In the midst of that furious contest of party, civil and religious, which ensued on the accession of queen Anne, our author was no unconcerned spectator. He reprinted his Inquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters[26], which had been published in 1697, with a dedication to sir Humphrey Edwin, a lord mayor, who having carried the regalia to a conventicle, gave rise to some wit in The Tale of a Tub, and occasioned some clauses in an act of parliament. De Foe now dedicated his Inquiry to John How, a dissenting minister, of whom Anthony Wood speaks well. Mr. How did not much care, says Calamy[27], to enter upon an argument of that nature with one of so warm a temper as the author of that Inquiry, and contented himself with publishing some Considerations on the Preface of an Inquiry concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters. De Foe's pertinacity soon produced a reply[28]. He outlaughs and outtalks Mr. How, who had provoked his antagonist's wrath by personal sarcasms, and who now thought it hard that the old should be shoved off the stage by the young. De Foe reprobates, with the unforbearance of the times, "this fast and loose game of religion;" for which he had never met with any considerable excuse but this, "that this is no conformity in point of religion, but done as a civil action." He soon after published another Inquiry, in order to show, that the dissenters are no ways concerned in occasional conformity. The controversy, which in those days occasioned such vehement contests between the two houses of parliament, is probably silenced for ever. "During the first fury of high-flying," says he, "I fell a sacrifice for writing against the madness of that high party, and in the service of the dissenters." He alludes here to The Shortest Way; which he published towards the end of the year 1702; and which is a piece of exquisite irony, though there are certainly passages in it that might have shown considerate men how much the author had been in jest. He complains how hard it was, that this should not have been perceived by all the town, and that not one man can see it, either churchman or dissenter. This is one of the strongest proofs how much the minds of men were inflamed against each other, and how little the virtues of mutual forbearance and personal kindness existed amid the clamour of contradiction, which then shook the kingdom, and gave rise to some of the most remarkable events in our annals[29]. The commons showed their zeal, however they may have studied their dignity, by prosecuting[30] several libellists.