Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D. D., Volume IX; by Jonathan Swift

Part 3 out of 7

Adobe PDF icon
Download The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D. D., Volume IX; pdf
File size: 0.8 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

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 L1,000
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]


_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.

[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."

NUMB. 20.[1]


_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

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

------_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

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

[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.

[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.

[Footnote 6: The paper in all probability was "The Medley," No. 10
(December 4th), which was mainly devoted to a reply to Swift's
"calculation" as to the rewards of the Duke of Marlborough. Scott thinks
the answerer may have been Defoe, for in No. 114 (of vol. vii.) of his
"Review of the State of the British Nation," he has a passage evidently
directed at Swift: "I know another, that is an orator in the Latin, a
walking index of books, has all the libraries in Europe in his head, from
the Vatican at Rome, to the learned collection of Dr. Salmon at
Fleet-Ditch; but at the same time, he is a cynic in behaviour, a fury in
temper, impolite in conversation, abusive and scurrilous in language, and
ungovernable in passion. Is this to be learned? Then may I be still
_illiterate_. I have been in my time, pretty well master of five
languages, and have not lost them yet, though I write no bill over my
door, or set _Latin quotations_ in the front of the 'Review.' But, to my
irreparable loss, I was bred but by halves; for my father, forgetting
Juno's royal academy, left the language of Billingsgate quite out of my
education: hence I am perfectly _illiterate_ in the polite style of the
street, and am not fit to converse with the porters and carmen of quality,
who grace their diction with the beauties of calling names, and
curse their neighbour with a _bonne grace_." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "Eclogues," ix. 30:

"So may thy bees the poisonous yew forgo."

[Footnote 8: See No. 23, _post._ [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: See Swift's account of the intrigues of the Duke of
Marlborough and Lord Godolphin to secure Harley's dismissal in his
"Memoirs Relating to that Change" (vol. v., pp. 370-371 of present
edition), and "Some Considerations" (vol. v., pp. 421-422, _ibid._).]

[Footnote 10: The "Bill for the Encouragement of Learning" was introduced
in the House of Commons, January 11th, 1709/10, passed March 14th, and
obtained royal assent April 5th, 1710. There were several amendments,
but the "Journals of the House of Commons" throw no light on their
purport. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Anthony Collins (1676-1729), the deist, who wrote "A
Discourse of Free-Thinking" (1713), which received a reply from Swift
(see vol. iii., pp. 163-192 of present edition). The most thorough reply,
however, was made by Bentley, under the pen-name "Phileleutherus
Lipsiensis." Collins's controversies with Dr. Samuel Clarke were the
outcome of the former's thinking on Locke's teaching. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was the author of "The Rights
of the Christian Church Asserted" (1706), a work that created a great
stir at the time, and occasioned many replies. Swift deals with him in
his "Remarks upon a Book, intituled, 'The Rights of the Christian
Church'" (see vol. iii., pp. 79-124, also note on p. 9 of same volume
of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: The pious lawyer was John Asgill (1659-1738), who was
called to the bar in 1692. He was elected to Parliament for Bramber
(1698-1700 and 1702-1707), but was expelled the House of Commons for
blasphemy (see note on p. 9 of vol. iii, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Mrs. Masham, when Abigail Hill, was appointed
bedchamber-woman to the Princess of Denmark. See vol. v., p. 365 of
present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: The giant Widenostrils had swallowed every pan, kettle,
"dripping-pan, and brass and iron pot in the land, for want of windmills,
which, were his daily food." But he "choked himself with eating a huge
lump of fresh butter at the mouth of a hot oven, by the advice of
physicians."--RABELAIS, iv. 17; Motteux's translation. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Daniel Finch, second Earl of Nottingham (1647-1730), was
Secretary of State (1689-1693 and 1702-1704). He is the Don Diego
Dismallo of "The Tatler" (No. 21). See also vol. v., p. 247, of present
edition of Swift's works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: "It is worth while to perish that I may give you pleasure."

[Footnote 18: The Occasional Conformity Bill was rejected in 1702, and
again in 1703 and 1704. It was, however, passed in 1711; but repealed in
1718. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: "The Medley," No. 14 (January 1st, 1710) [_sic_], translates
this story into an account of the Union. It is the same story, in
effect, which gave great offence to the Scotch peers when printed in "The
Public Spirit of the Whigs." The "Medley's" version runs: "England being
bounded on the north by a poor mountainous people called Scots, who were
vassals to that crown, and the English prime minister, being largely
bribed, obtained the Q----'s consent for the Scots to arm and exercise
themselves; and they finding they were now in a condition to be
troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every
occasion to join with the French. Upon which the prime minister, who
began to be in pain about his head, set on foot a treaty to unite the two
kingdoms, 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." [T.S.]]

NUMB. 21.[1]


_----Pugnacem scirent sapiente minorem._[2]

I am very much at a loss how to proceed upon the subject intended in this
paper, which a new incident has led me to engage in: The subject I mean,
is that of soldiers and the army; but being a matter wholly out of my
trade, I shall handle it in as cautious a manner as I am able.

It is certain, that the art of war hath suffered great changes, almost in
every age and country of the world; however, there are some maxims
relating to it, that will be eternal truths, and which every reasonable
man will allow.

In the early times of Greece and Rome, the armies of those states were
composed of their citizens, who took no pay, because the quarrel was
their own; and therefore the war was usually decided in one campaign; or,
if it lasted longer, however in winter the soldiers returned to their
several callings, and were not distinguished from the rest of the people.
The Gothic governments in Europe, though they were of military
institution, yet observed almost the same method. I shall instance only
here in England. Those who held lands _in capite_ of the king, were
obliged to attend him in his wars with a certain number of men, who
all held lands from them at easy rents on that condition. These fought
without pay, and when the service was over, returned again to their
farms. It is recorded of William Rufus, that being absent in Normandy,
and engaged in a war with his brother, he ordered twenty thousand men to
be raised, and sent over from hence to supply his army;[3] but having
struck up a peace before they were embarked, he gave them leave to
disband, on condition they would pay him ten shillings a man, which
amounted to a mighty sum in those days.

Consider a kingdom as a great family, whereof the prince is the father,
and it will appear plainly that mercenary troops are only servants armed,
either to awe the children at home; or else to defend from invaders, the
family who are otherwise employed, and choose to contribute out of their
stock for paying their defenders, rather than leave their affairs to be
neglected in their absence. The art of making soldiery a trade, and
keeping armies in pay, seems in Europe to have had two originals. The
first was usurpation, when popular men destroyed the liberties of their
country, and seized the power into their own hands, which they were
forced to maintain by hiring guards to bridle the people. Such were
anciently the tyrants in most of the small states in Greece, and such
were those in several parts of Italy, about three or four centuries ago,
as Machiavel informs us. The other original of mercenary armies, seems to
have risen from larger kingdoms or commonwealths, which had subdued
provinces at a distance, and were forced to maintain troops upon them, to
prevent insurrections from the natives: Of this sort were Macedon,
Carthage and Rome of old; Venice and Holland at this day; as well as most
kingdoms of Europe. So that mercenary forces in a free state, whether
monarchy or commonwealth, seem only necessary, either for preserving
their conquests, (which in such governments it is not prudent to extend
too far) or else for maintaining a war at distance.

In this last, which at present is our most important case, there are
certain maxims that all wise governments have observed.

The first I shall mention is, that no private man should have a
commission to be general for life,[4] let his merit and services be ever
so great. Or, if a prince be unadvisedly brought to offer such a
commission in one hand, let him (to save time and blood) deliver up his
crown with the other. The Romans in the height and perfection of their
government, usually sent out one of the new consuls to be general against
their most formidable enemy, and recalled the old one, who often returned
before the next election, and according as he had merit was sent to
command in some other part, which perhaps was continued to him for a
second, and sometimes a third year. But if Paulus Aemilius,[5] or
Scipio[6] himself, had presumed to move the Senate to continue their
commissions for life, they certainly would have fallen a sacrifice to the
jealousy of the people. Caesar indeed (between whom and a certain
general, some of late with much discretion have made a parallel) had his
command in Gaul continued to him for five years, and was afterwards made
perpetual Dictator, that is to say, general for life, which gave him the
power and the will of utterly destroying the Roman liberty. But in his
time the Romans were very much degenerated, and great corruptions crept
into their morals and discipline. However, we see there still were some
remains of a noble spirit among them; for when Caesar sent to be chosen
consul, notwithstanding his absence, they decreed he should come in
person, give up his command, and _petere more majorum._[7]

It is not impossible but a general may desire such a commission out of
inadvertency, at the instigation of his friends, or perhaps of his
enemies, or merely for the benefit and honour of it, without intending
any such dreadful consequences; and in that case, a wise prince or state
may barely refuse it without shewing any marks of their displeasure. But
the request in its own nature is highly criminal, and ought to be entered
so upon record, to terrify others in time to come from venturing to make

Another maxim to be observed by a free state engaged in war, is to keep
the military power in absolute subjection to the civil, nor ever suffer
the former to influence or interfere with the latter. A general and his
army are servants hired by the civil power to act as they are directed
from thence, and with a commission large or limited as the administration
shall think fit; for which they are largely paid in profit and honour.
The whole system by which armies are governed, is quite alien from the
peaceful institutions of states at home; and if the rewards be so
inviting as to tempt a senator to take a post in the army, while he is
there on his duty, he ought to consider himself in no other capacity. I
know not any sort of men so apt as soldiers are, to reprimand those who
presume to interfere in what relates to their trade. When they hear any
of us in a coffeehouse, wondering that such a victory was not pursued,
complaining that such a town cost more men and money than it was worth to
take it; or that such an opportunity was lost, of fighting the enemy;
they presently reprove us, and often with justice enough, for meddling in
matters out of our sphere, and clearly convince us of our mistakes in
terms of art that none of us understand. Nor do we escape so; for they
reflect with the utmost contempt of our ignorance, that we who sit at
home in ease and security, never stirring from our firesides, should
pretend from books, and general reason, to argue upon military affairs;
which after all, if we may judge from the share of intellectuals in some
who are said to excel that way, is not so very profound or difficult a
science. But if there be any weight in what they offer, as perhaps there
may be a great deal; surely these gentlemen have a much weaker pretence
to concern themselves in matters of the cabinet, which are always either
far above, or much beside their capacities. Soldiers may as well pretend
to prescribe rules for trade, to determine points in philosophy, to be
moderators in an assembly of divines, or direct in a court of justice, as
to misplace their talent in examining affairs of state, especially in
what relates to the choice of ministers, who are never so likely to be
ill chosen as when approved by them. It would be endless to shew how
pernicious all steps of this nature have been in many parts and ages of
the world. I shall only produce two at present; one in Rome, and the
other in England. The first is of Caesar, when he came to the city with
his soldiers to settle the ministry, there was an end of their liberty
for ever. The second was in the great rebellion against King Charles the
First. The King and both Houses were agreed upon the terms of a peace,
but the officers of the army (as Ludlow relates it) sets a guard upon the
House of Commons, took a list of the members, and kept all by force out
of the House, except those who were for bringing the King to a trial.[8]
Some years after, when they erected a military government, and ruled the
island by major-generals, we received most admirable instances of their
skill in politics. To say the truth, such formidable sticklers[9] can
have but two reasons for desiring to interfere in the administration; the
first is that of Caesar and Cromwell, of which, God forbid, I should
accuse or suspect any body; since the second is pernicious enough, and
that is, to preserve those in power who are for perpetuating a war,
rather than see others advanced, who they are sure will use all proper
means to promote a safe and honourable peace.

Thirdly, Since it is observed of armies, that in the present age they are
brought to some degree of humanity, and a more regular demeanour to each
other and to the world, than in former times; it is certainly a good
maxim to endeavour preserving this temper among them, without which
they would soon degenerate into savages. To this end, it would be prudent
among other things, to forbid that detestable custom of drinking to the
damnation or confusion of any person whatsoever.

Such desperate acts, and the opinions infused along with them, into heads
already inflamed by youth and wine, are enough to scatter madness and
sedition through a whole camp. So seldom upon their knees to pray, and so
often to curse! This is not properly atheism, but a sort of anti-religion
prescribed by the Devil, and which an atheist of common sense would scorn
as an absurdity. I have heard it mentioned as a common practice last
autumn, somewhere or other, to drink damnation and confusion[10] (and
this with circumstances very aggravating and horrid) to the new ministry,
and to those who _had any hand_ in turning out the old; that is to say,
to those persons whom her Majesty has thought fit to employ in her
greatest affairs, with something more than a glance against the Qu[een]
herself. And if it be true that these orgies were attended with certain
doubtful words of standing by their g[enera]l, who without question
abhorred them; let any man consider the consequence of such dispositions,
if they should happen to spread. I could only wish for the honour of the
Army, as well as of the Qu[een] and ministry, that a remedy had been
applied to the disease, in the place and time where it grew. If men of
such principles were able to propagate them in a camp, and were sure of a
general for life, who had any tincture of ambition, we might soon bid
farewell to ministers and parliaments, whether new or old.

I am only sorry such an accident has happened towards the close of a war,
when it is chiefly the interest of those gentlemen who have posts in the
army, to behave themselves in such a manner as might encourage the
legislature to make some provision for them, when there will be no
further need of their services. They are to consider themselves as
persons by their educations unqualified for many other stations of life.
Their fortunes will not suffer them to retain to a party after its fall,
nor have they weight or abilities to help towards its resurrection. Their
future dependence is wholly upon the prince and Parliament, to which they
will never make their way, by solemn execrations of the ministry; a
ministry of the Qu[een]'s own election, and fully answering the wishes of
her people. This unhappy step in some of their brethren, may pass for an
uncontrollable argument, that politics are not their business or their
element. The fortune of war hath raised several persons up to swelling
titles, and great commands over numbers of men, which they are too apt to
transfer along with them into civil life, and appear in all companies as
if it were at the head of their regiments, with a sort of deportment
that ought to have been dropt behind, in that short passage to Harwich.
It puts me in mind of a dialogue in Lucian,[11] where Charon wafting one
of their predecessors over Styx, ordered him to strip off his armour and
fine clothes, yet still thought him too heavy; "But" (said he) "put off
likewise that pride and presumption, those high-swelling words, and that
vain-glory;" because they were of no use on the other side the water.
Thus if all that array of military grandeur were confined to the proper
scene, it would be much more for the interest of the owners, and less
offensive to their fellow subjects.[12]

[Footnote: 1: No. 20 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," xiii. 353:

"Well assured, that art
And conduct were of war the better part."

[Footnote 3: A.D. 1093. See Matthew Paris. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Lord Campbell, in his "Lives of the Chancellors" (vol. iv.,
p. 322), states that Marlborough, in order to increase the confidence of
the allies, proposed "he should receive a patent as commander-in-chief
for life." On consulting with Lord Chancellor Cowper he was told
that such a proceeding would be unconstitutional. Marlborough, however,
petitioned the Queen, who rejected his application. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Aemilius Paulus, the celebrated Roman general, and conqueror
of Macedonia, was twice consul, and died B.C. 160. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Scipio Africanus, the greatest of Roman generals and the
conqueror of Carthage, who died _c._ B.C. 184. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Julius Caesar "applied to the Senate to be exempted from the
usual law, and to become a candidate in his absence" ("Dict. of Greek and
Roman Biog."). This was strongly opposed; so that to be a candidate it
was necessary for him "to solicit after the custom of his ancestors."

The "Examiner" seems to allude to the remarkable, and, to say the least,
imprudent, article in "The Tatler," No. 37. Such a passage, published by
so warm an adherent of Marlborough as Steele, gives credit to
Macpherson's assertion, that there really was some intention of
maintaining the Duke in power, by his influence in the army. It is even
affirmed, that under pretence his commission under the great seal could
not be superseded by the Queen's order of dismissal, it was designed that
he should assemble the troops which were in town, and secure the court
and capital. To prevent which, his commission was superseded by another
under the great seal being issued as speedily as possible. The
industrious editor of "The Tatler," in 1786, is of opinion, that the
article was written by Addison; but the violent counsels which it
intimates seem less congenial to his character than to that of Steele, a
less reflecting man, and bred a soldier. It is worthy of notice, that
the passage is cancelled in all subsequent editions of "The Tatler,"
till restored from the original folio in that of 1786. This evidently
implies Steele's own sense, that more was meant than met the ear; and
it affords a presumptive proof, that very violent measures had at least
been proposed, if not agreed upon, by some of Marlborough's adherents.

[Footnote 8: General Ireton and Colonel Pride placed guards outside the
entrances to the House of Commons "that none might be permitted to pass
into the House but such as had continued faithful to the public interest"
(Ludlow's "Memoirs," vol. i., p. 270). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The judges of the field, in a formal duel, whose duty it was
to interfere when the rules of judicial combat were violated, were called
sticklers, from the wooden truncheons which they held in their hands.
Hence the verb to _stickle_. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: In his "Journal to Stella" Swift writes, under date
December 13th, 1710: "You hear the havoc making in the army: Meredyth,
Macartney, and Col. Honeywood, are obliged to sell their commands at half
value, and leave the army, for drinking destruction to the present
ministry," etc. (see vol. ii., p. 71, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: "Dialogues of the Dead. X. Charon, Hermes, and a number of
Ghosts." Hermes required Lampichus to leave behind him his pride, folly,
insolence, etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Of this paper "The Medley," No. 14 (January 1st, 1710
[_sic_]), says: "He not only writes whatever he believes or knows to be
false, but plainly shows 'tis his business and duty to do so, and that
this alone is the merit of his service." [T.S.]]

NUMB. 22.[1]


_Nam et, majorum instituta tueri sacris, ceremoniisque retinendis,
sapientis est.
--Ruituraque semper
Stat (mirum!) moles--_[3]

Whoever is a true lover of our constitution, must needs be pleased to see
what successful endeavours are daily made to restore it in every branch
to its ancient form, from the languishing condition it hath long lain in,
and with such deadly symptoms.

I have already handled some abuses during the late management, and shall
in convenient time go on with the rest. Hitherto I have confined myself
to those of the State; but with the good leave of those who think it a
matter of small moment, I shall now take liberty to say something of the

For several years past, there hath not I think in Europe, been any
society of men upon so unhappy a foot, as the clergy of England, nor more
hardly treated, by those very persons from whom they deserved much better
quarter, and in whose power they chiefly had put it to use them so ill.
I would not willingly misrepresent facts; but I think it generally
allowed by enemies and friends, that the bold and brave defences made
before the Revolution against those many invasions of our rights,
proceeded principally from the clergy; who are likewise known to have
rejected all advances made them to close with the measures at that time
concerting; while the Dissenters, to gratify their ambition and revenge,
fell into the basest compliances with the court, approved of all
proceedings by their numerous and fulsome addresses, and took employments
and commissions by virtue of the dispensing power, against the direct
laws of the land.[5] All this is so true, that if ever the Pretender comes
in, they will, next to those of his own religion, have the fairest claim
and pretensions to his favour, from their merit and eminent services to
his supposed father, who, without such encouragement, would probably
never have been misled to go the lengths he did. It should likewise be
remembered to the everlasting honour of the London divines, that in those
dangerous times, they writ and published the best collection of arguments
against Popery, that ever appeared in the world. At the Revolution, the
body of the clergy joined heartily in the common cause (except a few,
whose sufferings perhaps have atoned for their mistakes) like men who are
content to go about, for avoiding a gulf or a precipice, but come into
the old straight road again as soon as they can. But another temper had
now begun to prevail. For as in the reign of K. Charles the First,
several well-meaning people were ready to join in reforming some abuses;
while others who had deeper designs, were still calling out for a
thorough reformation, which ended at last in the ruin of the kingdom; so
after the late king's coming to the throne, there was a restless cry from
men of the same principles, for a thorough revolution, which as some were
carrying it on, must have ended in the destruction of the Monarchy and

What a violent humour hath run ever since against the clergy, and from
what corner spread and fomented, is, I believe, manifest to all men. It
looked like a set quarrel against Christianity, and if we call to mind
several of the leaders, it must in a great measure have been actually so.
Nothing was more common in writing and conversation, than to hear that
reverend body charged in gross with what was utterly inconsistent:
despised for their poverty, hated for their riches; reproached with
avarice, and taxed with luxury; accused for promoting arbitrary power,
and resisting the prerogative; censured for their pride, and scorned for
their meanness of spirit. The representatives of the lower clergy railed
at for disputing the power of the bishops, by the known abhorrers of
episcopacy; and abused for doing nothing in their convocations, by those
very men who helped to bind up their hands. The vice, the folly, the
ignorance of every single man, were laid upon the character; their
jurisdiction, censures and discipline trampled under foot, yet mighty
complaints against their excessive power.[6] The men of wit employed to
turn the priesthood itself into ridicule. In short, groaning every where
under the weight of poverty, oppression, contempt and obloquy. A fair
return for the time and money spent in their education to fit them for
the service of the Altar; and a fair encouragement for worthy men to come
into the Church. However, it may be some comfort for persons of that holy
function, that their Divine Founder as well as His harbinger, met with
the like reception. "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say
he hath a devil; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say,
behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, &c."

In this deplorable state of the clergy, nothing but the hand of
Providence, working by its glorious instrument, the QUEEN, could have
been able to turn the people's hearts so surprisingly in their favour.
This Princess, destined for the safety of Europe, and a blessing to her
subjects, began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church;[7] and
it was hoped the nation would have followed such an example, which
nothing could have prevented, but the false politics of a set of men, who
form their maxims upon those of every tottering commonwealth, which is
always struggling for life, subsisting by expedients, and often at the
mercy of any powerful neighbour. These men take it into their
imagination, that trade can never flourish unless the country becomes
a common receptacle for all nations, religions and languages; a system
only proper for small popular states, but altogether unworthy, and below
the dignity of an imperial crown; which with us is best upheld by a
monarch in possession of his just prerogative, a senate of nobles and
of commons, and a clergy established in its due rights with a suitable
maintenance by law. But these men come with the spirit of shopkeepers to
frame rules for the administration of kingdoms; or, as if they thought
the whole art of government consisted in the importation of nutmegs, and
the curing of herrings. Such an island as ours can afford enough to
support the majesty of a crown, the honour of a nobility, and the dignity
of a magistracy; we can encourage arts and sciences, maintain our bishops
and clergy, and suffer our gentry to live in a decent, hospitable manner;
yet still there will remain hands sufficient for trade and manufactures,
which do always indeed deserve the best encouragement, but not to a
degree of sending every living soul into the warehouse or the workhouse.

This pedantry of republican politics hath done infinite mischief among
us. To this we owe those noble schemes of treating Christianity as a
system of speculative opinions, which no man should be bound to believe;
of making the being and the worship of God, a creature of the state. In
consequence of these, that the teachers of religion ought to hold their
maintenance at pleasure, or live by the alms and charitable collection of
the people, and be equally encouraged of all opinions: that they should
be prescribed what to teach, by those who are to learn from them; and,
upon default, have a staff and a pair of shoes left at their door;[8]
with many other projects of equal piety, wisdom, and good nature.

But, God be thanked, they and their schemes are vanished, and "their
places shall know them no more." When I think of that inundation of
atheism, infidelity, profaneness and licentiousness which were like to
overwhelm us, from what mouths and hearts it first proceeded, and how the
people joined with the Queen's endeavours to divert this flood, I cannot
but reflect on that remarkable passage in the Revelation,[9] where "the
serpent with seven heads cast out of his mouth water after the woman like
a flood, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood: But the
earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up
the flood which the dragon had cast out of his mouth." For the Queen
having changed her ministry suitable to her own wisdom, and the wishes of
her subjects, and having called a free Parliament; at the same time
summoned the convocation, by her royal writ,[10] "as in all times had
been accustomed," and soon after their meeting, sent a most gracious
letter[11] to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be communicated to the
bishops and clergy of his province; taking notice of "the loose and
profane principles which had been openly scattered and propagated among
her subjects: that the consultations of the clergy were particularly
requisite to repress and prevent such daring attempts, for which her
subjects, from all parts of the kingdom, have shown their just
abhorrence. She hopes, the endeavours of the clergy, in this respect,
will not be unsuccessful; and for her part, is ready to give them all fit
encouragement, to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them; and to grant them powers requisite to carry on so good a
work." In conclusion, "earnestly recommending to them, to avoid disputes,
and determining to do all that in her lies to compose and extinguish

It is to be hoped, that this last part of her Majesty's letter, will be
the first she will please to execute; for, it seems, this very letter
created the first dispute.[12] The fact whereof is thus related: The
Upper House having formed an address to the QUEEN, before they received
her Majesty's letter, sent both address and letter together, to the Lower
House, with a message, excusing their not mentioning the letter in the
address, because this was formed before the other was received:[l3] The
Lower House returned them, with a desire, that an address might be
formed, with due regard and acknowledgments for the letter. After some
difficulties, the same address was sent down again with a clause
inserted, making some short mention of the said letter. This the Lower
House did not think sufficient, and sent it back again with the same
request: whereupon the archbishop, after a short consultation with _some_
of his brethren, immediately adjourned the convocation for a month, and
no address at all was sent to the QUEEN.

I understand not ecclesiastical affairs well enough to comment upon this
matter;[14] but it seems to me, that all methods of doing service to the
Church and kingdom, by means of a convocation, may be at any time eluded,
if there be no remedy against such an incident. And if this proceeding be
agreeable to the institution, spiritual assemblies must needs be
strangely contrived, very different from any lay senate yet known in the
world. Surely, from the nature of such a synod, it must be a very unhappy
circumstance, when the majority of the bishops draws one way, and that
of the lower clergy another. The latter, I think, are not at this time
suspected for any principles bordering upon those professed by enemies to
episcopacy; and if they happen to differ from the greater part of the
present set of bishops, I doubt it will call some things to mind, that
may turn the scale of general favour on the inferior clergy's side, who
with a profound duty to her Majesty, are perfectly pleased with the
present turn of affairs. Besides, curious people will be apt to enquire
into the dates of some promotions, to call to mind what designs were then
upon the anvil, and from thence make malicious deductions. Perhaps they
will observe the manner of voting on the bishops' bench, and compare it
with what shall pass in the upper house of convocation. There is,
however, one comfort, that under the present dispositions of the kingdom,
a dislike to the proceedings of any of their lordships, even to the
number of a majority, will be purely personal, and not turned to the
disadvantage of the order. And for my part, as I am a true lover of the
Church, I had rather find the inclinations of the people favourable to
episcopacy in general, than see a majority of prelates cried up by those
who are known enemies to the character. Nor, indeed, hath anything given
me more offence for several years past, than to observe how some of that
bench have been caressed by certain persons; and others of them openly
celebrated by the infamous pens of atheists, republicans and fanatics.

Time and mortality can only remedy these inconveniencies in the Church,
which are not to be cured like those in the State, by a change of
ministry. If we may guess the temper of a convocation, from the choice of
a prolocutor,[15] as it is usual to do that of a House of Commons by the
speaker, we may expect great things from that reverend body, who have
done themselves much reputation, by pitching upon a gentleman of so much
piety, wit and learning, for that office; and one who is so thoroughly
versed in those parts of knowledge which are proper for it. I am sorry
that the three Latin speeches, delivered upon presenting the prolocutor,
were not made public;[16] they might perhaps have given us some light
into the dispositions of each house: and besides, one of them is said to
be so peculiar in the style and matter, as might have made up in
entertainment what it wanted in instruction.

[Footnote 1: No. 21 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Under date January 1st, 1710/1, Swift writes to Stella: "Get
the 'Examiners,' and read them; the last nine or ten are full of the
reasons for the late change, and of the abuses of the last ministry; and
the great men assure me they are all true. They are written by their
encouragement and direction" (vol. ii., p. 88, of present edition).

[Footnote 3:

"For it is the part of a wise man to defend the institutions of his
forefathers, and uphold the sacred rites and ceremonies.
And ever threatening to fall
The mass--a marvel--stands."

[Footnote 4: A pamphlet, ascribed to W. Wotton, was issued in reply to
this paper. It was entitled, "The Case of the Present Convocation
Consider'd; In Answer to the Examiner's Unfair Representation of it, and
Unjust Reflections upon it." 1711.]

[Footnote 5: The Dissenters were at first
disposed to make common cause with the Catholics in favour of the
dispensing power claimed by James II.; and an address from the
Presbyterians went so far as to praise the king for having "restored to
God His empire over conscience." [S.]]

[Footnote 6: "The Case etc. Consider'd," remarks: "The boldest, and the
most insolent book of that sort, is the 'Rights of the Church' ... Yet
how long was Dr. T[inda]ll, then Fellow of All Souls, suffered at Oxford
after the 'Rights' appeared?" Dr. Matthew Tindal, author of "The Rights
of the Christian Church" (1706), was a fellow of All Souls College,
Oxford, from 1678 till his death in 1733. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "At this time [February, 1703/4] Queen Anne gave up the
_first-fruits_ and _tenths_, which had long been possessed by the crown,
to be appropriated to a fund for the increase of small livings. This fund
is known as Queen Anne's Bounty" (Lathbury's "Hist. of Convocation,"
second edition, p. 386). The Queen's Message to Parliament was dated
February 7th, 1703/4, and the Bill was introduced February 17th, and
received the royal assent April 3rd, 1704. See also Swift's
"Answer" in the following number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A hint to withdraw. [T.S.]
This is said to have been the mode in which the governors of a Dutch
province were wont to give intimation to those who intermeddled with
state affairs, that they would do wisely to withdraw themselves from the
state. [S.]]

[Footnote 9: Swift notices his own misquotation in the succeeding number
(_q.v._). See a further reference to the subject in No. 26. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Convocation was assembled on November 25th, and the Latin
sermon preached by Kennet. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Queen Anne's letter was printed in "The Daily Courant" for
December 19th. It is dated December 12th, and says: "It is with
great grief of heart we observe the scandalous attempts which of late
years have been made to infect the minds of our good subjects by loose
and profane principles openly scattered and propagated among them.
We think the consultations of the clergy particularly requisite to
repress these daring attempts and to prevent the like for the future. The
just abhorrence that our subjects from all parts of the kingdom have
expressed of such wicked principles and their abettors, give us good
ground to hope that the endeavours of the clergy in this respect will
not be unsuccessful. For our part we are ready to give them all fitting
encouragement to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them, and to grant them such powers as shall be thought
requisite," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: The Queen's letter was intended to put an end to disputes
in Convocation. She expressed her hope that her royal intentions would
not be frustrated "by any unseasonable disputes between the two Houses of
Convocation about unnecessary forms and methods of proceeding." She
earnestly recommended that such disputes might cease. The bishops
prepared an address, but the Lower House insisted "on the enlarging the
fourth paragraph, and upon answering the several heads of the Queen's
letter" (Chamberlen's "History of Queen Anne," p. 365, and "Daily
Courant," Dec. 19th). The real reason for the disputes between the two
Houses at this time lay in the fact that the Upper House, owing to
Tenison's influence, was largely Low Church in sympathy, whereas the
Lower House, with Atterbury as its leader, was of the High Church party.

[Footnote 13: Dr. Smalridge (1662-1719) called for the Queen's letter to
be read. The Archbishop prorogued Convocation for two days, and then
again until January 17th. An address to the Queen was presented on
January 26th (Lathbury's "History of Convocation," second edition,
p. 407). Smalridge was Dean of Carlisle, 1711-13, and Bishop of
Bristol, 1714-19. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: "The Case etc. Consider'd" quotes on the title-page: "Jude
10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: "Dr. Atterbury, in preference to Dr. Kennet, was chosen
prolocutor by a great majority."--TINDAL, iv. 206. [T.S.]]

Footnote 16: The Latin speeches were made on December 6th, when the
prolocutor was presented to the Archbishop, by Dr. Smalridge, Atterbury,
and Tenison. The one speech to which Swift refers may have been
Tenison's, whose style was fairly dull. [T.S.]

NUMB. 23.[1]


_Nullae sunt occultiores insidiae, quam eae quae latent in simulatione
officii, aut in aliquo necessitudinis nomine._[3]

_The following answer is written in the true style, and with the usual
candour of such pieces; which I have imitated to the best of my skill,
and doubt not but the reader will be extremely satisfied with it._

_The Examiner cross-examined, or,
A full Answer to the last Examiner._

If I durst be so bold with this author, I would gladly ask him a familiar
question; Pray, Sir, who made you an Examiner? He talks in one of his
insipid papers, of eight or nine thousand corruptions,[4] while _we_ were
at the head of affairs, yet, in all this time, he has hardly produced

_Parturiunt montes, &c._[5]

But I shall confine myself, at present, to his last paper. He tells us,
"The Queen began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church."
Here's priestcraft with a witness; this is the constant language of your
highfliers, to call those who are hired to teach _the religion of the
magistrate_ by the name of the Church.[6] But this is not all; for, in
the very next line he says, "It was hoped the nation would have followed
this example." You see the faction begins already to speak out; this is
an open demand for the abbey-lands; this furious zealot would have us
priest-ridden again, like our popish ancestors: but, it is to be hoped
the government will take timely care to suppress such audacious attempts,
else we have spent so much blood and treasure to very little purpose, in
maintaining religion and Revolution. But what can we expect from a man,
who at one blow endeavours to ruin our trade? "A country" (says he) "may
flourish" (these are his own words) "without being the common receptacle
for all nations, religions, and languages." What! We must immediately
banish or murder the Palatines; forbid all foreign merchants, not only
the Exchange, but the kingdom; persecute the Dissenters with fire and
faggot, and make it high-treason to speak any other tongue but English.
In another place he talks of a "serpent with seven heads," which is a
manifest corruption of the text; for the words "_seven heads_" are not
mentioned in that verse.[7] However, we know what serpent he would mean;
a serpent with fourteen legs; or, indeed, no serpent at all, but seven
great men, who were the best ministers, the truest Protestants, and the
most disinterested patriots that ever served a prince.[8] But nothing is
so inconsistent as this writer; I know not whether to call him a Whig or
a Tory, a Protestant or a Papist; he finds fault with convocations; says,
"they are assemblies strangely contrived;" and yet lays the fault upon
us, that we bound their hands: I wish we could have bound their tongues
too; but as fast as their hands were bound, they could make a shift to
hold their pens, and have their share in the guilt of ruining the
hopefullest party and ministry that ever prescribed to a crown. This
captious gentleman is angry to "see a majority of prelates cried up by
those who are enemies to the character"; now I always thought, that the
concessions of enemies were more to a man's advantage than the praise of
his friends. "Time and mortality," he says, "can only remedy these
inconveniencies in the Church." That is, in other words, when certain
bishops are dead, we shall have others of our own stamp. Not so fast; you
are not yet so sure of your game. We have already got one comfortable
loss in Spain, though by a G[enera]l of our own.[9] For joy of which, our
J[un]to had a merry meeting at the house of their great proselyte, on the
very day we received the happy news. One or two more such blows would,
perhaps, set us right again, and then we can employ "mortality" as well
as others. He concludes with wishing, that "three letters, spoke when the
prolocutor was presented, were made public." I suppose he would be
content with one, and that is more than we shall humour him to grant.
However, I hope he will allow it possible to have grace, without either
eloquence or Latin, which is all I shall say to his malicious innuendo.

Having thus, I hope, given a full and satisfactory answer to the
Examiner's last paper, I shall now go on to a more important affair;
which is, to prove, by several undeniable instances, that the late
m[inist]ry, and their abettors, were true friends to the Church. It is
yet, I confess, a secret to the clergy, wherein this friendship did
consist. For information therefore of that reverend body, that they may
never forget their benefactors, as well as of all others who may be
equally ignorant, I have determined to display _our_ merits to the world
upon that weighty article. And I could wish, that what I am to say were
to be written in brass, for an eternal memorial; the rather, because for
the future, the Church must endeavour to stand unsupported by those
patrons, who expired in doing it their last good office, and will never
rise to preserve it any more.

Let us therefore produce the pious endeavours of these church-defenders,
who were its patrons by their power and authority, as well as ornaments
of it by their exemplary lives.

First, St. Paul tells us, "there must be heresies in the Church, that the
truth may be manifest"; and therefore, by due course of reasoning, the
more heresies there are, the more manifest will the truth be made. This
being maturely considered by these lovers of the Church, they endeavoured
to propagate as many heresies as they could, that the light of truth
might shine the clearer.

Secondly, To shew their zeal for the Church's defence, they took the care
of it entirely out of the hands of God Almighty (because that was a
foreign jurisdiction) and made it their own creature, depending
altogether upon them; and issued out their orders to Tindal, and others,
to give public notice of it.

Thirdly, Because charity is the most celebrated of all Christian virtues,
therefore they extended theirs beyond all bounds; and instead of shutting
the Church against Dissenters, were ready to open it to all comers, and
break down its walls, rather than that any should want room to enter. The
strength of a state, we know, consists in the number of people, how
different soever in their callings; and why should not the strength of a
Church consist in the same, how different soever in their creeds? For
that reason, they charitably attempted to abolish the test, which tied up
so many hands from getting employments, in order to protect the Church.

I know very well that this attempt is objected to us as a crime, by
several malignant Tories, and denied as a slander by many unthinking
people among ourselves. The latter are apt in their defence to ask such
questions as these; Was your test repealed?[10] Had we not a majority?
Might we not have done it if we pleased? To which the others answer, You
did what you could; you prepared the way, but you found a fatal
impediment from that quarter, whence the sanction of the law must come,
and therefore to save your credit, you condemned a paper to be burnt
which yourselves had brought in.[11] But alas! the miscarriage of that
noble project for the safety of the Church, had another original; the
knowledge whereof depends upon a piece of secret history that I shall now
lay open.

These church-protectors had directed a Presbyterian preacher to draw up a
bill for repealing the test; it was accordingly done with great art, and
in the preamble, several expressions of civility to the established
Church; and when it came to the qualifications of all those who were to
enter on any office, the compiler had taken special care to make them
large enough for all Christians whatsoever, by transcribing the very
words (only formed into an oath) which Quakers are obliged to profess by
a former Act of Parliament; as I shall here set them down.[12] "I _A.B._
profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the
true God, and in the Holy Spirit one God blessed for evermore; and do
acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given
by divine inspiration." This bill was carried to the chief leaders for
their approbation, with these terrible words turned into an oath: What
should they do? Those few among them who fancied they believed in God,
were sure they did not believe in Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or one
syllable of the Bible; and they were as sure that every body knew their
opinion in those matters, which indeed they had been always too sincere
to disguise; how therefore could they take such an oath as that, without
ruining their reputation with Tindal, Toland,[13] Coward,[14] Collins,
Clendon,[15] and all the tribe of free-thinkers, and so give a scandal to
weak unbelievers. Upon this nice point of honour and conscience the
matter was hushed, the project for repealing the test let fall, and the
Sacrament left as the smaller evil of the two.

Fourthly, These pillars of the Church, because "the harvest was great,
and the labourers few," and because they would ease the bishops from that
grievous trouble of laying on hands: were willing to allow that power to
all men whatsoever, to prevent that terrible consequence of unchurching
those, who thought a hand from under a cloak as effectual as from
lawn-sleeves. And indeed, what could more contribute to the advancement
of true religion, than a bill of general naturalization for priesthood?

Fifthly, In order to fix religion in the minds of men, because truth
never appears so fair as when confronted with falsehood; they directed
books to be published, that denied the being of a God, the divinity of
the Second and Third Person, the truth of all revelation, and the
immortality of the soul. To this we owe that great sense of religion,
that respect and kindness to the clergy, and that true love of virtue so
manifest of late years among the youth of our nation. Nor could anything
be more discreet, than to leave the merits of each cause to such wise
impartial judges, who might otherwise fall under the slavery of believing
by education and prejudice.

Sixthly, Because nothing so much distracts the thoughts, as too great a
variety of subjects; therefore they had kindly prepared a bill, to
prescribe the clergy what subjects they should preach upon, and in what
manner, that they might be at no loss; and this no doubt, was a proper
work for such hands, so thoroughly versed in the theory and practice of
all Christian duties.

Seventhly, To save trouble and expense to the clergy, they contrived that
convocations should meet as seldom as possible; and when they were
suffered to assemble, would never allow them to meddle with any business;
because they said, the office of a clergyman was enough to take up the
whole man. For the same reason they were very desirous to excuse the
bishops from sitting in Parliament, that they might be at more leisure to
stay at home and look after their clergy.

I shall mention at present but one more instance of their pious zeal for
the Church. They had somewhere heard the maxim, that _Sanguis martyrum
est semen ecclesiae_;[16] therefore in order to sow this seed, they began
with impeaching a clergyman: and that it might be a true martyrdom in
every circumstance, they proceeded as much as possible against common
law,[17] which the long-robe part of the managers knew was in a hundred
instances directly contrary to all their positions, and were sufficiently
warned of it beforehand; but their love of the Church prevailed. Neither
was this impeachment an affair taken up on a sudden. For, a certain great
person (whose Character has been lately published by some stupid and
lying writer)[18] who very much distinguished himself by his zeal in
forwarding this impeachment, had several years ago endeavoured to
persuade the late King to give way to just such another attempt. He told
his Majesty, there was a certain clergyman preached very dangerous
sermons, and that the only way to put a stop to such insolence, was to
impeach him in Parliament. The King enquired the character of the man;
"O, sir," said my lord, "the most violent, hot, positive fellow in
England; so extremely wilful, that I believe he would be heartily glad to
be a martyr." The King answered, "Is it so? Then I am resolved to
disappoint him"; and would never hear more of the matter; by which that
hopeful project unhappily miscarried.

I have hitherto confined myself to those endeavours for the good of the
Church, which were common to all the leaders and principal men of our
party; but if my paper were not drawing towards an end, I could produce
several instances of particular persons, who by their exemplary lives and
actions have confirmed the character so justly due to the whole body. I
shall at present mention only two, and illustrate the merits of each by a
matter of fact.

That worthy patriot, and true lover of the Church, whom the late
"Examiner" is supposed to reflect on under the name of Verres,[19] felt a
pious impulse to be a benefactor to the Cathedral of Gloucester, but how
to do it in the most decent, generous manner, was the question. At last
he thought of an expedient: One morning or night he stole into the
Church, mounted upon the altar, and there did that which in cleanly
phrase is called disburthening of nature: He was discovered, prosecuted,
and condemned to pay a thousand pounds, which sum was all employed to
support the Church, as, no doubt, the benefactor meant it.

There is another person whom the same writer is thought to point at under
the name of Will Bigamy.[20] This gentleman, knowing that marriage fees
were a considerable perquisite to the clergy, found out a way of
improving them _cent. per cent._ for the good of the Church. His
invention was to marry a second wife while the first was alive,
convincing her of the lawfulness by such arguments, as he did not doubt
would make others follow the same example: These he had drawn up in
writing with intention to publish for the general good; and it is hoped
he may now have leisure to finish them.[21]

[Footnote 1: No. 22 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: _I. e._ 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, "in Verrem," II. i. 15: "There are no intrigues more
difficult to guard against than those which are concealed under a
pretence of duty, or under the name of some intimate connexion."--C.D.
YONGE. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See No. 19, _ante_ (not quoted correctly). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Horace, "Ars Poetica," 139:

"The mountains laboured with prodigious throes."--P. FRANCIS.

[Footnote 6: See No. 22, _ante_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The serpent, or dragon, is said to have seven heads in an
earlier verse of the same chapter. See Rev. xii., 3, 9, 15. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Earl of Sunderland and Henry Boyle (Secretaries of
State), Earl of Godolphin (Lord Treasurer), Lord Somers (President of the
Council), Lord Cowper (Lord Chancellor), Duke of Marlborough
(Captain General), and Horatio Walpole (Secretary of War). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: General Stanhope, at Brihuega, was surprised and compelled
to surrender on December 9th, 1710. Oldmixon's "Sequel" (p. 452)
remarks: "The misfortune which happened to General Stanhope at
Brihuega, where he was surrounded by the French and Spanish, armies,
and after a most gallant defence, obliged to surrender himself with
several English battalions prisoners of war, was some relief to
high-church; ... they did not stick to rejoice at it." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Test Act was passed in 1672 and repealed only in 1828.

[Footnote 11: This paper was a pamphlet by Charles Leslie, published
October, 1708, which was condemned to be burnt by the House of Commons in
January, 1709/10. It was entitled, "A Letter from a Gentleman in
Scotland to his Friend in England, against the Sacramental Test."

[Footnote 12: This declaration was prescribed by the Act I William and
Mary, c. 18, s. 13. It was repealed in 1871. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: John Toland, author of "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696)
and other works. See note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition.

[Footnote 14: William Coward (1656-1725), physician, was the author of
"Second Thoughts Concerning Human Soul" (1702), and "The Grand Essay;
or A Vindication of Reason and Religion" (1703/4). Both these works
were ordered by the House of Commons to be burnt, March 17th,
1703/4. See also note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: John Clendon was the author of "A Treatise of the Word
Person" (17-09/10) which the House of Commons ordered to be burnt, March
24, 17-09/10. See also note on p. 185 of vol. iii. of present edition.

[Footnote 16: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

[Footnote 17: For preaching a sermon at St. Paul's on "Perils from false
brethren" (November 5th, 1709), Dr. Sacheverell was, on the complaint
of Mr. Dolben (December 13th), impeached in the House of Commons on
December 14th, 1709, and in the House of Lords on December 15th. The
sermon was printed and widely circulated, and Sacheverell received for it
the thanks of the Lord Mayor. Mr. Dolben objected to Godolphin being
referred to as Volpone. Out of this arose the famous Sacheverell trial,
so disastrous in its effect on the Whig ministry. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: Lord Wharton. See vol. v., pp. 1-28 of present edition of
Swift's Works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: Lord Wharton. But see correction in No. 25, _post_. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 20: See previous note on Lord Cowper. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 21: Cowper was at this time out of office. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 24.[1]


_Bellum ita suscipiatur, ut nihil aliud nisi Pax quaesita videatur._[3]

I am satisfied, that no reasonable man of either party, can justly be
offended at any thing I said in one of my papers relating to the Army;[4]
from the maxims I there laid down, perhaps many persons may conclude,
that I had a mind the world should think, there had been occasion given
by some late abuses among men of that calling; and they conclude right.
For my intention is, that my hints may be understood, and my quotations
and allegories applied; and I am in some pain to think, that in the
Orcades on one side, and the western coasts of Ireland on the other, the
"Examiner" may want a key in several parts, which I wish I could furnish
them with. As for the French king, I am under no concern at all; I hear
he has left off reading my papers, and by what he has found in them,
dislikes our proceedings more than ever, and intends either to make great
additions to his armies, or propose new terms for a peace: So false is
that which is commonly reported, of his mighty satisfaction in our change
of ministry: And I think it clear that his late letter of "Thanks to the
Tories of Great Britain,"[5] must either have been extorted from him
against his judgment, or was a cast of his politics to set the people
against the present ministry, wherein it has wonderfully succeeded.

But though I have never heard, or never regarded any objections made
against that paper, which mentions the army; yet I intended this as a
sort of apology for it. And first, I declare, (because we live in a
mistaking world) that in hinting at some proceedings, wherein a few
persons are said to be concerned, I did not intend to charge them upon
the body of the army. I have too much detested that barbarous injustice
among the writers of a late party, to be ever guilty of it myself; I mean
the accusing societies for the crimes of a few. On the other side, I must
take leave to believe, that armies are no more exempt from corruptions
than other numbers of men. The maxims proposed were occasionally
introduced by the report of certain facts, which I am bound to believe is
true, because I am sure, considering what has passed, it would be a crime
to think otherwise. All posts in the army, all employments at court, and
many others, are (or ought to be) given and resumed at the mere pleasure
of the prince; yet when I see a great officer broke, a change made in the
court or the ministry, and this under the most just and gracious Princess
that ever reigned, I must naturally conclude it is done upon prudent
considerations, and for some great demerit in the sufferers. But then; is
not the punishment sufficient? Is it generous or charitable to trample on
the unfortunate, and expose their faults to the world in the strongest
colours? And would it not suit better with magnanimity as well as common
good-nature, to leave them at quiet to their own thoughts and repentance?
Yes without question, provided it could be so contrived that their very
names, as well as actions, might be forgotten for ever; _such_ an act of
oblivion would be for the honour of our nation, and beget a better
opinion of us with posterity; and then I might have spared the world and
myself the trouble of _examining_. But at present, there is a cruel
dilemma in the case: The friends and abettors of the late ministry are
every day publishing their praises to the world, and casting reflections
upon the present persons in power. This is so barefaced an aspersion upon
the Q[ueen], that I know not how any good subject can with patience
endure it, though he were ever so indifferent with regard to the opinions
in dispute. Shall they who have lost all power and love of the people, be
allowed to scatter their poison; and shall not those, who are, at least,
of the strongest side, be suffered to bring an antidote? And how can we
undeceive the deluded remainder, but by letting them see, that those
discarded statesmen were justly laid aside, and producing as many
instances to prove it as we can? not from any personal hatred to them,
but in justification to the best of queens. The many scurrilities I have
heard and read against this poor paper of mine, are in such a strain,
that considering the present state of affairs, they look like a jest.
They usually run after the following manner: "What? shall this insolent
writer presume to censure the late ministry, the ablest, the most
faithful, and truest lovers of their country, and its constitution that
ever served a prince? Shall he reflect on the best H[ouse] of C[ommons]
that ever sat within those walls? Has not the Queen changed both for a
ministry and Parliament of Jacobites and highfliers, who are selling us
to France, and bringing over the Pretender?" This is the very sum and
force of all their reasonings, and this their method of complaining
against the "Examiner." In _them_ it is humble and loyal to reflect upon
the Q[ueen] and the ministry, and Parliament she has chosen with the
universal applause of her people; in _us_ it is insolent to defend her
Majesty and her choice, or to answer their objections, by shewing the
reasons why those changes were necessary.

The same style has been used in the late case relating to some gentlemen
in the army;[6] such a clamour was raised by a set of men, who had the
boldness to tax the administration with cruelty and injustice, that I
thought it necessary to interfere a little, by shewing the ill
consequences that might arise from some proceedings, though without
application to particular persons. And what do they offer in answer?
Nothing but a few poor common-places against calumny and informers, which
might have been full as just and seasonable in a plot against the sacred
person of the Q[ueen].

But, by the way; why are these idle people so indiscreet to name those
two words, which afford occasion of laying open to the world such an
infamous scene of subornation and perjury, as well as calumny and
informing, as I believe is without example: when a whole cabal attempted
an action, wherein a condemned criminal refused to join with them for
the reward of his life?[7] Not that I disapprove their sagacity, who
could foretell so long before, by what hand they should one day fall, and
therefore thought any means justifiable by which they might prevent it.

But waiving this at present, it must be owned in justice to the army,
that those violences did not proceed so far among them as some have
believed; nor ought the madness of a few to be laid at their doors. For
the rest, I am so far from denying the due praises to those victorious
troops, who did their part in procuring so many victories for the allies,
that I could wish every officer and private soldier had their full share
of honour in proportion to their deserts; being thus far of the
Athenians' mind, who when it was proposed that the statue of Miltiades
should be set up alone in some public place of the city, said they would
agree to it, _whenever he conquered alone_, but not before. Neither do I
at all blame the officers of the army, for preferring in their hearts the
late ministry before the present; or, if wishing alone could be of any
use, to wish their continuance, because then they might be secure of the
war's continuance too: whereas, since affairs have been put into other
hands, they may perhaps lie under some apprehensions of a peace, which no
army, especially in a course of success, was ever inclined to, and which
all wise states have in such a juncture, chiefly endeavoured. This is
a point wherein the civil and military politics have always disagreed.
And for that reason, I affirmed it necessary in all free governments,
that the latter should be absolutely in subjection to the former;
otherwise, one of these two inconveniencies must arise, either to be
perpetually in war, or to turn the civil institution into a military.

I am ready to allow all that has been said of the valour and experience
of our troops, who have fully contributed their part to the great
successes abroad; nor is it their fault, that those important victories
had no better consequences at home, though it may be their advantage. War
is their trade and business: to improve and cultivate the advantages of
success, is an affair of the cabinet; and the neglect of this, whether
proceeding from weakness or corruption, according to the usual
uncertainty of wars, may be of the most fatal consequence to a nation.
For, pray let me represent our condition in such a light, as I believe
both parties will allow, though perhaps not the consequences I shall
deduce from it. We have been for above nine years, blessed with a QUEEN,
who besides all virtues that can enter into the composition of a private
person, possesses every regal quality that can contribute to make a
people happy: of great wisdom, yet ready to receive the advice of her
counsellors: of much discernment in choosing proper instruments, when she
follows her own judgment, and only capable of being deceived by that
excess of goodness which makes her judge of others by herself. Frugal in
her management in order to contribute to the public, which in proportion
she does, and that voluntarily, beyond any of her subjects; but from her
own nature, generous and charitable to all that want or deserve; and in
order to exercise those virtues, denying herself all entertainments of
expense which many others enjoy. Then if we look abroad, at least in
Flanders, our arms have been crowned with perpetual success in battles
and sieges, not to mention several fortunate actions in Spain. These
facts being thus stated, which none can deny, it is natural to ask how we
have improved such advantages, and to what account they have turned? I
shall use no discouraging terms. When a patient grows daily worse by the
tampering of mountebanks, there is nothing left but to call in the best
physicians before the case grows desperate: But I would ask, whether
France or any other kingdom, would have made so little use of such
prodigious opportunities, the fruits whereof could never have fallen to
the ground, without the extremist degree of folly and corruption, and
where those have lain, let the world judge? Instead of aiming at peace,
while we had the advantage of the war, which has been the perpetual maxim
of all wise states, it has been reckoned factious and malignant even to
express our wishes for it; and such a condition imposed, as was never
offered to any prince who had an inch of ground to dispute; _Quae enim
est conditio pacis; in qua ei cum quo pacem facias, nihil concedi

It is not obvious to conceive what could move men who sat at home, and
were called to consult upon the good of the kingdom, to be so utterly
averse from putting an end to a long expensive war, which the victorious,
as well as conquered side, were heartily weary of. Few or none of them
were men of the sword; they had no share in the honour; they had made
large fortunes, and were at the head of all affairs. But they well knew
by what tenure they held their power; that the Qu[een] saw through their
designs, that they had entirely lost the hearts of the clergy; that the
landed men were against them; that they were detested by the body of the
people; and that nothing bore them up but their credit with the bank and
other stocks, which would be neither formidable nor necessary when the
war was at an end. For these reasons they resolved to disappoint all
overtures of a peace, till they and their party should be so deeply
rooted as to make it impossible to shake them. To this end, they began to
precipitate matters so fast, as in a little time must have ruined the
constitution, if the crown had not interposed, and rather ventured the
accidental effects of their malice, than such dreadful consequences of
their power. And indeed, had the former danger been greater than some
hoped or feared, I see no difficulty in the choice, which was the same
with his, who said, "he had rather be devoured by wolves than by rats." I
therefore still insist that we cannot wonder at, or find fault with the
army, for concurring with a ministry who was for prolonging the war. The
inclination is natural in them all, pardonable in those who have not yet
made their fortunes, and as lawful in the rest, as love of power or love
of money can make it. But as natural, as pardonable, and as lawful as
this inclination is, when it is not under check of the civil power, or
when a corrupt ministry joins in giving it too great a scope, the
consequence can be nothing less than infallible ruin and slavery to a

After I had finished this Paper, the printer sent me two small pamphlets,
called "The Management of the War,"_[9] written with some plausibility,
much artifice, and abundance of misrepresentation, as well as direct
falsehoods in point of fact. These I have thought worth _Examining_,
which I shall accordingly do when I find an opportunity.

[Footnote 1: No. 23 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Cicero, "De Officiis," i. 23: "In the undertaking of a war
there should be such a prospect, as if the only end of it were peace."--

[Footnote 4: See "Examiner," No. 21. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Scott mistakes this as the pretended letter quoted in "The
Medley," No. 14. Swift refers to a half sheet printed for A. Baldwin in
the latter part of 1710, and entitled: "The French King's Thanks to the
Tories of Great-Britain." It was ascribed to Hoadly.

In this print Louis XIV. is made to thank the Tories for "what hath given
me too deep and lasting impressions of respect, and gratitude, ever to be
forgotten. If I should endeavour to recount all the numerous obligations
I have to you, I should not know where to begin, nor where to make an
end.... To you and your predecessors I owe that supineness and negligence
of the English court, which, gave me opportunity and ability to form and
prosecute my designs." Alluding to William III. he says: "To you I owed
the impotence of his life and the comfort of his death. At that juncture
how vast were my hopes?... But a princess ascended your throne, whom you
seemed to court with some personal fondness ... She had a general whom
her predecessor had wrought into the confidence and favour of the
Allies.... It is with pleasure I have observed, that every victory he
hath obtained abroad, hath been retrieved by your management at home....
What a figure have your tumults, your addresses, and the progresses of
your Doctor, made in my Gazettes? What comfort have I received from
them?... And with what impatience do we now wait for that dissolution,
with the hopes of which you have so long flattered us ?... Blessed be the
engines, to which so glorious events are owing. Republican,
Antimonarchical, Danger of the Church, Non-resistance, Hereditary and
Divine Right, words of force and energy!... How great are my obligations
to all these!" In a postscript, King Louis is made to say further: "My
Brother of England [i.e. the Pretender] ... thanks you for ... your late
loyal addresses; your open avowal in them of that unlimited non-resistance
by which he keeps up his claim," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: "Lieut.-Gen. Meredith, Major-Gen. Macartney, and Brigadier
Honeywood were superseded, upon an information laid before the Q----,
that these three gentlemen had, in their cups, drank Damnation and
Confusion to the new ministry, and to those who had any hand in turning
out of the old."--TINDAL, iv. 195. See also No. 21 and note, p. 127.

[Footnote 7: William Gregg, a clerk in Harley's office, who was convicted
of a treasonable correspondence with France. See Swift's "Some Remarks,"
etc., in vol. v., p. 38, of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: "For what condition of peace is that in which nothing is
conceded him with whom you are making peace?" [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The two pamphlets referred to were both written by Dr.
Francis Hare, chaplain-general to the Duke of Marlborough, and afterwards
Bishop of Chichester. The first was dated November 23rd, 1710, and
was entitled, "The Management of the War. In a Letter to a Tory-Member."
The second was called, "The Management of the War. In a Second Letter to
a Tory-Member," and was dated November 30th, 1710. The pamphlets are again
referred to in the twenty-ninth number of "The Examiner," where the writer
states that on second thoughts he has decided to deal with them "in a
discourse by itself." This he did. See note on p. 184. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 25.[1]


_Parva momenta in spem metumque impellunt animos._[3]

Hopes are natural to most men, especially to sanguine complexions, and
among the various changes that happen in the course of public affairs,
they are seldom without some grounds: Even in desperate cases, where it
is impossible they should have any foundation, they are often affected,
to keep a countenance, and make an enemy think we have some resource
which they know nothing of. This appears to have been for some months
past the condition of those people, whom I am forced, for want of other
phrases, to called the _ruined party_. They have taken up since their
fall, some real, and some pretended hopes. When the E. of S[underlan]d
was discarded, they _hoped_ her M[ajesty] would proceed no farther in the
change of her ministry, and had the insolence to misrepresent her words
to foreign states. They _hoped_, nobody durst advise the dissolution of
the Parliament. When this was done, and further alterations made at
Court, they _hoped_ and endeavoured to ruin the credit of the nation.
They likewise _hoped_ that we should have some terrible loss abroad,
which would force us to unravel all, and begin again upon their bottom.
But, of all their _hopes_, whether real or assumed, there is none more
extraordinary than that which they now would seem to place their whole
confidence in: that this great turn of affairs was only occasioned by a
short madness of the people, from which they will recover in a little
time, when their eyes are open, and they grow cool and sober enough to
consider the truth of things, and how much they have been deceived. It
is not improbable, that some few of the deepest sighted among these
reasoners, are well enough convinced how vain all such _hopes_ must be:
but for the rest, the wisest of them seem to have been very ill judges of
the people's dispositions, the want of which knowledge was a principal
occasion to hasten their ruin; for surely had they suspected which way
the popular current inclined, they never would have run against it by
that impeachment. I therefore conclude, they generally are so blind, as
to imagine some comfort from this fantastical opinion, that the people of
England are at present distracted, but will shortly come to their senses

For the service therefore of our adversaries and friends, I shall briefly
_examine_ this point, by shewing what are the causes and symptoms of a
people's madness, and how it differs from their natural bent and

It is Machiavel's observation, that the people when left to their own
judgment, do seldom mistake their true interests; and indeed they
naturally love the constitution they are born under, never desiring to
change but under great oppressions. However, they are to be deceived by
several means. It has often happened in Greece, and sometimes in Rome,
that those very men who have contributed to shake off a former tyranny,
have, instead of restoring the old constitution, deluded the People into
a worse and more ignominious slavery. Besides, all great changes have the
same effect upon commonwealths that thunder has upon liquors, making the
dregs fly up to the top: the lowest plebeians rise to the head of
affairs, and there preserve themselves by representing the nobles and
other friends to the old government, as enemies to the public. The
encouraging of new mysteries and new deities, with the pretences of
further purity in religion, hath likewise been a frequent topic to
mislead the people. And, not to mention more, the promoting false reports
of dangers from abroad, hath often served to prevent them from fencing
against real dangers at home. By these and the like arts, in conjunction
with a great depravity of manners, and a weak or corrupt administration,
the madness of the people hath risen to such a height as to break in
pieces the whole frame of the best instituted governments. But however,
such great frenzies being artificially raised, are a perfect force and
constraint upon human nature, and under a wise steady prince, will
certainly decline of themselves, settling like the sea after a storm, and
then the true bent and genius of the people will appear. Ancient and
modern story are full of instances to illustrate what I say. In our own
island we had a great example of a long madness in the people, kept up by
a thousand artifices like intoxicating medicines, till the constitution
was destroyed; yet the malignity being spent, and the humour exhausted
that served to foment it; before the usurpers could fix upon a new
scheme, the people suddenly recovered, and peaceably restored the old

From what I have offered, it will be easy to decide, whether this late
change in the dispositions of the people were a new madness, or a
recovery from an old one. Neither do I see how it can be proved that such
a change had in any circumstance the least symptoms of madness, whether
my description of it be right or no. It is agreed, that the truest way of
judging the dispositions of the people in the choice of their
representatives, is by computing the county-elections; and in these, it
is manifest that five in six are entirely for the present measures;
although the court was so far from interposing its credit, that there was
no change in the admiralty, not above one or two in the lieutenancy, nor
any other methods used to influence elections.[4] The free unextorted
addresses[5] sent some time before from every part of the kingdom,
plainly shewed what sort of bent the people had taken, and from what
motives. The election of members for this great city,[6] carried contrary
to all conjecture, against the united interest of those two great bodies,
the Bank and East India Company, was another convincing argument.
Besides, the Whigs themselves have always confessed, that the bulk of
landed men in England was generally of Tories. So that this change must
be allowed to be according to the natural genius and disposition of the
people, whether it were just and reasonable in itself or not.

Notwithstanding all which, you shall frequently hear the partisans of the
late men in power, gravely and decisively pronounce, that the present
ministry cannot possibly stand.[7] Now, they who affirm this, if they
believe themselves, must ground their opinion, upon the iniquity of the
_last_ being so far established, and deeply rooted, that no endeavours of
honest men, will be able to restore things to their former state. Or
else these reasoners have been so misled by twenty years' mismanagement,
that they have forgot our constitution, and talk as if our monarchy and
revolution began together. But the body of the people is wiser, and by
the choice they have made, shew they _do_ understand our constitution,
and would bring it back to the old form; which if the new ministers take
care to maintain, they will and ought to stand, otherwise they may fall
like their predecessors. But I think we may easily foresee what a
Parliament freely chosen, without threatening or corruption, is likely to
do, when no man shall be in any danger to lose his place by the freedom
of his voice.

But, who are those advancers of this opinion, that the present ministry
cannot hold? It must be either such as are afraid to be called to an
account, in case it should hold; or those who keep offices, from which
others, better qualified, were removed; and may reasonably apprehend to
be turned out, for worthier men to come in their places, since perhaps
it will be necessary to make some changes, that the public business of
the nation may go on: or lastly, stock-jobbers, who industriously spread
such reports that actions may fall, and their friends buy to advantage.

Yet these hopes, thus freely expressed, as they are more sincere, so they
are more supportable, than when they appear under the disguise and
pretence of fears. Some of these gentlemen are employed to shake their
heads in proper companies; to doubt where all this will end; to be in
mighty pain for the nation; to shew how impossible it is, that the public
credit can be supported: to pray that all may do well in whatever hands;
but very much to doubt that the Pretender is at the bottom. I know not
any thing so nearly resembling this behaviour, as what I have often seen
among the friends of a sick man, whose interest it is that he should die:
The physicians protest they see no danger; the symptoms are good, the
medicines answer expectation; yet still they are not to be comforted;
they whisper, he is a gone man; it is not possible he should hold out; he
has perfect death in his face; they never liked this doctor: At last the
patient recovers, and their joy is as false as their grief.

I believe there is no man so sanguine, who did not apprehend some ill
consequences from the late change, though not in any proportion to the
good ones: but it is manifest, the former have proved much fewer and
lighter than were expected, either at home or abroad, by the fears of our
friends, or the hopes of our enemies. Those remedies that stir the
humours in a diseased body, are at first more painful than the malady
itself; yet certain death is the consequence of deferring them too long.
Actions have fallen, and the loans are said to come in slowly. But
beside, that something of this must have been, whether there had been any
change or no; beside, that the surprise of every change, for the better
as well as the worse, is apt to affect credit for a while; there is a
further reason, which is plain and scandalous. When the late party was at
the helm, those who were called the Tories, never put their resentments
in balance with the safety of the nation, but cheerfully contributed to
the common cause. Now the scene is changed, the fallen party seems to act
from very different motives: they have _given the word about;_ they will
keep their money and be passive; and in this point stand upon the same
foot with Papists and Nonjurors. What would have become of the public, if
the present great majority had acted thus, during the late
administration? Had acted thus, before the others were masters of that
wealth they have squeezed out of the landed men, and with the strength of
that, would now hold the kingdom at defiance?

Thus much I have thought fit to say, without pointing reflections upon
any particular person; which I have hitherto but sparingly done, and that
only towards those whose characters are too profligate, that the managing
of them should be of any consequence: Besides as it is a talent I am not
naturally fond of, so, in the subjects I treat, it is generally needless.
If I display the effects of avarice and ambition, of bribery and
corruption, of gross immorality and irreligion, those who are the least
conversant in things, will easily know where to apply them. Not that I
lay any weight upon the objections of such who charge me with this
proceeding: it is notorious enough that the writers of the other side
were the first aggressors. Not to mention their scurrilous libels many
years ago, directly levelled at particular persons; how many papers do
now come out every week, full of rude invectives against the present
ministry, with the first and last letters of their names to prevent
mistakes? It is good sometimes to let these people see, that we neither
want spirit nor materials to retaliate; and therefore in this point
_alone_, I shall follow their example, whenever I find myself
sufficiently provoked; only with one addition, that whatever charges I
bring, either general or particular, shall be religiously true, either
upon avowed facts which none can deny, or such as I can prove from my own

Being resolved publicly to acknowledge any mistakes I have been guilty
of; I do here humbly desire the reader's pardon for one of mighty
importance, about a fact in one of my papers, said to be done in the
cathedral of Gloucester.[8] A whole Hydra of errors in two words: For as
I am since informed, it was neither in the cathedral, nor city, nor
county of Gloucester, but some other church of that diocese. If I had
ever met any other objection of equal weight, though from the meanest
hands, I should certainly have answered it.

[Footnote 1: No. 24 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "The merest trifles affect our spirits, and fill us with
hope or fear." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See Swift's "Memoirs Relating to that Change," etc., vol.
v., p. 386 of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: "The general ferment soon after [1710, summer] broke out
into numerous addresses, of very different style and tenor, that were
presented to the Queen. ... The high-church addresses not only exceeded
the others in number, but were also far better received; as complimenting
the Queen with a more extensive prerogative, and an hereditary title"
(Chamberlen's "History of Queen Anne," p. 347). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: At the general election in October and November, 1710, the
City of London returned four Tories: Sir Wm. Withers, Sir R. Hoare, Sir
G. Newland, and Mr. John Cass. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Harley's ministry continued in power until July, 1714.

[Footnote 8: This act of Wharton's was alluded to by the Duke of Leeds in
the House of Lords on December 6th, 1705. See Dartmouth's note on
Burnet's "Own Times," vol. ii., p. 435, and compare "History of
Parliament," and "Journals of House of Lords." When the Duke of
Leeds insinuated pretty plainly to Wharton the nature of his offence,
Dartmouth remarks that the "Lord Wharton was very silent for the
rest of that day, and desired no further explanations." [T.S.]]

NUMB. 26.[1]


Facebook Google Reddit Twitter Pinterest