---_medioque ut limite curras,
Icare, ait, moneo: ne si demissior ibis,
Unda gravet pennas, si celsior, ignis adurat._[2]
It must be avowed, that for some years past, there have been few things
more wanted in England, than such a paper as this ought to be; and such
as I will endeavour to make it, as long as it shall be found of any use,
without entering into the violences of either party. Considering the many
grievous misrepresentations of persons and things, it is highly
requisite, at this juncture, that the people throughout the kingdom,
should, if possible, be set right in their opinions by some impartial
hand, which has never been yet attempted: those who have hitherto
undertaken it, being upon every account the least qualified of all
human-kind for such a work.
We live here under a limited monarchy, and under the doctrine and
discipline of an excellent Church: We are unhappily divided into two
parties, both which pretend a mighty zeal for our religion and
government, only they disagree about the means.[3] The evils we must
fence against are, on one side, fanaticism and infidelity in religion;
and anarchy, under the name of a commonwealth, in government: on the
other side, popery, slavery, and the Pretender from France. Now to inform
and direct us in our sentiments, upon these weighty points; here are on
one side two stupid, illiterate scribblers, both of them fanatics by
profession; I mean the "Review"[4] and "Observator."[5] On the other side
we have an open Nonjuror,[6] whose character and person, as well as good
learning and sense, discovered upon other subjects, do indeed deserve
respect and esteem; but his "Rehearsal," and the rest of his political
papers, are yet more pernicious than those of the former two. If the
generality of the people know not how to talk or think, till they have
read their lesson in the papers of the week, what a misfortune is it that
their duty should be conveyed to them through such vehicles as those? For
let some gentlemen think what they please, I cannot but suspect, that the
two worthies I first mentioned, have in a degree done mischief among us;
the mock authoritative manner of the one, and the insipid mirth of the
other, however insupportable to reasonable ears, being of a level with
great numbers among the lowest part of mankind. Neither was the author of
the "Rehearsal," while he continued that paper, less infectious to many
persons of better figure, who perhaps were as well qualified, and much
less prejudiced, to judge for themselves.
It was this reason, that moved me to take the matter out of those rough,
as well as those dirty hands, to let the remote and uninstructed part of
the nation see, that they have been misled on both sides, by mad,
ridiculous extremes, at a wide distance on each side from the truth;
while the right path is so broad and plain, as to be easily kept, if they
were once put into it.
Further, I had lately entered on a resolution to take very little notice
of other papers, unless it were such, where the malice and falsehood, had
so great a mixture of wit and spirit, as would make them dangerous; which
in the present circle of scribbles, from twelvepence to a halfpenny, I
could easily foresee would not very frequently occur. But here again, I
am forced to dispense with my resolution, though it be only to tell my
reader, what measures I am like to take on such occasions for the future.
I was told that the paper called "The Observator," was twice filled last
week with remarks upon a late "Examiner."[7] These I read with the first
opportunity, and to speak in the news-writers' phrase, they gave me
occasion for many speculations. I observed with singular pleasure, the
nature of those things, which the owners of them, usually call _answers_;
and with what dexterity this matchless author had fallen into the whole
art and cant of them. To transcribe here and there three or four detached
lines of least weight in a discourse, and by a foolish comment mistake
every syllable of the meaning, is what I have known many of a superior
class, to this formidable adversary, entitle an "Answer."[8] This is what
he has exactly done in about thrice as many words as my whole discourse;
which is so mighty an advantage over me, that I shall by no means engage
in so unequal a combat; but as far as I can judge of my own temper,
entirely dismiss him for the future; heartily wishing he had a match
exactly of his own size to meddle with, who should only have the odds of
truth and honesty; which as I take it, would be an effectual way to
silence him for ever. Upon this occasion, I cannot forbear a short story
of a fanatic farmer who lived in my neighbourhood, and was so great a
disputant in religion, that the servants in all the families thereabouts,
reported, how he had confuted the bishop and all his clergy. I had then a
footman who was fond of reading the Bible, and I borrowed a comment for
him, which he studied so close, that in a month or two I thought him a
match for the farmer. They disputed at several houses, with a ring of
servants and other people always about them, where Ned explained his
texts so full and clear, to the capacity of his audience, and showed the
insignificancy of his adversary's cant, to the meanest understanding,
that he got the whole country of his side, and the farmer was cured of
his itch of disputation for ever after.
The worst of it is, that this sort of outrageous party-writers I have
above spoke of, are like a couple of make-bates, who inflame small
quarrels by a thousand stories, and by keeping friends at a distance
hinder them from coming to a good understanding, as they certainly would,
if they were suffered to meet and debate between themselves. For let any
one examine a reasonable honest man of either side, upon those opinions
in religion and government, which both parties daily buffet each other
about, he shall hardly find one material point in difference between
them. I would be glad to ask a question about two great men[9] of the
late ministry, how they came to be Whigs? and by what figure of speech,
half a dozen others, lately put into great employments, can be called
Tories? I doubt, whoever would suit the definition to the persons, must
make it directly contrary to what we understood it at the time of the
Revolution.
In order to remove these misapprehensions among us, I believe it will be
necessary upon occasion, to detect the malice and falsehood of some
popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week,
and draw an hundred absurd consequences from them.
For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence
in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger,
when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago: and the Queen
herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10]
Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has,
since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then
have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the
two Houses. The Queen's words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the
Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or
thinks that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor. But
that the Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes
that ever reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a
truth, as a man must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to
doubt. The wisest prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his
affairs, and the present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the
craft of ill designing men: One or two ministers, most in his confidence,
may _at first_ have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by
avarice, by love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to
gratify their passions or interests, from _one set of men_ than another,
till they are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take
"seven spirits more wicked than themselves." This is a very possible
case; and will not "the last state of such men be worse than the first"?
that is to say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in
danger by such proceedings as these? And shall a faithful subject, who
foresees and trembles at the consequences, be called _disaffected_,
because he delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly
may, that the danger is not owing to his administration? Or, shall the
prince himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs
into other hands, with the universal applause of his people? As to the
vote against those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it
likewise referred to danger from or under the Queen's administration,
(for I neither have it by me, nor can suddenly have recourse to it;) but
if it were otherwise, I know not how it can refer to any dangers but what
were past, or at that time present; or how it could affect the future,
unless the senators were all _inspired_, or at least that majority which
voted it. Neither do I see any crime further than ill manners, to differ
in opinion from a majority of either or both Houses; and that ill
manners, I must confess I have been often guilty of for some years past,
though I hope I never shall again.
Another topic of great use to these weekly inflamers, is the young
Pretender[11] in France, to whom their whole party is in a high measure
indebted for all their greatness; and whenever it lies in their power,
they may perhaps return their acknowledgments, as out of their zeal for
frequent revolutions, they were ready to do to his supposed father:
which is a piece of secret history, that I hope will one day see the
light; and I am sure it shall, if ever I am master of it, without
regarding whose ears may tingle.[12] But at present, the word _Pretender_
is a term of art in their possession: A secretary of state cannot desire
leave to resign, but the Pretender is at bottom: the Queen cannot
dissolve a Parliament, but it is a plot to dethrone herself, and bring in
the Pretender. Half a score stock-jobbers are playing the knave in
Exchange-Alley, and there goes the Pretender with a sponge. One would be
apt to think they bawl out the Pretender so often, to take off the
terror; or tell so many lies about him, to slacken our caution, that when
he is really coming, _by their connivance_, we may not believe them; as
the boy served the shepherds about the coming of the wolf. Or perhaps
they scare us with the Pretender, because they think he may be like some
diseases, that come with a fright. Do they not believe that the Queen's
present ministry love her Majesty, at least as well as _some others_
loved the Church? And why is it not as great mark of disaffection now to
say the Queen is in danger, as it was some months ago to affirm the same
of the Church? Suppose it be a false opinion, that the Queen's right is
hereditary and indefeasible; yet how is it possible that those who hold
and believe that doctrine, can be in the Pretender's interest? His title
is weakened by every argument that strengthens hers. It is as plain as
the words of an Act of Parliament can make it, that her present Majesty
is heir to the survivor of the late King and Queen her sister. Is not
that an hereditary right? What need we explain it any further? I have
known an Article of Faith expounded in much looser and more general
terms, and that by an author whose opinions are very much followed by a
certain party.[13] Suppose we go further, and examine the word
_indefeasible_, with which some writers of late have made themselves so
merry: I confess it is hard to conceive, how any law which the supreme
power makes, may not by the same power be repealed: so that I shall not
determine, whether the Queen's right be indefeasible or no. But this I
will maintain, that whoever affirms it so, is not guilty of a crime. For
in that settlement of the crown after the Revolution, where her present
Majesty is named in remainder,[14] there are (as near as I can remember)
these remarkable words, "to which we bind ourselves and our posterity for
ever." Lawyers may explain this, or call them words of form, as they
please: and reasoners may argue that such an obligation is against the
very nature of government; but a plain reader, who takes the words in
their natural meaning, may be excused, in thinking a right so confirmed,
is _indefeasible_; and if there be an absurdity in such an opinion, he is
not to answer for it.
_P.S._ When this paper was going to the press, the printer brought me two
more _Observators_,[15] wholly taken up in my _Examiner_ upon lying,
which I was at the pains to read; and they are just such an answer, as
the two others I have mentioned. This is all I have to say on that
matter.
[Footnote 1: No. 15 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," viii. 203-5.
"My boy, take care
To wing your course along the middle air:
If low, the surges wet your flagging plumes;
If high, the sun the melting wax consumes."
S. CROXALL.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: See the pamphlets: "The Thoughts of an Honest Tory," 1710
[by Bp. Hoadly]; "Faults on both Sides ... by way of answer to
'The Thoughts of an Honest Tory,'" 1710 [by a Mr. Clements]; and
"Faults in the Fault-Finder: or, a Specimen of Errors in ... 'Faults
on Both Sides,'" 1710; etc., etc. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: "The Review" was edited by Daniel Defoe. He commenced
it on February 19th, 1703/4, as "A Weekly Review of the Affairs of
France"; but about this time it had lost much of its early spring and
verve. It was discontinued after June 11th, 1713. Gay thought,
speaking of "The Review," that Defoe was "a lively instance of
those wits, who, as an ingenious author says, will endure but one
skimming" ("Present State of Wit"). [T.S.]]
[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.]]