"The next difference I had with good men, was about the scandalous practice of occasional conformity, in which I had the misfortune to make many honest men angry, rather because I had the better of the argument, than because they disliked what I said.
"And now I have lived to see the dissenters themselves very quiet; if not very well pleased with an act of parliament to prevent it. Their friends indeed laid it on; they would be friends indeed, if they would talk of taking it off again.
"Again, I had a breach with honest men for their maltreating king William, of which I say nothing; because I think they are now opening their eyes, and making what amends they can to his memory.
"The fifth difference I had with them was about the treaty of partition, in which many honest men were mistaken, and in which I told them plainly then, that they would at last end the war upon worse terms; and so it is my opinion they would have done, though the treaty of Gertruydenburgh had taken place.
"The sixth time I differed with them, was when the old whigs fell out with the modern whigs; and when the duke of Marlborough and my lord Godolphin were used by the Observator in a manner worse, I confess, for the time it lasted, than ever they were used since; nay, though it were by Abel and the Examiner. But the success failed. In this dispute my lord Godolphin did me the honour to tell me I had served him and his grace also, both faithfully and successfully. But his lordship is dead, and I have now no testimony of it, but what is to be found in the Observator, where I am plentifully abused for being an enemy to my country, by acting in the interest of my lord Godolphin and the duke of Marlborough. What weathercock can turn with such tempers as these?
"I am now in the seventh breach with them, and my crime now is, that I will not believe and say the same things of the queen and the late treasurer, which I could not believe before of my lord Godolphin and the duke of Marlborough, and which in truth I cannot believe, and therefore could not say it of either of them; and which, if I had believed, yet I ought not to have been the man that should have said it, for the reasons aforesaid.
"In such turns of tempers and times a man must have been tenfold a Vicar of Bray, or it is impossible but he must one time or other be out with everybody. This is my present condition; and for this I am reviled with having abandoned my principles, turned jacobite, and what not: God judge between me and these men! Would they come to any particulars with me, what real guilt I may have, I would freely acknowledge; and if they would produce any evidence of the bribes, the pensions, and the rewards I have taken, I would declare honestly whether they were true or no. If they would give a list of the books which they charge me with, and the reasons why they lay them at my door, I would acknowledge any mistake, own what I have done, and let them know what I have not done. But these men neither show mercy, nor leave room for repentance; in which they act not only unlike their Maker, but contrary to his express commands[77]."
With the same independence of spirit, but with greater modesty of manner, our author openly disapproved of the intemperance which was adopted by government in 1714, contrary to the original purpose of George I. "It is and ever was my opinion," says De Foe in his Appeal, "that moderation is the only virtue by which the tranquillity of this nation can be preserved; and even the king himself, (I believe his majesty will allow me that freedom,) can only be happy in the enjoyment of the crown, by a moderate administration: if he should be obliged, contrary to his known disposition, to join with intemperate councils, if it does not lessen his security, I am persuaded it will lessen his satisfaction. To attain at the happy calm, which is the consideration that should move us all, (and he would merit to be called the nation's physician, who could prescribe the specific for it,) I think I may be allowed to say, a conquest of parties will never do it, a balance of parties may." Such was the political testament of De Foe; which it had been happy for Britain, had it been as faithfully executed as it was wisely made!
The year 1715 may be regarded as the period of our author's political life. Faction henceforth found other advocates, and parties procured other writers to propagate their falsehoods. Yet when a cry was raised against foreigners, on the accession of George I. The True-born Englishman was revived, rather by Roberts, the bookseller, than by De Foe the author[78]. But the persecutions of party did not cease when De Foe ceased to be a party-writer. He was insulted by Boyer, in April, 1716, as the author of The Triennial Act impartially stated: "but whatever was offered," says Boyer, "against the septennial bill, was fully confuted by the ingenious and judicious Joseph Addison, esquire. Whether De Foe wrote in defence of the people's rights, or in support of the law's authority, he is to be censured: whether Addison defended the septennial bill, or the peerage bill, he is to be praised. With the same misconception of the fact, and malignity of spirit, Toland reviled[79] De Foe for writing an answer to The State of Anatomy, in 1717. The time however will at last come, when the world will judge of men from their actions rather than pretensions."
The death of Anne, and the accession of George I. seem to have convinced De Foe of the vanity of party-writing. And from this eventful epoch, he appears to have studied how to meliorate rather than to harden the heart; how to regulate, more than to vitiate, the practice of life.