I have hitherto confined myself to those endeavours for the good of the
Church, which were common to all the leaders and principal men of our
party; but if my paper were not drawing towards an end, I could produce
several instances of particular persons, who by their exemplary lives and
actions have confirmed the character so justly due to the whole body. I
shall at present mention only two, and illustrate the merits of each by a
matter of fact.

That worthy patriot, and true lover of the Church, whom the late
"Examiner" is supposed to reflect on under the name of Verres,[19] felt a
pious impulse to be a benefactor to the Cathedral of Gloucester, but how
to do it in the most decent, generous manner, was the question. At last
he thought of an expedient: One morning or night he stole into the
Church, mounted upon the altar, and there did that which in cleanly
phrase is called disburthening of nature: He was discovered, prosecuted,
and condemned to pay a thousand pounds, which sum was all employed to
support the Church, as, no doubt, the benefactor meant it.

There is another person whom the same writer is thought to point at under
the name of Will Bigamy.[20] This gentleman, knowing that marriage fees
were a considerable perquisite to the clergy, found out a way of
improving them _cent. per cent._ for the good of the Church. His
invention was to marry a second wife while the first was alive,
convincing her of the lawfulness by such arguments, as he did not doubt
would make others follow the same example: These he had drawn up in
writing with intention to publish for the general good; and it is hoped
he may now have leisure to finish them.[21]


[Footnote 1: No. 22 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: _I. e._ 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, "in Verrem," II. i. 15: "There are no intrigues more
difficult to guard against than those which are concealed under a
pretence of duty, or under the name of some intimate connexion."--C.D.
YONGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See No. 19, _ante_ (not quoted correctly). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Horace, "Ars Poetica," 139:

"The mountains laboured with prodigious throes."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: See No. 22, _ante_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The serpent, or dragon, is said to have seven heads in an
earlier verse of the same chapter. See Rev. xii., 3, 9, 15. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Earl of Sunderland and Henry Boyle (Secretaries of
State), Earl of Godolphin (Lord Treasurer), Lord Somers (President of the
Council), Lord Cowper (Lord Chancellor), Duke of Marlborough
(Captain General), and Horatio Walpole (Secretary of War). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: General Stanhope, at Brihuega, was surprised and compelled
to surrender on December 9th, 1710. Oldmixon's "Sequel" (p. 452)
remarks: "The misfortune which happened to General Stanhope at
Brihuega, where he was surrounded by the French and Spanish, armies,
and after a most gallant defence, obliged to surrender himself with
several English battalions prisoners of war, was some relief to
high-church; ... they did not stick to rejoice at it." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Test Act was passed in 1672 and repealed only in 1828.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This paper was a pamphlet by Charles Leslie, published
October, 1708, which was condemned to be burnt by the House of Commons in
January, 1709/10. It was entitled, "A Letter from a Gentleman in
Scotland to his Friend in England, against the Sacramental Test."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: This declaration was prescribed by the Act I William and
Mary, c. 18, s. 13. It was repealed in 1871. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: John Toland, author of "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696)
and other works. See note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: William Coward (1656-1725), physician, was the author of
"Second Thoughts Concerning Human Soul" (1702), and "The Grand Essay;
or A Vindication of Reason and Religion" (1703/4). Both these works
were ordered by the House of Commons to be burnt, March 17th,
1703/4. See also note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: John Clendon was the author of "A Treatise of the Word
Person" (17-09/10) which the House of Commons ordered to be burnt, March
24, 17-09/10. See also note on p. 185 of vol. iii. of present edition.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: For preaching a sermon at St. Paul's on "Perils from false
brethren" (November 5th, 1709), Dr. Sacheverell was, on the complaint
of Mr. Dolben (December 13th), impeached in the House of Commons on
December 14th, 1709, and in the House of Lords on December 15th. The
sermon was printed and widely circulated, and Sacheverell received for it
the thanks of the Lord Mayor. Mr. Dolben objected to Godolphin being
referred to as Volpone. Out of this arose the famous Sacheverell trial,
so disastrous in its effect on the Whig ministry. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: Lord Wharton. See vol. v., pp. 1-28 of present edition of
Swift's Works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: Lord Wharton. But see correction in No. 25, _post_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: See previous note on Lord Cowper. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: Cowper was at this time out of office. [T.S.]]



NUMB. 24.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 4, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 11, 1710.[2]

_Bellum ita suscipiatur, ut nihil aliud nisi Pax quaesita videatur._[3]

I am satisfied, that no reasonable man of either party, can justly be
offended at any thing I said in one of my papers relating to the Army;[4]
from the maxims I there laid down, perhaps many persons may conclude,
that I had a mind the world should think, there had been occasion given
by some late abuses among men of that calling; and they conclude right.
For my intention is, that my hints may be understood, and my quotations
and allegories applied; and I am in some pain to think, that in the
Orcades on one side, and the western coasts of Ireland on the other, the
"Examiner" may want a key in several parts, which I wish I could furnish
them with. As for the French king, I am under no concern at all; I hear
he has left off reading my papers, and by what he has found in them,
dislikes our proceedings more than ever, and intends either to make great
additions to his armies, or propose new terms for a peace: So false is
that which is commonly reported, of his mighty satisfaction in our change
of ministry: And I think it clear that his late letter of "Thanks to the
Tories of Great Britain,"[5] must either have been extorted from him
against his judgment, or was a cast of his politics to set the people
against the present ministry, wherein it has wonderfully succeeded.

But though I have never heard, or never regarded any objections made
against that paper, which mentions the army; yet I intended this as a
sort of apology for it. And first, I declare, (because we live in a
mistaking world) that in hinting at some proceedings, wherein a few
persons are said to be concerned, I did not intend to charge them upon
the body of the army. I have too much detested that barbarous injustice
among the writers of a late party, to be ever guilty of it myself; I mean
the accusing societies for the crimes of a few. On the other side, I must
take leave to believe, that armies are no more exempt from corruptions
than other numbers of men. The maxims proposed were occasionally
introduced by the report of certain facts, which I am bound to believe is
true, because I am sure, considering what has passed, it would be a crime
to think otherwise. All posts in the army, all employments at court, and
many others, are (or ought to be) given and resumed at the mere pleasure
of the prince; yet when I see a great officer broke, a change made in the
court or the ministry, and this under the most just and gracious Princess
that ever reigned, I must naturally conclude it is done upon prudent
considerations, and for some great demerit in the sufferers. But then; is
not the punishment sufficient? Is it generous or charitable to trample on
the unfortunate, and expose their faults to the world in the strongest
colours? And would it not suit better with magnanimity as well as common
good-nature, to leave them at quiet to their own thoughts and repentance?
Yes without question, provided it could be so contrived that their very
names, as well as actions, might be forgotten for ever; _such_ an act of
oblivion would be for the honour of our nation, and beget a better
opinion of us with posterity; and then I might have spared the world and
myself the trouble of _examining_. But at present, there is a cruel
dilemma in the case: The friends and abettors of the late ministry are
every day publishing their praises to the world, and casting reflections
upon the present persons in power. This is so barefaced an aspersion upon
the Q[ueen], that I know not how any good subject can with patience
endure it, though he were ever so indifferent with regard to the opinions
in dispute. Shall they who have lost all power and love of the people, be
allowed to scatter their poison; and shall not those, who are, at least,
of the strongest side, be suffered to bring an antidote? And how can we
undeceive the deluded remainder, but by letting them see, that those
discarded statesmen were justly laid aside, and producing as many
instances to prove it as we can? not from any personal hatred to them,
but in justification to the best of queens. The many scurrilities I have
heard and read against this poor paper of mine, are in such a strain,
that considering the present state of affairs, they look like a jest.
They usually run after the following manner: "What? shall this insolent
writer presume to censure the late ministry, the ablest, the most
faithful, and truest lovers of their country, and its constitution that
ever served a prince? Shall he reflect on the best H[ouse] of C[ommons]
that ever sat within those walls? Has not the Queen changed both for a
ministry and Parliament of Jacobites and highfliers, who are selling us
to France, and bringing over the Pretender?" This is the very sum and
force of all their reasonings, and this their method of complaining
against the "Examiner." In _them_ it is humble and loyal to reflect upon
the Q[ueen] and the ministry, and Parliament she has chosen with the
universal applause of her people; in _us_ it is insolent to defend her
Majesty and her choice, or to answer their objections, by shewing the
reasons why those changes were necessary.

The same style has been used in the late case relating to some gentlemen
in the army;[6] such a clamour was raised by a set of men, who had the
boldness to tax the administration with cruelty and injustice, that I
thought it necessary to interfere a little, by shewing the ill
consequences that might arise from some proceedings, though without
application to particular persons. And what do they offer in answer?
Nothing but a few poor common-places against calumny and informers, which
might have been full as just and seasonable in a plot against the sacred
person of the Q[ueen].

But, by the way; why are these idle people so indiscreet to name those
two words, which afford occasion of laying open to the world such an
infamous scene of subornation and perjury, as well as calumny and
informing, as I believe is without example: when a whole cabal attempted
an action, wherein a condemned criminal refused to join with them for
the reward of his life?[7] Not that I disapprove their sagacity, who
could foretell so long before, by what hand they should one day fall, and
therefore thought any means justifiable by which they might prevent it.

But waiving this at present, it must be owned in justice to the army,
that those violences did not proceed so far among them as some have
believed; nor ought the madness of a few to be laid at their doors. For
the rest, I am so far from denying the due praises to those victorious
troops, who did their part in procuring so many victories for the allies,
that I could wish every officer and private soldier had their full share
of honour in proportion to their deserts; being thus far of the
Athenians' mind, who when it was proposed that the statue of Miltiades
should be set up alone in some public place of the city, said they would
agree to it, _whenever he conquered alone_, but not before. Neither do I
at all blame the officers of the army, for preferring in their hearts the
late ministry before the present; or, if wishing alone could be of any
use, to wish their continuance, because then they might be secure of the
war's continuance too: whereas, since affairs have been put into other
hands, they may perhaps lie under some apprehensions of a peace, which no
army, especially in a course of success, was ever inclined to, and which
all wise states have in such a juncture, chiefly endeavoured. This is
a point wherein the civil and military politics have always disagreed.
And for that reason, I affirmed it necessary in all free governments,
that the latter should be absolutely in subjection to the former;
otherwise, one of these two inconveniencies must arise, either to be
perpetually in war, or to turn the civil institution into a military.

I am ready to allow all that has been said of the valour and experience
of our troops, who have fully contributed their part to the great
successes abroad; nor is it their fault, that those important victories
had no better consequences at home, though it may be their advantage. War
is their trade and business: to improve and cultivate the advantages of
success, is an affair of the cabinet; and the neglect of this, whether
proceeding from weakness or corruption, according to the usual
uncertainty of wars, may be of the most fatal consequence to a nation.
For, pray let me represent our condition in such a light, as I believe
both parties will allow, though perhaps not the consequences I shall
deduce from it. We have been for above nine years, blessed with a QUEEN,
who besides all virtues that can enter into the composition of a private
person, possesses every regal quality that can contribute to make a
people happy: of great wisdom, yet ready to receive the advice of her
counsellors: of much discernment in choosing proper instruments, when she
follows her own judgment, and only capable of being deceived by that
excess of goodness which makes her judge of others by herself. Frugal in
her management in order to contribute to the public, which in proportion
she does, and that voluntarily, beyond any of her subjects; but from her
own nature, generous and charitable to all that want or deserve; and in
order to exercise those virtues, denying herself all entertainments of
expense which many others enjoy. Then if we look abroad, at least in
Flanders, our arms have been crowned with perpetual success in battles
and sieges, not to mention several fortunate actions in Spain. These
facts being thus stated, which none can deny, it is natural to ask how we
have improved such advantages, and to what account they have turned? I
shall use no discouraging terms. When a patient grows daily worse by the
tampering of mountebanks, there is nothing left but to call in the best
physicians before the case grows desperate: But I would ask, whether
France or any other kingdom, would have made so little use of such
prodigious opportunities, the fruits whereof could never have fallen to
the ground, without the extremist degree of folly and corruption, and
where those have lain, let the world judge? Instead of aiming at peace,
while we had the advantage of the war, which has been the perpetual maxim
of all wise states, it has been reckoned factious and malignant even to
express our wishes for it; and such a condition imposed, as was never
offered to any prince who had an inch of ground to dispute; _Quae enim
est conditio pacis; in qua ei cum quo pacem facias, nihil concedi
potest?_[8]

It is not obvious to conceive what could move men who sat at home, and
were called to consult upon the good of the kingdom, to be so utterly
averse from putting an end to a long expensive war, which the victorious,
as well as conquered side, were heartily weary of. Few or none of them
were men of the sword; they had no share in the honour; they had made
large fortunes, and were at the head of all affairs. But they well knew
by what tenure they held their power; that the Qu[een] saw through their
designs, that they had entirely lost the hearts of the clergy; that the
landed men were against them; that they were detested by the body of the
people; and that nothing bore them up but their credit with the bank and
other stocks, which would be neither formidable nor necessary when the
war was at an end. For these reasons they resolved to disappoint all
overtures of a peace, till they and their party should be so deeply
rooted as to make it impossible to shake them. To this end, they began to
precipitate matters so fast, as in a little time must have ruined the
constitution, if the crown had not interposed, and rather ventured the
accidental effects of their malice, than such dreadful consequences of
their power. And indeed, had the former danger been greater than some
hoped or feared, I see no difficulty in the choice, which was the same
with his, who said, "he had rather be devoured by wolves than by rats." I
therefore still insist that we cannot wonder at, or find fault with the
army, for concurring with a ministry who was for prolonging the war. The
inclination is natural in them all, pardonable in those who have not yet
made their fortunes, and as lawful in the rest, as love of power or love
of money can make it. But as natural, as pardonable, and as lawful as
this inclination is, when it is not under check of the civil power, or
when a corrupt ministry joins in giving it too great a scope, the
consequence can be nothing less than infallible ruin and slavery to a
state.

After I had finished this Paper, the printer sent me two small pamphlets,
called "The Management of the War,"_[9] written with some plausibility,
much artifice, and abundance of misrepresentation, as well as direct
falsehoods in point of fact. These I have thought worth _Examining_,
which I shall accordingly do when I find an opportunity.


[Footnote 1: No. 23 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, "De Officiis," i. 23: "In the undertaking of a war
there should be such a prospect, as if the only end of it were peace."--
SIR R. L'ESTRANGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See "Examiner," No. 21. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Scott mistakes this as the pretended letter quoted in "The
Medley," No. 14. Swift refers to a half sheet printed for A. Baldwin in
the latter part of 1710, and entitled: "The French King's Thanks to the
Tories of Great-Britain." It was ascribed to Hoadly.

In this print Louis XIV. is made to thank the Tories for "what hath given
me too deep and lasting impressions of respect, and gratitude, ever to be
forgotten. If I should endeavour to recount all the numerous obligations
I have to you, I should not know where to begin, nor where to make an
end.... To you and your predecessors I owe that supineness and negligence
of the English court, which, gave me opportunity and ability to form and
prosecute my designs." Alluding to William III. he says: "To you I owed
the impotence of his life and the comfort of his death. At that juncture
how vast were my hopes?... But a princess ascended your throne, whom you
seemed to court with some personal fondness ... She had a general whom
her predecessor had wrought into the confidence and favour of the
Allies.... It is with pleasure I have observed, that every victory he
hath obtained abroad, hath been retrieved by your management at home....
What a figure have your tumults, your addresses, and the progresses of
your Doctor, made in my Gazettes? What comfort have I received from
them?... And with what impatience do we now wait for that dissolution,
with the hopes of which you have so long flattered us ?... Blessed be the
engines, to which so glorious events are owing. Republican,
Antimonarchical, Danger of the Church, Non-resistance, Hereditary and
Divine Right, words of force and energy!... How great are my obligations
to all these!" In a postscript, King Louis is made to say further: "My
Brother of England [i.e. the Pretender] ... thanks you for ... your late
loyal addresses; your open avowal in them of that unlimited non-resistance
by which he keeps up his claim," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: "Lieut.-Gen. Meredith, Major-Gen. Macartney, and Brigadier
Honeywood were superseded, upon an information laid before the Q----,
that these three gentlemen had, in their cups, drank Damnation and
Confusion to the new ministry, and to those who had any hand in turning
out of the old."--TINDAL, iv. 195. See also No. 21 and note, p. 127.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: William Gregg, a clerk in Harley's office, who was convicted
of a treasonable correspondence with France. See Swift's "Some Remarks,"
etc., in vol. v., p. 38, of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: "For what condition of peace is that in which nothing is
conceded him with whom you are making peace?" [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The two pamphlets referred to were both written by Dr.
Francis Hare, chaplain-general to the Duke of Marlborough, and afterwards
Bishop of Chichester. The first was dated November 23rd, 1710, and
was entitled, "The Management of the War. In a Letter to a Tory-Member."
The second was called, "The Management of the War. In a Second Letter to
a Tory-Member," and was dated November 30th, 1710. The pamphlets are again
referred to in the twenty-ninth number of "The Examiner," where the writer
states that on second thoughts he has decided to deal with them "in a
discourse by itself." This he did. See note on p. 184. [T.S.]]



NUMB. 25.[1]


FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 11, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 18, 1710.[2]

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

Hopes are natural to most men, especially to sanguine complexions, and
among the various changes that happen in the course of public affairs,
they are seldom without some grounds: Even in desperate cases, where it
is impossible they should have any foundation, they are often affected,
to keep a countenance, and make an enemy think we have some resource
which they know nothing of. This appears to have been for some months
past the condition of those people, whom I am forced, for want of other
phrases, to called the _ruined party_. They have taken up since their
fall, some real, and some pretended hopes. When the E. of S[underlan]d
was discarded, they _hoped_ her M[ajesty] would proceed no farther in the
change of her ministry, and had the insolence to misrepresent her words
to foreign states. They _hoped_, nobody durst advise the dissolution of
the Parliament. When this was done, and further alterations made at
Court, they _hoped_ and endeavoured to ruin the credit of the nation.
They likewise _hoped_ that we should have some terrible loss abroad,
which would force us to unravel all, and begin again upon their bottom.
But, of all their _hopes_, whether real or assumed, there is none more
extraordinary than that which they now would seem to place their whole
confidence in: that this great turn of affairs was only occasioned by a
short madness of the people, from which they will recover in a little
time, when their eyes are open, and they grow cool and sober enough to
consider the truth of things, and how much they have been deceived. It
is not improbable, that some few of the deepest sighted among these
reasoners, are well enough convinced how vain all such _hopes_ must be:
but for the rest, the wisest of them seem to have been very ill judges of
the people's dispositions, the want of which knowledge was a principal
occasion to hasten their ruin; for surely had they suspected which way
the popular current inclined, they never would have run against it by
that impeachment. I therefore conclude, they generally are so blind, as
to imagine some comfort from this fantastical opinion, that the people of
England are at present distracted, but will shortly come to their senses
again.

For the service therefore of our adversaries and friends, I shall briefly
_examine_ this point, by shewing what are the causes and symptoms of a
people's madness, and how it differs from their natural bent and
inclination.

It is Machiavel's observation, that the people when left to their own
judgment, do seldom mistake their true interests; and indeed they
naturally love the constitution they are born under, never desiring to
change but under great oppressions. However, they are to be deceived by
several means. It has often happened in Greece, and sometimes in Rome,
that those very men who have contributed to shake off a former tyranny,
have, instead of restoring the old constitution, deluded the People into
a worse and more ignominious slavery. Besides, all great changes have the
same effect upon commonwealths that thunder has upon liquors, making the
dregs fly up to the top: the lowest plebeians rise to the head of
affairs, and there preserve themselves by representing the nobles and
other friends to the old government, as enemies to the public. The
encouraging of new mysteries and new deities, with the pretences of
further purity in religion, hath likewise been a frequent topic to
mislead the people. And, not to mention more, the promoting false reports
of dangers from abroad, hath often served to prevent them from fencing
against real dangers at home. By these and the like arts, in conjunction
with a great depravity of manners, and a weak or corrupt administration,
the madness of the people hath risen to such a height as to break in
pieces the whole frame of the best instituted governments. But however,
such great frenzies being artificially raised, are a perfect force and
constraint upon human nature, and under a wise steady prince, will
certainly decline of themselves, settling like the sea after a storm, and
then the true bent and genius of the people will appear. Ancient and
modern story are full of instances to illustrate what I say. In our own
island we had a great example of a long madness in the people, kept up by
a thousand artifices like intoxicating medicines, till the constitution
was destroyed; yet the malignity being spent, and the humour exhausted
that served to foment it; before the usurpers could fix upon a new
scheme, the people suddenly recovered, and peaceably restored the old
constitution.

From what I have offered, it will be easy to decide, whether this late
change in the dispositions of the people were a new madness, or a
recovery from an old one. Neither do I see how it can be proved that such
a change had in any circumstance the least symptoms of madness, whether
my description of it be right or no. It is agreed, that the truest way of
judging the dispositions of the people in the choice of their
representatives, is by computing the county-elections; and in these, it
is manifest that five in six are entirely for the present measures;
although the court was so far from interposing its credit, that there was
no change in the admiralty, not above one or two in the lieutenancy, nor
any other methods used to influence elections.[4] The free unextorted
addresses[5] sent some time before from every part of the kingdom,
plainly shewed what sort of bent the people had taken, and from what
motives. The election of members for this great city,[6] carried contrary
to all conjecture, against the united interest of those two great bodies,
the Bank and East India Company, was another convincing argument.
Besides, the Whigs themselves have always confessed, that the bulk of
landed men in England was generally of Tories. So that this change must
be allowed to be according to the natural genius and disposition of the
people, whether it were just and reasonable in itself or not.

Notwithstanding all which, you shall frequently hear the partisans of the
late men in power, gravely and decisively pronounce, that the present
ministry cannot possibly stand.[7] Now, they who affirm this, if they
believe themselves, must ground their opinion, upon the iniquity of the
_last_ being so far established, and deeply rooted, that no endeavours of
honest men, will be able to restore things to their former state. Or
else these reasoners have been so misled by twenty years' mismanagement,
that they have forgot our constitution, and talk as if our monarchy and
revolution began together. But the body of the people is wiser, and by
the choice they have made, shew they _do_ understand our constitution,
and would bring it back to the old form; which if the new ministers take
care to maintain, they will and ought to stand, otherwise they may fall
like their predecessors. But I think we may easily foresee what a
Parliament freely chosen, without threatening or corruption, is likely to
do, when no man shall be in any danger to lose his place by the freedom
of his voice.

But, who are those advancers of this opinion, that the present ministry
cannot hold? It must be either such as are afraid to be called to an
account, in case it should hold; or those who keep offices, from which
others, better qualified, were removed; and may reasonably apprehend to
be turned out, for worthier men to come in their places, since perhaps
it will be necessary to make some changes, that the public business of
the nation may go on: or lastly, stock-jobbers, who industriously spread
such reports that actions may fall, and their friends buy to advantage.

Yet these hopes, thus freely expressed, as they are more sincere, so they
are more supportable, than when they appear under the disguise and
pretence of fears. Some of these gentlemen are employed to shake their
heads in proper companies; to doubt where all this will end; to be in
mighty pain for the nation; to shew how impossible it is, that the public
credit can be supported: to pray that all may do well in whatever hands;
but very much to doubt that the Pretender is at the bottom. I know not
any thing so nearly resembling this behaviour, as what I have often seen
among the friends of a sick man, whose interest it is that he should die:
The physicians protest they see no danger; the symptoms are good, the
medicines answer expectation; yet still they are not to be comforted;
they whisper, he is a gone man; it is not possible he should hold out; he
has perfect death in his face; they never liked this doctor: At last the
patient recovers, and their joy is as false as their grief.

I believe there is no man so sanguine, who did not apprehend some ill
consequences from the late change, though not in any proportion to the
good ones: but it is manifest, the former have proved much fewer and
lighter than were expected, either at home or abroad, by the fears of our
friends, or the hopes of our enemies. Those remedies that stir the
humours in a diseased body, are at first more painful than the malady
itself; yet certain death is the consequence of deferring them too long.
Actions have fallen, and the loans are said to come in slowly. But
beside, that something of this must have been, whether there had been any
change or no; beside, that the surprise of every change, for the better
as well as the worse, is apt to affect credit for a while; there is a
further reason, which is plain and scandalous. When the late party was at
the helm, those who were called the Tories, never put their resentments
in balance with the safety of the nation, but cheerfully contributed to
the common cause. Now the scene is changed, the fallen party seems to act
from very different motives: they have _given the word about;_ they will
keep their money and be passive; and in this point stand upon the same
foot with Papists and Nonjurors. What would have become of the public, if
the present great majority had acted thus, during the late
administration? Had acted thus, before the others were masters of that
wealth they have squeezed out of the landed men, and with the strength of
that, would now hold the kingdom at defiance?

Thus much I have thought fit to say, without pointing reflections upon
any particular person; which I have hitherto but sparingly done, and that
only towards those whose characters are too profligate, that the managing
of them should be of any consequence: Besides as it is a talent I am not
naturally fond of, so, in the subjects I treat, it is generally needless.
If I display the effects of avarice and ambition, of bribery and
corruption, of gross immorality and irreligion, those who are the least
conversant in things, will easily know where to apply them. Not that I
lay any weight upon the objections of such who charge me with this
proceeding: it is notorious enough that the writers of the other side
were the first aggressors. Not to mention their scurrilous libels many
years ago, directly levelled at particular persons; how many papers do
now come out every week, full of rude invectives against the present
ministry, with the first and last letters of their names to prevent
mistakes? It is good sometimes to let these people see, that we neither
want spirit nor materials to retaliate; and therefore in this point
_alone_, I shall follow their example, whenever I find myself
sufficiently provoked; only with one addition, that whatever charges I
bring, either general or particular, shall be religiously true, either
upon avowed facts which none can deny, or such as I can prove from my own
knowledge.

Being resolved publicly to acknowledge any mistakes I have been guilty
of; I do here humbly desire the reader's pardon for one of mighty
importance, about a fact in one of my papers, said to be done in the
cathedral of Gloucester.[8] A whole Hydra of errors in two words: For as
I am since informed, it was neither in the cathedral, nor city, nor
county of Gloucester, but some other church of that diocese. If I had
ever met any other objection of equal weight, though from the meanest
hands, I should certainly have answered it.


[Footnote 1: No. 24 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "The merest trifles affect our spirits, and fill us with
hope or fear." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See Swift's "Memoirs Relating to that Change," etc., vol.
v., p. 386 of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: "The general ferment soon after [1710, summer] broke out
into numerous addresses, of very different style and tenor, that were
presented to the Queen. ... The high-church addresses not only exceeded
the others in number, but were also far better received; as complimenting
the Queen with a more extensive prerogative, and an hereditary title"
(Chamberlen's "History of Queen Anne," p. 347). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: At the general election in October and November, 1710, the
City of London returned four Tories: Sir Wm. Withers, Sir R. Hoare, Sir
G. Newland, and Mr. John Cass. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Harley's ministry continued in power until July, 1714.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: This act of Wharton's was alluded to by the Duke of Leeds in
the House of Lords on December 6th, 1705. See Dartmouth's note on
Burnet's "Own Times," vol. ii., p. 435, and compare "History of
Parliament," and "Journals of House of Lords." When the Duke of
Leeds insinuated pretty plainly to Wharton the nature of his offence,
Dartmouth remarks that the "Lord Wharton was very silent for the
rest of that day, and desired no further explanations." [T.S.]]




NUMB. 26.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 18, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 25, 1710-11.

[Greek: Dialexamenoi tina haesuchae, to men sumpan epi te tae dunas eia
kai kata ton echthron sunomosan.]

_Summissa quaedam voce collocuti sunt; quorum summa erat de dominatione
sibi confirmanda, ac inimicis delendis conjuratio._[2]

Not many days ago I observed a knot of discontented gentlemen cursing the
Tories to Hell for their uncharitableness, in affirming, that if the late
ministry had continued to this time, we should have had neither Church
nor Monarchy left. They are usually so candid as to call that the opinion
of a party, which they hear in a coffeehouse, or over a bottle from some
warm young people, whom it is odds but they have provoked to say more
than they believed, by some positions as absurd and ridiculous of their
own. And so it proved in this very instance: for, asking one of these
gentlemen, what it was that provoked those he had been disputing with, to
advance such a paradox? he assured me in a very calm manner, it was
nothing in the world, but that himself and some others of the company had
made it appear, that the design of the present P[arliamen]t and
m[inistr]y, was to bring in Popery, arbitrary power, and the Pretender:
which I take to be an opinion fifty times more improbable, as well as
more uncharitable, than what is charged upon the Whigs: because I defy
our adversaries to produce one single reason for suspecting such designs
in the persons now at the helm; whereas I can upon demand produce twenty
to shew, that some late men had strong views towards a commonwealth, and
the alteration of the Church.

It is natural indeed, when a storm is over, that has only untiled our
houses, and blown down some of our chimneys, to consider what further
mischiefs might have ensued, if it had lasted longer. However, in the
present case, I am not of the opinion above-mentioned; I believe the
Church and State might have lasted somewhat longer, though the late
enemies to both had done their worst: I can hardly conceive how things
would have been so soon ripe for a new revolution. I am convinced, that
if they had offered to make such large and sudden strides, it must have
come to blows, and according to the computation we have now reason to
think a right one, I can partly guess what would have been the issue.
Besides, we are sure the Q[uee]n would have interposed before they came
to extremities, and as little as they regarded the regal authority, would
have been a check in their career.

But instead of this question; What would have been the consequence if the
late ministry had continued? I will propose another, which will be more
useful for us to consider; and that is, What we may reasonably expect
they will do, if ever they come into power again? This, we know, is the
design and endeavour of all those scribbles that daily fly about in their
favour; of all the false, insolent, and scandalous libels against the
present administration; and of all those engines set at work to sink the
actions, and blow up the public credit. As for those who shew their
inclinations by writing, there is one consideration, which I wonder does
not sometimes affect them: for how can they forbear having a good opinion
of the gentleness and innocence of those, who permit them to employ their
pens as they do? It puts me in mind of an insolent pragmatical orator
somewhere in Greece, who railing with great freedom at the chief men in
the state, was answered by one who had been very instrumental in
recovering the liberty of the city, that "he thanked the gods they had
now arrived to the condition he always wished them, when every man in
that city might securely say what they pleased." I wish these gentlemen
would however compare the liberty they take with what their masters used
to give: how many messengers and warrants would have gone out against any
that durst have opened their lips, or drawn their pens, against the
persons and proceedings of their juntoes and cabals? How would their
weekly writers have been calling out for prosecution and punishment? We
remember when a poor nickname,[3] borrowed from an old play of Ben
Jonson, and mentioned in a sermon without any particular application, was
made use of as a motive to spur an impeachment. But after all, it must be
confessed, they had reasons to be thus severe, which their successors
have not: _their_ faults would never endure the light; and to have
exposed them sooner, would have raised the kingdom against the actors,
before the time.

But, to come to the subject I have now undertaken; which is to _examine_,
what the consequences would be, upon supposition that the Whigs were now
restored to their power. I already imagine the present free P[arliamen]t
dissolved, and another of a different epithet met, by the force of money
and management. I read immediately a dozen or two stinging votes against
the proceedings of the late ministry. The bill now to be repealed would
then be re-enacted, and the birthright of an Englishman reduced again to
the value of twelvepence.[4] But to give the reader a stronger
imagination of such a scene; let me represent the designs of some men,
lately endeavoured and projected, in the form of a paper of votes.

"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for repealing the Sacramental Test.

"A petition of T[in]d[a]l, C[o]ll[in]s, Cl[en]d[o]n, C[o]w[ar]d,
T[o]l[a]nd,[5] in behalf of themselves and many hundreds of their
disciples, some of which are Members of this honourable H[ouse], desiring
that leave be given to bring in a Bill for qualifying Atheists, Deists
and Socinians, to serve their Country in any employment.

"Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the prayer
of the said petition, and that Mr. L[ec]h[me]re[6] do prepare and bring
it in.

"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for removing the education of youth
out of the hands of the Clergy.

"Another, to forbid the Clergy preaching certain duties in religion,
especially obedience to Princes.

"Another, to take away the jurisdiction of Bishops.

"Another, for constituting a General for life; with instructions to the
committee, that care may be taken to make the war last as long as the
life of the said General.

"A Bill of Attainder against C[harles] D[uke] of Sh[rewsbury], J[ohn]
D[uke] of B[uckingham], L[aurence] E[arl] of R[ochester], Sir S[imon]
H[arcourt], k[nigh]t, R[obert] H[arley], H[enry] S[t. John],[7] Esqs;
A[bigail] M[asham], spinster,[8] and others, for high treason against the
j[u]nto.

"Resolved, That S[ara]h D[uchess] of M[arlborough] hath been a most
dutiful, just, and grateful servant to Her M[ajest]y.

"Resolved, That to advise the dissolution of a W[hi]g Parliament, or the
removal of a W[hi]g Ministry, was in order to bring in Popery and the
Pretender; and that the said advice was high treason.

"Resolved, That by the original compact the Government of this Realm is
by a junto, and a K[ing] or Qu[een]; but the Administration solely in the
junto.

"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for further limiting the Prerogative.

"Ordered, That it be a standing order of this H[ouse] that the merit of
elections be not determined by the number of voices, or right of
electors, but by weight; and that one Whig shall weigh down ten Tories.

"A motion being made, and the question being put, that when a Whig is
detected of manifest bribery, and his competitor being a Tory, has ten to
one a majority, there shall be a new election; it passed in the negative.

"Resolved, That for a K[ing] or Q[ueen] of this Realm, to read or examine
a paper brought them to be signed by a j[un]to Minister, is arbitrary and
illegal, and a violation of the liberties of the people."

       *       *       *       *       *

These and the like reformations would, in all probability, be the first
fruits of the Whigs' resurrection; and what structures such able artists
might in a short time build upon such foundations, I leave others to
conjecture. All hopes of a peace cut off; the nation industriously
involved in further debts to a degree, that none would dare undertake
the management of affairs, but those whose interest lay in ruining the
constitution. I do not see how the wisest prince under such necessities
could be able to extricate himself. Then, as to the Church, the bishops
would by degrees be dismissed, first from the Parliament, next from their
revenues, and at last from their office; and the clergy, instead of their
idle claim of independency on the state, would be forced to depend for
their daily bread on every individual. But what system of future
government was designed; whether it were already digested, or would have
been left for time and incidents to mature, I shall not now _Examine_.
Only upon this occasion I cannot help reflecting on a fact, which it is
probable, the reader knows as well as myself. There was a picture drawn
some time ago, representing five persons as large as the life, sitting at
council together like a Pentarchy. A void space was left for a sixth,
which was to have been the Qu[een], to whom they intended that honour:
but her M[ajest]y having since fallen under their displeasure, they have
made a shift to crowd in two better friends in her place, which makes it
a complete Heptarchy.[9] This piece is now in the country, reserved till
better times, and hangs in a hall, among the pictures of Cromwell,
Bradshaw, Ireton, and some other predecessors.

I must now desire leave to say something to a gentleman, who has been
pleased to publish a discourse against a paper of mine relating to the
convocation.[10] He promises to set me right, without any undue
reflections or undecent language. I suppose he means in comparison with
others, who pretend to answer the "Examiner": So far he is right; but if
he thinks he has behaved himself as becomes a candid antagonist, I
believe he is mistaken. He says, in his title-page, my "representations
are unfair, and my reflections unjust." And his conclusion is yet more
severe,[11] where he "doubts I and my friends are enraged against the
Dutch, because they preserved us from Popery and arbitrary power at the
Revolution; and since that time, from being overrun by the exorbitant
power of France, and becoming a prey to the Pretender." Because this
author seems in general to write with an honest meaning, I would
seriously put to him the question, whether he thinks I and my friends
are for Popery, arbitrary power, France and the Pretender? I omit other
instances of smaller moment, which however do not suit in my opinion with
due reflection or decent language. The fact relating to the convocation,
came from a good hand, and I do not find this author differs from me
in any material circumstance about it. My reflections were no more than
what might be obvious to any other gentleman, who had heard of their late
proceedings. If the notion be right which this author gives us of a Lower
House of Convocation, it is a very melancholy one,[12] and to me seems
utterly inconsistent with that of a body of men whom he owns to have a
negative; and therefore, since a great majority of the clergy differs
from him in several points he advances, I shall rather choose to be of
their opinion than his. I fancy, when the whole synod met in one house,
as this writer affirms, they were upon a better foot with their bishops,
and therefore whether this treatment so extremely _de haut en bas_, since
their exclusion, be suitable to primitive custom or primitive humility
towards brethren, is not my business to enquire. One may allow the divine
or apostolic right of Episcopacy, and their great superiority over
presbyters, and yet dispute the methods of exercising the latter, which
being of human institution, are subject to encroachments and usurpations.
I know, every clergyman in a diocese has a good deal of dependence upon
his bishop, and owes him canonical obedience: but I was apt to think,
when the whole representative of the clergy met in a synod, they were
considered in another light, at least since they are allowed to have a
negative. If I am mistaken, I desire to be excused, as talking out of my
trade: only there is one thing wherein I entirely differ from this
author. Since in the disputes about privileges, one side must recede;
where so very few privileges remain, it is a hundred to one odds, the
encroachments are not on the inferior clergy's side; and no man can blame
them for insisting on the small number that is left. There is one fact
wherein I must take occasion to set this author right; that the person
who first moved the QUEEN to remit the first-fruits and tenths to the
clergy, was an eminent instrument in the late turn of affairs;[13] and as
I am told, has lately prevailed to have the same favour granted for the
clergy of Ireland.[14]

But I must beg leave to inform the author, that this paper is not
intended for the management of controversy, which would be of very little
import to most readers, and only misspend time, that I would gladly
employ to better purposes. For where it is a man's business to entertain
a whole room-full, it is unmannerly to apply himself to a particular
person, and turn his back upon the rest of the company.


[Footnote 1: No. 25 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "They met and whispered together; and their entire aim was
the confirmation of their own power and an oath for the destruction of
their enemies." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The following is the passage in Sacheverell's sermon in
which the nickname is used: "What dependence can there be upon a man of
no principles? ... In what moving and lively colours does the holy
Psalmist paint out the crafty insidiousness of such wily Volpones!"
Godolphin, in spite of Somers's protest against such action, brought
about the preacher's impeachment, for this description of himself, as he
took it. See also vol. v., p. 219 and note of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: An attempt was made to repeal the Act for Naturalizing
Foreign Protestants (7 Ann. c. 5), which received the royal assent, March
23rd, 170-8/9, by a Bill which passed the House of Commons, January 31st,
171-0/1, but was thrown out by the Lords, February 5th. Persons
naturalized under this Act had to pay a fee of one shilling on taking the
prescribed oath of allegiance. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: See Nos. 20 and 23, _ante_, and notes pp. 118 and 141.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Nicholas Lechmere (1675-1727), member for Appleby (1708-10),
Cockermouth (1710-17), and Tewkesbury (1717-21), was one of the
managers in the impeachment of Sacheverell. He, with Addison,
Hoadly, and Minshull corrected Steele's draft of "The Crisis" for
publication. He was created Lord Lechmere in 1721, after he had held
the offices of solicitor-general (1714-18) and attorney-general (1718-20).
See also vol. v., p. 326 note, of present edition. [T.S.]]