ever would be. But of all their works, which of them have been fo often skimmed, or yielded fuch cream, as Robinson Crusoe, the Family Inftructor, or Religious Courtship? Some of their writings may indeed be allowed to have uncommon merit; yet, let them not arrogate exclufive excellence, or claim appropriate praise.

When De Foe relinquished the Review, he began to write A General History of Trade, which he proposed to publish in monthly numbers. The first number appeared on the first of August 1713. His great defign was to fhew the reader, "What the whole world is at this time employed in as to Trade." But his more immediate end was, to rectify the mistake we are fallen into as to Commerce, and to inform those who are willing to inquire into the truth. In the execution of this arduous undertaking, he avows his intention of speaking what reason dictates and fac juftifies, however he may clash with the popular opinions of fome people in trade. He could not however wholly abstract himself from the paffing fcene. When his fecond number appeared, on the 15th of August 1713, he gave a difcourfe on the harbour of Dunkirk; wherein he infifts, that the port ought to be destroyed, if it must remain with France; but, if it were added to England, or made a freeport, it would be for the good of mankind to have a safe harbour in such dangerous feas. This History of Trade, which exhibits the ingenuity, the ftrength, and the piety of De Foe, extended only to two numbers. The agitations of the times carried him to other literary pursuits; and the factiousness of the times constrained him to attend to personal security.

"While I spoke of things thus," says our Author, "I bore infinite reproaches, as the defender of the peace, by pamphlets, which I had no hand in." He appears to have been filenced by noife, obloquy, and infult; and finding himself in this manner treated, he declined writing at all, as he affures us; and for great part of a year never fet pen to paper, except inThe Reviews. After this," continues he, "I was a long time abfent in the north of England," though we may eafily infer, for a very different reafon than that of the famous retirement of Swift, upon the final breach between Oxford and Bolingbroke.

The place of his retreat is now known to have been Halifax, or the borders of Lancashire*. And obferv. ing here, as he himself relates, the infolence of the Jacobite party, and how they infinuated the Pretender's rights into the common people, "I fet pen to paper again, by writing A feafonable Caution; and, to open the eyes of the poor ignorant country people, I gave away this all over the kingdom, as gain was not intended." With the fame laudable pur. pose he wrote three other pamphlets; the first, What if the Pretender fhould come? the fecond, Reafons

* The late Hiftory of Halifax relates, That Daniel De Foe, being forced to abfcond, on account of his political writings, refided at Halifax, in the Back-lane, at the fign of the Rofe and Crown, being known to Doctor Nettleton, the phyfician, and the Rev. Mr. Priestley, minifter of a diffenting congregation there. Mr. Watson is mistaken when he supposes that De Foe wrote his Jure Divino here, which had been published previously in 1706; and he is equally mistaken, when he says, that De Foe had made an improper use of the papers of Selkirk, whofe ftory had been often published.

against

against the Succeffion of the House of Hanover; the third, What if the Queen should die? "Nothing could be more plain," fays he, "than that the titles. of these were amusements*, in order to put the books into the hands of thofe people, who had been deluded by the Jacobites." These petty volumes were fo much approved by the zealous friends of the Protestant fucceffion, that they were diligent to disperse them through the moft diftant counties. And De Foe protefts, that had the Elector of Hanover given him a thousand pounds, he could not have served him more effectually, than by writing these three treatifes.

The reader will learn, with surprise and indignation, that for thefe writings De Foe was arrested, obliged to give eight hundred pounds bail, contrary to the Bill of Rights, and profecuted by information, during Trinity term 1713. This groundless profecution was inftituted by the abfurd zeal of William Benfon, who afterwards became ridiculously famous for literary exploits, which juftly raifed him to the honours of the Dunciad. Our Author attributes this profecution to the malice of his enemies, who were numerous and powerful. No inconfiderable people were heard to fay, that they knew the books were against the Pretender, but that De Foe had difobliged them in other things, and they refolved to take this advantage to punish him. This story is the more credible, as he had procured

* The pamphlets mentioned in the text were filled with palpable banter. He recommends the Pretender by faying, That the Prince would confer on every one the privilege of wearing wooden fhoes, and at the fame time cafe the nobility and gentry of the hazard and expence of winter journies to Parliament.

evidence

evidence to prove the fact, had the trial proceeded. He was prompted by consciousness of innocence to defend himself in the Review during the profecution, which offended the Judges, who, being somewhat infected with the violent spirit of the times, committed him to New. gate in Eafter term 1713. He was however foon releafed on making a proper fubmiffion. But it was happy for De Foe that his first benefactor was fill in power, whoprocured him the Queen's pardon, in November* 1713. This act of liberal juftice was produced by the party-writers+ of thofe black and bitter days, as an additional proof of Lord Oxford's attachment to the abdicated family, while De Foe was faid to be convicted of abfolute Jacobitifm, contrary to the tenor of his life, and the purpose of his writings. He himself said sarcastically, that they might as well have made him a Mahometan. On his tomb-ftone it might have been engraved, that he was the only Englishman who had been obliged to ask a royal pardon, for writing in favour of the Hanover fucceffion.

By this time, fays Boyer, in October 1714, the treasonable defign to bring in the Pretender was manifested to the world by the agent of one of the late managers, De Foe, in his Hiftory of the White Staff. The Detection of the Secret Hiftory of the White Staff, which was foon published, confidently tells, that it was written by De Foe; as is to be feen by his abundance of words, his falfe thoughts, and his falfe English." We now know that there was

at

* The pardon is dated on the 13th of November, 1713, and is figned by Bolingbroke. † See Boyer's Political State, Oldmixon's Hiftory, &c.

It is univerfally faid by the fellers and buyers of old books, that John, Duke of Argyle, was the real author of The Secret Hifiory

of

at that epoch, no plot in favour of the Pretender. except in the affertions of those who wifhed to pro, mote their interest by exhibiting their zeal. And I have fhewn, that De Foe had done more to keep out the Pretender, than the political tribe, who profited from his zeal, yet detracted from his fame.

"No fooner was the Queen dead," fays he, " and the King, as right required, proclaimed, but the rage of men increased upon me to that degree, that their threats were fuch as I am unable to exprefs. Though I have written nothing since the Queen's death; yet, a great many things are called by my name, and I bear the answerers infults. I have not feen or spoken with the Earl of Oxford," continues he, "fince the King's landing, but once; yet, he bears the reproach of my writing for him, and I the rage of men for doing it." De Foe appears indeed to have been, at that noify period, stunned by factious clamour, and overborne, though not filenced, by unmerited obloquy. He probably loft his original appointment, when his first benefactor was finally expelled. Instead of meeting with reward for his zealous fervices in fupport of the Proteftant fucceffion, he was on the acceffion of George I. difcountenanced by those who had derived a benefit from his active exertions. And of Addison, who was now exalted into office, and enjoyed literary patronage, our

of the White Staff. His Grace, indeed, is not in the Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors. Whether the Duke wrote this petty pamphlet may be doubted; but there can be no doubt that De Foe was not the Author: For, he folemnly afferts by his Appeal in 1715,That he had written nothing fince the Queen's death. The internal evidence is stronger than this pofitive affertion.

Author