_--Sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi;
Sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem mortalia tangunt._[2]
I begin to be heartily weary of my employment as _Examiner_; which I wish
the m[inist]ry would consider, with half so much concern as I do, and
assign me some other with less pains, and a larger pension. There may
soon be a vacancy, either on the bench, in the revenue, or the army, and
I am _equally_ qualified for each: but this trade of _Examining_, I
apprehend may at one time or other go near to sour my temper. I did
lately propose that some of those ingenious pens, which are engaged on
the other side, might be employed to succeed me, and I undertook to
bring them over for _t'other crown;_ but it was answered, that those
gentlemen do much better service in the stations where they are. It was
added, that abundance of abuses yet remained to be laid open to the
world, which I had often promised to do, but was too much diverted by
other subjects that came into my head. On the other side, the advice of
some friends, and the threats of many enemies, have put me upon
considering what would become of me if _times should alter._ This I have
done very maturely, and the result is, that I am in no manner of pain. I
grant, that what I have said upon occasion, concerning the late men in
power, may be called satire by some unthinking people, as long as that
faction is down; but if ever they come into play again, I must give them
warning beforehand, that I shall expect to be a favourite, and that those
pretended advocates of theirs, will be pilloried for libellers. For I
appeal to any man, whether I ever charged that party, or its leaders,
with one single action or design, which (if we may judge by their former
practices) they will not openly profess, be proud of, and score up for
merit, when they come again to the head of affairs? I said, they were
insolent to the Qu[een]; will they not value themselves upon that, as an
argument to prove them bold assertors of the people's liberty? I affirmed
they were against a peace; will they be angry with me for setting forth
the refinements of their politics, in pursuing the _only_ method left to
preserve them in power? I said, they had involved the nation in debts,
and engrossed much of its money; they go beyond me, and boast they have
got it all, and the credit too. I have urged the probability of their
intending great alterations in religion and government: if they destroy
both at their next coming, will they not reckon my foretelling it, rather
as a panegyric than an affront? I said,[3] they had formerly a design
against Mr. H[arle]y's life: if they were now in power, would they not
immediately cut off his head, and thank me for justifying the sincerity
of their intentions? In short, there is nothing I ever said of those
worthy patriots, which may not be as well excused; therefore, as soon as
they resume their places, I positively design to put in my claim; and, I
think, may do it with much better grace, than many of that party who
now make their court to the present m[inist]ry. I know two or three great
men, at whose levees you may daily observe a score of the most forward
faces, which every body is ashamed of, except those that wear them. But I
conceive my pretensions will be upon a very different foot: Let me offer
a parallel case. Suppose, King Charles the First had entirely subdued the
rebels at Naseby, and reduced the kingdom to his obedience: whoever had
gone about to reason, from the former conduct of those _saints_, that if
the victory had fallen on their side, they would have murdered their
prince, destroyed monarchy and the Church and made the king's party
compound for their estates as delinquents; would have been called a
false, uncharitable libeller, by those very persons who afterwards
gloried in all this, and called it the "work of the Lord," when they
happened to succeed. I remember there was a person fined and imprisoned
for _scandalum magnatum_, because he said the Duke of York was a Papist;
but when that prince came to be king, and made open profession of his
religion, he had the justice immediately to release his prisoner, who in
his opinion had put a compliment upon him, and not a reproach: and
therefore Colonel Titus,[4] who had warmly asserted the same thing in
Parliament, was made a privy-councillor.
By this rule, if that which, for some politic reasons, is now called
scandal upon the late m[inist]ry, proves one day to be only an abstract
of such a character as they will assume and be proud of; I think I may
fairly offer my pretensions, and hope for their favour. And I am the more
confirmed in this notion by what I have observed in those papers, that
come weekly out against the "Examiner." The authors are perpetually
telling me of my ingratitude to my masters, that I blunder, and betray
the cause; and write with more bitterness against those that hire me,
than against the Whigs. Now I took all this at first only for so many
strains of wit, and pretty paradoxes to divert the reader; but upon
further thinking I find they are serious. I imagined I had complimented
the present ministry for their dutiful behaviour to the Queen; for their
love of the old constitution in Church and State; for their generosity
and justice, and for their desire of a speedy, honourable peace: but it
seems I am mistaken, and they reckon all this for satire, because it is
directly contrary to the practice of all those whom they set up to
defend, and utterly against all their notions of a good ministry.
Therefore I cannot but think they have reason on their side: for suppose
I should write the character of an honest, a religious, and a learned
man; and send the first to Newgate, the second to the Grecian
Coffee-house, and the last to White's;[5] would they not all pass for
satires, and justly enough, among the companies to whom they were sent?
Having therefore employed several papers in such sort of panegyrics, and
but very few on what they understand to be satires; I shall henceforth
upon occasion be more liberal of the latter, of which they are like to
have a taste, in the remainder of this present paper.
Among all the advantages which the kingdom hath received by the late
change of ministry, the greatest must be allowed to be the calling of the
present Parliament, upon the dissolution of the last. It is acknowledged,
that this excellent assembly hath entirely recovered the honour of
P[arliamen]ts, which had been unhappily prostituted for some years past
by the factious proceedings of an unnatural majority, in concert with a
most corrupt administration. It is plain, by the present choice of
members, that the electors of England, when left to themselves, do
rightly understand their true interest. The moderate Whigs begin to be
convinced that we have been all this while in wrong hands, and that
things are now as they should be. And as the present House of Commons is
the best representative of the nation that hath ever been summoned in our
memories; so they have taken care in their first session, by that noble
Bill of Qualification,[6] that future Parliaments should be composed of
landed men, and our properties lie no more at mercy of those who have
none themselves, or at least only what is transient or imaginary. If
there be any gratitude in posterity, the memory of this assembly will be
always celebrated; if otherwise, at least we, who share in the blessings
they derive to us, ought with grateful hearts to acknowledge them.
I design, in some following papers, to draw up a list (for I can do no
more) of the great things this Parliament hath already performed, the
many abuses they have detected; their justice in deciding elections
without regard of party; their cheerfulness and address in raising
supplies for the war, and at the same time providing for the nation's
debts; their duty to the Queen, and their kindness to the Church. In the
mean time I cannot forbear mentioning two particulars, which in my
opinion do discover, in some measure, the temper of the present
Parliament; and bear analogy to those passages related by Plutarch, in
the lives of certain great men; which, as himself observes, "Though they
be not of actions which make any great noise or figure in history, yet
give more light into the characters of persons, than we could receive
from an account of their most renowned achievements."
Something like this may be observed from two late instances of decency
and good nature, in that illustrious assembly I am speaking of. The first
was, when after that inhuman attempt upon Mr. Harley, they were pleased
to vote an Address to the Queen,[7] wherein they express their utmost
detestation of the fact, their high esteem and great concern for that
able minister, and justly impute his misfortunes to that zeal for her
Majesty's service, which had "drawn upon him the hatred of all the
abettors of Popery and faction." I dare affirm, that so distinguishing a
mark of honour and good will from such a Parliament, was more acceptable
to a person of Mr. H[arle]y's generous nature, than the most bountiful
grant that was ever yet made to a subject; as her Majesty's answer,
filled with gracious expressions in his favour, adds more to his real
glory, than any _titles_ she could bestow. The prince and representatives
of the whole kingdom, join in their concern for so important a life.
These are the true rewards of virtue, and this is the commerce between
noble spirits, in a coin which the giver knows where to bestow, and the
receiver how to value, though neither avarice nor ambition would be able
to comprehend its worth.
The other instance I intended to produce of decency and good nature, in
the present House of Commons, relates to their most worthy Speaker;[8]
who having unfortunately lost his eldest son,[9] the assembly, moved with
a generous pity for so sensible an affliction, adjourned themselves for a
week, that so good a servant of the public, might have some interval to
wipe away a father's tears: And indeed that gentleman has too just an
occasion for his grief, by the death of a son, who had already acquired
so great a reputation for every amiable quality, and who might have lived
to be so great an honour and an ornament to his ancient family.
Before I conclude, I must desire one favour of the reader, that when he
thinks it worth his while to peruse any paper writ against the
"Examiner," he will not form his judgment by any mangled quotation out of
it which he finds in such papers, but be so just to read the paragraph
referred to; which I am confident will be found a sufficient answer to
all that ever those papers can object. At least I have seen above fifty
of them, and never yet observed one single quotation transcribed with
common candour.
[Footnote: 1 No. 34 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote: 2 Virgil, "Aeneid," i. 461-2.
"Even here
Has merit its reward. Woe wakens tears,
And mortal sufferings touch the heart of man."--R. KENNEDY.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: See No. 33, _ante_, p. 211. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: Silas Titus (1622-1704) was the author of "Killing no
Murder," published in 1657. He sat in Parliament successively for
Ludgershall, Lostwithiel, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Ludlow, In
1688 he was made a privy councillor. In his notes on Burnet Swift says:
"Titus was the greatest rogue in England" (Burnet's "Own Times,"
i. 11). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: For the signification of these coffee-houses see the remarks
prefixed to the "Tatlers" in this volume, p. 4. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: An Act for Securing the Freedom of Parliaments (9 Ann. c. 5)
provided that English members should show a land qualification. It was
introduced December 13th, 1710, and received the Royal Assent, February
28th. See also No. 45, _post_, p. 294. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The Address to the Queen was presented on March 13th, Swift
somewhat strengthens the language of the address, the original words
stating that the Houses had "to our great concern been informed," etc.;
and "we cannot but be most deeply affected to find such an instance of
inveterate malice, against one employed in your Majesty's council," etc.
The Queen, in her reply, referred to "that barbarous attempt on Mr.
Harley, whose zeal and fidelity in my service must appear yet more
eminently by that horrid endeavour," etc.--"Journals of House of Lords,"
xix.; "Journals of House of Commons," xvi. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: William Bromley (1664-1732) was Speaker from 1710 till
1713. See note on p. 334 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: Clobery Bromley (1688-1711) was elected M.P. for Coventry,
December, 1710. Only a few days before his death he had been appointed
one of the commissioners to examine the public accounts. "The House being
informed [March 20th] that Clobery Bromley, Esq., son to the Speaker,
died that morning; out of respect to the father, and to give him time,
both to perform the funeral rites, and to indulge his just affliction,
they thought fit to adjourn to" the 26th.--"Hist. and Proc. of House of
Commons," iv. 199.
Swift wrote to Stella on the matter under date March 20th, 1711: "The
Speaker's eldest son is just dead of the small pox, and the House is
adjourned a week, to give him time to wipe off his tears. I think it
very handsomely done; but I believe one reason is, that they want Mr.
Harley so much" (vol. ii., p. 141 of present edition). [T.S.]]