Audiet pugnas vitio parentum
  Rara Juventus.[13]

[Footnote 1:  No. 13 in the reprint.  The No. 13 (from Thursday, October 19, to Thursday, October 26, 1710) of the original is omitted from the reprint, and the Nos. from 14 to 48 are slipped back one.  No. 49 also is omitted, and Nos. 50 to 52 slipped back two. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2:  Virgil, “Aeneid,” i. 341-2.

“Her whole tale of wrong ’Twere tedious to relate.  But I will give The leading facts.”—­R.  KENNEDY. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3:  “The Observator” of Nov. 8th, commenting on this statement, remarks:  “All the inconveniences we labour under at present, are so far from being the consequence of the counsels of the late ministry, that they are visibly the consequence of those of the ‘Examiner’s’ party, who brought the nation to the brink of Popery and slavery, from which they were delivered by the Revolution; and are pursuing the same measures again,” etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4:  See “Memoirs relating to that Change” (vol. v., pp. 359-90).  The Queen’s action in dismissing her ministers and dissolving Parliament in September was, even to Swift himself, a matter for wonder:  “I never remember,” he writes to Stella (Sept. 20th, 1710), “such bold steps taken by a Court.”  And Tindal, commenting on the change, says:  “So sudden and so entire a change in the ministry is scarce to be found in our history, especially where men of great abilities had served with such zeal and success.” ("Hist. of England,” iv. 192.) [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5:  Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on September 21st. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6:  “Pharsalia,” i. 181-2.

  “Hence debt unthrifty, careless to repay,
  And usury still watching for its day: 
  Hence perjuries in every wrangling court;
  And war, the needy bankrupt’s last resort,”
  N. ROWE.

Lucan wrote “et concussa,” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7:  Commenting on this passage, “The Observator” of Nov. 8th remarked:  “One would take the author to be some very great man, since he speaks so contemptuously of both Houses of Parliament; for they actually found those doctrines, as then preached up, to be inconsistent with the Revolution, and declared it loudly to the world without whispering.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8:  Writing to the Earl of Peterborough (Feb. 1710/1), Swift refers to “a pamphlet come out, called ‘A Letter to Jacob Banks,’ showing that the liberty of Sweden was destroyed by the principle of passive obedience.”  The pamphlet was written by one W. Benson, and bore the title, “A Letter to Sir J——­ B——­, By Birth a S——­,...  Concerning the late Minehead doctrine,” etc., 1711.  “This dispute,” says Swift to Peterborough, “would soon be ended, if the dunces who write on each side, would plainly tell us what the object of this passive obedience is in our country.” (Scott, vol. xv., p. 423.)