The Craftsman, by Caleb D’anvers Esq; and Mr Oldcastle. Jan. 2. No. 235.
Mr. Oldcastle having begun his remarks on the conduct of the Kings of England, to shew how the spirit of Faction, and the spirit of Liberty had exerted themselves at different times and occasions, had brought his Observations down to the reign of Q. Elizabeth. He begins No. 234, with an Eulogium upon her prudent conduct in the most arduous difficulties that attended her accession to the Throne. These difficulties he explains at large, and goes on No. 235, to speak more largely of the means whereby she establish’d her glory and confirm’d herself in the affections of her People. Her first principle was to be neither fear’d nor despis’d by those she govern’d. He mentions some instances wherein she discover’d her wisdom in both these respects, particularly in maintaining her Prerogative, which altho’ she was fond of, yet took care it never should be grievous, or if it should happen so to particular persons, that it should appear specious to the publick. The effects, he says, of a bare-fac’d Prerogative are not so dangerous to Liberty as the attempts which are made to surprize and undermine it. Wherefore Q. Eliz. never kept up a Standing Army, but placed her security in the affection of her People. With respect to parties he extols her moderation and equity, by which conduct she stood on firmer ground, and had less to fear from the spirit of Faction. She neither hastily espoused the party which she favour’d, nor inflam’d the spirits of the adverse party. The Papists and Puritans she used with lenity, ’till their evil practices made it necessary to execute rigours, and even then she distinguished Papists in conscience from Papists in Faction, nor condemn’d the Zeal of the Puritans, but sometimes censured their Violence. He says from Cambden, she bestowed her favours with so much caution, and so little distinction, as to prevent either party from gaining the ascendant over her, whereby she remained Mistress of her own self, and preserved both their affections and her own power and authority entire.
He proceeds to justify Q. Eliz. from the imputation of avarice, by observing that she neither hoarded up, nor was lavish of the publick money. Quotes a saying of the famous Burleigh, that, He never cared to see the treasury swell like a disorder’d spleen, when the other parts of the common-wealth were in a Consumption; and his mistress thought that money in the pockets of her subjects was better than in her own.
It was her maxim to save for the publick not for herself, and to measure her riches by the riches of the nation; refused supplies offered, and remitted payment of supplies granted, when the publick service did not require it. The two great principles of her Œconomy were 1st. Not suffering her Officers to enrich themselves by fraud or clandestine management. 2d. Never attempting to do any thing with money that could be done with wisdom or courage. (See p. 319.) For which cites several instances; and observes how greatly she promoted commerce, and increased the fleet of England, which before was inconsiderable.
Jan. 9. Craftsman, No. 236.
All his oratory here is pointed at the person of a certain great man whom he represents as affecting all the qualities and requisites of the most consummate statesman, without any qualifications in him necessary for so high a post. He ridicules him for a ready habit of lying, because it is sometimes proper for a politician to conceal the truth: Charges him with a dark mysterious proceeding on all Occasions, because secrecy is requir’d in a statesman, and adds, that ’tis a proof that his secret services are great by the large sums requir’d for carrying them on. Says, good Intelligence is another excellent property in an able statesman, and therefore our mock-minister apes him in this particular; gives a long detail of instances to illustrate what he advances.
Confesses, indeed, that the fluctuation of affairs hath oblig’d the ministry to go from court to court; to make treaties, which (as obsrv’d by the author of the London Journal) it is by no means proper to execute——and adds, They found us engag’d in a treaty with the Emperor; but they have very wisely vary’d from it——They made a Treaty with France; and have hitherto very wisely observ’d it——they sent a large squadron of ships, with an hostile appearance, and without any declaration of war, into the West-Indies; but they wisely gave the Admiral instructions not to make use of any other force than perswasion——They sent another squadron into the Baltick; and a third into the Mediterranean; but they very wisely gave the Commanders of them the same pacifick instructions; even tho’ Spain was actually at war with us, and attacking one of our most valuable possessions——They afterwards enter’d into a treaty with Spain; but they have hitherto very wisely declin’d to put it in execution; and if they are now negotiating another treaty at Vienna, as we have been told, I doubt not that the same wisdom will appear in it, whether it is design’d to be put in execution or not.
He concludes by reducing his harangue into a kind of problematical order, and makes a great many bold interrogatories, and answering of which, he imagines, would lay his opponents under the dilemma, of disapproving their own conduct, or allowing the justness of his arguments; such as these; Will our M——r execute the treaty of Seville, or will he not? would a Reconciliation at Vienna, tho’ justifiable in other persons, be so in him? hath not the Emperor shewn that he does not fear us? will he not affect to show that he doth not want us? and many other queries to the like purpose. See London Journal of the 16th. p. 6, 7. and Free Briton of the 14th, p. 16, 17.