Chapter IX: Part 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUMB. 30.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUMB. 31.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

_A Poetical Genealogy and Description of_ MERIT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUMB. 32.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUMB. 33.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the midst of so melancholy a subject, I cannot but congratulate with our own country, that such a savage monster as the Marquis de Guiscard, is none of her production; a wretch perhaps more detestable in his own nature, than even this barbarous act has been yet able to represent him to the world. For there are good reasons to believe, from several circumstances, that he had intentions of a deeper dye, than those he happened to execute;[18] I mean such as every good subject must tremble to think on. He hath of late been frequently seen going up the back stairs at court, and walking alone in an outer room adjoining to her Ma[jest]y's bed-chamber. He has often and earnestly pressed for some time to have access to the Qu[een], even since his correspondence with France; and he has now given such a proof of his disposition, as leaves it easy to guess what was before in his thoughts, and what he was capable of attempting.

It is humbly to be hoped, that the legislature[19] will interpose on so extraordinary an occasion as this, and direct a punishment[20] some way proportionable to so execrable a crime.

_Et quicunque tuum violavit vulnere corpus,
Morte luat merita_----[21]

[Footnote 1: No. 32 in the reprint. [T.S.]]