Chapter 24

Besides, to confess the truth, our laws themselves are extremely defective in many articles, which I take to be one ill effect of our best possession, liberty. Some years ago, the ambassador of a great prince was arrested,[4] and outrages committed on his person in our streets, without any possibility of redress from Westminster-Hall, or the prerogative of the sovereign; and the legislature was forced to provide a remedy against the like evils in times to come. A commissioner of the stamped paper[5] was lately discovered to have notoriously cheated the public of great sums for many years, by counterfeiting the stamps, which the law had made capital. But the aggravation of his crime, proved to be the cause that saved his life; and that additional heightening circumstance of betraying his trust, was found to be a legal defence. I am assured, that the notorious cheat of the brewers at Portsmouth,[6] detected about two months ago in Parliament, cannot by any law now in force, be punished in any degree, equal to the guilt and infamy of it. Nay, what is almost incredible, had Guiscard survived his detestable attempt upon Mr. Harley's person, all the inflaming circumstances of the fact, would not have sufficed, in the opinion of many lawyers, to have punished him with death;[7] and the public must have lain under this dilemma, either to condemn him by a law, _ex post facto_ (which would have been of dangerous consequence, and form an ignominious precedent) or undergo the mortification to see the greatest villain upon earth escape unpunished, to the infinite triumph and delight of Popery and faction. But even this is not to be wondered at, when we consider, that of all the insolences offered to the Qu[een] since the Act of Indemnity, (at least, that ever came to my ears) I can hardly instance above two or three, which, by the letter of the law could amount to high treason.

From these defects in our laws, and the want of some discretionary power safely lodged, to exert upon emergencies; as well as from the great acquirements of able men, to elude the penalties of those laws they break, it is no wonder, the injuries done to the public, are so seldom redressed. But besides, no individual suffers, by any wrong he does to the commonwealth, in proportion to the advantage he gains by doing it. There are seven or eight millions who contribute to the loss, while the whole gain is sunk among a few. The damage suffered by the public, is not so immediately or heavily felt by particular persons, and the zeal of prosecution is apt to drop and be lost among numbers.

But imagine a set of politicians for many years at the head of affairs, the game visibly their own, and by consequence acting with great security: may not these be sometimes tempted to forget their caution, by length of time, by excess of avarice and ambition, by the insolence or violence of their nature, or perhaps by a mere contempt for their adversaries? May not such motives as these, put them often upon actions directly against the law, such as no evasions can be found for, and which will lay them fully open to the vengeance of a prevailing interest, whenever they are out of power? It is answered in the affirmative. And here we cannot refuse the late m[inistr]y their due praises, who foreseeing a storm, provided for their own safety, by two admirable expedients, by which, with great prudence, they have escaped the punishments due to pernicious counsels and corrupt management. The first, was to procure, under pretences hardly specious, a general Act of Indemnity,[8] which cuts off all impeachments. The second, was yet more refined: suppose, for instance, a counsel is to be pursued, which is necessary to carry on the dangerous designs of a prevailing party, to preserve them in power, to gratify the immeasurable appetites of a few leaders, civil and military, though by hazarding the ruin of the whole nation: this counsel, desperate in itself, unprecedented in the nature of it, they procure a majority to form into an address,[9] which makes it look like the sense of the nation. Under that shelter they carry on their work, and lie secure against after-reckonings.

I must be so free to tell my meaning in this, that among other things, I understand it of the address made to the Qu[een] about three years ago, to desire that her M[ajest]y would not consent to a peace, without the entire restitution of Sp[ai]n.[10] A proceeding, which to people abroad, must look like the highest strain of temerity, folly, and gasconade. But we at home, who allow the promoters of that advice to be no fools, can easily comprehend the depth and mystery of it. They were assured by this means, to pin down the war upon us, consequently to increase their own power and wealth, and multiply difficulties on the Qu[een] and kingdom, till they had fixed their party too firmly to be shaken, whenever they should find themselves disposed to reverse their address, and give us leave to wish for a peace.

If any man entertains a more favourable opinion of this monstrous step in politics; I would ask him what we must do, in case we find it impossible to recover Spain? Those among the Whigs who believe a God, will confess, that the events of war lie in His hands; and the rest of them, who acknowledge no such power, will allow, that Fortune hath too great a share in the good or ill success of military actions, to let a wise man reason upon them, as if they were entirely in his power. If Providence shall think fit to refuse success to our arms, with how ill a grace, with what shame and confusion, shall we be obliged to recant that precipitate address, unless the world will be so charitable to consider, that parliaments among us, differ as much as princes, and that by the fatal conjunction of many unhappy circumstances, it is very possible for our island to be represented sometimes by those who have the least pretensions to it. So little truth or justice there is in what some pretend to advance, that the actions of former senates, ought always to be treated with respect by the latter; that those assemblies are all equally venerable, and no one to be preferred before another: by which argument, the Parliament that began the rebellion against King Charles the First, voted his trial, and appointed his murderers, ought to be remembered with respect.

But to return from this digression; it is very plain, that considering the defectiveness of our laws, the variety of cases, the weakness of the prerogative, the power or the cunning of ill-designing men, it is possible, that many great abuses may be visibly committed, which cannot be legally punished: especially if we add to this, that some enquiries might probably involve those, whom upon other accounts, it is not thought convenient to disturb. Therefore, it is very false reasoning, especially in the management of public affairs, to argue that men are innocent, because the law hath not pronounced them guilty.

I am apt to think, it was to supply such defects as these, that satire was first introduced into the world; whereby those whom neither religion, nor natural virtue, nor fear of punishment, were able to keep within the bounds of their duty, might be withheld by the shame of having their crimes exposed to open view in the strongest colours, and themselves rendered odious to mankind. Perhaps all this may be little regarded by such hardened and abandoned natures as I have to deal with; but, next to taming or binding a savage animal, the best service you can do the neighbourhood, is to give them warning, either to arm themselves, or not come in its way.

Could I have hoped for any signs of remorse from the leaders of that faction, I should very gladly have changed my style, and forgot or passed by their million of enormities. But they are every day more fond of discovering their impotent zeal and malice: witness their conduct in the city about a fortnight ago,[11] which had no other end imaginable, beside that of perplexing our affairs, and endeavouring to make things desperate, that themselves may be thought necessary. While they continue in this frantic mood, I shall not forbear to treat them as they deserve; that is to say, as the inveterate, irreconcilable enemies to our country and its constitution.

[Footnote 1: No. 38 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "It is a shameful thing in a state which is governed by laws, that there should be any departure from them." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: This paper called forth a reply which was printed in two forms, one with the title: "A Few Words upon the Examiner's Scandalous Peace" (London, 1711), and the other, "Reflections upon the Examiner's Scandalous Peace" (London: A. Baldwin, 1711). A careful comparison of these pamphlets shows that the text corresponds page for page. The author commences: "Though 'The Examiner' be certainly the most trifling, scurrilous, and malicious writer that ever appeared, yet, in spite of all his gross untruths and absurd notions, by assuming to himself an air of authority, and speaking in the person of one employed by the ministry, he sometimes gives a kind of weight to what he says, so as to make impressions of terror upon honest minds." Then, after quoting several of the Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and the Addresses in reply, he observes: "The 'Examiner' is resolved to continue so faithful to his principal quality of speaking untruths, that he has industriously taken care not to recite truly the very Address he makes it his business to rail at;" and he points out that it was not the "restitution of Spain," but the restoration of the Spanish Monarchy to the House of Austria that was desired. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: "How near to sin they can go without actually sinning." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The Muscovite Ambassador (A.A. Matveof) was arrested and taken out of his coach by violence. A Bill was brought into the House of Commons "for preserving the Privileges of Ambassadors," February 7th, 1708/9, and obtained the Royal Assent, April 21st, 1709 (7 Ann. c. 12).

Matveof, it seemed, was arrested by his creditors, who feared that, since he had taken leave at Court, they would never be paid. Peter the Great was angry at the indignity thus offered his representative, and was only unwillingly pacified by the above Act. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Richard Dyet, J.P., "is discovered to have counterfeited stamped paper, in which he was a commissioner; and, with his accomplices, has cheated the Queen of £100,000" (Swift's "Journal to Stella," October 3rd, 1710, vol. ii., p. 20 of present edition). He was tried for felony at the Old Bailey, January 13th, 1710/1, and was acquitted, because his offence was only a breach of trust. He was, however, re-committed for trial on the charge of misdemeanour. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: "Some very considerable abuses," the chancellor of the exchequer informed the House of Commons on January 3rd, 1710/1, "have been discovered in the victualling." It appears that the seamen in the navy were allowed seven pints of beer per day, during the time they were on board. In port, of course the sailors were permitted to go ashore, but the allowance was still charged to the ship's account; and became a perquisite of the purser. It often happened that the contractors did not send in the full amount of beer paid for, but gave the purser money in exchange for the difference. The scandal was brought to the attention of the House as stated, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the abuse. On February 15th the House considered the committee's report, and it was found that Thomas Ridge, Member for Portsmouth, contracted to supply 5,513 tons of beer, and had delivered only 3,213. Several other brewers of Portsmouth had been guilty of the same fraud. Mr. Ridge was expelled the House the same day. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: See Swift's "Journal," quoted in notes to No. 33, _ante_, p. 214. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: This Act was passed in 1708. See No. 18, _ante_, and note, p. 105. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Address from both Houses, presented to the Queen, February 18th, 1709/10, prayed that she "would be pleased to order the Duke of Marlborough's immediate departure for Holland, where his presence will be equally necessary, to assist at the negotiations of peace, and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: The Address of both Houses to the Queen, presented on December 23rd, 1707, urged: "That nothing could restore a just balance of power in Europe, but the reducing the whole Spanish monarchy to the obedience of the House of Austria; and ... That no peace can be honourable or safe, for your Majesty or your allies, if Spain, the West Indies, or any part of the Spanish Monarchy, be suffered to remain under the power of the House of Bourbon." The resolutions as carried in the House of Lords on December 19th did not include the words "or any part of the Spanish Monarchy"; these words were introduced on a motion by Somers who was in the chair when the Select Committee met on December 20th to embody the resolutions in proper form. The altered resolution was quickly hurried through the Lords and agreed to by the Commons, and the Address as amended was presented to the Queen. By this bold move Somers prolonged the war indefinitely. See also note at the commencement of this number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: This refers to the election of the governor and directors of the Bank of England on April 12th and 13th. All the Whig candidates were returned, and Sir H. Furnese was on the same day chosen Alderman for Bridge Within. See also No. 41, _post_, p. 267, [T.S.]]

NUMB. 40.[1]

FROM THURSDAY APRIL 26, TO THURSDAY MAY 3, 1711.

_Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?_[2]

There have been certain topics of reproach, liberally bestowed for some years past, by the Whigs and Tories, upon each other. We charge the former with a design of destroying the established Church, and introducing fanaticism and freethinking in its stead. We accuse them as enemies to monarchy; as endeavouring to undermine the present form of government, and to build a commonwealth, or some new scheme of their own, upon its ruins. On the other side, their clamours against us, may be summed up in those three formidable words, Popery, Arbitrary Power, and the Pretender. Our accusations against them we endeavour to make good by certain overt acts; such as their perpetually abusing the whole body of the clergy; their declared contempt for the very order of priesthood; their aversion for episcopacy; the public encouragement and patronage they gave to Tindall, Toland, and other atheistical writers; their appearing as professed advocates, retained by the Dissenters, excusing their separation, and laying the guilt of it to the obstinacy of the Church; their frequent endeavours to repeal the test, and their setting up the indulgence to scrupulous consciences, as a point of greater importance than the established worship. The regard they bear to our monarchy, hath appeared by their open ridiculing the martyrdom of King Charles the First, in their Calves-head Clubs,[3] their common discourses and their pamphlets: their denying the unnatural war raised against that prince, to have been a rebellion; their justifying his murder in the allowed papers of the week; their industry in publishing and spreading seditious and republican tracts; such as Ludlow's "Memoirs," Sidney "Of Government,"[4] and many others; their endless lopping of the prerogative, and mincing into nothing her M[ajest]y's titles to the crown.

What proofs they bring for our endeavouring to introduce Popery, arbitrary power, and the Pretender, I cannot readily tell, and would be glad to hear; however, those important words having by dexterous management, been found of mighty service to their cause, though applied with little colour, either of reason or justice; I have been considering whether they may not be adapted to more proper objects.

As to Popery, which is the first of these, to deal plainly, I can hardly think there is any set of men among us, except the professors of it, who have any direct intention to introduce it among us: but the question is, whether the principles and practices of us, or the Whigs, be most likely to make way for it? It is allowed, on all hands, that among the methods concerted at Rome, for bringing over England into the bosom of the Catholic Church; one of the chief was, to send Jesuits and other emissaries, in lay habits, who personating tradesmen and mechanics, should mix with the people, and under the pretence of a further and purer reformation, endeavour to divide us into as many sects as possible, which would either put us under the necessity of returning to our old errors, to preserve peace at home; or by our divisions make way for some powerful neighbour, with the assistance of the Pope's permission, and a consecrated banner, to convert and enslave us at once. If this hath been reckoned good politics (and it was the best the Jesuit schools could invent) I appeal to any man, whether the Whigs, for many years past, have not been employed in the very same work? They professed on all occasions, that they knew no reason why any one system of speculative opinions (as they termed the doctrines of the Church) should be established by law more than another; or why employments should be confined to the religion of the magistrate, and that called the Church established. The grand maxim they laid down was, That no man, for the sake of a few notions and ceremonies, under the names of doctrine and discipline, should be denied the liberty of serving his country: as if places would go a begging, unless Brownists, Familists, Sweet-singers, Quakers, Anabaptists and Muggletonians, would take them off our hands.

I have been sometimes imagining this scheme brought to perfection, and how diverting it would look to see half a dozen Sweet-singers on the bench in their ermines, and two or three Quakers with their white staves at court. I can only say, this project is the very counterpart of the late King James's design, which he took up as the best method for introducing his own religion, under the pretext of an universal liberty of conscience, and that no difference in religion, should make any in his favour. Accordingly, to save appearances, he dealt some employments among Dissenters of most denominations; and what he did was, no doubt, in pursuance of the best advice he could get at home or abroad; and the Church thought it the most dangerous step he could take for her destruction. It is true, King James admitted Papists among the rest, which the Whigs would not; but this is sufficiently made up by a material circumstance, wherein they seem to have much outdone that prince, and to have carried their liberty of conscience to a higher point, having granted it to all the classes of Freethinkers, which the nice conscience of a Popish prince would not give him leave to do; and was therein mightily overseen; because it is agreed by the learned, that there is but a very narrow step from atheism, to the other extreme, superstition. So that upon the whole, whether the Whigs had any real design of bringing in Popery or no, it is very plain, that they took the most effectual step towards it; and if the Jesuits had been their immediate directors, they could not have taught them better, nor have found apter scholars.

Their second accusation is, That we encourage and maintain arbitrary power in princes, and promote enslaving doctrines among the people. This they go about to prove by instances, producing the particular opinions of certain divines in King Charles the Second's reign; a decree of Oxford University,[5] and some few writers since the Revolution. What they mean, is the principle of passive obedience and non-resistance, which those who affirm, did, I believe, never intend should include arbitrary power. However, though I am sensible that it is not reckoned prudent in a dispute, to make any concessions without the last necessity; yet I do agree, that in my own private opinion, some writers did carry that tenet of passive obedience to a height, which seemed hardly consistent with the liberties of a country, whose laws can be neither enacted nor repealed, without the consent of the whole people. I mean not those who affirm it due in general, as it certainly is to the Legislature, but such as fix it entirely in the prince's person. This last has, I believe, been done by a very few; but when the Whigs quote authors to prove it upon us, they bring in all who mention it as a duty in general, without applying it to princes, abstracted from their senate.

By thus freely declaring my own sentiments of passive obedience, it will at least appear, that I do not write for a party: neither do I, upon any occasion, pretend to speak their sentiments, but my own. The majority of the two Houses, and the present ministry (if those be a party) seem to me in all their proceedings, to pursue the real interest of Church and State: and if I shall happen to differ from particular persons among them, in a single notion about government, I suppose they will not, upon that account, explode me and my paper. However, as an answer once for all, to the tedious scurrilities of those idle people, who affirm, I am hired and directed what to write;[6] I must here inform them, that their censure is an effect of their principles: The present m[inistr]y are under no necessity of employing prostitute pens; they have no dark designs to promote, by advancing heterodox opinions.

But (to return) suppose two or three private divines, under King Charles the Second, did a little overstrain the doctrine of passive obedience to princes; some allowance might be given to the memory of that unnatural rebellion against his father, and the dismal consequences of resistance. It is plain, by the proceedings of the Churchmen before and at the Revolution, that this doctrine was never designed to introduce arbitrary power.[7]

I look upon the Whigs and Dissenters to be exactly of the same political faith; let us, therefore, see what share each of them had in advancing arbitrary power. It is manifest, that the fanatics made Cromwell the most absolute tyrant in Christendom:[8] The Rump abolished the House of Lords; the army abolished the Rump; and by this army of _saints_, he governed. The Dissenters took liberty of conscience and employments from the late King James, as an acknowledgment of his dispensing power; which makes a King of England as absolute as the Turk. The Whigs, under the late king, perpetually declared for keeping up a standing army, in times of peace; which has in all ages been the first and great step to the ruin of liberty. They were, besides, discovering every day their inclinations to destroy the rights of the Church; and declared their opinion, in all companies, against the bishops sitting in the House of Peers: which was exactly copying after their predecessors of 'Forty-one. I need not say their real intentions were to make the king absolute, but whatever be the designs of innovating men, they usually end in a tyranny: as we may see by an hundred examples in Greece, and in the later commonwealths of Italy, mentioned by Machiavel.