The Life of Daniel De Foe

by George Chalmers

While thus occupied, De Foe was not forgotten by the city of Edinburgh, with the usual ingratitude of public bodies. On the first of February, 1710-11, that corporation, remembering his Caledonia, empowered him to publish the Edinburgh Courant, in the room of Adam Booge[62], though I suspect that he did not continue long to edify the Edinburgh citizens by his weekly lucubrations. He had then much to think of, and much to do at a distance: and he soon after gave some support to lord Oxford's South-sea project, by publishing An Essay on the South-sea Trade, with an inquiry into the reasons of the present complaint against the settlement of the South-sea company[63]. In the same year he published An Essay at a plain Exposition of that difficult phrase—A GOOD PEACE. He obviously intended to abate the national ardour for war, and to incite a national desire of quiet[64].

The ministers, by the course of events, were engaged ere long in one of the hardest tasks which can be assigned to British statesmen—the re-establishment of tranquillity after a glorious war. The treaty at Utrecht furnishes a memorable example of this. The furious debates which ensued within the walls of parliament and without, are sufficiently remembered. About this time, says Boyer, in May, 1713, a paper, entitled, Mercator, or Commerce Retrieved, was published on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays[65]. This was first fathered on Arthur Moore, assisted by Dr. D'Avenant; but the latter solemnly denied it: and it soon after appeared to be the production of Daniel De Foe, an ambidextrous hireling, who for this dirty work received a large weekly allowance from the treasury. That he wrote in the Mercator De Foe admits; but he expressly denies "that he either was the author of it, had the property of it, the printing of it, the profit of it, or had the power to put anything into it, if he would." And, by his Appeal, he affirms before God and the world, "that he never had any payment, or reward, for writing any part of it." Yet, that he was ready to defend those papers of the Mercator which were really his, if men would answer with arguments, rather than abuse; though not those things which he had never written, but for which he had received such usage. He adds, with the noble spirit of a true-born Englishman, "The press was open to me as well as to others: and how, or when I lost my English liberty of speaking my mind, I know not: neither how my speaking my opinions, without fee or reward, could authorise any one to call me villain, rascal, traitor, and such opprobrious names."

Of the imputed connection with his first benefactor, Harley, during that memorable period, our author speaks with equal firmness, at a moment when firmness was necessary. "I solemnly protest," says he, by his Appeal, "in the presence of Him who shall judge us all, that I have received no instructions, orders, or directions for writing anything, or materials from lord Oxford, since lord Godolphin was treasurer, or that I have ever shown to lord Oxford anything I had written or printed." He challenges the world to prove the contrary; and he affirms, that he always capitulated for liberty to speak according to his own judgment of things. As to consideration, pension, or reward, he declares most solemnly that he had none, except his old appointment made him long before by lord Godolphin. What is extremely probable we may easily credit, without such strong asseverations. However lord Oxford may have been gratified by the voluntary writings of De Foe, he had doubtless other persons who shared his confidence, and wrote his Examiners[66].

But De Foe published that which by no means promoted lord Oxford's views, and which, therefore, gained little of his favour. Our author wrote against the peace of Utrecht, because he approved of it as little as he had done the treaty at Gertruydenburgh, under very different influences a few years before. The peace he was for, as he himself says, was such as should neither have given the Spanish monarchy to the house of Bourbon, nor to the house of Austria; but that this bone of contention should have been so broken to pieces, as that it should not have been dangerous to Europe; and that England and Holland should have so strengthened themselves, by sharing its commerce, as should have made them no more afraid of France, or the emperor; and that all that we should conquer in the Spanish West Indies should be our own. But it is equally true, he affirms, that when the peace was established, "I thought our business was to make the best of it; and rather to inquire what improvements could be made of it, than to be continually exclaiming against those who procured it."

He manfully avowed his opinion in 1715, when it was both disgraceful and dangerous, that the ninth article of the treaty of commerce[67] was calculated for the advantage of our trade; "Let who will make it, that," says he, "is nothing to me. My reasons are, because it tied up the French to open the door to our manufactures, at a certain duty of importation there, and left the parliament of Britain at liberty to shut theirs out, by as high duties as they pleased here, there being no limitation upon us, as to duties on French goods, but that other nations should pay the same. While the French were thus bound, and the British free, I always thought we must be in a condition to trade to advantage, or it must be our own fault: this was my opinion, and is so still; and I would engage to maintain it against any man, on a public stage, before a jury of fifty merchants, and venture my life upon the cause, if I were assured of fair play in the dispute. But, that it was my opinion, we might carry on a trade with France to our great advantage, and that we ought for that reason to trade with them, appears in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth volumes of the Reviews, above nine years before The Mercator was thought of." Experience has decided in favour of De Foe against his opponents, with regard both to the theory and the practice of commerce.

In May, 1713, our author relinquished the Review, after nine years' continuance[68]: in Newgate it began, and in Newgate it ended. Whether we consider the frequency of the publication, or the power of his disquisitions, the pertinacity of his opponents, or the address of his defences, amid other studies, without assistance, this must be allowed to be such a work, as few of our writers have equalled. Yet, of this great performance, said Gay, "The poor Review is quite exhausted, and grown so very contemptible, that though he has provoked all his brothers of the quill, none will enter into a controversy with him. The fellow, who had excellent natural parts, but wanted a small foundation of learning, is a lively instance of those wits, who, as an ingenious author says, will endure but one skimming[69]." Poor Gay had learned this cant in the Scriblerus Club, who thought themselves the wisest, the wittiest, and virtuousest men that ever were, or ever would be. But of all their works, which of them have been so often skimmed, or yielded such cream, as Robinson Crusoe, The Family Instructor, or Religious Courtship? Some of their writings may indeed be allowed to have uncommon merit; yet, let them not arrogate exclusive 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 design was to show 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 fact justifies, however he may clash with the popular opinions of some people in trade. He could not however wholly abstract himself from the passing scene. When his second number appeared, on the 15th of August, 1713, he gave a discourse on the harbour of Dunkirk; wherein he insists, that the port ought to be destroyed, if it must remain with France[70]; but, if it were added to England, or made a free port, it would be for the good of mankind to have a safe harbour in such dangerous seas. This History of Trade, which exhibits the ingenuity, the strength, 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 silenced by noise, obloquy, and insult; and finding himself in this manner treated, he declined writing at all, as he assures us; and for great part of a year never set pen to paper, except in the Reviews. "After this," continues he, "I was a long time absent in the north of England," though we may easily infer, for a very different reason than that of the famous retirement of Swift, upon the final breach between Oxford and Bolingbroke.