_Ea autem est gloria, laus recte factorum, magnorumque in rempublicam
meritorum: Quae cum optimi cujusque, tum etiam multitudinis testimonio
comprobatur._[3]
I am thinking, what a mighty advantage it is to be entertained as a
writer to a ruined cause. I remember a fanatic preacher, who was inclined
to come into the Church, and take orders; but upon mature thoughts was
diverted from that design, when he considered that the collections of the
_godly_ were a much heartier and readier penny, than he could get by
wrangling for tithes. He certainly had reason, and the two cases are
parallel. If you write in defence of a fallen party, you are maintained
by contribution as a necessary person, you have little more to do than to
carp and cavil at those who hold the pen on the other side; you are sure
to be celebrated and caressed by all your party, to a man. You may affirm
and deny what you please, without truth or probability, since it is but
loss of time to contradict you. Besides, commiseration is often on your
side, and you have a pretence to be thought honest and disinterested, for
adhering to friends in distress. After which, if your party ever happens
to turn up again, you have a strong fund of merit towards making your
fortune. Then, you never fail to be well furnished with materials, every
one bringing in his _quota_, and falsehood being naturally more plentiful
than truth. Not to mention the wonderful delight of libelling men in
power, and hugging yourself in a corner with mighty satisfaction for what
you have done.
It is quite otherwise with us, who engage as volunteers in the service of
a flourishing ministry, in full credit with the Q[uee]n, and beloved by
the people, because they have no sinister ends or dangerous designs, but
pursue with steadiness and resolution the true interests of both. Upon
which account they little want or desire our assistance; and we may write
till the world is weary of reading, without having our pretences allowed
either to a place or a pension: besides, we are refused the common
benefit of the party, to have our works cried up of course; the readers
of our own side being as ungentle and hard to please, as if we writ
against them; and our papers never make their way in the world, but
barely in proportion to their merit. The design of _their_ labours who
write on the conquered side, is likewise of greater importance than ours;
they are like cordials for dying men, which must be repeated; whereas
ours are, in the Scripture phrase, but "meat for babes": at least, all I
can pretend, is to undeceive the ignorant and those at distance; but
their task is to keep up the sinking spirits of a whole party.
After such reflections, I cannot be angry with those gentlemen for
perpetually writing against me: it furnishes them largely with topics,
and is besides, their proper business: neither is it affectation, or
altogether scorn, that I do not reply. But as things are, we both act
suitable to our several provinces: mine is, by laying open some
corruptions in the late management, to set those who are ignorant, right
in their opinions of persons and things: it is theirs to cover with
fig-leaves all the faults of their friends, as well as they can: When I
have produced my facts, and offered my arguments, I have nothing farther
to advance; it is their office to deny and disprove; and then let the
world decide. If I were as they, my chief endeavour should certainly be
to batter down the "Examiner," therefore I cannot but approve their
design, Besides, they have indeed another reason for barking incessantly
at this paper: they have in their prints openly taxed a most ingenious
person as author of it;[4] one who is in great and very deserved
reputation with the world, both on account of his poetical works, and his
talents for public business. They were wise enough to consider, what
a sanction it would give their performances, to fall under the
animadversion of such a pen; and have therefore used all the forms of
provocation commonly practised by little obscure pedants, who are fond of
distinguishing themselves by the fame of an adversary. So nice a taste
have these judicious critics, in pretending to discover an author by his
style and manner of thinking: not to mention the justice and candour of
exhausting all the stale topics of scurrility in reviling a paper, and
then flinging at a venture the whole load upon one who is entirely
innocent; and whose greatest fault, perhaps, is too much gentleness
toward a party, from whose leaders he has received quite contrary
treatment.
The concern I have for the ease and reputation of so deserving a
gentleman, hath at length forced me, much against my interest and
inclination, to let these angry people know who is _not_ the author of
the "Examiner."[5] For, I observed, the opinion began to spread, and I
chose rather to sacrifice the honour I received by it, than let
injudicious people entitle him to a performance, that perhaps he might
have reason to be ashamed of: still faithfully promising, never to
disturb those worthy advocates; but suffer them in quiet to roar on at
the "Examiner," if they or their party find any ease in it; as physicians
say there is, to people in torment, such as men in the gout, or women in
labour.
However, I must acknowledge myself indebted to them for one hint, which I
shall now pursue, though in a different manner. Since the fall of the
late ministry, I have seen many papers filled with their encomiums; I
conceive, in imitation of those who write the lives of famous men, where,
after their deaths, immediately follow their characters. When I saw the
poor virtues thus dealt at random, I thought the disposers had flung
their names, like valentines into a hat, to be drawn as fortune pleased,
by the j[u]nto and their friends. There, Crassus[6] drew liberty and
gratitude; Fulvia,[7] humility and gentleness; Clodius,[8] piety and
justice; Gracchus,[9] loyalty to his prince; Cinna,[10] love of his
country and constitution; and so of the rest. Or, to quit this allegory,
I have often seen of late, the whole set of discarded statesmen,
celebrated by their judicious hirelings, for those very qualities which
their admirers owned they chiefly wanted. Did these heroes put off and
lock up their virtues when they came into employment, and have they now
resumed them since their dismissions? If they wore them, I am sure it was
_under_ their greatness, and without ever once convincing the world of
their visibility or influence.
But why should not the present ministry find a pen to praise them as well
as the last? This is what I shall now undertake, and it may be more
impartial in me, from whom they have deserved so little. I have, _without
being called_, served them half a year in quality of champion,[11] and by
help of the Qu[een] and a majority of nine in ten of the kingdom, have
been able to protect them against a routed cabal of hated politicians,
with a dozen of scribblers at their head; yet so far have they been from
rewarding me suitable to my deserts, that to this day they never so much
as sent to the printer to enquire who I was; though I have known a time
and a ministry, where a person of half my merit and consideration would
have had fifty promises, and in the mean time a pension settled on him,
whereof the _first quarter_ should be honestly paid. Therefore my
resentments shall so far prevail, that in praising those who are now at
the head of affairs, I shall at the same time take notice of their
defects.
Was any man more eminent in his profession than the present l[or]d
k[eepe]r,[12] or more distinguished by his eloquence and great abilities
in the House of Commons? And will not his enemies allow him to be fully
equal to the great station he now adorns? But then it must be granted,
that he is wholly ignorant in the speculative as well as practical part
of polygamy: he knows not how to metamorphose a sober man into a
lunatic:[13] he is no freethinker in religion, nor has courage to be
patron of an atheistical book,[14] while he is guardian of the Qu[een]'s
conscience. Though after all, to speak my private opinion, I cannot think
these such mighty objections to his character, as some would pretend.
The person who now presides at the council,[15] is descended from a great
and honourable father, not from the dregs of the people; he was at the
head of the treasury for some years, and rather chose to enrich his
prince than himself. In the height of favour and credit, he sacrificed
the greatest employment in the kingdom to his conscience and honour: he
has been always firm in his loyalty and religion, zealous for supporting
the prerogative of the crown, and preserving the liberties of the people.
But then, his best friends must own that he is neither Deist nor
Socinian: he has never conversed with T[o]l[a]nd, to open and enlarge his
thoughts, and dispel the prejudices of education; nor was he ever able to
arrive at that perfection of gallantry, to ruin and imprison the husband,
in order to keep the wife without disturbance.[16]
The present l[or]d st[ewa]rd[17] has been always distinguished for his
wit and knowledge; is of consummate wisdom and experience in affairs; has
continued constant to the true interest of the nation, which he espoused
from the beginning, and is every way qualified to support the dignity of
his office: but in point of oratory must give place to his
predecessor.[18]
The D. of Sh[rewsbur]y[19] was highly instrumental in bringing about the
Revolution, in which service he freely exposed his life and fortune. He
has ever been the favourite of the nation, being possessed of all the
amiable qualities that can accomplish a great man; but in the
agreeableness and fragrancy of his person, and the profoundness of his
politics, must be allowed to fall very short of ----.[20]
Mr. H[arley] had the honour of being chosen Speaker successively to three
Parliaments;[21] he was the first of late years, that ventured to restore
the forgotten custom of treating his PRINCE with duty and respect. Easy
and disengaged in private conversation, with such a weight of affairs
upon his shoulders;[22] of great learning, and as great a favourer and
protector of it; intrepid by nature, as well as by the consciousness of
his own integrity, and a despiser of money; pursuing the true interest of
his PRINCE and country against all obstacles. Sagacious to view into the
remotest consequences of things, by which all difficulties fly before
him. A firm friend, and a placable enemy, sacrificing his justest
resentments, not only to public good, but to common intercession and
acknowledgment. Yet with all these virtues it must be granted, there is
some mixture of human infirmity: His greatest admirers must confess his
skill at cards and dice to be very low and superficial: in horse-racing
he is utterly ignorant:[23] then, to save a few millions to the public,
he never regards how many worthy citizens he hinders from making up their
plum. And surely there is one thing never to be forgiven him, that he
delights to have his table filled with black coats, whom he uses as if
they were gentlemen.
My Lord D[artmouth][24] is a man of letters, full of good sense, good
nature and honour, of strict virtue and regularity in life; but labours
under one great defect, that he treats his clerks with more civility and
good manners, than others, in his station, have done the Qu[een].[25]
Omitting some others, I will close this character of the present
ministry, with that of Mr. S[t. John],[26] who from his youth applying
those admirable talents of nature and improvements of art to public
business, grew eminent in court and Parliament at an age when the
generality of mankind is employed in trifles and folly. It is to be
lamented, that he has not yet procured himself a busy, important
countenance, nor learned that profound part of wisdom, to be difficult of
access. Besides, he has clearly mistaken the true use of books, which he
has thumbed and spoiled with reading, when he ought to have multiplied
them on his shelves:[27] not like a great man of my acquaintance, who
knew a book by the back, better than a friend by the face, though he
had never conversed with the former, and often with the latter.
[Footnote 1: No. 26 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Writing to Stella, under date February 3rd, 1710/1, Swift
says: "They are plaguy Whigs, especially the sister Armstrong [Mrs.
Armstrong, Lady Lucy's sister], the most insupportable of all women
pretending to wit, without any taste. She was running down the last
'Examiner,' the prettiest I had read, with a character of the present
ministry" (vol. ii., p. 112 of present edition.) [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: "For that is true glory and praise for noble deeds that
deserve well of the state, when they not only win the approval of the
best men but also that of the multitude." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: It was reported that the author of "The Examiner" was
Matthew Prior, late under-secretary of state. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: To Stella Swift wrote in his "Journal," under date February
9th:--"The account you give of that weekly paper [_i.e._ 'The Examiner,']
agrees with us here. Mr. Prior was like to be insulted in the street for
being supposed the author of it, but one of the last papers cleared him.
Nobody knows who it is, but those few in the secret. I suppose the
ministry and the printer" (vol. ii., p. 116 of present edition).]
[Footnote 6: The Duke of Marlborough. See "The Examiner," No. 28,
p. 177. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: Earl of Wharton, notorious for his profligacy. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: This may refer to Godolphin. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: Probably Earl Cowper. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: This applies to the paper. "The Examiner" had existed for
six months, but Swift had written it for only three months, at this time.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: Sir Simon Harcourt (1661?-1727) who was lord chancellor,
1713-14. He was made lord keeper, October 19th, 1710, after Cowper
resigned the chancellorship. In the Sacheverell trial Harcourt was the
doctor's counsel. He was created Baron Harcourt in 1711. See also note on
p. 213 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: This refers to the case of Richard, fifth Viscount Wenman,
against whom Cowper, in 1709, granted a commission of lunacy. He was
under the care of Francis Wroughton, Esq., whose sister, Susannah, he had
married in the early part of 1709. His brother-in-law sued him for
payment of his sister's portion, and asked that trustees be appointed for
his estate. Cowper decided against Wenman, and the commission granted.
The case is referred to in No. 40 of "The Tatler" (July 12th, 1709).
Campbell says ("Chancellors," iv. 330) the commission "very properly
issued." Luttrell in his "Diary" (July 30th, 1709) notes that "the jury
yesterday brought it in that he [Wenman] was no idiot" (vi. 470). Lord
Wenman died November 28th, 1729. See also Nos. 18 and 23, _ante_, and
note, p. 101. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Tindal dedicated to Cowper "a pious work which was not
altogether orthodox" (Campbell's "Chancellors," iv. 330). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: Laurence Hyde (1641-1711), created Earl of Rochester in
1682, was appointed lord president of the council, September 21st, 1710,
succeeding Somers. See also No. 41, _post._ Swift unkindly sneers at
Somers's low birth. See note on Somers on p. 29 of vol. i. of present
edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: Mrs. Manley, in her "Memoirs of Europe towards the Close of
the Eighth Century," has something very characteristic to say on this
subject. Speaking of Somers under the name Cicero, she says: "Cicero,
Madam, is by birth a plebeian" ... "Cicero himself, an oracle of wisdom,
was whirled about by his lusts, at the pleasure of a fantastic worn-out
mistress. He prostituted his inimitable sense, reason, and good nature,
either to revenge, or reward, as her caprice directed; and what made this
commerce more detestable, this mistress of his was a wife!" ... "that she
was the wife of an injured friend! a friend who passionately loved her,
and had tenderly obliged him, rather heightened his desires" (i., 200;
ii., 54, 83). The mistress is said to be Mrs. Blunt, daughter of Sir R.
Fanshaw. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 17: John Sheffield (1647-1721), third Earl of Mulgrave, was
created Marquess of Normanby, 1694, and Duke of Buckingham and Normanby
in 1702/3. He succeeded the Duke of Devonshire as lord steward of the
household on September 21st, 1710. He was the author of a poetical "Essay
on Poetry," and an interesting prose "Account of the Revolution." As
patron to Dryden he received the dedication of that poet's "Aurengzebe."
Pope edited his collected works in 1722-23. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 18: William Cavendish (1673?-1729) succeeded his father as
second Duke of Devonshire in 1707. He was lord steward, 1707-10, and
lord president, 1716-17.]
[Footnote 19: Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, is styled by Swift
elsewhere (Letter to Archbishop King, October 20th, 1713; Scott's
edition, xvi. 71), "the finest gentleman we have" (see note on p. 377 of
vol. v. of present edition). He was lord chamberlain, 1710-14. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 20: Henry de Grey (1664?-1740) succeeded his father as eleventh
Earl of Kent in 1702. He was created Marquess of Kent, 1706, and Duke
of Kent, 1710. He held the office of lord chamberlain of the household
from 1704 to 1710. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 21: Harley was first chosen Speaker, February 10th, 1700/1, for
a Parliament that lasted nine months; then again, December 30th, 1701,
for a Parliament that lasted only six months; and finally October 20th or
21st, 1702. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 22: "The Queen dismissed the Earl of Godolphin from being lord
treasurer, and put the treasury in commission: Lord Powlet was the first
in form, but Mr. Harley was the person with whom the secret was lodged"
(Burnet, "Own Times," ii. 552-3). He was appointed August 10th, 1710.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 23: Godolphin was very devoted to the turf. See Swift's poem
entitled, "The Virtues of Sid Hamet's Rod" (Aldine edition, iii. 10).
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 24: William Legge (1672-1750) succeeded his father as second
Lord Dartmouth in 1691, and was created Earl of Dartmouth in 1711. On
June 14th, 1710, he was appointed secretary of state in place of the Earl
of Sunderland. See note on p. 229 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 25: The Earl of Sunderland was rude and overbearing in his
manner towards the Queen. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 26: Henry St. John (1678-1751) was created Viscount Bolingbroke
in 1712. He was secretary of war, 1704-1708, and secretary of state,
1710-14. In 1715 he was attainted and left England to enter the service
of the Pretender. See also Swift's "An Enquiry," etc. (vol. v., p. 430 of
present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 27: "Those more early acquaintance of yours, your books, which
a friend of ours once wittily said, 'Your L--p had mistaken the true use
of, by thumbing and spoiling them with reading'" ("A Letter to the
Rt. Hon. the Ld. Viscount B--ke," 1714-15). [T.S.]]