in the world to renew the war." He, who is des firous of reading this treatife on an interefting topic, will meet with ftrength of argument, conveyed in elegant language. When the nation flamed with faction, the Grand Jury of Kent presented to the Commons, on the 8th of May 1701, a petition, which defired them--- to mind the public bufinefs more, and their private heats lefs;" and which contained a fentiment, that there was a defign, as Burnet tells, other counties and the city of London fhould equally adopt. Meffrs. Culpeppers, Polhill, Hamilton, and Champneys, who avowed this intrepid paper, were committed to the Gatehouse, amid the applauses of their countrymen. It was on this occafion that De Foe's genius dictated a Remonftrance, which was figned Legion, and which has been recorded in hif tory for its bold truths and feditious petulance. De Foe's zeal induced him to affume a woman's drefs, while he delivered this factious paper to Harley, the Speaker, as he entered the House of Commons*. It was then alfo that our Author, who was tranfported by an equal attachment to the country and the * Mr. Polhill, of Cheapftead-place, in Kent, whofe father, Mr. David Polhill, was committed to the Gatehoufe, and thereby gained great popularity, was fo good as communicate to me the curious anecdote of De Foe's dreffing himself in women's clothes, and prefenting 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 fo much plain truth of fact; and which I could give a better hiftory of, if it were needful." When De Foe republished his works in 1703, he thought it prudent to expunge this paffage, that too plainly pointed out the real hiftory of the Legion Paper, which is not mentioned by the Commons Journals. court, court, published The Original Power of the collective At a time when union and charity, the one relating to our civil, and the other to our religious concerns, were ftrangers in the land," De Foe publifhed The Freeholder's Plea against Stockjobbing Elections of Parliament Men. "It is very rational to fuppofe," fays our Author, " that they who will buy will fell; or, what seems more rational, they who have bought must fell." This is certainly a persuasive performance, though we may fuppofe, that many voters were influenced then by arguments ftill more perfuafive. And he concludes with a fentiment, which has not been too often repeated, That nothing can make us formidable to our neighbours, and maintain the reputation of our nation, but union among ourselves. How much foever King William may have been pleafed with The True-born Englishman, or with other other fervices, he was little gratified probably by our Author's Reasons against a War with France. This argument, fhewing that the French King's owning the Prince of Wales as King of England, is no fufficient ground of a War, is one of the fineft, because it is one of the moft ufeful, tracts in the English language. After remarking the univerfal cry of the people for war, our Author declares he is not against war with France, provided it be on justifiable grounds; but, he hopes, England will never be fo inconfiderable a nation, as to make use of dishonest pretences to bring to pafs any of her defigns: and he wishes that he who defires we fhould end the war honourably, ought to defire also, that we begin it fairly. "But if we must have a war," our Author hoped, "it might be wholly on the defenfive in Flanders, in order to carry on hoftilities in remote places, where the damage may be greater, by wounding the Spaniard in fome weaker part; fo as upon a peace he shall be glad to quit Flanders for an equivalent." Who at prefent does not wish that De Foe's argument had been more ftudiously read, and more efficaciously admitted? A fcene of forrow foon after opened, which probably embittered our Author's future life. The death of King William deprived him of a protector, who, he says, trusted, esteemed, and much more valued him than he deserved; and who, as he flattered himself amidst his later diftreffes, would never have fuffered him to be treated as he had been in the world. Of that monarch's memory, he says, that he never patiently heard it abused, nor ever could do fo and in this gratitude to a Royal benefactor there is furely much to praise, but nothing to blame. In the midst of that furious conteft of party, civil and religious, which enfued on the acceffion of Queen Anne, our Author was no unconcerned Spectator. He reprinted his Enquiry into the Occafional Conformity of Diffenters, which had been published in 1697, with a dedication to Sir Humphrey Edwin, a Lord Mayor, who having carried the regalia to a conventicle, gave rife to fome wit in The Tale of a Tub, and occafioned fome clauses in an act of Parliament. De Foe now dedicated his Enquiry to John How, a diffenting minifter, of whom Anthony Wood speaks well. Mr. How did not much care, fays Calamy *, to enter upon an argument of that nature with one of fo warm a temper as the author of that Enquiry, and contented himself with publishing fome Confiderations on the Preface of an Enquiry concerning the occafional Conformity of Diffenters. De Foe's pertinacity foon produced a reply. He out-laughs and out-talks Mr. How, who had provoked his antagonist's wrath by personal farcafms, and who now thought it hard that the old fhould be fhoved off the ftage by the young. De Foe reprobates, with the unforbearance of the times, "this faft and loofe game of religion;" for which he had never met with any confiderable excufe but this," that this is no conformity in point of religion, but done as a civil action." He foon after published another Enquiry, in order to fhew, that the Diffenters are no ways concerned in occafional conformity. The controverfy, which in those days occafioned fuch vehement contests between the two Houses of Parliament, is probably filenced for ever. *Life of Mr. John How, p. 210. " During "During the firft fury of high-flying," fays he, "I fell a facrifice for writing against the madness of that high party, and in the fervice of the Diffenters." He alludes here to The Shortest Way; which he published towards the end of the year 1702; and which is a piece of exquifite irony, though there are certainly paffages in it that might have fhewn confiderate men how much the Author had been in jeft. He complains how hard it was, that this fhould not have been perceived by all the town, and that not one man can fee it, either churchman or diffenter. This is one of the ftrongest proofs, how much the minds of men were inflamed against each other, and how little the virtues of mutual forbearance and perfonal kindness exifted amid the clamour of contradiction, which then fhook the kingdom, and gave rife to fome of the moft remarkable events in our annals. The Commons fhewed their zeal, however they may have studied their dignity, by profecuting feveral libelifts. During the previous twenty years of his life, De Foe had bufied himself unconsciously in charging a mine, which now blew himself and his family into air. He had fought for Monmouth; he had oppofed King James; he had vindicated The Revolution; he had panegyrized King William; he had defended the rights of the collective body of the On the 25th of February 1702---3, a complaint was made in the House of Commons of a book entitled The Shortest Way with the Diffenters and the folios 11---18 and 26 being read, Refolved, That this book, being full of false and scandalous reflections on this Parliament, and tending to promote fedition, be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, to-morrow, in New PalaceYard. 14 Journ. p. 207. people; |