FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 25, TO THURSDAY FEBRUARY 1, 1710-11.[2]
Ea autem est gloria, laus recte factorum, magnorumque in rempublicam meritorum: Quae cum optimi cujusque, tum etiam multitudinis testimonio comprobatur.[3]
I am thinking, what a mighty advantage it is to be entertained as a writer to a ruined cause. I remember a fanatic preacher, who was inclined to come into the Church, and take orders; but upon mature thoughts was diverted from that design, when he considered that the collections of the godly were a much heartier and readier penny, than he could get by wrangling for tithes. He certainly had reason, and the two cases are parallel. If you write in defence of a fallen party, you are maintained by contribution as a necessary person, you have little more to do than to carp and cavil at those who hold the pen on the other side; you are sure to be celebrated and caressed by all your party, to a man. You may affirm and deny what you please, without truth or probability, since it is but loss of time to contradict you. Besides, commiseration is often on your side, and you have a pretence to be thought honest and disinterested, for adhering to friends in distress. After which, if your party ever happens to turn up again, you have a strong fund of merit towards making your fortune. Then, you never fail to be well furnished with materials, every one bringing in his quota, and falsehood being naturally more plentiful than truth. Not to mention the wonderful delight of libelling men in power, and hugging yourself in a corner with mighty satisfaction for what you have done.
It is quite otherwise with us, who engage as volunteers in the service of a flourishing ministry, in full credit with the Q[uee]n, and beloved by the people, because they have no sinister ends or dangerous designs, but pursue with steadiness and resolution the true interests of both. Upon which account they little want or desire our assistance; and we may write till the world is weary of reading, without having our pretences allowed either to a place or a pension: besides, we are refused the common benefit of the party, to have our works cried up of course; the readers of our own side being as ungentle and hard to please, as if we writ against them; and our papers never make their way in the world, but barely in proportion to their merit. The design of their labours who write on the conquered side, is likewise of greater importance than ours; they are like cordials for dying men, which must be repeated; whereas ours are, in the Scripture phrase, but "meat for babes": at least, all I can pretend, is to undeceive the ignorant and those at distance; but their task is to keep up the sinking spirits of a whole party.
After such reflections, I cannot be angry with those gentlemen for perpetually writing against me: it furnishes them largely with topics, and is besides, their proper business: neither is it affectation, or altogether scorn, that I do not reply. But as things are, we both act suitable to our several provinces: mine is, by laying open some corruptions in the late management, to set those who are ignorant, right in their opinions of persons and things: it is theirs to cover with fig-leaves all the faults of their friends, as well as they can: When I have produced my facts, and offered my arguments, I have nothing farther to advance; it is their office to deny and disprove; and then let the world decide. If I were as they, my chief endeavour should certainly be to batter down the "Examiner," therefore I cannot but approve their design, Besides, they have indeed another reason for barking incessantly at this paper: they have in their prints openly taxed a most ingenious person as author of it;[4] one who is in great and very deserved reputation with the world, both on account of his poetical works, and his talents for public business. They were wise enough to consider, what a sanction it would give their performances, to fall under the animadversion of such a pen; and have therefore used all the forms of provocation commonly practised by little obscure pedants, who are fond of distinguishing themselves by the fame of an adversary. So nice a taste have these judicious critics, in pretending to discover an author by his style and manner of thinking: not to mention the justice and candour of exhausting all the stale topics of scurrility in reviling a paper, and then flinging at a venture the whole load upon one who is entirely innocent; and whose greatest fault, perhaps, is too much gentleness toward a party, from whose leaders he has received quite contrary treatment.
The concern I have for the ease and reputation of so deserving a gentleman, hath at length forced me, much against my interest and inclination, to let these angry people know who is not the author of the "Examiner."[5] For, I observed, the opinion began to spread, and I chose rather to sacrifice the honour I received by it, than let injudicious people entitle him to a performance, that perhaps he might have reason to be ashamed of: still faithfully promising, never to disturb those worthy advocates; but suffer them in quiet to roar on at the "Examiner," if they or their party find any ease in it; as physicians say there is, to people in torment, such as men in the gout, or women in labour.
However, I must acknowledge myself indebted to them for one hint, which I shall now pursue, though in a different manner. Since the fall of the late ministry, I have seen many papers filled with their encomiums; I conceive, in imitation of those who write the lives of famous men, where, after their deaths, immediately follow their characters. When I saw the poor virtues thus dealt at random, I thought the disposers had flung their names, like valentines into a hat, to be drawn as fortune pleased, by the jnto and their friends. There, Crassus[6] drew liberty and gratitude; Fulvia,[7] humility and gentleness; Clodius,[8] piety and justice; Gracchus,[9] loyalty to his prince; Cinna,[10] love of his country and constitution; and so of the rest. Or, to quit this allegory, I have often seen of late, the whole set of discarded statesmen, celebrated by their judicious hirelings, for those very qualities which their admirers owned they chiefly wanted. Did these heroes put off and lock up their virtues when they came into employment, and have they now resumed them since their dismissions? If they wore them, I am sure it was under their greatness, and without ever once convincing the world of their visibility or influence.
But why should not the present ministry find a pen to praise them as well as the last? This is what I shall now undertake, and it may be more impartial in me, from whom they have deserved so little. I have, without being called, served them half a year in quality of champion,[11] and by help of the Qu[een] and a majority of nine in ten of the kingdom, have been able to protect them against a routed cabal of hated politicians, with a dozen of scribblers at their head; yet so far have they been from rewarding me suitable to my deserts, that to this day they never so much as sent to the printer to enquire who I was; though I have known a time and a ministry, where a person of half my merit and consideration would have had fifty promises, and in the mean time a pension settled on him, whereof the first quarter should be honestly paid. Therefore my resentments shall so far prevail, that in praising those who are now at the head of affairs, I shall at the same time take notice of their defects.
Was any man more eminent in his profession than the present l[or]d k[eepe]r,[12] or more distinguished by his eloquence and great abilities in the House of Commons? And will not his enemies allow him to be fully equal to the great station he now adorns? But then it must be granted, that he is wholly ignorant in the speculative as well as practical part of polygamy: he knows not how to metamorphose a sober man into a lunatic:[13] he is no freethinker in religion, nor has courage to be patron of an atheistical book,[14] while he is guardian of the Qu[een]'s conscience. Though after all, to speak my private opinion, I cannot think these such mighty objections to his character, as some would pretend.
The person who now presides at the council,[15] is descended from a great and honourable father, not from the dregs of the people; he was at the head of the treasury for some years, and rather chose to enrich his prince than himself. In the height of favour and credit, he sacrificed the greatest employment in the kingdom to his conscience and honour: he has been always firm in his loyalty and religion, zealous for supporting the prerogative of the crown, and preserving the liberties of the people. But then, his best friends must own that he is neither Deist nor Socinian: he has never conversed with T[o]l[a]nd, to open and enlarge his thoughts, and dispel the prejudices of education; nor was he ever able to arrive at that perfection of gallantry, to ruin and imprison the husband, in order to keep the wife without disturbance.[16]
The present l[or]d st[ewa]rd[17] has been always distinguished for his wit and knowledge; is of consummate wisdom and experience in affairs; has continued constant to the true interest of the nation, which he espoused from the beginning, and is every way qualified to support the dignity of his office: but in point of oratory must give place to his predecessor.[18]
The D. of Sh[rewsbur]y[19] was highly instrumental in bringing about the Revolution, in which service he freely exposed his life and fortune. He has ever been the favourite of the nation, being possessed of all the amiable qualities that can accomplish a great man; but in the agreeableness and fragrancy of his person, and the profoundness of his politics, must be allowed to fall very short of ——.[20]
Mr. H[arley] had the honour of being chosen Speaker successively to three Parliaments;[21] he was the first of late years, that ventured to restore the forgotten custom of treating his PRINCE with duty and respect. Easy and disengaged in private conversation, with such a weight of affairs upon his shoulders;[22] of great learning, and as great a favourer and protector of it; intrepid by nature, as well as by the consciousness of his own integrity, and a despiser of money; pursuing the true interest of his PRINCE and country against all obstacles. Sagacious to view into the remotest consequences of things, by which all difficulties fly before him. A firm friend, and a placable enemy, sacrificing his justest resentments, not only to public good, but to common intercession and acknowledgment. Yet with all these virtues it must be granted, there is some mixture of human infirmity: His greatest admirers must confess his skill at cards and dice to be very low and superficial: in horse-racing he is utterly ignorant:[23] then, to save a few millions to the public, he never regards how many worthy citizens he hinders from making up their plum. And surely there is one thing never to be forgiven him, that he delights to have his table filled with black coats, whom he uses as if they were gentlemen.
My Lord D[artmouth][24] is a man of letters, full of good sense, good nature and honour, of strict virtue and regularity in life; but labours under one great defect, that he treats his clerks with more civility and good manners, than others, in his station, have done the Qu[een].[25]
Omitting some others, I will close this character of the present ministry, with that of Mr. S[t. John],[26] who from his youth applying those admirable talents of nature and improvements of art to public business, grew eminent in court and Parliament at an age when the generality of mankind is employed in trifles and folly. It is to be lamented, that he has not yet procured himself a busy, important countenance, nor learned that profound part of wisdom, to be difficult of access. Besides, he has clearly mistaken the true use of books, which he has thumbed and spoiled with reading, when he ought to have multiplied them on his shelves:[27] not like a great man of my acquaintance, who knew a book by the back, better than a friend by the face, though he had never conversed with the former, and often with the latter.
[Footnote 1: No. 26 in the reprint. [T.S.]
[Footnote 2: Writing to Stella, under date February 3rd, 1710/1, Swift says: "They are plaguy Whigs, especially the sister Armstrong [Mrs. Armstrong, Lady Lucy's sister], the most insupportable of all women pretending to wit, without any taste. She was running down the last 'Examiner,' the prettiest I had read, with a character of the present ministry" (vol. ii., p. 112 of present edition.) [T.S.]
[Footnote 3: "For that is true glory and praise for noble deeds that deserve well of the state, when they not only win the approval of the best men but also that of the multitude." [T.S.]
[Footnote 4: It was reported that the author of "The Examiner" was Matthew Prior, late under-secretary of state. [T.S.]
[Footnote 5: To Stella Swift wrote in his "Journal," under date February 9th:—"The account you give of that weekly paper [i.e. 'The Examiner,'] agrees with us here. Mr. Prior was like to be insulted in the street for being supposed the author of it, but one of the last papers cleared him. Nobody knows who it is, but those few in the secret. I suppose the ministry and the printer" (vol. ii., p. 116 of present edition).]
[Footnote 6: The Duke of Marlborough. See "The Examiner," No. 28, p. 177. [T.S.]
[Footnote 7: The Duchess of Marlborough. [T.S.]
[Footnote 8: Earl of Wharton, notorious for his profligacy. [T.S.]
[Footnote 9: This may refer to Godolphin. [T.S.]
[Footnote 10: Probably Earl Cowper. [T.S.]
[Footnote 11: This applies to the paper. "The Examiner" had existed for six months, but Swift had written it for only three months, at this time. [T.S.]
[Footnote 12: Sir Simon Harcourt (1661?-1727) who was lord chancellor, 1713-14. He was made lord keeper, October 19th, 1710, after Cowper resigned the chancellorship. In the Sacheverell trial Harcourt was the doctor's counsel. He was created Baron Harcourt in 1711. See also note on p. 213 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]
[Footnote 13: This refers to the case of Richard, fifth Viscount Wenman, against whom Cowper, in 1709, granted a commission of lunacy. He was under the care of Francis Wroughton, Esq., whose sister, Susannah, he had married in the early part of 1709. His brother-in-law sued him for payment of his sister's portion, and asked that trustees be appointed for his estate. Cowper decided against Wenman, and the commission granted.
The case is referred to in No. 40 of "The Tatler" (July 12th, 1709). Campbell says ("Chancellors," iv. 330) the commission "very properly issued." Luttrell in his "Diary" (July 30th, 1709) notes that "the jury yesterday brought it in that he [Wenman] was no idiot" (vi. 470). Lord Wenman died November 28th, 1729. See also Nos. 18 and 23, ante, and note, p. 101. [T.S.]
[Footnote 14: Tindal dedicated to Cowper "a pious work which was not altogether orthodox" (Campbell's "Chancellors," iv. 330). [T.S.]
[Footnote 15: Laurence Hyde (1641-1711), created Earl of Rochester in 1682, was appointed lord president of the council, September 21st, 1710, succeeding Somers. See also No. 41, post. Swift unkindly sneers at Somers's low birth. See note on Somers on p. 29 of vol. i. of present edition. [T.S.]
[Footnote 16: Mrs. Manley, in her "Memoirs of Europe towards the Close of the Eighth Century," has something very characteristic to say on this subject. Speaking of Somers under the name Cicero, she says: "Cicero, Madam, is by birth a plebeian" ... "Cicero himself, an oracle of wisdom, was whirled about by his lusts, at the pleasure of a fantastic worn-out mistress. He prostituted his inimitable sense, reason, and good nature, either to revenge, or reward, as her caprice directed; and what made this commerce more detestable, this mistress of his was a wife!" ... "that she was the wife of an injured friend! a friend who passionately loved her, and had tenderly obliged him, rather heightened his desires" (i., 200; ii., 54, 83). The mistress is said to be Mrs. Blunt, daughter of Sir R. Fanshaw. [T.S.]
[Footnote 17: John Sheffield (1647-1721), third Earl of Mulgrave, was created Marquess of Normanby, 1694, and Duke of Buckingham and Normanby in 1702/3. He succeeded the Duke of Devonshire as lord steward of the household on September 21st, 1710. He was the author of a poetical "Essay on Poetry," and an interesting prose "Account of the Revolution." As patron to Dryden he received the dedication of that poet's "Aurengzebe." Pope edited his collected works in 1722-23. [T.S.]
[Footnote 18: William Cavendish (1673?-1729) succeeded his father as second Duke of Devonshire in 1707. He was lord steward, 1707-10, and lord president, 1716-17.]
[Footnote 19: Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, is styled by Swift elsewhere (Letter to Archbishop King, October 20th, 1713; Scott's edition, xvi. 71), "the finest gentleman we have" (see note on p. 377 of vol. v. of present edition). He was lord chamberlain, 1710-14. [T.S.]
[Footnote 20: Henry de Grey (1664?-1740) succeeded his father as eleventh Earl of Kent in 1702. He was created Marquess of Kent, 1706, and Duke of Kent, 1710. He held the office of lord chamberlain of the household from 1704 to 1710. [T.S.]
[Footnote 21: Harley was first chosen Speaker, February 10th, 1700/1, for a Parliament that lasted nine months; then again, December 30th, 1701, for a Parliament that lasted only six months; and finally October 20th or 21st, 1702. [T.S.]
[Footnote 22: "The Queen dismissed the Earl of Godolphin from being lord treasurer, and put the treasury in commission: Lord Powlet was the first in form, but Mr. Harley was the person with whom the secret was lodged" (Burnet, "Own Times," ii. 552-3). He was appointed August 10th, 1710. [T.S.]
[Footnote 23: Godolphin was very devoted to the turf. See Swift's poem entitled, "The Virtues of Sid Hamet's Rod" (Aldine edition, iii. 10). [T.S.]
[Footnote 24: William Legge (1672-1750) succeeded his father as second Lord Dartmouth in 1691, and was created Earl of Dartmouth in 1711. On June 14th, 1710, he was appointed secretary of state in place of the Earl of Sunderland. See note on p. 229 of vol. v. of present edition. [T.S.]
[Footnote 25: The Earl of Sunderland was rude and overbearing in his manner towards the Queen. [T.S.]
[Footnote 26: Henry St. John (1678-1751) was created Viscount Bolingbroke in 1712. He was secretary of war, 1704-1708, and secretary of state, 1710-14. In 1715 he was attainted and left England to enter the service of the Pretender. See also Swift's "An Enquiry," etc. (vol. v., p. 430 of present edition). [T.S.]
[Footnote 27: "Those more early acquaintance of yours, your books, which a friend of ours once wittily said, 'Your L—p had mistaken the true use of, by thumbing and spoiling them with reading'" ("A Letter to the Rt. Hon. the Ld. Viscount B—ke," 1714-15). [T.S.]