 8
A triumphal arch 500 0 0
A triumphal car, valued as a modern coach 100 0 0
Casual charges at the triumph 150 0 0
-------------
Sum total 994 11 10
A BILL OF BRITISH INGRATITUDE.
