Chapter IV: Part 4

"Hence are derived those exorbitant interests and annuities; hence those large discounts for advances and prompt payment; hence public credit is shaken, and hence great numbers find their profit in prolonging the war."

It is odd, that among a free trading people, as we take ourselves to be, there should so many be found to close in with those counsels, who have been ever averse from all overtures towards a peace. But yet there is no great mystery in the matter. Let any man observe the equipages in this town; he shall find the greater number of those who make a figure, to be a species of men quite different from any that were ever known before the Revolution, consisting either of generals and colonels, or of such whose whole fortunes lie in funds and stocks: so that power, which according to the old maxim, was used to follow land, is now gone over to money; and the country gentleman is in the condition of a young heir, out of whose estate a scrivener receives half the rents for interest, and hath a mortgage on the whole, and is therefore always ready to feed his vices and extravagancies while there is any thing left. So that if the war continues some years longer, a landed man will be little better than a farmer at a rack rent, to the army, and to the public funds.

It may perhaps be worth inquiring from what beginnings, and by what steps we have been brought into this desperate condition: and in search of this, we must run up as high as the Revolution.

Most of the nobility and gentry who invited over the Prince of Orange, or attended him in his expedition, were true lovers of their country and its constitution, in Church and State; and were brought to yield to those breaches in the succession of the crown, out of a regard to the necessity of the kingdom, and the safety of the people, which did, and could only, make them lawful; but without intention of drawing such a practice into precedent, or making it a standing measure by which to proceed in all times to come; and therefore we find their counsels ever tended to keep things as much as possible in the old course. But soon after, an under set of men, who had nothing to lose, and had neither borne the burthen nor heat of the day, found means to whisper in the king's ear, that the principles of loyalty in the Church of England, were wholly inconsistent with the Revolution.[7] Hence began the early practice of caressing the dissenters, reviling the universities, as maintainers of arbitrary power, and reproaching the clergy with the doctrines of divine-right, passive obedience and non-resistance.[8] At the same time, in order to fasten wealthy people to the new government, they proposed those pernicious expedients of borrowing money by vast _premiums_, and at exorbitant interest: a practice as old as Eumenes,[9] one of Alexander's captains, who setting up for himself after the death of his master, persuaded his principal officers to lend him great sums, after which they were forced to follow him for their own security.

This introduced a number of new dexterous men into business and credit: It was argued, that the war could not last above two or three campaigns, and that it was easier for the subject to raise a fund for paying interest, than to tax them annually to the full expense of the war. Several persons who had small or encumbered estates, sold them, and turned their money into those funds to great advantage: merchants, as well as other moneyed men, finding trade was dangerous, pursued the same method: But the war continuing, and growing more expensive, taxes were increased, and funds multiplied every year, till they have arrived at the monstrous height we now behold them. And that which was at first a corruption, is at last grown necessary, and what every good subject must now fall in with, though he may be allowed to wish it might soon have an end; because it is with a kingdom, as with a private fortune, where every new incumbrance adds a double weight. By this means the wealth of the nation, that used to be reckoned by the value of land, is now computed by the rise and fall of stocks: and although the foundation of credit be still the same, and upon a bottom that can never be shaken; and though all interest be duly paid by the public, yet through the contrivance and cunning of stock-jobbers, there has been brought in such a complication of knavery and cozenage, such a mystery of iniquity, and such an unintelligible jargon of terms to involve it in, as were never known in any other age or country of the world. I have heard it affirmed by persons skilled in these calculations, that if the funds appropriated to the payment of interest and annuities, were added to the yearly taxes, and the four-shilling aid[10] strictly exacted in all counties of the kingdom, it would very near, if not fully, supply the occasions of the war, at least such a part, as in the opinion of very able persons, had been at that time prudence not to exceed. For I make it a question, whether any wise prince or state, in the continuance of a war, which was not purely defensive, or immediately at his own door, did ever propose that his expense should perpetually exceed what he was able to impose annually upon his subjects? Neither if the war lasts many years longer, do I see how the next generation will be able to begin another, which in the course of human affairs, and according to the various interests and ambition of princes, may be as necessary for them as it has been for us. And had our fathers left us as deeply involved as we are like to leave our children, I appeal to any man, what sort of figure we should have been able to make these twenty years past. Besides, neither our enemies, nor allies, are upon the same foot with us in this particular. France and Holland, our nearest neighbours, and the farthest engaged, will much sooner recover themselves after a war. The first, by the absolute power of the prince who being master of the lives and fortunes of his subjects, will quickly find expedients to pay his debts: and so will the other, by their prudent administration, the greatness of their trade, their wonderful parsimony, the willingness of their people to undergo all kind of taxes, and their justice in applotting as well as collecting them. But above all, we are to consider that France and Holland fight in the continent, either upon, or near their own territories, and the greatest part of the money circulates among themselves; whereas ours crosses the sea either to Flanders, Spain, or Portugal, and every penny of it, whether in specie or returns, is so much lost to the nation for ever.

Upon these considerations alone, it was the most prudent course imaginable in the Queen, to lay hold of the disposition of the people for changing the Parliament and ministry at this juncture, and extricating herself, as soon as possible, out of the pupillage of those who found their accounts only in perpetuating the war. Neither have we the least reason to doubt, but the ensuing Parliament will assist her Majesty with the utmost vigour,[11] till her enemies _again_ be brought to sue for peace, and _again_ offer such terms as will make it both honourable and lasting; only with this difference, that the Ministry perhaps will not _again_ refuse them.[12]

_Audiet pugnas vitio parentum
Rara Juventus_.[13]

[Footnote 1: No. 13 in the reprint. The No. 13 (from Thursday, October 19, to Thursday, October 26, 1710) of the original is omitted from the reprint, and the Nos. from 14 to 48 are slipped back one. No. 49 also is omitted, and Nos. 50 to 52 slipped back two. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Virgil, "Aeneid," i. 341-2.

"Her whole tale of wrong
'Twere tedious to relate. But I will give
The leading facts."--R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "The Observator" of Nov. 8th, commenting on this statement, remarks: "All the inconveniences we labour under at present, are so far from being the consequence of the counsels of the late ministry, that they are visibly the consequence of those of the 'Examiner's' party, who brought the nation to the brink of Popery and slavery, from which they were delivered by the Revolution; and are pursuing the same measures again," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See "Memoirs relating to that Change" (vol. v., pp. 359-90). The Queen's action in dismissing her ministers and dissolving Parliament in September was, even to Swift himself, a matter for wonder: "I never remember," he writes to Stella (Sept. 20th, 1710), "such bold steps taken by a Court." And Tindal, commenting on the change, says: "So sudden and so entire a change in the ministry is scarce to be found in our history, especially where men of great abilities had served with such zeal and success." ("Hist. of England," iv. 192.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on September 21st. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: "Pharsalia," i. 181-2.

"Hence debt unthrifty, careless to repay,
And usury still watching for its day:
Hence perjuries in every wrangling court;
And war, the needy bankrupt's last resort,"
N. ROWE.

Lucan wrote "_et_ concussa," [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Commenting on this passage, "The Observator" of Nov. 8th remarked: "One would take the author to be some very great man, since he speaks so contemptuously of both Houses of Parliament; for they actually found those doctrines, as then preached up, to be inconsistent with the Revolution, and declared it loudly to the world without whispering." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Writing to the Earl of Peterborough (Feb. 1710/1), Swift refers to "a pamphlet come out, called 'A Letter to Jacob Banks,' showing that the liberty of Sweden was destroyed by the principle of passive obedience." The pamphlet was written by one W. Benson, and bore the title, "A Letter to Sir J---- B----, By Birth a S----,... Concerning the late Minehead doctrine," etc., 1711. "This dispute," says Swift to Peterborough, "would soon be ended, if the dunces who write on each side, would plainly tell us what the object of this passive obedience is in our country." (Scott, vol. xv., p. 423.)

See also, on this matter, "Examiner," Nos. 34 and 40 _post_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Eumenes of Cardia was secretary to Alexander the Great, and distinguished himself both as a statesman and general. He was killed B.C. 316. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The land tax at the time was four shillings in the pound. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: In her speech to Parliament on Nov. 27th, 1710, Anne said: "The carrying on the war in all its parts, but particularly in Spain, with the utmost vigour, is the likeliest means, with God's blessing, to procure a safe and honourable peace for us and all our allies, whose support and interest I have truly at heart" ("Journals of House of Lords," xix, 166).]

[Footnote 12: This is a dig at the Duke of Marlborough, for what the Tories thought an unnecessarily harsh insistence on the inclusion of a clause in the preliminaries of the Gertruydenberg Treaty, which it was thought he must have known would be rejected by Louis. They suspected Marlborough did this in order to keep the war going, and so permit himself further opportunities for enriching himself. The treaty for peace, carried on at Gertruydenberg in 1710, was discussed by Marlborough and Townshend acting for England, the Marquis de Torcy acting for France, and Buys and Vanderdussen for the States. Several conferences took place, and preliminary articles were even signed, but the Allies demanded a security for the delivering of Spain. This Louis XIV. refused to do, and the conference broke up in July, 1710. See Swift's "Conduct of the Allies" (vol. v., pp. 55-123). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Horace, "Odes," I. ii. 23, 24. "Our youth will hear, astonished at our crimes, That Roman armies Romans slew; Our youth, alas! will then be few."--A. MAYNWARING. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 15.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 2, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, 1710.

_E quibis hi vacuas implent sermonibus aures,
Hi narrata ferunt alio: mensuraque ficti
Crescit, et auditis aliquid novus adjicit autor,
Illic Credulitas, illic temerarius Error,
Vanaque Laetitia est, consternatique Timores,
Seditioque recens, dubioque autore susurri._[2]

I am prevailed on, through the importunity of friends, to interrupt the scheme I had begun in my last paper, by an Essay upon the Art of Political Lying. We are told, "the Devil is the father of lies, and was a liar from the beginning"; so that beyond contradiction, the invention is old: And which is more, his first essay of it was purely political, employed in undermining the authority of his Prince, and seducing a third part of the subjects from their obedience. For which he was driven down from Heaven, where (as Milton expresseth it) he had been viceroy of a great western province;[3] and forced to exercise his talent in inferior regions among other fallen spirits, or poor deluded men, whom he still daily tempts to his own sin, and will ever do so till he is chained in the bottomless pit.

But though the Devil be the father of lies, he seems, like other great inventors, to have lost much of his reputation, by the continual improvements that have been made upon him.

Who first reduced lying into an art, and adapted it to politics, is not so clear from history, though I have made some diligent enquiries: I shall therefore consider it only according to the modern system, as it has been cultivated these twenty years past in the southern part of our own island.

The poets tell us, that after the giants were overthrown by the gods, the earth in revenge produced her last offspring, which was Fame.[4] And the fable is thus interpreted; that when tumults and seditions are quieted, rumours and false reports are plentifully spread through a nation. So that by this account, _lying_ is the last relief of a routed, earth-born, rebellious party in a state. But here, the moderns have made great additions, applying this art to the gaining of power, and preserving it, as well as revenging themselves after they have lost it: as the same instruments are made use of by animals to feed themselves when they are hungry, and bite those that tread upon them.

But the same genealogy cannot always be admitted for _political lying;_ I shall therefore desire to refine upon it, by adding some circumstances of its birth and parents. A political lie is sometimes born out of a discarded statesman's head, and thence delivered to be nursed and dandled by the mob. Sometimes it is produced a monster, and _licked_ into shape; at other times it comes into the world completely formed, and is spoiled in the licking. It is often born an infant in the regular way, and requires time to mature it: and often it sees the light in its full growth, but dwindles away by degrees. Sometimes it is of noble birth; and sometimes the spawn of a stock-jobber. _Here_, it screams aloud at the opening of the womb; and _there_, it is delivered with a whisper. I know a lie that now disturbs half the kingdom with its noise, which though too proud and great at present to own its parents, I can remember in its whisper-hood. To conclude the nativity of this monster; when it comes into the world without a _sting_, it is still-born; and whenever it loses its sting, it dies.

No wonder, if an infant so miraculous in its birth, should be destined for great adventures: and accordingly we see it has been the guardian spirit of a prevailing party for almost twenty years. It can conquer kingdoms without fighting, and sometimes with the loss of a battle: It gives and resumes employments; can sink a mountain to a mole-hill, and raise a mole-hill to a mountain; has presided for many years at committees of elections; can wash a blackamoor white; make a saint of an atheist, and a patriot of a profligate; can furnish foreign ministers with intelligence, and raise or let fall the credit of the nation. This goddess flies with a huge looking-glass in her hands, to dazzle the crowd, and make them see, according as she turns it, their ruin in their interest, and their interest in their ruin. In this glass you will behold your best friends clad in coats powdered with _flower-de-luces_[5] and triple crowns; their girdles hung round with chains, and beads, and wooden shoes: and your worst enemies adorned with the ensigns of liberty, property, indulgence, and moderation, and a cornucopia in their hands. Her large wings, like those of a flying-fish, are of no use but while they are moist; she therefore dips them in mud, and soaring aloft scatters it in the eyes of the multitude, flying with great swiftness; but at every turn is forced to stoop in dirty way for new supplies.

I have been sometimes thinking, if a man had the art of the second sight for seeing lies, as they have in Scotland for seeing spirits, how admirably he might entertain himself in this town; to observe the different shapes, sizes, and colours, of those swarms of lies which buzz about the heads of some people, like flies about a horse's ears in summer: or those legions hovering every afternoon in Popes-head Alley[6], enough to darken the air; or over a club of discontented grandees, and thence sent down in cargoes to be scattered at elections.

There is one essential point wherein a political liar differs from others of the faculty; that he ought to have but a short memory, which is necessary according to the various occasions he meets with every hour, of differing from himself, and swearing to both sides of a contradiction, as he finds the persons disposed, with whom he has to deal. In describing the virtues and vices of mankind, it is convenient upon every article, to have some eminent person in our eye, from whence we copy our description. I have strictly observed this rule; and my imagination this minute represents before me a certain great man[7] famous for this talent, to the constant practice of which he owes his twenty years' reputation of the most skilful head in England, for the management of nice affairs. The superiority of his genius consists in nothing else but an inexhaustible fund of political lies, which he plentifully distributes every minute he speaks, and by an unparalleled generosity forgets, and consequently contradicts the next half-hour. He never yet considered whether any proposition were true or false, but whether it were convenient for the present minute or company to affirm or deny it; so that if you think to refine upon him, by interpreting every thing he says, as we do dreams by the contrary, you are still to seek, and will find yourself equally deceived, whether you believe him or no: the only remedy is to suppose that you have heard some inarticulate sounds, without any meaning at all. And besides, that will take off the horror you might be apt to conceive at the oaths wherewith he perpetually tags both ends of every proposition: though at the same time I think he cannot with any justice be taxed for perjury, when he invokes God and Christ, because he has often fairly given public notice to the world, that he believes in neither.

Some people may think that such an accomplishment as this, can be of no great use to the owner or his party, after it has been often practised, and is become notorious; but they are widely mistaken: Few lies carry the inventor's mark; and the most prostitute enemy to truth may spread a thousand without being known for the author. Besides, as the vilest writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers; and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and Truth comes limping after it; so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late, the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect: like a man who has thought of a good repartee, when the discourse is changed, or the company parted: or, like a physician who has found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.

Considering that natural disposition in many men to lie, and in multitudes to believe, I have been perplexed what to do with that maxim, so frequent in every body's mouth, that "Truth will at last prevail." Here, has this island of ours, for the greatest part of twenty years, lain under the influence of such counsels and persons, whose principle and interest it was to corrupt our manners, blind our understandings, drain our wealth, and in time destroy our constitution both in Church and State; and we at last were brought to the very brink of ruin; yet by the means of perpetual misrepresentations, have never been able to distinguish between our enemies and friends. We have seen a great part of the nation's money got into the hands of those, who by their birth, education and merit, could pretend no higher than to wear our liveries; while others,[8] who by their credit, quality and fortune, were only able to give reputation and success to the Revolution, were not only laid aside, as dangerous and useless; but loaden with the scandal of Jacobites, men of arbitrary principles, and pensioners to France; while Truth, who is said to lie in a well, seemed now to be buried there under a heap of stones. But I remember, it was a usual complaint among the Whigs, that the bulk of landed men was not in their interests, which some of the wisest looked on as an ill omen; and we saw it was with the utmost difficulty that they could preserve a majority, while the court and ministry were on their side; till they had learned those admirable expedients for deciding elections, and influencing distant boroughs by _powerful motives_ from the city. But all this was mere force and constraint, however upheld by most dexterous artifice and management: till the people began to apprehend their properties, their religion, and the monarchy itself in danger; then we saw them greedily laying hold on the first occasion to interpose. But of this mighty change in the dispositions of the people, I shall discourse more at large in some following paper; wherein I shall endeavour to undeceive those deluded or deluding persons, who hope or pretend, it is only a short madness in the vulgar, from which they may soon recover. Whereas I believe it will appear to be very different in its causes, its symptoms, and its consequences; and prove a great example to illustrate the maxim I lately mentioned, that "Truth" (however sometimes late) "will at last prevail."

[Footnote 1: No. 14 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," xii. 56-61.

"The troubled air with empty sounds they beat. Intent to hear, and eager to repeat. Error sits brooding there, with added train Of vain Credulity, and Joys as vain: Suspicion, with Sedition joined, are near, And Rumours raised, and Murmurs mixed, and panic Fear." J. DRYDEN. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "Paradise Lost," v. 708-710. Milton makes Satan say: "We possess the quarters of the North," and places his throne in "the limits of the North." By speaking of a _western_ province Swift intends Ireland, then under the government of the Earl of Wharton. This paper may be read in connection with the 23rd number of "The Examiner," and the "Short Character of Wharton" (vol. v., pp. 1-28). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Fama was said to be a daughter of Terra. See Virgil, "Aeneid," iv. 173-178. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: A reply to the insinuations that the Tories were sympathetic to France, and that the Whigs were the true patriots. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: The reprint has "Exchange Alley." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Earl of Wharton. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Refers to the Tories generally, and in particular to Sir Thomas Osborne, Bart. (1631-1712), who was created Duke of Leeds in 1694. In 1679, as Earl of Danby, he was impeached by the Commons, and imprisoned in the Tower for five years. "He assisted greatly," says Scott, "in the Revolution, yet continued a steady Tory, and avowed at Sacheverell's trial, that, had he known the Prince of Orange designed to assume the crown, he never would have drawn a sword for him." [T.S.]]

NUMB. 16.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, 1710.

---_medioque ut limite curras,
Icare, ait, moneo: ne si demissior ibis,
Unda gravet pennas, si celsior, ignis adurat._[2]

It must be avowed, that for some years past, there have been few things more wanted in England, than such a paper as this ought to be; and such as I will endeavour to make it, as long as it shall be found of any use, without entering into the violences of either party. Considering the many grievous misrepresentations of persons and things, it is highly requisite, at this juncture, that the people throughout the kingdom, should, if possible, be set right in their opinions by some impartial hand, which has never been yet attempted: those who have hitherto undertaken it, being upon every account the least qualified of all human-kind for such a work.

We live here under a limited monarchy, and under the doctrine and discipline of an excellent Church: We are unhappily divided into two parties, both which pretend a mighty zeal for our religion and government, only they disagree about the means.[3] The evils we must fence against are, on one side, fanaticism and infidelity in religion; and anarchy, under the name of a commonwealth, in government: on the other side, popery, slavery, and the Pretender from France. Now to inform and direct us in our sentiments, upon these weighty points; here are on one side two stupid, illiterate scribblers, both of them fanatics by profession; I mean the "Review"[4] and "Observator."[5] On the other side we have an open Nonjuror,[6] whose character and person, as well as good learning and sense, discovered upon other subjects, do indeed deserve respect and esteem; but his "Rehearsal," and the rest of his political papers, are yet more pernicious than those of the former two. If the generality of the people know not how to talk or think, till they have read their lesson in the papers of the week, what a misfortune is it that their duty should be conveyed to them through such vehicles as those? For let some gentlemen think what they please, I cannot but suspect, that the two worthies I first mentioned, have in a degree done mischief among us; the mock authoritative manner of the one, and the insipid mirth of the other, however insupportable to reasonable ears, being of a level with great numbers among the lowest part of mankind. Neither was the author of the "Rehearsal," while he continued that paper, less infectious to many persons of better figure, who perhaps were as well qualified, and much less prejudiced, to judge for themselves.

It was this reason, that moved me to take the matter out of those rough, as well as those dirty hands, to let the remote and uninstructed part of the nation see, that they have been misled on both sides, by mad, ridiculous extremes, at a wide distance on each side from the truth; while the right path is so broad and plain, as to be easily kept, if they were once put into it.

Further, I had lately entered on a resolution to take very little notice of other papers, unless it were such, where the malice and falsehood, had so great a mixture of wit and spirit, as would make them dangerous; which in the present circle of scribbles, from twelvepence to a halfpenny, I could easily foresee would not very frequently occur. But here again, I am forced to dispense with my resolution, though it be only to tell my reader, what measures I am like to take on such occasions for the future. I was told that the paper called "The Observator," was twice filled last week with remarks upon a late "Examiner."[7] These I read with the first opportunity, and to speak in the news-writers' phrase, they gave me occasion for many speculations. I observed with singular pleasure, the nature of those things, which the owners of them, usually call _answers_; and with what dexterity this matchless author had fallen into the whole art and cant of them. To transcribe here and there three or four detached lines of least weight in a discourse, and by a foolish comment mistake every syllable of the meaning, is what I have known many of a superior class, to this formidable adversary, entitle an "Answer."[8] This is what he has exactly done in about thrice as many words as my whole discourse; which is so mighty an advantage over me, that I shall by no means engage in so unequal a combat; but as far as I can judge of my own temper, entirely dismiss him for the future; heartily wishing he had a match exactly of his own size to meddle with, who should only have the odds of truth and honesty; which as I take it, would be an effectual way to silence him for ever. Upon this occasion, I cannot forbear a short story of a fanatic farmer who lived in my neighbourhood, and was so great a disputant in religion, that the servants in all the families thereabouts, reported, how he had confuted the bishop and all his clergy. I had then a footman who was fond of reading the Bible, and I borrowed a comment for him, which he studied so close, that in a month or two I thought him a match for the farmer. They disputed at several houses, with a ring of servants and other people always about them, where Ned explained his texts so full and clear, to the capacity of his audience, and showed the insignificancy of his adversary's cant, to the meanest understanding, that he got the whole country of his side, and the farmer was cured of his itch of disputation for ever after.

The worst of it is, that this sort of outrageous party-writers I have above spoke of, are like a couple of make-bates, who inflame small quarrels by a thousand stories, and by keeping friends at a distance hinder them from coming to a good understanding, as they certainly would, if they were suffered to meet and debate between themselves. For let any one examine a reasonable honest man of either side, upon those opinions in religion and government, which both parties daily buffet each other about, he shall hardly find one material point in difference between them. I would be glad to ask a question about two great men[9] of the late ministry, how they came to be Whigs? and by what figure of speech, half a dozen others, lately put into great employments, can be called Tories? I doubt, whoever would suit the definition to the persons, must make it directly contrary to what we understood it at the time of the Revolution.

In order to remove these misapprehensions among us, I believe it will be necessary upon occasion, to detect the malice and falsehood of some popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week, and draw an hundred absurd consequences from them.

For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger, when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago: and the Queen herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10] Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has, since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the two Houses. The Queen's words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or thinks that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor. But that the Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes that ever reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a truth, as a man must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to doubt. The wisest prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his affairs, and the present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the craft of ill designing men: One or two ministers, most in his confidence, may _at first_ have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by avarice, by love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to gratify their passions or interests, from _one set of men_ than another, till they are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take "seven spirits more wicked than themselves." This is a very possible case; and will not "the last state of such men be worse than the first"? that is to say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in danger by such proceedings as these? And shall a faithful subject, who foresees and trembles at the consequences, be called _disaffected_, because he delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly may, that the danger is not owing to his administration? Or, shall the prince himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs into other hands, with the universal applause of his people? As to the vote against those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it likewise referred to danger from or under the Queen's administration, (for I neither have it by me, nor can suddenly have recourse to it;) but if it were otherwise, I know not how it can refer to any dangers but what were past, or at that time present; or how it could affect the future, unless the senators were all _inspired_, or at least that majority which voted it. Neither do I see any crime further than ill manners, to differ in opinion from a majority of either or both Houses; and that ill manners, I must confess I have been often guilty of for some years past, though I hope I never shall again.

Another topic of great use to these weekly inflamers, is the young Pretender[11] in France, to whom their whole party is in a high measure indebted for all their greatness; and whenever it lies in their power, they may perhaps return their acknowledgments, as out of their zeal for frequent revolutions, they were ready to do to his supposed father: which is a piece of secret history, that I hope will one day see the light; and I am sure it shall, if ever I am master of it, without regarding whose ears may tingle.[12] But at present, the word _Pretender_ is a term of art in their possession: A secretary of state cannot desire leave to resign, but the Pretender is at bottom: the Queen cannot dissolve a Parliament, but it is a plot to dethrone herself, and bring in the Pretender. Half a score stock-jobbers are playing the knave in Exchange-Alley, and there goes the Pretender with a sponge. One would be apt to think they bawl out the Pretender so often, to take off the terror; or tell so many lies about him, to slacken our caution, that when he is really coming, _by their connivance_, we may not believe them; as the boy served the shepherds about the coming of the wolf. Or perhaps they scare us with the Pretender, because they think he may be like some diseases, that come with a fright. Do they not believe that the Queen's present ministry love her Majesty, at least as well as _some others_ loved the Church? And why is it not as great mark of disaffection now to say the Queen is in danger, as it was some months ago to affirm the same of the Church? Suppose it be a false opinion, that the Queen's right is hereditary and indefeasible; yet how is it possible that those who hold and believe that doctrine, can be in the Pretender's interest? His title is weakened by every argument that strengthens hers. It is as plain as the words of an Act of Parliament can make it, that her present Majesty is heir to the survivor of the late King and Queen her sister. Is not that an hereditary right? What need we explain it any further? I have known an Article of Faith expounded in much looser and more general terms, and that by an author whose opinions are very much followed by a certain party.[13] Suppose we go further, and examine the word _indefeasible_, with which some writers of late have made themselves so merry: I confess it is hard to conceive, how any law which the supreme power makes, may not by the same power be repealed: so that I shall not determine, whether the Queen's right be indefeasible or no. But this I will maintain, that whoever affirms it so, is not guilty of a crime. For in that settlement of the crown after the Revolution, where her present Majesty is named in remainder,[14] there are (as near as I can remember) these remarkable words, "to which we bind ourselves and our posterity for ever." Lawyers may explain this, or call them words of form, as they please: and reasoners may argue that such an obligation is against the very nature of government; but a plain reader, who takes the words in their natural meaning, may be excused, in thinking a right so confirmed, is _indefeasible_; and if there be an absurdity in such an opinion, he is not to answer for it.

_P.S._ When this paper was going to the press, the printer brought me two more _Observators_,[15] wholly taken up in my _Examiner_ upon lying, which I was at the pains to read; and they are just such an answer, as the two others I have mentioned. This is all I have to say on that matter.

[Footnote 1: No. 15 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," viii. 203-5.

"My boy, take care
To wing your course along the middle air:
If low, the surges wet your flagging plumes;
If high, the sun the melting wax consumes."
S. CROXALL.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See the pamphlets: "The Thoughts of an Honest Tory," 1710 [by Bp. Hoadly]; "Faults on both Sides ... by way of answer to 'The Thoughts of an Honest Tory,'" 1710 [by a Mr. Clements]; and "Faults in the Fault-Finder: or, a Specimen of Errors in ... 'Faults on Both Sides,'" 1710; etc., etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: "The Review" was edited by Daniel Defoe. He commenced it on February 19th, 1703/4, as "A Weekly Review of the Affairs of France"; but about this time it had lost much of its early spring and verve. It was discontinued after June 11th, 1713. Gay thought, speaking of "The Review," that Defoe was "a lively instance of those wits, who, as an ingenious author says, will endure but one skimming" ("Present State of Wit"). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: "The Observator" was founded by John Tutchin. The first number was issued April 1st, 1702, and it appeared, with some intervals, until July, 1712, though Tutchin himself died in 1707. For his partisanship for Monmouth poor Tutchin came under the anger of Judge Jeffreys, who sentenced him to several floggings. Pope's couplet in the "Dunciad" has immortalized him:

"Earless on high stood unabashed De Foe,
And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: This was the Rev. Charles Leslie, whose periodical, "The Rehearsal," was avowedly Jacobite. The paper appeared from August 5th, 1704, until March 26th, 1709. In 1708-9 all the numbers were republished in four volumes folio, with the title: "A View of the Times, their Principles and Practices: in the First [Second, etc.] Volume of the Rehearsals," and under the pseudonym "Philalethes." Later he engaged in a controversy with Bishop Hoadly. See also note on p. 354, vol. v.

Of Swift's use of the term "Nonjuror," "The Medley" (June 18th, 1711, No. 38) made the following remarks: "If he speaks of him with relation to his party, there can be nothing so inconsistent as a Whig and a Nonjuror: and if he talks of him merely as an author, all the authors in the world are Nonjurors, but the ingenious divine who writ 'The Tale of a Tub' ... for he is the first man who introduced those figures of rhetoric we call swearing and cursing in print." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "The Observator" for November 8th, 1710 (vol. ix., No. 85), was filled with _more_ remarks on the fourteenth "Examiner." Presumably the issue for November 4th, which is not accessible, commenced the attack. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A humorous specimen of this kind of an "Answer" was given by Swift in No. 23 of "The Examiner," _post._ [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin, who commenced their political career as Tories, and only became Whigs through the necessity of identifying their own principles with that of the party which supported their power. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: On December 6th, 1705, the House of Lords passed the following resolution: "That the Church of England ... is now, by God's blessing, under the happy reign of her Majesty, in a most safe and flourishing condition; and that whoever goes about to suggest and insinuate, that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's administration, is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom" ("Jls. of House of Lords," xviii. 43). On December 8th the House of Commons, by a majority of 212 against 162, agreed to this resolution. In her speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 5th, 1710, the Queen said: "The suppressing immorality ... is what I have always earnestly recommended; ... but, this being an evil complained of in all times, it is very injurious to take a pretence from thence, to insinuate that the Church is in any danger from my administration" ("Jls. Of House of Lords," xix. 145). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: James, Duke of Cornwall (1688-1766), known as the Chevalier de St. George. At one time the belief was current that the wife of James II. did not give birth to a child, and the "young Pretender" was supposed to be a son of one Mary Grey (see note on p. 409 of vol. v. of present edition of Swift's works). See also: "State-Amusements, Serious and Hypocritical ... Birth of the Pretended Prince of Wales," 1711; "Seasonable Queries relating to the Birth and Birthright of a Certain Person," 1714; and other pamphlets. In the Act for the Succession to the Crown (6 Ann. c. 41), he is styled, "the Pretended Prince of Wales." History afterwards called him the "Old Pretender" to distinguish him from Charles Edward, the "bonnie Prince Charlie," the Young Pretender. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Swift kept his word. See "An Enquiry into ... the Queen's Last Ministry," 1715 (Swift's Works, vol. v., p. 458 _sq._), and his "History of the Four Last Years of the Queen," 1758. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: By Bishop Burnet in his "Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: The reference here is to the Bill of Rights (1 William and Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), where it is said: "And thereunto the said Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever." In the recital in the Act of Settlement (12 and 13 W. III. c. 2) the words "for ever" are omitted. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: "The Observator" of November 11th and 15th (vol. ix., Nos. 86 and 87). In No. 86 "The Examiner" is given "a spiritual shove," and, quoting his statement that a political liar "ought to have but a short memory" to meet occasions "of differing from himself, and swearing to both sides of a contradiction," adds, "the 'Examiner' has this essential qualification of a political liar." It is amusing to find in the same issue "The Observator" calling Jezebel a Tory, and Elijah and Naboth, Whigs! [T.S.]]

NUMB. 17.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, 1710.

_Qui sunt boni cives? Qui belli, qui domi de patriâ bene merentes, nisi qui patriae beneficia meminerunt?_[2]

I will employ this present paper upon a subject, which of late hath very much affected me, which I have considered with a good deal of application, and made several enquiries about, among those persons who I thought were best able to inform me; and if I deliver my sentiments with some freedom, I hope it will be forgiven, while I accompany it with that tenderness which so nice a point requires.

I said in a former paper (Numb. 14) that one specious objection to the late removals at court, was the fear of giving uneasiness to a general, who has been long successful abroad: and accordingly, the common clamour of tongues and pens for some months past, has run against the baseness, the inconstancy and ingratitude of the whole kingdom to the Duke of M[arlborough], in return of the most eminent services that ever were performed by a subject to his country; not to be equalled in history. And then to be sure some bitter stroke of detraction against Alexander and Caesar, who never did us the least injury. Besides, the people that read Plutarch come upon us with parallels drawn from the Greeks and Romans, who ungratefully dealt with I know not how many of their most deserving generals: while the profounder politicians, have seen pamphlets, where Tacitus and Machiavel have been quoted to shew the danger of too resplendent a merit. Should a stranger hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, without knowing the particulars, he would be apt to enquire where was his tomb, or whether he were allowed Christian burial? not doubting but we had put him to some ignominious death. Or, has he been tried for his life, and very narrowly escaped? has he been accused of high crimes and misdemeanours? has the prince seized on his estate, and left him to starve? has he been hooted at as he passed the streets, by an ungrateful mob? have neither honours, offices nor grants, been conferred on him or his family? have not he and they been barbarously stripped of them all? have not he and his forces been ill paid abroad? and does not the prince by a scanty, limited commission, hinder him from pursuing his own methods in the conduct of the war? has he no power at all of disposing commissions as he pleases? is he not severely used by the ministry or Parliament, who yearly call him to a strict account? has the senate ever thanked him for good success, and have they not always publicly censured him for the least miscarriage? Will the accusers of the nation join issue upon any of these particulars, or tell us in what point, our damnable sin of ingratitude lies? Why, it is plain and clear; for while he is commanding abroad, the Queen dissolves her Parliament, and changes her ministry at home: in which universal calamity, no less than two persons[3] allied by marriage to the general, have lost their places. Whence came this wonderful sympathy between the civil and military powers? Will the troops in Flanders refuse to fight, unless they can have their own lord keeper, their own lord president of the council, their own chief Governor of Ireland, and their own Parliament? In a kingdom where the people are free, how came they to be so fond of having their councils under the influence of their army, or those that lead it? who in all well instituted states, had no commerce with the civil power, further than to receive their orders, and obey them without reserve.

When a general is not so popular, either in his army or at home, as one might expect from a long course of success; it may perhaps be ascribed to his wisdom, or perhaps to his complexion. The possession of some one quality, or a defect in some other, will extremely damp the people's favour, as well as the love of the soldiers. Besides, this is not an age to produce favourites of the people, while we live under a Queen who engrosses all our love, and all our veneration; and where, the only way for a great general or minister, to acquire any degree of subordinate affection from the public, must be by all marks of the most entire submission and respect, to her sacred person and commands;[4] otherwise, no pretence of great services, either in the field or the cabinet, will be able to screen them from universal hatred.

But the late ministry was closely joined to the general, by friendship, interest, alliance, inclination and opinion, which cannot be affirmed of the present; and the ingratitude of the nation, lies in the people's joining as one man, to wish, that such a ministry should be changed. Is it not at the same time notorious to the whole kingdom, that nothing but a tender regard to the general, was able to preserve that ministry so long, till neither God nor man could suffer their continuance? Yet in the highest ferment of things, we heard few or no reflections upon this great commander, but all seemed unanimous in wishing he might still be at the head of the confederate forces; only at the same time, in case he were resolved to resign, they chose rather to turn their thoughts somewhere else, than throw up all in despair. And this I cannot but add, in defence of the people, with regard to the person we are speaking of, that in the high station he has been for many years past, his real defects (as nothing human is without them) have in a detracting age been very sparingly mentioned, either in libels or conversation, and all his successes very freely and universally applauded.

There is an active and a passive ingratitude; applying both to this occasion, we may say, the first is, when a prince or people returns good services with cruelty or ill usage: the other is, when good services are not at all, or very meanly rewarded. We have already spoke of the former; let us therefore in the second place, examine how the services of our general have been rewarded; and whether upon that article, either prince or people have been guilty of ingratitude?

Those are the most valuable rewards, which are given to us from the certain knowledge of the donor, that they _fit our temper best:_ I shall therefore say nothing of the title of Duke, or the Garter, which the Queen bestowed [on] the general in the beginning of her reign; but I shall come to more substantial instances, and mention nothing which has not been given in the face of the world.[5] The lands of Woodstock, may, I believe, be reckoned worth 40,000_l_. On the building of Blenheim Castle 200,000_l_. have been already expended, though it be not yet near finished. The grant of 5,000_l. per ann._ on the post-office, is richly worth 100,000_l_. His principality in Germany may be computed at 30,000_l_. Pictures, jewels, and other gifts from foreign princes, 60,000_l_. The grant at the Pall-Mall, the rangership, &c. for want of more certain knowledge, may be called 10,000,_l_. His own, and his duchess's employments at five years value, reckoning only the known and avowed salaries, are very low rated at 100,000_l_. Here is a good deal above half a million of money, and I dare say, those who are loudest with the clamour of ingratitude, will readily own, that all this is but a trifle in comparison of what is untold.[6]