His first great action was, like Scipio, to defend his father,[18] when oppressed by numbers; and his filial piety was not only rewarded with long life, but with a son, who upon the like occasion, would have shewn the same resolution. No man ever preserved his dignity better when he was out of power, nor shewed more affability while he was in. To conclude: his character (which I do not here pretend to draw) is such, as his nearest friends may safely trust to the most impartial pen; nor wants the least of that allowance which, they say, is required for those who are dead.
[Footnote 1: No. 40 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Writing to Stella, May 14th, 1711, Swift informs her: "Dr. Freind was with me, and pulled out a twopenny pamphlet just published called 'The State of Wit,' giving a character of all the papers that have come out of late. The author seems to be a Whig, yet he speaks very highly of a paper called 'The Examiner,' and says the supposed author of it is Dr. Swift" (vol. ii., p. 176, of present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: Horace, "Odes," III. xxiv. 21.
[Footnote 4: "The Congratulatory Speech of William Bromley, Esq., ... together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Answer."—See also No. 42, post, pp. 273-4. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: See No. 33, ante, pp. 207-14. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: The writer of "A Letter to the Seven Lords" says this means "that there was a committee of seven lords, sent to a condemned criminal in Newgate, to bribe him with a pardon, on condition he would swear high treason, against his master."
In Hoffman's "Secret Transactions" (pp. 14, 15) the matter is thus referred to: "Who those persons were that offered Gregg his life, with great preferments and advantages (if he would but accuse his master) may not uneasily be guessed at, for most of the time he was locked up none but people of note, were permitted to come near him, who made him strange promises, and often repeated them." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: "He does, with his own impudence, and with the malice of a devil, bring in both Houses of P—— to say and mean the same thing.... It is matter of wonder ... to see the greatest ministers of state we ever had (till now) treated by a poor paper-pedlar, every Thursday, like the veriest rascals in the kingdom.... I could, if it were needful, bring a great many instances, of this licentious way of the scum of mankind's treating the greatest peers in the nation" ("A Letter to the Seven Lords"). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The Earl of Galway was defeated by the Duke of Berwick at this battle on April 25th, 1707. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: The Allies, under the Duke of Savoy, unsuccessfully laid siege to Toulon from July 26th to August 21st, 1707. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: The Palatines, who were mostly Lutherans, came over to England in great numbers in May and June of 1709. So large was the immigration that the House of Commons, on April 14th, 1711, passed a resolution declaring that the inviting and bringing over of the Palatines "at the public expense, was an extravagant and unreasonable charge to the kingdom, and a scandalous misapplication of the public money." Whoever advised it, said the resolution, "was an enemy to the Queen and this kingdom." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: A Committee, appointed January 13th, 1710/1, reported in April, 1711, that accounts for £35,302,107 18s. 9-5/8d.(sic) had not been passed. On February 21st, 1711/2, the auditors presented a statement which showed that of these accounts (which went back to 1681), £6,133,571 had then been passed, and that a considerable portion of the remainder was waiting for technicalities only. On June 11th, 1713, it was reported that £24,624,436 had been either passed or "adjusted." See "Journals of House of Commons," xvi., xvii. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: Virgil, "Aeneid," i. 135. "Whom I—but first this uproar must be quelled."—R. KENNEDY. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Tacitus, "Agricola," 9. (Tacitus wrote "Haud semper," etc.) "An opinion not founded upon any suggestions of his own, but upon his being thought equal to the station. Common fame does not always err, sometimes it even directs a choice" ("Oxford Translation" revised). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Harley, who was created Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, May 23rd, 1711, and Sir Simon Harcourt, made Baron Harcourt, September 3rd, 1711. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: Sir Henry Furnese (1658-1712), Bart. He obtained his baronetcy June 18th, 1707, and was the first to receive that dignity since the Union. He sat in the House as Member for Bramber and Sandwich, and was twice expelled. He was, however, re-elected for Sandwich and represented that constituency until his death on November 30th, 1712.
The variety of ways in which his name has been spelt is quite remarkable. In the "Calendar of State Papers" for 1691 and 1692, the name is given as Furness, Furnese, and Furnes. The "Journals of the House of Commons," recording his expulsion, speaks of him as Furnesse. When he was knighted (October 11th, 1691), the "Gazette" of October 19th printed it Furnace, and when he was made a baronet, the same journal had it Furnese. In the official "Return of Names of Members," the name is given successively as, Furnace, Furnac, Furnice, Furnise, Furness and Furnese. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, second son of the first Earl of Clarendon (see No. 27, ante, p. 170). He undertook the defence of his father when the latter was impeached by the House of Commons, October 30th, 1667, on a charge of high treason. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 17: Virgil, "Aeneid," vi. 648-9.
[Footnote 18: "When the tumultuous perplexed charge of accumulated treasons was preferred against him by the Commons; his son Laurence, then a Member of that House, stept forth with this brave defiance to his accusers, that, if they could make out any proof of any one single article, he would, as he was authorized, join in the condemnation of his father" (Burton's "Genuineness of Clarendon's History," p. 111). [T.S.]]
I never let slip an opportunity of endeavouring to convince the world, that I am not partial, and to confound the idle reproach of my being hired or directed what to write in defence of the present ministry,[3] or for detecting the practices of the former. When I first undertook this paper, I firmly resolved, that if ever I observed any gross neglect, abuse or corruption in the public management, which might give any just offence to reasonable people, I would take notice of it with that innocent boldness which becomes an honest man, and a true lover of his country; at the same time preserving the respect due to persons so highly entrusted by so wise and excellent a Queen. I know not how such a liberty might have been resented; but I thank God there has been no occasion given me to exercise it; for I can safely affirm, that I have with the utmost rigour, examined all the actions of the present ministry, as far as they fall under general cognizance, without being able to accuse them of one ill or mistaken step. Observing indeed some time ago, that seeds of dissension[4] had been plentifully scattered from a certain corner, and fearing they began to rise and spread, I immediately writ a paper on the subject; which I treated with that warmth I thought it required: but the prudence of those at the helm soon prevented this growing evil; and at present it seems likely to have no consequences.
I have had indeed for some time a small occasion of quarrelling, which I thought too inconsiderable for a formal subject of complaint, though I have hinted at it more than once. But it is grown at present to as great a height, as a matter of that nature can possibly bear; and therefore I conceive it high time that an effectual stop should be put to it. I have been amazed at the flaming licentiousness of several weekly papers, which for some months past, have been chiefly employed in barefaced scurrilities against those who are in the greatest trust and favour with the Qu[een], with the first and last letters of their names frequently printed; or some periphrasis describing their station, or other innuendoes, contrived too plain to be mistaken. The consequence of which is, (and it is natural it should be so) that their long impunity hath rendered them still more audacious.
At this time I particularly intend a paper called the "Medley"; whose indefatigable, incessant railings against me, I never thought convenient to take notice of, because it would have diverted my design, which I thought was of public use.[5] Besides, I never yet observed that writer, or those writers, (for it is every way a "Medley") to argue against any one material point or fact that I had advanced, or make one fair quotation. And after all, I knew very well how soon the world grow weary of controversy. It is plain to me, that three or four hands at least have been joined at times in that worthy composition; but the outlines as well as the finishing, seem to have been always the work of the same pen, as it is visible from half a score beauties of style inseparable from it. But who these Meddlers are, or where the judicious leaders have picked them up, I shall never go about to conjecture: factious rancour, false wit, abandoned scurrility, impudent falsehood, and servile pedantry, having so many fathers, and so few to own them, that curiosity herself would not be at the pains to guess. It is the first time I ever did myself the honour to mention that admirable paper: nor could I imagine any occasion likely to happen, that would make it necessary for me to engage with such an adversary. This paper is weekly published, and as appears by the number, has been so for several months, and is next to the "Observator,"[6] allowed to be the best production of the party. Last week my printer brought me that of May 7, Numb. 32. where there are two paragraphs[7] relating to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and to Mr. Harley; which, as little as I am inclined to engage with such an antagonist, I cannot let pass, without failing in my duty to the public: and if those in power will suffer such infamous insinuations to pass with impunity, they act without precedent from any age or country of the world.
I desire to open this matter, and leave the Whigs themselves to determine upon it. The House of Commons resolved, nemine contradicente, that the Speaker should congratulate Mr. Harley's escape and recovery[8] in the name of the House, upon his first attendance on their service. This is accordingly done; and the speech, together with the chancellor of the exchequer's, are printed by order of the House.[9] The author of the "Medley" takes this speech to task the very next week after it is published, telling us, in the aforesaid paper, that the Speaker's commending Mr. Harley, for being "an instrument of great good" to the nation, was "ill-chosen flattery"; because Mr. Harley had brought the "nation under great difficulties, to say no more:" He says, that when the Speaker tells Mr. Harley, that Providence has "wonderfully preserved" him "from some unparalleled attempts" (for that the "Medley" alludes to) he only "revives a false and groundless calumny upon other men"; which is "an instance of impotent, but inveterate malice,"[10] that makes him [the Speaker] "still appear more vile and contemptible." This is an extract from his first paragraph. In the next this writer says, that the Speaker's "praying to God for the continuance of Mr. Harley's life, as an invaluable blessing,[11] was a fulsome piece of insincerity, which exposes him to shame and derision"; because he is "known to bear ill will to Mr. Harley, to have an extreme bad opinion of him, and to think him an obstructor of those fine measures he would bring about."
I now appeal to the Whigs themselves, whether a great minister of state, in high favour with the Qu[een], and a Speaker of the House of Commons, were ever publicly treated after so extraordinary a manner, in the most licentious times? For this is not a clandestine libel stolen into the world, but openly printed and sold, with the bookseller's name and place of abode at the bottom. And the juncture is admirable, when Mr. H[arle]y is generally believed upon the very point to be made an earl, and promoted to the most important station of the kingdom:[12] nay, the very marks of esteem he hath so lately received from the whole representative body of the people, are called "ill-chosen flattery," and "a fulsome piece of insincerity," exposing the donors "to shame and derision."
Does this intrepid writer think he has sufficiently disguised the matter, by that stale artifice of altering the story, and putting it as a supposed case? Did any man who ever saw the congratulatory speech, read either of those paragraphs in the "Medley," without interpreting them just as I have done? Will the author declare upon his great sincerity, that he never had any such meaning? Is it enough, that a jury at Westminster-Hall would, perhaps, not find him guilty of defaming the Speaker and Mr. Harley in that paper? which however, I am much in doubt of too; and must think the law very defective, if the reputation of such persons must lie at the mercy of such pens. I do not remember to have seen any libel, supposed to be writ with caution and double meaning, in order to prevent prosecution, delivered under so thin a cover, or so unartificially made up as this; whether it were from an apprehension of his readers' dullness, or an effect of his own. He hath transcribed the very phrases of the Speaker, and put them in a different character, for fear they might pass unobserved, and to prevent all possibility of being mistaken. I shall be pleased to see him have recourse to the old evasion, and say, that I who make the application, am chargeable with the abuse: let any reader of either party be judge. But I cannot forbear asserting, as my opinion, that for a m[inist]ry to endure such open calumny, without calling the author to account, is next to deserving it. And this is an omission I venture to charge upon the present m[inist]ry, who are too apt to despise little things, which however have not always little consequences.
When this paper was first undertaken, one design, among others, was, to Examine some of those writings so frequently published with an evil tendency, either to religion or government; but I was long diverted by other enquiries, which I thought more immediately necessary, to animadvert upon men's actions, rather than their speculations: to shew the necessity there was of changing the ministry, that our constitution in Church and State might be preserved; to expose some dangerous principles and practices under the former administration, and prove by many instances, that those who are now at the helm, are entirely in the true interest of prince and people. This I may modestly hope, hath in some measure been already done, sufficient to answer the end proposed, which was to inform the ignorant and those at distance, and to convince such as are not engaged in a party, from other motives than that of conscience. I know not whether I shall have any appetite to continue this work much longer; if I do, perhaps some time may be spent in exposing and overturning the false reasonings of those who engage their pens on the other side, without losing time in vindicating myself against their scurrilities, much less in retorting them. Of this sort there is a certain humble companion, a French maître de langues,[13] who every month publishes an extract from votes, newspapers, speeches and proclamations, larded with some insipid remarks of his own; which he calls "The Political State of Great Britain:"[14] This ingenious piece he tells us himself, is constantly translated into French, and printed in Holland, where the Dutch, no doubt, conceive most noble sentiments of us, conveyed through such a vehicle. It is observable in his account for April, that the vanity, so predominant in many of his nation, has made him more concerned for the honour of Guiscard, than the safety of Mr. H[arle]y: And for fear we should think the worse of his country upon that assassin's account,[15] he tells us, there have been more murders, parricides and villanies, committed in England, than any other part of the world. I cannot imagine how an illiterate foreigner, who is neither master of our language, or indeed of common sense, and who is devoted to a faction, I suppose, for no other reason, but his having more Whig customers than Tories, should take it into his head to write politic tracts of our affairs. But I presume, he builds upon the foundation of having being called to an account for his insolence in one of his former monthly productions,[16] which is a method that seldom fails of giving some vogue to the foolishest composition. If such a work must be done, I wish some tolerable hand would undertake it; and that we would not suffer a little whiffling Frenchman to neglect his trade of teaching his language to our children, and presume to instruct foreigners in our politics.
[Footnote 1: No. 41 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: See No. 40, ante, and note, p. 259. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: In "A Discourse of the Contests and Dissensions ... Athens and Rome," 1701 (vol. i., pp. 227-270, of present edition). See also Swift's reference to this pamphlet in his "Memoirs Relating to that Change," etc. (vol. v., p. 379). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: "The Medley," under Maynwaring, with occasional help from Addison and Steele, seems to have been published for the sole purpose of replying to the "Examiner." No. 40 (July 2nd, 1711) begins: "The 'Examiner' is grown so insipid and contemptible that my acquaintance are offended at my troubling myself about him." No. 45 (the final number, August 6th, 1711) expresses the writer's "deep concern" for the loss of his "dear friend 'The Examiner,' who has at once left the world and me, quite unprovided for so great a blow." When the "Examiner" was revived by W. Oldisworth in December, 1711, it was soon followed by a reappearance of "The Medley." It started afresh with Numb. I. on March 3rd, 1712 (i.e. 1711/2), and continued until August 4th, 1712, the date of the publication of Numb. XLV. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: See No. 16, ante, and note p. 85. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The two paragraphs appeared in No. 32 of "The Medley," and the writer introduces them by a reference to "praise and censure, which I choose out of all the rest, because it only concerns the 'Examiner' to be well instructed in them, he having no other business but to flatter the new m[inistry], and abuse the old." The first paragraph runs:
"In the first place, whenever any body would praise another, all he can say will have no weight or effect, if it be not true or probable. If therefore, for example, my friend should take it into his head to commend a man, for having been an instrument of great good to a nation, when in truth that very person had brought that same nation under great difficulties, to say no more; such ill-chosen flattery would be of no use or moment, nor add the least credit to the person so commended. Or if he should take that occasion to revive any false and groundless calumny upon other men, or another party of men; such an instance of impotent but inveterate malice, would make him still appear more vile and contemptible. The reason of all which is, that what he said was neither just, proper, nor real, and therefore must needs want the force of true eloquence, which consists in nothing else but in well representing things as they really are. I advise therefore my friend, before he praises any more of his heroes, to learn the common rules of writing; and particularly to read over and over a certain chapter in Aristotle's first book of Rhetoric, where are given very proper and necessary directions, for praising a man who has done nothing that he ought to be praised for."
There is no reference here to the Speaker. The reference is to the "Examiner"; nor is there any mention of Providence having wonderfully preserved him from some unparalleled attempts.
The second paragraph runs:
"But the ancients did not think it enough for men to speak what was true or probable, they required further that their orators should be heartily in earnest; and that they should have all those motions and affections in their own minds which they endeavoured to raise in others. He that thinks, says Cicero, to warm others with his eloquence, must first be warm himself. And Quintilian says, We must first be affected ourselves, before we can move others. This made Pliny's panegyric upon Trajan so well received by his hearers, because every body knew the wonderful esteem and affection which he had for the person he commended: and therefore, when he concluded with a prayer to Jupiter, that he would take care of the life and safety of that great and good man, which he said contained in it all other blessings; though the expression was so high, it passed very well with those that heard him, as being agreeable to the known sentiments and affection of the speaker. Whereas, if my friend should be known to bear ill-will to another person, or to have an extreme bad opinion of him, or to think him an abstractor of those fine measures he would bring about, and should yet in one of his panegyrics pray to God for the continuance of that very person's life, as 'an invaluable blessing'; such a fulsome piece of insincerity would only expose him to shame and derision." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The House of Commons resolved on April 11th, that the Speaker should congratulate Mr. Harley when he was able to attend the House. This was done on April 26th. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: The House of Commons, on April 27th, ordered, "That Mr. Speaker be desired to print his congratulatory speech ... with the Answer of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the same." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: The Speaker thanks God that Harley's enemies had "not been able to accomplish what their inveterate, but impotent, malice, had designed." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: The Speaker prayed that Providence might "continue still to preserve so invaluable a life." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: Harley was appointed lord treasurer, May 30th, 1711, and created Earl of Oxford, May 23rd. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Abel Boyer (1667-1729), author of a French dictionary, a French grammar, "History of William III.," "History of Queen Anne," "The Political State," "The Post Boy" (1705-9), and many other works. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: "The Political State of Great Britain" was started in January, 1710/1, and continued monthly until 1740. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: See No. 33, ante, and note, p. 207. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: Boyer appeared before the House of Lords, March 6th, 1710/1, and owned that he was the compiler of "The Political State of Great Britain." He was kept in custody till March 12th, when he was reprimanded, and discharged after he had paid his fees. His offence was that "an account is pretended to be given of the Debates and Proceedings of this House" ("Journals of House of Lords," xix). The third number of "The Political State," Boyer issued on March 17th, giving his reason for the delay in its appearance: "An unavoidable and unvoluntary avocation, of which I may give you an account hereafter, has obliged me to write to you a fortnight later than usual." [T.S.]]
Several letters have been lately sent me, desiring I would make honourable mention of the pious design of building fifty churches, in several parts of London and Westminster, where they are most wanted; occasioned by an address of the convocation to the Queen,[3] and recommended by her Majesty to the House of Commons; who immediately promised, they would enable her "to accomplish so excellent a design," and are now preparing a Bill accordingly. I thought to have deferred any notice of this important affair till the end of this session; at which time I proposed to deliver a particular account of the great and useful things already performed by this present Parliament. But in compliance to those who give themselves the trouble of advising me; and partly convinced by the reasons they offer; I am content to bestow a paper upon a subject, that indeed so well deserves it.
The clergy, and whoever else have a true concern for the constitution of the Church, cannot but be highly pleased with one prospect in this new scene of public affairs. They may very well remember the time, when every session of Parliament, was like a cloud hanging over their heads; and if it happened to pass without bursting into some storm upon the Church, we thanked God, and thought it an happy escape till the next meeting; upon which we resumed our secret apprehensions, though we were not allowed to believe any danger. Things are now altered; the Parliament takes the necessities of the Church into consideration, receives the proposals of the clergy met in convocation, and amidst all the exigencies of a long expensive war, and under the pressure of heavy debts, finds a supply for erecting fifty edifices for the service of God. And it appears by the address of the Commons to her Majesty upon this occasion (wherein they discovered a true spirit of religion) that the applying the money granted "to accomplish so excellent a design,"[4] would, in their opinion, be the most effectual way of carrying on the war; that it would (to use their own words) "be a means of drawing down blessings on her Majesty's undertakings, as it adds to the number of those places, where the prayers of her devout and faithful subjects, will be daily offered up to God, for the prosperity of her government at home, and the success of her arms abroad."
I am sometimes hoping, that we are not naturally so bad a people, as we have appeared for some years past. Faction, in order to support itself, is generally forced to make use of such abominable instruments, that as long as it prevails, the genius of a nation is overpressed, and cannot appear to exert itself: but when that is broke and suppressed, when things return to the old course, mankind will naturally fall to act from principles of reason and religion. The Romans, upon a great victory, or escape from public danger, frequently built a temple in honour of some god, to whose peculiar favour they imputed their success or delivery: and sometimes the general did the like, at his own expense, to acquit himself of some pious vow he had made. How little of any thing resembling this hath been done by us after all our victories! and perhaps for that reason, among others, they have turned to so little account. But what could we expect? We acted all along as if we believed nothing of a God or His providence; and therefore it was consistent to offer up our edifices only to those, whom we looked upon as givers of all victory, in His stead.
I have computed, that fifty churches may be built by a medium, at six thousand pound for a church; which is somewhat under the price of a subject's palace: yet perhaps the care of above two hundred thousand souls, with the benefit of their prayers for the prosperity of their Queen and country, may be almost put in the balance with the domestic convenience, or even magnificence of any subject whatsoever.
Sir William Petty, who under the name of Captain Graunt, published some observations upon bills of mortality about five years after the Restoration;[5] tells us, the parishes in London, were even then so unequally divided, that some were two hundred times larger than others. Since that time, the increase of trade, the frequency of Parliaments, the desire of living in the metropolis, together with that genius for building, which began after the fire, and hath ever since continued, have prodigiously enlarged this town on all sides, where it was capable of increase; and those tracts of land built into streets, have generally continued of the same parish they belonged to, while they lay in fields; so that the care of above thirty thousand souls, hath been sometimes committed to one minister, whose church would hardly contain the twentieth part of his flock: neither, I think, was any family in those parishes obliged to pay above a groat a year to their spiritual pastor. Some few of those parishes have been since divided; in others were erected chapels of ease, where a preacher is maintained by general contribution. Such poor shifts and expedients, to the infinite shame and scandal, of so vast and flourishing a city, have been thought sufficient for the service of God and religion; as if they were circumstances wholly indifferent.
This defect, among other consequences of it, hath made schism a sort of necessary evil, there being at least three hundred thousand inhabitants in this town, whom the churches would not be able to contain, if the people were ever so well disposed: and in a city not overstocked with zeal, the only way to preserve any degree of religion, is to make all attendance upon the duties of it, as easy and cheap as possible: whereas on the contrary, in the larger parishes, the press is so great, and the pew-keeper's tax so exorbitant, that those who love to save trouble and money, either stay at home, or retire to the conventicles. I believe there are few examples in any Christian country of so great a neglect for religion; and the dissenting teachers have made their advantages largely by it, "sowing tares among the wheat while men slept;" being much more expert at procuring contributions, which is a trade they are bred up in, than men of a liberal education.
And to say truth, the way practised by several parishes in and about this town, of maintaining their clergy by voluntary subscriptions, is not only an indignity to the character, but hath many pernicious consequences attending it; such a precarious dependence, subjecting a clergyman, who hath not more than ordinary spirit and resolution, to many inconveniences, which are obvious to imagine: but this defect will, no doubt, be remedied by the wisdom and piety of the present Parliament; and a tax laid upon every house in a parish, for the support of their pastor. Neither indeed can it be conceived, why a house, whose purchase is not reckoned above one-third less than land of the same yearly rent, should not pay a twentieth part annually (which is half tithe) to the support of the minister. One thing I could wish, that in fixing the maintenance to the several ministers in these new intended parishes, no determinate sum of money may be named, which in all perpetuities ought by any means to be avoided; but rather a tax in proportion to the rent of each house, though it be but a twentieth or even a thirtieth part. The contrary of this, I am told, was done in several parishes of the city after the fire; where the incumbent and his successors were to receive for ever a certain sum; for example, one or two hundred pounds a year. But the lawgivers did not consider, that what we call at present, one hundred pounds, will, in process of time, have not the intrinsic value of twenty; as twenty pounds now are hardly equal to forty shillings, three hundred years ago. There are a thousand instances of this all over England, in reserved rents applied to hospitals, in old chiefries, and even among the clergy themselves, in those payments which, I think, they call a modus.[6]
As no prince had ever better dispositions than her present Majesty, for the advancement of true religion, so there was never any age that produced greater occasions to employ them on. It is an unspeakable misfortune, that any designs of so excellent a Queen, should be checked by the necessities of a long and ruinous war, which the folly or corruption of modern politicians have involved us in, against all the maxims whereby our country flourished so many hundred years: else her Majesty's care of religion would certainly have reached even to her American plantations. Those noble countries, stocked by numbers from hence, whereof too many are in no very great reputation for faith or morals, will be a perpetual reproach to us, till some better care is taken for cultivating Christianity among them. If the governors of those several colonies were obliged, at certain times, to transmit an exact representation of the state of religion, in their several districts; and the legislature here would, in a time of leisure, take that affair under their consideration, it might be perfected with little difficulty, and be a great addition to the glories of her Majesty's reign.
But to waive further speculations upon so remote a scene, while we have subjects enough to employ them on at home; it is to be hoped, the clergy will not let slip any proper opportunity of improving the pious dispositions of the Queen and kingdom, for the advantage of the Church; when by the example of times past, they consider how rarely such conjunctures are like to happen. What if some method were thought on towards repairing of churches? for which there is like to be too frequent occasions, those ancient Gothic structures, throughout this kingdom, going every year to decay. That expedient of repairing or rebuilding them by charitable collections, seems in my opinion not very suitable, either to the dignity and usefulness of the work, or to the honour of our country; since it might be so easily done, with very little charge to the public, in a much more decent and honourable manner, while Parliaments are so frequently called. But these and other regulations must be left to a time of peace, which I shall humbly presume to wish may soon be our share, however offensive it may be to any, either abroad or at home, who are gainers by the war.
[Footnote 1: No. 42 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Horace, "Odes," III. vi. 1-3.
[Footnote 3: The minister and churchwardens of Greenwich applied to the House of Commons on February 14th, 1710/1, for aid in the rebuilding of their church. The House referred the application to a committee. On February 28th the lower house of Convocation sent a deputation to the Speaker expressing their satisfaction at what had been done. On his reporting this to the House on the following day, they expressed their readiness to receive information. The lower house of Convocation prepared a scheme and presented it to the Speaker on March 9th; this was referred to the committee on the 10th. Acting on a hint received from the court, the bishops and clergy presented an Address to the Queen on March 26th, and this was followed by a Message from Her Majesty, on the 29th, to the House of Commons, recommending that Parliament should undertake "the great and necessary work of building more churches." On April 9th the House of Commons replied in an Address, promising to make provision, and resolved, on May 1st, to grant a supply for building fifty new churches in or about London and Westminster. On May 8th it fixed the amount at a sum "not exceeding £350,000." In pursuance of this a Bill was introduced on May 18th, which received the Royal Assent on June 12th (9 Ann. c. 17). This Bill granted £350,000 (to be raised by a duty on coals) for building fifty new churches in London and Westminster.
In this connection it is interesting to remember that Swift, two years before, had recommended the building of more churches as part of his suggestions for "the advancement of religion." See his "Project for the Advancement of Religion" (vol. iii., p. 45 of present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: In their Address, on April 9th, 1711, the House of Commons said: "Neither the long expensive war, in which we are engaged, nor the pressure of heavy debts, under which we labour, shall hinder us from granting to your Majesty whatever is necessary, to accomplish so excellent a design, which, we hope, may be a means of drawing down blessings from Heaven on all your Majesty's other undertakings, as it adds to the number of those places, where the prayers of your devout and faithful subjects will be daily offered up to God, for the prosperity of your Majesty's government at home, and the success of your arms abroad." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: "Natural and Political Observations ... upon the Bills of Mortality." By John Graunt, 1662. The writer says in chap. x. that Cripplegate parish was two hundred times as big as some of the parishes in the city. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: An abbreviation of modus decimandi, a composition in lieu of payment of tithes. [T.S.]]
Having been forced in my papers to use the cant-words of Whig and Tory, which have so often varied their significations, for twenty years past; I think it necessary to say something of the several changes those two terms have undergone since that period; and then to tell the reader what I have always understood by each of them, since I undertook this work. I reckon that these sorts of conceited appellations, are usually invented by the vulgar; who not troubling themselves to examine through the merits of a cause, are consequently the most violent partisans of what they espouse; and in their quarrels, usually proceed to their beloved argument of calling names, till at length they light upon one which is sure to stick; and in time, each party grows proud of that appellation, which their adversaries at first intended for a reproach. Of this kind were the Prasini and Veneti,[3] the Guelfs and Ghibellines,[4] Huguenots and Papists, Roundheads and Cavaliers,[5] with many others, of ancient and modern date. Among us of late there seems to have been a barrenness of invention in this point, the words Whig and Tory,[6] though they are not much above thirty years old, having been pressed to the service of many successions of parties, with very different ideas fastened to them. This distinction, I think, began towards the latter part of King Charles the Second's reign, was dropped during that of his successor, and then revived at the Revolution, since which it has perpetually flourished, though applied to very different kinds of principles and persons. In that Convention of Lords and Commons,[7] some of both Houses were for a regency to the Prince of Orange, with a reservation of style and title to the absent king, which should be made use of in all public acts. Others, when they were brought to allow the throne vacant, thought the succession should immediately go to the next heir, according to the fundamental laws of the kingdom, as if the last king were actually dead. And though the dissenting lords (in whose House the chief opposition was) did at last yield both those points, took the oaths to the new king, and many of them employments, yet they were looked upon with an evil eye by the warm zealots of the other side; neither did the court ever heartily favour any of them, though some were of the most eminent for abilities and virtue, and served that prince, both in his councils and his army, with untainted faith. It was apprehended, at the same time, and perhaps it might have been true, that many of the clergy would have been better pleased with that scheme of a regency, or at least an uninterrupted lineal succession, for the sake of those whose consciences were truly scrupulous; and they thought there were some circumstances, in the case of the deprived bishops,[8] that looked a little hard, or at least deserved commiseration.
These, and other the like reflections did, as I conceive, revive the denominations of Whig and Tory.
Some time after the Revolution the distinction of high and low-church came in, which was raised by the Dissenters, in order to break the Church party, by dividing the members into high and low; and the opinions raised, that the high joined with the Papists, inclined the low to fall in with the Dissenters.
And here I shall take leave to produce some principles, which in the several periods of the late reign, served to denote a man of one or the other party. To be against a standing army in time of peace, was all high-church, Tory and Tantivy.[9] To differ from a majority of b[isho]ps was the same. To raise the prerogative above law for serving a turn, was low-church and Whig. The opinion of the majority in the House of Commons, especially of the country-party or landed interest, was high-flying[10] and rank Tory. To exalt the king's supremacy beyond all precedent, was low-church, Whiggish and moderate. To make the least doubt of the pretended prince being supposititious, and a tiler's son, was, in their phrase, "top and topgallant," and perfect Jacobitism. To resume the most exorbitant grants, that were ever given to a set of profligate favourites, and apply them to the public, was the very quintessence of Toryism; notwithstanding those grants were known to be acquired, by sacrificing the honour and the wealth of England.
In most of these principles, the two parties seem to have shifted opinions, since their institution under King Charles the Second, and indeed to have gone very different from what was expected from each, even at the time of the Revolution. But as to that concerning the Pretender, the Whigs have so far renounced it, that they are grown the great advocates for his legitimacy: which gives me the opportunity of vindicating a noble d[uke] who was accused of a blunder in the House, when upon a certain lord's mentioning the pretended Prince, his g[race] told the lords, he "must be plain with them, and call that person, not the pretended prince, but the pretended impostor:" which was so far from a blunder in that polite l[or]d, as his ill-willers give out, that it was only a refined way of delivering the avowed sentiments of his whole party.
But to return, this was the state of principles when the Qu[een] came to the crown; some time after which, it pleased certain great persons, who had been all their lives in the altitude of Tory-profession, to enter into a treaty with the Whigs, from whom they could get better terms than from their old friends, who began to be resty, and would not allow monopolies of power and favour; nor consent to carry on the war entirely at the expense of this nation, that they might have pensions from abroad; while another people, more immediately concerned in the war, traded with the enemy as in times of peace. Whereas, the other party, whose case appeared then as desperate, was ready to yield to any conditions that would bring them into play. And I cannot help affirming, that this nation was made a sacrifice to the immeasurable appetite of power and wealth in a very few, that shall be nameless, who in every step they made, acted directly against what they had always professed. And if his Royal Highness the Prince[11] had died some years sooner (who was a perpetual check in their career) it is dreadful to think how far they might have proceeded.
Since that time, the bulk of the Whigs appears rather to be linked to a certain set of persons, than any certain set of principles: so that if I were to define a member of that party, I would say, he was one "who believed in the late m[inist]ry." And therefore, whatever I have affirmed of Whigs in any of these papers, or objected against them, ought to be understood, either of those who were partisans of the late men in power, and privy to their designs; or such who joined with them, from a hatred to our monarchy and Church, as unbelievers and Dissenters of all sizes; or men in office, who had been guilty of much corruption, and dreaded a change; which would not only put a stop to further abuses for the future, but might, perhaps, introduce examinations of what was past. Or those who had been too highly obliged, to quit their supporters with any common decency. Or lastly, the money-traders, who could never hope to make their markets so well of premiums and exorbitant interest, and high remittances, under any other administration.
Under these heads, may be reduced the whole body of those whom I have all along understood for Whigs: for I do not include within this number, any of those who have been misled by ignorance, or seduced by plausible pretences, to think better of that sort of men than they deserve, and to apprehend mighty danger from their disgrace: because, I believe, the greatest part of such well-meaning people, are now thoroughly converted.
And indeed, it must be allowed, that those two fantastic names of Whig and Tory, have at present very little relation to those opinions, which were at first thought to distinguish them. Whoever formerly professed himself to approve the Revolution, to be against the Pretender, to justify the succession in the house of Hanover, to think the British monarchy not absolute, but limited by laws, which the executive power could not dispense with, and to allow an indulgence to scrupulous consciences; such a man was content to be called a Whig. On the other side, whoever asserted the Queen's hereditary right; that the persons of princes were sacred; their lawful authority not to be resisted on any pretence; nor even their usurpations, without the most extreme necessity: that breaches in the succession were highly dangerous; that schism was a great evil, both in itself and its consequences; that the ruin of the Church, would probably be attended with that of the State; that no power should be trusted with those who are not of the established religion; such a man was usually called a Tory. Now, though the opinions of both these are very consistent, and I really think are maintained at present by a great majority of the kingdom; yet, according as men apprehend the danger greater, either from the Pretender and his party, or from the violence and cunning of other enemies to the constitution; so their common discourses and reasonings, turn either to the first or second set of these opinions I have mentioned, and are consequently styled either Whigs or Tories. Which is, as if two brothers apprehended their house would be set upon, but disagreed about the place from whence they thought the robbers would come, and therefore would go on different sides to defend it. They must needs weaken and expose themselves by such a separation; and so did we, only our case was worse: for in order to keep off a weak, remote enemy, from whom we could not suddenly apprehend any danger, we took a nearer and a stronger one into the house. I make no comparison at all between the two enemies: Popery and slavery are without doubt the greatest and most dreadful of any; but I may venture to affirm, that the fear of these, have not, at least since the Revolution, been so close and pressing upon us, as that from another faction; excepting only one short period, when the leaders of that very faction, invited the abdicating king to return; of which I have formerly taken notice.
Having thus declared what sort of persons I have always meant, under the denomination of Whigs, it will be easy to shew whom I understand by Tories. Such whose principles in Church and State, are what I have above related; whose actions are derived from thence, and who have no attachment to any set of ministers, further than as these are friends to the constitution in all its parts, but will do their utmost to save their prince and country, whoever be at the helm.
By these descriptions of Whig and Tory, I am sensible those names are given to several persons very undeservedly; and that many a man is called by one or the other, who has not the least title to the blame or praise I have bestowed on each of them throughout my papers.
[Footnote 1: No. 43 in the reprint. [T.S.]]