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.]]