really calculated to purge them of a scandal. It would only touch the equivocating dissenter, who claimed a right to practise what he asserted to be a sin. Defoe's reasoning was undeniably forcible. Like the early dissenters in general, he did not object to the church establishment on principle. On the contrary, he steadily maintained the church to be a necessary barrier against popery and infidelity. He did not even object to some tests. He desired that they should be such as to exclude the smallest number of protestants, and asserted (Dissenters' Answer to High Church Challenge) that the dissenters would at once conform if the church would cease to insist upon the ceremonies to which they objected. He declared it to be a hardship that dissenters should be excluded from preferment while forced to serve as common sailors and soldiers. But his arguments told for a modification rather than for a repeal or evasion of the tests. The dissenters, however, who saw that in fact the measure against occasional conformity would depress their interest, naturally held him to be a deserter. Defoe himself perceived that the bill was supported by appeals to intolerance, and though his peculiar attitude weakened his argument against the measure, he was heartily opposed to the spirit by which it was dictated. To put himself right, he published ‘The Shortest Way with the Dissenters,’ while the bill was struggling with the direct and indirect opposition of the whig lords. Ostensibly adopting the character of a ‘high-flyer,’ he called for an extirpation of the dissenters, like the extirpation of protestants by the French king. The more vehement tories, it is said, approved the pamphlet in sober earnest, and a clergyman declared it to come next to the Bible in his estimation (Review, ii. 277). Defoe boasts that they were soon brought to their senses, and were forced to disavow the principles thus nakedly revealed. He was prosecuted for libelling the church by thus misrepresenting its principles. The Earl of Nottingham was especially active in the matter (Leslie, Rehearsal (1750), i. 62, 264). A reward was offered for his apprehension in the ‘Gazette,’ 10 Jan. 1702–3. He is, it is said, ‘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.’ The House of Commons ordered the book to be burnt. He was indicted at the Old Bailey 24 Feb. 1703, and tried at the July sessions following. He acknowledged the authorship, and was sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred marks, to stand three times in the pillory, to be imprisoned during the queen's pleasure, and to find securities for good behaviour during seven years. Before his trial Defoe published a ‘Brief Explanation,’ and during the next two years several other pamphlets endeavouring to set forth his principles, and to reconcile his objections to the measure with his previous assertion that it did not affect dissenters. How far he succeeded in maintaining a consistent ground may be disputed. Defoe always sought to gain piquancy by diverging from the common track in the name of common sense, and tried to be paradoxical without being subtle. But he never ceased to advocate toleration, though demanding only such a liberal application of the law as would spare tender consciences. Defoe stood in the pillory on 29, 30, and 31 July 1703. The people formed a guard, covered the pillory with flowers, and drank his health. He published a ‘Hymn to the Pillory,’ which was sold among the crowd in large numbers, marked by the really fine lines—
Tell them the men that placed him here
Are scandals to the times;
Are at a loss to find his guilt,
And can't commit his crimes.
Defoe was now imprisoned in Newgate. His business at Tilbury had to be abandoned, and he says that he lost 3,500l. invested in it (Review, viii. 495–6). He had a wife and six children; and though he was able to continue his writings his position was precarious and trying. He continued to write upon occasional conformity; he attacked Asgill's queer doctrine about ‘translation’ [see Asgill, John]; he had a controversy with Charles Davenant [q. v.] upon the right of appeals to the people; he published a ‘Layman's Sermon’ upon the great storm (27 Nov. 1703), and afterwards a full account of it (17 July 1704). His notoriety had led to a spurious publication of his writings; and in 1703 he published the first volume of a ‘true collection,’ which was followed by a second (with a second edition of the first) in 1705. His most laborious undertaking, the ‘Review,’ was also begun during his imprisonment. The full title of the paper was ‘A Review of the Affairs of France and of all Europe, as influenced by that Nation.’ After the first volume the last clause became ‘with Observations on Transactions at Home.’ The first number appeared 17 Feb. 1704. It was first a weekly paper; after the eighth number it appeared twice a week; and after the eighth number of the second volume thrice a week. An imaginary ‘Scandal Club’ contributed to its pages; ‘Advices from the Scandal Club’ filled five monthly supplements in 1704; and
