_Quae enim domus tam stabilis, quae tam firma civitas est, quae non odiis
atque discidiis funditus possit everti?_[2]
If we examine what societies of men are in closest union among
themselves, we shall find them either to be those who are engaged in some
evil design, or who labour under one common misfortune: Thus the troops
of _banditti_ in several countries abroad, the knots of highwaymen in our
own nation, the several tribes of sharpers, thieves and pickpockets, with
many others, are so firmly knit together, that nothing is more difficult
than to break or dissolve their several gangs. So likewise those who are
fellow-sufferers under any misfortune, whether it be in reality or
opinion, are usually contracted into a very strict union; as we may
observe in the Papists throughout this kingdom, under those real
difficulties which are justly put on them; and in the several schisms of
Presbyterians, and other sects, under that grievous persecution of the
modern kind, called want of power. And the reason why such confederacies,
are kept so sacred and inviolable, is very plain, because in each of
those cases I have mentioned, the whole body is moved by one common
spirit, in pursuit of one general end, and the interest of individuals is
not crossed by each other, or by the whole.
Now, both these motives are joined to unite the high-flying Whigs at
present: they have been always engaged in an evil design, and of late
they are faster rivetted by that terrible calamity, the loss of power. So
that whatever designs a mischievous crew of dark confederates may
possibly entertain, who will stop at no means to compass them, may be
justly apprehended from these.
On the other side, those who wish well to the public, and would gladly
contribute to its service, are apt to differ in their opinions about the
methods of promoting it, and when their party flourishes, are sometimes
envious at those in power, ready to overvalue their own merit, and be
impatient till it is rewarded by the measure they have prescribed for
themselves. There is a further topic of contention, which a ruling party
is apt to fall into, in relation to retrospections, and enquiry into past
miscarriages; wherein some are thought too warm and zealous; others too
cool and remiss; while in the meantime these divisions are industriously
fomented by the discarded faction; which though it be an old practice,
hath been much improved in the schools of the Jesuits, who when they
despaired of perverting this nation to popery, by arguments or plots
against the state, sent their emissaries to subdivide us into schisms.[3]
And this expedient is now with great propriety taken up by our men of
incensed moderation, because they suppose themselves able to attack the
strongest of our subdivisions, and so subdue us one after another.
Nothing better resembles this proceeding, than that famous combat between
the Horatii and Curiatii,[4] where two of the former being killed, the
third, who remained entire and untouched, was able to kill his three
wounded adversaries, after he had divided them by a stratagem. I well
know with how tender a hand all this should be touched; yet at the same
time I think it my duty to warn the friends as well as expose the enemies
of the public weal, and to begin preaching up union upon the first
suspicion that any steps are made to disturb it.
But the two chief subjects of discontent, which, in most great changes,
in the management of public affairs, are apt to breed differences among
those who are in possession, are what I have just now mentioned; a desire
of punishing the corruptions of former managers; and the rewarding merit,
among those who have been any way instrumental or consenting to the
change. The first of these is a point so nice, that I shall purposely
waive it; but the latter I take to fall properly within my district: By
merit I here understand that value which every man puts upon his own
deservings from the public. And I believe there could not be a more
difficult employment found out, than that of paymaster general to this
sort of merit; or a more noisy, crowded place, than a court of
judicature, erected to settle and adjust every man's claim upon that
article. I imagine, if this had fallen into the fancy of the ancient
poets, they would have dressed it up after their manner into an agreeable
fiction, and given us a genealogy and description of merit, perhaps not
very different from that which follows.
_A Poetical Genealogy and Description of_ MERIT.
That true Merit, was the son of Virtue and Honour; but that there was
likewise a spurious child who usurped the name, and whose parents were
Vanity and Impudence. That, at a distance, there was a great resemblance
between them, and they were often mistaken for each other. That the
bastard issue had a loud shrill voice, which was perpetually employed in
cravings and complaints; while the other never spoke louder than a
whisper, and was often so bashful that he could not speak at all. That in
all great assemblies, the false Merit would step before the true, and
stand just in his way; was constantly at court, or great men's levees, or
whispering in some minister's ear. That the more you fed him, the more
hungry and importunate he grew. That he often passed for the true son of
Virtue and Honour, and the genuine for an impostor. That he was born
distorted and a dwarf, but by force of art appeared of a handsome shape,
and taller than the usual size; and that none but those who were wise and
good, as well as vigilant, could discover his littleness or deformity.
That the true Merit had been often forced to the indignity of applying to
the false, for his credit with those in power, and to keep himself from
starving. That he filled the antechambers with a crew of his dependants
and creatures, such as projectors, schematises, occasional converts to a
party, prostitute flatterers, starveling writers, buffoons, shallow
politicians, empty orators, and the like, who all owned him for their
patron, and grew discontented if they were not immediately fed.
This metaphorical description of false Merit, is, I doubt,
calculated for most countries in Christendom; and as to
our own, I believe it may be said with a sufficient reserve of charity,
that we are fully able to reward every man among us according to his real
deservings. And I think I may add, without suspicion of flattery, that
never any prince had a ministry with a better judgment to distinguish
between false and real merit, than that which is now at the helm; or
whose inclination as well as interest it is to encourage the latter. And
it ought to be observed, that those great and excellent persons we see at
the head of affairs, are of the Qu[een]'s own personal voluntary choice;
not forced upon her by any insolent, overgrown favourite; or by the
pretended necessity of complying with an unruly faction.
Yet these are the persons whom those scandals to the press, in their
daily pamphlets and papers, openly revile at so ignominious a rate, as I
believe was never tolerated before under any government. For surely no
lawful power derived from a prince, should be so far affronted, as to
leave those who are in authority exposed to every scurrilous libeller.
Because in this point I make a mighty difference between those who are
_in_, and those who are _out_ of power; not upon any regard to their
persons, but the stations they are placed in by the sovereign. And if my
distinction be right, I think I might appeal to any man, whether if a
stranger were to read the invectives which are daily published against
the present ministry, and the outrageous fury of the authors against me
for censuring the _last_; he would not conclude the Whigs to be at this
time in full possession of power and favour, and the Tories entirely at
mercy? But all this now ceases to be a wonder, since the Qu[een] herself
is no longer spared; witness the libel published some days ago under the
title of "A Letter to Sir J[aco]b B[an]ks,"[5] where the reflections upon
her sacred Majesty are much more plain and direct, than ever the
"Examiner" thought fit to publish against the most obnoxious persons in a
m[inistr]y, discarded for endeavouring the ruin of their prince and
country. Caesar indeed threatened to hang the pirates for presuming to
disturb him while he was their prisoner aboard their ship.[6] But it was
Caesar who did so, and he did it to a crew of public robbers; and it
became the greatness of his spirit, for he lived to execute what he had
threatened. Had _they_ been in his power, and sent such a message, it
could be imputed to nothing but the extremes of impudence, folly or
madness.
I had a letter last week relating to Mr. Greenshields[7] an Episcopal
clergyman of Scotland, and the writer seems to be a gentleman of that
part of Britain. I remember formerly to have read a printed account of
Mr. Greenshields's case, who has been prosecuted and silenced for no
other reason beside reading divine service, after the manner of the
Church of England, to his own congregation, who desired it: though, as
the gentleman who writes to me says, there is no law in Scotland against
those meetings; and he adds, that the sentence pronounced against Mr.
Greenshields, "will soon be affirmed, if some care be not taken to
prevent it." I am altogether uninformed in the particulars of this case,
and besides to treat it justly, would not come within the compass of my
paper; therefore I could wish the gentleman would undertake it in a
discourse by itself; and I should be glad he would inform the public in
one fact, whether Episcopal assemblies are freely allowed in Scotland? It
is notorious that abundance of their clergy fled from thence some years
ago into England and Ireland, as from a persecution; but it was alleged
by their enemies, that they refused to take the oaths to the government,
which however none of them scrupled when they came among us. It is
somewhat extraordinary to see our Whigs and fanatics keep such a stir
about the sacred Act of Toleration, while their brethren will not allow a
connivance in so near a neighbourhood; especially if what the gentleman
insists on in his letter be true, that nine parts in ten of the nobility
and gentry, and two in three of the commons, be Episcopal; of which one
argument he offers, is the present choice of their representatives in
both Houses, though opposed to the utmost by the preachings, threatenings
and anathemas of the kirk. Such usage to a majority, may, as he thinks,
be of dangerous consequence; and I entirely agree with him. If these be
the principles of high kirk, God preserve at least the southern parts
from their tyranny!
[Footnote 1: No. 30 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Cicero, "De Amicitiâ," vii. "For what family is so firmly
rooted, what state so strong, as not to be liable to complete overthrow
from hatred and strife."--G.H. Wells. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: Refers to the October Club. See Swift's "Memoirs Relating to
that Change," etc. (vol. v., pp. 385-6 of present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: The contest is the subject of one of Macaulay's "Lays."
Three brothers named Horatius fought with three named Curiatius, and the
fight resulted in Publius Horatius being the sole survivor. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: In his letter to the Earl of Peterborough, dated February,
1710/1 (Scott, vol. xv., pp. 422-3), Swift speaks more favourably of this
pamphlet. His remarks to the Earl throw considerable light on Swift's own
position as a Tory: "The piece is shrewdly written; and, in my opinion,
not to be answered, otherwise than by disclaiming that sort of passive
obedience which the Tories are charged with. This dispute would soon be
ended, if the dunces who write on each side would plainly tell us what the
object of this passive obedience is in our country; for I dare swear nine
in ten of the Whigs will allow it to be the legislature, and as many of
the Tories deny it to the prince alone; and I hardly ever saw a Whig
and a Tory together, whom I could not immediately reconcile on that
article when I made them explain themselves."
The pamphlet was written by a Mr. Benson in reply to Sir Jacob Banks,
who, as member for Minehead, had, in 1709-10 presented an address from
his constituents in which it was pretty broadly avowed that subjects must
obey their monarch, since he was responsible to God alone. The writer of
the letter institutes a clever parallel between England and Sweden. See
note to No. 14, _ante_, and No. 34, _post_, pp. 75 and 216. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: Julius Caesar was captured by pirates off the coast of
Miletus (_c._ 75 B.C.) and held to ransom. The threat of crucifixion he
then held out to his captors he afterwards fulfilled. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The Rev. James Greenshields was imprisoned (September 15th,
1709) for conducting in Edinburgh the service according to the English
Prayer Book. He appealed to the House of Lords, and the judgment against
him was reversed, March 1st. 1710/1 ("Journals of House of Lords," xix).
[T.S.]]