It is impossible to read Chalmers' and Wilson's _Lives of Defoe_ without
being constantly struck not merely by the want of all critical acumen and
ordinary knowledge of the characteristics of Defoe's style which they
display, but also by the absence of research on almost every point of
importance connected with his career. Out of innumerable instances, I may
mention his pamphlet on the subject of the Septennial Bill. Chalmers, and
after him Wilson, are satisfied with repeating Boyer's statement that Defoe
was the author of _The Triennial Bill Impartially Stated_, London, 1716;
but neither of them appears to have referred to the pamphlet itself, and
Wilson does not seem to have even consulted Boyer. He observes, "Mr.
Chalmers thinks the pamphlet was not his." Whatever Chalmers might think,
he does not certainly say so in express terms. The point itself is a
curious one; and as it has not hitherto been gone into, perhaps I shall not
trespass too much upon your space if I give your readers the results of my
examination of it. In Boyer's _Political State for April_, 1716 (p. 484.),
he enumerates in the following terms the pamphlets on the Septennial
Bill:--
"_A Letter to a Country Gentleman, showing the Inconveniences which
attend the Last Act for Triennial Parliaments_, which, I am informed,
was written by the learned Dr. Tyndal. This was followed with others
intitled, _An Epistle to a Whig Member of Parliament_; _Some
Considerations on a Law for Triennial Parliaments_; _The Suspension of
the Triennial Bill, the Properest Means to unite the Nation_; _A First
and Second Letter to a Friend in Suffolk_; _The Alterations in the
Triennial Act Considered_; _The Innkeeper's Opinion of the Triennial
Act_; and a few others. The only pamphlet that was published on the
other side was called _The Triennial Act Impartially Stated_, &c. This
pamphlet was judged, from its loose style and way of arguing, to be
written by that prostituted fool of the last ministry, D---- D-- F--;
but whatever was offered either in print, or vivâ voce, against the
Septennial Bill, was fully answered and confuted by the following
writing, generally fathered on the ingenious and judicious Joseph
Addison, Esq."
{578}
Then follows (pp. 485-501.) a printer of a pamphlet, certainly an able one,
entitled:
"Arguments about the Alteration of Triennial Elections of Parliament.
In a Letter to a Friend in the Country."
In the following year, when Defoe had occasion to notice _The Minutes of
the Negociations of Mons. Mesnager_, 1717, 8vo., the well-known work which
has been so frequently attributed to him, in a letter in the public prints,
which letter seems entirely to have escaped all his biographers, and yet is
of the most interesting description, he adverts to the above charge of
being the author of _The Triennial Act Impartially Stated_, in the
followings words:--
"About a year since, viz., when the debates were on foot for enlarging
the time for the sitting of the present Parliament, commonly called
repealing the Triennial Bill, a stranger, whom I never knew, wrote a
warm pamphlet against it; and I, on the other hand, wrote another about
a week before it. Mr. Boyer, with his usual assurance, takes notice of
both these books in his monthly work, and bestows some praises, more
than I think it deserved, upon one; but falls upon the other with great
fury, naming, after much ill language, D. D. F. to be the author of it,
which, he said, might be known by the inconsistency of the style, or to
that effect. Now that the world may see what a judge this Frenchman is
of the English style, and upon what slender ground he can slander an
innocent man, I desire it may be noted, that it has been told him by
his own friends, and I offer now to prove it to him by three
unquestionable witnesses, _that the book which he praised so
impertinently I was the author of, and that book which he let fly his
dirt upon I had no concern in_."
This declaration of Defoe, which claims to him the pamphlet fastened on the
"ingenious and judicious Joseph Addison, Esq.," and repudiates that "judged
to be written by that prostituted fool of the last ministry, D---- D--
F--," will amuse your readers, as it seems to form an admirable commentary
on the text--
"And every blockhead knows me by my style."
We can fully accept his disclaimer of _The Triennial Act Impartially
Stated_. It is, however, singular enough that the style of the _Arguments
about the Alteration of Triennial Elections of Parliament_, without
attaching too much importance to that criterion, is not the style of Defoe;
and the Bill of Commerce with France is denounced in it in such terms as
"that destructive bill," "that fatal bill," as one can scarcely suppose,
without entertaining a meaner opinion of him than I feel assured he
deserves, he could or would, under any circumstances, have made use of. To
carry this Bill of Commerce he exerted all his great powers as a writer,
and supported it in the _Review_ and the _Mercator_, in the _Essay on the
Treaty of Commerce with France_ (1713, 8vo.), and in two other tracts, both
of which were unknown to Chalmers and Wilson, and have never been noticed
or included in the list of his works, namely, _Some Thoughts upon the
Subject of Commerce with France: by the Author of the Review_ (Baker, 1713,
8vo.), and _A general History of Trade, in which an Attempt is made to
state and moderate the present Disputes about settling a Commerce between
Great Britain and France for the Month of September_ (Baker, 1713); being
the fourth Number of the _History of Trade_, which Wilson says "extended
only to two Numbers" (vol. iii. p. 339.). In the _Appeal to Honour and
Justice_, published only the year before (1715), he supports the same cause
with all his strength. He vindicates the part he had taken, and says--
"This was my opinion, and is so still; and I would venture to maintain
it against any man upon 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."--_Works_, edit. 1841, vol. xx. p. 43.
His opinion on the policy of the bill, as appears by all his subsequent
commercial works, never changed: and that he could so speak of it in this
pamphlet (_Arguments about the Alteration, &c._), supposing it to be his,
seems almost incredible. I feel convinced that no other similar instance
can be found, during the whole of his career, in which he can be shown to
express himself with such a total disregard of his avowed opinions and his
honest convictions. Were it certain that he had done so, then the character
which the Tolands, Oldmixons, and Boyers have given of him, as ready to
take up any cause for hire, and as the prostituted agent of a party, and
which I believe to be a base slander, would indeed be well deserved. But it
will be asked how, after so apparently distinct and explicit an avowal, can
it be doubted that he was the author of the pamphlet in question? I can
only account for it on the supposition that Defoe, in writing from
recollection of what Boyer had stated, in the following year, confounded
the pamphlet praised with one of the pamphlets noticed. It appears to me
that one of them, the full title of which is _Some Considerations on a Law
for Triennial Parliaments, with an enquiry_, 1. _Whether there may not be a
time when it is necessary to suspend the execution even of such Laws as are
most essential to the Liberties of the People?_ 2. _Whether this is such a
time or no?_ (London, printed for J. Baker and T. Warner, at the Black Boy,
in Paternoster Row, 1716, pp. 40.), and which is noticed in Boyer's list,
has infinitely more both of Defoe's style and manner of treating a subject
than the other pamphlet. I entertain no doubt that it was written by him,
though it has never hitherto been attributed to him; and it is far from
being unlikely that his recollection may have deceived him and that he may
have thought that Boyer's praise applied to this pamphlet, written on the
same side, and not to the other. It {579} will be observed that Defoe does
not give the title of the pamphlet, and that he does not notice that it was
attributed by Boyer to Addison; which he would scarcely have omitted doing
if he had written his letter with Boyer's words before him, in which also
the term "inconsistency" is not used. Such is my solution of the
difficulty, which unexplained would throw a new, and certainly a very
unfavourable light on Defoe's character as a pamphleteer and politician.