_Laus summa in fortunae bonis, non extulisse se in potestate, non fuisse
insolentem in pecuniâ, non se praetulisse aliis propter abundantiam
fortunae._[2]
I am conscious to myself that I write this paper with no other intention
but that of doing good: I never received injury from the late ministry,
nor advantage from the present, further than in common with every good
subject. There were among the former one or two, who must be allowed to
have possessed very valuable qualities; but proceeding by a system of
politics, which our constitution could not suffer; and discovering a
contempt of all religion, but especially of that which hath been so
happily established among us ever since the Reformation, they seem to
have been justly suspected of no very good inclinations to either.
It is possible, that a man may speculatively prefer the constitution of
another country, or an Utopia of his own, before that of the nation where
he is born and lives; yet from considering the dangers of innovation, the
corruptions of mankind, and the frequent impossibility of reducing ideas
to practice, he may join heartily in preserving the present order of
things, and be a true friend to the government already settled. So in
religion; a man may perhaps have little or none of it at heart; yet if he
conceals his opinions, if he endeavours to make no proselytes, advances
no impious tenets in writing or discourse: if, according to the common
atheistical notion, he believes religion to be only a contrivance of
politicians for keeping the vulgar in awe, and that the present model is
better adjusted than any other to so useful an end: though the condition
of such a man as to his own future state be very deplorable; yet
Providence, which often works good out of evil, can make even such a
man an instrument for contributing toward the preservation of the Church.
On the other side, I take a state to be truly in danger, both as to its
religion and government, when a set of ambitious politicians, bred up in
a hatred to the constitution, and a contempt for all religion, are forced
upon exerting these qualities in order to keep or increase their power,
by widening their bottom, and taking in (like Mahomet) some principles
from every party, that is any way discontented at the present faith and
settlement; which was manifestly our case. Upon this occasion I remember
to have asked some considerable Whigs, whether it did not bring a
disreputation upon their body, to have the whole herd of Presbyterians,
Independents, Atheists, Anabaptists, Deists, Quakers and Socinians,
openly and universally listed under their banners? They answered, that
all this was absolutely necessary, in order to make a balance against
the Tories, and all little enough: for indeed, it was as much as they
could possibly do, though assisted with the absolute power of disposing
every employment; while the bulk of English gentry kept firm to their old
principles in Church and State.
But notwithstanding whatever I have hitherto said, I am informed, several
among the Whigs continue still so refractory, that they will hardly allow
the heads of their party to have entertained any designs of ruining the
constitution, or that they would have endeavoured it, if they had
continued in power, I beg their pardon if I have discovered a secret; but
who could imagine they ever intended it should be one, after those overt
acts with which they thought fit to conclude their farce? But perhaps
they _now_ find it convenient to deny vigorously, that the question may
remain; "Why was the old ministry changed?" which they urge on without
ceasing, as if no occasion in the least had been given, but that all were
owing to the insinuations of crafty men, practising upon the weakness of
an easy pr[inc]e. I shall therefore offer among a hundred, one reason for
this change, which I think would justify any monarch that ever reigned,
for the like proceeding.
It is notorious enough, how highly princes have been blamed in the
histories of all countries, particularly of our own; upon the account of
minions; who have been ever justly odious to the people, for their
insolence and avarice, and engrossing the favour of their masters.
Whoever has been the least conversant in the English story cannot but
have heard of Gaveston[3], the Spencers[4], and the Earl of Oxford[5];
who by the excess and abuse of their power, cost the princes they served,
or rather governed, their crowns and lives. However, in the case of
minions, it must at least be acknowledged that the prince is pleased and
happy, though his subjects be aggrieved; and he has the plea of
friendship to excuse him, which is a disposition of generous minds.
Besides, a wise minion, though he be haughty to others, is humble and
insinuating to his master, and cultivates his favour by obedience and
respect. But _our_ misfortune has been a great deal worse: we have
suffered for some years under the oppression, the avarice and insolence
of those, for whom the Qu[ee]n had neither esteem nor friendship; who
rather seemed to snatch their own dues, than receive the favour of their
sovereign, and were so far from returning respect, that they forgot
common good manners. They imposed on their prince, by urging the
necessity of affairs of their own creating: they first raised
difficulties, and then offered them as arguments to keep themselves in
power. They united themselves against nature and principle, to a party
they had always abhorred, and which was now content to come in upon any
terms, leaving them and their creatures in full possession of the court.
Then they urged the formidable strength of that party, and the dangers
which must follow by disobliging of it. So that it seems almost a
miracle, how a prince, thus besieged on all sides, could _alone_ have
courage and prudence enough to extricate herself.
And indeed there is a point of history relating to this matter, which
well deserves to be considered. When her M[ajest]y came to the crown, she
took into favour and employment, several persons who were esteemed the
best friends of the old constitution; among whom none were reckoned
further gone in the high church principles (as they are usually called)
than two or three, who had at that time most credit, and ever since, till
within these few months, possessed all power at court. So that the first
umbrage given to the Whigs, and the pretences for clamouring against
France and the Pretender, were derived from them. And I believe nothing
appeared then more unlikely, than that such different opinions should
ever incorporate; that party having upon former occasions treated those
very persons with enmity enough. But some l[or]ds then about court, and
in the Qu[een]'s good graces, not able to endure those growing
impositions upon the prince and people, presumed to interpose, and were
consequently soon removed and disgraced: However, when a most exorbitant
grant was proposed,[6] antecedent to any visible merit, it miscarried in
Parliament, for want of being seconded by those who had most credit in
the House, and who having always opposed the like excesses in a former
reign, thought it their duty to do so still, to shew the world that the
dislike was not against persons but things. But this was to cross the
oligarchy in the tenderest point, a point which outweighed all
considerations of duty and gratitude to their prince, or regard to the
constitution. And therefore after having in several private meetings
concerted measures with their old enemies, and granted as well as
received conditions, they began to change their style and their
countenance, and to put it as a maxim in the mouths of their emissaries,
that England must be saved by the Whigs. This unnatural league was
afterwards cultivated by another incident; I mean the Act of Security,[7]
and the consequences of it, which every body knows; when (to use the
words of my correspondent)[8] "the sovereign authority was parcelled out
among a faction, and made the purchase of indemnity for an offending
M[iniste]r:" Thus the union of the two kingdoms improved that between the
ministry and the j[u]nto, which was afterwards cemented by their mutual
danger in that storm they so narrowly escaped about three years ago;[9]
but however was not quite perfected till the Prince's death;[10] and then
they went lovingly on together, both satisfied with their several shares,
at full liberty to gratify their predominant inclinations; the first,
their avarice and ambition; the other, their models of innovation in
Church and State.
Therefore, whoever thinks fit to revive that baffled question, "Why was
the late ministry changed?" may receive the following answer; That it was
become necessary by the insolence and avarice of some about the Qu[een],
who in order to perpetuate their tyranny had made a monstrous alliance
with those who profess principles destructive to our religion and
government: If this will not suffice, let him make an abstract of all the
abuses I have mentioned in my former papers, and view them together;
after which if he still remains unsatisfied, let him suspend his opinion
a few weeks longer. Though after all, I think the question as trifling as
that of the Papists, when they ask us, "where was our religion before
Luther?" And indeed, the ministry was changed for the same reason that
religion was reformed, because a thousand corruptions had crept into the
discipline and doctrine of the state, by the pride, the avarice, the
fraud, and the ambition of those who administered to us in secular
affairs.
I heard myself censured the other day in a coffee-house, for seeming to
glance in the letter to Crassus,[11] against a great man, who is still in
employment, and likely to continue so. What if I had really intended that
such an application should be given it? I cannot perceive how I could be
justly blamed for so gentle a reproof. If I saw a handsome young fellow
going to a ball at court with a great smut upon his face, could he take
it ill in me to point out the place, and desire him with abundance of
good words to pull out his handkerchief and wipe it off; or bring him to
a glass, where he might plainly see it with his own eyes? Does any man
think I shall suffer my pen to inveigh against vices, only because they
are charged upon persons who are no longer in power? Every body knows,
that certain vices are more or less pernicious, according to the stations
of those who possess them. For example, lewdness and intemperance
are not of so bad consequences in a town rake as a divine. Cowardice in a
lawyer is more supportable than in an officer of the army. If I should
find fault with an admiral because he wanted politeness, or an alderman
for not understanding Greek; that indeed would be to go out of my way,
for an occasion of quarrelling; but excessive avarice in a g[enera]l, is
I think the greatest defect he can be liable to, next to those of courage
and conduct, and may be attended with the most ruinous consequences, as
it was in Crassus, who to that vice alone owed the destruction of himself
and his army.[12] It is the same thing in praising men's excellencies,
which are more or less valuable, as the person you commend has occasion
to employ them. A man may perhaps mean honestly, yet if he be not able to
spell, he shall never have my vote for a secretary: Another may have wit
and learning in a post where honesty, with plain common sense, are of
much more use: You may praise a soldier for his skill at chess, because
it is said to be a military game, and the emblem of drawing up an army;
but this to a tr[easure]r would be no more a compliment, than if you
called him a gamester or a jockey.[13]
P.S. I received a letter relating to Mr. Greenshields; the person who
sent it may know, that I will say something to it in the next paper.
[Footnote 1: No. 29 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: "Tractanda in laudationibus etiam haec sunt naturae et
fortunae bona, in quibus est summa laus: non extulisse," etc.--CICERO,
_De Oratore_ ii. 84.
"These blessings of nature and fortune fall within the province of
panegyric, the highest strain of which is, that a man possessed power
without pride, riches without insolence, and the fullness of fortune
without the arrogance of greatness."--W. GUTHRIE. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, the favourite of Edward
II. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: Hugh le Despencer, Earl of Winchester, and his son of the
same name, both favourites of Edward II., and both hanged in 1326.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, favourite of Richard II.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: See No. 17, _ante_, and note, p. 95. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The Bill of Security passed the Scottish Parliament in 1703,
but was refused the Royal Assent. It provided for the separation of the
Crowns of England and Scotland unless security was given to the latter
for full religious and commercial independence. It was again passed
in 1704. (See also note in vol. v., p. 336 of present edition.) [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The writer of the "Letter" does not ascribe this result to
the Act of Security, but to the Queen raising some of her servants to the
highest degree of power who were unable "to associate with, men of
honester principles than themselves," which led to "subjection to the
will of an arbitrary junto and to the caprice of an insolent woman." [T.
S.]]
[Footnote 9: The Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin threatened to
resign in February, 1707/8, unless Harley was dismissed. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: Prince George died October 28th, 1708. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: "The Medley," No. 20 (February 12th) was largely taken up
with remarks on this letter, which appeared in "The Examiner," No. 28.
See passage there quoted in the note, p. 177. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: Crassus was defeated by Orodes, King of Parthia, through
the treachery of Ariamnes. After Crassus was beheaded Orodes caused
molten gold to be poured into his mouth. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Godolphin. See No. 27, _ante_, p. 172. [T.S.]]