Chapter XI: Part 11

But the Revolution happening soon after, served to wash away the memory of the rebellion; upon which, the run against Popery, was, no doubt, as just and seasonable, as that of fanaticism, after the Restoration: and the dread of Popery, being then our latest danger, and consequently the most fresh upon our spirits, all mouths were open against that; the Dissenters were rewarded with an indulgence by law; the rebellion and king's murder were now no longer a reproach; the former was only a civil war, and whoever durst call it a rebellion, was a Jacobite, and friend to France. This was the more unexpected, because the Revolution being wholly brought about by Church of England hands, they hoped one good consequence of it, would be the relieving us from the encroachments of Dissenters, as well as those of Papists, since both had equally confederated towards our ruin; and therefore, when the crown was new settled, it was hoped at least that the rest of the constitution would be restored. But this affair took a very different turn; the Dissenters had just made a shift to save a tide, and joined with the Prince of Orange, when they found all was desperate with their protector King James. And observing a party, then forming against the old principles in Church and State, under the name of Whigs and Low-Churchmen, they listed themselves of it, where they have ever since continued.

It is therefore, upon the foot they now are, that I would apply myself to them, and desire they would consider the different circumstances at present, from what they were under, when they began their designs against the Church and monarchy, about seventy years ago. At that juncture they made up the body of the party, and whosoever joined with them from principles of revenge, discontent, ambition, or love of change, were all forced to shelter under their denomination; united heartily in the pretences of a further and purer Reformation in religion, and of advancing the "great work" (as the cant was then) "that God was about to do in these nations," received the systems of doctrine and discipline prescribed by the Scots, and readily took the Covenant;[4] so that there appeared no division among them, till after the common enemy was subdued.

But now their case is quite otherwise, and I can hardly think it worth being of a party, upon the terms they have been received of late years; for suppose the whole faction should at length succeed in their design of destroying the Church; are they so weak to imagine, that the new modelling of religion, would be put into their hands? Would their brethren, the Low-Churchmen and Freethinkers, submit to their discipline, their synods or their classes, and divide the lands of bishops, or deans and chapters, among them? How can they help observing that their allies, instead of pretending more sanctity than other men, are some of them for levelling all religion, and the rest for abolishing it? Is it not manifest, that they have been treated by their confederates, exactly after the same manner, as they were by King James the Second, made instruments to ruin the Church, not for their sakes, but under a pretended project of universal freedom in opinion, to advance the dark designs of those who employ them? For, excepting the anti-monarchical principle, and a few false notions about liberty, I see but little agreement betwixt them; and even in these, I believe, it would be impossible to contrive a frame of government, that would please them all, if they had it now in their power to try. But however, to be sure, the Presbyterian institution would never obtain. For, suppose they should, in imitation of their predecessors, propose to have no King but our Saviour Christ, the whole clan of Freethinkers would immediately object, and refuse His authority. Neither would their Low-Church brethren use them better, as well knowing what enemies they are to that doctrine of unlimited toleration, wherever they are suffered to preside. So that upon the whole, I do not see, as their present circumstances stand, where the Dissenters can find better quarter, than from the Church of England.

Besides, I leave it to their consideration, whether, with all their zeal against the Church, they ought not to shew a little decency, and how far it consists with their reputation, to act in concert with such confederates. It was reckoned a very infamous proceeding in the present most Christian king, to assist the Turk against the Emperor: policy, and reasons of state, were not allowed sufficient excuses, for taking part with an infidel against a believer. It is one of the Dissenters' quarrels against the Church, that she is not enough reformed from Popery; yet they boldly entered into a league with Papists and a popish prince, to destroy her. They profess much sanctity, and object against the wicked lives of some of our members; yet they have been long, and still continue, in strict combination with libertines and atheists, to contrive our ruin. What if the Jews should multiply, and become a formidable party among us? Would the Dissenters join in alliance with them likewise, because they agree already in some general principles, and because the Jews are allowed to be a "stiffnecked and rebellious people"?

It is the part of wise men to conceal their passions, when they are not in circumstances of exerting them to purpose: the arts of getting power, and preserving indulgence, are very different. For the former, the reasonable hopes of the Dissenters, seem to be at an end; their comrades, the Whigs and Freethinkers, are just in a condition proper to be forsaken; and the Parliament, as well as the body of the people, will be deluded no longer. Besides, it sometimes happens for a cause to be exhausted and worn out, as that of the Whigs in general, seems at present to be: the nation has had enough of it. It is as vain to hope restoring that decayed interest, as for a man of sixty to talk of entering on a new scene of life, that is only proper for youth and vigour. New circumstances and new men must arise, as well as new occasions, which are not like to happen in our time. So that the Dissenters have no game left, at present, but to secure their indulgence: in order to which, I will be so bold to offer them some advice.

First, That until some late proceedings are a little forgot, they would take care not to provoke, by any violence of tongue or pen, so great a majority, as there is now against them, nor keep up any longer that combination with their broken allies, but disperse themselves, and lie dormant against some better opportunity: I have shewn, they could have got no advantage if the late party had prevailed; and they will certainly lose none by its fall, unless through their own fault. They pretend a mighty veneration for the Queen; let them give proof of it, by quitting the ruined interest of those who have used her so ill; and by a due respect to the persons she is pleased to trust at present with her affairs: When they can no longer hope to govern, when struggling can do them no good, and may possibly hurt them, what is left but to be silent and passive?

Secondly, Though there be no law (beside that of God Almighty) against _occasional conformity_,[5] it would be prudence in the Dissenters to use it as tenderly as they can: for, besides the infamous hypocrisy of the thing itself, too frequent practice would perhaps make a remedy necessary. And after all they have said to justify themselves in this point, it still continues hard to conceive, how those consciences can pretend to be scrupulous, upon which an employment has more power than the love of unity.

In the last place, I am humbly of opinion, That the Dissenters would do well to drop that lesson they have learned from their directors, of affecting to be under horrible apprehensions, that the Tories are in the interests of the Pretender, and would be ready to embrace the first opportunity of inviting him over. It is with the worst grace in the world, that they offer to join in the cry upon this article: as if those, who alone stood in the gap against all the encroachments of Popery and arbitrary power, are not more likely to keep out both, than a set of schismatics, who to gratify their ambition and revenge, did, by the meanest compliances, encourage and spirit up that unfortunate prince, to fell upon such measures, as must, at last, have ended in the ruin of our liberty and religion.

_I wish those who give themselves the trouble to write to the "Examiner" would consider whether what they send be proper for such a paper to take notice of: I had one letter last week, written, as I suppose, by a divine, to desire I would offer some reasons against a Bill now before the Parliament for Ascertaining the Tithe of Hops;[6] from which the writer apprehends great damage to the clergy, especially the poorer vicars: If it be, as he says, (and he seems to argue very reasonably upon it) the convocation now sitting, will, no doubt, upon due application, represent the matter to the House of Commons; and he may expect all justice and favour from that great body, who have already appeared so tender of their rights.

A gentleman, likewise, who hath sent me several letters, relating to personal hardships he received from some of the late ministry; is advised to publish a narrative of them, they being too large, and not proper for this paper._

[Footnote 1: No. 36 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "Three different forms, of threefold threads combined, The selfsame day in common ruin joined." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: It is recorded in "The Speeches and Prayers of ... Mr. John Carew," 1660, and in "Rebels no Saints," 1661, that at the execution of John Carew, on October 15th, 1660: "One asked him if he thought there would be a resurrection of the cause? He answered, he died in the faith of that, as much as he did that his body should rise again." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Scotch General Assembly approved the "Solemn League and Covenant" on August 17th, 1643; it was publicly taken by the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on September 25th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Such a law was passed December 20th, 1711. It was entitled "An Act for preserving the Protestant Religion" (10 Ann, c. 6), and required persons appointed to various offices to conform to the Church of England for one year and to receive the Sacrament three times. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Leave was given for a Bill for Ascertaining the Tithe of Hops, March 26th, 1711, and the Bill was presented May 10th. It does not appear to have gone any further. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 38.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 12, TO THURSDAY APRIL 19, 1711.

_Semper causae eventorum magis movent quam ipsa eventa.[2]_

I am glad to observe, that several among the Whigs have begun very much to change their language of late. The style is now among the reasonable part of them, when they meet a man in business, or a Member of Parliament; "Well, gentlemen, if you go on as you have hitherto done, we shall no longer have any pretence to complain." They find, it seems, that there have been yet no overtures made to bring in the Pretender, nor any preparatory steps towards it. They read no enslaving votes, nor bills brought in to endanger the subject. The indulgence to scrupulous consciences,[3] is again confirmed from the throne, inviolably preserved, and not the least whisper offered that may affect it. All care is taken to support the war; supplies cheerfully granted, and funds readily subscribed to, in spite of the little arts made use of to discredit them. The just resentments of some, which are laudable in themselves, and which at another juncture it might be proper to give way to, have been softened or diverted by the calmness of others. So that upon the article of present management, I do not see how any objection of weight can well be raised.

However, our adversaries still allege, that this great success was wholly unexpected, and out of all probable view. That in public affairs, we ought least of all others, to judge by events; that the attempt of changing a ministry, during the difficulties of a long war, was rash and inconsiderate: That if the Qu[een] were disposed by her inclinations, or from any personal dislike, for such a change, it might have been done with more safety, in a time of peace: That if it had miscarried by any of those incidents, which in all appearance might have intervened, the consequences would perhaps have ruined the whole confederacy; and, therefore, however it hath now succeeded, the experiment was too dangerous to try.

But this is what we can by no means allow them. We never will admit rashness or chance to have produced all this harmony and order. It is visible to the world, that the several steps towards this change were slowly taken, and with the utmost caution. The movers observed as they went on, how matters would bear, and advanced no farther at first, than so as they might be able to stop or go back, if circumstances were not mature. Things were grown to such a height, that it was no longer the question, whether a person who aimed at an employment, were a Whig or a Tory, much less, whether he had merit or proper abilities for what he pretended to: he must owe his preferment only to the favourites; and the crown was so far from nominating, that they would not allow it a negative. This, the Qu[een] was resolved no longer to endure, and began to break into their prescription, by bestowing one or two places of consequence,[4] without consulting her ephori; after they had fixed them for others, and concluded as usually, that all their business was to signify their pleasure to her M[ajest]y. But though the persons the Qu[een] had chosen, were such as no objection could well be raised against upon the score of party; yet the oligarchy took the alarm;[5] their sovereign authority was, it seems, called in question; they grew into anger and discontent, as if their undoubted rights were violated. All former obligations to their sovereign now became cancelled; and they put themselves upon the foot of people, who were hardly used after the most eminent services.

I believe all men, who know any thing in politics, will agree, that a prince thus treated, by those he has most confided in, and perpetually loaded with his favours, ought to extricate himself as soon as possible; and is then only blamable in his choice of time, when he defers one minute after it is in his power; because, from the monstrous encroachments of exorbitant avarice and ambition, he cannot tell how long it may continue to be so. And it will be found, upon enquiring into history, that most of those princes, who have been ruined by favourites, have owed their misfortune to the neglect of early remedies; deferring to struggle till they were quite sunk.

The Whigs are every day cursing the ungovernable rage, the haughty pride, and unsatiable covetousness of a certain person,[6] as the cause of their fall; and are apt to tell their thoughts, that one single removal might have set all things right. But the interests of that single person, were found, upon experience, so complicated and woven with the rest, by love, by awe, by marriage, by alliance, that they would rather confound heaven and earth, than dissolve such an union.

I have always heard and understood, that a king of England, possessed of his people's hearts, at the head of a free Parliament, and in full agreement with a great majority, made the true figure in the world that such a monarch ought to do, and pursued the real interest of himself and his kingdom. Will they allow her M[ajest]y to be in those circumstances at present? And was it not plain by the addresses sent from all parts of the island,[7] and by the visible disposition of the people, that such a Parliament would undoubtedly be chosen? And so it proved, without the court's using any arts to influence elections.

What people then, are these in a corner, to whom the constitution must truckle? If the whole nation's credit cannot supply funds for the war, without humble application from the entire legislature to a few retailers of money, it is high time we should sue for a peace. What new maxims are these, which neither we nor our forefathers ever heard of before, and which no wise institution would ever allow? Must our laws from henceforward pass the Bank and East India Company, or have their royal assent before they are in force?

To hear some of those worthy reasoners talking of credit, that she is so nice, so squeamish, so capricious; you would think they were describing a lady troubled with vapours or the colick, to be only removed by a course of steel, and swallowing a bullet. By the narrowness of their thoughts, one would imagine they conceived the world to be no wider than Exchange Alley. It is probable they may have such a sickly dame among them, and it is well if she has no worse diseases, considering what hands she passes through. But the national credit is of another complexion; of sound health, and an even temper, her life and existence being a quintessence drawn from the vitals of the whole kingdom. And we find these money-politicians, after all their noise, to be of the same opinion, by the court they paid her, when she lately appeared to them in the form of a _lottery_.[8]

As to that mighty error in politics, they charge upon the Qu[een], for changing her ministry in the height of a war, I suppose, it is only looked upon as an error under a Whiggish administration; otherwise, the late King has much to answer for, who did it pretty frequently. And it is well known, that the late ministry of famous memory, was brought in during this present war,[9] only with this circumstance, that two or three of the chief, did first change their own principles, and then took in suitable companions.

But however, I see no reason why the Tories should not value their wisdom by events, as well as the Whigs. Nothing was ever thought a more precipitate rash counsel, than that of altering the coin at the juncture it was done;[10] yet the prudence of the undertaking was sufficiently justified by the success. Perhaps it will be said, that the attempt was necessary, because the whole species of money, was so grievously clipped and counterfeit. And, is not her Majesty's authority as sacred as her coin? And has not that been most scandalously clipped and mangled, and often counterfeited too?

It is another grievous complaint of the Whigs, that their late friends, and the whole party, are treated with abundance of severity in print, and in particular by the "Examiner." They think it hard, that when they are wholly deprived of power, hated by the people, and out of all hope of re-establishing themselves, their infirmities should be so often displayed, in order to render them yet more odious to mankind. This is what they employ their writers to set forth in their papers of the week; and it is humoursome enough to observe one page taken up in railing at the "Examiner" for his invectives against a discarded ministry; and the other side filled with the falsest and vilest abuses, against those who are now in the highest power and credit with their sovereign, and whose least breath would scatter them into silence and obscurity. However, though I have indeed often wondered to see so much licentiousness taken and connived at, and am sure it would not be suffered in any other country of Christendom; yet I never once invoked the assistance of the gaol or the pillory, which upon the least provocation, was the usual style during their tyranny. There hath not passed a week these twenty years without some malicious paper, scattered in every coffee-house by the emissaries of that party, whether it were down or up. I believe, they will not pretend to object the same thing to us. Nor do I remember any constant weekly paper, with reflections on the late ministry or j[u]nto. They have many weak, defenceless parts, they have not been used to a regular attack, and therefore it is that they are so ill able to endure one, when it comes to be their turn. So that they complain more of a few months' truths from us, than we did of all their scandal and malice, for twice as many years.

I cannot forbear observing upon this occasion, that those worthy authors I am speaking of, seem to me, not fairly to represent the sentiments of their party; who in disputing with us, do generally give up several of the late m[inist]ry, and freely own many of their failings. They confess the monstrous debt upon the navy, to have been caused by most scandalous mismanagement; they allow the insolence of some, and the avarice of others, to have been insupportable: but these gentlemen are most liberal in their praises to those persons, and upon those very articles, where their wisest friends give up the point. They gravely tell us, that such a one was the most faithful servant that ever any prince had; another the most dutiful, a third the most generous, and a fourth of the greatest integrity. So that I look upon these champions, rather as retained by a cabal than a party, which I desire the reasonable men among them would please to consider.

[Footnote 1: No. 37 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, "Ep. ad Att.," ix. 5. "I am always more affected by the causes of events than by the events themselves."--E.S. SHUCKBURGH. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "I am resolved ... to maintain the indulgence by law allowed to scrupulous consciences" (Queen Anne's Speech, November 27th, 1710). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Queen appointed Earl Rivers to the lieutenancy of the Tower without the Duke of Marlborough's concurrence. See "Memoirs Relating to that Change," etc. (vol. v., pp. 375-7 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: "Upon the fall of that great minister and favourite [Godolphin], that whole party became dispirited, and seemed to expect the worst that could follow". (Swift's "Memoirs Relating to that Change," etc., vol v., p. 378 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "The bulk of the high-church, or Tory-party ... were both very industrious in procuring addresses, which, under the pretence of expressing their loyalty to the Queen, and affection to the Church established, were mainly levelled, like so many batteries, against the ministry and Parliament," etc. (Boyer's "Annals of Queen Anne," ix. 158-9). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: An Act for reviving ... certain Duties (9 Ann., c. 6), provided that £1,500,000 should be raised "by way of a lottery." It was introduced February 15th, and received the Royal Assent March 6th, 1710/1 [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Queen appointed a ministry with Lord Godolphin as lord treasurer in the first months of her reign, May-July, 1702. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The clipping of coin had become so widespread that it was absolutely imperative that steps should be taken to readjust matters. It was resolved, therefore, in 1695, to call in all light money and recoin it. The matter was placed in charge of the then chancellor of the exchequer, Charles Montague, afterwards Earl of Halifax, and he, with the assistance of Sir Isaac Newton, successfully accomplished the very arduous task. It cost the nation about £2,200,000, and a considerable inconvenience owing to lack of coins. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 39.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 19, TO THURSDAY APRIL 26, 1711.

_Indignum est in ed civitate, quae legibus continetur, discedi a legibus._[2]

I[3] have been often considering how it comes to pass, that the dexterity of mankind in evil, should always outgrow, not only the prudence and caution of private persons, but the continual expedients of the wisest laws contrived to prevent it. I cannot imagine a knave to possess a greater share of natural wit or genius, than an honest man. I have known very notable sharpers at play, who upon all other occasions, were as great dunces, as human shape can well allow; and I believe, the same might be observed among the other knots of thieves and pickpockets, about this town. The proposition however is certainly true, and to be confirmed by an hundred instances. A scrivener, an attorney, a stock-jobber, and many other retailers of fraud, shall not only be able to overreach others, much wiser than themselves, but find out new inventions, to elude the force of any law made against them. I suppose, the reason of this may be, that as the aggressor is said to have generally the advantage of the defender; so the makers of the law, which is to defend our rights, have usually not so much industry or vigour, as those whose interest leads them to attack it. Besides, it rarely happens that men are rewarded by the public for their justice and virtue; neither do those who act upon such principles, expect any recompense till the next world: whereas fraud, where it succeeds, gives present pay; and this is allowed the greatest spur imaginable both to labour and invention. When a law is made to stop some growing evil, the wits of those, whose interest it is to break it with secrecy or impunity, are immediately at work; and even among those who pretend to fairer characters, many would gladly find means to avoid, what they would not be thought to violate. They desire to reap the advantage, if possible, without the shame, or at least, without the danger. This art is what I take that dexterous race of men, sprung up soon after the Revolution, to have studied with great application ever since, and to have arrived at great perfection in it. According to the doctrine of some Romish casuists, they have found out _quam propè ad peccatum sine peccato possint accedere_.[3] They can tell how to go within an inch of an impeachment, and yet come back untouched. They know what degree of corruption will just forfeit an employment, and whether the bribe you receive be sufficient to set you right, and put something in your pocket besides. How much to a penny, you may safely cheat the Qu[ee]n, whether forty, fifty or sixty _per cent._ according to the station you are in, and the dispositions of the persons in office, below and above you. They have computed the price you may securely take or give for a place, or what part of the salary you ought to reserve. They can discreetly distribute five hundred pounds in a small borough, without any danger from the statutes, against bribing elections. They can manage a bargain for an office, by a third, fourth or fifth hand, so that you shall not know whom to accuse; and win a thousand guineas at play, in spite of the dice, and send away the loser satisfied: They can pass the most exorbitant accounts, overpay the creditor with half his demands, and sink the rest.

It would be endless to relate, or rather indeed impossible to discover, the several arts which curious men have found out to enrich themselves, by defrauding the public, in defiance of the law. The military men, both by sea and land, have equally cultivated this most useful science: neither hath it been altogether neglected by the other sex; of which, on the contrary, I could produce an instance, that would make ours blush to be so far outdone.

Besides, to confess the truth, our laws themselves are extremely defective in many articles, which I take to be one ill effect of our best possession, liberty. Some years ago, the ambassador of a great prince was arrested,[4] and outrages committed on his person in our streets, without any possibility of redress from Westminster-Hall, or the prerogative of the sovereign; and the legislature was forced to provide a remedy against the like evils in times to come. A commissioner of the stamped paper[5] was lately discovered to have notoriously cheated the public of great sums for many years, by counterfeiting the stamps, which the law had made capital. But the aggravation of his crime, proved to be the cause that saved his life; and that additional heightening circumstance of betraying his trust, was found to be a legal defence. I am assured, that the notorious cheat of the brewers at Portsmouth,[6] detected about two months ago in Parliament, cannot by any law now in force, be punished in any degree, equal to the guilt and infamy of it. Nay, what is almost incredible, had Guiscard survived his detestable attempt upon Mr. Harley's person, all the inflaming circumstances of the fact, would not have sufficed, in the opinion of many lawyers, to have punished him with death;[7] and the public must have lain under this dilemma, either to condemn him by a law, _ex post facto_ (which would have been of dangerous consequence, and form an ignominious precedent) or undergo the mortification to see the greatest villain upon earth escape unpunished, to the infinite triumph and delight of Popery and faction. But even this is not to be wondered at, when we consider, that of all the insolences offered to the Qu[een] since the Act of Indemnity, (at least, that ever came to my ears) I can hardly instance above two or three, which, by the letter of the law could amount to high treason.

From these defects in our laws, and the want of some discretionary power safely lodged, to exert upon emergencies; as well as from the great acquirements of able men, to elude the penalties of those laws they break, it is no wonder, the injuries done to the public, are so seldom redressed. But besides, no individual suffers, by any wrong he does to the commonwealth, in proportion to the advantage he gains by doing it. There are seven or eight millions who contribute to the loss, while the whole gain is sunk among a few. The damage suffered by the public, is not so immediately or heavily felt by particular persons, and the zeal of prosecution is apt to drop and be lost among numbers.

But imagine a set of politicians for many years at the head of affairs, the game visibly their own, and by consequence acting with great security: may not these be sometimes tempted to forget their caution, by length of time, by excess of avarice and ambition, by the insolence or violence of their nature, or perhaps by a mere contempt for their adversaries? May not such motives as these, put them often upon actions directly against the law, such as no evasions can be found for, and which will lay them fully open to the vengeance of a prevailing interest, whenever they are out of power? It is answered in the affirmative. And here we cannot refuse the late m[inistr]y their due praises, who foreseeing a storm, provided for their own safety, by two admirable expedients, by which, with great prudence, they have escaped the punishments due to pernicious counsels and corrupt management. The first, was to procure, under pretences hardly specious, a general Act of Indemnity,[8] which cuts off all impeachments. The second, was yet more refined: suppose, for instance, a counsel is to be pursued, which is necessary to carry on the dangerous designs of a prevailing party, to preserve them in power, to gratify the immeasurable appetites of a few leaders, civil and military, though by hazarding the ruin of the whole nation: this counsel, desperate in itself, unprecedented in the nature of it, they procure a majority to form into an address,[9] which makes it look like the sense of the nation. Under that shelter they carry on their work, and lie secure against after-reckonings.

I must be so free to tell my meaning in this, that among other things, I understand it of the address made to the Qu[een] about three years ago, to desire that her M[ajest]y would not consent to a peace, without the entire restitution of Sp[ai]n.[10] A proceeding, which to people abroad, must look like the highest strain of temerity, folly, and gasconade. But we at home, who allow the promoters of that advice to be no fools, can easily comprehend the depth and mystery of it. They were assured by this means, to pin down the war upon us, consequently to increase their own power and wealth, and multiply difficulties on the Qu[een] and kingdom, till they had fixed their party too firmly to be shaken, whenever they should find themselves disposed to reverse their address, and give us leave to wish for a peace.

If any man entertains a more favourable opinion of this monstrous step in politics; I would ask him what we must do, in case we find it impossible to recover Spain? Those among the Whigs who believe a God, will confess, that the events of war lie in His hands; and the rest of them, who acknowledge no such power, will allow, that Fortune hath too great a share in the good or ill success of military actions, to let a wise man reason upon them, as if they were entirely in his power. If Providence shall think fit to refuse success to our arms, with how ill a grace, with what shame and confusion, shall we be obliged to recant that precipitate address, unless the world will be so charitable to consider, that parliaments among us, differ as much as princes, and that by the fatal conjunction of many unhappy circumstances, it is very possible for our island to be represented sometimes by those who have the least pretensions to it. So little truth or justice there is in what some pretend to advance, that the actions of former senates, ought always to be treated with respect by the latter; that those assemblies are all equally venerable, and no one to be preferred before another: by which argument, the Parliament that began the rebellion against King Charles the First, voted his trial, and appointed his murderers, ought to be remembered with respect.

But to return from this digression; it is very plain, that considering the defectiveness of our laws, the variety of cases, the weakness of the prerogative, the power or the cunning of ill-designing men, it is possible, that many great abuses may be visibly committed, which cannot be legally punished: especially if we add to this, that some enquiries might probably involve those, whom upon other accounts, it is not thought convenient to disturb. Therefore, it is very false reasoning, especially in the management of public affairs, to argue that men are innocent, because the law hath not pronounced them guilty.

I am apt to think, it was to supply such defects as these, that satire was first introduced into the world; whereby those whom neither religion, nor natural virtue, nor fear of punishment, were able to keep within the bounds of their duty, might be withheld by the shame of having their crimes exposed to open view in the strongest colours, and themselves rendered odious to mankind. Perhaps all this may be little regarded by such hardened and abandoned natures as I have to deal with; but, next to taming or binding a savage animal, the best service you can do the neighbourhood, is to give them warning, either to arm themselves, or not come in its way.

Could I have hoped for any signs of remorse from the leaders of that faction, I should very gladly have changed my style, and forgot or passed by their million of enormities. But they are every day more fond of discovering their impotent zeal and malice: witness their conduct in the city about a fortnight ago,[11] which had no other end imaginable, beside that of perplexing our affairs, and endeavouring to make things desperate, that themselves may be thought necessary. While they continue in this frantic mood, I shall not forbear to treat them as they deserve; that is to say, as the inveterate, irreconcilable enemies to our country and its constitution.

[Footnote 1: No. 38 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "It is a shameful thing in a state which is governed by laws, that there should be any departure from them." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This paper called forth a reply which was printed in two forms, one with the title: "A Few Words upon the Examiner's Scandalous Peace" (London, 1711), and the other, "Reflections upon the Examiner's Scandalous Peace" (London: A. Baldwin, 1711). A careful comparison of these pamphlets shows that the text corresponds page for page. The author commences: "Though 'The Examiner' be certainly the most trifling, scurrilous, and malicious writer that ever appeared, yet, in spite of all his gross untruths and absurd notions, by assuming to himself an air of authority, and speaking in the person of one employed by the ministry, he sometimes gives a kind of weight to what he says, so as to make impressions of terror upon honest minds." Then, after quoting several of the Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and the Addresses in reply, he observes: "The 'Examiner' is resolved to continue so faithful to his principal quality of speaking untruths, that he has industriously taken care not to recite truly the very Address he makes it his business to rail at;" and he points out that it was not the "restitution of Spain," but the restoration of the Spanish Monarchy to the House of Austria that was desired. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "How near to sin they can go without actually sinning." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Muscovite Ambassador (A.A. Matveof) was arrested and taken out of his coach by violence. A Bill was brought into the House of Commons "for preserving the Privileges of Ambassadors," February 7th, 1708/9, and obtained the Royal Assent, April 21st, 1709 (7 Ann. c. 12).

Matveof, it seemed, was arrested by his creditors, who feared that, since he had taken leave at Court, they would never be paid. Peter the Great was angry at the indignity thus offered his representative, and was only unwillingly pacified by the above Act. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Richard Dyet, J.P., "is discovered to have counterfeited stamped paper, in which he was a commissioner; and, with his accomplices, has cheated the Queen of £100,000" (Swift's "Journal to Stella," October 3rd, 1710, vol. ii., p. 20 of present edition). He was tried for felony at the Old Bailey, January 13th, 1710/1, and was acquitted, because his offence was only a breach of trust. He was, however, re-committed for trial on the charge of misdemeanour. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: "Some very considerable abuses," the chancellor of the exchequer informed the House of Commons on January 3rd, 1710/1, "have been discovered in the victualling." It appears that the seamen in the navy were allowed seven pints of beer per day, during the time they were on board. In port, of course the sailors were permitted to go ashore, but the allowance was still charged to the ship's account; and became a perquisite of the purser. It often happened that the contractors did not send in the full amount of beer paid for, but gave the purser money in exchange for the difference. The scandal was brought to the attention of the House as stated, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the abuse. On February 15th the House considered the committee's report, and it was found that Thomas Ridge, Member for Portsmouth, contracted to supply 5,513 tons of beer, and had delivered only 3,213. Several other brewers of Portsmouth had been guilty of the same fraud. Mr. Ridge was expelled the House the same day. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: See Swift's "Journal," quoted in notes to No. 33, _ante_, p. 214. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: This Act was passed in 1708. See No. 18, _ante_, and note, p. 105. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Address from both Houses, presented to the Queen, February 18th, 1709/10, prayed that she "would be pleased to order the Duke of Marlborough's immediate departure for Holland, where his presence will be equally necessary, to assist at the negotiations of peace, and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Address of both Houses to the Queen, presented on December 23rd, 1707, urged: "That nothing could restore a just balance of power in Europe, but the reducing the whole Spanish monarchy to the obedience of the House of Austria; and ... That no peace can be honourable or safe, for your Majesty or your allies, if Spain, the West Indies, or any part of the Spanish Monarchy, be suffered to remain under the power of the House of Bourbon." The resolutions as carried in the House of Lords on December 19th did not include the words "or any part of the Spanish Monarchy"; these words were introduced on a motion by Somers who was in the chair when the Select Committee met on December 20th to embody the resolutions in proper form. The altered resolution was quickly hurried through the Lords and agreed to by the Commons, and the Address as amended was presented to the Queen. By this bold move Somers prolonged the war indefinitely. See also note at the commencement of this number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This refers to the election of the governor and directors of the Bank of England on April 12th and 13th. All the Whig candidates were returned, and Sir H. Furnese was on the same day chosen Alderman for Bridge Within. See also No. 41, _post_, p. 267, [T.S.]]

NUMB. 40.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 26, TO THURSDAY MAY 3, 1711.

_Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?_[2]

There have been certain topics of reproach, liberally bestowed for some years past, by the Whigs and Tories, upon each other. We charge the former with a design of destroying the established Church, and introducing fanaticism and freethinking in its stead. We accuse them as enemies to monarchy; as endeavouring to undermine the present form of government, and to build a commonwealth, or some new scheme of their own, upon its ruins. On the other side, their clamours against us, may be summed up in those three formidable words, Popery, Arbitrary Power, and the Pretender. Our accusations against them we endeavour to make good by certain overt acts; such as their perpetually abusing the whole body of the clergy; their declared contempt for the very order of priesthood; their aversion for episcopacy; the public encouragement and patronage they gave to Tindall, Toland, and other atheistical writers; their appearing as professed advocates, retained by the Dissenters, excusing their separation, and laying the guilt of it to the obstinacy of the Church; their frequent endeavours to repeal the test, and their setting up the indulgence to scrupulous consciences, as a point of greater importance than the established worship. The regard they bear to our monarchy, hath appeared by their open ridiculing the martyrdom of King Charles the First, in their Calves-head Clubs,[3] their common discourses and their pamphlets: their denying the unnatural war raised against that prince, to have been a rebellion; their justifying his murder in the allowed papers of the week; their industry in publishing and spreading seditious and republican tracts; such as Ludlow's "Memoirs," Sidney "Of Government,"[4] and many others; their endless lopping of the prerogative, and mincing into nothing her M[ajest]y's titles to the crown.

What proofs they bring for our endeavouring to introduce Popery, arbitrary power, and the Pretender, I cannot readily tell, and would be glad to hear; however, those important words having by dexterous management, been found of mighty service to their cause, though applied with little colour, either of reason or justice; I have been considering whether they may not be adapted to more proper objects.

As to Popery, which is the first of these, to deal plainly, I can hardly think there is any set of men among us, except the professors of it, who have any direct intention to introduce it among us: but the question is, whether the principles and practices of us, or the Whigs, be most likely to make way for it? It is allowed, on all hands, that among the methods concerted at Rome, for bringing over England into the bosom of the Catholic Church; one of the chief was, to send Jesuits and other emissaries, in lay habits, who personating tradesmen and mechanics, should mix with the people, and under the pretence of a further and purer reformation, endeavour to divide us into as many sects as possible, which would either put us under the necessity of returning to our old errors, to preserve peace at home; or by our divisions make way for some powerful neighbour, with the assistance of the Pope's permission, and a consecrated banner, to convert and enslave us at once. If this hath been reckoned good politics (and it was the best the Jesuit schools could invent) I appeal to any man, whether the Whigs, for many years past, have not been employed in the very same work? They professed on all occasions, that they knew no reason why any one system of speculative opinions (as they termed the doctrines of the Church) should be established by law more than another; or why employments should be confined to the religion of the magistrate, and that called the Church established. The grand maxim they laid down was, That no man, for the sake of a few notions and ceremonies, under the names of doctrine and discipline, should be denied the liberty of serving his country: as if places would go a begging, unless Brownists, Familists, Sweet-singers, Quakers, Anabaptists and Muggletonians, would take them off our hands.

I have been sometimes imagining this scheme brought to perfection, and how diverting it would look to see half a dozen Sweet-singers on the bench in their ermines, and two or three Quakers with their white staves at court. I can only say, this project is the very counterpart of the late King James's design, which he took up as the best method for introducing his own religion, under the pretext of an universal liberty of conscience, and that no difference in religion, should make any in his favour. Accordingly, to save appearances, he dealt some employments among Dissenters of most denominations; and what he did was, no doubt, in pursuance of the best advice he could get at home or abroad; and the Church thought it the most dangerous step he could take for her destruction. It is true, King James admitted Papists among the rest, which the Whigs would not; but this is sufficiently made up by a material circumstance, wherein they seem to have much outdone that prince, and to have carried their liberty of conscience to a higher point, having granted it to all the classes of Freethinkers, which the nice conscience of a Popish prince would not give him leave to do; and was therein mightily overseen; because it is agreed by the learned, that there is but a very narrow step from atheism, to the other extreme, superstition. So that upon the whole, whether the Whigs had any real design of bringing in Popery or no, it is very plain, that they took the most effectual step towards it; and if the Jesuits had been their immediate directors, they could not have taught them better, nor have found apter scholars.

Their second accusation is, That we encourage and maintain arbitrary power in princes, and promote enslaving doctrines among the people. This they go about to prove by instances, producing the particular opinions of certain divines in King Charles the Second's reign; a decree of Oxford University,[5] and some few writers since the Revolution. What they mean, is the principle of passive obedience and non-resistance, which those who affirm, did, I believe, never intend should include arbitrary power. However, though I am sensible that it is not reckoned prudent in a dispute, to make any concessions without the last necessity; yet I do agree, that in my own private opinion, some writers did carry that tenet of passive obedience to a height, which seemed hardly consistent with the liberties of a country, whose laws can be neither enacted nor repealed, without the consent of the whole people. I mean not those who affirm it due in general, as it certainly is to the Legislature, but such as fix it entirely in the prince's person. This last has, I believe, been done by a very few; but when the Whigs quote authors to prove it upon us, they bring in all who mention it as a duty in general, without applying it to princes, abstracted from their senate.

By thus freely declaring my own sentiments of passive obedience, it will at least appear, that I do not write for a party: neither do I, upon any occasion, pretend to speak their sentiments, but my own. The majority of the two Houses, and the present ministry (if those be a party) seem to me in all their proceedings, to pursue the real interest of Church and State: and if I shall happen to differ from particular persons among them, in a single notion about government, I suppose they will not, upon that account, explode me and my paper. However, as an answer once for all, to the tedious scurrilities of those idle people, who affirm, I am hired and directed what to write;[6] I must here inform them, that their censure is an effect of their principles: The present m[inistr]y are under no necessity of employing prostitute pens; they have no dark designs to promote, by advancing heterodox opinions.

But (to return) suppose two or three private divines, under King Charles the Second, did a little overstrain the doctrine of passive obedience to princes; some allowance might be given to the memory of that unnatural rebellion against his father, and the dismal consequences of resistance. It is plain, by the proceedings of the Churchmen before and at the Revolution, that this doctrine was never designed to introduce arbitrary power.[7]

I look upon the Whigs and Dissenters to be exactly of the same political faith; let us, therefore, see what share each of them had in advancing arbitrary power. It is manifest, that the fanatics made Cromwell the most absolute tyrant in Christendom:[8] The Rump abolished the House of Lords; the army abolished the Rump; and by this army of _saints_, he governed. The Dissenters took liberty of conscience and employments from the late King James, as an acknowledgment of his dispensing power; which makes a King of England as absolute as the Turk. The Whigs, under the late king, perpetually declared for keeping up a standing army, in times of peace; which has in all ages been the first and great step to the ruin of liberty. They were, besides, discovering every day their inclinations to destroy the rights of the Church; and declared their opinion, in all companies, against the bishops sitting in the House of Peers: which was exactly copying after their predecessors of 'Forty-one. I need not say their real intentions were to make the king absolute, but whatever be the designs of innovating men, they usually end in a tyranny: as we may see by an hundred examples in Greece, and in the later commonwealths of Italy, mentioned by Machiavel.

In the third place, the Whigs accuse us of a design to bring in the Pretender; and to give it a greater air of probability, they suppose the Qu[een] to be a party in this design; which however, is no very extraordinary supposition in those who have advanced such singular paradoxes concerning Gregg and Guiscard. Upon this article, their charge is general, without ever offering to produce an instance. But I verily think, and believe it will appear no paradox, that if ever he be brought in, the Whigs are his men. For, first, it is an undoubted truth, that a year or two after the Revolution, several leaders of that party had their pardons sent them by the late King James,[9] and had entered upon measures to restore him, on account of some disobligations they received from King William. Besides, I would ask, whether those who are under the greatest ties of gratitude to King James, are not at this day become the most zealous Whigs? And of what party those are now, who kept a long correspondence with St. Germains?