for half a year in 1705 this part appeared twice a week as ‘The Little Review.’ At the end of July 1712 the ‘Review’ ceased in its old form, but a new series, called simply ‘The Review,’ appeared twice a week until 11 June 1713. The whole was written by Defoe, none of his absences ever preventing its regular appearance. During its appearance he published eighty other works, equalling the ‘Review’ in bulk. The only complete copy known belonged to James Crossley [q. v.], and is now in the British Museum. The ‘Review’ is a landmark in the history of English periodical literature, and its success no doubt helped to suggest the ‘Tatler’ and ‘Spectator.’ Tutchin's ‘Observator,’ begun 1 April 1702, and Leslie's ‘Rehearsal,’ 2 Aug. 1704, were his chief rivals, representing the extreme whigs and extreme tories respectively.
The ‘Review’ included discussions of all the chief political questions of the day. Throughout Defoe affected the attitude of an independent critic, criticising all parties, although with a special antipathy to the ‘high-flyers.’ He was really, however, working in chains. In the spring of 1704 the ministry had been modified by the expulsion of the high church Earl of Nottingham, Defoe's special enemy, and the admission of Harley as secretary of state. The Occasional Conformity Bill was no longer supported by the government. Harley, the first of English ministers to appreciate the influence of the press, sent a message to Defoe in prison. The result was that a sum of money was sent from the treasury to Defoe's family and his fine discharged. Four months later, in August 1704, he was released from prison. He tells Halifax (Letter of 5 April 1705) that he had ‘scorned to come out of Newgate at the price of betraying a dead master or discovering those things which nobody would have been the worse for’ (Lee, i. 107). But it is clear that the final release implied some conditions, or ‘capitulations,’ as Defoe calls them. He frequently denied that he received a pension, although he admits that some appointment was bestowed upon him for a special service. He also asserts that he wrote ‘without the least direction, assistance, or encouragement’ (Review, vol. iii. preface). But his bond for good behaviour was still in force. If he was not directly inspired, it was partly because his discretion could be trusted. Few ‘Grub Street authors’ could afford a conscience. Defoe's pen was the chief means of support for himself and his family. To use it against the government was to run the risk of imprisonment, the pillory, and even the gallows, or at least of being left to the mercy of his creditors. He therefore compromised with his conscience by distinguishing between reticence and falsehood. He would defend what was defensible without attacking errors which could only be attacked at his personal risk. If he was led into questionable casuistry, it must be admitted that journalists in far less precarious situations have not always been more scrupulous, and further that for some years he could speak in full accordance with his conscience.
After his liberation Defoe retired for a time to Bury St. Edmunds, and after his return to London in October suffered from a severe illness in the winter. He was able, however, to continue his literary occupations. A remarkable pamphlet, called ‘Giving Alms no Charity,’ provoked by a bill of Sir Humphry Mackworth for employing the poor, appeared in November 1704; and in 1705 his prose satire, ‘The Consolidator, or Memoirs of Sundry Transactions from the World in the Moon,’ which was followed by several appendices. Three letters to Lord Halifax in the spring and summer of 1705 show that he was communicating with one of the whig junto and receiving money through him from some ‘unknown benefactor,’ together with hints for his ‘Review’ (Letters in Lee, i. 106, 115–18, from Addit. MS. 7121). Harley about the same time employed him in ‘several honourable, though secret, services’ (Appeal to Honour and Justice). From the same pamphlet it appears that he was at one time employed in a ‘foreign country.’ No such employment is known, unless the phrase is intended to cover Scotland. He was sent into the country during the elections which began in May 1705, taking a satire, ‘The Dyet of Poland,’ in which he attacked the high church party and praised William and the whigs. Some phrases in a letter to Harley (Wilson, ii. 357–60) show that he was discussing a scheme for a ‘secret intelligence’ office. His ‘Review’ meanwhile was warmly supporting the war, calling for the election of sound supporters of the ministry and denouncing the ‘tackers’ who in the previous session had tried to force the Occasional Conformity Bill through parliament by ‘tacking’ it to a money bill.
In July 1706 appeared his ‘True Relation of the Apparition of one Mrs. Veal’ and his long political satire, in twelve books of verse, called ‘Jure Divino.’ It may be noticed that the common story that ‘Mrs. Veal’ was designed to help off Drelincourt's book on the ‘Fear of Death’ is disproved by facts. Drelincourt's book was already popular, and Defoe's pamphlet was only added to the fourth edition (Lee, i. 127, 128).
The union with Scotland was now becom-
