Chapter V: Part 5

The reason of my stating this account is only to convince the world, that we are not quite so ungrateful either as the Greeks or the Romans. And in order to adjust this matter with all fairness, I shall confine myself to the latter, who were much the more generous of the two. A victorious general of Rome in the height of that empire, having entirely subdued his enemy, was rewarded with the larger triumph; and perhaps a statue in the Forum, a bull for a sacrifice, an embroidered garment to appear in: a crown of laurel, a monumental trophy with inscriptions; sometimes five hundred or a thousand copper coins were struck on occasion of the victory, which doing honour to the general, we will place to his account; and lastly, sometimes, though not very frequently, a triumphal arch. These are all the rewards that I can call to mind, which a victorious general received after his return from the most glorious expedition, conquered some great kingdom, brought the king himself, his family and nobles to adorn the triumph in chains, and made the kingdom either a Roman province, or at best a poor depending state, in humble alliance to that empire. Now of all these rewards, I find but two which were of real profit to the general; the laurel crown, made and sent him at the charge of the public, and the embroidered garment; but I cannot find whether this last were paid for by the senate or the general: however, we will take the more favourable opinion, and in all the rest, admit the whole expense, as if it were ready money in the general's pocket. Now according to these computations on both sides, we will draw up two fair accounts, the one of Roman gratitude, and the other of British ingratitude, and set them together in balance.

A BILL OF ROMAN GRATITUDE.

l. s. d. Imprimis for frankincense and earthen pots to burn it in 4 10 0 A bull for sacrifice 8 0 0 An embroidered garment 50 0 0 A crown of laurel 0 0 2 A statue 100 0 0 A trophy 80 0 0 A thousand copper medals value half pence a piece 2 1 8 A triumphal arch 500 0 0 A triumphal car, valued as a modern coach 100 0 0 Casual charges at the triumph 150 0 0 ------------- Sum total 994 11 10

A BILL OF BRITISH INGRATITUDE.

l. s. d. Imprimis Woodstock 40,000 0 0 Blenheim 200,000 0 0 Post-office grant 100,000 0 0 Mildenheim 30,000 0 0 Pictures, jewels, &c. 60,000 0 0 Pall-Mall grant, &c. 10,000 0 0 Employments 100,000 0 0 ----------------- Sum total[7] 540,000 0 0

This is an account of the visible profits on both sides; and if the Roman general had any private perquisites, they may be easily discounted, and by more probable computations, and differ yet more upon the balance; if we consider, that all the gold and silver for safeguards and contributions, also all valuable prizes taken in the war were openly exposed in the triumph, and then lodged in the Capitol for the public service.

So that upon the whole, we are not yet quite so bad at _worst_, as the Romans were at _best_. And I doubt, those who raise this hideous cry of ingratitude, may be mightily mistaken in the consequence they propose from such complaints. I remember a saying of Seneca, _Multos ingratos invenimus, plures facimus;_ "We find many ungrateful persons in the world, but we _make_ more," by setting too high a rate upon our pretensions, and under-valuing the rewards we receive. When unreasonable bills are brought in, they ought to be taxed, or cut off in the middle. Where there have been long accounts between two persons, I have known one of them perpetually making large demands and pressing for payments, who when the accounts were cast up on both sides, was found to be creditor for some hundreds. I am thinking if a proclamation were issued out for every man to send in his _bill of merits_, and the lowest price he set them at, what a pretty sum it would amount to, and how many such islands as this must be sold to pay them. I form my judgment from the practice of those who sometimes happen to pay themselves, and I dare affirm, would not be so unjust to take a farthing more than they think is due to their deserts. I will instance only in one article. A lady of my acquaintance,[8] appropriated twenty-six pounds a year out of her allowance, for certain uses, which her woman received, and was to pay to the lady or her order, as it was called for. But after eight years, it appeared upon the strictest calculation, that the woman had paid but four pound a year, and sunk two-and-twenty for her own pocket. It is but supposing instead of twenty-six pound, twenty-six thousand, and by that you may judge what the pretensions of _modern merit_ are, where it happens to be its own paymaster.

[Footnote 1: No. 16 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "Who are the good citizens? Who are they who--whether at war or at home--deserve well of their country, but those who bear in mind the benefits she has already conferred upon them?" [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The Earl of Sunderland and Lord Godolphin. Sunderland was succeeded by Dartmouth, in June, as Secretary of State, and Godolphin returned his staff of treasurer in August, the office being placed in commission. Sunderland and Godolphin were both related to Marlborough by marriage. The former married Anne, and the son of the latter Henrietta, daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See "Memoirs relating to that Change" (Swift's Works, vol. v., pp. 367-8). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The Queen's Message, proposing to grant to the Duke of Marlborough the Manor of Woodstock and Hundred of Wootton, was read January 17th, 1704/5. A Bill carrying this proposal into effect was introduced January 25th, and passed February 3rd. Blenheim House, erected at the Queen's expense, was settled to go with the dukedom by a Bill introduced in the House of Lords, which passed all its stages in the Commons December 20th, 1706. The pension of £5,000 per annum upon the revenue of the Post Office, granted by the Queen for her lifetime in December, 1702--at a time when the Commons expressed their "trouble" that they could not comply--was made perpetual by a Bill introduced January 14th, 1706/7, passed January 18th, Royal Assent given January 28th (see "Journals of House of Commons," xiv. and xv.). [T.S.] ]

[Footnote 6: A broadside, printed in 1712, entitled, "The D----e and D--- -s of M----h's Loss; being an Estimate of their former Yearly Income," reckons the duke's emoluments at £54,825 per annum, and those of the duchess at £7,500. In the second edition the following paragraph is added:

"The following sums have been rec'd since the year 1701:

"Receiv'd on Accompt of Bread and Bread-waggons £63,319 3 7 Receiv'd 10,000,_l_. by Annual Contingencies 100,000 0 0 Receiv'd by 2 and 1/2 _per cent_, from the payment of Troops 460,062 6 7-3/4 ----------------- 623,381 10 2-3/4" -----------------]

[Footnote 7: In the tenth number of "The Medley" (December 4th, 1710) occurs the following: "'The Examiner,' having it in his thoughts to publish the falsest, as well as the most impudent paper that ever was printed, writ a previous discourse about lying, as a necessary introduction to what was to follow. The first paper was the precept, and the second was the example. By the falsest paper that ever was printed, I mean the 'Examiner' Numb. 17, in which he pretends to give an account of what the Duke of Marlborough has got by his services." The writer in the "Medley," admitting even the correctness of the "Examiner's" sum of £540,000, sets off against this the value of the several battles won by the Duke, and "twenty seven towns taken, which being reckoned at 300,000_l_. a town (the price that Dunkirk was sold at before it was fortified) amounts in all, throwing in the battles and the fortifications, to 8,100,000_l_." The balance in favour of the Duke, and presumably in justification of the gifts made him, gave a net result of £7,560,000. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Duchess of Marlborough, who admitted that the comparison was intended for herself, explained the matter thus: "At the Queen's accession to the government, she ... desired me to take out of the privy-purse 2,000_l_. a year, in order to some purchase for my advantage ... I constantly declined it; until the time, that, notwithstanding the uncommon regard I had shown to Her Majesty's interest and honour in the execution of my trusts, she was pleased to dismiss me from her service ... By the advice of my friends, I sent the Queen one of her own letters, in which she had pressed me to take the 2,00_l_. a year; and I wrote at the same time to ask Her Majesty whether she would allow me to charge in the privy-purse accounts, which I was to send her, that yearly sum from the time of the offer, amounting to 18,000_l_. Her Majesty was pleased to answer, that I might charge it. This therefore I did" ("An Account of the Conduct of ... Duchess of Marlborough," 1742, pp. 293-5). The Duchess of Somerset and Mrs. Masham superseded the Duchess of Marlborough in January, 1710/1. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 18.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, 1710.

_Quas res luxuries in flagitus,... avaritia in rapinis, superbia in contumeliis efficere potuisset; eas omnes sese hoc uno praetore per triennium pertulisse aiebant_.[2]

When I first undertook this paper, I was resolved to concern myself only with things, and not with persons. Whether I have kept or broken this resolution, I cannot recollect; and I will not be at the pains to examine, but leave the matter to those little antagonists, who may want a topic for criticism. Thus much I have discovered, that it is in writing as in building; where, after all our schemes and calculations, we are mightily deceived in our accounts, and often forced to make use of any materials we can find, that the work may be kept a going. Besides, to speak my opinion, the things I have occasion to mention, are so closely linked to persons, that nothing but Time (the father of Oblivion) can separate them. Let me put a parallel case: Suppose I should complain, that last week my coach was within an inch of overturning, in a smooth, even way, and drawn by very gentle horses; to be sure, all my friends would immediately lay the fault upon John,[3] because they knew, he then presided in my coach-box. Again, suppose I should discover some uneasiness to find myself, I knew not how, over head-and-ears in debt, though I was sure my tenants paid their rents very well, and that I never spent half my income; they would certainly advise me to turn off Mr. Oldfox[4] my receiver, and take another. If, as a justice of peace, I should tell a friend that my warrants and mittimuses were never drawn up as I would have them; that I had the misfortune to send an honest man to gaol, and dismiss a knave; he would bid me no longer trust Charles and Harry,[5] my two clerks, whom he knew to be ignorant, wilful, assuming and ill-inclined fellows. If I should add, that my tenants made me very uneasy with their squabbles and broils among themselves; he would counsel me to cashier Will Bigamy,[6] the seneschal of my manor. And lastly, if my neighbour and I happened to have a misunderstanding about the delivery of a message, what could I do less than strip and discard the blundering or malicious rascal that carried it?[7]

It is the same thing in the conduct of public affairs, where they have been managed with rashness or wilfulness, corruption, ignorance or injustice; barely to relate the facts, at least, while they are fresh in memory, will as much reflect upon the persons concerned, as if we had told their names at length.

I have therefore since thought of another expedient, frequently practised with great safety and success by satirical writers: which is, that of looking into history for some character bearing a resemblance to the person we would describe; and with the absolute power of altering, adding or suppressing what circumstances we please, I conceived we must have very bad luck, or very little skill to fail. However, some days ago in a coffee-house, looking into one of the politic weekly papers; I found the writer had fallen into this scheme, and I happened to light on that part, where he was describing a person, who from small beginnings grew (as I remember) to be constable of France, and had a very haughty, imperious wife.[8] I took the author as a friend to our faction, (for so with great propriety of speech they call the Queen and ministry, almost the whole clergy, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom)[9] and I said to a gentleman near me, that although I knew well enough what persons the author meant, yet there were several particulars in the husband's character, which I could not reconcile, for that of the lady was just and adequate enough; but it seems I mistook the whole matter, and applied all I had read to a couple of persons, who were not at that time in the writer's thoughts.

Now to avoid such a misfortune as this, I have been for some time consulting Livy and Tacitus, to find out a character of a _Princeps Senatus,_ a _Praetor Urbanus,_ a _Quaestor Aerarius_, a _Caesari ab Epistolis_, and a _Proconsul_;[10] but among the worst of them, I cannot discover one from whom to draw a parallel, without doing injury to a Roman memory: so that I am compelled to have recourse to Tully. But this author relating facts only as an orator, I thought it would be best to observe his method, and make an extract from six harangues of his against Verres, only still preserving the form of an oration. I remember a younger brother of mine, who deceased about two months ago, presented the world with a speech of Alcibiades against an Athenian brewer:[11] Now, I am told for certain, that in those days there was no ale in Athens; and therefore that speech, or at least a great part of it, must needs be spurious. The difference between me and my brother is this; he makes Alcibiades say a great deal more than he really did, and I make Cicero say a great deal less.[12] This Verres had been the Roman governor of Sicily for three years; and on return from his government, the Sicilians entreated Cicero to impeach him in the Senate, which he accordingly did in several orations, from whence I have faithfully translated and abstracted that which follows.

"MY LORDS,[13]

"A pernicious opinion hath for some time prevailed, not only at Rome, but among our neighbouring nations, that a man who has money enough, though he be ever so guilty, cannot be condemned in this place. But however industriously this opinion be spread, to cast an odium on the Senate, we have brought before your lordships Caius Verres, a person, for his life and actions, already condemned by all men; but as he hopes, and gives out, by the influence of his wealth, to be here absolved. In condemning this man, you have an opportunity of belying that general scandal, of redeeming the credit lost by former judgments, and recovering the love of the Roman people, as well as of our neighbours. I have brought a man here before you, my lords, who is a robber of the public treasure, an overturner of law and justice, and the disgrace, as well as destruction, of the Sicilian province: of whom, if you shall determine with equity and due severity, your authority will remain entire, and upon such an establishment as it ought to be: but if his great riches will be able to force their way through that religious reverence and truth, which become so awful an assembly, I shall, however, obtain thus much, that the defect will be laid where it ought, and that it shall not be objected that the criminal was not produced, or that there wanted an orator to accuse him. This man, my lords, has publicly said, that those ought to be afraid of accusations who have only robbed enough for their own support and maintenance; but that _he_ has plundered sufficient to bribe numbers, and that nothing is so high or so holy which money cannot corrupt. Take that support from him, and he can have no other left. For what eloquence will be able to defend a man, whose life has been tainted with so many scandalous vices, and who has been so long condemned by the universal opinion of the world? To pass over the foul stains and ignominy of his youth, his corrupt management in all employments he has borne, his treachery and irreligion, his injustice and oppression, he has left of late such monuments of his villainies in Sicily, made such havoc and confusion there, during his government, that the province cannot by any means be restored to its former state, and hardly recover itself at all under many years, and by a long succession of good governors. While this man governed in that island, the Sicilians had neither the benefit of our laws, nor their own, nor even of common right. In Sicily, no man now possesses more than what the governor's lust and avarice have overlooked, or what he was forced to neglect out of mere weariness and satiety of oppression. Every thing where he presided, was determined by his arbitrary will, and the best subjects he treated as enemies. To recount his abominable debaucheries, would offend any modest ear, since so many could not preserve their daughters and wives from his lust. I believe there is no man who ever heard his name, that cannot relate his enormities. We bring before you in judgment, my lords, a public robber, an adulterer, a DEFILER OF ALTARS,[14] an enemy of religion, and of all that is sacred; he sold all employments in Sicily of judicature, magistracy, and trust, places in the council, and the priesthood itself, to the highest bidder; and has plundered that island of forty millions of sesterces. And here I cannot but observe to your lordships, in what manner Verres passed the day: the morning was spent in taking bribes, and selling employments, the rest of it in drunkenness and lust. His discourse at table was scandalously unbecoming the dignity of his station; noise, brutality, and obsceneness. One particular I cannot omit, that in the high character of governor of Sicily, upon a solemn day, a day set apart for public prayer for the safety of the commonwealth; he stole at evening, in a chair, to a married woman of infamous character,[15] against all decency and prudence, as well as against all laws both human and divine. Didst thou think, O Verres, the government of Sicily was given thee with so large a commission, only by the power of that to break all the bars of law, modesty, and duty, to suppose all men's fortunes thine, and leave no house free from thy rapine, or lust? &c."

This extract, to deal ingenuously, has cost me more pains than I think it is worth, having only served to convince me, that modern corruptions are not to be paralleled by ancient examples, without having recourse to poetry or fable. For instance, I never read in story of a law enacted to take away the force of all laws whatsoever;[16] by which a man may safely commit upon the last of June, what he would infallibly be hanged for if he committed on the first of July; by which the greatest criminals may escape, provided they continue long enough in power to antiquate their crimes, and by stifling them a while, can deceive the legislature into an amnesty, of which the enactors do not at that time foresee the consequence. A cautious merchant will be apt to suspect, when he finds a man who has the repute of a cunning dealer, and with whom he has old accounts, urging for a general release. When I reflect on this proceeding, I am not surprised, that those who contrived a parliamentary sponge for their crimes, are now afraid of a new revolution sponge for their money: and if it were possible to contrive a sponge that could only affect those who had need of the other, perhaps it would not be ill employed.

[Footnote 1: No. 17 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, "In Q. Caec." i. 3: "They said that whatever luxury could accomplish in the way of vice,... avarice in the way of plunder, or arrogance in the way of insult, had all been borne by them for the last three years, while this one man was praetor."--C.D. YONGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: John Churchill, Duke of Maryborough, who had been Captain-General since 1702. He was dismissed from all his offices, December 31st, 1711. The Duke of Ormonde was appointed Commander-in-Chief on January 4th. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Godolphin, Lord-Treasurer, nicknamed Volpone. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Charles, Earl of Sunderland, and Henry Boyle (1670-1725), were Secretaries of State. Boyle was created Lord Carleton in 1714. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: William; Earl Cowper (1665-1723), was Lord Chancellor under Godolphin's administration (1707-1710), and also in 1714-1718. The "Biographia Britannica" (second edition, vol. iv., p. 389 _n_.) refers to a story that Cowper went through an informal marriage in the early part of his life with a Mrs. Elizabeth Culling, of Hungerfordbury Park. Cowper's first wife was Judith, daughter of Sir Robert Booth, of London; and after her death he married Mary Clavering. See also "Examiner," No. 23, _post_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Horatio Walpole, secretary to the English Embassy at the treaty of Gertruydenberg. See Swift's accusation against him in "The Conduct of the Allies" (vol. v of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: "The Medley" (Nos. 6 and 7, November 6th and 13th, 1710) contains a "Story of the Marquiss D'Ancre and his Wife Galigai," from the French of M. Le Vassor. The Marquis is there described as "the greatest cheat in the whole world"; and "Galigai had the insolence to say a thousand offensive things." The article was intended as a reflection on Harley and Mrs. Masham; but Swift takes it as for the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. Certainly the character of Galigai may with greater justice be applied to the Duchess. (See "Histoire du regne de Louis XIII. par M. Michel Le Vassor.") Concino Concini, Maréchal D'Ancre, was born at Florence, and died in 1617. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: "The Medley" was constantly deriding this alleged proportion. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: "The Observator" for December 6th remarks: "If the 'Examiner' don't find better parallels for his _Princeps Senates, Praetor Urbanus, Quaestor Aerarius_, and _Caesari ab Epistolis_, than he has done for his Proconsul, Roger, the gentlemen he aims at may sleep without disturbance." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: "The Whig Examiner" (No. 3, September 28th, 1710) prints a speech alleged to have been made by Alcibiades in a contest with an Athenian brewer named Taureas. The allusion was to the Westminster election, when General Stanhope was opposed by a brewer named Thomas Cross. "The Whig Examiner" was written by Addison. Five numbers only were issued (September 14th to October 12th, 1710). "The light and comic style of Addison's parody," notes Scott, may be compared "with the fierce, stern, and vindictive tone of Swift's philippic against the Earl of Wharton, under the name of Verres." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: "The Medley" (No. 11, December 11th, 1710) remarks of this adaptation from Cicero, that the writer "has added more rude reflections of his own than are to be found in that author, whose only fault is his falling too much into such reflections." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: See also Swift's "Short Character," etc. (vol. v., pp. 1-28 of present edition), and note _in loco_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Hawkesworth notes: "The story of the Lord Wharton is true; who, with some other wretches, went into a pulpit, and defiled it in the most filthy manner." See also "Examiner," No. 23, _post_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Probably Mrs. Coningsby. See Swift's "Short Character" (vol. v., p. 27). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: The "Act for the Queen's most gracious, general, and free pardon" was passed in 1708 (7 Ann., c. 22). The Earl of Wharton himself profited by this Act. A Mr. George Hutchinson gave Wharton £1,000 to procure his appointment to the office of Register of the Seizures. This was proved before the House of Commons in May, 1713, and the House resolved that it was "a scandalous corruption," and that as it took place "before the Act of Her Majesty's most gracious, general, and free pardon; this House will proceed no further in that matter." ("Journals of House of Commons," vol. xvii., p. 356.) [T.S.]]

NUMB. 19.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, 1710.

_Quippe ubi fas versunt atque nefas: tot bella per orbem: Tam multae, scelerum facies_----[2]

I am often violently tempted to let the world freely know who the author of this paper is; to tell them my name and titles at length; which would prevent abundance of inconsistent criticisms I daily hear upon it. Those who are enemies to the notions and opinions I would advance, are sometimes apt to quarrel with the "Examiner" as defective in point of wit, and sometimes of truth. At other times they are so generous and candid, to allow, it is written by a club, and that very great hands have fingers in it. As for those who only appear its adversaries in print, they give me but very little pain: The paper I hold lies at my mercy, and I can govern it as I please; therefore, when I begin to find the wit too bright, the learning too deep, and the satire too keen for me to deal with, (a very frequent case no doubt, where a man is constantly attacked by such shrewd adversaries) I peaceably fold it up, or fling it aside, and read no more. It would be happy for me to have the same power over people's tongues, and not be forced to hear my own work railed at and commended fifty times a day, affecting all the while a countenance wholly unconcerned, and joining out of policy or good manners with the judgment of both parties: this, I confess, is too great a hardship for so bashful and unexperienced a writer.[3]

But, alas, I lie under another discouragement of much more weight: I was very unfortunate in the choice of my party when I set up to be a writer; where is the merit, or what opportunity to discover our wit, our courage, or our learning, in drawing our pens for the defence of a cause, which the Queen and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom, have so unanimously embraced? I am cruelly afraid, we politic authors must begin to lessen our expenses, and lie for the future at the mercy of our printers. All hopes now are gone of writing ourselves into places or pensions. A certain starveling author who worked under the late administration, told me with a heavy heart, above a month ago, that he and some others of his brethren had secretly offered their service dog-cheap to the present ministry, but were all refused, and are now maintained by contribution, like Jacobites or fanatics. I have been of late employed out of perfect commiseration, in doing them good offices: for, whereas some were of opinion that these hungry zealots should not be suffered any longer in their malapert way to snarl at the present course of public proceedings; and whereas, others proposed, that they should be limited to a certain number, and permitted to write for their masters, in the same manner as counsel are assigned for _other_ criminals; that is, to say all they can in defence of their client, but not reflect upon the court: I humbly gave my advice, that they should be suffered to write on, as they used to do; which I did purely out of regard to their persons: for I hoped it would keep them out of harm's way, and prevent them from falling into evil courses, which though of little consequence to the public, would certainly be fatal to themselves. If I have room at the bottom of this paper, I will transcribe a petition to the present ministry, sent me by one of these authors, in behalf of himself and fourscore others of his brethren.

For my own part, notwithstanding the little encouragement to be hoped for at this time from the men in power, I shall continue my paper till either the world or myself grow weary of it: the latter is easily determined; and for the former, I shall not leave it to the partiality of either party, but to the infallible judgment of my printer. One principal end I designed by it, was to undeceive those well-meaning people, who have been drawn unaware into a wrong sense of things, either by the common prejudices of education and company, the great personal qualities of some party leaders, or the foul misrepresentations that were constantly made of all who durst differ from them in the smallest article. I have known such men struck with the thoughts of some late changes, which, as they pretend to think, were made without any reason visible to the world. In answer to this, it is not sufficient to allege, what nobody doubts, that a prince may choose his own servants without giving a reason to his subjects; because it is certain, that a wise and good prince will not change his ministers without very important reasons; and a good subject ought to suppose, that in such a case there are such reasons, though he be not apprised of them, otherwise he must inwardly tax his prince of capriciousness, inconstancy, or ill-design. Such reasons indeed, may not be obvious to persons prejudiced, or at great distance, or short thinkers; and therefore, if they be no secrets of state, nor any ill consequences to be apprehended from their publication; it is no uncommendable work in any private hand to lay them open for the satisfaction of all men. And if what I have already said, or shall hereafter say of this kind, be thought to reflect upon persons, though none have been named, I know not how it can possibly be avoided. The Queen in her speech mentions, "with great concern," that "the navy and other offices are burthened with heavy debts, and desires that the like may be prevented for the time to come."[4] And, if it be _now_ possible to prevent the continuance of an evil that has been so long growing upon us, and is arrived to such a height, surely those corruptions and mismanagements must have been great which first introduced them, before our taxes were eaten up by annuities.

If I were able to rip up, and discover in all their colours, only about eight or nine thousand of the most scandalous abuses,[5] that have been committed in all parts of public management for twenty years past, by a certain set of men and their instruments, I should reckon it some service to my country, and to posterity. But to say the truth, I should be glad the authors' names were conveyed to future times along with their actions. For though the present age may understand well enough the little hints we give, the parallels we draw, and the characters we describe, yet this will all be lost to the next. However, if these papers, reduced into a more durable form, should happen to live till our grandchildren are men, I hope they may have curiosity enough to consult annals, and compare dates, in order to find out what names were then intrusted with the conduct of affairs, in the consequences whereof, themselves will so deeply share; like a heavy debt in a private family, which often lies an incumbrance upon an estate for three generations.

But leaving the care of informing posterity to better pens, I shall with due regard to truth, discretion, and the safety of my person from the men of the new-fangled moderation, continue to take all proper opportunities of letting the misled part of the people see how grossly they have been abused, and in what particulars: I shall also endeavour to convince them, that the present course we are in, is the most probable means, with the blessing of God, to extricate ourselves out of all our difficulties.

Among those who are pleased to write or talk against this paper, I have observed a strange manner of reasoning, which I should be glad to hear them explain themselves upon. They make no ceremony of exclaiming upon all occasions against a change of ministry, in so critical and dangerous a conjuncture. What shall we, who heartily approve and join in those proceedings, say in defence of them? We own the juncture of affairs to be as they describe: we are pushed for an answer, and are forced at last freely to confess, that the corruptions and abuses in every branch of the administration, were so numerous and intolerable, that all things must have ended in ruin, without some speedy reformation. This I have already asserted in a former paper; and the replies I have read or heard, have been in plain terms to affirm the direct contrary; and not only to defend and celebrate the late persons and proceedings, but to threaten me with law and vengeance, for casting reflections on so many great and honourable men, whose birth, virtue and abilities, whose morals and religion, whose love of their country and its constitution in Church and State, were so universally allowed; and all this set off with odious comparisons reflecting on the present choice. Is not this in plain and direct terms to tell all the world that the Qu[een] has in a most dangerous crisis turned out a whole set of the best ministers that ever served a prince, without any manner of reason but her royal pleasure, and brought in others of a character directly contrary? And how so vile an opinion as this can consist with the least pretence to loyalty or good manners, let the world determine.

I confess myself so little a refiner in the politics, as not to be able to discover, what other motive besides obedience to the Queen, a sense of public danger, and a true love of their country, joined with invincible courage, could spirit those great men, who have now under her Majesty's authority undertaken the direction of affairs. What can they expect but the utmost efforts of malice from a set of enraged domestic adversaries, perpetually watching over their conduct, crossing all their designs, and using every art to foment divisions among them, in order to join with the weakest upon any rupture? The difficulties they must encounter are nine times more and greater than ever; and the prospects of interest, after the reapings and gleanings of so many years, nine times less. Every misfortune at home or abroad, though the necessary consequence of former counsels, will be imputed to them; and all the good success given to the merit of former schemes. A sharper has held your cards all the evening, played booty, and lost your money, and when things are almost desperate, you employ an honest gentleman to retrieve your losses.

I would ask whether the Queen's speech does not contain her intentions, in every particular relating to the public, that a good subject, a Briton and a Protestant can possibly have at heart? "To carry on the war in all its parts, particularly in Spain,[6] with the utmost vigour, in order to procure a safe and honourable peace for us and our allies; to find some ways of paying the debts on the navy; to support and encourage the Church of England; to preserve the British constitution according to the Union; to maintain the indulgence by law allowed to scrupulous consciences; and to employ none but such as are for the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover."[7] It is known enough, that speeches on these occasions, are ever digested by the advice of those who are in the chief confidence, and consequently that these are the sentiments of her Majesty's ministers, as well as her own; and we see, the two Houses have unanimously agreed with her in every article. When the least counterpaces[8] are made to any of these resolutions, it will then be time enough for our malcontents to bawl out Popery, persecution, arbitrary power, and the Pretender. In the mean while, it is a little hard to think, that this island can hold but six men of honesty and ability enough to serve their prince and country; or that our safety should depend upon their credit, any more than it would upon the breath in their nostrils. Why should not a revolution in the ministry be sometimes necessary as well as a revolution in the crown? It is to be presumed, the former is at least as lawful in itself, and perhaps the experiment not quite so dangerous. The revolution of the sun about the earth was formerly thought a necessary expedient to solve appearances, though it left many difficulties unanswered; till philosophers contrived a better, which is that of the earth's revolution about the sun. This is found upon experience to save much time and labour, to correct many irregular motions, and is better suited to the respect due from a planet to a fixed star.

[Footnote 1: No. 18 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Virgil, "Georgics," i. 505-6:

"For right and wrong we see perverted here: So many wars arise, such countless forms Of crime and evil agitate the globe."--R. KENNEDY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This remark seems to have tickled the writer of the twelfth number of "The Medley," who professed to be transported at the idea of the "Examiner" being a bashful writer. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: In her speech at the opening of Parliament on November 27th, 1710, the Queen said: "I cannot without great concern mention to you, that the Navy and other offices are burthened with heavy debts, which so far affect the public service, that I most earnestly desire you to find some way to answer those demands, and to prevent the like for the time to come." ("Journals of House of Lords," vol. xix., p. 166.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: "The Medley" (No. 13, December 25th, 1710) remarks: "When he ... promises to discover 'only about eight or nine thousand of their most scandalous abuses,' without pretending to discover one; and when he audaciously reviles a general, whose services have been the wonder both of friends and enemies ... all this he calls 'defending the cause of the Q---- and both Houses of Parliament, and nine parts in ten of the kingdom.'" [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: It was a general complaint, that the war in Spain had been neglected, in order to supply that army which was more immediately under the management of Marlborough. [S.]]

[Footnote 7: The quotation is not given verbatim, but is substantially correct. See "Journals of House of Lords," vol. xix., p. 166. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The word is defined by Dr. Murray as "a movement in a contrary or reverse direction; a movement or step against something." [T.S.]]

NUMB. 20.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, 1710.

_Sunt quibus in Satira videor nimis acer, et ultra
Legem tendere opus: sine nervis altera, quicquid
Composui, pars esse putat----_[2]

When the printer came last week for his copy, he brought along with him a bundle of those papers,[3] which in the phrase of Whig coffee-houses have "swinged off" the "Examiner," most of which I had never seen nor heard of before. I remember some time ago in one of the "Tatlers" to have read a letter,[4] wherein several reasons are assigned for the present corruption and degeneracy of our taste, but I think the writer has omitted the principal one, which I take to be the prejudice of parties. Neither can I excuse either side of this infirmity; I have heard the arrantest drivellers _pro_ and _con_ commended for their smartness even by men of tolerable judgment; and the best performances exploded as nonsense and stupidity. This indeed may partly be imputed to policy and prudence; but it is chiefly owing to that blindness, which prejudice and passion cast over the understanding: I mention this because I think it properly within my province in quality of _Examiner_. And having granted more than is usual for an enemy to do, I must now take leave to say, that so weak a cause, and so ruined a faction, were never provided with pens more resembling their condition, or less suited to their occasions.

_Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
Tempus eget----_[5]

This is the more to be wondered at, when we consider they have the full liberty of the press, that they have no other way left to recover themselves, and that they want not men of excellent parts to set their arguments in the best light they will bear. Now if two men would argue on both sides with fairness, good sense, and good manners, it would be no ill entertainment to the town, and perhaps be the most effectual means to reconcile us. But I am apt to think that men of a great genius are hardly brought to prostitute their pens in a very odious cause; which besides, is more properly undertaken by noise and impudence, by gross railing and scurrility, by calumny and lying, and by little trifling cavils and carpings in the wrong place, which those whifflers use for arguments and answers.

I was well enough pleased with a story of one of these answerers, who in a paper[6] last week found many faults with a late calculation of mine. Being it seems more deep learned than his fellows, he was resolved to begin his answer with a Latin verse, as well as other folks: His business was to look out for something against an "Examiner" that would pretend to _tax_ accounts; and turning over Virgil, he had the luck to find these words,

------_fugiant examina taxos;_[7]

so down they went, and out they would have come, if one of his unlucky prompters had not hindered it.

I here declare once for all, that if these people will not be quiet, I shall take the bread out of their mouths, and answer the "Examiner" myself;[8] which I protest I have never yet done, though I have been often charged with it; neither have those answers been written or published with my privity, as malicious people are pleased to give out; nor do I believe the common Whiggish report, that the authors are hired by the ministry to give my paper a value.

But the friends of this paper have given me more uneasiness with their impatience, than its enemies by their answers. I heard myself censured last week by some of the former, for promising to discover the corruptions in the late administration, but never performing any thing. The latter on the other side, are thundering out their anathemas against me for discovering so many. I am at a loss how to decide between these contraries, and shall therefore proceed after my own way, as I have hitherto done: my design being of more importance than that of writing only to gratify the spleen of one side, or provoke that of the other, though it may occasionally have both effects.

I shall therefore go on to relate some facts that in my humble opinion were no hindrance to the change of the ministry.

The first I shall mention, was that of introducing certain new phrases into the court style, which had been very seldom or never made use of in former times. They usually ran in the following terms: "Madam, I cannot serve you while such a one is in employment: I desire humbly to resign my commission, if Mr. ------ continues secretary of state: I cannot answer that the city will lend money, unless my L-- ------ be pr[esiden]t of the c[ounc]il. I must beg leave to surrender, except ------ has the staff. I must not accept the seals, unless ------ comes into the other office." This has been the language of late years from subjects to their prince.[9] Thus they stood upon terms, and must have their own conditions to ruin the nation. Nay, this dutiful manner of capitulating, had spread so far, that every understrapper began at length to perk up and assume: he "expected a regiment"; or "his son must be a major"; or "his brother a collector", else he threatened to vote "according to his conscience."

Another of their glorious attempts, was the clause intended in the bill for the encouragement of learning;[10] for taking off the obligation upon fellows of colleges in both Universities to enter upon holy orders: the design of which, as I have heard the undertakers often confess, was to remove the care of educating youth out of the hands of the clergy, who are apt to infuse into their pupils too great a regard for the Church and the Monarchy. But there was a farther secret in this clause, which may best be discovered by the first projectors, or at least the garblers of it; and these are known to be C[o]ll[i]ns[11] and Tindal,[12] in conjunction with a most pious lawyer their disciple.[13]

What shall we say to their prodigious skill in arithmetic, discovered so constantly in their decision of elections; where they were able to make out by the _rule of false_, that three were more than three-and-twenty, and fifteen than fifty? Nay it was a maxim which I never heard any of them dispute, that in determining elections, they were not to consider where the right lay, but which of the candidates was likelier to be true to "the cause." This they used to illustrate by a very apt and decent similitude, of gaming with a sharper; if you cannot cheat as well as he, you are certainly undone.

Another cast of their politics was that of endeavouring to impeach an innocent l[a]dy, for no reason imaginable, but her faithful and diligent service to the Q[ueen],[14] and the favour her M[ajesty] bore to her upon that account, when others had acted contrary in so shameful a manner. What else was the crime? Had she treated her royal mistress with insolence or neglect? Had she enriched herself by a long practice of bribery, and obtaining exorbitant grants? Had she engrossed her M[ajest]y's favours, without admitting any access but through her means? Had she heaped employments upon herself, her family and dependants? Had she an imperious, haughty behaviour? Or, after all, was it a perfect blunder and mistake of one person for another? I have heard of a man who lay all night on a rough pavement; and in the morning, wondering what it could possibly be, that made him rest so ill, happened to see a feather under him, and imputed the uneasiness of his lodging to that. I remember likewise the story of a giant in Rabelais,[15] who used to feed upon wind-mills, but was unfortunately choked with a small lump of fresh butter, before a warm oven.

And here I cannot but observe how very refined some people are in their generosity and gratitude. There is a certain great person[16] (I shall not say of what sex) who for many years past, was the constant mark and butt, against which our present malcontents used to discharge their resentment: upon whom they bestowed all the terms of scurrility, that malice, envy and indignation could invent; whom they publicly accused of every vice that can possess a human heart: pride, covetousness, ingratitude, oppression, treachery, dissimulation, violence and fury, all in the highest extremes: but of late, they have changed their language on a sudden; that person is now the most faithful and just that ever served a prince; that person, originally differing from them in principles, as far as east and west, but united in practice, and falling together, they are now reconciled, and find twenty resemblances between each other, which they could never discover before. _Tanti est ut placeam tibi perire._[17]

But to return: How could it be longer suffered in a free nation, that all avenues to preferment should be shut up, except a very few, when one or two stood constant sentry, who docked all favours they handed down; or spread a huge invisible net, between the prince and subject, through which nothing of value could pass? And here I cannot but admire at one consequence from this management, which is of an extraordinary nature: Generally speaking, princes who have ill ministers are apt to suffer in their reputation, as well as in the love of the people: but it was not so with the Q[ueen]. When the sun is overcast by those clouds he exhales from the earth, we still acknowledge his light and influence, and at last find he can dispel and drive them down to the horizon. The wisest prince, by the necessity of affairs, the misrepresentations of designing men, or the innocent mistakes, even of a good predecessor, may find himself encompassed by a crew of courtiers, whom time, opportunity and success, have miserably corrupted. And if he can save himself and his people from ruin, under the _worst_ administration, what may not his subjects hope for, when with their universal applause, he changes hands, and makes use of the _best_?

Another great objection with me against the late party, was the cruel tyranny they put upon conscience, by a barbarous inquisition, refusing to admit the least toleration or indulgence. They imposed a hundred tests, but could never be prevailed with to dispense with, or take off the smallest, nor even admit of _occasional_ conformity;[18] but went on daily (as their apostle Tindal expresseth it) narrowing their terms of communion; pronouncing nine parts in ten of the kingdom heretics, and shutting them out of the pale of their Church. These very men, who talk so much of a comprehension in religion among us, how came they to allow so little of it in politics, which is _their sole religion?_ You shall hear them pretending to bewail the animosities kept up between the Church of England and Dissenters, where the differences in opinion are so few and inconsiderable; yet these very sons of moderation were pleased to excommunicate every man who disagreed with them in the smallest article of their _political creed_, or who refused to receive any new article, how difficult soever to digest, which the leaders imposed at pleasure to serve their own interest.

I will quit this subject for the present, when I have told one story.[19] "There was a great king in Scythia, whose dominions were bounded to the north, by the poor, mountainous territories of a petty lord, who paid homage as the king's vassal. The Scythian prime minister being largely bribed, indirectly obtained his master's consent to suffer this lord to build forts, and provide himself with arms, under pretence of preventing the inroads of the Tartars. This little depending sovereign, finding he was now in a condition to be troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every occasion to unite with the Tartars: upon which, the prime minister, who began to be in pain about his head, proposed a match betwixt his master, and the only daughter of this tributary lord, which he had the good luck to bring to pass: and from that time, valued himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown of absolute necessity by his corruption." This passage, cited literally from an old history of Sarmatia, I thought fit to set down, on purpose to perplex little smattering remarkers, and put them upon the hunt for an application.

[Footnote 1: No. 19 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Horace, "Satires," II. i. 1-3:

"There are, to whom too poignant I appear;
Beyond the laws of satire too severe.
My lines are weak, unsinewed, others say."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: One of these papers was "The Observator." The issue for December 6th (vol. ix., No. 93) dealt largely with "The Examiner's" attack on Verres (No. 18, _ante_), and the following number returned to the charge, criticizing the attacks made in Nos. 17 and 18 of "The Examiner" on the Duke of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: This appears to refer to "The Tatler," No. 183 (June 10th, 1710), where Steele writes: "The ridicule among us runs strong against laudable actions. Nay, in the ordinary course of things, and the common regards of life, negligence of the public is an epidemic vice... It were to be wished, that love of their country were the first principle of action in men of business." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Virgil, "Aeneid," ii. 521-2:

"'Tis not such aid or such defence as thine
The time demands."---R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]