[Greek: Dialexamenoi tina haesuchae, to men sumpan epi te tae dunas eia
kai kata ton echthron sunomosan.]
_Summissa quaedam voce collocuti sunt; quorum summa erat de dominatione
sibi confirmanda, ac inimicis delendis conjuratio._[2]
Not many days ago I observed a knot of discontented gentlemen cursing the
Tories to Hell for their uncharitableness, in affirming, that if the late
ministry had continued to this time, we should have had neither Church
nor Monarchy left. They are usually so candid as to call that the opinion
of a party, which they hear in a coffeehouse, or over a bottle from some
warm young people, whom it is odds but they have provoked to say more
than they believed, by some positions as absurd and ridiculous of their
own. And so it proved in this very instance: for, asking one of these
gentlemen, what it was that provoked those he had been disputing with, to
advance such a paradox? he assured me in a very calm manner, it was
nothing in the world, but that himself and some others of the company had
made it appear, that the design of the present P[arliamen]t and
m[inistr]y, was to bring in Popery, arbitrary power, and the Pretender:
which I take to be an opinion fifty times more improbable, as well as
more uncharitable, than what is charged upon the Whigs: because I defy
our adversaries to produce one single reason for suspecting such designs
in the persons now at the helm; whereas I can upon demand produce twenty
to shew, that some late men had strong views towards a commonwealth, and
the alteration of the Church.
It is natural indeed, when a storm is over, that has only untiled our
houses, and blown down some of our chimneys, to consider what further
mischiefs might have ensued, if it had lasted longer. However, in the
present case, I am not of the opinion above-mentioned; I believe the
Church and State might have lasted somewhat longer, though the late
enemies to both had done their worst: I can hardly conceive how things
would have been so soon ripe for a new revolution. I am convinced, that
if they had offered to make such large and sudden strides, it must have
come to blows, and according to the computation we have now reason to
think a right one, I can partly guess what would have been the issue.
Besides, we are sure the Q[uee]n would have interposed before they came
to extremities, and as little as they regarded the regal authority, would
have been a check in their career.
But instead of this question; What would have been the consequence if the
late ministry had continued? I will propose another, which will be more
useful for us to consider; and that is, What we may reasonably expect
they will do, if ever they come into power again? This, we know, is the
design and endeavour of all those scribbles that daily fly about in their
favour; of all the false, insolent, and scandalous libels against the
present administration; and of all those engines set at work to sink the
actions, and blow up the public credit. As for those who shew their
inclinations by writing, there is one consideration, which I wonder does
not sometimes affect them: for how can they forbear having a good opinion
of the gentleness and innocence of those, who permit them to employ their
pens as they do? It puts me in mind of an insolent pragmatical orator
somewhere in Greece, who railing with great freedom at the chief men in
the state, was answered by one who had been very instrumental in
recovering the liberty of the city, that "he thanked the gods they had
now arrived to the condition he always wished them, when every man in
that city might securely say what they pleased." I wish these gentlemen
would however compare the liberty they take with what their masters used
to give: how many messengers and warrants would have gone out against any
that durst have opened their lips, or drawn their pens, against the
persons and proceedings of their juntoes and cabals? How would their
weekly writers have been calling out for prosecution and punishment? We
remember when a poor nickname,[3] borrowed from an old play of Ben
Jonson, and mentioned in a sermon without any particular application, was
made use of as a motive to spur an impeachment. But after all, it must be
confessed, they had reasons to be thus severe, which their successors
have not: _their_ faults would never endure the light; and to have
exposed them sooner, would have raised the kingdom against the actors,
before the time.
But, to come to the subject I have now undertaken; which is to _examine_,
what the consequences would be, upon supposition that the Whigs were now
restored to their power. I already imagine the present free P[arliamen]t
dissolved, and another of a different epithet met, by the force of money
and management. I read immediately a dozen or two stinging votes against
the proceedings of the late ministry. The bill now to be repealed would
then be re-enacted, and the birthright of an Englishman reduced again to
the value of twelvepence.[4] But to give the reader a stronger
imagination of such a scene; let me represent the designs of some men,
lately endeavoured and projected, in the form of a paper of votes.
"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for repealing the Sacramental Test.
"A petition of T[in]d[a]l, C[o]ll[in]s, Cl[en]d[o]n, C[o]w[ar]d,
T[o]l[a]nd,[5] in behalf of themselves and many hundreds of their
disciples, some of which are Members of this honourable H[ouse], desiring
that leave be given to bring in a Bill for qualifying Atheists, Deists
and Socinians, to serve their Country in any employment.
"Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the prayer
of the said petition, and that Mr. L[ec]h[me]re[6] do prepare and bring
it in.
"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for removing the education of youth
out of the hands of the Clergy.
"Another, to forbid the Clergy preaching certain duties in religion,
especially obedience to Princes.
"Another, to take away the jurisdiction of Bishops.
"Another, for constituting a General for life; with instructions to the
committee, that care may be taken to make the war last as long as the
life of the said General.
"A Bill of Attainder against C[harles] D[uke] of Sh[rewsbury], J[ohn]
D[uke] of B[uckingham], L[aurence] E[arl] of R[ochester], Sir S[imon]
H[arcourt], k[nigh]t, R[obert] H[arley], H[enry] S[t. John],[7] Esqs;
A[bigail] M[asham], spinster,[8] and others, for high treason against the
j[u]nto.
"Resolved, That S[ara]h D[uchess] of M[arlborough] hath been a most
dutiful, just, and grateful servant to Her M[ajest]y.
"Resolved, That to advise the dissolution of a W[hi]g Parliament, or the
removal of a W[hi]g Ministry, was in order to bring in Popery and the
Pretender; and that the said advice was high treason.
"Resolved, That by the original compact the Government of this Realm is
by a junto, and a K[ing] or Qu[een]; but the Administration solely in the
junto.
"Ordered, That a Bill be brought in for further limiting the Prerogative.
"Ordered, That it be a standing order of this H[ouse] that the merit of
elections be not determined by the number of voices, or right of
electors, but by weight; and that one Whig shall weigh down ten Tories.
"A motion being made, and the question being put, that when a Whig is
detected of manifest bribery, and his competitor being a Tory, has ten to
one a majority, there shall be a new election; it passed in the negative.
"Resolved, That for a K[ing] or Q[ueen] of this Realm, to read or examine
a paper brought them to be signed by a j[un]to Minister, is arbitrary and
illegal, and a violation of the liberties of the people."
* * * * *
These and the like reformations would, in all probability, be the first
fruits of the Whigs' resurrection; and what structures such able artists
might in a short time build upon such foundations, I leave others to
conjecture. All hopes of a peace cut off; the nation industriously
involved in further debts to a degree, that none would dare undertake
the management of affairs, but those whose interest lay in ruining the
constitution. I do not see how the wisest prince under such necessities
could be able to extricate himself. Then, as to the Church, the bishops
would by degrees be dismissed, first from the Parliament, next from their
revenues, and at last from their office; and the clergy, instead of their
idle claim of independency on the state, would be forced to depend for
their daily bread on every individual. But what system of future
government was designed; whether it were already digested, or would have
been left for time and incidents to mature, I shall not now _Examine_.
Only upon this occasion I cannot help reflecting on a fact, which it is
probable, the reader knows as well as myself. There was a picture drawn
some time ago, representing five persons as large as the life, sitting at
council together like a Pentarchy. A void space was left for a sixth,
which was to have been the Qu[een], to whom they intended that honour:
but her M[ajest]y having since fallen under their displeasure, they have
made a shift to crowd in two better friends in her place, which makes it
a complete Heptarchy.[9] This piece is now in the country, reserved till
better times, and hangs in a hall, among the pictures of Cromwell,
Bradshaw, Ireton, and some other predecessors.
I must now desire leave to say something to a gentleman, who has been
pleased to publish a discourse against a paper of mine relating to the
convocation.[10] He promises to set me right, without any undue
reflections or undecent language. I suppose he means in comparison with
others, who pretend to answer the "Examiner": So far he is right; but if
he thinks he has behaved himself as becomes a candid antagonist, I
believe he is mistaken. He says, in his title-page, my "representations
are unfair, and my reflections unjust." And his conclusion is yet more
severe,[11] where he "doubts I and my friends are enraged against the
Dutch, because they preserved us from Popery and arbitrary power at the
Revolution; and since that time, from being overrun by the exorbitant
power of France, and becoming a prey to the Pretender." Because this
author seems in general to write with an honest meaning, I would
seriously put to him the question, whether he thinks I and my friends
are for Popery, arbitrary power, France and the Pretender? I omit other
instances of smaller moment, which however do not suit in my opinion with
due reflection or decent language. The fact relating to the convocation,
came from a good hand, and I do not find this author differs from me
in any material circumstance about it. My reflections were no more than
what might be obvious to any other gentleman, who had heard of their late
proceedings. If the notion be right which this author gives us of a Lower
House of Convocation, it is a very melancholy one,[12] and to me seems
utterly inconsistent with that of a body of men whom he owns to have a
negative; and therefore, since a great majority of the clergy differs
from him in several points he advances, I shall rather choose to be of
their opinion than his. I fancy, when the whole synod met in one house,
as this writer affirms, they were upon a better foot with their bishops,
and therefore whether this treatment so extremely _de haut en bas_, since
their exclusion, be suitable to primitive custom or primitive humility
towards brethren, is not my business to enquire. One may allow the divine
or apostolic right of Episcopacy, and their great superiority over
presbyters, and yet dispute the methods of exercising the latter, which
being of human institution, are subject to encroachments and usurpations.
I know, every clergyman in a diocese has a good deal of dependence upon
his bishop, and owes him canonical obedience: but I was apt to think,
when the whole representative of the clergy met in a synod, they were
considered in another light, at least since they are allowed to have a
negative. If I am mistaken, I desire to be excused, as talking out of my
trade: only there is one thing wherein I entirely differ from this
author. Since in the disputes about privileges, one side must recede;
where so very few privileges remain, it is a hundred to one odds, the
encroachments are not on the inferior clergy's side; and no man can blame
them for insisting on the small number that is left. There is one fact
wherein I must take occasion to set this author right; that the person
who first moved the QUEEN to remit the first-fruits and tenths to the
clergy, was an eminent instrument in the late turn of affairs;[13] and as
I am told, has lately prevailed to have the same favour granted for the
clergy of Ireland.[14]
But I must beg leave to inform the author, that this paper is not
intended for the management of controversy, which would be of very little
import to most readers, and only misspend time, that I would gladly
employ to better purposes. For where it is a man's business to entertain
a whole room-full, it is unmannerly to apply himself to a particular
person, and turn his back upon the rest of the company.
[Footnote 1: No. 25 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: "They met and whispered together; and their entire aim was
the confirmation of their own power and an oath for the destruction of
their enemies." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: The following is the passage in Sacheverell's sermon in
which the nickname is used: "What dependence can there be upon a man of
no principles? ... In what moving and lively colours does the holy
Psalmist paint out the crafty insidiousness of such wily Volpones!"
Godolphin, in spite of Somers's protest against such action, brought
about the preacher's impeachment, for this description of himself, as he
took it. See also vol. v., p. 219 and note of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: An attempt was made to repeal the Act for Naturalizing
Foreign Protestants (7 Ann. c. 5), which received the royal assent, March
23rd, 170-8/9, by a Bill which passed the House of Commons, January 31st,
171-0/1, but was thrown out by the Lords, February 5th. Persons
naturalized under this Act had to pay a fee of one shilling on taking the
prescribed oath of allegiance. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: See Nos. 20 and 23, _ante_, and notes pp. 118 and 141.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: Nicholas Lechmere (1675-1727), member for Appleby (1708-10),
Cockermouth (1710-17), and Tewkesbury (1717-21), was one of the
managers in the impeachment of Sacheverell. He, with Addison,
Hoadly, and Minshull corrected Steele's draft of "The Crisis" for
publication. He was created Lord Lechmere in 1721, after he had held
the offices of solicitor-general (1714-18) and attorney-general (1718-20).
See also vol. v., p. 326 note, of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: "R.H. H.S. Esqs;" in both editions. In Faulkner's collected
reprint the second name was altered to William Shippen, and Scott
follows Faulkner; but there can be no doubt that the initials were
intended for St. John, since the persons named were those who succeeded
to the places of the dismissed ministers. Shippen was a prominent
member of the October Club, but he did not hold any public office.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: In No. 19 of "The Medley," the writer calls "The Examiner"
to account for writing Abigail Masham, _spinster_. She was then Mrs.
Masham. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: See No. 23, _ante_, and notes p. 138. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: "The Case of the Present Convocation Consider'd; In Answer
to the Examiner's Unfair Representation of it, and Unjust Reflections
upon it." 1711, See note p. 129. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: "They [the Dutch] have a right to put us in mind, that
without their assistance in 1688, Popery and arbitrary power must, without
a miracle, have over-run us; and that even since that time, we must have
sunk under the exorbitant power of France, and our Church and Queen
must have been a prey to a Pretender imposed upon us by this exorbitant
power, if that tottering commonwealth ... had not heartily joined with
us.... But I forget my self, and I doubt, allege those very things in
their favour, for which the 'Examiner' and his friends, are the most
enraged against them." ("The Case," etc., p. 24). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: They [_i.e._ the bishops] say that the prolocutor is "the
referendary of the lower house, _i.e._ one who is to carry messages and
admonitions from the upper house to the lower, and to represent their
sense, and to carry their petitions to the upper: That originally the
synod met all in one house in this, as it still does in the other
province." ("The Case," etc., p. 14). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Bishop Burnet had made a similar proposal to Queen Mary
several years before, "so that she was fully resolved, if ever she had
lived to see peace and settlement, ... to have applied it to the
augmentation of small benefices." He had also laid it very fully before
the Princess of Denmark in the reign of King William ("Hist. Own Times,"
ii. 370).
"This very project ... was first set on foot by a great minister in the
last reign. It was then far advanced, and would have been finished, had
he stayed but a few months longer in the ministry" ("The Case," etc., p.
23). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Swift's own Memorial to Harley, petitioning the Queen to
surrender the first-fruits in Ireland is given in Scott's edition (vol.
xv., pp. 381-4). It was on behalf of these first-fruits that Swift came
to England, in 1707, on a commission from Archbishop King. Then he made
his application as a Whig to a Whig government, but failing with Somers
and Halifax both in this and in his hopes for advancement, he joined
Harley's fortunes. [T.S.]]