_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.