FROM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 15, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1710-11.
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 jnto, 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.]