Abel Roper conducted the Tory paper called "The Post Boy." (See note on
p. 290 of vol. v. of present edition.) [T.S.] ]

[Footnote 6: Two of these pamphlets were already referred to in a
postscript to No. 24 of "The Examiner" (see note, p. 151). The third was
"The Negotiations for a Treaty of Peace, in 1709. Consider'd, In a Third
Letter to a Tory-Member. Part the First." Dated December 22nd, 1710, The
"Fourth Letter" was dated January 10th, 1710/11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: It may be that Swift's intention was carried out in two
pamphlets, one entitled, "An Examination of the Management of the War. In
a Letter to My Lord * * *," published March 3rd, 1710/1; and the other
styled, "An Examination of the Third and Fourth Letters to a Tory
Member, relating to the Negociations for a Treaty of Peace in 1709. In
a Second Letter to My Lord * * *" [With a Postscript to the Medley's
Footman], published March 15th of the same year. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The postscript to "An Examination of the Third and Fourth
Letters" mentions a pamphlet, "An Answer to the Examination of the
Management of the War," by the Medley's Footman. "The Medley," No. 21
(February 19th), remarks: "He could also prove there were wrong steps in
the Treaty of Peace, the Allies would have all; but he won't do it,
because he is treated like a footman." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: _I. e._ Dr. Francis Hare. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Dr. Hare, in the postscript to his third pamphlet, said:
"The Examiner is extremely mistaken, if he thinks I shall enter the lists
with so prostitute a writer, who can neither speak truth, nor knows when
he hears it." He calls the writer "a mercenary scribbler," and speaks of
his paper as "weekly libels." He then quotes an expression from the
fourth number (published before Swift undertook "The Examiner"), and
concludes by saying that he had met more than his   match in the
ingenious writer of "The Medley," even were he much abler than he is.

The fourth "Examiner" had printed a "Letter from the Country," in which
the following passage occurs: "Can any wise people think it possible,
that the Crown should be so mad as to choose ministers, who would not
support public credit? ... This is such a wildness as is never ... to be
met with in the Roman story; except in a devouring Sejanus at home, or an
ambitious Catiline at the head of a mercenary army."

The writer of "An Examination of the Third and Fourth Letters," says:
"The words indeed are in the paper quoted, that is, 'The Examiner,' No.
4, but the application is certainly the proper thought of the author of
the postscript" (p. 28). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: _I. e._ Prior. See No. 27, p. 168. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Horace, "Odes," II. xiii. 31-2.
                    "Tyrants slain,
In thicker crowds the shadowy throng
Drink deeper down the martial song."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, was lord treasurer from
168 4/5 to 168 6/7, when five commissioners were appointed: Lord
Belasyse, Lord Godolphin, Lord Dover, Sir John Ernle (chancellor of the
exchequer), and Sir Stephen Foxe. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: "The Medley," No. 22 (February 26th, 1711) remarks on this:
"He might have said with as much truth, 'twas supplied by my Lord G----
and two Protestant knights, Sir Stephen Fox and Sir John Ernle." [T.S.]]




NUMB. 30.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 15, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1710-11.

_Laus summa in fortunae bonis, non extulisse se in potestate, non fuisse
insolentem in pecuniГў, non se praetulisse aliis propter abundantiam
fortunae._[2]

I am conscious to myself that I write this paper with no other intention
but that of doing good: I never received injury from the late ministry,
nor advantage from the present, further than in common with every good
subject. There were among the former one or two, who must be allowed to
have possessed very valuable qualities; but proceeding by a system of
politics, which our constitution could not suffer; and discovering a
contempt of all religion, but especially of that which hath been so
happily established among us ever since the Reformation, they seem to
have been justly suspected of no very good inclinations to either.

It is possible, that a man may speculatively prefer the constitution of
another country, or an Utopia of his own, before that of the nation where
he is born and lives; yet from considering the dangers of innovation, the
corruptions of mankind, and the frequent impossibility of reducing ideas
to practice, he may join heartily in preserving the present order of
things, and be a true friend to the government already settled. So in
religion; a man may perhaps have little or none of it at heart; yet if he
conceals his opinions, if he endeavours to make no proselytes, advances
no impious tenets in writing or discourse: if, according to the common
atheistical notion, he believes religion to be only a contrivance of
politicians for keeping the vulgar in awe, and that the present model is
better adjusted than any other to so useful an end: though the condition
of such a man as to his own future state be very deplorable; yet
Providence, which often works good out of evil, can make even such a
man an instrument for contributing toward the preservation of the Church.

On the other side, I take a state to be truly in danger, both as to its
religion and government, when a set of ambitious politicians, bred up in
a hatred to the constitution, and a contempt for all religion, are forced
upon exerting these qualities in order to keep or increase their power,
by widening their bottom, and taking in (like Mahomet) some principles
from every party, that is any way discontented at the present faith and
settlement; which was manifestly our case. Upon this occasion I remember
to have asked some considerable Whigs, whether it did not bring a
disreputation upon their body, to have the whole herd of Presbyterians,
Independents, Atheists, Anabaptists, Deists, Quakers and Socinians,
openly and universally listed under their banners? They answered, that
all this was absolutely necessary, in order to make a balance against
the Tories, and all little enough: for indeed, it was as much as they
could possibly do, though assisted with the absolute power of disposing
every employment; while the bulk of English gentry kept firm to their old
principles in Church and State.

But notwithstanding whatever I have hitherto said, I am informed, several
among the Whigs continue still so refractory, that they will hardly allow
the heads of their party to have entertained any designs of ruining the
constitution, or that they would have endeavoured it, if they had
continued in power, I beg their pardon if I have discovered a secret; but
who could imagine they ever intended it should be one, after those overt
acts with which they thought fit to conclude their farce? But perhaps
they _now_ find it convenient to deny vigorously, that the question may
remain; "Why was the old ministry changed?" which they urge on without
ceasing, as if no occasion in the least had been given, but that all were
owing to the insinuations of crafty men, practising upon the weakness of
an easy pr[inc]e. I shall therefore offer among a hundred, one reason for
this change, which I think would justify any monarch that ever reigned,
for the like proceeding.

It is notorious enough, how highly princes have been blamed in the
histories of all countries, particularly of our own; upon the account of
minions; who have been ever justly odious to the people, for their
insolence and avarice, and engrossing the favour of their masters.
Whoever has been the least conversant in the English story cannot but
have heard of Gaveston[3], the Spencers[4], and the Earl of Oxford[5];
who by the excess and abuse of their power, cost the princes they served,
or rather governed, their crowns and lives. However, in the case of
minions, it must at least be acknowledged that the prince is pleased and
happy, though his subjects be aggrieved; and he has the plea of
friendship to excuse him, which is a disposition of generous minds.
Besides, a wise minion, though he be haughty to others, is humble and
insinuating to his master, and cultivates his favour by obedience and
respect. But _our_ misfortune has been a great deal worse: we have
suffered for some years under the oppression, the avarice and insolence
of those, for whom the Qu[ee]n had neither esteem nor friendship; who
rather seemed to snatch their own dues, than receive the favour of their
sovereign, and were so far from returning respect, that they forgot
common good manners. They imposed on their prince, by urging the
necessity of affairs of their own creating: they first raised
difficulties, and then offered them as arguments to keep themselves in
power. They united themselves against nature and principle, to a party
they had always abhorred, and which was now content to come in upon any
terms, leaving them and their creatures in full possession of the court.
Then they urged the formidable strength of that party, and the dangers
which must follow by disobliging of it. So that it seems almost a
miracle, how a prince, thus besieged on all sides, could _alone_ have
courage and prudence enough to extricate herself.

And indeed there is a point of history relating to this matter, which
well deserves to be considered. When her M[ajest]y came to the crown, she
took into favour and employment, several persons who were esteemed the
best friends of the old constitution; among whom none were reckoned
further gone in the high church principles (as they are usually called)
than two or three, who had at that time most credit, and ever since, till
within these few months, possessed all power at court. So that the first
umbrage given to the Whigs, and the pretences for clamouring against
France and the Pretender, were derived from them. And I believe nothing
appeared then more unlikely, than that such different opinions should
ever incorporate; that party having upon former occasions treated those
very persons with enmity enough. But some l[or]ds then about court, and
in the Qu[een]'s good graces, not able to endure those growing
impositions upon the prince and people, presumed to interpose, and were
consequently soon removed and disgraced: However, when a most exorbitant
grant was proposed,[6] antecedent to any visible merit, it miscarried in
Parliament, for want of being seconded by those who had most credit in
the House, and who having always opposed the like excesses in a former
reign, thought it their duty to do so still, to shew the world that the
dislike was not against persons but things. But this was to cross the
oligarchy in the tenderest point, a point which outweighed all
considerations of duty and gratitude to their prince, or regard to the
constitution. And therefore after having in several private meetings
concerted measures with their old enemies, and granted as well as
received conditions, they began to change their style and their
countenance, and to put it as a maxim in the mouths of their emissaries,
that England must be saved by the Whigs. This unnatural league was
afterwards cultivated by another incident; I mean the Act of Security,[7]
and the consequences of it, which every body knows; when (to use the
words of my correspondent)[8] "the sovereign authority was parcelled out
among a faction, and made the purchase of indemnity for an offending
M[iniste]r:" Thus the union of the two kingdoms improved that between the
ministry and the j[u]nto, which was afterwards cemented by their mutual
danger in that storm they so narrowly escaped about three years ago;[9]
but however was not quite perfected till the Prince's death;[10] and then
they went lovingly on together, both satisfied with their several shares,
at full liberty to gratify their predominant inclinations; the first,
their avarice and ambition; the other, their models of innovation in
Church and State.

Therefore, whoever thinks fit to revive that baffled question, "Why was
the late ministry changed?" may receive the following answer; That it was
become necessary by the insolence and avarice of some about the Qu[een],
who in order to perpetuate their tyranny had made a monstrous alliance
with those who profess principles destructive to our religion and
government: If this will not suffice, let him make an abstract of all the
abuses I have mentioned in my former papers, and view them together;
after which if he still remains unsatisfied, let him suspend his opinion
a few weeks longer. Though after all, I think the question as trifling as
that of the Papists, when they ask us, "where was our religion before
Luther?" And indeed, the ministry was changed for the same reason that
religion was reformed, because a thousand corruptions had crept into the
discipline and doctrine of the state, by the pride, the avarice, the
fraud, and the ambition of those who administered to us in secular
affairs.

I heard myself censured the other day in a coffee-house, for seeming to
glance in the letter to Crassus,[11] against a great man, who is still in
employment, and likely to continue so. What if I had really intended that
such an application should be given it? I cannot perceive how I could be
justly blamed for so gentle a reproof. If I saw a handsome young fellow
going to a ball at court with a great smut upon his face, could he take
it ill in me to point out the place, and desire him with abundance of
good words to pull out his handkerchief and wipe it off; or bring him to
a glass, where he might plainly see it with his own eyes? Does any man
think I shall suffer my pen to inveigh against vices, only because they
are charged upon persons who are no longer in power? Every body knows,
that certain vices are more or less pernicious, according to the stations
of those who possess them. For example, lewdness and intemperance
are not of so bad consequences in a town rake as a divine. Cowardice in a
lawyer is more supportable than in an officer of the army. If I should
find fault with an admiral because he wanted politeness, or an alderman
for not understanding Greek; that indeed would be to go out of my way,
for an occasion of quarrelling; but excessive avarice in a g[enera]l, is
I think the greatest defect he can be liable to, next to those of courage
and conduct, and may be attended with the most ruinous consequences, as
it was in Crassus, who to that vice alone owed the destruction of himself
and his army.[12] It is the same thing in praising men's excellencies,
which are more or less valuable, as the person you commend has occasion
to employ them. A man may perhaps mean honestly, yet if he be not able to
spell, he shall never have my vote for a secretary: Another may have wit
and learning in a post where honesty, with plain common sense, are of
much more use: You may praise a soldier for his skill at chess, because
it is said to be a military game, and the emblem of drawing up an army;
but this to a tr[easure]r would be no more a compliment, than if you
called him a gamester or a jockey.[13]

P.S. I received a letter relating to Mr. Greenshields; the person who
sent it may know, that I will say something to it in the next paper.


[Footnote 1: No. 29 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "Tractanda in laudationibus etiam haec sunt naturae et
fortunae bona, in quibus est summa laus: non extulisse," etc.--CICERO,
_De Oratore_ ii. 84.

"These blessings of nature and fortune fall within the province of
panegyric, the highest strain of which is, that a man possessed power
without pride, riches without insolence, and the fullness of fortune
without the arrogance of greatness."--W. GUTHRIE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, the favourite of Edward
II. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Hugh le Despencer, Earl of Winchester, and his son of the
same name, both favourites of Edward II., and both hanged in 1326.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, favourite of Richard II.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: See No. 17, _ante_, and note, p. 95. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Bill of Security passed the Scottish Parliament in 1703,
but was refused the Royal Assent. It provided for the separation of the
Crowns of England and Scotland unless security was given to the latter
for full religious and commercial independence. It was again passed
in 1704. (See also note in vol. v., p. 336 of present edition.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The writer of the "Letter" does not ascribe this result to
the Act of Security, but to the Queen raising some of her servants to the
highest degree of power who were unable "to associate with, men of
honester principles than themselves," which led to "subjection to the
will of an arbitrary junto and to the caprice of an insolent woman." [T.
S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin threatened to
resign in February, 1707/8, unless Harley was dismissed. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Prince George died October 28th, 1708. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: "The Medley," No. 20 (February 12th) was largely taken up
with remarks on this letter, which appeared in "The Examiner," No. 28.
See passage there quoted in the note, p. 177. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Crassus was defeated by Orodes, King of Parthia, through
the treachery of Ariamnes. After Crassus was beheaded Orodes caused
molten gold to be poured into his mouth. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Godolphin. See No. 27, _ante_, p. 172. [T.S.]]



NUMB. 31.[1]

FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, TO THURSDAY MARCH 1, 1710-11.


_Quae enim domus tam stabilis, quae tam firma civitas est, quae non odiis
atque discidiis funditus possit everti?_[2]

If we examine what societies of men are in closest union among
themselves, we shall find them either to be those who are engaged in some
evil design, or who labour under one common misfortune: Thus the troops
of _banditti_ in several countries abroad, the knots of highwaymen in our
own nation, the several tribes of sharpers, thieves and pickpockets, with
many others, are so firmly knit together, that nothing is more difficult
than to break or dissolve their several gangs. So likewise those who are
fellow-sufferers under any misfortune, whether it be in reality or
opinion, are usually contracted into a very strict union; as we may
observe in the Papists throughout this kingdom, under those real
difficulties which are justly put on them; and in the several schisms of
Presbyterians, and other sects, under that grievous persecution of the
modern kind, called want of power. And the reason why such confederacies,
are kept so sacred and inviolable, is very plain, because in each of
those cases I have mentioned, the whole body is moved by one common
spirit, in pursuit of one general end, and the interest of individuals is
not crossed by each other, or by the whole.

Now, both these motives are joined to unite the high-flying Whigs at
present: they have been always engaged in an evil design, and of late
they are faster rivetted by that terrible calamity, the loss of power. So
that whatever designs a mischievous crew of dark confederates may
possibly entertain, who will stop at no means to compass them, may be
justly apprehended from these.

On the other side, those who wish well to the public, and would gladly
contribute to its service, are apt to differ in their opinions about the
methods of promoting it, and when their party flourishes, are sometimes
envious at those in power, ready to overvalue their own merit, and be
impatient till it is rewarded by the measure they have prescribed for
themselves. There is a further topic of contention, which a ruling party
is apt to fall into, in relation to retrospections, and enquiry into past
miscarriages; wherein some are thought too warm and zealous; others too
cool and remiss; while in the meantime these divisions are industriously
fomented by the discarded faction; which though it be an old practice,
hath been much improved in the schools of the Jesuits, who when they
despaired of perverting this nation to popery, by arguments or plots
against the state, sent their emissaries to subdivide us into schisms.[3]
And this expedient is now with great propriety taken up by our men of
incensed moderation, because they suppose themselves able to attack the
strongest of our subdivisions, and so subdue us one after another.
Nothing better resembles this proceeding, than that famous combat between
the Horatii and Curiatii,[4] where two of the former being killed, the
third, who remained entire and untouched, was able to kill his three
wounded adversaries, after he had divided them by a stratagem. I well
know with how tender a hand all this should be touched; yet at the same
time I think it my duty to warn the friends as well as expose the enemies
of the public weal, and to begin preaching up union upon the first
suspicion that any steps are made to disturb it.

But the two chief subjects of discontent, which, in most great changes,
in the management of public affairs, are apt to breed differences among
those who are in possession, are what I have just now mentioned; a desire
of punishing the corruptions of former managers; and the rewarding merit,
among those who have been any way instrumental or consenting to the
change. The first of these is a point so nice, that I shall purposely
waive it; but the latter I take to fall properly within my district: By
merit I here understand that value which every man puts upon his own
deservings from the public. And I believe there could not be a more
difficult employment found out, than that of paymaster general to this
sort of merit; or a more noisy, crowded place, than a court of
judicature, erected to settle and adjust every man's claim upon that
article. I imagine, if this had fallen into the fancy of the ancient
poets, they would have dressed it up after their manner into an agreeable
fiction, and given us a genealogy and description of merit, perhaps not
very different from that which follows.

_A Poetical Genealogy and Description of_ MERIT.

That true Merit, was the son of Virtue and Honour; but that there was
likewise a spurious child who usurped the name, and whose parents were
Vanity and Impudence. That, at a distance, there was a great resemblance
between them, and they were often mistaken for each other. That the
bastard issue had a loud shrill voice, which was perpetually employed in
cravings and complaints; while the other never spoke louder than a
whisper, and was often so bashful that he could not speak at all. That in
all great assemblies, the false Merit would step before the true, and
stand just in his way; was constantly at court, or great men's levees, or
whispering in some minister's ear. That the more you fed him, the more
hungry and importunate he grew. That he often passed for the true son of
Virtue and Honour, and the genuine for an impostor. That he was born
distorted and a dwarf, but by force of art appeared of a handsome shape,
and taller than the usual size; and that none but those who were wise and
good, as well as vigilant, could discover his littleness or deformity.
That the true Merit had been often forced to the indignity of applying to
the false, for his credit with those in power, and to keep himself from
starving. That he filled the antechambers with a crew of his dependants
and creatures, such as projectors, schematises, occasional converts to a
party, prostitute flatterers, starveling writers, buffoons, shallow
politicians, empty orators, and the like, who all owned him for their
patron, and grew discontented if they were not immediately fed.


This metaphorical description of false Merit, is, I doubt,
calculated for most countries in Christendom; and as to
our own, I believe it may be said with a sufficient reserve of charity,
that we are fully able to reward every man among us according to his real
deservings. And I think I may add, without suspicion of flattery, that
never any prince had a ministry with a better judgment to distinguish
between false and real merit, than that which is now at the helm; or
whose inclination as well as interest it is to encourage the latter. And
it ought to be observed, that those great and excellent persons we see at
the head of affairs, are of the Qu[een]'s own personal voluntary choice;
not forced upon her by any insolent, overgrown favourite; or by the
pretended necessity of complying with an unruly faction.

Yet these are the persons whom those scandals to the press, in their
daily pamphlets and papers, openly revile at so ignominious a rate, as I
believe was never tolerated before under any government. For surely no
lawful power derived from a prince, should be so far affronted, as to
leave those who are in authority exposed to every scurrilous libeller.
Because in this point I make a mighty difference between those who are
_in_, and those who are _out_ of power; not upon any regard to their
persons, but the stations they are placed in by the sovereign. And if my
distinction be right, I think I might appeal to any man, whether if a
stranger were to read the invectives which are daily published against
the present ministry, and the outrageous fury of the authors against me
for censuring the _last_; he would not conclude the Whigs to be at this
time in full possession of power and favour, and the Tories entirely at
mercy? But all this now ceases to be a wonder, since the Qu[een] herself
is no longer spared; witness the libel published some days ago under the
title of "A Letter to Sir J[aco]b B[an]ks,"[5] where the reflections upon
her sacred Majesty are much more plain and direct, than ever the
"Examiner" thought fit to publish against the most obnoxious persons in a
m[inistr]y, discarded for endeavouring the ruin of their prince and
country. Caesar indeed threatened to hang the pirates for presuming to
disturb him while he was their prisoner aboard their ship.[6] But it was
Caesar who did so, and he did it to a crew of public robbers; and it
became the greatness of his spirit, for he lived to execute what he had
threatened. Had _they_ been in his power, and sent such a message, it
could be imputed to nothing but the extremes of impudence, folly or
madness.

I had a letter last week relating to Mr. Greenshields[7] an Episcopal
clergyman of Scotland, and the writer seems to be a gentleman of that
part of Britain. I remember formerly to have read a printed account of
Mr. Greenshields's case, who has been prosecuted and silenced for no
other reason beside reading divine service, after the manner of the
Church of England, to his own congregation, who desired it: though, as
the gentleman who writes to me says, there is no law in Scotland against
those meetings; and he adds, that the sentence pronounced against Mr.
Greenshields, "will soon be affirmed, if some care be not taken to
prevent it." I am altogether uninformed in the particulars of this case,
and besides to treat it justly, would not come within the compass of my
paper; therefore I could wish the gentleman would undertake it in a
discourse by itself; and I should be glad he would inform the public in
one fact, whether Episcopal assemblies are freely allowed in Scotland? It
is notorious that abundance of their clergy fled from thence some years
ago into England and Ireland, as from a persecution; but it was alleged
by their enemies, that they refused to take the oaths to the government,
which however none of them scrupled when they came among us. It is
somewhat extraordinary to see our Whigs and fanatics keep such a stir
about the sacred Act of Toleration, while their brethren will not allow a
connivance in so near a neighbourhood; especially if what the gentleman
insists on in his letter be true, that nine parts in ten of the nobility
and gentry, and two in three of the commons, be Episcopal; of which one
argument he offers, is the present choice of their representatives in
both Houses, though opposed to the utmost by the preachings, threatenings
and anathemas of the kirk. Such usage to a majority, may, as he thinks,
be of dangerous consequence; and I entirely agree with him. If these be
the principles of high kirk, God preserve at least the southern parts
from their tyranny!


[Footnote 1: No. 30 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, "De AmicitiГў," vii. "For what family is so firmly
rooted, what state so strong, as not to be liable to complete overthrow
from hatred and strife."--G.H. Wells. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Refers to the October Club. See Swift's "Memoirs Relating to
that Change," etc. (vol. v., pp. 385-6 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The contest is the subject of one of Macaulay's "Lays."
Three brothers named Horatius fought with three named Curiatius, and the
fight resulted in Publius Horatius being the sole survivor. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: In his letter to the Earl of Peterborough, dated February,
1710/1 (Scott, vol. xv., pp. 422-3), Swift speaks more favourably of this
pamphlet. His remarks to the Earl throw considerable light on Swift's own
position as a Tory: "The piece is shrewdly written; and, in my opinion,
not to be answered, otherwise than by disclaiming that sort of passive
obedience which the Tories are charged with. This dispute would soon be
ended, if the dunces who write on each side would plainly tell us what the
object of this passive obedience is in our country; for I dare swear nine
in ten of the Whigs will allow it to be the legislature, and as many of
the Tories deny it to the prince alone; and I hardly ever saw a Whig
and a Tory together, whom I could not immediately reconcile on that
article when I made them explain themselves."

The pamphlet was written by a Mr. Benson in reply to Sir Jacob Banks,
who, as member for Minehead, had, in 1709-10 presented an address from
his constituents in which it was pretty broadly avowed that subjects must
obey their monarch, since he was responsible to God alone. The writer of
the letter institutes a clever parallel between England and Sweden. See
note to No. 14, _ante_, and No. 34, _post_, pp. 75 and 216. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Julius Caesar was captured by pirates off the coast of
Miletus (_c._ 75 B.C.) and held to ransom. The threat of crucifixion he
then held out to his captors he afterwards fulfilled. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Rev. James Greenshields was imprisoned (September 15th,
1709) for conducting in Edinburgh the service according to the English
Prayer Book. He appealed to the House of Lords, and the judgment against
him was reversed, March 1st. 1710/1 ("Journals of House of Lords," xix).
[T.S.]]



NUMB. 32.[1]


FROM THURSDAY MARCH 1, TO THURSDAY MARCH 8, 1710-11.

  _----Garrit aniles
  Ex re fabellas_.[2]




I had last week sent me by an unknown hand, a passage
out of Plato,[3] with some hints how to apply it. That author puts a
fable into the mouth of Aristophanes, with an account of the original of
love. That, mankind was at first created with four arms and legs, and all
other parts double to what they are now; till Jupiter, as a punishment for
his sins, cleft him in two with a thunderbolt, since which time we are
always looking for our _other half_; and this is the cause of love. But
Jupiter threatened, that if they did not mend their manners, he would give
them t'other slit, and leave them to hop about in the shape of figures in
_basso relievo_. The effect of this last threatening, my correspondent
imagines, is now come to pass; and that as the first splitting was the
original of love, by inclining us to search for our t'other half, so the
second was the cause of hatred, by prompting us to fly from our other side,
and dividing the same body into two, gave each slice the name of a party.

I approve the fable and application, with this refinement upon it. For
parties do not only split a nation, but every individual among them,
leaving each but half their strength, and wit, and honesty, and good
nature; but one eye and ear for their sight and hearing, and equally
lopping the rest of the senses: Where parties are pretty equal in a
state, no man can perceive one bad quality in his own, or good one in his
adversaries. Besides, party being a dry disagreeable subject, it renders
conversation insipid or sour, and confines invention. I speak not here of
the leaders, but the insignificant crowd of followers in a party, who
have been the instruments of mixing it in every condition and
circumstance of life. As the zealots among the Jews bound the law about
their foreheads, and wrists, and hems of their garments; so the women
among us have got the distinguishing marks of party in their muffs, their
fans, and their furbelows. The Whig ladies put on their patches in a
different manner from the Tories.[4] They have made schisms in the
playhouse, and each have their particular sides at the opera: and when a
man changes his party, he must infallibly count upon the loss of his
mistress. I asked a gentleman the other day, how he liked such a lady?
but he would not give me his opinion till I had answered him whether she
were a Whig or a Tory. Mr.----[5] since he is known to visit the present
m[inist]ry, and lay some time under a suspicion of writing the
"Examiner," is no longer a man of wit; his very poems have contracted a
stupidity many years after they were printed.

Having lately ventured upon a metaphorical genealogy of Merit, I thought
it would be proper to add another of Party, or rather, of Faction, (to
avoid mistake) not telling the reader whether it be my own or a
quotation, till I know how it is approved; but whether I read or dreamed
it, the fable is as follows.

"_Liberty, the daughter of Oppression, after having brought forth several
fair children, as Riches, Arts, Learning, Trade, and many others, was at
last delivered of her youngest daughter, called Faction; whom Juno, doing
the office of the midwife, distorted in its birth, out of envy to the
mother, from whence it derived its peevishness and sickly constitution.
However, as it is often the nature of parents to grow most fond of their
youngest and disagreeablest children, so it happened with Liberty, who
doted on this daughter to such a degree, that by her good will she would
never suffer the girl to be out of her sight. As Miss Faction grew up,
she became so termagant and froward, that there was no enduring her any
longer in Heaven. Jupiter gave her warning to be gone; and her mother
rather than forsake her, took the whole family down to earth. She landed
at first in Greece, was expelled by degrees through all the Cities by her
daughter's ill-conduct; fled afterwards to Italy, and being banished
thence, took shelter among the Goths, with whom she passed into most
parts of Europe; but driven out every where, she began to lose esteem,
and her daughter's faults were imputed to herself. So that at this time,
she has hardly a place in the world to retire to. One would wonder what
strange qualities this daughter must possess, sufficient to blast the
influence of so divine a mother, and the rest of her children: She always
affected to keep mean and scandalous company; valuing nobody, but just
as they agreed with her in every capricious opinion she thought fit to
take up; and rigorously exacting compliance, though she changed her
sentiments ever so often. Her great employment was to breed discord among
friends and relations, and make up monstrous alliances between those
whose dispositions least resembled each other. Whoever offered to
contradict her, though in the most insignificant trifle, she would be
sure to distinguish by some ignominious appellation, and allow them to
have neither honour, wit, beauty, learning, honesty or common sense. She
intruded into all companies at the most unseasonable times, mixed at
balls, assemblies, and other parties of pleasure; haunted every coffee-
house and bookseller's shop, and by her perpetual talking filled all
places with disturbance and confusion. She buzzed about the merchant in
the Exchange, the divine in his pulpit, and the shopkeeper behind his
counter. Above all, she frequented public assemblies, where she sat in
the shape of an obscene, ominous bird, ready to prompt her friends as
they spoke_."

If I understand this fable of Faction right, it ought to be applied to
those who set themselves up against the true interest and constitution of
their country; which I wish the undertakers for the late m[inistr]y would
please to take notice of; or tell us by what figure of speech they
pretend to call so great and _unforced_ a majority, with the Qu[een] at
the head, by the name of "the Faction": which is unlike the phrase of the
Nonjurors, who dignifying one or two deprived bishops, and half a score
clergymen of the same stamp, with the title of the "Church of England,"
exclude all the rest as schismatics; or like the Presbyterians, laying
the same accusation, with equal justice, against the established
religion.

And here it may be worth inquiring what are the true characteristics of a
faction, or how it is to be distinguished from that great body of the
people who are friends to the constitution? The heads of a faction, are
usually a set of upstarts, or men ruined in their fortunes, whom some
great change in a government, did at first, out of their obscurity
produce upon the stage. They associate themselves with those who dislike
the old establishment, religious and civil. They are full of new schemes
in politics and divinity; they have an incurable hatred against the old
nobility, and strengthen their party by dependants raised from the lowest
of the people; they have several ways of working themselves into power;
but they are sure to be called when a corrupt administration wants to be
supported, against those who are endeavouring at a reformation; and they
firmly observe that celebrated maxim of preserving power by the same arts
it is attained. They act with the spirit of those who believe their _time
is but short;_ and their first care is to heap up immense riches at the
public expense; in which they have two ends, beside that common one of
insatiable avarice; which are, to make themselves necessary, and to keep
the Commonwealth in dependence: Thus they hope to compass their design,
which is, instead of fitting their principles to the constitution, to
alter and adjust the constitution to their own pernicious principles.

It is easy determining by this test, to which side the name of faction
most properly belongs. But however, I will give them any system of law or
regal government, from William the Conqueror to this present time, to try
whether they can tally it with their late models; excepting only that of
Cromwell, whom perhaps they will reckon for a monarch.

If the present ministry, and so great a majority in the Parliament and
Kingdom, be only a faction, it must appear by some actions which answers
the idea we usually conceive from that word. Have they abused the
prerogatives of the prince, or invaded the rights and liberties of the
subject? Have they offered at any dangerous innovations in Church or
State? Have they broached any doctrines of heresy, rebellion or tyranny?
Have any of them treated their sovereign with insolence, engrossed and
sold all her favours, or deceived her by base, gross misrepresentations
of her most faithful servants? These are the arts of a faction, and
whoever has practised them, they and their followers must take up with
the name.

It is usually reckoned a Whig principle to appeal to the people; but that
is only when they have been so wise as to poison their understandings
beforehand: Will they now stand to this appeal, and be determined by
their _vox populi_, to which side their title of faction belongs? And
that the people are now left to the natural freedom of their
understanding and choice, I believe our adversaries will hardly deny.
They will now refuse this appeal, and it is reasonable they should; and I
will further add, that if our people resembled the old Grecians, there
might be danger in such a trial. A pragmatical orator told a great man at
Athens, that whenever the people were in their rage, they would certainly
tear him to pieces; "Yes," says the other, "and they will do the same to
you, whenever they are in their wits." But God be thanked, our populace
is more merciful in their nature, and at present under better direction;
and the orators among us have attempted to confound both prerogative and
law, in their sovereign's presence, and before the highest court of
judicature, without any hazard to their persons.


[Footnote 1: No. 31 in the reprint. [T.S.]]


[Footnote 2: Horace, "Satires," II. vi. 77-8.
"To club his part in pithy tales."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The "Symposium," 189-192. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See "The Spectator," No. 81 (June 2nd, 1711): "Their patches
were placed in those different situations, as party signals to
distinguish friends from foes." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Matthew Prior. [T.S.]]



NUMB. 33.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 8, TO THURSDAY MARCH 15, 1710-11.[2]


_Non ea est medicina, cum sanae parti corporis scalpellum adhibetur,
atque integrae; carnificina est ista, et crudelitas. Hi medentur
Reipublicae qui exsecant pestem aliquam, tanquam strumam Civitatis_.[3]

I am diverted from the general subject of my discourses, to reflect upon
an event of a very extraordinary and surprising nature: A great minister,
in high confidence with the Queen, under whose management the weight of
affairs at present is in a great measure supposed to lie; sitting in
council, in a royal palace, with a dozen of the chief officers of the
state, is stabbed at the very board,[4] in the execution of his office,
by the hand of a French Papist, then under examination for high treason.
The assassin redoubles his blow, to make sure work; and concluding the
chancellor was dispatched, goes on with the same rage to murder a
principal secretary of state: and that whole noble assembly are forced to
rise, and draw their swords in their own defence, as if a wild beast had
been let loose among them.

This fact hath some circumstances of aggravation not to be paralleled by
any of the like kind we meet with in history. Caesar's murder being
performed in the Senate, comes nearest to the case; but that was an
affair concerted by great numbers of the chief senators, who were
likewise the actors in it, and not the work of a vile, single ruffian.
Harry the Third of France was stabbed by an enthusiastic friar,[5] whom
he suffered to approach his person, while those who attended him stood at
some distance. His successor met the same fate in a coach, where neither
he nor his nobles, in such a confinement, were able to defend themselves.
In our own country we have, I think, but one instance of this sort, which
has made any noise, I mean that of Felton, about fourscore years ago: but
he took the opportunity to stab the Duke of Buckingham in passing through
a dark lobby, from one room to another:[6] The blow was neither seen nor
heard, and the murderer might have escaped, if his own concern and
horror, as it is usual in such cases, had not betrayed him. Besides, that
act of Felton will admit of some extenuation, from the motives he is said
to have had: but this attempt of Guiscard seems to have outdone them all
in every heightening circumstance, except the difference of persons
between a king and a great minister: for I give no allowance at all to
the difference of success (which however is yet uncertain and depending)
nor think it the least alleviation to the crime, whatever it may be to
the punishment.

I am sensible, it is ill arguing from particulars to generals, and that
we ought not to charge upon a nation the crimes of a few desperate
villains it is so unfortunate to produce: Yet at the same time it must be
avowed, that the French have for these last centuries, been somewhat too
liberal of their daggers, upon the persons of their greatest men; such
as the Admiral de Coligny,[7] the Dukes of Guise,[8] father and son, and
the two kings I last mentioned. I have sometimes wondered how a people,
whose genius seems wholly turned to singing and dancing, and prating, to
vanity and impertinence; who lay so much weight upon modes and gestures;
whose essentialities are generally so very superficial; who are usually
so serious upon trifles, and so trifling upon what is serious, have been
capable of committing such solid villanies; more suitable to the gravity
of a Spaniard, or silence and thoughtfulness of an Italian: unless it be,
that in a nation naturally so full of themselves, and of so restless
imaginations, when any of them happen to be of a morose and gloomy
constitution, that huddle of confused thoughts, for want of evaporating,
usually terminates in rage or despair. D'Avila[9] observes, that Jacques
ClГ©ment was a sort of buffoon, whom the rest of the friars used to make
sport with: but at last, giving his folly a serious turn, it ended in
enthusiasm, and qualified him for that desperate act of murdering his
king.

But in the Marquis de Guiscard there seems to have been a complication of
ingredients for such an attempt: He had committed several enormities in
France, was extremely prodigal and vicious; of a dark melancholy
complexion, and cloudy countenance, such as in vulgar physiognomy is
called an ill look. For the rest, his talents were very mean, having a
sort of inferior cunning, but very small abilities; so that a great man
of the late m[inist]ry, by whom he was invited over,[10] and with much
discretion raised at first step from a profligate popish priest to a
lieutenant-general, and colonel of a regiment of horse, was forced at
last to drop him for shame.[11]

Had such an accident happened[12] under that m[inis]try, and to so
considerable a member of it, they would have immediately charged it upon
the whole body of those they are pleased to call "the faction." This
would have been styled a high-church principle; the clergy would have
been accused as promoters and abettors of the fact; com[mittee]s would
have been sent to promise the criminal his life provided they might have
liberty to direct and dictate his confession: and a black list would have
been printed of all those who had been ever seen in the murderer's
company. But the present men in power hate and despise all such
detestable arts, which they might now turn upon their adversaries with
much more plausibility, than ever these did their honourable negotiations
with Gregg.[13]

And here it may be worth observing how unanimous a concurrence there is
between some persons once in great power, and a French Papist; both
agreeing in the great end of taking away Mr. Harley's life, though
differing in their methods: the first proceeding by subornation, the
other by violence; wherein Guiscard seems to have the advantage, as
aiming no further than his life; while the others designed to destroy at
once both that and his reputation. The malice of both against this
gentleman seems to have risen from the same cause, his discovering
designs against the government. It was Mr. Harley who detected the
treasonable correspondence of Gregg, and secured him betimes; when a
certain great man who shall be nameless, had, out of the depth of his
politics, sent him a caution to make his escape; which would certainly
have fixed the appearance of guilt[14] upon Mr. Harley: but when that was
prevented, they would have enticed the condemned criminal with promise of
a pardon, to write and sign an accusation against the secretary. But to
use Gregg's own expression, "His death was nothing near so ignominious,
as would have been such a life that must be saved by prostituting his
conscience." The same gentleman lies now stabbed by his other enemy, a
Popish spy, whose treason he has discovered. God preserve the rest of
her Majesty's ministers from such Protestants, and from such Papists!

I shall take occasion to hint at some particularities in this surprising
fact, for the sake of those at distance, or who may not be thoroughly
informed.[15] The murderer confessed in Newgate, that his chief design
was against Mr. Secretary St. John, who happened to change seats with Mr.
Harley, for more convenience of examining the criminal:[16] and being
asked what provoked him to stab the chancellor? he said, that not being
able to come at the secretary, as he intended, it was some satisfaction
to murder the person whom he thought Mr. St. John loved best.[17]

And here, if Mr. Harley has still any enemies left, whom his blood spilt
in the public service cannot reconcile, I hope they will at least admire
his magnanimity, which is a quality esteemed even in an enemy: and I
think there are few greater instances of it to be found in story. After
the wound was given, he was observed neither to change his countenance,
nor discover any concern or disorder in his speech: he rose up, and
walked along the room while he was able, with the greatest tranquillity,
during the midst of the confusion. When the surgeon came, he took him
aside, and desired he would inform him freely whether the wound
were mortal, because in that case, he said, he had some affairs to
settle, relating to his family. The blade of the penknife, broken by the
violence of the blow against a rib, within a quarter of an inch of the
handle, was dropt out (I know not whether from the wound, or his clothes)
as the surgeon was going to dress him; he ordered it to be taken up, and
wiping it himself, gave it some body to keep, saying, he thought "it now
properly belonging to him." He shewed no sort of resentment, or spoke one
violent word against Guiscard, but appeared all the while the least
concerned of any in the company--a state of mind, which in such an
exigency, nothing but innocence can give, and is truly worthy of a
Christian philosopher.

If there be really so great a difference in principle between the
high-flying Whigs, and the friends of France, I cannot but repeat the
question, how come they to join in the destruction of the same man? Can
his death be possibly for the interest of both? or have they both the
same quarrel against him, that he is perpetually discovering and
preventing the treacherous designs of our enemies? However it be, this
great minister may now say with St. Paul, that he hath been "in perils by
his own countrymen, and in perils by strangers."