cess, 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 majesty 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 farther 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, until 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 lords then about court, and in the queen's good graces, not able to endure those growing impositions upon the prince and people, presumed to interpose; and were con

*

Queen Anne, according to the Duchess of Marlborough's account, had a strong bias to high church principles, and an unconquerable prejudice against the Whigs, whom she considered as alike enemies to the monarchy and the hierarchy. Hence, on her accession to the throne, she filled her privy council with Buckingham, Jersey, Nottingham, Seymour, Wright, and Rochester, all distinguished Tories. Marlborough and Godolphin owed their favour, in the beginning of the reign, to professing the same principles. But the influence of the Duchess, then omnipotent in the Queen's favour, was uniformly exerted in favour of the Whigs; and as she governed both the Queen, her husband, and Godolphin, she was enabled, first to balance the interest of the Tories at court, and at length totally to destroy it. And although the aggrandizement of her husband and his family was certainly the Duchesses first object, her second was to effect it by allying them to the Whig interest,

How

sequently soon removed and disgraced. ever, when a most exorbitant grant was proposed, 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 show to 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 Whigs. This unnatural league was afterward cultivated by another incident, I mean the act of security, and the consequences of it, which every body knows; when (to use the words of my correspondent †) the sovereign authority was parcelled out among the faction, and made the purchase of indemnity for an offending minister. Thus the union of the two kingdoms, improved that between the ministry and the junto; which was afterward

* In 1702, the queen created Lord Marlborough a duke, and sent a message to the commons, expressing a wish that they would enable her to settle a pension of 50001. a year upon him out of the post office revenue. But as this was before the Duke had commenced his brilliant career of victory, the commons only saw in the proposal, a desire to gratify the husband of a female favourite, and declined compliance. As the Tories on this occasion voted against the court, it may be supposed still farther to have alienated the Duke of Marlborough from that party.

+ Letter to the Examiner.

cemented by their mutual danger in that storm they so narrowly escaped about three years ago, but however was not quite perfected till prince George's* death; and then they went lovingly on together, both satisfied with their several shares, and 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 queen,† 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 remain unsatisfied, let him suspend his opinion a few weeks longer. Although, 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 reasons 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 coffeehouse, for seeming to glance in the letter to

* Prince George of Denmark, husband to the Queen, favoured the Tories at all times, nor could they be said quite to have lost their interest at court till his death.

Crassus against a great man, who is still in em-. ployment, 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 in 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 the way for occasion of quarrelling. But excessive avarice in a general is, I think, the greatest defect he can be liable to, next to the want 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. 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 to be 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 treasurer would be no more a compliment, than if you called him a gamester or a jockey.*

P. S. I have received a letter relating to Mr Greenshields; the person that sent it may know, that I will say something to it in the next paper.

No. XXX.

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1710-11.

Quæ enim domus tam stabilis, quæ tam firma civitas est, quæ non odiisatquedissidiis funditùs possit everti?

What family so established, what society so firmly united, that it cannot be broken and dissolved by intestine quarrels and divisions?

If we examine what societies of men are in closest union among themselves, we shall find them either to be those who are engaged in some evil design, or who labour under one common misfortune. Thus the troops of banditti in several countries abroad, the knots of highwaymen in our own nation, the several tribes of sharpers, thieves, and pickpockets, with many others, are so firmly knit together, that nothing is more difficult than to break or dissolve their several gangs:

*Alluding to the favourite foibles of Godolphin.