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.
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.
Complains of the hardship that
the authors of the Craftsman lye
under; that a certain gentleman
makes use of his authority to restrain
their pens, while he employs others
to throw about scandal at random;
and others are suffer’d to call the authors
of the Craftsman, traytors and
villains!
Makes some reflections on the London
Journal Jan. 9. which had took
to pieces his Hague Letter, concerning
the report of a negotiation at Vienna.
Mr Osborne in the London Journal having
exposed a paradox from the Craftsman,
that the ministry are never
right; when they do what the Craftsmen
count wrong: and yet wrong,
when they do what the Craftsmen count
right; the Craftsman observes, that
’tis allow’d that an accommodation
with the Emperor is a right measure,
but attended with fatal consequences,
and almost insuperable difficulties; because
such measures might be resented
by other courts as an infraction of
treaties, which Mr. Osborne says, were
only occasional and temporal.
The Craftsman supposes these alliances
to be such, but then asks, Will
our allies understand ’em in the same
sense! If not, what may be the consequences?
As to what the Craftsman had granted,
that the fulness of time was come
to desert one ally, and to Mr. Osborne’s
reasons for such desertion, he replies
by demanding, Whether it was not
equally reasonable long ago?
Osborne had ask’d——if upon the
non-execution of this treaty, occasion’d
by the different views of the allies,
another court should grow stubborn,
what must we do? This the
Craftsman answers by another question,
that is, Whether the different views
of the allies do not proceed from their
different interests?
From the Minutes of Mr. Oldcastle.
This paper continues remarks on
Q. Elizabeth’s reign; and is a
long Encomium on her management of
treaties with foreign powers, which
she always conducted in such a manner
as was best suited to the good of
her people and the honour and dignity
of the nation. Her Ministry went
wisely and steadily on to their own
great purposes of preserving the peace of
Europe, and the trade and prosperity of
the Kingdom. (See Free Brit. p. 8, 326.)
Maintains the liberty of the Press,
in opposition to those who argue
for the necessity of some restraint,
which, if granted, he says, might be
made use of to destroy all newspapers
whatsoever, except the Gazette.
After repeating most of the points
in debate, he defends his Hague letter
(for which the government thought
fit to call him to an account) in as
much as there was nothing in it asserted,
but only supposed; and adds, he
has as much right to reason upon
suppositions as Mr. Osborne; and to
censure the conduct of ministers, as he
hath to approve it; for unless the
right is reciprocal, the liberty of the
press is no liberty at all.
As to what Mr. Walsingham had
allow’d, that we have a right to reason
upon political affairs, tho’ not to
lay down false facts; he replies, that
he has asserted no falsehoods, and only
exercised the natural right of every
Free Briton, to offer his opinion on
affairs.
Concludes with saying, that if he
should be call’d upon to defend himself
in a court of justice he must submit to
the law; and abide the judgment of his
country. See p. 298.
The Craftsman having in his said
Journal advanced several arguments
for the disbanding the Army and
repealing the Riot Act, the Author of
the London Journal undertakes here to
confute them. He admits that a Government
ought to have no more power
than is necessary for the safety and
protection, the preservation and happiness
of the people, but adds that the
laws alone, without a power to execute,
and provide against all sudden
emergencies, and possible dangers, will
not answer these ends. Asserts that
the possibility of powers being abused
is not a sufficient reason to strip the
Government of such a security, or
to lodge the safety of the King in the
affections of the people, which are variable
and easily seduced, and (as the
Craftsman allows) very precarious,
when he makes a doubt whether his
present Majesty enjoys them. Not only
Armies and Riot Acts, but even the
very law itself, by ill designing men
may be used for our destruction, which
were made for our safety. But must
we part with the law, because we may
suffer by the law? Every nation round
us is arm’d, and must we alone stand
naked and defenceless? If the liberties
of many nations have been destroy’d
by standing armies, the liberties of many
have been preserv’d by them. Mentions
the Revolution as an instance,
and believes the Pr. of Orange would
not have so easily succeeded, had the army
been as true to the King as they
were to their country. That the disbanding
the army after the peace of
Riswick embolden’d the French King to
set his Grandson on the Throne of
Spain, and declare the Pretender, which
involv’d us in a ten years war: That
nothing more intimidated the Ministry
in the last four years of Q. Anne’s
reign, than the honesty and bravery of
the gentlemen of the army.
As to the riot act, he says that power
is necessary to prevent riots and tumults,
and to disperse the people when
so assembled. To this purpose a law is
made which tells them the consequences
of it; a proper officer gives them
warning; and if after this they will
stay and be hang’d, ’tis their own
fault.
He allows, that shou’d a Justice of
the peace assume the liberty of reading
the proclamation where a member of
parliament is chusing, he ought to
be hang’d. He don’t see how this act
can injure us any other way; for
while the constitution is preserv’d,
and our liberties taken care of by the
government, the people can’t be unjustly
hurt by it.
The remaining part of his discourse
is spent in setting forth the unreasonableness
of repealing this act, from the
behaviour of the authors of the Craftsman
and their abettors, who by their
conduct in exciting uneasiness in the
people, have made it necessary to continue
it in force.
Contains remarks upon a paper
in the Craftsman, called, An extract
of a letter from the Hague.
The author begins with observing,
that tho’ the pretence of the Craftsman
is liberty and patriotism, yet his
real design is opposition to the court.
He then reflects on the Craftsman’s
incoherent way of arguing, just as it
serves to vent his spleen; for according
to him the ministry are never
right when they do what he counts
wrong, and always wrong when they
do what the Craftsman counts right.
When we were broken with the Emperor
we were quite wrong, and now
we are going to unite with the Emperor
we are equally wrong.
This paper, or letter, the Journalist
says, is made up of mere conjectures,
and suppositions; or else insinuations,
unsupported by facts or reason: justifies
our ministry from the aspersion
that we are undoing what we have
been doing these five years; and insists
that we have been continuing to
do the same thing, that is, pursuing
the peace and happiness of the nation
by different means, as alterations happen’d,
or circumstances varied.
He then answers the Craftsman’s
charge of deserting one ally, by supposing
that this ally may have views
inconsistent with the two other allies,
and so stand disposed to act contrary
to the design of that treaty and our
interest. England is not obliged to
execute the treaty, unless the other
allies will act their part.
The Craftsman charges the ministry
with obstinate perseverance in bad
measures, and now with a precipitate
alteration of councils. This the author
of this Journal denies, and says, it
should be more justly called, a wise
and prudent accommodating themselves
to the late unfortunate juncture
of affairs. Changing hands is not an
alteration of councils, but a conduct
which wise and honest men ought to
observe.
Reflections on the present State of Affairs,
occasion’d by the Craftsman, Jan. 9.
He takes notice of the Craftsman’s
method of drawing of characters,
in which he offends all the laws
of honesty, propriety and decorum;
charges without evidence or reason,
and without common sense; makes
his Mock-minister a composition of insolence,
malice, and a small talent for
ridicule, yet is not half so odious as
the Mock-patriot who drest him; who,
while he counterfeits publick virtue,
is infamously abusing the publick:
clothes himself with the love of his
country, while he is making a jest of
it; and injures the community, while
he pretends the highest regard for it;
and who, because we have tried all
possible ways to preserve the peace,
calls our ministers Dupes of all the
powers of Europe, political Mendicants,
strolling about from court to court.
The Craftsman having advanc’d, that
we are inexcuseable for not having foreseen
and prevented these conjunctures
in which nothing can be done which
is not a fault to do; our author asks,
what conjunctures those are, in which
a man is not at liberty to act reasonably
and honestly? or can it be a
fault so to act?
By the treaty of Seville we only
yielded to Spain a point, which, in
real interest, concerned some of the
contending powers. It could hardly
be imagin’d that the Emperor would
have put himself to the expence, or
hazard of a war, for the small deviation
of the Quadruple Alliance, had he
not been informed, that the allies
could not agree about the war; or
that they disagreed about the scene
of action; or, for the sake of peace,
the allies might all concur to wait
one Year to see what the Emperor
would do. Any of these suppositions
affords a reason why the treaty of
Seville is not yet executed.
As to the queries put by the Craftsman,
(p. 4.) they are all ask’d for the
sake of the two last, which demand,
Will not this measure of making up
with the Emperor be attended with
worse consequences than turning out
the minister? and——Will the objections
against it, be so strong, if
manag’d by another hand?——he
answers no; for persons don’t alter
the relation of things, or change
the nature of actions. If it is reasonable,
’tis equally so whoever does it.
By the behaviour of the ministry
for some years past, it evidently
appears, that the preserving the peace
of Europe, and securing the trade and
prosperity of the kingdom, has been
their greatest concern; but whether
means taken to that end have been
always right, is not so easily determin’d.
The sword indeed might have cut
our way to peace, and added to our
glory, but the event might have prov’d
a general war.——Our ministry
thought wisdom better than power.
To this end, when our enemies arm’d
we put ourselves in a posture of defence;
we suffer’d little insults, as a
proof that we were willing to be one
with a nation with whom it is our
interest to be one. To this end we
united those who were disjoin’d, and
separated those who were united; still
avoiding a war.
But while the ministry have been
industrious in preventing confusions,
and watching opportunities of accommodating
differences, their adversaries
have practis’d all imaginary ways to
insult and embarrass them.
Osborne clears himself from the imputation
which the Craftsman had
charg’d him with, viz. that the supposition
that we are going to unite
with the Emperor, will be attended
with perfidy, infraction of treaties,
and violation of faith.
This Journal contains observations
on Mr. Oldcastle’s minutes
of Q. Elizabeth’s reign, which he affirms
is a collection of Scraps without
order or method, coherence or connexion,
being sounds without sense,
confusedly thrown at the present administration.
See p. 3.
Admits that this Queen was a wise
and glorious Princess, but says that
our Constitution, and the exercise of Power
at home, is vastly better than what
they were in her reign, and our Foreign
Affairs transacted with as much
wisdom.
Quotes Mr. Oldcastle’s own words,
in which he describes the Wisdom and
Address of Q. Elizabeth, to describe
the Wisdom and Address of the present
Minister in negotiating Foreign Affairs.
(See p. 3.)
Lastly, he gives several maxims out
of Cambden and Francis Osborne’s memoirs
of this Queen, such as her preferring
peace to war; her delaying resentment
of injuries till proper seasons;
her judgment of her subjects
abilities, which she dextrously fitted
for her favours and their employments;
her steady resolution not to
ransom herself from her enemies at
the price of their preferments who
lov’d her.
A Letter is inserted, containing remarks
on Mr. Chubb’s discourse
concerning Reason, in which is asserted,
that it either is, or ought to be a sufficient
guide in matters of Religion.
This Proposition the remarker explains
in the words of Mr. Chubb, and
assents to, and then proceeds to consider
it more particularly. Does not
comprehend Mr. Chubb’s observation,
i. e. The Question is not whether there
be absolutely such a capacity in man:
for if man has such a capacity, as Mr.
Chubb insists, he may be truly said to
be the possessor of it. Nor can the remarker
understand the sense of that
clause, he ought to have, because it has
no relation to the dispute between
Mr. Chubb and the Bp of London, i. e.
what man now has, and is capable of.
The remarker goes on to shew, that
the author’s argument to prove that
man ought to have such a capacity, is
needless, because it is universally assented
to.
Mr. Chubb argues, That as our species
was no ways accessary to Adam’s transgression,
’tis unreasonable and unequal
that they should suffer by it.
To this is answer’d, that there are
other difficulties in the general scheme
of providence as hard to be solved; as
that, whole families are involved in
misery by the mismanagement of their
ancestor; the entailment of chronick
and terrible disorders on children by
the debaucheries of a father, for that
it is wrong intolerable, and against
reason to punish children for the
crimes of their fathers. But all these
difficulties which seem to clash with
the wisdom and goodness of God, are
rectify’d in a future state, for which
we are manifestly fitted and design’d.
This paper begins with a piece of
humourous irony; observing that
as criticks never appear so disappointed
as when they meet with beauties in an
author; so the present sett of disaffected
political writers conceive no
small joy to see their country involv’d
in difficulties; nor can they be worse
mortified than to see this nation flourish
in trade, wealth and credit.
That Osborne (writer of the London
Journal) and Walsingham (of the Free
Briton) affirm, That the present crew
of factious writers proceeds on this
principle. Descants upon the measures
for some years past; the destruction of
the Spanish Fleet in the Mediterranean,
whereby Sicily was gain’d for the Emperor,
and the preservation of the balance
of Europe so ill settled by that
wicked treaty of Utrecht.
Mentions some of the great Actions
which have stirr’d up the envy of the
disaffected; as, the sending annual
fleets into the Baltick; the treaty of
Hanover; the maintaining a body of
Hessian troops; sending squadrons to
the coasts of Spain and the West-Indies,
the expedition to Spithead and lastly,
the treaty of Seville. This last, he
ironically says, had like to have kill’d
the disaffected quite, because it was
so wisely calculated for establishing a
general tranquillity, and for the advancing
the trade of Great Britain!
He goes on throwing his sarcasms
at the writers on the side of the present
ministry, who having challeng’d
the disaffected to show any one step
taken destructive of the true interest
of their country, instances in the opening
the harbour of Dunkirk, the Island
of St. Lucia planted by the French;
raising recruits in Ireland for the service
of France; all which the two
writers aforemention’d, convinced the
world were groundless, by telling the
authors of these reports, they lyed.
He makes some reflections on Mr.
Osborne’s observations of the ill conduct
of the ministry in the latter end of
Q. Anne’s reign; as the endeavours
to break the power of the Dissenters,
and to weaken the security of the
Hanover succession; setting aside the
Quaker’s affirmation; the disbanding
the army. All which Fog laughs at!
and concludes with his surprize, that
when he considers with how much
good sense these two writers have exposed
the actions of that Tory ministry,
and how they have defended
the measures of the present, there
should be a disaffected person left in
the kingdom.
This Paper consists of reflections
on a pamphlet, intituled, A Defence
of the Measures of the present Administration.
He begins with the observation
which the author had made: “That
complaints and outcries are no
foundation for supposing defects in
publick counsels; for in a frame of
government like ours, a continuance
of the same administration
will always lessen the popularity of
the ministry.
“The frequent use of this observation,
Fog says, is enough to shew
its good sense. ’Twas first started
by the Rev. Author of the Enquiry,
all the anniversary pamphlets have
had it since, and it has been repeated
by Mr. Osborne 75 times;
by Mr. Walsingham twice as many;
nor is there any thing in this pamphlet
but what has the authority
of, at least, 50 repetitions”: yet
he cannot subscribe to his opinion; for
supposing it true, it is a sure sign that
affairs are well conducted; but if the
contempt of all men of sense be added
to this clamour, oh! then we
pronounce him an angel.
He goes on to quote another passage;
“That the Peace of Utrecht left
us on good terms with Spain, which
might have turn’d to our advantage,
had our affairs been wisely manag’d
in the late reign; but as they
were not, it laid the foundation of
the several perplexities that have
since attended us.”
This conduct of the last reign, Fog
says, ought to be apply’d to a person
or two since dead, and not to the present
ministers. Adds, that he might
have spar’d his encomium of the Utrecht
treaty, or shewn us the folly
of cultivating a good understanding
with the Emperor and Spain at the same
time, by which our affairs, every where
were left in a stupid calm; for had
they contriv’d to make either of ’em
our enemy, we should always have
had a quarrel and a treaty depending,
and so have given vent to our humours
and money too.
The author having said, that when
the present ministry came into power,
they observ’d from the complexion of
things mischief must be gath’ring some
where, which prov’d to be an alliance
betwixt Spain and the Emperor.
This, Fog affirms, was very sagacious;
but that the treaty he speaks of was,
and still is deny’d by both the parties.
He then criticises on several other
parts of the discourse, especially on
those which extol the conduct of our
ministry and their management of our
affairs, relating to the inaction of the
squadron sent to the West Indies, and
keeping back the Spanish Treasure,
thereby rendring it useless, as to any
dangerous purposes.
The wisdom of this conduct, Fog
takes notice, proved itself in the Event;
The Spaniards were provoked;
sent out their privateers, and pillag’d
our merchants!
As to humouring the Q. of Spain
in settling the Italian dukedoms on
Don Carlos, says, sneeringly, besides obliging
a fair Lady, Great Britain has
gain’d the treaty of Seville!
The Press, says he, has lately swarm’d
with writing pro and con, upon the
present posture of affairs, by which we
find that one party is of opinion, that
ministers of state are no more than men;
t’other will have ’em to be angels (that
is while they continue in power.)——Here
you read, that Affairs are in no
better situation than they should be——there,
that we have neither past miscarriages,
or present grievances to complain
of, and that the nation never was in so
flourishing a condition. One D’Anvers,
and, if I mistake not, one Fog, are accused
of seditiously asserting that a Crow
is black, but the writers on the other
side, have with infinite Wit, proved a
black Crow to be the whitest bird of
all the feather’d kind.
He proceeds thus merrily to remark
on a pamphlet intitled, Considerations
on the present state of affairs, with regard
to the Number of Forces in the Pay of
Great Britain; and endeavours, in his
ironical way, to overthrow the several
arguments advanced by the author
for maintaining the Hessian troops,
and concludes with giving his opinion
that they will be very far from convincing
the disaffected.
Dr. Quibus chuses for the subject
of his discourse the operation
designed to be performed on the ears
of one Rey, a condemn’d malefactor,
by Mr. Cheselden. This he treats in a
ludicrous manner, and supposes that
if Mr. Rey should prove so unphilosophical
as to give the surgeon the
slip as soon as the operation is over,
we should be as much in the dark as
we were before. He declares his opinion,
that not only the drum, but the
whole organ, or the ear it self, is of
no use at all in hearing, and would
know the truth of his conjecture by
seeing the ears of some malefactor entirely
extirpated. Recommends it as a
thing of great use, if instead of executing
malefactors they were made
to undergo such kind of experiments.
Trial may be made whether the Retina
of the eye is of any use in seeing.
A needle might be introduced into
the eye, and the Retina quite remov’d.
The spleen might be taken out of
some vile malefactor, and an observation
made whether their inclinations
to evil courses depend not on a
superfluity of the Atra Bilis. Another
experiment he recommends as of great
consequence, that is, whether the tying
up one of the testicles would not
determine the sex of a child begotten
at such a time. By this means,
he says, many illustrious families
might be inform’d of a just and certain
method of obtaining an heir to
their estates. See p. 19.
The author begins with the Laureat’s
new-year’s ode (for which
see p. 20.) and subjoins to it some
explanatory notes; the substance of
which is contain’d in the following
short remarks.
Line 1. The eternity of the world
is here maintain’d, tho’ Dr. Clarke
had objected against it.
3. Old Janus, a heathenish emblem,
is supplanted by old Time, as more familiar
to christian readers.
5. To this is objected, making Spring
a living person calling for birth as it
were to old Time; whereas old Time
had bid spring pass, so no occasion for
spring to call. Which is defended thus;
When time bids spring pass, it might
not be ready, but as soon as it was,
it calls for birth.
Line 7. Harvest in summer is very
early, and something unusual.
9. But not soon enough, it seems,
because here each season is said to bring
THEIR stores TO winter’s wants, till
warmer genial suns recall the spring——However
Mr. Cibber’s authority makes
it current.
15. An admirable improvement of
Nocte pluit tota, &c. which to set in a
true light is translated and imitated:
It rains all night, the shows returns with day:
Thus Jove and Cæsar bear divided sway.
Plenty is Heav’n’s, and Peace our Monarch’s care,
Thus Jove and George divided Empire share.
But to this was objected, that we
are not only indebted to heaven for
plenty, but for peace too, tho’ like
marriages said to be made there, it
was not yet come down.
21. It is queried what war and
peace the poet means here.
22. An emendation of this line is
offer’d to make it clear,
We triumph most when MOST the farmer feeds.
and the Beef eaters at St. James’s, are
appeal’d to for the justness of it.
23, 24. The elegance of these lines
are literally defended, but the propriety
and cadence of them are called in question.
25, 26, 27, 21. These seem inconsistent
with the 19th and 20th verses.
As in the 35th, and 46th lines,
Phœbus had roll’d in vain, till Albion
could behold such a sight as at present
on the throne, well might the poet
make the exclamation in the 37th and
38th.
39, 40. As it is impossible always
to REACH our own desires, tho’ required
by heaven, it is proposed to alter
it to TEACH; that is, instruct united
hearts to address the throne by
their own loyal desires.
41. Read selfish, as better than self-born;
all views whatever being such.
46. Suns probably should be read
sons, because it seems to be a contradiction
to ever circling sun, line 1.
The criticiser concludes with observing,
that when a song is good
sense, it must be made nonsense before
it is made musick; so when a song is
nonsense, there’s no other way but by
singing it to make it seem tolerable
sense.
The author begins with observing
that nothing has increased their
society so much as poetry: We are
taught it at school; if not, believe
we are born poets. Every corner abounds
with its professors; the bellman
nightly salutes his master and
mistress: the marshal, his gentlemen
soldiers every Christmas; every
street rings with ballads; the royal
palace resounds with odes; and every
church-yard with its productions:
Stephen Duck’s good fortune has occasion’d
a poor Weaver in Spittle-fields
to publish a miscellany of poems
which he addresses to the Queen, and
introduces with this line.
Thy fortune, Duck, affects my kindred mind;
Wherefore Grub st. presumes to represent
to her Majesty, that the best way
to encourage the Weaver, would be to
wear British manufactures; and the
thresher, by giving him a small farm
in the country; and to restrain both
from writing a line more in rhime or
measure.
Apprehends, that from this general
inclination to write, they shall be
oblig’d, like the royal society, to
discourage intruders amongst them,
and, to prevent misunderstanding,
proposes that no person shall be a
member of both societies at the same
time.
Makes some remarks concerning
the management of controversies
between the political writers. This
he illustrates by two examples; by
which he would intimate the spirit
that animates and governs both parties.
The first is a quotation of two severe
personal characters, from a pamphlet
entitled Sedition and Defamation display’d,
in a Letter to the Author of the
Craftsman. The other is some paragraphs
attacking two characters on
the opposite side, drawn from the Pamphlet
call’d, A proper reply to a late
scurrilous libel intitled Sedition and Defamation
display’d; in a Letter to the
author, by Caleb D’anvers Esq; which
four characters he supposes imaginary,
for if they were real, no man of
sense, honour, or honesty would espouse
them.
The Register publishes a mystical
letter from a club of Gardners,
wherein is figuratively describ’d the
evils which the fraternity have occasionally
suffer’d from the depredations
of Locusts, Palmer-worms, Caterpillars,
and other pestiferous vermin. Several
discourses were made by the members
concerning the Origin and Progress of
these their common enemies. One of
the company said, that the first appearance
of them is in a sort of spawn,
spread over the cabbage-leaves, which
gradually rises into Grubs. This Grubbean
race, he reckons, are descendants of
the Egyptian Locusts, and the Palmer-worms
and Caterpillars, a spurious offspring
of the Locusts. Another of the
society believes they are of an English
extraction; gives several significations
of the word Grub, and then runs a parallel
between the insects called Grubs,
and the Grubean Society, or Grubstreet
Journalists. To which he adds a remark,
that ’tis something strange a
body of Men should set themselves up to
make a merit of other men’s faults:
they must of course be despicable themselves,
because they take a pleasure in
making others appear so.
Remembers that in the late wartime
many postscripts to the Flying-Posts
were bawl’d about with abundance
of news, but scarce a word of
truth: So that paper gain’d the name
of the Lying Post, and was called Grub-street
News. And still it’s a common
appellation, when we hear full and
true accounts cry’d by our doors, ’tis
Grubstreet, all Grubstreet.
On Ridicule, address’d to the authors
of the Grubstreet-Journal.
Says, Ridicule is a general practice, and
proceeds either from the wantonness
of our own vanity, or contempt of others
frailties. We take the same pleasure in
scandal as monkies do in mischief. Wonders
why the Tea-table should be thought
the mother of scandal, or the nurse of ridicule,
when all mankind is pursuing
the same pleasure under different disguises.
They condemn Censure in others,
that they may indulge it themselves. The
taverns are as accessary to it as private
houses. Courts are esteemed the source
of politeness and good manners; theatres
of ingenuity, churches of sanctity; yet all
are infected with the evil of scandal.
Seems to prefer the gaming-table as freest
from irony and slander; avarice being a
spirit that allows of no rival. This vice
is contagious, and runs thro’ the whole
people: it wanders every where, like an
ignis fatuus, and is only at home in the
Grubstreet-Journal.
Don’t pretend how far this libertinism
of speech is allowable, but is certain that
every moral man will use it only for the
sake of him he censures; and every gentleman
will make good manners the only
rule of behaviour. All men are jealous
of their characters, and we must
have a due complaisance for one frailty
while we would reform another; for
the insolence of knowledge is as insupportable
as the affectation of folly. The
subjects of ridicule are to be justly chosen
and carefully distinguished.
Concludes with some Reflections on the
authors of the Grubstreet-Journal, who
have undertaken the drudgery of invective
under pretence of being champions
for politeness.
He remarks, that from an ambition
of emulating, without a
capacity to equal another’s excellencies,
have arisen an infinite number
of pretenders to reputation. The regular
physician is intruded upon by the
empyrick; the masterly painter is
slighted in favour of impudence and
ignorance; the most elegant and chaste
compositions of musick, are forc’d to
give way to amusements less polite:
Quackery interferes with trade, and
undermines honesty. The pedlar stiles
himself a merchant; No wonder then
that authors of every character are so
wretchedly personated. Exclaims against
bad writers, from the Court-scribbler
to the Grubstreet hackney.
Proceeds to the description of a
good author; says, his principal end,
in occasional writings, should be to
entertain the publick innocently and
genteely; to insinuate knowledge in
the disguise of amusement, and trifle
the world into virtue and good manners:
he should consider every reader
as a critick and a gentleman, and be
earful of offending either: points out
what a writer should observe, who
would recommend himself and entertain
the world; i. e. an important
subject, a clear and expressive method,
a flowing and natural stile, imagination
and judgment, truth and impartiality,
modesty in his images, pity
for the failings of human nature, and
endeavours to amend ’em. He shou’d
think himself a son of the publick
and be an example of the generous
spirit he would recommend; he should
be able to race the passions thro’ all
their disguises; have knowledge in his
head, and good humour in his heart:
he should be an enemy to vice, but a
friend to all mankind.
This is a continuation of a former
discourse upon criticism,
wherein he points out several excellencies
that distinguish a good critick
from a bad.
He then considers the manner of
criticism, that some are Fox-hunters in
censure, and declare war against all
writers in general. Some are like Fig
and Sutton, the declar’d antagonists to
one another. Some are Whigs and Tories,
divided into parties, always applauding
themselves, and condemning
their opposers. Some are Grubstreet
hawkers, who make a penny of throwing
about censure at random without
distinction or regard of persons.
The design of criticism is amendment;
and concludes with acknowledging
his own failings, and his readiness
to be handsomely corrected.
Great wits to madness nearly are ally’d
And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
Dryden.
Mr. Stonecastle, the nominal author,
begins this day’s entertainment
with observing that men are
not born for themselves; that we are
not only bound to relieve the necessities
of others, but in all our dealings,
&c. with mankind to render ourselves
grateful to all, offensive to
none, much less take pleasure in doing
disagreeable things. Says there
is a sett of people who are frequently
committing ill-bred, rude, and even
shocking things, which they excuse
by only saying, ’tis their humour.
Instances in a certain knight, who
never spoke himself, nor suffer’d any
body in his presence to speak louder
than to be barely heard; insomuch
that his servants, as they were accustom’d
to be mutes at home, behav’d
like no body when they came
abroad.
His nephew Silvio, just come from
the university, declaims on every subject
you can mention, and imagines
himself master of every science.
Whatever is the topick of discourse,
he will suffer no body to talk upon it
but himself; his uncle has but one
hope of curing him of his folly, that
is, by engaging him to talk of maritime
affairs before captain Firebal of
the Tempest, who, very probably, will
beat him into better manners.
Beauty itself loses its attraction
when accompanied with these humours.
Artemisa is exquisitely handsome,
but takes the liberty of abusing every
body at random, by asking ill-natur’d
questions, and being witty upon
others imperfections: excuses herself
by saying, ’tis her way to tell unlucky
truths and she can’t help it.
Crito is a man of sense, learning,
and accuracy of judgment; but this
ought not to privilege him to treat
every writer he does not like with
opprobrious language.
Belliza has wit and beauty, accompanied
with a solid judgment. Yet
all this will hardly palliate the disgust
she gives people with whom she
eats. She never uses a fork, is be-greased
up to the knuckles, and by her
immoderate taking of snuff, which
frequently falling among her sauce,
she gives her guests their bellies full
before they have half din’d. Concludes
with a merry story of a certain
Colonel, whose flight it was,
when he had drank a glass or two
too much, to fire off and play tricks
with his pistols. One night the col.
having drank too freely order’d, his
footman, who was an Irishman newly
hired, to bring his pistols, Teague
obey’d; the Col. loaded them both,
and having lock’d the door commanded
his man to hold one of the candles
at arm’s length, till he snuff’d
it with a ball. Prayers and intreaties
were in vain, and comply he must,
and did, tho’ trembling; the Col.
perform’d the operation at the first
attempt, then laying down his pistols
was going to unlock the door. Teague
catches up that which was loaded,
‘Arra Maishter, says he, but now you
must take up t’other candle, and let
me have my shoot too.’ The col.
call’d him rogue and rascal to no purpose,
Teague was now vested with
power, and would be obey’d: Accordingly
his master extended the candle,
but this being the first time of Teague’s
performing, he not only miss’d, but
shot off a button from the breast of
the colonel’s coat. So narrow an
escape had a good effect, and cur’d
him of this humour of turning marksman in
his drink.
Contains two Letters, with the
Spectator’s answers to them.
The first is from a gentleman, who,
about three months since, fell passionately
in love with a lady at a ball;
gives an account of his courtship,
and of the kind reception of his addresses
during that time, till of a sudden,
without any reason given, or objection
made, the lady sent him a peremptory
message to desist any further
pursuit. Complains that ’tis ungenerous
and unjust to keep people so long
in suspence, with no design but to
gratify female pride and vanity.
To this the Spectator replies, That
the lady gave him fair play, and an
opportunity of rendring himself agreeable;
which when she found he could
not, she very civilly, by a third person,
desir’d him to desist. However,
he says, ’tis but reasonable that the lady
should give him a certificate of his
good behaviour during his courtship.
The second letter is from a young
lady of 15, who signs herself Carolina,
which may be summ’d up and comprized
in those two queries.
1. May a Woman entertain several
lovers at the same time?
2. After a Woman has once receiv’d
a man’s addresses, may she with honour
turn him off?
To the first he answers, That such a
licence might be granted, if nothing was
design’d by it but the chusing of the most
deserving for a husband; but considering
the inconveniences that would necessarily
attend such an indulgence, he durst not
allow it.
The second query he grants in the
affirmative; that is, if she discovers
him false and base, or uncapable of making
her happy.
Contains a letter from a physician,
in which he describes the miserable
condition of his patients, that
apply to him on the venereal account.
Of this sort the most unfortunate and
pitiful object is a woman of the town,
who, if not quite abandon’d, gives
a loose to her passion on such occasions.
The consideration of her past,
present, and future state, fills her
with distraction, and involves her in
endless evils, from which death only
can deliver her.
Proceeds to argue with the infamous
authors of the misery of these wretches,
who first seduce the poor young
creatures from their innocence, and
then triumph in their wickedness.
He who debauches a maiden, and then
exposes her to want and shame, is arrived
to such a monstrous height of
villany, that no word in our language
can reach it. Mentions a further species
of cruelty, that is, the necessity
some of these poor wretches are under,
if with child, of applying to a magistrate
to procure some pitiful maintenance
for her unfortunate babe.——When
all that is to be done by the father,
is to make the best bargain he
can with the church-wardens to take
it off his hands; which is commonly
done for a treat, and 10 or 12l. So
the child is placed upon the parish,
and the woman upon the town.
Entertains his readers with two
letters; the first is from Tristitia
Stale, who complains that she is continually
persecuted, merely because
she is an old maid.
Virginity, she says, has not always
been a reproach, sees no encouragement
in matrimony, and begs the
Spectator to reprimand the malaperts,
who ridicule chastity; adds, that a
single life in woman was esteem’d among
the ancient as well as modern
Romans; vestals then, and nuns now.
The other letter is from Charlotte
Wilful, a young lady of 19, who says
she has two admirers. The first is
’squire Scrape, who has 1200l. per
annum, which he keeps in his own
hands and farms himself, and therefore
is favour’d in his pretentions by
her father.
Mr Myrtle, her mother’s favourite,
is the other, who, by his own account
is near 40, by that of his acquaintance
10 years older, has squander’d
away a good estate, but by the death
of an uncle is now worth 1000l. per
annum, and is a perfect humourist.
But to both these she prefers Mr
Plume of the Inner-Temple, who has
no estate, but is of a sweet temper.
Concludes with desiring Mr Stonecastle
to declaim on parents making choices
for their Children, with a stroke on
antiquated beaus, and rural animals,
and to recommend a fine gentleman
with no fortune. Desires, by way of
postscript, that he would not delay
publishing her letter, because Mr
Plume and she had agreed to run away
together on Tuesday next.
Among all those amusements people
find to pass away the time, Poesy
and Musick are the most elegantly entertaining.
By the ancients they were
look’d upon as immediately inspired
from above, and the professors reverenc’d
as sacred, and the favourites of
heaven.
He adds, that we excel the ancients
in musick, if not in poetry, and prefers
a good English song, tho’ set to a
common tune, before the Italian trifling
unnatural compositions. The
one ravishes the ear only, the other
entertains the understanding also.——Hence
he takes occasion to recommend
A collection of Lyric poems and
songs with musick annexed, lately publish’d.
The author refutes a falsity advanced
by Mr D’anvers in the
Craftsman of the 13th of Dec. wherein,
speaking of the riot-act, he says,
“That an election of Church-wardens
hath been already made a
handle for putting this law in execution.
That the master of a small
vessel was kept a whole year in prison,
to the loss of his voyage, and
almost the ruin of his family, upon
happening to go thro’ the church-yard,
from visiting a friend, an
hour after the proclamation was
read. Nay, that the poor man
might have run the hazard of his
life, as well as have been put to further
expences, if his late Majesty
had not been graciously pleas’d to
grant him a Noli prosequi.”
The falsehood of this story the Free
Briton thus corrects.—The gentlemen
of Greenwich disagreeing upon the
choice of a church-warden at Easter
1722, a poll was demanded and a scrutiny
afterwards agreed on. The scrutineers
met, but a number of dissolute
persons tumultuously assembling at
the same time, insulted the justices in
a rude and outragious manner, (justice
Savory receiving a blow on the
back by a great stone) so that it was
thought proper to read the proclamation
in order to disperse them. Among
the rioters was Charles Curtis, master
of a small vessel. He was with
them before, at, and after the proclamation
was read, and very notorious
by his behaviour; was several times
admonished by the justices to depart;
and as often very civilly acquainted
by them with the ill consequence
of his continuance in that riotous
assembly. But notwithstanding their
repeated admonitions, he still continued,
and was found among the rioters
an hour and a half after the Proclamation
was read, and being even
then advised to leave that place, and
to avoid the fatal consequence, the
said Curtis, still refused to depart,
and insisted with uncommon insolence,
that he was as much about his
business in that place as the justices
themselves. Whereupon he was apprehended,
committed to Maidstone
Gaol, try’d, and convicted, but in
compassion to his family his punishment
was suspended; but a Noli prosequi
was never granted.
The aim of the Free Briton, in this
paper, is to shew the inconclusive
reasoning of the Craftsman from matters
of fact falsely asserted.
In the conclusion of this paper is a
letter by way of reply to the
Craftsman, Jan. 9. wherein that author
calls upon the Free Briton to justify
the administration for breaking with
the Emperor. To which the Free
Briton answers, that it will be full time
to make a defence when such measures
are undertaken; that their insolence
is astonishing, in imputing the
same crimes to our ministers for
which themselves have deserved a
halter. Asks the Craftsman whether
he imagines the ministry are so fond
of the Emperor on the sudden, as to
sacrifice the trade of Spain, and abandon
all the powers of Europe, only to
run into his arms?
In Feb. last an outcry was rais’d on
a pretended discovery that the ministry
were making up at Vienna by an
implicit guarantee of the Emperor’s
succession to the Austrian Netherlands,
as he should settle it; yet this could
not be obtain’d of the British councils;
and now we are told we are ready
to lurch all our allies for his sake.
The authors of the Craftsman allow
that this Treaty-breaking measure
would be right, provided a certain
great man was removed. As if national
compacts could be dissolv’d by
the change of the ministers: The nation
must answer for the faith of
treaties. Grants that such a conduct
might be expected, should this ministry
be chang’d.
It does not redound to the shame of
those who made the treaty of Seville,
that the parties have allow’d the Emperor
a reasonable time to come into
their measures; which if they had not,
they would have been charg’d with
rashness, precipitation, and every enormity.
Concludes with mentioning
several injuries and insults that this
nation has suffer’d from the Imperial
quarter.
He applies Job’s saying to his
friends, Will you lye for God?
to the Craftsman, Will you lye for liberty
and country? and asks, if he demands
impunity for defamatory falsehood?
Breach of faith, which the Craftsman
had laid to the charge of the
ministry, is the most virulent aspersion
that a libeller can utter against
any government, is therefore
punishable, and declares his opinion,
that spreading false news is no part
of the freedom of the press.
He thinks no honest cause wants
the assistance of falshood, so no man
should lay claim to liberty who adheres
not to truth; therefore the
Craftsman ought not to complain of
severity from the government, unless
he will evince the truth of his
assertion.
Men think that prosecutions and
confinement are very hard, not considering
the provocations that urg’d
them; and that the worst imputations
are charg’d on the councils of
the crown, without the least colour of
truth. The punishment inflicted on
a libelling printer, bears no proportion
with the wrongs thus offer’d to a
great people.
Distinguishes between opinions offr’d
upon national affairs, and misrepresentations
of those affairs. The
first is not criminal, the other may.
Says, these men may be punished
on the Statute, as spreaders of false
news.
The Craftsman can defend himself
no other way then by refuting
the charge of falshood.
The Craftsman had suggested that
the Government abetted the very
practices for which he is under prosecution;
and instanced in the pamphlet
Sedition and Defamation display’d,
which represents the conduct and
characters of two persons who have
laboured these five years to make
this ministry odious, for which reasons
the opposite writers spare no
invectives to point out these gentlemen
Weekly, as Traitors and Villains.
The Free Briton here justifies the characters
complain’d of.
He takes notice that the Craftsman
in his reply to the pamphlet called
Sedition and Defamation display’d,
has not once attempted to show that
the characters of two gentlemen there
given are in the least unlike or injurious,
and maintains that whatever is
said of them in that pamphlet is indisputably
true; yet observes, that the
author admitted, that he who had
wronged his friendship, and betrayed
his confidence, came into the world
with all the advantages that recommend
men to the esteem, favour, and
approbation of mankind.
The Craftsman on the contrary divests
the minister whose character he
draws of all those talents and abilities,
without which, power is not easily acquir’d,
or long maintain’d. See p. 4.
But the minister’s abilities have been
the dread and disappointment of his
enemies, and have carried him thro’
innumerable difficulties for five years
together, and enabled him to baffle
all their attempts against him; notwithstanding
he is describ’d as setting
out in mean circumstances, and recommended
to mankind by every bad quality,
yet those who object this now,
were more than ten years his associates
in private life as well as publick affairs.
As to what has been said of his being
superior in impudence to all, this author
replies, that ’twas never heard that
he call’d gentlemen scoundrels in publick
assemblies; reviled the Speeches from
the Throne; or, that if affairs were
managed as he dictated, he would
maintain his Majesty’s administration.
Several other scurrilous reflections,
thrown out against this honourable
person, are answer’d at large in this
paper, and some of them charged with
notorious falshood.
The author mentions two evils
which attend those that trade
with pawnbrokers; the first is, persons
who have left pledges in their hands,
upon offering to redeem them, have
been obliged to advance five or six
shillings more than they borrow’d on
them. The other is the power of the
pawnbroker to defraud his customer
entirely of his pledge; both which
may be redress’d by obliging pawnbrokers
to give a receipt to every person
borrowing money on pledges, to
which both borrower and lender shall
subscribe their names, and each of
them take a copy.
In some considerations on the stage,
opera’s, and the force of musick, he
says, that an opera ought to be as
regularly conducted, and the characters
as justly maintain’d; the same
end propos’d, and as large room for
the exercise of a fine genius, as in tragedy
or comedy. That a compleat
opera set to musick would have an
advantage over tragedy. Is not pleased
with the Recitativo of an opera, because
’tis the musick of the songs
only that dwell on the memory.
Distinguishes between the grand-opera
and those ballad-opera’s now
in vogue, which latter, if well set to
musick, might deserve applause.
Commends Addison’s Rosamond as a
beautifull piece of poetry, both in fable
and language. In it is maintain’d
the dignity of tragedy, the humour
of comedy, and the principal end of
opera’s; i. e. the encouragement of
virtue, discouraging vice, and probability
through the whole is preserv’d.
Relates the history of two traytors,
Edric the father, and Edric
the son, who lived near 800 years ago;
from which he collects and concludes
with this lesson to princes,
that they ought to be cautious whom
they trust, and to pry with piercing
eyes into the conduct of their ministers,
and the motives of their counsels.
The author first observes, that
the skin, commonly call’d, The
Drum of the Ear, is not the organ of
hearing, as was vulgarly thought;
for the proof of which he offers a
great number of reasons and observations
of his own, as well as the
opinions and reasons of the most
learned and judicious anatomists.
He then observes, there are two passages
to the organs of hearing; one
by the outward ear, the other thro’
the back part of the mouth, thro’
which some people can hear, who
cannot hear thro’ the outward ear.
In this case he supposes the sound
may be interrupted by the drum of
the ear, which is seated in this passage,
and being diseased, may hinder
sounds from passing to the internal
parts, where are seated the
proper organs of hearing: In this
case only, he supposes, that perforating
the drum may prove a remedy
for deafness, as depressing the
chrystalline humour of the eye (vulgarly
call’d couching a cataract) is
daily found to be a remedy for
blindness; and yet that operation
has been as indecently and ignorantly
ridicul’d as the experiment
of Mr. Cheselden’s; one writer against
that operation not scrupling to give
his book the following title, A new
method of recovering the sight by putting
out the eye. He also deserves, that
the scituation of the drum is such,
that the operation may be easily
made by a skilful person; and it
being a very thin skin, he presumes
it will not be very painful;
and if so, the person who is to undergo
the experiment will purchase
his life upon very easy terms: But
supposing it should be very painful;
(which ’tis hop’d it will not be) on
whom can the first experiment be so
fitly made, for the service of mankind,
as on one whose life is already
forfeited to the publick?
[See page 10. Col. 2]
Entertains his readers with a letter
from a correspondent concerning
the present state of the Law;
takes notice of the spleen which in general
appears against lawyer and law;
says, that the multiplicity of statutes
is one of the greatest grievances of this
kingdom. Quotes an opinion of a
learned judge, that the best way to reform
the law, was to abrogate all the
acts made for its amendment. Asserts,
that the founding a proper Corpus Juris,
is the highest point of policy in a well
order’d state. The old English method
of proceeding against debtors, being
judg’d inconvenient, produced the act
on which was found’d the Capias in detinue,
as the shortest way of recovery.
Complains of fictitious suits, particularly
in ejectments. He resents likewise
the encouragement given in every
court to the multitude of suitors, as
contrary to the very ends of justice.
Proposes some remedies for these evils,
by an act empowering commissioners
to inspect into
1. The condition of the law in general,
common and statute; what of them
may be repealed, and what not.
2. To frame proper instructions to direct
those who are intrusted with the execution
of the law.
3. To examine into the nature of actions
on the case, which by judge Dodderidge
is declared to be a feigned action
contrived in deceit of the law.
4. To contrive how to prevent vexatious
and litigious suits, by lessening the
credit of parole agreement.
5. That every practiser of the law be
obliged by oath to give his opinion justly
to the best of his knowledge, to practise
fairly, and by no indirect means procure
false judgment in any case.
Lastly, To compile a compleat body
of the law, with an institute of maxims
and rules, a treatise of practice,
and the forms to be observed by courts.
See more concerning the amending
the law, p. 77. 98. 100. 106. and
the substance of the Act passed this
Sessions of Parliament relating there
to p. 213.
