Being resolved publicly to acknowledge any mistakes I have been guilty of; I do here humbly desire the reader’s pardon for one of mighty importance, about a fact in one of my papers, said to be done in the cathedral of Gloucester.[8] A whole Hydra of errors in two words:  For as I am since informed, it was neither in the cathedral, nor city, nor county of Gloucester, but some other church of that diocese.  If I had ever met any other objection of equal weight, though from the meanest hands, I should certainly have answered it.

[Footnote 1:  No. 24 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2:  I.e. 1710-11. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3:  “The merest trifles affect our spirits, and fill us with hope or fear.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4:  See Swift’s “Memoirs Relating to that Change,” etc., vol. v., p. 386 of present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5:  “The general ferment soon after [1710, summer] broke out into numerous addresses, of very different style and tenor, that were presented to the Queen. ...  The high-church addresses not only exceeded the others in number, but were also far better received; as complimenting the Queen with a more extensive prerogative, and an hereditary title” (Chamberlen’s “History of Queen Anne,” p. 347). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6:  At the general election in October and November, 1710, the City of London returned four Tories:  Sir Wm. Withers, Sir R. Hoare, Sir G. Newland, and Mr. John Cass. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7:  Harley’s ministry continued in power until July, 1714. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8:  This act of Wharton’s was alluded to by the Duke of Leeds in the House of Lords on December 6th, 1705.  See Dartmouth’s note on Burnet’s “Own Times,” vol. ii., p. 435, and compare “History of Parliament,” and “Journals of House of Lords.”  When the Duke of Leeds insinuated pretty plainly to Wharton the nature of his offence, Dartmouth remarks that the “Lord Wharton was very silent for the rest of that day, and desired no further explanations.” [T.S.]]

NUMB. 26.[1]

FROM THURSDAY JANUARY 18, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 25, 1710-11.

[Greek:  Dialexamenoi tina haesuchae, to men sumpan epi te tae dunas eia kai kata ton echthron sunomosan.]

Summissa quaedam voce collocuti sunt; quorum summa erat de dominatione sibi confirmanda, ac inimicis delendis conjuratio.[2]

Not many days ago I observed a knot of discontented gentlemen cursing the Tories to Hell for their uncharitableness, in affirming, that if the late ministry had continued to this time, we should have had neither Church nor Monarchy left.  They are usually so candid as to call that the opinion of a party, which they hear in a coffeehouse, or over a bottle from some warm young people, whom it is odds but they have provoked to say more than they believed, by some positions as absurd and ridiculous of their own.  And so