it as a crime in general, I shall not much object, at least I will allow it should be done with truth and caution; but by what argument will they undertake to prove that it is pardonable on one side, and not on t'other? Since the late change of ministry, I have observed many of that party take up a new style, and tell us, That "this way of personal reflection ought not to be endured; they could not approve of it; 'twas against charity and good manners." When the Whigs were in power, they took special care to keep their adversaries silent; then all kind of falsehood and scurrility, was "doing good service to the cause, and detecting of evil principles." Now, that the face of things is changed, and we have liberty to retort upon them, they are for calling down fire from heaven upon us; though by a sort of indulgence which they were strangers to, we allow them equal liberty of the press with ourselves; and they even now make greater use of it against persons in highest power and credit, than we do against those who have been discarded for the most infamous abuse of both.

1

Who encouraged and rewarded the "Observator" and "Review" for many years together, in charging the whole body of the clergy with the most odious crimes and opinions? In declaring all who took oaths to the government, and called themselves Tories, to be worse than papists and nonjurors? In exposing the universities, as seminaries of the most pernicious principles in church and state? In defending the Rebellion, and the murder of King Charles I. which they asserted to be altogether as justifiable as the late Revolution? Is there a great man now in power, or in any credit with the Queen, whom those worthy undertakers have not treated by name in the most ignominious manner? Even since this great change of affairs, with what amazing licentiousness hath the writer of the "Medley" attacked every person of the present ministry, the Speaker of the House of Swift banteringly to Stella, "but the Medley, you fool. Yes, yes, a wretched thing, because it is against you Tories: now I think it very fine, and the Examiner' a wretched thing." In 1712 the " Medley was amalgamated with the "Flying Post," and managed by "a Scotch rogue, one Ridpath." [T. S.]

66

The "Observator and Review " were edited respectively by John Tutchin and Daniel Defoe. See note on p. 8, vol. iv., of present edition. [T. S.]

Commons, and the whole senate? He has turned into ridicule the results of the council and the parliament, as well as the just and generous endeavours of the latter to pay the debts and restore the credit of the nation, almost ruined by the corruption and management of his own party.

And are these the people who complain of personal reflections? Who so confidently invoke the men in power (whom they have so highly obliged) to punish or silence me for reflecting on their exploded heroes? Is there no difference between men chosen by the prince, reverenced by the people for their virtue, and others rejected by both for the highest demerits? Shall the "Medley" and his brothers fly out with impunity against those who preside at the helm; and am I to be torn in pieces because I censure others, who for endeavouring to split the vessel against a rock, are put under the hatches.

3

I now proceed to the pamphlet which I intend to consider: It is a Letter written to seven great men,' who were appointed to examine Gregg in Newgate. The writer tells their lordships, that the "Examiner "" hath charged them for "endeavouring by bribery and subornation of that criminal to take away Mr. Harley's life." If there be any thing among the papers I have writ, which may be applied to these persons, it would have become this author to have cleared them fully from the accusation, and then he might at leisure have fallen upon me as a liar and misrepresenter; but of that he has not offered a syllable: The weight of his charge lies here; that such an author as the "Examiner" should presume, by certain innuendoes, to accuse any great persons of such a crime. My business in those papers was to represent facts, and I was as sparing as possible of reflecting upon particular persons; but the mischief is, that the readers have

1 These were the Dukes of Devonshire, Somerset, and Bolton, the Earl of Wharton, Lord Viscount Townshend, Lord Somers, and Lord Halifax. [T. S.]

2 A weekly Tory paper which first appeared on August 3rd, 1710. Swift managed it from No. 14 (November 2nd, 1710) to the forty-fifth issue (June 7th, 1711). For a full account of the "Examiner " see note prefixed to the volume containing Swift's contributions to that periodical. [T. S.]

3 Robert Harley, afterwards Earl of Oxford (1661-1724), the last of our Lord High Treasurers. He was a great friend of Swift. [T. S.]

always found names to tally with those facts; and I know no remedy for this. As for instance in the case here before us. An under clerk in the secretary's office, of 50l. a year, is discovered to hold correspondence with France, and apprehended by his master's order, before he could have opportunity to make his escape, by the private warning of a certain person, a professed enemy to the secretary. The criminal is condemned to die. "Tis found, upon his trial, that he was a poor profligate fellow; the secretary at that time was under the mortal hatred of a violent prevailing party, who dreaded him for his great abilities, and his avowed design to break their destructive measures. It was very well known, that a secretary of state hath little or no intercourse with the lower clerks, but with the under secretaries, who are the more immediate masters of those clerks, and are, and ought to be, as they then were, gentlemen of worth: However, it would pass well enough in the world, that Gregg was employed in Mr. Secretary Harley's office, and was consequently one of his clerks, which would be ground enough to build upon it what suggestions they pleased. Then for the criminal, he was needy and vicious: He owed his death to the secretary's watchful pursuit of him, and would therefore probably incline to hearken to any offers that would save his life, gratify his revenge, and make him easy in his fortune: So that if a work of darkness were to be done, it must be confessed, here were proper motives, and a proper instrument. But ought we to suspect any persons of such a diabolical practice? Can all faith, and honour, and justice be thus violated by men? Questions proper for a pulpit, or well becoming a philosopher; but what if it were regnandi causa? (and that perhaps in a literal sense) Is this an age of the world to think crimes improbable because they are great? Perhaps it is: But what shall we say to some of those circumstances which attended this fact? Who gave rise to this report against Mr. Harley? Will any of his enemies confess in cold blood that they did either believe, suspect or imagine, the secretary, and one of the under clerks, to be joined in corresponding with France? Some of them, I should think, knew better what belonged to such a correspondence, and how it ought to be managed. The nature of Gregg's crime was such, as to be best performed without any accomplices

at all: It was, to be a spy here for the French, and to tell them all he knew; and it appears by his letters that he never had it in his power to let them into any thing of importance. The copy of the Queen's letter to the emperor, which he sent to the enemy, and hath made such a noise, was only to desire, that Prince Eugene might be employed to command in Spain, which for six weeks before had been mentioned in all the Gazettes of Europe. It was evident from the matter of his letters, that no man of consequence could have any share in them. The whole affair had been examined in the cabinet, two months before, and there found and reported as only affecting the person of Gregg, who to supply his vices and his wants was tempted to engage in that correspondence; it is therefore hard to conceive, how that examination should be resumed after such a distance of time, with any fair or honourable intention. Why were not Gregg's examinations published, which were signed by his own hand, and had been taken in the cabinet two months before the committee of the House was appointed to re-examine him? Why was he pressed so close to cry out with horror, "Good God, would you have me accuse Mr. Harley when he is wholly innocent?" Why were all the answers returned to the queries sent him, immediately burned? I cannot in my conscience but think, that the party was bound in honour to procure Gregg a pardon, which was openly promised him, upon condition of making an ingenuous confession, unless they had some other notions of what is ingenuous, than is commonly meant by that word. A confession may be never the less ingenuous, for not answering the hopes or designs of those who take it; but though the word was publicly used, the definition of it was reserved to private interpretation, and by a capricious humour of fortune, a most flagitious, though repenting villain, was hanged for his virtue. It could not indeed consist with any kind of prudence then in fashion, to spare his life, and thereby leave it in his power at any time to detect their practices, which he might afterwards do at any time, with so much honour to himself.

But I have the luck to be accused by this author in very

The letter was drawn by Erasmus Lewis, Swift's friend, and corrected by Harley, who was then secretary.

good company; the two Houses of Parliament in general, and the Speaker of the House of Commons in particular; whom he taxes with falsehood and absurdity, as well as myself, though in a more respectful manner, and by a sort of irony. The whole kingdom had given the same interpretation that I had done, to some certain passages in the address from both Houses, upon the attempt of Guiscard; friends and enemies agreed in applying the word "faction." But the Speaker, is much clearer; talks (as I have mentioned in another place) of "some unparalleled attempts, and uses other terms that come pretty home to the point. As to what the Parliament affirms, this author makes it first as absurd and impracticable as he can, and then pretends to yield, as "pressed by so great an authority," and explains their meaning into nonsense, in order to bring them off from reflecting upon his party. Then for the Speaker, this writer says, he is but a single man," and because his speech was in words too direct to avoid,' he advises him to save his honour and virtue, by owning a solecism in speech," and to "write less correctly, rather than mean maliciously." What an expedient this advocate hath found to remove the load of an accusation! He answers, "The crime is horrible; that great men ought not to be thus insolently charged:" We reply, that the Parliament and Speaker appear, in many points, to be of the same opinion: He rejoins, that "he is pressed by too great an authority;" that perhaps those wise assemblies, and that honourable gentleman, (who besides "is but a single man") may probably speak nonsense; they must either deliver a solecism, or be malicious, and in good manners he rather thinks it may be the former.

66

The writer of the Letter having thus dispatched the "Examiner," falls next upon a paper called "Secret Transactions," &c. written, as he tells us, by one Francis Hoffman,2 and the ordinary of Newgate, persons whom I have not the honour to be known to, (whatever my betters may be) nor have yet seen their productions; but by what is cited from them in the Letter, it should seem, they have made some

'This word is improperly used here, both in point of sense and grammar. It should be-too direct to be evaded. [S.]

2 An obscure person of whom some information is given in "Noble's Continuation of Grainger" (vol. ii., p. 365). [T. S.J