Part 9

[Footnote 5: "The Observator" was founded by John Tutchin. The first number was issued April 1st, 1702, and it appeared, with some intervals, until July, 1712, though Tutchin himself died in 1707. For his partisanship for Monmouth poor Tutchin came under the anger of Judge Jeffreys, who sentenced him to several floggings. Pope's couplet in the "Dunciad" has immortalized him:

"Earless on high stood unabashed De Foe, And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: This was the Rev. Charles Leslie, whose periodical, "The Rehearsal," was avowedly Jacobite. The paper appeared from August 5th, 1704, until March 26th, 1709. In 1708-9 all the numbers were republished in four volumes folio, with the title: "A View of the Times, their Principles and Practices: in the First [Second, etc.] Volume of the Rehearsals," and under the pseudonym "Philalethes." Later he engaged in a controversy with Bishop Hoadly. See also note on p. 354, vol. v.

Of Swift's use of the term "Nonjuror," "The Medley" (June 18th, 1711, No. 38) made the following remarks: "If he speaks of him with relation to his party, there can be nothing so inconsistent as a Whig and a Nonjuror: and if he talks of him merely as an author, all the authors in the world are Nonjurors, but the ingenious divine who writ 'The Tale of a Tub' ... for he is the first man who introduced those figures of rhetoric we call swearing and cursing in print." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "The Observator" for November 8th, 1710 (vol. ix., No. 85), was filled with _more_ remarks on the fourteenth "Examiner." Presumably the issue for November 4th, which is not accessible, commenced the attack. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A humorous specimen of this kind of an "Answer" was given by Swift in No. 23 of "The Examiner," _post._ [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin, who commenced their political career as Tories, and only became Whigs through the necessity of identifying their own principles with that of the party which supported their power. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: On December 6th, 1705, the House of Lords passed the following resolution: "That the Church of England ... is now, by God's blessing, under the happy reign of her Majesty, in a most safe and flourishing condition; and that whoever goes about to suggest and insinuate, that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's administration, is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom" ("Jls. of House of Lords," xviii. 43). On December 8th the House of Commons, by a majority of 212 against 162, agreed to this resolution. In her speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 5th, 1710, the Queen said: "The suppressing immorality ... is what I have always earnestly recommended; ... but, this being an evil complained of in all times, it is very injurious to take a pretence from thence, to insinuate that the Church is in any danger from my administration" ("Jls. Of House of Lords," xix. 145). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: James, Duke of Cornwall (1688-1766), known as the Chevalier de St. George. At one time the belief was current that the wife of James II. did not give birth to a child, and the "young Pretender" was supposed to be a son of one Mary Grey (see note on p. 409 of vol. v. of present edition of Swift's works). See also: "State-Amusements, Serious and Hypocritical ... Birth of the Pretended Prince of Wales," 1711; "Seasonable Queries relating to the Birth and Birthright of a Certain Person," 1714; and other pamphlets. In the Act for the Succession to the Crown (6 Ann. c. 41), he is styled, "the Pretended Prince of Wales." History afterwards called him the "Old Pretender" to distinguish him from Charles Edward, the "bonnie Prince Charlie," the Young Pretender. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Swift kept his word. See "An Enquiry into ... the Queen's Last Ministry," 1715 (Swift's Works, vol. v., p. 458 _sq._), and his "History of the Four Last Years of the Queen," 1758. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: By Bishop Burnet in his "Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: The reference here is to the Bill of Rights (1 William and Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), where it is said: "And thereunto the said Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever." In the recital in the Act of Settlement (12 and 13 W. III. c. 2) the words "for ever" are omitted. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: "The Observator" of November 11th and 15th (vol. ix., Nos. 86 and 87). In No. 86 "The Examiner" is given "a spiritual shove," and, quoting his statement that a political liar "ought to have but a short memory" to meet occasions "of differing from himself, and swearing to both sides of a contradiction," adds, "the 'Examiner' has this essential qualification of a political liar." It is amusing to find in the same issue "The Observator" calling Jezebel a Tory, and Elijah and Naboth, Whigs! [T.S.]]

NUMB. 17.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 16, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, 1710.

_Qui sunt boni cives? Qui belli, qui domi de patriâ bene merentes, nisi qui patriae beneficia meminerunt?_[2]

I will employ this present paper upon a subject, which of late hath very much affected me, which I have considered with a good deal of application, and made several enquiries about, among those persons who I thought were best able to inform me; and if I deliver my sentiments with some freedom, I hope it will be forgiven, while I accompany it with that tenderness which so nice a point requires.

I said in a former paper (Numb. 14) that one specious objection to the late removals at court, was the fear of giving uneasiness to a general, who has been long successful abroad: and accordingly, the common clamour of tongues and pens for some months past, has run against the baseness, the inconstancy and ingratitude of the whole kingdom to the Duke of M[arlborough], in return of the most eminent services that ever were performed by a subject to his country; not to be equalled in history. And then to be sure some bitter stroke of detraction against Alexander and Caesar, who never did us the least injury. Besides, the people that read Plutarch come upon us with parallels drawn from the Greeks and Romans, who ungratefully dealt with I know not how many of their most deserving generals: while the profounder politicians, have seen pamphlets, where Tacitus and Machiavel have been quoted to shew the danger of too resplendent a merit. Should a stranger hear these furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, without knowing the particulars, he would be apt to enquire where was his tomb, or whether he were allowed Christian burial? not doubting but we had put him to some ignominious death. Or, has he been tried for his life, and very narrowly escaped? has he been accused of high crimes and misdemeanours? has the prince seized on his estate, and left him to starve? has he been hooted at as he passed the streets, by an ungrateful mob? have neither honours, offices nor grants, been conferred on him or his family? have not he and they been barbarously stripped of them all? have not he and his forces been ill paid abroad? and does not the prince by a scanty, limited commission, hinder him from pursuing his own methods in the conduct of the war? has he no power at all of disposing commissions as he pleases? is he not severely used by the ministry or Parliament, who yearly call him to a strict account? has the senate ever thanked him for good success, and have they not always publicly censured him for the least miscarriage? Will the accusers of the nation join issue upon any of these particulars, or tell us in what point, our damnable sin of ingratitude lies? Why, it is plain and clear; for while he is commanding abroad, the Queen dissolves her Parliament, and changes her ministry at home: in which universal calamity, no less than two persons[3] allied by marriage to the general, have lost their places. Whence came this wonderful sympathy between the civil and military powers? Will the troops in Flanders refuse to fight, unless they can have their own lord keeper, their own lord president of the council, their own chief Governor of Ireland, and their own Parliament? In a kingdom where the people are free, how came they to be so fond of having their councils under the influence of their army, or those that lead it? who in all well instituted states, had no commerce with the civil power, further than to receive their orders, and obey them without reserve.

When a general is not so popular, either in his army or at home, as one might expect from a long course of success; it may perhaps be ascribed to his wisdom, or perhaps to his complexion. The possession of some one quality, or a defect in some other, will extremely damp the people's favour, as well as the love of the soldiers. Besides, this is not an age to produce favourites of the people, while we live under a Queen who engrosses all our love, and all our veneration; and where, the only way for a great general or minister, to acquire any degree of subordinate affection from the public, must be by all marks of the most entire submission and respect, to her sacred person and commands;[4] otherwise, no pretence of great services, either in the field or the cabinet, will be able to screen them from universal hatred.

But the late ministry was closely joined to the general, by friendship, interest, alliance, inclination and opinion, which cannot be affirmed of the present; and the ingratitude of the nation, lies in the people's joining as one man, to wish, that such a ministry should be changed. Is it not at the same time notorious to the whole kingdom, that nothing but a tender regard to the general, was able to preserve that ministry so long, till neither God nor man could suffer their continuance? Yet in the highest ferment of things, we heard few or no reflections upon this great commander, but all seemed unanimous in wishing he might still be at the head of the confederate forces; only at the same time, in case he were resolved to resign, they chose rather to turn their thoughts somewhere else, than throw up all in despair. And this I cannot but add, in defence of the people, with regard to the person we are speaking of, that in the high station he has been for many years past, his real defects (as nothing human is without them) have in a detracting age been very sparingly mentioned, either in libels or conversation, and all his successes very freely and universally applauded.

There is an active and a passive ingratitude; applying both to this occasion, we may say, the first is, when a prince or people returns good services with cruelty or ill usage: the other is, when good services are not at all, or very meanly rewarded. We have already spoke of the former; let us therefore in the second place, examine how the services of our general have been rewarded; and whether upon that article, either prince or people have been guilty of ingratitude?

Those are the most valuable rewards, which are given to us from the certain knowledge of the donor, that they _fit our temper best:_ I shall therefore say nothing of the title of Duke, or the Garter, which the Queen bestowed [on] the general in the beginning of her reign; but I shall come to more substantial instances, and mention nothing which has not been given in the face of the world.[5] The lands of Woodstock, may, I believe, be reckoned worth 40,000_l_. On the building of Blenheim Castle 200,000_l_. have been already expended, though it be not yet near finished. The grant of 5,000_l. per ann._ on the post-office, is richly worth 100,000_l_. His principality in Germany may be computed at 30,000_l_. Pictures, jewels, and other gifts from foreign princes, 60,000_l_. The grant at the Pall-Mall, the rangership, &c. for want of more certain knowledge, may be called 10,000,_l_. His own, and his duchess's employments at five years value, reckoning only the known and avowed salaries, are very low rated at 100,000_l_. Here is a good deal above half a million of money, and I dare say, those who are loudest with the clamour of ingratitude, will readily own, that all this is but a trifle in comparison of what is untold.[6]

The reason of my stating this account is only to convince the world, that we are not quite so ungrateful either as the Greeks or the Romans. And in order to adjust this matter with all fairness, I shall confine myself to the latter, who were much the more generous of the two. A victorious general of Rome in the height of that empire, having entirely subdued his enemy, was rewarded with the larger triumph; and perhaps a statue in the Forum, a bull for a sacrifice, an embroidered garment to appear in: a crown of laurel, a monumental trophy with inscriptions; sometimes five hundred or a thousand copper coins were struck on occasion of the victory, which doing honour to the general, we will place to his account; and lastly, sometimes, though not very frequently, a triumphal arch. These are all the rewards that I can call to mind, which a victorious general received after his return from the most glorious expedition, conquered some great kingdom, brought the king himself, his family and nobles to adorn the triumph in chains, and made the kingdom either a Roman province, or at best a poor depending state, in humble alliance to that empire. Now of all these rewards, I find but two which were of real profit to the general; the laurel crown, made and sent him at the charge of the public, and the embroidered garment; but I cannot find whether this last were paid for by the senate or the general: however, we will take the more favourable opinion, and in all the rest, admit the whole expense, as if it were ready money in the general's pocket. Now according to these computations on both sides, we will draw up two fair accounts, the one of Roman gratitude, and the other of British ingratitude, and set them together in balance.

A BILL OF ROMAN GRATITUDE.

l. s. d. Imprimis for frankincense and earthen pots to burn it in 4 10 0 A bull for sacrifice 8 0 0 An embroidered garment 50 0 0 A crown of laurel 0 0 2 A statue 100 0 0 A trophy 80 0 0 A thousand copper medals value half pence a piece 2 1 8 A triumphal arch 500 0 0 A triumphal car, valued as a modern coach 100 0 0 Casual charges at the triumph 150 0 0 ------------- Sum total 994 11 10

A BILL OF BRITISH INGRATITUDE.

l. s. d. Imprimis Woodstock 40,000 0 0 Blenheim 200,000 0 0 Post-office grant 100,000 0 0 Mildenheim 30,000 0 0 Pictures, jewels, &c. 60,000 0 0 Pall-Mall grant, &c. 10,000 0 0 Employments 100,000 0 0 ----------------- Sum total[7] 540,000 0 0

This is an account of the visible profits on both sides; and if the Roman general had any private perquisites, they may be easily discounted, and by more probable computations, and differ yet more upon the balance; if we consider, that all the gold and silver for safeguards and contributions, also all valuable prizes taken in the war were openly exposed in the triumph, and then lodged in the Capitol for the public service.

So that upon the whole, we are not yet quite so bad at _worst_, as the Romans were at _best_. And I doubt, those who raise this hideous cry of ingratitude, may be mightily mistaken in the consequence they propose from such complaints. I remember a saying of Seneca, _Multos ingratos invenimus, plures facimus;_ "We find many ungrateful persons in the world, but we _make_ more," by setting too high a rate upon our pretensions, and under-valuing the rewards we receive. When unreasonable bills are brought in, they ought to be taxed, or cut off in the middle. Where there have been long accounts between two persons, I have known one of them perpetually making large demands and pressing for payments, who when the accounts were cast up on both sides, was found to be creditor for some hundreds. I am thinking if a proclamation were issued out for every man to send in his _bill of merits_, and the lowest price he set them at, what a pretty sum it would amount to, and how many such islands as this must be sold to pay them. I form my judgment from the practice of those who sometimes happen to pay themselves, and I dare affirm, would not be so unjust to take a farthing more than they think is due to their deserts. I will instance only in one article. A lady of my acquaintance,[8] appropriated twenty-six pounds a year out of her allowance, for certain uses, which her woman received, and was to pay to the lady or her order, as it was called for. But after eight years, it appeared upon the strictest calculation, that the woman had paid but four pound a year, and sunk two-and-twenty for her own pocket. It is but supposing instead of twenty-six pound, twenty-six thousand, and by that you may judge what the pretensions of _modern merit_ are, where it happens to be its own paymaster.

[Footnote 1: No. 16 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: "Who are the good citizens? Who are they who--whether at war or at home--deserve well of their country, but those who bear in mind the benefits she has already conferred upon them?" [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: The Earl of Sunderland and Lord Godolphin. Sunderland was succeeded by Dartmouth, in June, as Secretary of State, and Godolphin returned his staff of treasurer in August, the office being placed in commission. Sunderland and Godolphin were both related to Marlborough by marriage. The former married Anne, and the son of the latter Henrietta, daughters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: See "Memoirs relating to that Change" (Swift's Works, vol. v., pp. 367-8). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: The Queen's Message, proposing to grant to the Duke of Marlborough the Manor of Woodstock and Hundred of Wootton, was read January 17th, 1704/5. A Bill carrying this proposal into effect was introduced January 25th, and passed February 3rd. Blenheim House, erected at the Queen's expense, was settled to go with the dukedom by a Bill introduced in the House of Lords, which passed all its stages in the Commons December 20th, 1706. The pension of £5,000 per annum upon the revenue of the Post Office, granted by the Queen for her lifetime in December, 1702--at a time when the Commons expressed their "trouble" that they could not comply--was made perpetual by a Bill introduced January 14th, 1706/7, passed January 18th, Royal Assent given January 28th (see "Journals of House of Commons," xiv. and xv.). [T.S.] ]

[Footnote 6: A broadside, printed in 1712, entitled, "The D----e and D--- -s of M----h's Loss; being an Estimate of their former Yearly Income," reckons the duke's emoluments at £54,825 per annum, and those of the duchess at £7,500. In the second edition the following paragraph is added:

"The following sums have been rec'd since the year 1701:

"Receiv'd on Accompt of Bread and Bread-waggons £63,319 3 7 Receiv'd 10,000,_l_. by Annual Contingencies 100,000 0 0 Receiv'd by 2 and 1/2 _per cent_, from the payment of Troops 460,062 6 7-3/4 ----------------- 623,381 10 2-3/4" -----------------]

[Footnote 7: In the tenth number of "The Medley" (December 4th, 1710) occurs the following: "'The Examiner,' having it in his thoughts to publish the falsest, as well as the most impudent paper that ever was printed, writ a previous discourse about lying, as a necessary introduction to what was to follow. The first paper was the precept, and the second was the example. By the falsest paper that ever was printed, I mean the 'Examiner' Numb. 17, in which he pretends to give an account of what the Duke of Marlborough has got by his services." The writer in the "Medley," admitting even the correctness of the "Examiner's" sum of £540,000, sets off against this the value of the several battles won by the Duke, and "twenty seven towns taken, which being reckoned at 300,000_l_. a town (the price that Dunkirk was sold at before it was fortified) amounts in all, throwing in the battles and the fortifications, to 8,100,000_l_." The balance in favour of the Duke, and presumably in justification of the gifts made him, gave a net result of £7,560,000. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: The Duchess of Marlborough, who admitted that the comparison was intended for herself, explained the matter thus: "At the Queen's accession to the government, she ... desired me to take out of the privy-purse 2,000_l_. a year, in order to some purchase for my advantage ... I constantly declined it; until the time, that, notwithstanding the uncommon regard I had shown to Her Majesty's interest and honour in the execution of my trusts, she was pleased to dismiss me from her service ... By the advice of my friends, I sent the Queen one of her own letters, in which she had pressed me to take the 2,00_l_. a year; and I wrote at the same time to ask Her Majesty whether she would allow me to charge in the privy-purse accounts, which I was to send her, that yearly sum from the time of the offer, amounting to 18,000_l_. Her Majesty was pleased to answer, that I might charge it. This therefore I did" ("An Account of the Conduct of ... Duchess of Marlborough," 1742, pp. 293-5). The Duchess of Somerset and Mrs. Masham superseded the Duchess of Marlborough in January, 1710/1. [T.S.]]

NUMB. 18.[1]

FROM THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23, TO THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30, 1710.

_Quas res luxuries in flagitus,... avaritia in rapinis, superbia in contumeliis efficere potuisset; eas omnes sese hoc uno praetore per triennium pertulisse aiebant_.[2]