_Nullo suo peccato impediantur, quo minus alterius peccata demonstrare
possint._[2]
I have been considering the old constitution of this kingdom, comparing
it with the monarchies and republics whereof we meet so many accounts in
ancient story, and with those at present in most parts of Europe: I have
considered our religion, established here by the legislature soon after
the Reformation: I have likewise examined the genius and disposition of
the people, under that reasonable freedom they possess: Then I have
turned my reflections upon those two great divisions of Whig and Tory,
(which, some way or other, take in the whole kingdom) with the principles
they both profess, as well as those wherewith they reproach one another.
From all this, I endeavour to determine, from which side her present
M[ajest]y may reasonably hope for most security to her person and
government, and to which she ought, in prudence, to trust the
administration of her affairs. If these two rivals were really no more
than _parties_, according to the common acceptation of the word, I should
agree with those politicians who think, a prince descends from his
dignity by putting himself at the head of either; and that his wisest
course is, to keep them in a balance; raising or depressing either as it
best suited with his designs. But when the visible interest of his crown
and kingdom lies on one side, and when the other is but a faction, raised
and strengthened by incidents and intrigues, and by deceiving the people
with false representations of things; he ought, in prudence, to take the
first opportunity of opening his subjects' eyes, and declaring himself in
favour of those, who are for preserving the civil and religious rights of
the nation, wherewith his own are so interwoven.
This was certainly our case: for I do not take the heads, advocates, and
followers of the Whigs, to make up, strictly speaking, a national party;
being patched up of heterogeneous, inconsistent parts, whom nothing
served to unite but the common interest of sharing in the spoil and
plunder of the people; the present dread of their adversaries, by whom
they apprehended to be called to an account, and that general conspiracy,
of endeavouring to overturn the Church and State; which, however, if they
could have compassed, they would certainly have fallen out among
themselves, and broke in pieces, as _their predecessors_ did, after
they destroyed the monarchy and religion. For, how could a Whig, who is
against all discipline, agree with a Presbyterian, that carries it higher
than the Papists themselves? How could a Socinian adjust his models to
either? Or how could any of these cement with a Deist or Freethinker,
when they came to consult upon settling points of faith? Neither would
they have agreed better in their systems of government, where some would
have been for a king, under the limitations of a Duke of Venice; others
for a Dutch republic; a third party for an aristocracy, and most of them
all for some new fabric of their own contriving.
But however, let us consider them as a party, and under those general
tenets wherein they agreed, and which they publicly owned, without
charging them with any that they pretend to deny. Then let us _Examine_
those principles of the Tories, which their adversaries allow them to
profess, and do not pretend to tax them with any actions contrary to
those professions: after which, let the reader judge from which of these
two parties a prince hath most to fear; and whether her M[ajest]y did not
consider the ease, the safety and dignity of her person, the security of
her crown, and the transmission of monarchy to her Protestant successors,
when she put her affairs into the present hands.
Suppose the matter were now entire; the Qu[een] to make her choice, and
for that end, should order the principles on both sides to be fairly laid
before her. First, I conceive the Whigs would grant, that they have
naturally no very great veneration for crowned heads; that they allow,
the person of the prince may, upon many occasions, be resisted by arms;
and that they do not condemn the war raised against King Charles the
First, or own it to be a rebellion, though they would be thought to blame
his murder. They do not think the prerogative to be yet sufficiently
limited, and have therefore taken care (as a particular mark of their
veneration for the illustrious house of Hanover) to clip it closer
against next reign; which, consequently, they would be glad to see done
in the present: not to mention, that the majority of them, if it were put
to the vote, would allow, that they prefer a commonwealth before a
monarchy. As to religion; their universal, undisputed maxim is, that it
ought to make no distinction at all among Protestants; and in the word
Protestant they include every body who is not a Papist, and who will, by
an oath, give security to the government. Union in discipline and
doctrine, the offensive sin of schism, the notion of a Church and a
hierarchy, they laugh at as foppery, cant and priestcraft. They see no
necessity at all that there should be a national faith; and what we
usually call by that name, they only style the "religion of the
magistrate."[3] Since the Dissenters and we agree in the main, why should
the difference of a few speculative points, or modes of dress,
incapacitate them from serving their prince and country, in a juncture
when we ought to have all hands up against the common enemy? And why
should they be forced to take the sacrament from our clergy's hands, and
in our posture, or indeed why compelled to receive it at all, when
they take an employment which has nothing to do with religion?
These are the notions which most of that party avow, and which they do
not endeavour to disguise or set off with false colours, or complain of
being misrepresented about, I have here placed them on purpose, in the
same light which themselves do, in the very apologies they make for what
we accuse them of; and how inviting even these doctrines are, for such a
monarch to close with, as our law, both statute and common, understands a
King of England to be, let others decide. But then, if to these we should
add other opinions, which most of their own writers justify, and which
their universal practice has given a sanction to, they are no more than
what a prince might reasonably expect, as the natural consequence of
those avowed principles. For when such persons are at the head of
affairs, the low opinion they have of princes, will certainly tempt them
to violate that respect they ought to bear; and at the same time, their
own want of duty to their sovereign is largely made up, by exacting
greater submissions to themselves from their fellow-subjects: it being
indisputably true, that the same principle of pride and ambition makes a
man treat his equals with insolence, in the same proportion as he
affronts his superiors; as both Prince and people have sufficiently felt
from the late m[inist]ry.
Then from their confessed notions of religion, as above related, I see no
reason to wonder, why they countenanced not only all sorts of Dissenters,
but the several gradations of freethinkers among us (all which were
openly enrolled in their party); nor why they were so very averse from
the present established form of worship, which by prescribing obedience
to princes from the topic of conscience, would be sure to thwart all
their schemes of innovation.
One thing I might add, as another acknowledged maxim in that party, and
in my opinion, as dangerous to the constitution as any I have mentioned;
I mean, that of preferring, on all occasions, the moneyed interest before
the landed; which they were so far from denying, that they would gravely
debate the reasonableness and justice of it; and at the rate they went
on, might in a little time have found a majority of representatives,
fitly qualified to lay those heavy burthens on the rest of the nation,
which themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.
However, to deal impartially, there are some motives which might compel a
prince, under the necessity of affairs, to deliver himself over to that
party. They were _said_ to possess the great bulk of cash, and
consequently of credit in the nation, and the heads of them had the
reputation of presiding over those societies who have the great direction
of both:[4] so that all applications for loans to the public service,
upon any emergency, must be made through them; and it might prove highly
dangerous to disoblige them, because in that case, it was not to be
doubted, that they would be obstinate and malicious, ready to obstruct
all affairs, not only by shutting their own purses, but by endeavouring
to sink credit, though with some present imaginary loss to themselves,
only to shew, it was a creature of their own.
From this summary of Whig-principles and dispositions, we find what a
prince may reasonably fear and hope from that party. Let us now very
briefly consider, the doctrines of the Tories, which their adversaries
will not dispute. As they prefer a well-regulated monarchy before all
other forms of government; so they think it next to impossible to alter
that institution here, without involving our whole island in blood and
desolation. They believe, that the prerogative of a sovereign ought, at
least, to be held as sacred and inviolable as the rights of his people,
if only for this reason, because without a due share of power, he will
not be able to protect them. They think, that by many known laws of
this realm, both statute and common, neither the person, nor lawful
authority of the prince, ought, upon any pretence whatsoever, to be
resisted or disobeyed. Their sentiments, in relation to the Church, are
known enough, and will not be controverted, being just the reverse to
what I have delivered as the doctrine and practice of the Whigs upon that
article.
But here I must likewise deal impartially too, and add one principle as a
characteristic of the Tories, which has much discouraged some princes
from making use of them in affairs. Give the Whigs but power enough to
insult their sovereign, engross his favours to themselves, and to oppress
and plunder their fellow-subjects; they presently grow into good humour
and good language towards the crown; profess they will stand by it with
their lives and fortunes; and whatever rudenesses they may be guilty of
in private, yet they assure the world, that there never was so gracious a
monarch. But to the shame of the Tories, it must be confessed, that
nothing of all this hath been ever observed in them; in or out of favour,
you see no alteration, further than a little cheerfulness or cloud in
their countenances; the highest employments can add nothing to their
loyalty, but their behaviour to their prince, as well as their
expressions of love and duty, are, in all conditions, exactly the same.
Having thus impartially stated the avowed principles of Whig and Tory;
let the reader determine, as he pleases, to which of these two a wise
prince may, with most safety to himself and the public, trust his person
and his affairs; and whether it were rashness or prudence in her
M[ajest]y to make those changes in the ministry, which have been so
highly extolled by some, and condemned by others.
[Footnote 1: No. 35 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: "None are prevented by their own faults from pointing out
the faults of another."--H.T. RILEY. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: See Swift's "Letter Concerning the Sacramental Test" (vol.
iv., p. 11 of present edition). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: The Bank and the East India Company. The former was so
decidedly in the Whig interest, that the great Doctor Sacheverell, on
appearing to give his vote for choosing governors and directors for the
Bank, was very rudely treated. Nor were the ministry successful in an
attempt made about that time to put these great companies under Tory
management. [S.] And see No. 25, _ante_, pp. 154-5. [T.S.]]