FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]It is at last discovered, by searching the chamberlain's books, which have since been burnt, that our author was the son of James Foe, of the parish of Cripplegate, London, citizen and butcher; who was himself the son of Daniel Foe, of Elton, in the county of Northampton, yeoman; and who obtained his freedom by serving his apprenticeship with John Levit, citizen and butcher. Daniel Foe, the son of James, was admitted to his freedom by birth, on the 26th of January, 1687-8. I was led to these discoveries by observing that De Foe had voted at an election for a representative of London; whence I inferred, that he must have been a citizen either by birth or service. But in the parish books I could find no notice of his baptism; as his parents were dissenters.[2]In his preface to More Reformation, De Foe complains, that some dissenters had reproached him, as if he had said, "that the gallows and the galleys ought to be the penalty of going to the conventicle; forgetting, that I must design to have my father, my wife, six innocent children, and myself, put into the same condition. To such dissenters I can only regret," says he, "that when I had drawn the picture, I did not, like the Dutchman with his man and bear, write under them, This is the man; and this is the bear." De Foe expressly admits that he was a dissenter, though no independent-fifth-monarchy man, or leveller. [De Foe, Works, edit. 1703. p. 326-448.] His grandfather, however, seems to have been of different feelings, as he kept a pack of hounds. From this fact it is inferred by his learned and laborious biographer Mr. Walter Wilson, that he was of the royal party, as the puritans did not indulge in that amusement; and also that he moved in a respectable station of life. De Foe himself thus alludes to his grandfather [Review, vol. vii. preface], "I remember my grandfather had a huntsman that used the same familiarity with his dogs, and he had his Roundhead and his Cavalier, his Goring and his Waller, and all the generals of both armies were hounds in his pack, till the times turning, the old gentleman was fain to scatter the pack and make them up of more doglike surnames." It seems also probable, that the property to which De Foe alludes as possessed by himself, was inherited from this grandfather. "I have both a native and an acquired right of election in more than one place in Britain, and as such am a part of the body that honourable house (of commons) represents, and from hence I believe may claim a right in due manner to represent, complain, address, or petition them." [Review, vol. vi. p. 477.] Mr. Wilson corrects the mistake of Mr. Chalmers and other biographers, as to the date of De Foe's birth, which really took place in 1661, and not as stated by them in 1663.—Ed.[3]Works, 3rd. edit. vol. ii. p. 276. He was placed there when about fourteen years old, and appears to have been educated to his own satisfaction in afterlife. He described it as an academy where all the lectures, whether in philosophy or divinity, were given in English, and where consequently "though the scholars were not destitute of the languages, yet it is observed of them that they were by this made masters of the English tongue, and more of them excelled in that particular than of any school at that time." Certainly no man ever better understood how to use plain, racy, thorough English style, than De Foe. But still he was not deficient in learning. He boldly asserts himself on this point, in the passage from which Mr. Chalmers has made an extract in the text: "I have no concern to tell Dr. Browne I can read English, nor to tell Mr. Tutchin, I understand Latin;non ita Latinus, sum ut Latine loqui. I easily acknowledge myself blockhead enough to have lost the fluency of expression in the Latin, and so far trade has been a prejudice to me, and yet I think I owe this justice to my ancient father, still living (1705), and in whose behalf I freely testify, that if I am a blockhead, it was nobody's fault but my own; he having spared nothing in my education that might qualify me to match the accurate Dr. Browne, or the learned Observator. As to Mr. Tutchin, I never gave him the least affront; I have, even after base usage, in vain invited him to peace; in answer to which he returns unmannerly insults, calumnies, and reproach. As to my little learning, and his great capacity, I freely challenge him to translate with me any Latin, French, and Italian author, and after that, to retranslate them crossways, for 20l.each book; and by this he shall have an opportunity to show the world how much De Foe, the hosier, is inferior in learning to Mr. Tutchin, the gentleman." [Review vol. ii. p. 149.] He also vindicated Mr. Morton's academy from the charge made against it by the Rev. Samuel Wesley, father of the celebrated founder of Methodism, that antimonarchical and unconstitutional doctrines were taught there. De Foe especially denies this. His domestic education seems to have been according to the system then pursued by the strict and pious dissenters. He mentions that he began the task performed by many others of that then persecuted body, of copying the Bible in shorthand, and that he finished the Pentateuch. [Review vol. vi. p. 573.] He was intended for the ministry; but for what reason he relinquished that profession is not known. "It was his disaster," he says, "first, to be set apart for, and then to be set apart from, the honour of that sacred employ."—Ed.[4]Review, vol. ii. p. 150.[5]Appeal, p. 51. This was not the first occasion of his appearing in print. His earliest effort as an author was an answer to Roger L'Estrange's Guide to the Inferior Clergy, and was intituled,Speculum Crape Gownorum; or, A Looking-glass for the Young Academicks, new Foyl'd, with Reflections on some of the late high-flown Sermons; to which is added, An Essay towards a Sermon of the newest fashion. By a Guide to the Inferior Clergy.Ridentem discere verum, quis vitat?It was published in 1682. This work, as might be anticipated, was a satiric attack on the clergy of that day.De Foe's object in the pamphlet mentioned in the text, was to assert the policy of defending the house of Austria, then closely and vigorously attacked by the Turks. The "prevailing sentiment," referred to by Mr. Chalmers, was a dissatisfaction with the emperor for his cruel persecution of the protestants in Hungary; and which carried the national feeling so far as to make any assistance rendered to the emperor, even against the threatening Turks, extremely unpopular. De Foe, then very young, took the field on the weaker side, and strenuously maintained the danger to Christendom arising from the Mahommedan power being allowed to enter Vienna. Happily, the courage of John Sobieski, king of Poland, prevented that, once imminent, danger. De Foe, in a late period of his life, thus refers to his conduct on this occasion. "The first time I had the misfortune to differ from my friends, was about the year 1683, when the Turks were besieging Vienna, and the whigs in England, generally speaking, were for the Turks taking it; whilst I, having read the history of the cruelty and perfidious dealings of the Turks in their wars, and how they had rooted out the name of the Christian religion in above threescore and ten kingdoms, could by no means agree with, and though then but a young man and a young author, I opposed it and wrote against it, which was taken very unkind indeed." [Vide Appeal to Honour and Justice.]—Ed.[6]Appeal.[7]The title of De Foe's pamphlet, or pamphlets, on this subject, does not seem to be known, but he more than once in afterlife proudly refers to his efforts on that important matter. "The next time I differed with my friends, was when king James was wheedling the dissenters to take off the penal laws and test, which I could by no means come into. And as in the first I used to say, I had rather the popish house of Austria should ruin the protestants in Hungary, than that the infidel house of Ottoman should ruin both protestant and papist, by overrunning Germany, so in the other I told the dissenters I had rather the Church of England should pull our clothes off by fines and forfeitures, than that the papists should fall both upon the church and the dissenters, and pull our skins off by fire and fagot." [Appeal to Honour and Justice.] And again: "I never would have had the dissenters to join with king James, to take off the penal laws and test. No; no: I thank God I was of age then to bear my testimony against it, and to affront some who were of a different opinion." [Review, vol. viii. p. 694.]—Ed.[8]History, vol. ii. p. 37. The following is the passage in Oldmixon: "Their majesties, attended by their royal highnesses and a numerous train of nobility and gentry, went first to a balcony prepared for them at the Angel in Cheapside, to see the show; which for the great number of liverymen, the full appearance of the militia, and the artillery company, the rich adornments of the pageants, and the splendour and good order of the whole proceedings, outdid all that had been seen before, on that occasion; and what deserved to be particularly remembered, says a reverend historian, was a royal regiment of volunteer horse, made up of the chief citizens, who being gallantly mounted and richly accoutred, were led by the earl of Monmouth, now earl of Peterborough, and attended there majesties from Whitehall. Among these troopers, who were for the most part dissenters, was Daniel De Foe, at that time a hosier in Freeman's Yard, Cornhill." [History of England, vol. iii. p. 36.][9]Being reproached by Tutchin, in his Observator, with having been bred an apprentice to a hosier, De Foe asserts, in May, 1705, that he never was a hosier, or an apprentice, but admits that he had been a trader. [Review, vol. ii. p. 149.] Oldmixon, who never speaks favourably of De Foe, allows that he had never been a merchant, otherwise than peddling a little to Portugal. [Hist. vol. ii. p. 519.] But, peddling to Portugal makes a trader.[10]These views of Mr. Chalmers seem confirmed by De Foe's own severe comments on the distraction caused to tradesmen by an over-indulgence in literary pursuits. In his Complete Tradesman, one of the most valuable practical books that was ever published, and which should be the manual of every young man beginning business, he says, "a wit turned tradesman! no apron-strings will hold him; it is in vain to lock him behind the counter, he is gone in a moment. Instead of journal and ledger, he runs away to his Virgil and Horace; his journal entries are all Pindarics, and his ledger is all heroics. He is truly dramatic from one end to the other through the whole scene of his trade; and as the first part is all comedy, so the two last acts are always made up with tragedy; a statute of bankrupt is hisexeunt omnes, and he generally repeats the epilogue in the Fleet prison or the Mint." [See ante, vol. xvii.] He is also very severe against tradesmen who are led away into expensive pleasures and idle company. But Mr. Wilson vindicates De Foe, in some degree, by showing from his own statements that he had been the victim of the fraud of others, as well as of his own imprudent habits. In one of the Reviews, [vol. iii. p. 70.] he says, that "nothing was more frequent than for a man in full credit to buy all the goods he could lay his hands on, and carry them directly from the house he bought them at into the Fryars, and then send for his creditors, and laugh at them, insult them, showing them their own goods untouched, offer them a trifle in satisfaction, and if they refuse it, bid them defiance. I cannot refrain vouching this of my own knowledge,since I have more than many times been served so myself." Certainly under such a monstrous system of abuse, an honest tradesman must have been at great disadvantage.—Ed.[11]The Mercator, No. 101.[12]Reply to Lord Haversham's Vindication.[13]Mr. Wilson has some valuable observations on this subject, which justice to the memory of De Foe requires us to transcribe. "The failure of this speculation seems to have been owing rather to the want of encouragement upon the part of the public, than to any imprudence in the projector. Pantiles had been hitherto a Dutch manufacture, and were brought in large quantities to England. To supersede the necessity of their importation, and to provide a new channel for the employment of labour, the works at Tilbury were laudably erected; and De Foe tells us that he employed a hundred poor labourers in the undertaking. The capital embarked in the concern must also have been considerable; for he informs us that his own loss by its failure was no less a sum than three thousand pounds. But besides so serious a misfortune to himself, it was no less so to the public; not only by the failure of an ingenious manufacture, but for the sake of the numerous families supported by it, who were now turned adrift in the world, or thrown upon some other branch of trade. De Foe continued the pantile works it is believed until the year 1703, when he was prosecuted by the government for a libel, and being deprived of his liberty the undertaking soon came to an end." Mr. Wilson adds an extract from one of the Reviews, (March, 1705,) in which De Foe indignantly refers to this undertaking and its calamitous issue. "Nor should the author of this paper boast in vain, if he tells the world that he himself, before violence, injury, and barbarous treatment destroyed him and his undertaking, employed a hundred poor people in making pantiles in England, a manufacture always bought in Holland; and thus he pursued this principle with his utmost zeal for the good of England; and those gentlemen who so easily persecuted him for saying what all the world since owns to be true, and which he has since a hundred times offered to prove, were particularly serviceable to the nation, in turning that hundred of poor people and their families a begging for work, and forcing them to turn other poor families out of work to make room for them, besides three thousand pounds damage to the author of this, which he has paid for this little experience."—Ed.[14]The sentence in italics is part of the passage in De Foe's Appeal to Honour and Justice, (in which he gives a summary of his life, and vindicates his conduct throughout it,) which particularly refers to this period. We give the whole. "Misfortunes in business having unhinged me from matters of trade; it was about the year 1694, when I was invited by some merchants with whom I had corresponded abroad, and some also at home, to settle at Cadiz, in Spain; and that with the offer of very good commissions. But Providence, which had other work for me to do, placed a secret aversion in my mind to quitting England upon any account, and made me refuse the best offers of that kind, to be concerned with some eminent persons at home, in proposing ways and means to the government for raising money to supply the occasions of the war, then newly begun." [Vide Appeal to Honour and Justice.][15]Besides the topics mentioned by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe suggests various improvements in road-making, and an asylum for idiots. He also warmly advocates a great improvement in the system of education, and especially of females. Before the publication of the next work mentioned by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe took part in a controversy then very warmly agitated, viz., of Occasional Conformity. The Dissenters differed on this subject; one party being willing to comply outwardly with the ceremonies of the church, when in certain offices, and the other party objecting to that compliance as a sinful and dastardly desertion from their principles of dissent. De Foe adopted the latter view, and, in 1697, maintained it with his accustomed warmth, in An Inquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters in Parliament. He also vigorously took the field against the vices and social abuses of the times; and, in 1698, published The Poor Man's Plea in relation to all the Proclamations, Declarations, Acts of Parliament, &c., which have been or shall be made or published, for a Reformation of Manners, and suppressing Immorality in the Nation.—Ed.[16]10 and 11 Wm. III. ch. 18.[17]De Foe says himself, that he had published nine editions fairly printed upon good paper, and sold at the price of one shilling, and that it had been printed twelve times by other persons without his concurrence. We must presume it to have produced a great effect. De Foe himself says, many years afterwards, "National mistakes, vulgar errors, and even a general practice, have been reformed by a just satire. None of our countrymen have been known to boast of being true-born Englishmen, or so much as to use the word as a title or appellation, ever since a late satire upon that national folly was published, though almost thirty years ago. Nothing was more frequent in our mouths before that, nothing so universally blushed and laughed at since. The time I believe is yet to come for any author to print it, or any man of sense to speak of it in earnest; whereas before you had it in the best writers, and in the most florid speeches before the most august assemblies, upon the most solemn occasions." [Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed, p. 400.] The object of the poem is thus stated by the author in the preface: "The intent of the satire is pointed at the vanity of those who talk of their antiquity, and value themselves upon their pedigree, and being true-born; whereas it is impossible we should be true-born; and if we could, should have lost by the bargain. These sort of people who call themselves true-born, and tell long stories of their families, and like a nobleman of Venice, think a foreigner ought not to walk on the same side of the street with them, are owned to be meant in this satire. What they would infer from their long original, I know not, nor is it easy to make out, whether they are the better or the worse for their ancestors. Our English nation may value themselves for their wit, wealth, and courage, and I believe few nations will dispute it with them; but for long originals and ancient true-born families, I would advise them to waive the discourse. A true Englishman is one who deserves a character, and I have nowhere lessened him that I know of."—Ed.[18]p. 13. We add the remaining part of this passage, which is extracted by Mr. Chalmers from the Appeal to Honour and Justice; "And is only mentioned here as I take all occasions to do, for the expressing the honour I ever preserved for the immortal and glorious memory of that greatest and best of princes, and whom it was my honour and advantage to call master as well as sovereign, whose goodness to me I never forget, and whose memory I never patiently heard abused, and never can do so; and who, had he lived, would never have suffered me to be treated as I have been in this world."—Ed.[19]This pamphlet was published before the poem of the True-born Englishman, viz., in 1698, and was an answer to one by Mr. Trenchard, "showing that a standing army is inconsistent with a free government, and absolutely destructive to the constitution of the English monarchy." It is supposed that De Foe wrote another pamphlet on this subject, entituled, Some Reflections on a pamphlet lately published, entituled, &c. (Mr. Trenchard's pamphlet.) 1697. But there is great doubt as to this work being De Foe's.—Ed.[20]Subsequently to the publication of the pamphlet referred to in the text, in the year 1700, the indefatigable De Foe was again in the political arena. The Spanish king had just died, bequeathing the crown to the duke of Anjou, grandson of Lewis XIV. and Europe was anxiously awaiting the French monarch's decision. He subsequently broke through the partition treaty, and placed his grandson on the throne of Spain. In the meanwhile, however De Foe published, a pamphlet, entituled, The Two Great Questions Considered: 1. What the French king will do with respect to the Spanish monarchy? 2. What measures the English ought to take. In the same year, he published The Danger of the Protestant Religion, from the present Prospect of a Religious War in Europe. His object is to point out the powerful front presented by the popish party, and to warn and arouse England to the danger and defence of protestantism.—Ed.[21]Mr. Polhill, of Cheapstead-place, in Kent, whose father, Mr. David Polhill, was committed to the Gatehouse, and thereby gained great popularity, was so good as to communicate to me the curious anecdote of De Foe's dressing himself in women's clothes, and presenting the Legion paper to the speaker. De Foe says himself in his Original Power of the People, p. 24: "this is evident from the tenor and yet undiscovered original of the Legion paper; the contents of which had so much plain truth of fact; and which I could give a better history of, if it were needful." When De Foe republished his works, in 1703, he thought it prudent to expunge this passage, that too plainly pointed out the real history of the Legion paper, which is not mentioned by the Commons Journals. Mr. Wilson thinks Mr. Chalmers mistaken in supposing that De Foe delivered the petition disguised as a woman. He says, "such a report was certainly current at the time, but the true history of it seems to be that which is related in the history of the Kentish petition; it was said it was delivered to the speaker by a woman, but I have been informed since, that it was a mistake, and it was delivered by the very person who wrote it, guarded by about sixteen gentlemen of quality, who if any notice had been taken of him, were ready to have carried him off by force." The Remonstration is too long a paper to be here reprinted, but the general tone and object of it will be gathered by the conclusion. "We do hereby claim and declare:—"1. That it is the undoubted right of the people of England, in case their representatives in parliament do not proceed according to their duty, and the people's interest, to inform them of their dislike, disown their actions, and direct them to such things as they think fit, either by petition, address, proposal, memorial, or any other peaceable way."2. That the house of commons, separately, and otherwise than by bill legally passed into an act, have no legal power to suspend or dispense with the laws of the land, any more than the king has by his prerogative."3. That the house of commons has no legal power to imprison any person, or commit them to custody of sergeants, or otherwise, (their own members excepted,) but ought to address the king, to cause any person, on good grounds, to be apprehended, which person so apprehended, ought to have the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, and be fairly brought to trial by due course of law."4. That, if the house of commons, in breach of the laws and liberties of the people, do betray the trust reposed in them, and act negligently, or arbitrarily and illegally, it is the undoubted right of the people of England, to call them to an account for the same, and by convention, assembly, or force, may proceed against them as traitors and betrayers of their country."These things we think proper to declare, as the unquestionable right of the people of England, whom you serve, and in pursuance of that right, (avoiding the ceremony of petitioning our inferiors, for such you are by your present circumstances, as the person sent is less than the sender,) we do publicly protest against all your aforesaid illegal actions, and in the name of ourselves, and of all the good people of England, do require and demand:—"1. That all the public just debts of the nation be forthwith paid and discharged."2. That all persons illegally imprisoned, as aforesaid, be either immediately discharged, or admitted to bail, as by law they ought to be; and the liberty of the subject recognised and restored."3. That John Home, aforesaid, be obliged to ask his majesty's pardon for his vile reflections, or be immediately expelled the house."4. That the growing power of France be taken into consideration; the succession of the emperor to the crown of Spain supported; our protestant neighbours protected, as the interest of England and the protestant religion requires."5. That the French king be obliged to quit Flanders, or his majesty be addressed to declare war against him."6. That suitable supplies be granted to his majesty for the putting all these necessary things in execution, and that care be taken that such taxes as are raised, may be more equally assessed and collected, and scandalous deficiences prevented."7. That the thanks of this house may be given to those gentlemen who so gallantly appeared in the behalf of their country with the Kentish petition, and have been so scandalously used for it."Thus, gentlemen, you have your duty laid before you, which it is hoped you will think of; but if you continue to neglect it, you may expect to be treated according to the resentment of an injured nation; for Englishmen are no more to be slaves to parliaments, than to kings."Our name is Legion, and we are Many."De Foe seems to have written a History of the Kentish Petition. And in the following year, 1702, he is supposed to have written Legion's Newspaper; being a Second Memorial to the Gentlemen of the late House of Commons.—Ed.[22]This pamphlet was in reply to sir Humphrey Mackworth's Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England; and recent events, arising out of Stockdale's proceedings against Mr. Hansard for publishing a report of the house of commons, have made both sir Humphrey's and De Foe's pamphlets extremely interesting to the political world. De Foe maintains four general propositions as the foundation of his argument."1. That all government is instituted for the protection of the governed."2. That its constituent members, whether king, lords, or commons, if they invert the great end of their institution, the public good, cease to be; and power retreats to its original."3. That no collective or representative body of men whatever, in matters of politics or religion, have been infallible."4. That reason is the test and touchstone of laws, which cease to be binding, and become void, when contradictory to reason." He also maintains that no power has a right to dispense with the laws, and deduces that when such a right is assumed by either of the three powers, the constitution suffers a convulsion, and is dissolved of course. This tract has had considerable reputation. Mr. Wilson tells us, "that during the contest between the house of commons and the celebrated Mr. Wilkes, who was refused his seat, although repeatedly returned by his constituents, it was judged seasonable to reprint this work. It was accordingly published in 8vo. in 1769, by R. Baldwin, accompanied by some distinguished characters of a parliament man, by the same author, and is stated in the title-page to be the third edition. Prefixed to the work is a spirited dedication to the right honourable the lord mayor, the aldermen, and commons, of the city of London." [The dedication, amongst other things, states, "the reprinting of this excellent piece of the celebrated Daniel De Foe, who seems to have understood as well as any man the civil constitution of the kingdom, wherein the nature of our own constitution is set in the clearest light, upon self-evident principles, and the original power of the collective body of the people asserted, seemed to be altogether seasonable and fitting. It is with propriety addressed to the body of men which has always stood, like Mars in the gap, against all encroachments on the liberties of the people, and to which the nation hitherto owes its freedom and prosperity," &c.] The chief magistrate at that time was the patriotic alderman Beckford, who has a noble statue erected by his fellow-citizens in their Guildhall, to commemorate his worth. De Foe's work was reprinted, for the fourth time, at the logographic press, and included in the "Selection" from his writings published by the late Mr. John Walker, in 1790. [Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 436.][23]This pamphlet was published before the events mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the text. It was preceded by another pamphlet of our indefatigable author, entituled, Six Distinguishing Characters of a Parliament man. As the pamphlets of De Foe illustrate not only the character of the author, but the spirit of the times, we give a summary of the 'Distinguishing characteristics' of the member of the house, desired by De Foe. 1. He must be a thorough partisan of the revolution, neither papist nor Jacobite. 2. A man of religion, of orthodox principles, and moral practice. 3. "A parliament man," says the sensible and experienced author, "ought to be a man of general knowledge, acquainted with the true interest of his country as to trade, liberties, laws, and common circumstances, especially of that part of it for which he serves. He ought to know how to deliver his mind with freedom and boldness, and pertinently to the case; to understand when our liberties are encroached upon, and be able to defend them: and to distinguish between a prince, who is faithful to liberty, and the interest of his country, and one whose business it is to invade both liberty and property." 4. He should be a man in years. 5. And of thorough honesty. 6. And of morals. This pamphlet was followed by the one mentioned in the text, and that again almost immediately by The Villany of Stock-jobbers detected; and the Cause of the late Run upon the Banks and Bankers discovered and considered.—Ed.[24]The author of De Foe's life in the Biographia Britannica, Dr. Towers, says, "in this piece De Foe wrote against the views and conduct of the court, and against what then seemed to be the prevailing sentiment of the nation. He appears however to have been perfectly right, to have exhibited on this occasion great political discernment, and to have been influenced by no motives but those of public spirit." Many opponents entered the field against De Foe upon this subject.—Ed.[25]De Foe frequently vindicates the memory of William III., but more especially in his Reviews. In 1702, he published The Mock Mourners, a satire by way of elegy on king William. By the author of the True-born Englishman. De Foe's summary of William III.'s character in the reviews is as follows:—"It may, perhaps, be thought by some people a digression too remote from my present pursuit, when I launch out into the crimes of a party; but, if I am carried into extremes when the memory of king William is touched, I am altogether careless of making an excuse; and I acknowledge myself less master of my temper in that case, than in anything I can be touched in besides. The memory of that glorious monarch is so dear, and so valuable in the hearts of all true protestants, that have a sense both of what they escaped and what they enjoy by his hand, that it is difficult to retain any charity for their principles that can forget the obligation. His name is a word of congratulation; and 'The immortal memory of king William,' will be a health, as long as drinking healths is suffered in this part of the world."Let the ungrateful wretch that forgets what God wrought by his hand, look back upon popery coming in like a flood; property trampled underfoot; all sorts of cruelties and butcheries in practice in Scotland, and approaching in England! Let him review the insolence of the soldiery, the inveteracy of the court party, the tyranny, perjury, and avarice of governors; and at the foot of the account let him write, Delivered by king William. Then let him look back on the prince: How great, how splendid, how happy, how rich, how easy, and how justly valued by friends and enemies! He lived before in the field glorious, feared by enemies of his country, loved by the soldiery, having a vast inheritance of his own, governor of a rich state, blessed with the best of consorts, and as far as this life could give, completely happy. Compare this with the gaudy crown we gave him. Had a visible scheme been laid with it, of all the uneasinesses, dangers, crosses, disappointments, and dark prospects which that prince found with it, no wise man would have taken it off the dunghill, or come out of gaol to be master of it."Unhappy Englishmen! Is this the man you reproach? Had he any failing but that he bare too much with the most barbarous usage in the world? Had he not the most merit and the worst treatment that ever king in England met with?"Who can hear men tell us, they helped to make him king, and were not considered for it? You helped to make him king! Pray what merit do you plead, and from whom was the debt? You helped to make him king? That is, you helped to save your country, and ruin him; you helped to recover your own liberties and those of your posterity, as you ought to have been blasted from heaven if you had not, and now you claim rewards from him! I will tell you how he rewarded you fully: he rewarded you by sacrificing his peace, his comfort, his fortune, and his country, to support you. He died a thousand times in the chagrin, vexation, and perplexity he had from the unkindness and treachery of his friends, and the numberless hazards of the field against the enemy. And yet all would not satisfy a craving generation, an insatiable party, who thought all the taxes raised for the war, given, not to the nation, but to the king, and endeavoured to blot the best character in the world with the crimes of those whom they themselves recommended him to trust." [Review, 1707, vol. iv. p. 77.][26]See note[15], p. 11-12.[27]Life of Mr. John How, p. 210.[28]A Letter to Mr. How, by way of Reply to his Considerations, &c. 1701.[29]De Foe afterwards described the effect produced by this book. "The soberer churchmen, whose principles were founded on charity, and who had their eye upon the laws and constitution of their country, as that to which their own liberties were annexed, though they still believed the book to be written by a high-churchman, yet openly exclaimed against the proposal, condemned the warmth that appeared in the clergy against their brethren, and openly professed that such a man as Sacheverell and his brethren would blow up the foundations of the church. But either side had scarce time to discover their sentiments, when the book appeared to have been written by a dissenter; that it was designed in derision of the standard held up by Sacheverell and others; that it was a satire upon the fury of the churchmen, and a plot to make the rest discover themselves. Nothing was more strange than to see the effect upon the whole nation which this little book, a contemptible pamphlet of but three sheets of paper, had, and in so short a time too. The most forward, hot, and furious, as well among the clergy as others, blushed when they reflected how far they had applauded the book; raged that such an abuse should be put upon the church; and as they were obliged to damn the book, so they were strangely hampered between the doing so, and pursuing the rage at the dissenters. The greater part, the better to qualify themselves to condemn the author, came earnestly in to condemn the principle; for it was impossible to do one without the other. They laboured incessantly, both in print and in pulpit, to prove that this was a horrible slander upon the church. But this still answered the author's end the more; for they could never clear the church of the slander, without openly condemning the practice; nor could they possibly condemn the practice without censuring those clergymen who had gone such a length already as to say the same thing in print. Nor could all their rage at the author of that book contribute anything to clear them, but still made the better side the worse. It was plain they had owned the doctrine, had preached up the necessity of expelling and rooting out the dissenters in their sermons and printed pamphlets; that it was evident they had applauded the book itself, till they knew the author; and there was no other way to prevent the odium falling on the whole body of the church of England, but by giving up the authors of those mad principles, and openly professing moderate principles themselves." [Present State of Parties, p. 18.][30]On the 25th of February, 1702-3, a complaint was made in the house of commons, of a book entituled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters: and the folios 11-18 and 26 being read, resolved, That this book, being full of false and scandalous reflections on this parliament, and tending to promote sedition, be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, to-morrow, in New Palace-yard. 14 Jour. p. 207.[31]He who is desirous of reading the proclamation, may be gratified by the following copy from the London gazette, No. 3879:—"St. James's, Jan. 10th, 1702-3."Whereas Daniel De Foe,aliasDe Fooe, is charged with writing a scandalous and seditious pamphlet, entituled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters: he is a middle-sized spare man, about forty years old, of a brown complexion, and dark-brown coloured hair, but wears a wig, a hooked nose, a sharp chin, grey eyes, and a large mole near his mouth; was born in London, and for many years was a hose-factor, in Freeman's-yard, in Cornhill, and now is owner of the brick and pantile Works near Tilbury-fort, in Essex: whoever shall discover the said Daniel De Foe to one of her majesty's principal secretaries of state, or any of her majesty's justices of peace, so as he may be apprehended, shall have a reward of fifty pounds, which her majesty has ordered immediately to be paid upon such discovery."[32]The next paragraph of the passage further explains De Foe's object. "The 'Sermon preached at Oxford,' the 'New Association,' the 'Poetical Observator,' with numberless others, have said the same things in terms very little darker; and this book stands fair to let these gentlemen know, that what they design can no further take with mankind, than as their real meaning stands disguised by artifice of words; but that, when the persecution and destruction of the dissenters, the very thing they drive at, is put into plain English, the whole nation will start other notions, and condemn the author to be hanged for his impudence. He humbly hopes, he shall find no harder treatment for plain English without design, than those gentlemen for their plain design, in duller and darker English. The meaning then of the paper is, in short, to tell these gentlemen that it is nonsense to go round about and tell us of the crimes of the dissenters, to prepare the world to believe they are not fit to live in a human society; that they are enemies to the government and the laws, to the queen, and the public peace, and the like; the shortest way and the soonest, would be to tell us plainly, that they would have them all hanged, banished, and destroyed."[33]At his trial he was treated by the then attorney-general, sir Simon Harcourt, in the style of sir Edward Coke. He complained himself bitterly of the conduct of his own counsel. He was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred marks to the queen, to stand three times in the pillory, be imprisoned during the queen's pleasure, and find sureties for his good behaviour during seven years! Well may the learned and candid biographer, in the Biographia Britannia, exclaim, "The very infamous sentence reflected much more dishonour upon the court by which it was pronounced, than upon De Foe upon whom it was inflicted." But when he stood in the pillory, instead of suffering an ignominious punishment, he appears rather to have enjoyed a striking triumph. He says, "The people, who were expected to treat him very ill, on the contrary, pitied him, and wished those who set him there were placed in his room, and expressed their affections by loud shouts and acclamations when he was taken down." [Consolidator.][34]The Hymn was published in 1703, and ran rapidly through several editions. In 1702, before his prosecution, he published a satiric poem on the vices of the age, entitled "Reformation of Manners." During his imprisonment, he continued the subject in another poem, entituled, "More Reformation. A Satire upon himself."—Ed.[35]The collection contains the following pieces: 1. The True-born Englishman. 2. The Mock Mourners. 3. Reformation of Manners. 4. Character of Dr. Annesley. 5. The Spanish Descent. 6. Original Power of the People of England. 7. The Freeholders' Plea. 8. Reasons against a War with France. 9. Argument on a Standing Army. 10. Danger of the Protestant Religion. 11. Villany of Stock-jobbers. 12. Six Distinguishing Characters of a Parliament Man. 13. Poor Man's Plea. 14. Inquiry into Occasional Conformity; with a Preface to Mr. How. 15. Letter to Mr. How, by way of Reply to his Considerations on the Preface. 16. Two Great Questions considered. 17. Two Great Questions further considered. 18. Inquiry into Occasional Conformity. 19. New Test of the Church of England's Loyalty. 20. Shortest Way with the Dissenters. 21. Brief Explanation of the Shortest Way. 22. Shortest Way to Peace and Union. In the year 1705, another and fuller edition of his works was published. In 1703, and before the publication of the Review, next referred to by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe wrote More Short Ways with the Dissenters, a pamphlet chiefly intended to vindicate the system of education then pursued among the dissenters, and which had been impugned for its alleged disloyalty by the Rev. Samuel Wesley. It was in this work that De Foe so generously alluded to his old master, Mr. Morton, in the passage we have referred to, supra, p. 3, note[2]. During his confinement he engaged with his usual warmth in the controversies of that time. The old dispute of Occasional Conformity still occupied him. He replied to Mr. Owen's pamphlet, Moderation a Virtue, &c., in The Sincerity of the Dissenters vindicated from the Scandal of Occasional Conformity; with some Considerations on a late book, entituled, Moderation a Virtue. 1703. Several other controvertists took the field. In the course of the same year, anxious to put an end if possible to the furious disputes between the church and dissenters, he published, A Challenge of Peace, addressed to the whole Nation, with an Inquiry into Ways and Means of bringing it to pass; and afterwards replied to sir Humphrey Mackworth's Peace at Home, in a pamphlet entituled, Peace without Union. He also reasserted the great principles advocated in his former work on the Original Power of the People, in another published in 1704, which he called Original Right: or the Reasonableness of Appeals to the People: being an Answer to the First Chapter in Dr. Davenant's Essays, entituled, Peace at Home and War Abroad. In this same year, 1704, he had again to vindicate the dissenters, which he did in his pamphlet, The Dissenters' Answer to the High Church Challenge; and honoured the memory of his royal benefactor, William III., by bearing his testimony to his religious principles, which he did in a pamphlet entitled, Royal Religion. He also maintained the claims of the Scotch dissenters, in a pamphlet called The Liberty of Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland truly stated, 1703. And he had to wield his unwearied pen on behalf of the Irish dissenters, against a bill introduced avowedly to prevent the growth of popery, in which were contained some stringent provisions against the protestant dissenters. De Foe ironically headed his pamphlet, The Parallel: or Persecution of Protestants the Shortest Way to prevent the Growth of Popery in Ireland. 1704.—Ed.

[1]It is at last discovered, by searching the chamberlain's books, which have since been burnt, that our author was the son of James Foe, of the parish of Cripplegate, London, citizen and butcher; who was himself the son of Daniel Foe, of Elton, in the county of Northampton, yeoman; and who obtained his freedom by serving his apprenticeship with John Levit, citizen and butcher. Daniel Foe, the son of James, was admitted to his freedom by birth, on the 26th of January, 1687-8. I was led to these discoveries by observing that De Foe had voted at an election for a representative of London; whence I inferred, that he must have been a citizen either by birth or service. But in the parish books I could find no notice of his baptism; as his parents were dissenters.

[2]In his preface to More Reformation, De Foe complains, that some dissenters had reproached him, as if he had said, "that the gallows and the galleys ought to be the penalty of going to the conventicle; forgetting, that I must design to have my father, my wife, six innocent children, and myself, put into the same condition. To such dissenters I can only regret," says he, "that when I had drawn the picture, I did not, like the Dutchman with his man and bear, write under them, This is the man; and this is the bear." De Foe expressly admits that he was a dissenter, though no independent-fifth-monarchy man, or leveller. [De Foe, Works, edit. 1703. p. 326-448.] His grandfather, however, seems to have been of different feelings, as he kept a pack of hounds. From this fact it is inferred by his learned and laborious biographer Mr. Walter Wilson, that he was of the royal party, as the puritans did not indulge in that amusement; and also that he moved in a respectable station of life. De Foe himself thus alludes to his grandfather [Review, vol. vii. preface], "I remember my grandfather had a huntsman that used the same familiarity with his dogs, and he had his Roundhead and his Cavalier, his Goring and his Waller, and all the generals of both armies were hounds in his pack, till the times turning, the old gentleman was fain to scatter the pack and make them up of more doglike surnames." It seems also probable, that the property to which De Foe alludes as possessed by himself, was inherited from this grandfather. "I have both a native and an acquired right of election in more than one place in Britain, and as such am a part of the body that honourable house (of commons) represents, and from hence I believe may claim a right in due manner to represent, complain, address, or petition them." [Review, vol. vi. p. 477.] Mr. Wilson corrects the mistake of Mr. Chalmers and other biographers, as to the date of De Foe's birth, which really took place in 1661, and not as stated by them in 1663.—Ed.

[3]Works, 3rd. edit. vol. ii. p. 276. He was placed there when about fourteen years old, and appears to have been educated to his own satisfaction in afterlife. He described it as an academy where all the lectures, whether in philosophy or divinity, were given in English, and where consequently "though the scholars were not destitute of the languages, yet it is observed of them that they were by this made masters of the English tongue, and more of them excelled in that particular than of any school at that time." Certainly no man ever better understood how to use plain, racy, thorough English style, than De Foe. But still he was not deficient in learning. He boldly asserts himself on this point, in the passage from which Mr. Chalmers has made an extract in the text: "I have no concern to tell Dr. Browne I can read English, nor to tell Mr. Tutchin, I understand Latin;non ita Latinus, sum ut Latine loqui. I easily acknowledge myself blockhead enough to have lost the fluency of expression in the Latin, and so far trade has been a prejudice to me, and yet I think I owe this justice to my ancient father, still living (1705), and in whose behalf I freely testify, that if I am a blockhead, it was nobody's fault but my own; he having spared nothing in my education that might qualify me to match the accurate Dr. Browne, or the learned Observator. As to Mr. Tutchin, I never gave him the least affront; I have, even after base usage, in vain invited him to peace; in answer to which he returns unmannerly insults, calumnies, and reproach. As to my little learning, and his great capacity, I freely challenge him to translate with me any Latin, French, and Italian author, and after that, to retranslate them crossways, for 20l.each book; and by this he shall have an opportunity to show the world how much De Foe, the hosier, is inferior in learning to Mr. Tutchin, the gentleman." [Review vol. ii. p. 149.] He also vindicated Mr. Morton's academy from the charge made against it by the Rev. Samuel Wesley, father of the celebrated founder of Methodism, that antimonarchical and unconstitutional doctrines were taught there. De Foe especially denies this. His domestic education seems to have been according to the system then pursued by the strict and pious dissenters. He mentions that he began the task performed by many others of that then persecuted body, of copying the Bible in shorthand, and that he finished the Pentateuch. [Review vol. vi. p. 573.] He was intended for the ministry; but for what reason he relinquished that profession is not known. "It was his disaster," he says, "first, to be set apart for, and then to be set apart from, the honour of that sacred employ."—Ed.

[4]Review, vol. ii. p. 150.

[5]Appeal, p. 51. This was not the first occasion of his appearing in print. His earliest effort as an author was an answer to Roger L'Estrange's Guide to the Inferior Clergy, and was intituled,Speculum Crape Gownorum; or, A Looking-glass for the Young Academicks, new Foyl'd, with Reflections on some of the late high-flown Sermons; to which is added, An Essay towards a Sermon of the newest fashion. By a Guide to the Inferior Clergy.Ridentem discere verum, quis vitat?It was published in 1682. This work, as might be anticipated, was a satiric attack on the clergy of that day.De Foe's object in the pamphlet mentioned in the text, was to assert the policy of defending the house of Austria, then closely and vigorously attacked by the Turks. The "prevailing sentiment," referred to by Mr. Chalmers, was a dissatisfaction with the emperor for his cruel persecution of the protestants in Hungary; and which carried the national feeling so far as to make any assistance rendered to the emperor, even against the threatening Turks, extremely unpopular. De Foe, then very young, took the field on the weaker side, and strenuously maintained the danger to Christendom arising from the Mahommedan power being allowed to enter Vienna. Happily, the courage of John Sobieski, king of Poland, prevented that, once imminent, danger. De Foe, in a late period of his life, thus refers to his conduct on this occasion. "The first time I had the misfortune to differ from my friends, was about the year 1683, when the Turks were besieging Vienna, and the whigs in England, generally speaking, were for the Turks taking it; whilst I, having read the history of the cruelty and perfidious dealings of the Turks in their wars, and how they had rooted out the name of the Christian religion in above threescore and ten kingdoms, could by no means agree with, and though then but a young man and a young author, I opposed it and wrote against it, which was taken very unkind indeed." [Vide Appeal to Honour and Justice.]—Ed.

De Foe's object in the pamphlet mentioned in the text, was to assert the policy of defending the house of Austria, then closely and vigorously attacked by the Turks. The "prevailing sentiment," referred to by Mr. Chalmers, was a dissatisfaction with the emperor for his cruel persecution of the protestants in Hungary; and which carried the national feeling so far as to make any assistance rendered to the emperor, even against the threatening Turks, extremely unpopular. De Foe, then very young, took the field on the weaker side, and strenuously maintained the danger to Christendom arising from the Mahommedan power being allowed to enter Vienna. Happily, the courage of John Sobieski, king of Poland, prevented that, once imminent, danger. De Foe, in a late period of his life, thus refers to his conduct on this occasion. "The first time I had the misfortune to differ from my friends, was about the year 1683, when the Turks were besieging Vienna, and the whigs in England, generally speaking, were for the Turks taking it; whilst I, having read the history of the cruelty and perfidious dealings of the Turks in their wars, and how they had rooted out the name of the Christian religion in above threescore and ten kingdoms, could by no means agree with, and though then but a young man and a young author, I opposed it and wrote against it, which was taken very unkind indeed." [Vide Appeal to Honour and Justice.]—Ed.

[6]Appeal.

[7]The title of De Foe's pamphlet, or pamphlets, on this subject, does not seem to be known, but he more than once in afterlife proudly refers to his efforts on that important matter. "The next time I differed with my friends, was when king James was wheedling the dissenters to take off the penal laws and test, which I could by no means come into. And as in the first I used to say, I had rather the popish house of Austria should ruin the protestants in Hungary, than that the infidel house of Ottoman should ruin both protestant and papist, by overrunning Germany, so in the other I told the dissenters I had rather the Church of England should pull our clothes off by fines and forfeitures, than that the papists should fall both upon the church and the dissenters, and pull our skins off by fire and fagot." [Appeal to Honour and Justice.] And again: "I never would have had the dissenters to join with king James, to take off the penal laws and test. No; no: I thank God I was of age then to bear my testimony against it, and to affront some who were of a different opinion." [Review, vol. viii. p. 694.]—Ed.

[8]History, vol. ii. p. 37. The following is the passage in Oldmixon: "Their majesties, attended by their royal highnesses and a numerous train of nobility and gentry, went first to a balcony prepared for them at the Angel in Cheapside, to see the show; which for the great number of liverymen, the full appearance of the militia, and the artillery company, the rich adornments of the pageants, and the splendour and good order of the whole proceedings, outdid all that had been seen before, on that occasion; and what deserved to be particularly remembered, says a reverend historian, was a royal regiment of volunteer horse, made up of the chief citizens, who being gallantly mounted and richly accoutred, were led by the earl of Monmouth, now earl of Peterborough, and attended there majesties from Whitehall. Among these troopers, who were for the most part dissenters, was Daniel De Foe, at that time a hosier in Freeman's Yard, Cornhill." [History of England, vol. iii. p. 36.]

[9]Being reproached by Tutchin, in his Observator, with having been bred an apprentice to a hosier, De Foe asserts, in May, 1705, that he never was a hosier, or an apprentice, but admits that he had been a trader. [Review, vol. ii. p. 149.] Oldmixon, who never speaks favourably of De Foe, allows that he had never been a merchant, otherwise than peddling a little to Portugal. [Hist. vol. ii. p. 519.] But, peddling to Portugal makes a trader.

[10]These views of Mr. Chalmers seem confirmed by De Foe's own severe comments on the distraction caused to tradesmen by an over-indulgence in literary pursuits. In his Complete Tradesman, one of the most valuable practical books that was ever published, and which should be the manual of every young man beginning business, he says, "a wit turned tradesman! no apron-strings will hold him; it is in vain to lock him behind the counter, he is gone in a moment. Instead of journal and ledger, he runs away to his Virgil and Horace; his journal entries are all Pindarics, and his ledger is all heroics. He is truly dramatic from one end to the other through the whole scene of his trade; and as the first part is all comedy, so the two last acts are always made up with tragedy; a statute of bankrupt is hisexeunt omnes, and he generally repeats the epilogue in the Fleet prison or the Mint." [See ante, vol. xvii.] He is also very severe against tradesmen who are led away into expensive pleasures and idle company. But Mr. Wilson vindicates De Foe, in some degree, by showing from his own statements that he had been the victim of the fraud of others, as well as of his own imprudent habits. In one of the Reviews, [vol. iii. p. 70.] he says, that "nothing was more frequent than for a man in full credit to buy all the goods he could lay his hands on, and carry them directly from the house he bought them at into the Fryars, and then send for his creditors, and laugh at them, insult them, showing them their own goods untouched, offer them a trifle in satisfaction, and if they refuse it, bid them defiance. I cannot refrain vouching this of my own knowledge,since I have more than many times been served so myself." Certainly under such a monstrous system of abuse, an honest tradesman must have been at great disadvantage.—Ed.

[11]The Mercator, No. 101.

[12]Reply to Lord Haversham's Vindication.

[13]Mr. Wilson has some valuable observations on this subject, which justice to the memory of De Foe requires us to transcribe. "The failure of this speculation seems to have been owing rather to the want of encouragement upon the part of the public, than to any imprudence in the projector. Pantiles had been hitherto a Dutch manufacture, and were brought in large quantities to England. To supersede the necessity of their importation, and to provide a new channel for the employment of labour, the works at Tilbury were laudably erected; and De Foe tells us that he employed a hundred poor labourers in the undertaking. The capital embarked in the concern must also have been considerable; for he informs us that his own loss by its failure was no less a sum than three thousand pounds. But besides so serious a misfortune to himself, it was no less so to the public; not only by the failure of an ingenious manufacture, but for the sake of the numerous families supported by it, who were now turned adrift in the world, or thrown upon some other branch of trade. De Foe continued the pantile works it is believed until the year 1703, when he was prosecuted by the government for a libel, and being deprived of his liberty the undertaking soon came to an end." Mr. Wilson adds an extract from one of the Reviews, (March, 1705,) in which De Foe indignantly refers to this undertaking and its calamitous issue. "Nor should the author of this paper boast in vain, if he tells the world that he himself, before violence, injury, and barbarous treatment destroyed him and his undertaking, employed a hundred poor people in making pantiles in England, a manufacture always bought in Holland; and thus he pursued this principle with his utmost zeal for the good of England; and those gentlemen who so easily persecuted him for saying what all the world since owns to be true, and which he has since a hundred times offered to prove, were particularly serviceable to the nation, in turning that hundred of poor people and their families a begging for work, and forcing them to turn other poor families out of work to make room for them, besides three thousand pounds damage to the author of this, which he has paid for this little experience."—Ed.

[14]The sentence in italics is part of the passage in De Foe's Appeal to Honour and Justice, (in which he gives a summary of his life, and vindicates his conduct throughout it,) which particularly refers to this period. We give the whole. "Misfortunes in business having unhinged me from matters of trade; it was about the year 1694, when I was invited by some merchants with whom I had corresponded abroad, and some also at home, to settle at Cadiz, in Spain; and that with the offer of very good commissions. But Providence, which had other work for me to do, placed a secret aversion in my mind to quitting England upon any account, and made me refuse the best offers of that kind, to be concerned with some eminent persons at home, in proposing ways and means to the government for raising money to supply the occasions of the war, then newly begun." [Vide Appeal to Honour and Justice.]

[15]Besides the topics mentioned by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe suggests various improvements in road-making, and an asylum for idiots. He also warmly advocates a great improvement in the system of education, and especially of females. Before the publication of the next work mentioned by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe took part in a controversy then very warmly agitated, viz., of Occasional Conformity. The Dissenters differed on this subject; one party being willing to comply outwardly with the ceremonies of the church, when in certain offices, and the other party objecting to that compliance as a sinful and dastardly desertion from their principles of dissent. De Foe adopted the latter view, and, in 1697, maintained it with his accustomed warmth, in An Inquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters in Parliament. He also vigorously took the field against the vices and social abuses of the times; and, in 1698, published The Poor Man's Plea in relation to all the Proclamations, Declarations, Acts of Parliament, &c., which have been or shall be made or published, for a Reformation of Manners, and suppressing Immorality in the Nation.—Ed.

[16]10 and 11 Wm. III. ch. 18.

[17]De Foe says himself, that he had published nine editions fairly printed upon good paper, and sold at the price of one shilling, and that it had been printed twelve times by other persons without his concurrence. We must presume it to have produced a great effect. De Foe himself says, many years afterwards, "National mistakes, vulgar errors, and even a general practice, have been reformed by a just satire. None of our countrymen have been known to boast of being true-born Englishmen, or so much as to use the word as a title or appellation, ever since a late satire upon that national folly was published, though almost thirty years ago. Nothing was more frequent in our mouths before that, nothing so universally blushed and laughed at since. The time I believe is yet to come for any author to print it, or any man of sense to speak of it in earnest; whereas before you had it in the best writers, and in the most florid speeches before the most august assemblies, upon the most solemn occasions." [Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed, p. 400.] The object of the poem is thus stated by the author in the preface: "The intent of the satire is pointed at the vanity of those who talk of their antiquity, and value themselves upon their pedigree, and being true-born; whereas it is impossible we should be true-born; and if we could, should have lost by the bargain. These sort of people who call themselves true-born, and tell long stories of their families, and like a nobleman of Venice, think a foreigner ought not to walk on the same side of the street with them, are owned to be meant in this satire. What they would infer from their long original, I know not, nor is it easy to make out, whether they are the better or the worse for their ancestors. Our English nation may value themselves for their wit, wealth, and courage, and I believe few nations will dispute it with them; but for long originals and ancient true-born families, I would advise them to waive the discourse. A true Englishman is one who deserves a character, and I have nowhere lessened him that I know of."—Ed.

[18]p. 13. We add the remaining part of this passage, which is extracted by Mr. Chalmers from the Appeal to Honour and Justice; "And is only mentioned here as I take all occasions to do, for the expressing the honour I ever preserved for the immortal and glorious memory of that greatest and best of princes, and whom it was my honour and advantage to call master as well as sovereign, whose goodness to me I never forget, and whose memory I never patiently heard abused, and never can do so; and who, had he lived, would never have suffered me to be treated as I have been in this world."—Ed.

[19]This pamphlet was published before the poem of the True-born Englishman, viz., in 1698, and was an answer to one by Mr. Trenchard, "showing that a standing army is inconsistent with a free government, and absolutely destructive to the constitution of the English monarchy." It is supposed that De Foe wrote another pamphlet on this subject, entituled, Some Reflections on a pamphlet lately published, entituled, &c. (Mr. Trenchard's pamphlet.) 1697. But there is great doubt as to this work being De Foe's.—Ed.

[20]Subsequently to the publication of the pamphlet referred to in the text, in the year 1700, the indefatigable De Foe was again in the political arena. The Spanish king had just died, bequeathing the crown to the duke of Anjou, grandson of Lewis XIV. and Europe was anxiously awaiting the French monarch's decision. He subsequently broke through the partition treaty, and placed his grandson on the throne of Spain. In the meanwhile, however De Foe published, a pamphlet, entituled, The Two Great Questions Considered: 1. What the French king will do with respect to the Spanish monarchy? 2. What measures the English ought to take. In the same year, he published The Danger of the Protestant Religion, from the present Prospect of a Religious War in Europe. His object is to point out the powerful front presented by the popish party, and to warn and arouse England to the danger and defence of protestantism.—Ed.

[21]Mr. Polhill, of Cheapstead-place, in Kent, whose father, Mr. David Polhill, was committed to the Gatehouse, and thereby gained great popularity, was so good as to communicate to me the curious anecdote of De Foe's dressing himself in women's clothes, and presenting the Legion paper to the speaker. De Foe says himself in his Original Power of the People, p. 24: "this is evident from the tenor and yet undiscovered original of the Legion paper; the contents of which had so much plain truth of fact; and which I could give a better history of, if it were needful." When De Foe republished his works, in 1703, he thought it prudent to expunge this passage, that too plainly pointed out the real history of the Legion paper, which is not mentioned by the Commons Journals. Mr. Wilson thinks Mr. Chalmers mistaken in supposing that De Foe delivered the petition disguised as a woman. He says, "such a report was certainly current at the time, but the true history of it seems to be that which is related in the history of the Kentish petition; it was said it was delivered to the speaker by a woman, but I have been informed since, that it was a mistake, and it was delivered by the very person who wrote it, guarded by about sixteen gentlemen of quality, who if any notice had been taken of him, were ready to have carried him off by force." The Remonstration is too long a paper to be here reprinted, but the general tone and object of it will be gathered by the conclusion. "We do hereby claim and declare:—"1. That it is the undoubted right of the people of England, in case their representatives in parliament do not proceed according to their duty, and the people's interest, to inform them of their dislike, disown their actions, and direct them to such things as they think fit, either by petition, address, proposal, memorial, or any other peaceable way."2. That the house of commons, separately, and otherwise than by bill legally passed into an act, have no legal power to suspend or dispense with the laws of the land, any more than the king has by his prerogative."3. That the house of commons has no legal power to imprison any person, or commit them to custody of sergeants, or otherwise, (their own members excepted,) but ought to address the king, to cause any person, on good grounds, to be apprehended, which person so apprehended, ought to have the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, and be fairly brought to trial by due course of law."4. That, if the house of commons, in breach of the laws and liberties of the people, do betray the trust reposed in them, and act negligently, or arbitrarily and illegally, it is the undoubted right of the people of England, to call them to an account for the same, and by convention, assembly, or force, may proceed against them as traitors and betrayers of their country."These things we think proper to declare, as the unquestionable right of the people of England, whom you serve, and in pursuance of that right, (avoiding the ceremony of petitioning our inferiors, for such you are by your present circumstances, as the person sent is less than the sender,) we do publicly protest against all your aforesaid illegal actions, and in the name of ourselves, and of all the good people of England, do require and demand:—"1. That all the public just debts of the nation be forthwith paid and discharged."2. That all persons illegally imprisoned, as aforesaid, be either immediately discharged, or admitted to bail, as by law they ought to be; and the liberty of the subject recognised and restored."3. That John Home, aforesaid, be obliged to ask his majesty's pardon for his vile reflections, or be immediately expelled the house."4. That the growing power of France be taken into consideration; the succession of the emperor to the crown of Spain supported; our protestant neighbours protected, as the interest of England and the protestant religion requires."5. That the French king be obliged to quit Flanders, or his majesty be addressed to declare war against him."6. That suitable supplies be granted to his majesty for the putting all these necessary things in execution, and that care be taken that such taxes as are raised, may be more equally assessed and collected, and scandalous deficiences prevented."7. That the thanks of this house may be given to those gentlemen who so gallantly appeared in the behalf of their country with the Kentish petition, and have been so scandalously used for it."Thus, gentlemen, you have your duty laid before you, which it is hoped you will think of; but if you continue to neglect it, you may expect to be treated according to the resentment of an injured nation; for Englishmen are no more to be slaves to parliaments, than to kings."Our name is Legion, and we are Many."De Foe seems to have written a History of the Kentish Petition. And in the following year, 1702, he is supposed to have written Legion's Newspaper; being a Second Memorial to the Gentlemen of the late House of Commons.—Ed.

"1. That it is the undoubted right of the people of England, in case their representatives in parliament do not proceed according to their duty, and the people's interest, to inform them of their dislike, disown their actions, and direct them to such things as they think fit, either by petition, address, proposal, memorial, or any other peaceable way.

"2. That the house of commons, separately, and otherwise than by bill legally passed into an act, have no legal power to suspend or dispense with the laws of the land, any more than the king has by his prerogative.

"3. That the house of commons has no legal power to imprison any person, or commit them to custody of sergeants, or otherwise, (their own members excepted,) but ought to address the king, to cause any person, on good grounds, to be apprehended, which person so apprehended, ought to have the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, and be fairly brought to trial by due course of law.

"4. That, if the house of commons, in breach of the laws and liberties of the people, do betray the trust reposed in them, and act negligently, or arbitrarily and illegally, it is the undoubted right of the people of England, to call them to an account for the same, and by convention, assembly, or force, may proceed against them as traitors and betrayers of their country.

"These things we think proper to declare, as the unquestionable right of the people of England, whom you serve, and in pursuance of that right, (avoiding the ceremony of petitioning our inferiors, for such you are by your present circumstances, as the person sent is less than the sender,) we do publicly protest against all your aforesaid illegal actions, and in the name of ourselves, and of all the good people of England, do require and demand:—

"1. That all the public just debts of the nation be forthwith paid and discharged.

"2. That all persons illegally imprisoned, as aforesaid, be either immediately discharged, or admitted to bail, as by law they ought to be; and the liberty of the subject recognised and restored.

"3. That John Home, aforesaid, be obliged to ask his majesty's pardon for his vile reflections, or be immediately expelled the house.

"4. That the growing power of France be taken into consideration; the succession of the emperor to the crown of Spain supported; our protestant neighbours protected, as the interest of England and the protestant religion requires.

"5. That the French king be obliged to quit Flanders, or his majesty be addressed to declare war against him.

"6. That suitable supplies be granted to his majesty for the putting all these necessary things in execution, and that care be taken that such taxes as are raised, may be more equally assessed and collected, and scandalous deficiences prevented.

"7. That the thanks of this house may be given to those gentlemen who so gallantly appeared in the behalf of their country with the Kentish petition, and have been so scandalously used for it.

"Thus, gentlemen, you have your duty laid before you, which it is hoped you will think of; but if you continue to neglect it, you may expect to be treated according to the resentment of an injured nation; for Englishmen are no more to be slaves to parliaments, than to kings.

"Our name is Legion, and we are Many."

De Foe seems to have written a History of the Kentish Petition. And in the following year, 1702, he is supposed to have written Legion's Newspaper; being a Second Memorial to the Gentlemen of the late House of Commons.—Ed.

[22]This pamphlet was in reply to sir Humphrey Mackworth's Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England; and recent events, arising out of Stockdale's proceedings against Mr. Hansard for publishing a report of the house of commons, have made both sir Humphrey's and De Foe's pamphlets extremely interesting to the political world. De Foe maintains four general propositions as the foundation of his argument."1. That all government is instituted for the protection of the governed."2. That its constituent members, whether king, lords, or commons, if they invert the great end of their institution, the public good, cease to be; and power retreats to its original."3. That no collective or representative body of men whatever, in matters of politics or religion, have been infallible."4. That reason is the test and touchstone of laws, which cease to be binding, and become void, when contradictory to reason." He also maintains that no power has a right to dispense with the laws, and deduces that when such a right is assumed by either of the three powers, the constitution suffers a convulsion, and is dissolved of course. This tract has had considerable reputation. Mr. Wilson tells us, "that during the contest between the house of commons and the celebrated Mr. Wilkes, who was refused his seat, although repeatedly returned by his constituents, it was judged seasonable to reprint this work. It was accordingly published in 8vo. in 1769, by R. Baldwin, accompanied by some distinguished characters of a parliament man, by the same author, and is stated in the title-page to be the third edition. Prefixed to the work is a spirited dedication to the right honourable the lord mayor, the aldermen, and commons, of the city of London." [The dedication, amongst other things, states, "the reprinting of this excellent piece of the celebrated Daniel De Foe, who seems to have understood as well as any man the civil constitution of the kingdom, wherein the nature of our own constitution is set in the clearest light, upon self-evident principles, and the original power of the collective body of the people asserted, seemed to be altogether seasonable and fitting. It is with propriety addressed to the body of men which has always stood, like Mars in the gap, against all encroachments on the liberties of the people, and to which the nation hitherto owes its freedom and prosperity," &c.] The chief magistrate at that time was the patriotic alderman Beckford, who has a noble statue erected by his fellow-citizens in their Guildhall, to commemorate his worth. De Foe's work was reprinted, for the fourth time, at the logographic press, and included in the "Selection" from his writings published by the late Mr. John Walker, in 1790. [Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 436.]

"1. That all government is instituted for the protection of the governed.

"2. That its constituent members, whether king, lords, or commons, if they invert the great end of their institution, the public good, cease to be; and power retreats to its original.

"3. That no collective or representative body of men whatever, in matters of politics or religion, have been infallible.

"4. That reason is the test and touchstone of laws, which cease to be binding, and become void, when contradictory to reason." He also maintains that no power has a right to dispense with the laws, and deduces that when such a right is assumed by either of the three powers, the constitution suffers a convulsion, and is dissolved of course. This tract has had considerable reputation. Mr. Wilson tells us, "that during the contest between the house of commons and the celebrated Mr. Wilkes, who was refused his seat, although repeatedly returned by his constituents, it was judged seasonable to reprint this work. It was accordingly published in 8vo. in 1769, by R. Baldwin, accompanied by some distinguished characters of a parliament man, by the same author, and is stated in the title-page to be the third edition. Prefixed to the work is a spirited dedication to the right honourable the lord mayor, the aldermen, and commons, of the city of London." [The dedication, amongst other things, states, "the reprinting of this excellent piece of the celebrated Daniel De Foe, who seems to have understood as well as any man the civil constitution of the kingdom, wherein the nature of our own constitution is set in the clearest light, upon self-evident principles, and the original power of the collective body of the people asserted, seemed to be altogether seasonable and fitting. It is with propriety addressed to the body of men which has always stood, like Mars in the gap, against all encroachments on the liberties of the people, and to which the nation hitherto owes its freedom and prosperity," &c.] The chief magistrate at that time was the patriotic alderman Beckford, who has a noble statue erected by his fellow-citizens in their Guildhall, to commemorate his worth. De Foe's work was reprinted, for the fourth time, at the logographic press, and included in the "Selection" from his writings published by the late Mr. John Walker, in 1790. [Life of De Foe, vol. i. p. 436.]

[23]This pamphlet was published before the events mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the text. It was preceded by another pamphlet of our indefatigable author, entituled, Six Distinguishing Characters of a Parliament man. As the pamphlets of De Foe illustrate not only the character of the author, but the spirit of the times, we give a summary of the 'Distinguishing characteristics' of the member of the house, desired by De Foe. 1. He must be a thorough partisan of the revolution, neither papist nor Jacobite. 2. A man of religion, of orthodox principles, and moral practice. 3. "A parliament man," says the sensible and experienced author, "ought to be a man of general knowledge, acquainted with the true interest of his country as to trade, liberties, laws, and common circumstances, especially of that part of it for which he serves. He ought to know how to deliver his mind with freedom and boldness, and pertinently to the case; to understand when our liberties are encroached upon, and be able to defend them: and to distinguish between a prince, who is faithful to liberty, and the interest of his country, and one whose business it is to invade both liberty and property." 4. He should be a man in years. 5. And of thorough honesty. 6. And of morals. This pamphlet was followed by the one mentioned in the text, and that again almost immediately by The Villany of Stock-jobbers detected; and the Cause of the late Run upon the Banks and Bankers discovered and considered.—Ed.

[24]The author of De Foe's life in the Biographia Britannica, Dr. Towers, says, "in this piece De Foe wrote against the views and conduct of the court, and against what then seemed to be the prevailing sentiment of the nation. He appears however to have been perfectly right, to have exhibited on this occasion great political discernment, and to have been influenced by no motives but those of public spirit." Many opponents entered the field against De Foe upon this subject.—Ed.

[25]De Foe frequently vindicates the memory of William III., but more especially in his Reviews. In 1702, he published The Mock Mourners, a satire by way of elegy on king William. By the author of the True-born Englishman. De Foe's summary of William III.'s character in the reviews is as follows:—"It may, perhaps, be thought by some people a digression too remote from my present pursuit, when I launch out into the crimes of a party; but, if I am carried into extremes when the memory of king William is touched, I am altogether careless of making an excuse; and I acknowledge myself less master of my temper in that case, than in anything I can be touched in besides. The memory of that glorious monarch is so dear, and so valuable in the hearts of all true protestants, that have a sense both of what they escaped and what they enjoy by his hand, that it is difficult to retain any charity for their principles that can forget the obligation. His name is a word of congratulation; and 'The immortal memory of king William,' will be a health, as long as drinking healths is suffered in this part of the world."Let the ungrateful wretch that forgets what God wrought by his hand, look back upon popery coming in like a flood; property trampled underfoot; all sorts of cruelties and butcheries in practice in Scotland, and approaching in England! Let him review the insolence of the soldiery, the inveteracy of the court party, the tyranny, perjury, and avarice of governors; and at the foot of the account let him write, Delivered by king William. Then let him look back on the prince: How great, how splendid, how happy, how rich, how easy, and how justly valued by friends and enemies! He lived before in the field glorious, feared by enemies of his country, loved by the soldiery, having a vast inheritance of his own, governor of a rich state, blessed with the best of consorts, and as far as this life could give, completely happy. Compare this with the gaudy crown we gave him. Had a visible scheme been laid with it, of all the uneasinesses, dangers, crosses, disappointments, and dark prospects which that prince found with it, no wise man would have taken it off the dunghill, or come out of gaol to be master of it."Unhappy Englishmen! Is this the man you reproach? Had he any failing but that he bare too much with the most barbarous usage in the world? Had he not the most merit and the worst treatment that ever king in England met with?"Who can hear men tell us, they helped to make him king, and were not considered for it? You helped to make him king! Pray what merit do you plead, and from whom was the debt? You helped to make him king? That is, you helped to save your country, and ruin him; you helped to recover your own liberties and those of your posterity, as you ought to have been blasted from heaven if you had not, and now you claim rewards from him! I will tell you how he rewarded you fully: he rewarded you by sacrificing his peace, his comfort, his fortune, and his country, to support you. He died a thousand times in the chagrin, vexation, and perplexity he had from the unkindness and treachery of his friends, and the numberless hazards of the field against the enemy. And yet all would not satisfy a craving generation, an insatiable party, who thought all the taxes raised for the war, given, not to the nation, but to the king, and endeavoured to blot the best character in the world with the crimes of those whom they themselves recommended him to trust." [Review, 1707, vol. iv. p. 77.]

"It may, perhaps, be thought by some people a digression too remote from my present pursuit, when I launch out into the crimes of a party; but, if I am carried into extremes when the memory of king William is touched, I am altogether careless of making an excuse; and I acknowledge myself less master of my temper in that case, than in anything I can be touched in besides. The memory of that glorious monarch is so dear, and so valuable in the hearts of all true protestants, that have a sense both of what they escaped and what they enjoy by his hand, that it is difficult to retain any charity for their principles that can forget the obligation. His name is a word of congratulation; and 'The immortal memory of king William,' will be a health, as long as drinking healths is suffered in this part of the world.

"Let the ungrateful wretch that forgets what God wrought by his hand, look back upon popery coming in like a flood; property trampled underfoot; all sorts of cruelties and butcheries in practice in Scotland, and approaching in England! Let him review the insolence of the soldiery, the inveteracy of the court party, the tyranny, perjury, and avarice of governors; and at the foot of the account let him write, Delivered by king William. Then let him look back on the prince: How great, how splendid, how happy, how rich, how easy, and how justly valued by friends and enemies! He lived before in the field glorious, feared by enemies of his country, loved by the soldiery, having a vast inheritance of his own, governor of a rich state, blessed with the best of consorts, and as far as this life could give, completely happy. Compare this with the gaudy crown we gave him. Had a visible scheme been laid with it, of all the uneasinesses, dangers, crosses, disappointments, and dark prospects which that prince found with it, no wise man would have taken it off the dunghill, or come out of gaol to be master of it.

"Unhappy Englishmen! Is this the man you reproach? Had he any failing but that he bare too much with the most barbarous usage in the world? Had he not the most merit and the worst treatment that ever king in England met with?

"Who can hear men tell us, they helped to make him king, and were not considered for it? You helped to make him king! Pray what merit do you plead, and from whom was the debt? You helped to make him king? That is, you helped to save your country, and ruin him; you helped to recover your own liberties and those of your posterity, as you ought to have been blasted from heaven if you had not, and now you claim rewards from him! I will tell you how he rewarded you fully: he rewarded you by sacrificing his peace, his comfort, his fortune, and his country, to support you. He died a thousand times in the chagrin, vexation, and perplexity he had from the unkindness and treachery of his friends, and the numberless hazards of the field against the enemy. And yet all would not satisfy a craving generation, an insatiable party, who thought all the taxes raised for the war, given, not to the nation, but to the king, and endeavoured to blot the best character in the world with the crimes of those whom they themselves recommended him to trust." [Review, 1707, vol. iv. p. 77.]

[26]See note[15], p. 11-12.

[27]Life of Mr. John How, p. 210.

[28]A Letter to Mr. How, by way of Reply to his Considerations, &c. 1701.

[29]De Foe afterwards described the effect produced by this book. "The soberer churchmen, whose principles were founded on charity, and who had their eye upon the laws and constitution of their country, as that to which their own liberties were annexed, though they still believed the book to be written by a high-churchman, yet openly exclaimed against the proposal, condemned the warmth that appeared in the clergy against their brethren, and openly professed that such a man as Sacheverell and his brethren would blow up the foundations of the church. But either side had scarce time to discover their sentiments, when the book appeared to have been written by a dissenter; that it was designed in derision of the standard held up by Sacheverell and others; that it was a satire upon the fury of the churchmen, and a plot to make the rest discover themselves. Nothing was more strange than to see the effect upon the whole nation which this little book, a contemptible pamphlet of but three sheets of paper, had, and in so short a time too. The most forward, hot, and furious, as well among the clergy as others, blushed when they reflected how far they had applauded the book; raged that such an abuse should be put upon the church; and as they were obliged to damn the book, so they were strangely hampered between the doing so, and pursuing the rage at the dissenters. The greater part, the better to qualify themselves to condemn the author, came earnestly in to condemn the principle; for it was impossible to do one without the other. They laboured incessantly, both in print and in pulpit, to prove that this was a horrible slander upon the church. But this still answered the author's end the more; for they could never clear the church of the slander, without openly condemning the practice; nor could they possibly condemn the practice without censuring those clergymen who had gone such a length already as to say the same thing in print. Nor could all their rage at the author of that book contribute anything to clear them, but still made the better side the worse. It was plain they had owned the doctrine, had preached up the necessity of expelling and rooting out the dissenters in their sermons and printed pamphlets; that it was evident they had applauded the book itself, till they knew the author; and there was no other way to prevent the odium falling on the whole body of the church of England, but by giving up the authors of those mad principles, and openly professing moderate principles themselves." [Present State of Parties, p. 18.]

[30]On the 25th of February, 1702-3, a complaint was made in the house of commons, of a book entituled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters: and the folios 11-18 and 26 being read, resolved, That this book, being full of false and scandalous reflections on this parliament, and tending to promote sedition, be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, to-morrow, in New Palace-yard. 14 Jour. p. 207.

[31]He who is desirous of reading the proclamation, may be gratified by the following copy from the London gazette, No. 3879:—"St. James's, Jan. 10th, 1702-3."Whereas Daniel De Foe,aliasDe Fooe, is charged with writing a scandalous and seditious pamphlet, entituled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters: he is a middle-sized spare man, about forty years old, of a brown complexion, and dark-brown coloured hair, but wears a wig, a hooked nose, a sharp chin, grey eyes, and a large mole near his mouth; was born in London, and for many years was a hose-factor, in Freeman's-yard, in Cornhill, and now is owner of the brick and pantile Works near Tilbury-fort, in Essex: whoever shall discover the said Daniel De Foe to one of her majesty's principal secretaries of state, or any of her majesty's justices of peace, so as he may be apprehended, shall have a reward of fifty pounds, which her majesty has ordered immediately to be paid upon such discovery."

[31]He who is desirous of reading the proclamation, may be gratified by the following copy from the London gazette, No. 3879:—

"St. James's, Jan. 10th, 1702-3.

"Whereas Daniel De Foe,aliasDe Fooe, is charged with writing a scandalous and seditious pamphlet, entituled The Shortest Way with the Dissenters: he is a middle-sized spare man, about forty years old, of a brown complexion, and dark-brown coloured hair, but wears a wig, a hooked nose, a sharp chin, grey eyes, and a large mole near his mouth; was born in London, and for many years was a hose-factor, in Freeman's-yard, in Cornhill, and now is owner of the brick and pantile Works near Tilbury-fort, in Essex: whoever shall discover the said Daniel De Foe to one of her majesty's principal secretaries of state, or any of her majesty's justices of peace, so as he may be apprehended, shall have a reward of fifty pounds, which her majesty has ordered immediately to be paid upon such discovery."

[32]The next paragraph of the passage further explains De Foe's object. "The 'Sermon preached at Oxford,' the 'New Association,' the 'Poetical Observator,' with numberless others, have said the same things in terms very little darker; and this book stands fair to let these gentlemen know, that what they design can no further take with mankind, than as their real meaning stands disguised by artifice of words; but that, when the persecution and destruction of the dissenters, the very thing they drive at, is put into plain English, the whole nation will start other notions, and condemn the author to be hanged for his impudence. He humbly hopes, he shall find no harder treatment for plain English without design, than those gentlemen for their plain design, in duller and darker English. The meaning then of the paper is, in short, to tell these gentlemen that it is nonsense to go round about and tell us of the crimes of the dissenters, to prepare the world to believe they are not fit to live in a human society; that they are enemies to the government and the laws, to the queen, and the public peace, and the like; the shortest way and the soonest, would be to tell us plainly, that they would have them all hanged, banished, and destroyed."

[33]At his trial he was treated by the then attorney-general, sir Simon Harcourt, in the style of sir Edward Coke. He complained himself bitterly of the conduct of his own counsel. He was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred marks to the queen, to stand three times in the pillory, be imprisoned during the queen's pleasure, and find sureties for his good behaviour during seven years! Well may the learned and candid biographer, in the Biographia Britannia, exclaim, "The very infamous sentence reflected much more dishonour upon the court by which it was pronounced, than upon De Foe upon whom it was inflicted." But when he stood in the pillory, instead of suffering an ignominious punishment, he appears rather to have enjoyed a striking triumph. He says, "The people, who were expected to treat him very ill, on the contrary, pitied him, and wished those who set him there were placed in his room, and expressed their affections by loud shouts and acclamations when he was taken down." [Consolidator.]

[34]The Hymn was published in 1703, and ran rapidly through several editions. In 1702, before his prosecution, he published a satiric poem on the vices of the age, entitled "Reformation of Manners." During his imprisonment, he continued the subject in another poem, entituled, "More Reformation. A Satire upon himself."—Ed.

[35]The collection contains the following pieces: 1. The True-born Englishman. 2. The Mock Mourners. 3. Reformation of Manners. 4. Character of Dr. Annesley. 5. The Spanish Descent. 6. Original Power of the People of England. 7. The Freeholders' Plea. 8. Reasons against a War with France. 9. Argument on a Standing Army. 10. Danger of the Protestant Religion. 11. Villany of Stock-jobbers. 12. Six Distinguishing Characters of a Parliament Man. 13. Poor Man's Plea. 14. Inquiry into Occasional Conformity; with a Preface to Mr. How. 15. Letter to Mr. How, by way of Reply to his Considerations on the Preface. 16. Two Great Questions considered. 17. Two Great Questions further considered. 18. Inquiry into Occasional Conformity. 19. New Test of the Church of England's Loyalty. 20. Shortest Way with the Dissenters. 21. Brief Explanation of the Shortest Way. 22. Shortest Way to Peace and Union. In the year 1705, another and fuller edition of his works was published. In 1703, and before the publication of the Review, next referred to by Mr. Chalmers, De Foe wrote More Short Ways with the Dissenters, a pamphlet chiefly intended to vindicate the system of education then pursued among the dissenters, and which had been impugned for its alleged disloyalty by the Rev. Samuel Wesley. It was in this work that De Foe so generously alluded to his old master, Mr. Morton, in the passage we have referred to, supra, p. 3, note[2]. During his confinement he engaged with his usual warmth in the controversies of that time. The old dispute of Occasional Conformity still occupied him. He replied to Mr. Owen's pamphlet, Moderation a Virtue, &c., in The Sincerity of the Dissenters vindicated from the Scandal of Occasional Conformity; with some Considerations on a late book, entituled, Moderation a Virtue. 1703. Several other controvertists took the field. In the course of the same year, anxious to put an end if possible to the furious disputes between the church and dissenters, he published, A Challenge of Peace, addressed to the whole Nation, with an Inquiry into Ways and Means of bringing it to pass; and afterwards replied to sir Humphrey Mackworth's Peace at Home, in a pamphlet entituled, Peace without Union. He also reasserted the great principles advocated in his former work on the Original Power of the People, in another published in 1704, which he called Original Right: or the Reasonableness of Appeals to the People: being an Answer to the First Chapter in Dr. Davenant's Essays, entituled, Peace at Home and War Abroad. In this same year, 1704, he had again to vindicate the dissenters, which he did in his pamphlet, The Dissenters' Answer to the High Church Challenge; and honoured the memory of his royal benefactor, William III., by bearing his testimony to his religious principles, which he did in a pamphlet entitled, Royal Religion. He also maintained the claims of the Scotch dissenters, in a pamphlet called The Liberty of Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland truly stated, 1703. And he had to wield his unwearied pen on behalf of the Irish dissenters, against a bill introduced avowedly to prevent the growth of popery, in which were contained some stringent provisions against the protestant dissenters. De Foe ironically headed his pamphlet, The Parallel: or Persecution of Protestants the Shortest Way to prevent the Growth of Popery in Ireland. 1704.—Ed.

Back to Index Next