as to the first, he tells us, that "the motives which engaged Britain in the present war, were both wise and generous;" so that the ministry is cleared as to that particular. These motives he tells us, "were to restore the Spanish monarchy to the house of Austria, and to regain a barrier for Holland. The last of these two motives, he says, was effectually answered by the reduction of the Netherlands in the year 1706, or might have been so by the concessions which it is notorious that the enemy offered." So that the ministry are here blamed for not contenting themselves with the barrier they had gained in the year 1706, nor with the concessions which the enemy then offered. The other motive of our entering into the war, viz. " the restoring the Spanish monarchy to the house of Austria," he tells us, 66 remained still in its full force; and we were told," says he, "that though the barrier of Holland was secured, the trade of Britain and the balance of power in Europe would be still precarious: Spain therefore must be conquered." He then loses himself in matter foreign to his purpose: but what he endeavours in the sequel of his discourse, is to show, that we have not taken the proper method to recover the Spanish monarchy; "that the whole stress of the war has been wantonly laid where France is best able to keep us at bay;" that the French king has made it impossible for himself to give up Spain, and that the duke of Anjou has made it as impossible for us to conquer it: nay, "that instead of regaining Spain, we shall find the duke of Anjou in a condition to pay the debt of gratitude, and support the grandfather in his declining years, by whose arms in the days of his infancy he was upheld.” He then intimates to us, that the Dutch and

the emperor will be so very well satisfied with what they have already conquered, that they may probably leave the house of Bourbon in the quiet possession of the Spanish monarchy.

This strange huddle of politics has been so fully answered by general Stanhope, that if the author had delayed the publishing of his letter but a fortnight, the world would have been deprived of that elaborate production. Notwithstanding all that the French king or the duke of Anjou have been able to do, notwithstanding the feeble efforts we have made in Spain, notwithstanding "the little care the emperor takes to support king Charles," notwithstanding the Dutch might have been contented" with a larger and better country than their own, already conquered for them," that victorious general, at the head of English and Dutch forces, in conjunction with those of the emperor, has wrested Spain out of the hands of the house of Bourbon; and added the conquest of Navarre, Arragon, and Castile, to those of Catalonia, Bavaria, Flanders, Mantua, Milan, Naples, Sicily, Majorca, Minorca, and Sardinia. Such a wonderful series of victories, and those astonishing returns of ingratitude which they have met with, appear both of them rather like dreams than realities: they puzzle and confound the present age, and it is to be hoped they will not be believed by posterity. Will the trifling author of this letter say, that the ministry did not apply themselves to the reduction of Spain, when the whole kingdom was twice conquered in their administration? The letter-writer says, "that the Dutch had gained a good barrier after the battle of Ramillies in the year 1706." But I would fain ask him, whether he thinks Antwerp and Brussels, Ghent and Bruges, could be thought a

strong barrier, or that those important conquests did not want several towns and forts to cover them? But it seems our great general on that side has done more for us than we expected of him, and made the barrier too impregnable. "But," says the letterwriter, "the stress of the war was laid in the wrong place:" but if the laying the stress of the war in the Low Countries drew thither the whole strength of France; if it weakened Spain, and left it exposed to an equal force; if France, without being pressed on this side, could have assisted the duke of Anjou with a numerous army; and if, by the advantage of the situation, it could have sent and maintained in Spain ten regiments with as little trouble and expense as England could two regiments; every impartial judge would think that the stress of the war has been laid in the right place.

The author in this confused dissertation on foreign affairs, would fain make us believe, that England has gained nothing by these conquests, and put us out of humour with our chief allies, the emperor and the Dutch. He tells us, "they hoped England would have been taken care of, after having secured a barrier for Holland:" As if England were not taken care of by this very securing a barrier for Holland; which has always been looked upon as our bulwark, or as Mr. Waller expresses it, our "outguard on the continent;" and which if it had fallen into the hands of the French, would have made France more strong by sea than all Europe besides. Has not England been taken care of by gaining a new mart in Flanders, by opening our trade into the Levant, by securing ports for us in Gibraltar, Minorca, and Naples, and by that happy prospect we have of renewing that great branch of our commerce

into Spain, which will be of more advantage to England, than any conquest we can make of towns and provinces. Not to mention the demolishing of Dunkirk, which we were in a fair way of obtaining during the last parliament, and which we never so much as proposed to ourselves at our first engaging in this war.

As for this author's aspersions of the Dutch and Germans, I have sometimes wondered that he has not been complained of for it to the secretary of state. Had not he been looked upon as an insignificant scribbler, he must have occasioned remonstrances and memorials: such national injuries are not to be put up, but when the offender is below resentment. This puts me in mind of an honest Scotchman, who, has he was walking along the streets of London, heard one calling out after him, "Scot, Scot," and casting forth in a clamorous manner, a great deal of opprobrious language against that ancient nation: Sawney turned about in a great passion, and found, to his surprise, that the person who abused him, was a saucy parrot, that hung up not far from him in a cage; upon which he clapped his hand to his sword, and told him, "were he a man as he was a green goose, he would have run him through the wemb."

The next head our politician goes upon, relates to our domestic affairs; where I am extremely at a loss to know what he would be at all that I can gather from him is, that "the queen had grieved her subjects" in making choice of such men for her ministers, as raised the nation to a greater pitch of glory than ever it was in the days of our forefathers, or than any other nation in these our days.

No. 5. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12.

Parere jam non scelus est. MARTIAL.

We live in a nation where at present there is scarce a single head that does not teem with politics. The whole island is peopled with statesmen, and not unlike Trinculo's kingdom of viceroys, every man has contrived a scheme of government for the benefit of his fellow-subjects, which they may follow and be safe.

After this short preface, by which, as an Englishman, I lay in my claim to be a politician; I shall enter on my discourse.

The chief point that has puzzled the freeholders of Great Britain, as well as all those that pay scot and lot, for about these six months last past, is this, whether they would rather be governed by a prince that is obliged by laws to be good and gracious, just and upright, a friend, a father, and a defender of his people; or by one who, if he pleases, may drive away or plunder, imprison or kill, without opposition or resistance. This is the true state of the controversy relating to passive obedience, and non-resistance. For I must observe, that the advocates for this doctrine have stated the case in the softest and most palatable terms that it will bear: and we very well know, that there is great art in moulding a question; and that many a motion will pass with a nemine contradicente in some words, that would have been as unanimously rejected in others. Passive obedience and non-resistance are of a mild, gentle, and meekspirited sound: they have respect but to one side of