Chapter 22

The other instance I intended to produce of decency and good nature, in the present House of Commons, relates to their most worthy Speaker;[8] who having unfortunately lost his eldest son,[9] the assembly, moved with a generous pity for so sensible an affliction, adjourned themselves for a week, that so good a servant of the public, might have some interval to wipe away a father's tears: And indeed that gentleman has too just an occasion for his grief, by the death of a son, who had already acquired so great a reputation for every amiable quality, and who might have lived to be so great an honour and an ornament to his ancient family.

Before I conclude, I must desire one favour of the reader, that when he thinks it worth his while to peruse any paper writ against the "Examiner," he will not form his judgment by any mangled quotation out of it which he finds in such papers, but be so just to read the paragraph referred to; which I am confident will be found a sufficient answer to all that ever those papers can object. At least I have seen above fifty of them, and never yet observed one single quotation transcribed with common candour.

[Footnote: 1 No. 34 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote: 2 Virgil, "Aeneid," i. 461-2. "Even here Has merit its reward. Woe wakens tears, And mortal sufferings touch the heart of man."--R. KENNEDY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See No. 33, _ante_, p. 211. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Silas Titus (1622-1704) was the author of "Killing no Murder," published in 1657. He sat in Parliament successively for Ludgershall, Lostwithiel, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Ludlow, In 1688 he was made a privy councillor. In his notes on Burnet Swift says: "Titus was the greatest rogue in England" (Burnet's "Own Times," i. 11). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: For the signification of these coffee-houses see the remarks prefixed to the "Tatlers" in this volume, p. 4. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: An Act for Securing the Freedom of Parliaments (9 Ann. c. 5) provided that English members should show a land qualification. It was introduced December 13th, 1710, and received the Royal Assent, February 28th. See also No. 45, _post_, p. 294. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: The Address to the Queen was presented on March 13th, Swift somewhat strengthens the language of the address, the original words stating that the Houses had "to our great concern been informed," etc.; and "we cannot but be most deeply affected to find such an instance of inveterate malice, against one employed in your Majesty's council," etc. The Queen, in her reply, referred to "that barbarous attempt on Mr. Harley, whose zeal and fidelity in my service must appear yet more eminently by that horrid endeavour," etc.--"Journals of House of Lords," xix.; "Journals of House of Commons," xvi. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: William Bromley (1664-1732) was Speaker from 1710 till 1713. See note on p. 334 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Clobery Bromley (1688-1711) was elected M.P. for Coventry, December, 1710. Only a few days before his death he had been appointed one of the commissioners to examine the public accounts. "The House being informed [March 20th] that Clobery Bromley, Esq., son to the Speaker, died that morning; out of respect to the father, and to give him time, both to perform the funeral rites, and to indulge his just affliction, they thought fit to adjourn to" the 26th.--"Hist. and Proc. of House of Commons," iv. 199.

Swift wrote to Stella on the matter under date March 20th, 1711: "The Speaker's eldest son is just dead of the small pox, and the House is adjourned a week, to give him time to wipe off his tears. I think it very handsomely done; but I believe one reason is, that they want Mr. Harley so much" (vol. ii., p. 141 of present edition). [T.S.]]

NUMB. 36.[1]

FROM THURSDAY MARCH 29, TO THURSDAY APRIL 5, 1711.

_Nullo suo peccato impediantur, quo minus alterius peccata demonstrare possint._[2]

I have been considering the old constitution of this kingdom, comparing it with the monarchies and republics whereof we meet so many accounts in ancient story, and with those at present in most parts of Europe: I have considered our religion, established here by the legislature soon after the Reformation: I have likewise examined the genius and disposition of the people, under that reasonable freedom they possess: Then I have turned my reflections upon those two great divisions of Whig and Tory, (which, some way or other, take in the whole kingdom) with the principles they both profess, as well as those wherewith they reproach one another. From all this, I endeavour to determine, from which side her present M[ajest]y may reasonably hope for most security to her person and government, and to which she ought, in prudence, to trust the administration of her affairs. If these two rivals were really no more than _parties_, according to the common acceptation of the word, I should agree with those politicians who think, a prince descends from his dignity by putting himself at the head of either; and that his wisest course is, to keep them in a balance; raising or depressing either as it best suited with his designs. But when the visible interest of his crown and kingdom lies on one side, and when the other is but a faction, raised and strengthened by incidents and intrigues, and by deceiving the people with false representations of things; he ought, in prudence, to take the first opportunity of opening his subjects' eyes, and declaring himself in favour of those, who are for preserving the civil and religious rights of the nation, wherewith his own are so interwoven.

This was certainly our case: for I do not take the heads, advocates, and followers of the Whigs, to make up, strictly speaking, a national party; being patched up of heterogeneous, inconsistent parts, whom nothing served to unite but the common interest of sharing in the spoil and plunder of the people; the present dread of their adversaries, by whom they apprehended to be called to an account, and that general conspiracy, of endeavouring to overturn the Church and State; which, however, if they could have compassed, they would certainly have fallen out among themselves, and broke in pieces, as _their predecessors_ did, after they destroyed the monarchy and religion. For, how could a Whig, who is against all discipline, agree with a Presbyterian, that carries it higher than the Papists themselves? How could a Socinian adjust his models to either? Or how could any of these cement with a Deist or Freethinker, when they came to consult upon settling points of faith? Neither would they have agreed better in their systems of government, where some would have been for a king, under the limitations of a Duke of Venice; others for a Dutch republic; a third party for an aristocracy, and most of them all for some new fabric of their own contriving.

But however, let us consider them as a party, and under those general tenets wherein they agreed, and which they publicly owned, without charging them with any that they pretend to deny. Then let us _Examine_ those principles of the Tories, which their adversaries allow them to profess, and do not pretend to tax them with any actions contrary to those professions: after which, let the reader judge from which of these two parties a prince hath most to fear; and whether her M[ajest]y did not consider the ease, the safety and dignity of her person, the security of her crown, and the transmission of monarchy to her Protestant successors, when she put her affairs into the present hands.

Suppose the matter were now entire; the Qu[een] to make her choice, and for that end, should order the principles on both sides to be fairly laid before her. First, I conceive the Whigs would grant, that they have naturally no very great veneration for crowned heads; that they allow, the person of the prince may, upon many occasions, be resisted by arms; and that they do not condemn the war raised against King Charles the First, or own it to be a rebellion, though they would be thought to blame his murder. They do not think the prerogative to be yet sufficiently limited, and have therefore taken care (as a particular mark of their veneration for the illustrious house of Hanover) to clip it closer against next reign; which, consequently, they would be glad to see done in the present: not to mention, that the majority of them, if it were put to the vote, would allow, that they prefer a commonwealth before a monarchy. As to religion; their universal, undisputed maxim is, that it ought to make no distinction at all among Protestants; and in the word Protestant they include every body who is not a Papist, and who will, by an oath, give security to the government. Union in discipline and doctrine, the offensive sin of schism, the notion of a Church and a hierarchy, they laugh at as foppery, cant and priestcraft. They see no necessity at all that there should be a national faith; and what we usually call by that name, they only style the "religion of the magistrate."[3] Since the Dissenters and we agree in the main, why should the difference of a few speculative points, or modes of dress, incapacitate them from serving their prince and country, in a juncture when we ought to have all hands up against the common enemy? And why should they be forced to take the sacrament from our clergy's hands, and in our posture, or indeed why compelled to receive it at all, when they take an employment which has nothing to do with religion?

These are the notions which most of that party avow, and which they do not endeavour to disguise or set off with false colours, or complain of being misrepresented about, I have here placed them on purpose, in the same light which themselves do, in the very apologies they make for what we accuse them of; and how inviting even these doctrines are, for such a monarch to close with, as our law, both statute and common, understands a King of England to be, let others decide. But then, if to these we should add other opinions, which most of their own writers justify, and which their universal practice has given a sanction to, they are no more than what a prince might reasonably expect, as the natural consequence of those avowed principles. For when such persons are at the head of affairs, the low opinion they have of princes, will certainly tempt them to violate that respect they ought to bear; and at the same time, their own want of duty to their sovereign is largely made up, by exacting greater submissions to themselves from their fellow-subjects: it being indisputably true, that the same principle of pride and ambition makes a man treat his equals with insolence, in the same proportion as he affronts his superiors; as both Prince and people have sufficiently felt from the late m[inist]ry.

Then from their confessed notions of religion, as above related, I see no reason to wonder, why they countenanced not only all sorts of Dissenters, but the several gradations of freethinkers among us (all which were openly enrolled in their party); nor why they were so very averse from the present established form of worship, which by prescribing obedience to princes from the topic of conscience, would be sure to thwart all their schemes of innovation.

One thing I might add, as another acknowledged maxim in that party, and in my opinion, as dangerous to the constitution as any I have mentioned; I mean, that of preferring, on all occasions, the moneyed interest before the landed; which they were so far from denying, that they would gravely debate the reasonableness and justice of it; and at the rate they went on, might in a little time have found a majority of representatives, fitly qualified to lay those heavy burthens on the rest of the nation, which themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.

However, to deal impartially, there are some motives which might compel a prince, under the necessity of affairs, to deliver himself over to that party. They were _said_ to possess the great bulk of cash, and consequently of credit in the nation, and the heads of them had the reputation of presiding over those societies who have the great direction of both:[4] so that all applications for loans to the public service, upon any emergency, must be made through them; and it might prove highly dangerous to disoblige them, because in that case, it was not to be doubted, that they would be obstinate and malicious, ready to obstruct all affairs, not only by shutting their own purses, but by endeavouring to sink credit, though with some present imaginary loss to themselves, only to shew, it was a creature of their own.

From this summary of Whig-principles and dispositions, we find what a prince may reasonably fear and hope from that party. Let us now very briefly consider, the doctrines of the Tories, which their adversaries will not dispute. As they prefer a well-regulated monarchy before all other forms of government; so they think it next to impossible to alter that institution here, without involving our whole island in blood and desolation. They believe, that the prerogative of a sovereign ought, at least, to be held as sacred and inviolable as the rights of his people, if only for this reason, because without a due share of power, he will not be able to protect them. They think, that by many known laws of this realm, both statute and common, neither the person, nor lawful authority of the prince, ought, upon any pretence whatsoever, to be resisted or disobeyed. Their sentiments, in relation to the Church, are known enough, and will not be controverted, being just the reverse to what I have delivered as the doctrine and practice of the Whigs upon that article.

But here I must likewise deal impartially too, and add one principle as a characteristic of the Tories, which has much discouraged some princes from making use of them in affairs. Give the Whigs but power enough to insult their sovereign, engross his favours to themselves, and to oppress and plunder their fellow-subjects; they presently grow into good humour and good language towards the crown; profess they will stand by it with their lives and fortunes; and whatever rudenesses they may be guilty of in private, yet they assure the world, that there never was so gracious a monarch. But to the shame of the Tories, it must be confessed, that nothing of all this hath been ever observed in them; in or out of favour, you see no alteration, further than a little cheerfulness or cloud in their countenances; the highest employments can add nothing to their loyalty, but their behaviour to their prince, as well as their expressions of love and duty, are, in all conditions, exactly the same.

Having thus impartially stated the avowed principles of Whig and Tory; let the reader determine, as he pleases, to which of these two a wise prince may, with most safety to himself and the public, trust his person and his affairs; and whether it were rashness or prudence in her M[ajest]y to make those changes in the ministry, which have been so highly extolled by some, and condemned by others.

[Footnote 1: No. 35 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "None are prevented by their own faults from pointing out the faults of another."--H.T. RILEY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: See Swift's "Letter Concerning the Sacramental Test" (vol. iv., p. 11 of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Bank and the East India Company. The former was so decidedly in the Whig interest, that the great Doctor Sacheverell, on appearing to give his vote for choosing governors and directors for the Bank, was very rudely treated. Nor were the ministry successful in an attempt made about that time to put these great companies under Tory management. [S.] And see No. 25, _ante_, pp. 154-5. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 37.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 5, TO THURSDAY APRIL 12, 1711.

_Tres species tam dissimiles, tria talia texta Una dies dedit exitio----_[2]

I write this paper for the sake of the Dissenters, whom I take to be the most spreading branch of the Whig party, that professeth Christianity, and the only one that seems to be zealous for any particular system of it; the bulk of those we call the Low Church, being generally indifferent, and undetermined in that point; and the other subdivisions having not yet taken either the Old or New Testament into their scheme. By the Dissenters therefore, it will easily be understood, that I mean the Presbyterians, as they include the sects of Anabaptists, Independents, and others, which have been melted down into them since the Restoration. This sect, in order to make itself national, having gone so far as to raise a Rebellion, murder their king, destroy monarchy and the Church, was afterwards broken in pieces by its own divisions; which made way for the king's return from his exile. However, the zealous among them did still entertain hopes of recovering the "dominion of grace;" whereof I have read a remarkable passage, in a book published about the year 1661 and written by one of their own side. As one of the regicides was going to his execution, a friend asked him, whether he thought the cause would revive? He answered, "The cause is in the bosom of Christ, and as sure as Christ rose from the dead, so sure will the cause revive also."[3] And therefore the Nonconformists were strictly watched and restrained by penal laws, during the reign of King Charles the Second; the court and kingdom looking on them as a faction, ready to join in any design against the government in Church or State: And surely this was reasonable enough, while so many continued alive, who had voted, and fought, and preached against both, and gave no proof that they had changed their principles. The Nonconformists were then exactly upon the same foot with our Nonjurors now, whom we double tax, forbid their conventicles, and keep under hatches; without thinking ourselves possessed with a persecuting spirit, because we know they want nothing but the power to ruin us. This, in my opinion, should altogether silence the Dissenters' complaints of persecution under King Charles the Second; or make them shew us wherein they differed, at that time, from what our Jacobites are now.

Their inclinations to the Church were soon discovered, when King James the Second succeeded to the crown, with whom they unanimously joined in its ruin, to revenge themselves for that restraint they had most justly suffered in the foregoing reign; not from the persecuting temper of the clergy, as their clamours would suggest, but the prudence and caution of the legislature. The same indulgence against law, was made use of by them and the Papists, and they amicably employed their power, as in defence of one common interest.

But the Revolution happening soon after, served to wash away the memory of the rebellion; upon which, the run against Popery, was, no doubt, as just and seasonable, as that of fanaticism, after the Restoration: and the dread of Popery, being then our latest danger, and consequently the most fresh upon our spirits, all mouths were open against that; the Dissenters were rewarded with an indulgence by law; the rebellion and king's murder were now no longer a reproach; the former was only a civil war, and whoever durst call it a rebellion, was a Jacobite, and friend to France. This was the more unexpected, because the Revolution being wholly brought about by Church of England hands, they hoped one good consequence of it, would be the relieving us from the encroachments of Dissenters, as well as those of Papists, since both had equally confederated towards our ruin; and therefore, when the crown was new settled, it was hoped at least that the rest of the constitution would be restored. But this affair took a very different turn; the Dissenters had just made a shift to save a tide, and joined with the Prince of Orange, when they found all was desperate with their protector King James. And observing a party, then forming against the old principles in Church and State, under the name of Whigs and Low-Churchmen, they listed themselves of it, where they have ever since continued.

It is therefore, upon the foot they now are, that I would apply myself to them, and desire they would consider the different circumstances at present, from what they were under, when they began their designs against the Church and monarchy, about seventy years ago. At that juncture they made up the body of the party, and whosoever joined with them from principles of revenge, discontent, ambition, or love of change, were all forced to shelter under their denomination; united heartily in the pretences of a further and purer Reformation in religion, and of advancing the "great work" (as the cant was then) "that God was about to do in these nations," received the systems of doctrine and discipline prescribed by the Scots, and readily took the Covenant;[4] so that there appeared no division among them, till after the common enemy was subdued.

But now their case is quite otherwise, and I can hardly think it worth being of a party, upon the terms they have been received of late years; for suppose the whole faction should at length succeed in their design of destroying the Church; are they so weak to imagine, that the new modelling of religion, would be put into their hands? Would their brethren, the Low-Churchmen and Freethinkers, submit to their discipline, their synods or their classes, and divide the lands of bishops, or deans and chapters, among them? How can they help observing that their allies, instead of pretending more sanctity than other men, are some of them for levelling all religion, and the rest for abolishing it? Is it not manifest, that they have been treated by their confederates, exactly after the same manner, as they were by King James the Second, made instruments to ruin the Church, not for their sakes, but under a pretended project of universal freedom in opinion, to advance the dark designs of those who employ them? For, excepting the anti-monarchical principle, and a few false notions about liberty, I see but little agreement betwixt them; and even in these, I believe, it would be impossible to contrive a frame of government, that would please them all, if they had it now in their power to try. But however, to be sure, the Presbyterian institution would never obtain. For, suppose they should, in imitation of their predecessors, propose to have no King but our Saviour Christ, the whole clan of Freethinkers would immediately object, and refuse His authority. Neither would their Low-Church brethren use them better, as well knowing what enemies they are to that doctrine of unlimited toleration, wherever they are suffered to preside. So that upon the whole, I do not see, as their present circumstances stand, where the Dissenters can find better quarter, than from the Church of England.