"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.]
[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, alias De 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."