l. s. d.
Imprimis Woodstock 40,000 0 0
Blenheim 200,000 0 0
Post-office grant 100,000 0 0
Mildenheim 30,000 0 0
Pictures, jewels, &c. 60,000 0 0
Pall-Mall grant, &c. 10,000 0 0
Employments 100,000 0 0
-----------------
Sum total[7] 540,000 0 0
This is an account of the visible profits on both sides; and if the Roman
general had any private perquisites, they may be easily discounted, and
by more probable computations, and differ yet more upon the balance; if
we consider, that all the gold and silver for safeguards and
contributions, also all valuable prizes taken in the war were openly
exposed in the triumph, and then lodged in the Capitol for the
public service.
So that upon the whole, we are not yet quite so bad at _worst_, as the
Romans were at _best_. And I doubt, those who raise this hideous cry of
ingratitude, may be mightily mistaken in the consequence they propose
from such complaints. I remember a saying of Seneca, _Multos ingratos
invenimus, plures facimus;_ "We find many ungrateful persons in the
world, but we _make_ more," by setting too high a rate upon our
pretensions, and under-valuing the rewards we receive. When unreasonable
bills are brought in, they ought to be taxed, or cut off in the middle.
Where there have been long accounts between two persons, I have known one
of them perpetually making large demands and pressing for payments, who
when the accounts were cast up on both sides, was found to be creditor
for some hundreds. I am thinking if a proclamation were issued out for
every man to send in his _bill of merits_, and the lowest price he set
them at, what a pretty sum it would amount to, and how many such islands
as this must be sold to pay them. I form my judgment from the practice of
those who sometimes happen to pay themselves, and I dare affirm, would
not be so unjust to take a farthing more than they think is due to their
deserts. I will instance only in one article. A lady of my
acquaintance,[8] appropriated twenty-six pounds a year out of her
allowance, for certain uses, which her woman received, and was to pay to
the lady or her order, as it was called for. But after eight years, it
appeared upon the strictest calculation, that the woman had paid but four
pound a year, and sunk two-and-twenty for her own pocket. It is but
supposing instead of twenty-six pound, twenty-six thousand, and by that
you may judge what the pretensions of _modern merit_ are, where it
happens to be its own paymaster.
[Footnote 1: No. 16 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: "Who are the good citizens? Who are they who--whether at
war or at home--deserve well of their country, but those who bear in
mind the benefits she has already conferred upon them?" [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: The Earl of Sunderland and Lord Godolphin. Sunderland was
succeeded by Dartmouth, in June, as Secretary of State, and Godolphin
returned his staff of treasurer in August, the office being placed in
commission. Sunderland and Godolphin were both related to Marlborough
by marriage. The former married Anne, and the son of the latter
Henrietta, daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: See "Memoirs relating to that Change" (Swift's Works, vol.
v., pp. 367-8). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: The Queen's Message, proposing to grant to the Duke of
Marlborough the Manor of Woodstock and Hundred of Wootton, was read
January 17th, 1704/5. A Bill carrying this proposal into effect was
introduced January 25th, and passed February 3rd. Blenheim House, erected
at the Queen's expense, was settled to go with the dukedom by a Bill
introduced in the House of Lords, which passed all its stages in the
Commons December 20th, 1706. The pension of ВЈ5,000 per annum upon the
revenue of the Post Office, granted by the Queen for her lifetime
in December, 1702--at a time when the Commons expressed their "trouble"
that they could not comply--was made perpetual by a Bill introduced
January 14th, 1706/7, passed January 18th, Royal Assent given January
28th (see "Journals of House of Commons," xiv. and xv.). [T.S.] ]
[Footnote 6: A broadside, printed in 1712, entitled, "The D----e and D---
-s of M----h's Loss; being an Estimate of their former Yearly Income,"
reckons the duke's emoluments at ВЈ54,825 per annum, and those of the
duchess at ВЈ7,500. In the second edition the following paragraph is
added:
"The following sums have been rec'd since the year 1701:
"Receiv'd on Accompt of Bread and Bread-waggons ВЈ63,319 3 7
Receiv'd 10,000,_l_. by Annual Contingencies 100,000 0 0
Receiv'd by 2 and 1/2 _per cent_, from the
payment of Troops 460,062 6 7-3/4
-----------------
623,381 10 2-3/4"
-----------------]
[Footnote 7: In the tenth number of "The Medley" (December 4th, 1710)
occurs the following: "'The Examiner,' having it in his thoughts to
publish the falsest, as well as the most impudent paper that ever was
printed, writ a previous discourse about lying, as a necessary
introduction to what was to follow. The first paper was the precept, and
the second was the example. By the falsest paper that ever was printed, I
mean the 'Examiner' Numb. 17, in which he pretends to give an account of
what the Duke of Marlborough has got by his services." The writer in the
"Medley," admitting even the correctness of the "Examiner's" sum of
ВЈ540,000, sets off against this the value of the several battles won by
the Duke, and "twenty seven towns taken, which being reckoned at
300,000_l_. a town (the price that Dunkirk was sold at before it was
fortified) amounts in all, throwing in the battles and the
fortifications, to 8,100,000_l_." The balance in favour of the Duke, and
presumably in justification of the gifts made him, gave a net result of
ВЈ7,560,000. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The Duchess of Marlborough, who admitted that the comparison
was intended for herself, explained the matter thus: "At the Queen's
accession to the government, she ... desired me to take out of the
privy-purse 2,000_l_. a year, in order to some purchase for my advantage
... I constantly declined it; until the time, that, notwithstanding the
uncommon regard I had shown to Her Majesty's interest and honour in the
execution of my trusts, she was pleased to dismiss me from her service
... By the advice of my friends, I sent the Queen one of her own letters,
in which she had pressed me to take the 2,00_l_. a year; and I wrote at
the same time to ask Her Majesty whether she would allow me to charge in
the privy-purse accounts, which I was to send her, that yearly sum from
the time of the offer, amounting to 18,000_l_. Her Majesty was pleased to
answer, that I might charge it. This therefore I did" ("An Account of the
Conduct of ... Duchess of Marlborough," 1742, pp. 293-5). The Duchess of
Somerset and Mrs. Masham superseded the Duchess of Marlborough in
January, 1710/1. [T.S.]]
NUMB. 18.[1]
FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, 1710.
_Quas res luxuries in flagitus,... avaritia in rapinis, superbia in
contumeliis efficere potuisset; eas omnes sese hoc uno praetore per
triennium pertulisse aiebant_.[2]
When I first undertook this paper, I was resolved to concern myself only
with things, and not with persons. Whether I have kept or broken this
resolution, I cannot recollect; and I will not be at the pains to
examine, but leave the matter to those little antagonists, who may want a
topic for criticism. Thus much I have discovered, that it is in writing
as in building; where, after all our schemes and calculations, we are
mightily deceived in our accounts, and often forced to make use of any
materials we can find, that the work may be kept a going. Besides, to
speak my opinion, the things I have occasion to mention, are so closely
linked to persons, that nothing but Time (the father of Oblivion) can
separate them. Let me put a parallel case: Suppose I should complain,
that last week my coach was within an inch of overturning, in a smooth,
even way, and drawn by very gentle horses; to be sure, all my friends
would immediately lay the fault upon John,[3] because they knew, he then
presided in my coach-box. Again, suppose I should discover some
uneasiness to find myself, I knew not how, over head-and-ears in debt,
though I was sure my tenants paid their rents very well, and that I never
spent half my income; they would certainly advise me to turn off Mr.
Oldfox[4] my receiver, and take another. If, as a justice of peace, I
should tell a friend that my warrants and mittimuses were never drawn up
as I would have them; that I had the misfortune to send an honest man to
gaol, and dismiss a knave; he would bid me no longer trust Charles and
Harry,[5] my two clerks, whom he knew to be ignorant, wilful, assuming
and ill-inclined fellows. If I should add, that my tenants made me very
uneasy with their squabbles and broils among themselves; he would
counsel me to cashier Will Bigamy,[6] the seneschal of my manor. And
lastly, if my neighbour and I happened to have a misunderstanding about
the delivery of a message, what could I do less than strip and discard
the blundering or malicious rascal that carried it?[7]
It is the same thing in the conduct of public affairs, where they have
been managed with rashness or wilfulness, corruption, ignorance or
injustice; barely to relate the facts, at least, while they are fresh in
memory, will as much reflect upon the persons concerned, as if we had
told their names at length.
I have therefore since thought of another expedient, frequently practised
with great safety and success by satirical writers: which is, that of
looking into history for some character bearing a resemblance to the
person we would describe; and with the absolute power of altering, adding
or suppressing what circumstances we please, I conceived we must have
very bad luck, or very little skill to fail. However, some days ago in a
coffee-house, looking into one of the politic weekly papers; I found the
writer had fallen into this scheme, and I happened to light on that part,
where he was describing a person, who from small beginnings grew (as I
remember) to be constable of France, and had a very haughty, imperious
wife.[8] I took the author as a friend to our faction, (for so with great
propriety of speech they call the Queen and ministry, almost the whole
clergy, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom)[9] and I said to a
gentleman near me, that although I knew well enough what persons the
author meant, yet there were several particulars in the husband's
character, which I could not reconcile, for that of the lady was just and
adequate enough; but it seems I mistook the whole matter, and applied all
I had read to a couple of persons, who were not at that time in the
writer's thoughts.
Now to avoid such a misfortune as this, I have been for some time
consulting Livy and Tacitus, to find out a character of a _Princeps
Senatus,_ a _Praetor Urbanus,_ a _Quaestor Aerarius_, a _Caesari ab
Epistolis_, and a _Proconsul_;[10] but among the worst of them, I cannot
discover one from whom to draw a parallel, without doing injury to a
Roman memory: so that I am compelled to have recourse to Tully. But this
author relating facts only as an orator, I thought it would be best to
observe his method, and make an extract from six harangues of his against
Verres, only still preserving the form of an oration. I remember a
younger brother of mine, who deceased about two months ago, presented
the world with a speech of Alcibiades against an Athenian brewer:[11]
Now, I am told for certain, that in those days there was no ale in
Athens; and therefore that speech, or at least a great part of it, must
needs be spurious. The difference between me and my brother is this; he
makes Alcibiades say a great deal more than he really did, and I make
Cicero say a great deal less.[12] This Verres had been the Roman governor
of Sicily for three years; and on return from his government, the
Sicilians entreated Cicero to impeach him in the Senate, which he
accordingly did in several orations, from whence I have faithfully
translated and abstracted that which follows.
"MY LORDS,[13]
"A pernicious opinion hath for some time prevailed, not only at Rome, but
among our neighbouring nations, that a man who has money enough, though
he be ever so guilty, cannot be condemned in this place. But however
industriously this opinion be spread, to cast an odium on the Senate, we
have brought before your lordships Caius Verres, a person, for his life
and actions, already condemned by all men; but as he hopes, and gives
out, by the influence of his wealth, to be here absolved. In condemning
this man, you have an opportunity of belying that general scandal, of
redeeming the credit lost by former judgments, and recovering the love of
the Roman people, as well as of our neighbours. I have brought a man here
before you, my lords, who is a robber of the public treasure, an
overturner of law and justice, and the disgrace, as well as destruction,
of the Sicilian province: of whom, if you shall determine with equity and
due severity, your authority will remain entire, and upon such an
establishment as it ought to be: but if his great riches will be able to
force their way through that religious reverence and truth, which become
so awful an assembly, I shall, however, obtain thus much, that the defect
will be laid where it ought, and that it shall not be objected that the
criminal was not produced, or that there wanted an orator to accuse him.
This man, my lords, has publicly said, that those ought to be afraid of
accusations who have only robbed enough for their own support and
maintenance; but that _he_ has plundered sufficient to bribe numbers, and
that nothing is so high or so holy which money cannot corrupt. Take that
support from him, and he can have no other left. For what eloquence will
be able to defend a man, whose life has been tainted with so many
scandalous vices, and who has been so long condemned by the universal
opinion of the world? To pass over the foul stains and ignominy of his
youth, his corrupt management in all employments he has borne, his
treachery and irreligion, his injustice and oppression, he has left of
late such monuments of his villainies in Sicily, made such havoc and
confusion there, during his government, that the province cannot by any
means be restored to its former state, and hardly recover itself at all
under many years, and by a long succession of good governors. While this
man governed in that island, the Sicilians had neither the benefit of our
laws, nor their own, nor even of common right. In Sicily, no man now
possesses more than what the governor's lust and avarice have overlooked,
or what he was forced to neglect out of mere weariness and satiety of
oppression. Every thing where he presided, was determined by his
arbitrary will, and the best subjects he treated as enemies. To recount
his abominable debaucheries, would offend any modest ear, since so many
could not preserve their daughters and wives from his lust. I believe
there is no man who ever heard his name, that cannot relate his
enormities. We bring before you in judgment, my lords, a public robber,
an adulterer, a DEFILER OF ALTARS,[14] an enemy of religion, and of all
that is sacred; he sold all employments in Sicily of judicature,
magistracy, and trust, places in the council, and the priesthood itself,
to the highest bidder; and has plundered that island of forty millions of
sesterces. And here I cannot but observe to your lordships, in what
manner Verres passed the day: the morning was spent in taking bribes, and
selling employments, the rest of it in drunkenness and lust. His
discourse at table was scandalously unbecoming the dignity of his
station; noise, brutality, and obsceneness. One particular I cannot omit,
that in the high character of governor of Sicily, upon a solemn day, a
day set apart for public prayer for the safety of the commonwealth; he
stole at evening, in a chair, to a married woman of infamous
character,[15] against all decency and prudence, as well as against all
laws both human and divine. Didst thou think, O Verres, the government of
Sicily was given thee with so large a commission, only by the power of
that to break all the bars of law, modesty, and duty, to suppose all
men's fortunes thine, and leave no house free from thy rapine, or lust?
&c."
This extract, to deal ingenuously, has cost me more pains than I think it
is worth, having only served to convince me, that modern corruptions are
not to be paralleled by ancient examples, without having recourse to
poetry or fable. For instance, I never read in story of a law enacted to
take away the force of all laws whatsoever;[16] by which a man may safely
commit upon the last of June, what he would infallibly be hanged for if
he committed on the first of July; by which the greatest criminals may
escape, provided they continue long enough in power to antiquate their
crimes, and by stifling them a while, can deceive the legislature into an
amnesty, of which the enactors do not at that time foresee the
consequence. A cautious merchant will be apt to suspect, when he finds a
man who has the repute of a cunning dealer, and with whom he has old
accounts, urging for a general release. When I reflect on this
proceeding, I am not surprised, that those who contrived a parliamentary
sponge for their crimes, are now afraid of a new revolution sponge for
their money: and if it were possible to contrive a sponge that could only
affect those who had need of the other, perhaps it would not be ill
employed.
[Footnote 1: No. 17 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Cicero, "In Q. Caec." i. 3: "They said that whatever luxury
could accomplish in the way of vice,... avarice in the way of plunder, or
arrogance in the way of insult, had all been borne by them for the last
three years, while this one man was praetor."--C.D. YONGE. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: John Churchill, Duke of Maryborough, who had been
Captain-General since 1702. He was dismissed from all his offices,
December 31st, 1711. The Duke of Ormonde was appointed Commander-in-Chief
on January 4th. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: Godolphin, Lord-Treasurer, nicknamed Volpone. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Charles, Earl of Sunderland, and Henry Boyle (1670-1725),
were Secretaries of State. Boyle was created Lord Carleton in 1714.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: William; Earl Cowper (1665-1723), was Lord Chancellor under
Godolphin's administration (1707-1710), and also in 1714-1718. The
"Biographia Britannica" (second edition, vol. iv., p. 389 _n_.) refers to
a story that Cowper went through an informal marriage in the early
part of his life with a Mrs. Elizabeth Culling, of Hungerfordbury Park.
Cowper's first wife was Judith, daughter of Sir Robert Booth, of London;
and after her death he married Mary Clavering. See also "Examiner,"
No. 23, _post_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: Horatio Walpole, secretary to the English Embassy at the
treaty of Gertruydenberg. See Swift's accusation against him in "The
Conduct of the Allies" (vol. v of present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: "The Medley" (Nos. 6 and 7, November 6th and 13th, 1710)
contains a "Story of the Marquiss D'Ancre and his Wife Galigai," from
the French of M. Le Vassor. The Marquis is there described as "the
greatest cheat in the whole world"; and "Galigai had the insolence
to say a thousand offensive things." The article was intended as a
reflection on Harley and Mrs. Masham; but Swift takes it as for the
Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Certainly the character of Galigai
may with greater justice be applied to the Duchess. (See "Histoire
du regne de Louis XIII. par M. Michel Le Vassor.") Concino Concini,
MarГ©chal D'Ancre, was born at Florence, and died in 1617.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: "The Medley" was constantly deriding this alleged
proportion. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: "The Observator" for December 6th remarks: "If the
'Examiner' don't find better parallels for his _Princeps Senates, Praetor
Urbanus, Quaestor Aerarius_, and _Caesari ab Epistolis_, than he has done
for his Proconsul, Roger, the gentlemen he aims at may sleep without
disturbance." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: "The Whig Examiner" (No. 3, September 28th, 1710) prints a
speech alleged to have been made by Alcibiades in a contest with an
Athenian brewer named Taureas. The allusion was to the Westminster
election, when General Stanhope was opposed by a brewer named Thomas
Cross. "The Whig Examiner" was written by Addison. Five numbers only were
issued (September 14th to October 12th, 1710). "The light and comic style
of Addison's parody," notes Scott, may be compared "with the fierce,
stern, and vindictive tone of Swift's philippic against the Earl of
Wharton, under the name of Verres." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: "The Medley" (No. 11, December 11th, 1710) remarks of this
adaptation from Cicero, that the writer "has added more rude reflections
of his own than are to be found in that author, whose only fault is his
falling too much into such reflections." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: See also Swift's "Short Character," etc. (vol. v., pp. 1-28
of present edition), and note _in loco_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Hawkesworth notes: "The story of the Lord Wharton is true;
who, with some other wretches, went into a pulpit, and defiled it in
the most filthy manner." See also "Examiner," No. 23, _post_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: Probably Mrs. Coningsby. See Swift's "Short Character"
(vol. v., p. 27). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: The "Act for the Queen's most gracious, general, and free
pardon" was passed in 1708 (7 Ann., c. 22). The Earl of Wharton himself
profited by this Act. A Mr. George Hutchinson gave Wharton ВЈ1,000
to procure his appointment to the office of Register of the Seizures.
This was proved before the House of Commons in May, 1713, and the
House resolved that it was "a scandalous corruption," and that as it
took place "before the Act of Her Majesty's most gracious, general,
and free pardon; this House will proceed no further in that matter."
("Journals of House of Commons," vol. xvii., p. 356.) [T.S.]]
NUMB. 19.[1]
FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, 1710.
_Quippe ubi fas versunt atque nefas: tot bella per orbem:
Tam multae, scelerum facies_----[2]
I am often violently tempted to let the world freely know who the author
of this paper is; to tell them my name and titles at length; which would
prevent abundance of inconsistent criticisms I daily hear upon it. Those
who are enemies to the notions and opinions I would advance, are
sometimes apt to quarrel with the "Examiner" as defective in point of
wit, and sometimes of truth. At other times they are so generous and
candid, to allow, it is written by a club, and that very great hands have
fingers in it. As for those who only appear its adversaries in print,
they give me but very little pain: The paper I hold lies at my mercy, and
I can govern it as I please; therefore, when I begin to find the wit too
bright, the learning too deep, and the satire too keen for me to deal
with, (a very frequent case no doubt, where a man is constantly attacked
by such shrewd adversaries) I peaceably fold it up, or fling it aside,
and read no more. It would be happy for me to have the same power over
people's tongues, and not be forced to hear my own work railed at and
commended fifty times a day, affecting all the while a countenance wholly
unconcerned, and joining out of policy or good manners with the judgment
of both parties: this, I confess, is too great a hardship for so bashful
and unexperienced a writer.[3]
But, alas, I lie under another discouragement of much more weight: I was
very unfortunate in the choice of my party when I set up to be a writer;
where is the merit, or what opportunity to discover our wit, our courage,
or our learning, in drawing our pens for the defence of a cause, which
the Queen and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the
kingdom, have so unanimously embraced? I am cruelly afraid, we politic
authors must begin to lessen our expenses, and lie for the future at the
mercy of our printers. All hopes now are gone of writing ourselves into
places or pensions. A certain starveling author who worked under the late
administration, told me with a heavy heart, above a month ago, that he
and some others of his brethren had secretly offered their service
dog-cheap to the present ministry, but were all refused, and are now
maintained by contribution, like Jacobites or fanatics. I have been of
late employed out of perfect commiseration, in doing them good offices:
for, whereas some were of opinion that these hungry zealots should not be
suffered any longer in their malapert way to snarl at the present course
of public proceedings; and whereas, others proposed, that they should be
limited to a certain number, and permitted to write for their masters, in
the same manner as counsel are assigned for _other_ criminals; that is,
to say all they can in defence of their client, but not reflect upon the
court: I humbly gave my advice, that they should be suffered to write on,
as they used to do; which I did purely out of regard to their persons:
for I hoped it would keep them out of harm's way, and prevent them from
falling into evil courses, which though of little consequence to the
public, would certainly be fatal to themselves. If I have room at the
bottom of this paper, I will transcribe a petition to the present
ministry, sent me by one of these authors, in behalf of himself and
fourscore others of his brethren.
For my own part, notwithstanding the little encouragement to be hoped for
at this time from the men in power, I shall continue my paper till either
the world or myself grow weary of it: the latter is easily determined;
and for the former, I shall not leave it to the partiality of either
party, but to the infallible judgment of my printer. One principal end I
designed by it, was to undeceive those well-meaning people, who have been
drawn unaware into a wrong sense of things, either by the common
prejudices of education and company, the great personal qualities of some
party leaders, or the foul misrepresentations that were constantly made
of all who durst differ from them in the smallest article. I have known
such men struck with the thoughts of some late changes, which, as they
pretend to think, were made without any reason visible to the world. In
answer to this, it is not sufficient to allege, what nobody doubts, that
a prince may choose his own servants without giving a reason to his
subjects; because it is certain, that a wise and good prince will not
change his ministers without very important reasons; and a good subject
ought to suppose, that in such a case there are such reasons, though he
be not apprised of them, otherwise he must inwardly tax his prince of
capriciousness, inconstancy, or ill-design. Such reasons indeed, may not
be obvious to persons prejudiced, or at great distance, or short
thinkers; and therefore, if they be no secrets of state, nor any ill
consequences to be apprehended from their publication; it is no
uncommendable work in any private hand to lay them open for the
satisfaction of all men. And if what I have already said, or shall
hereafter say of this kind, be thought to reflect upon persons, though
none have been named, I know not how it can possibly be avoided. The
Queen in her speech mentions, "with great concern," that "the navy and
other offices are burthened with heavy debts, and desires that the like
may be prevented for the time to come."[4] And, if it be _now_ possible
to prevent the continuance of an evil that has been so long growing upon
us, and is arrived to such a height, surely those corruptions and
mismanagements must have been great which first introduced them, before
our taxes were eaten up by annuities.
If I were able to rip up, and discover in all their colours, only about
eight or nine thousand of the most scandalous abuses,[5] that have been
committed in all parts of public management for twenty years past, by a
certain set of men and their instruments, I should reckon it some service
to my country, and to posterity. But to say the truth, I should be glad
the authors' names were conveyed to future times along with their
actions. For though the present age may understand well enough the little
hints we give, the parallels we draw, and the characters we describe, yet
this will all be lost to the next. However, if these papers, reduced into
a more durable form, should happen to live till our grandchildren are
men, I hope they may have curiosity enough to consult annals, and compare
dates, in order to find out what names were then intrusted with the
conduct of affairs, in the consequences whereof, themselves will so
deeply share; like a heavy debt in a private family, which often lies an
incumbrance upon an estate for three generations.
But leaving the care of informing posterity to better pens, I shall with
due regard to truth, discretion, and the safety of my person from the men
of the new-fangled moderation, continue to take all proper opportunities
of letting the misled part of the people see how grossly they have been
abused, and in what particulars: I shall also endeavour to convince them,
that the present course we are in, is the most probable means, with the
blessing of God, to extricate ourselves out of all our difficulties.
Among those who are pleased to write or talk against this paper, I have
observed a strange manner of reasoning, which I should be glad to hear
them explain themselves upon. They make no ceremony of exclaiming upon
all occasions against a change of ministry, in so critical and dangerous
a conjuncture. What shall we, who heartily approve and join in those
proceedings, say in defence of them? We own the juncture of affairs to be
as they describe: we are pushed for an answer, and are forced at last
freely to confess, that the corruptions and abuses in every branch of
the administration, were so numerous and intolerable, that all things
must have ended in ruin, without some speedy reformation. This I have
already asserted in a former paper; and the replies I have read or heard,
have been in plain terms to affirm the direct contrary; and not only to
defend and celebrate the late persons and proceedings, but to threaten me
with law and vengeance, for casting reflections on so many great and
honourable men, whose birth, virtue and abilities, whose morals and
religion, whose love of their country and its constitution in Church and
State, were so universally allowed; and all this set off with odious
comparisons reflecting on the present choice. Is not this in plain and
direct terms to tell all the world that the Qu[een] has in a most
dangerous crisis turned out a whole set of the best ministers that ever
served a prince, without any manner of reason but her royal pleasure, and
brought in others of a character directly contrary? And how so vile an
opinion as this can consist with the least pretence to loyalty or good
manners, let the world determine.
I confess myself so little a refiner in the politics, as not to be able
to discover, what other motive besides obedience to the Queen, a sense of
public danger, and a true love of their country, joined with invincible
courage, could spirit those great men, who have now under her Majesty's
authority undertaken the direction of affairs. What can they expect but
the utmost efforts of malice from a set of enraged domestic adversaries,
perpetually watching over their conduct, crossing all their designs, and
using every art to foment divisions among them, in order to join with the
weakest upon any rupture? The difficulties they must encounter are nine
times more and greater than ever; and the prospects of interest, after
the reapings and gleanings of so many years, nine times less. Every
misfortune at home or abroad, though the necessary consequence of former
counsels, will be imputed to them; and all the good success given to the
merit of former schemes. A sharper has held your cards all the evening,
played booty, and lost your money, and when things are almost desperate,
you employ an honest gentleman to retrieve your losses.
I would ask whether the Queen's speech does not contain her intentions,
in every particular relating to the public, that a good subject, a Briton
and a Protestant can possibly have at heart? "To carry on the war in all
its parts, particularly in Spain,[6] with the utmost vigour, in order to
procure a safe and honourable peace for us and our allies; to find some
ways of paying the debts on the navy; to support and encourage the Church
of England; to preserve the British constitution according to the Union;
to maintain the indulgence by law allowed to scrupulous consciences; and
to employ none but such as are for the Protestant succession in the house
of Hanover."[7] It is known enough, that speeches on these occasions, are
ever digested by the advice of those who are in the chief confidence, and
consequently that these are the sentiments of her Majesty's ministers, as
well as her own; and we see, the two Houses have unanimously agreed with
her in every article. When the least counterpaces[8] are made to any of
these resolutions, it will then be time enough for our malcontents to
bawl out Popery, persecution, arbitrary power, and the Pretender. In the
mean while, it is a little hard to think, that this island can hold but
six men of honesty and ability enough to serve their prince and country;
or that our safety should depend upon their credit, any more than it
would upon the breath in their nostrils. Why should not a revolution in
the ministry be sometimes necessary as well as a revolution in the crown?
It is to be presumed, the former is at least as lawful in itself, and
perhaps the experiment not quite so dangerous. The revolution of the sun
about the earth was formerly thought a necessary expedient to solve
appearances, though it left many difficulties unanswered; till
philosophers contrived a better, which is that of the earth's revolution
about the sun. This is found upon experience to save much time and
labour, to correct many irregular motions, and is better suited to the
respect due from a planet to a fixed star.
[Footnote 1: No. 18 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Virgil, "Georgics," i. 505-6:
"For right and wrong we see perverted here:
So many wars arise, such countless forms
Of crime and evil agitate the globe."--R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: This remark seems to have tickled the writer of the twelfth
number of "The Medley," who professed to be transported at the idea of
the "Examiner" being a bashful writer. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: In her speech at the opening of Parliament on November 27th,
1710, the Queen said: "I cannot without great concern mention to you,
that the Navy and other offices are burthened with heavy debts, which so
far affect the public service, that I most earnestly desire you to find
some way to answer those demands, and to prevent the like for the time to
come." ("Journals of House of Lords," vol. xix., p. 166.) [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: "The Medley" (No. 13, December 25th, 1710) remarks: "When
he ... promises to discover 'only about eight or nine thousand of their
most scandalous abuses,' without pretending to discover one; and when he
audaciously reviles a general, whose services have been the wonder both
of friends and enemies ... all this he calls 'defending the cause of the
Q---- and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the
kingdom.'" [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: It was a general complaint, that the war in Spain had been
neglected, in order to supply that army which was more immediately under
the management of Marlborough. [S.]]
[Footnote 7: The quotation is not given verbatim, but is substantially
correct. See "Journals of House of Lords," vol. xix., p. 166. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The word is defined by Dr. Murray as "a movement in a
contrary or reverse direction; a movement or step against something."
[T.S.]]
NUMB. 20.[1]
FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1710.
_Sunt quibus in Satira videor nimis acer, et ultra
Legem tendere opus: sine nervis altera, quicquid
Composui, pars esse putat----_[2]
When the printer came last week for his copy, he brought along with him a
bundle of those papers,[3] which in the phrase of Whig coffee-houses have
"swinged off" the "Examiner," most of which I had never seen nor heard of
before. I remember some time ago in one of the "Tatlers" to have read a
letter,[4] wherein several reasons are assigned for the present
corruption and degeneracy of our taste, but I think the writer has
omitted the principal one, which I take to be the prejudice of parties.
Neither can I excuse either side of this infirmity; I have heard the
arrantest drivellers _pro_ and _con_ commended for their smartness even
by men of tolerable judgment; and the best performances exploded as
nonsense and stupidity. This indeed may partly be imputed to policy and
prudence; but it is chiefly owing to that blindness, which prejudice and
passion cast over the understanding: I mention this because I think it
properly within my province in quality of _Examiner_. And having granted
more than is usual for an enemy to do, I must now take leave to say, that
so weak a cause, and so ruined a faction, were never provided with pens
more resembling their condition, or less suited to their occasions.
_Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
Tempus eget----_[5]
This is the more to be wondered at, when we consider they have the full
liberty of the press, that they have no other way left to recover
themselves, and that they want not men of excellent parts to set their
arguments in the best light they will bear. Now if two men would argue on
both sides with fairness, good sense, and good manners, it would be no
ill entertainment to the town, and perhaps be the most effectual means to
reconcile us. But I am apt to think that men of a great genius are hardly
brought to prostitute their pens in a very odious cause; which besides,
is more properly undertaken by noise and impudence, by gross railing and
scurrility, by calumny and lying, and by little trifling cavils and
carpings in the wrong place, which those whifflers use for arguments and
answers.
I was well enough pleased with a story of one of these answerers, who in
a paper[6] last week found many faults with a late calculation of mine.
Being it seems more deep learned than his fellows, he was resolved to
begin his answer with a Latin verse, as well as other folks: His business
was to look out for something against an "Examiner" that would pretend
to _tax_ accounts; and turning over Virgil, he had the luck to find these
words,
------_fugiant examina taxos;_[7]
so down they went, and out they would have come, if one of his unlucky
prompters had not hindered it.
I here declare once for all, that if these people will not be quiet, I
shall take the bread out of their mouths, and answer the "Examiner"
myself;[8] which I protest I have never yet done, though I have been
often charged with it; neither have those answers been written or
published with my privity, as malicious people are pleased to give out;
nor do I believe the common Whiggish report, that the authors are hired
by the ministry to give my paper a value.
But the friends of this paper have given me more uneasiness with their
impatience, than its enemies by their answers. I heard myself censured
last week by some of the former, for promising to discover the
corruptions in the late administration, but never performing any thing.
The latter on the other side, are thundering out their anathemas against
me for discovering so many. I am at a loss how to decide between these
contraries, and shall therefore proceed after my own way, as I have
hitherto done: my design being of more importance than that of writing
only to gratify the spleen of one side, or provoke that of the other,
though it may occasionally have both effects.
I shall therefore go on to relate some facts that in my humble opinion
were no hindrance to the change of the ministry.
The first I shall mention, was that of introducing certain new phrases
into the court style, which had been very seldom or never made use of in
former times. They usually ran in the following terms: "Madam, I cannot
serve you while such a one is in employment: I desire humbly to resign my
commission, if Mr. ------ continues secretary of state: I cannot answer
that the city will lend money, unless my L-- ------ be pr[esiden]t of the
c[ounc]il. I must beg leave to surrender, except ------ has the staff. I
must not accept the seals, unless ------ comes into the other office."
This has been the language of late years from subjects to their
prince.[9] Thus they stood upon terms, and must have their own conditions
to ruin the nation. Nay, this dutiful manner of capitulating, had spread
so far, that every understrapper began at length to perk up and assume:
he "expected a regiment"; or "his son must be a major"; or "his brother
a collector", else he threatened to vote "according to his conscience."
Another of their glorious attempts, was the clause intended in the bill
for the encouragement of learning;[10] for taking off the obligation upon
fellows of colleges in both Universities to enter upon holy orders: the
design of which, as I have heard the undertakers often confess, was to
remove the care of educating youth out of the hands of the clergy, who
are apt to infuse into their pupils too great a regard for the Church and
the Monarchy. But there was a farther secret in this clause, which may
best be discovered by the first projectors, or at least the garblers of
it; and these are known to be C[o]ll[i]ns[11] and Tindal,[12] in
conjunction with a most pious lawyer their disciple.[13]
What shall we say to their prodigious skill in arithmetic, discovered so
constantly in their decision of elections; where they were able to make
out by the _rule of false_, that three were more than three-and-twenty,
and fifteen than fifty? Nay it was a maxim which I never heard any of
them dispute, that in determining elections, they were not to consider
where the right lay, but which of the candidates was likelier to be true
to "the cause." This they used to illustrate by a very apt and decent
similitude, of gaming with a sharper; if you cannot cheat as well as he,
you are certainly undone.
Another cast of their politics was that of endeavouring to impeach an
innocent l[a]dy, for no reason imaginable, but her faithful and diligent
service to the Q[ueen],[14] and the favour her M[ajesty] bore to her upon
that account, when others had acted contrary in so shameful a manner.
What else was the crime? Had she treated her royal mistress with
insolence or neglect? Had she enriched herself by a long practice of
bribery, and obtaining exorbitant grants? Had she engrossed her
M[ajest]y's favours, without admitting any access but through her means?
Had she heaped employments upon herself, her family and dependants? Had
she an imperious, haughty behaviour? Or, after all, was it a perfect
blunder and mistake of one person for another? I have heard of a man who
lay all night on a rough pavement; and in the morning, wondering what it
could possibly be, that made him rest so ill, happened to see a feather
under him, and imputed the uneasiness of his lodging to that. I remember
likewise the story of a giant in Rabelais,[15] who used to feed upon
wind-mills, but was unfortunately choked with a small lump of fresh
butter, before a warm oven.
And here I cannot but observe how very refined some people are in their
generosity and gratitude. There is a certain great person[16] (I shall
not say of what sex) who for many years past, was the constant mark and
butt, against which our present malcontents used to discharge their
resentment: upon whom they bestowed all the terms of scurrility, that
malice, envy and indignation could invent; whom they publicly accused of
every vice that can possess a human heart: pride, covetousness,
ingratitude, oppression, treachery, dissimulation, violence and fury, all
in the highest extremes: but of late, they have changed their language on
a sudden; that person is now the most faithful and just that ever served
a prince; that person, originally differing from them in principles, as
far as east and west, but united in practice, and falling together, they
are now reconciled, and find twenty resemblances between each other,
which they could never discover before. _Tanti est ut placeam tibi
perire._[17]
But to return: How could it be longer suffered in a free nation, that all
avenues to preferment should be shut up, except a very few, when one or
two stood constant sentry, who docked all favours they handed down; or
spread a huge invisible net, between the prince and subject, through
which nothing of value could pass? And here I cannot but admire at one
consequence from this management, which is of an extraordinary nature:
Generally speaking, princes who have ill ministers are apt to suffer in
their reputation, as well as in the love of the people: but it was not so
with the Q[ueen]. When the sun is overcast by those clouds he exhales
from the earth, we still acknowledge his light and influence, and at last
find he can dispel and drive them down to the horizon. The wisest prince,
by the necessity of affairs, the misrepresentations of designing men, or
the innocent mistakes, even of a good predecessor, may find himself
encompassed by a crew of courtiers, whom time, opportunity and success,
have miserably corrupted. And if he can save himself and his people from
ruin, under the _worst_ administration, what may not his subjects hope
for, when with their universal applause, he changes hands, and makes use
of the _best_?
Another great objection with me against the late party, was the cruel
tyranny they put upon conscience, by a barbarous inquisition, refusing to
admit the least toleration or indulgence. They imposed a hundred tests,
but could never be prevailed with to dispense with, or take off the
smallest, nor even admit of _occasional_ conformity;[18] but went on
daily (as their apostle Tindal expresseth it) narrowing their terms of
communion; pronouncing nine parts in ten of the kingdom heretics, and
shutting them out of the pale of their Church. These very men, who talk
so much of a comprehension in religion among us, how came they to allow
so little of it in politics, which is _their sole religion?_ You shall
hear them pretending to bewail the animosities kept up between the
Church of England and Dissenters, where the differences in opinion are so
few and inconsiderable; yet these very sons of moderation were pleased to
excommunicate every man who disagreed with them in the smallest article
of their _political creed_, or who refused to receive any new article,
how difficult soever to digest, which the leaders imposed at pleasure to
serve their own interest.
I will quit this subject for the present, when I have told one story.[19]
"There was a great king in Scythia, whose dominions were bounded to the
north, by the poor, mountainous territories of a petty lord, who paid
homage as the king's vassal. The Scythian prime minister being largely
bribed, indirectly obtained his master's consent to suffer this lord to
build forts, and provide himself with arms, under pretence of preventing
the inroads of the Tartars. This little depending sovereign, finding he
was now in a condition to be troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and
threatened upon every occasion to unite with the Tartars: upon which,
the prime minister, who began to be in pain about his head, proposed a
match betwixt his master, and the only daughter of this tributary lord,
which he had the good luck to bring to pass: and from that time, valued
himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown of
absolute necessity by his corruption." This passage, cited literally from
an old history of Sarmatia, I thought fit to set down, on purpose to
perplex little smattering remarkers, and put them upon the hunt for an
application.
[Footnote 1: No. 19 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Horace, "Satires," II. i. 1-3:
"There are, to whom too poignant I appear;
Beyond the laws of satire too severe.
My lines are weak, unsinewed, others say."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: One of these papers was "The Observator." The issue for
December 6th (vol. ix., No. 93) dealt largely with "The Examiner's"
attack on Verres (No. 18, _ante_), and the following number returned to
the charge, criticizing the attacks made in Nos. 17 and 18 of "The
Examiner" on the Duke of Marlborough. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: This appears to refer to "The Tatler," No. 183 (June 10th,
1710), where Steele writes: "The ridicule among us runs strong against
laudable actions. Nay, in the ordinary course of things, and the
common regards of life, negligence of the public is an epidemic vice...
It were to be wished, that love of their country were the first principle
of action in men of business." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Virgil, "Aeneid," ii. 521-2:
"'Tis not such aid or such defence as thine
The time demands."---R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: The paper in all probability was "The Medley," No. 10
(December 4th), which was mainly devoted to a reply to Swift's
"calculation" as to the rewards of the Duke of Marlborough. Scott thinks
the answerer may have been Defoe, for in No. 114 (of vol. vii.) of his
"Review of the State of the British Nation," he has a passage evidently
directed at Swift: "I know another, that is an orator in the Latin, a
walking index of books, has all the libraries in Europe in his head, from
the Vatican at Rome, to the learned collection of Dr. Salmon at
Fleet-Ditch; but at the same time, he is a cynic in behaviour, a fury in
temper, impolite in conversation, abusive and scurrilous in language, and
ungovernable in passion. Is this to be learned? Then may I be still
_illiterate_. I have been in my time, pretty well master of five
languages, and have not lost them yet, though I write no bill over my
door, or set _Latin quotations_ in the front of the 'Review.' But, to my
irreparable loss, I was bred but by halves; for my father, forgetting
Juno's royal academy, left the language of Billingsgate quite out of my
education: hence I am perfectly _illiterate_ in the polite style of the
street, and am not fit to converse with the porters and carmen of quality,
who grace their diction with the beauties of calling names, and
curse their neighbour with a _bonne grace_." [T.S.]]
