"When revolutions happen at Court, as I have seen many, when this or that party goes in or out, it always lays the subject under some difficulties as to his behaviour; but one general rule serves me in all these turns. The constitution is my guide; so far as the ministry goes along with it, every subject that regards the general good, acquiesces and is quiet. The reason is clear-we do not go along with the ministry, but they go along with us. There is a manifest difference between a revolution in the government, and a revolution in the administration. The first is a change of the constitution itself, and settling it upon a new, or restoring it to its old foundation; the latter is only a change of persons. In the former I have a voice as a member of the constitution; in the latter I am passive. I may be sorry when I see some men put out, and others put in, as I think they are, or are not likely to make us happy and easy in their administration; but I have no more right to challenge the sovereign, than the sovereign has to call a subject to account for turning away his servants. While they keep within the circle of the laws, and do right, they go along with me; if they do wrong, they go away from me, and I go wrong too if I follow them. He that serves a minister of state, or joins with him in any illegal step, especially knowing it to be so, is a mercenary, a flatterer, and ought to be the contempt of mankind. But while the ministry keep within the circle of the law, preserve the constitution, uphold the liberties and interests of the nation, let their persons be who or what they will, without inquiring their names, it is my duty to join with them. This is the golden mean by which I regulate myself. If I give offence to some hot friends, when aversion to persons runs them into extremes, I am sorry for them; for I think I act by principle. He that tells me of bribery, and writing to please, is first a knave, in charging me with what he cannot prove; and secondly, a fool, in putting more value upon the 'Review,' and its author, than he pretends to, and suggesting that his pen is of such consequence to the present ministry, as to make it worth their while. When the administration of affairs has run wrong, I have never spared myself, but have dared to speak the truth in the face, and in contempt of the power of arbitrary ministers of state; nay, in opposition to parliaments themselves, when I have thou ht they invaded the liberties of their country, which they were constituted to protect; and if I see the same cause, I dare do the same thing again, and shall not fail to do it, let what power or persons soever stand in my way. But, till the ministry break in upon the constitution, invade liberty, encroach upon property, break the laws, and oppress the subject, I cannot think it is the duty or interest of any wise man, to carry on his regret at any change the queen pleases to make, to such a degree as to fall upon the persons that succeed, only because they are in place, whether they act amiss or no. They that think otherwise may act as they please. But it was never my talent to complain without ground, which would be to obtain the favour of not being regarded when I had cause."*

If we may believe De Foe, he lived in an age when men were very versatile in their politics; for it was so much the fashion to be governed by persons rather than things, that "it is almost impossible to find a man, either Whig or Tory, who is of the same sentiments now that he was twenty years ago." + In that age of political defection, there were, perhaps, few writers less open to the charge of tergiversation than De Foe, notwithstanding the powerful arguments of a wife and six children, with a precarious dependance for their support; a fact never told by his enemies. In spite of their calumnies, it is impossible not to believe that he was, through life, the consistent friend of civil and religious liberty; whilst upon minor points, he never allowed his judgment to be fettered by the opinions of any party. Yet, because he did not run the full career of opposition with the Whigs, they set † Ibid, viii., 365.

* Review, viii., 338, 339.

f

him down as a mercenary writer, and insisted upon his being in the pay of Harley. Oldmixon, who is resolved never to speak well, either of De Foe or of his patron, repeats the charges against him, with additional scandal; but no credit is to be given to a writer who dips his pen so deeply in the gall of party. He couples De Foe with Swift as "fellow-labourers in the service of the White-Staff;" and says, that "he paid De Foe better than he did Swift; looking on him as the shrewder head of the two." The same writer, in his life of Maynwaring (p. 168), says, "He told me that De Foe, who had had very great obligations to my Lord Treasurer Godolphin, when he began to turn his 'Reviews' against his benefactor" (which, by the way, he never did), "wrote his lordship a letter that he did it in compliment with the madness of the times, and seemed to fall in with those that clamoured against his administration, only that he might get a hearing for him in his favour." A very improbable story, and of a piece with what follows: "Nay, he was so base as to take money of the Earl of Godolphin, at the same time that he had a pension from his successor, who sent him to Scotland as a spy, when the treaty of union was afoot, and kept him in pay ever after, as a man whose conscience was exactly of a size with his own, and who was fit for any drudgery he should put him upon. Mr Maynwaring has often expressed to me his admiration, that either the Earl of Godolphin, or the Treasurer that came after him, could put any trust in such a fellow, or have any opinion of his capacity, he being the most ignorant rogue that ever scribbled. He would never let me take any notice of his Reviews' (in the Medley), yet himself fell upon one of them in a half-sheet, and made such a devil of the author that he laboured a long while after to clear himself of so much infamy; but it was laid on too thick and too close for him to wipe it off." The works of De Foe vindicate him from the contempt sought to be put upon him by this and other writers; and from the other charges he has satisfactorily cleared himself in his Appeal to Honour and Justice,' and in his 'Review.'

De Foe's next separate publication was on the subject of the peace, which ministers were now negotiating with France, very much to the dissatisfaction of the English nation at large, with whom the long train of successes that had attended the arms of the confederates against the ambitious French monarch, had rendered the war popular, as affording a prospect of creating a balance of power in Europe. De Foe, though his opinion remained unchanged as to the necessity of securing that object, was a friend to peace, provided it could be obtained on safe and honourable terms, as he contended that the circumstances of the nation required it, and the state of the question was now, in some material points, different from the position which it held in the time of William. Besides entering largely into the subject in his 'Review,' De Foe, in the month of March, sent forth "An Essay at a Plain Exposition of that Difficult Phrase, A Good Peace." London. 1711."

In discussing this question, De Foe refers to the primary objects of the war, as laid down in the treaty of partition, and the articles of the grand alliance, and contends, that a treaty founded upon those stipulations can be the only basis of a good peace. Since the formation of that alliance, however, an event had happened, which not being foreseen, could not be provided for, and would render some alterations necessary in the terms to be insisted upon. The event here referred to was the accession to the empire of the Austrian King of Spain, which De Foe contends put an end to his claim upon the latter country, and rendered a new arrangement necessary to preserve a balance of power in Europe for this could not be obtained by giving Spain either to France or Austria. It was apparent, therefore, that satisfaction must be given to both powers by a distribution of the Spanish dominions, but upon the nature of the allotment he does not presume to give an opinion. This must be settled by a general treaty between all the powers; and if France did not agree to reasonable terms, we should only be in the same situation

that we were, and could renew the war. It is evident from the tenour of this discourse, that De Foe had abandoned the idea of King Philip's removal from the Spanish throne, and that he thought some equivalent might be provided for the allies, without compromising the honour of the country, or defeating the wishes of the people for peace. His pamphlet must have been of considerable use to the ministers, whilst it is so dexterously written as not to compromise the politics of the writer, nor commit him with the policy which dictated the terms that were finally agreed upon.

The reproaches cast upon the memory of King William, for the Treaty of Partition, and their revival at this time for party purposes, awakened De Foe to a renewed vindication of his royal master. Besides devoting his 'Review' to the subject upon the anniversary of the Revolution, he published, early in December, 'The Felonious Treaty ; or, an Inquiry into the Reasons which moved his late Majesty King William, of Glorious Memory, to enter into a Treaty at Two several Times with the King of France, for the Partition of the Spanish Monarchy.' Our author adopted this title in ridicule of John Howe, member for Gloucestershire, who had used the term in a debate in the House of Commons, for the purpose of insulting the King.

We are now again approaching a measure that had been an object of earnest solicitude with high churchmen during the whole of this reign. The menaces thrown out against the Dissenters, in the bold and senseless declamations of the clergy, were not empty words, but gave an earnest of their designs upon the earliest opportunity for putting them in execution. A session of parliament having passed over without any demonstrations in their favour, or rather against the rights of their fellow citizens, they began to clamour at their friends, complaining of their slow paces towards the removal of the toleration, and the substitution of sanguinary laws for the support of the church. Not a few of them were looking forward to those halcyon days when they were to have the custody of scrupulous consciences; when the sword of the church, which had been in a rusty state since the Revolution, should be new-furbished, and held up in terrorem for the confusion of all heretics. To prepare the minds of people for what was to follow, the proceedings of both houses of parliament upon the Occasional Conformity Bill, were now re-printed, with the arguments at large, and "Reasons for bringing in such an useful bill as this must be to the church and kingdom, this present session of parliament."

The long-wished-for day at length dawned upon them. By a strange conjunction of party interests the Whigs and Tories now united to fasten upon the Dissenters that yoke of bondage which the former had hitherto so successfully resisted. As the ministers had little prospect of standing their ground but in the event of a peace, the Whigs bent the strength of their opposition to that point; and the Earl of Nottingham having been soured by his exclusion from the ministry, agreed to a coalition with them in this particular, upon the condition of their giving up the Dissenters. The ingratitude of these men was the more remarkable, as the Dissenters had always supported them with the whole weight of their influence, whether by voting for them at elections, or by contributing their money for the support of public credit by banks, joint-stock companies, and other ways.

Those Whig writers who have dealt out the charges of versatility só copiously against De Foe, would have done well to reserve a portion of their anger for the Whigs upon this occasion; but they showed less regard for consistency than for the interests of party. The feeble assistance gained by the Whigs, as a recompense for their loss of honour, was for an object as worthless as the alliance itself was unnatural and disgraceful. This nobleman was of so little real consequence, that he had always been the subject of their ridicule. "What lampoons was the town full of," says De Foe, "when he encumbered the state; and now, how caressed! And, to gratify a desire as prepos

terous as all the rest, how willing are some men to give up their friends as victims to this convert, and to his mighty interest! Nay, how do they abandon the just and righteous interest they had before espoused, to oblige a man of no interest at all! Of what a camelion-like disposition is man made of!" * As the Whigs were predominant in the Lords, it is very certain that, without this dereliction of principle, so infamous a measure could not have passed; they must, therefore, participate with the Tories in its disgrace, which, says De Foe, "will infallibly ruin many hundreds of Dissenting families, or cause them to act against their consciences for bread; which I think is one of the worst kinds of persecution." + Well might our author exclaim, in the words of Julius Cæsar, when he saw the hand of his old friend lifted up against him, Et tu Brute! "The case of the Dissenters," says he, "is circumstanced too similarly; this mortal stab could have been received from no hand but that of a friend. The Dissenters in England, as they stood united in interest with the low-churchmen, could have received no fatal blow but from themselves. Three times the united power of their enemies had attacked them, and could never prevail; but given up by their friends, they fall of course." +

Upon the strength of this disgraceful alliance, the Earl of Nottingham brought forward his favourite measure in the House of Lords, the 15th of December, and meeting with no opposition, it passed through its several stages in three days! Even Burnet, who was so eloquent upon a former occasion, now preserved a dead silence, and relates the affair with a brevity and sang-froid that reflect no honour upon his character. He tells us the Whigs yielded more readily because the court had promised to carry the measure in the Commons; but this should have been a stimulus to their exertions in the Lords, where they possessed the most weight. As a sop to their consciences, Nottingham promised to draw the bill with all possible temper; as if it made any difference to a man who is to be butchered whether the act be performed in a passion or in cold blood! The title of the bill was singularly curious, and formed a part of the juggle then played so skilfully between politics and religion. It professed to be "An Act for preserving the Protestant Religion, by better securing the Church of England as by law established; and for confirming the Toleration granted to Protestant Dissenters, by an Act, intitled &c., and for supplying the defects thereof; and for the further securing the Protestant Succession, &c." To shut out one quarter of the Protestants, and those the farthest removed from Popery, from an interest in the constitution, was rather an odd way of providing for the Protestant religion; but no man was so blind as not to see through the artifice of these cunning churchmen, who were for playing off religion upon the loaves and fishes of the state. If the body of the bill bore but little affinity to its title, it corresponded better with the motives of its supporters. Not only were Dissenters to be excluded in future from all civil employments, but such was the contagious nature of nonconformity, that henceforward no person in office was to be allowed to put his nose within the doors of a meeting-house, gracefully called a conventicle, without becoming liable to the penalties of the act. These involved a forfeiture of place, and a fine of forty pounds for each offence; and the unlucky offender was to pay further for his curiosity by being rendered ineligible to any appointment until he had passed through the purgation of conformity for a full twelvemonth. Such was the eagerness to pass this measure, that it was before the Commons only three days; and a petition from the foreign Protestants in London to be exempted from its provisions, was rejected with contempt. The Dissenters, justly alarmed at a measure so fatal to their interests, applied to the Earl of Oxford to use his influence in their favour; naturally supposing that a man who had been nearly all his life a Presbyterian, and whose family was still of the same religion, would feel some sympathy for their wrongs. But the minister thought fit to + Ibid, 473.

• Review, viii, 470.

† Review, viii, 470.

sacrifice his religion to his ambition, as was the case with Harcourt, St John, and others, who now left the Dissenters in the lurch. The bill received the royal assent upon the 22nd of December, being the eighth day after its introduction.

By this measure the Dissenters sustained a blow which had been long aimed at them by their enemies, but without success! "A blow," says De Foe, "by which they are excluded from the common concern of fellow-subjects in the trusts and advantages of the society they live in; by which they are treated as aliens and strangers in the commonwealth, or as persons dangerous to be trusted by the government they have so faithfully and so largely contributed to support."

Whilst the bill was before the Commons, De Foe wrote strenuously against it, without respect to persons or parties. He thought it very hard that those who were so anxious for a peace with France "should bring along with it the fetters and chains of their country, and especially those worst of chains, impositions upon conscience. It would be a sad conclusion of the war," says he, "that peace and persecution should come together; and therefore, while your Protestant brethren, though dissenting from you in particulars which are acknowledged by yourselves to be indifferent, continue peaceable, submitting to the laws, it is very hard that they should be oppressed in conscience at a time when they ought rather to be reaping with you the consolations of peace, after they have shared the miseries of the war. On the other hand," addressing the Whigs, he says, "you that are against a peace, will you fortify your political interests by giving up for a prey those you have so long espoused both in their civil and religious liberties? Methinks I see some people abroad, whose characters have for some years been adorned with the word patriot, strangely easy to give up all these things, that they may but strengthen their party interest. But this is not the first time that some people who call themselves friends to the Dissenters, have offered to sacrifice them to their enemies upon very mean conditions." Our author contends that the toleration was a legal establishment, expressly stipulated for at the Revolution, and granted to the Dissenters for the assistance they afforded to Churchmen in bringing about that event. He notices the repeated promises of the queen, who had passed her royal word that she would preserve the toleration inviolable; and expresses his fears that this was but the commencement of further breaches upon it. He forbears meddling with the proceedings in parliament, in consequence of the injunction of the Lords; but, says he, “If persecuting laws are set up, and the liberty of Dissenters established at the Revolution is attempted, God forbid that I should cease, though humbly, to complain of the injury, let what human authority soever prohibit it. If they make it criminal, I am ready to suffer; but I will never lose my little share in the liberties of my country, without crying out against both the mischief and the contrivers of it, let them be who they will." *

In another paper he makes a powerful appeal to the feelings of the nation, which had become blunted by the inroads of bigotry. After noticing the services of the Dissenters, and their contributions to the war, both personal and pecuniary, he says, “Many of the poor families who must now lay down the little places which long importunity and perhaps some little money has helped them to, are the miserable remains of the descendants of the French in our colonies, which they assisted in taking; and give me leave to say, many are the ruined masters and owners of ships, let out to the public for transporting King William's army to Ireland, who had no provision made for them till they were ruined by the delay. Some are victims to parliamentary deficiencies; and these are a part of the people who are now in a merciless manner to perish without any crime, and who, having first lost their estates in the service of the government, must now lose their employ under it, because they cannot be hypocrites. If this is honourable

* Review, viii, 466–468.