“I DID DESTROY THEIR POWER TO ROB US, ANY LONGER, WITHOUT THE ROBBERY
BEING PERCEIVED.”
In September, 1806, Mr. Charles James Fox died, and left one of the
seats for Westminster at the disposal of the Whigs. For several
years there had been a truce between the Whigs and the Tories, over
this celebrated constituency, and each party was represented there.
Accordingly, Earl Percy was quietly suffered to succeed to Mr. Fox.
The Whig nominee was no sooner elected, however, than a dissolution,
which had been for some time imminent, took place, and the two
factions, in their mutual consent, put up Mr. Sheridan and Admiral
Hood, Lord Percy having declined to come forward again. Sheridan was
a man who was for the winning side, whichever it might be, and he now
laid claim to the mantle of Mr. Fox, whose name and whose party had
been steadily growing into favour.
During the summer and autumn, Mr. Cobbett had been lecturing the
electors of Westminster upon their duties. He pointed out that, with
such traditions as theirs, there was less excuse for “base conduct”
than in any other body of electors; yet, that the constituency was
sinking to the level of a nomination-borough. _Base conduct_ meant:
clamouring against “peculators and depredators,” and then being led
by the nose by men who not only “clamoured,” but pledged their word
to reform, and to inquire into abuses; and who, immediately they got
a snug office, found ready excuses for the non-fulfilment of their
promises. The case in point was that of Mr. Sheridan, who, now that
he was treasurer to the navy, declined to bring forward charges which
he had threatened, “lest he should thereby create divisions in the
ministry, that is to say, lest he should lose his place.” Mr. Cobbett
was requested by a small section to come forward himself; but he
refused. The advertisement in the _Morning Post_ of 19th September,
announces his determination (vide note, p. 14). But he was actually
proposed, on the hustings, by a Mr. Hewlings.
Mr. Cobbett’s candidate was James Paull:--
“A Scotchman who had been in India, who had been in Parliament
during two sessions, who had brought articles of charge against
the elder Wellesley for his conduct while Governor-General of
India, who was a little man in point of size, who talked pretty
well, who wrote better than half of the 658, who was perfectly
honest and disinterested, and who was brave to the backbone,
and persevering beyond any man. The Whigs had all along been
deceiving this Mr. Paull, as they always have done every one
else who has trusted in them. They, by leading him to believe
that they would support his charge against old Wellesley,
induced him to go on with the charges until they themselves got
into power, and _then they turned against him_, and set all
their whispering myrmidons to work to spread about that he had
been a tailor, and that he was only accusing Lord Wellesley in
order to get some money from him. I became acquainted with Mr.
Paull, from his having been introduced to me by Mr. Windham,
who strongly urged me to render him any assistance in my power
in his undertaking against Wellesley; and I can truly say, that
a more disinterested and honourable man I never knew in my life.
“At this election, therefore, Mr. Paull was fixed upon for us
to put forward, in order to break up the infamous combination
of these two factions, and to rescue Westminster from the
disgrace of submitting to them any longer. This was _my
work_:[1] it was my own project: I paved the way to it by my
addresses to the people of Westminster.… Hood was the Tory
candidate; Sheridan the Whig candidate, having Whitbread and
Peter Moore for his bottle-holders. They beat the people, but
it was such a beat as pronounced their doom for the future, as
far as Westminster was concerned. At the close of the election,
Hood and the base Sheridan slipped away from the hustings into
the Church of St. Paul, Covent Garden, just opposite the porch
of which the hustings stood, and there they were locked up
nearly all the night, with constables and policeman to guard
the church.… Being in November, there was a plentiful supply
of mud, with which the honourable representatives were covered
all over from the forehead down to their shoes. I never shall
forget them. They looked just like a couple of rats, raked
up from the bottom of a sewer; and the High Bailiff, and his
books, and his clerks, and his beadles, were all covered over
in the same manner.”
Mr. Paull had started at the top of the poll. But as the days wore on,
the others gained slowly upon him, until, at the close, he was left
in a small minority. It was found, however, upon an analysis of the
voting, that Paull had polled 3077 plumpers, against Sheridan’s 955,
and Sir Samuel Hood’s 1033, whilst the coalition of the two latter had
given them each 3240 split votes. Paull’s total was 4481. These figures
were solemnly put upon record by the friends of reform (as they now
called themselves), in order to show “the manner in which Mr. Paull had
been defeated.”
An interesting conflict ensued, between Cobbett and Sheridan, which
must not go unnoticed. When the former was attacked by Sheridan in
parliament, in August, 1803 (as before related), it was a wilful and
unnecessary throwing down of the gauntlet. Mr. Sheridan was not the
man who should find fault with another’s popularity-hunting, much
less another’s inconsistency; and Mr. Cobbett proceeded to give him
the inevitable “Series of Letters,”[2] with which he usually favoured
the objects of his animadversion. Mr. Sheridan, now crowing on the
Westminster hustings, imputes _low birth_ to his opponents; Mr. Paull’s
father was only a tailor, and, as for his bottle-holder, why all the
world knows his story. And all the world (except Mr. Sheridan) might
have guessed what would have come of that. “Whence came the Sheridans?
From a play-actor! from a member of that profession, the followers of
which are, in our wise laws, considered and denominated _vagabonds_.”
And Mr. Cobbett proceeds further, and wants to know what are the public
services of these persons, Sheridan and his son Thomas, that they
should be receiving between seven and eight thousand pounds of the
public money? So Tom Sheridan offers to fight, according to a speech of
his own at a Sheridan dinner:--
“This man, for his roughness and vulgarity towards my father
(whom I think I may fairly describe as the person in whom
eloquence may be said to preside), I had intended to thrash,
and for that purpose I went down to his house with a cane, but
he was not at home. I afterwards thought it best to offer him a
pistol, and wrote to him for the purpose, but this valiant Mr.
Cobbett answered me by saying that he never fought duels.”
Of course, the only utility of this sort of thing, was to provide
material for satire; and Cobbett, on his part, never failed to remind
Sheridan of his foibles, nor ceased to look upon his “statesmanship”
with the contempt it deserved.
* * * * *
The result of this general election was promising enough, to the
increasing band of reformers. But, another dissolution, in the
following spring, gave a still greater impulse to the popular
feeling. Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane headed the poll at
Westminster, leaving Elliott (a Windhamite), Sheridan, and Paull out
in the cold. It was as early as this that Mr. Cobbett began to suspect
Burdett’s sincerity concerning Reform; and he refused, on account
of Sir Francis declining to act with Paull,[3] to interfere in this
election, although Lord Cochrane begged him to do so. But the powerful
_Register_ was as active as ever in the contest of principles which was
being waged.
* * * * *
We may now glance at some of the correspondence of this winter, 1806-7.
“… This last expression puts me in mind of what I thought to
mention to you in my last; and that is, my intention to _insure
my life_. A small sum annually will be well laid out this way;
and I feel that I ought to do it. My family is now large, and
it is my bounden duty to do all I am able to provide for them
in the manner that least exposes them to chance. Pray inquire
about this, and let me know the result of your inquiries in a
few days.
“We send you by the waggon of to-night a fine hamper of garden
things, two fowls, and a chine included, which we think will
be acceptable. Pray send us back the hamper by the waggon, and
also a hamper from Mr. Paull’s. There is a box at Mr. Paull’s
with flower-roots in it. You may as well send it too.
“Ellen is to be christened on Thursday. Mrs. Cobbett begs you
will send off by to-morrow night’s mail-coach a good lusty
twelfth-cake for the christening.… Your letters are very
cheerful, and, I can assure you, they come to a very healthy
and happy house.
“I propose, in future, to write to you only upon Fridays, and
that you shall write to me only upon Tuesdays, except upon
particular occasions.… In order that I may profit as much as
possible from your correspondence you should begin a sheet and
fill it up as thoughts or facts occur.”
A chronic complaint of Cobbett’s, throughout his life, was being
exposed to the payment of unfranked letters. A renewed notice to
friends and correspondents appears in January, 1807, informing them
that he will not take in such letters. A message to Mr. Wright, about
this time, gives him directions on the subject, and mentions that
12_s._ a week would not pay the postage of letters, of no use at all,
and many of them sent merely for persecution.
“… The whole world united would not shake my resolution to
_reside in the country_. The opinions of ‘friends,’ experience
has taught me not to prefer, upon all occasions, to my own;
and you know as well as I do, that those ‘friends’ generally
speak as convenience or interest dictate. As I know you are
perfectly sincere in the regret that you express at not having
an opportunity of seeing me and mine oftener, so you may be
assured that the loss of the pleasure of frequently seeing
you, my Lord Folkestone, Sir Francis Burdett, and one or two
more, is the greatest, and indeed the only, drawback from
the stock of comfort and of pleasure which this domestic and
rural life affords me. It will be very convenient to us for
you and Mr. Murphy to come at any time. We have had no company
since my return from town, and we expect none; but I am sure
that none that could come would render your and Mr. Murphy’s
company at all inconvenient. The time you mention will be as
good as any. The sooner the better; but you must stay a whole
week. And bring good boots with you, for we shall make you
ride a-coursing. The children talk of you every day of their
lives. William has been out with us this morning, and we have
had a course worth all the balls and routs and operas that the
whole town ever saw. Hares are hard to find. We sometimes go
out without seeing one; but, when we do find, upon these lofty
hills and open commons, you can have no idea of the beauty of
the course. It lasts but a minute or two or three; but in one
minute these beautiful animals go more than a mile.
“… We intend putting William to a school at Salisbury; but I
am resolved he shall waste none of his precious time upon the
‘learned languages.’[4] He reads and writes very tolerably
well now; and, if I live so long, I hope to see him able to
do something in the way of usefulness, in the space of five
years from this. He has learnt to course already. To-day again
(for we catch every fine open day) we had a course surpassing
anything I ever saw in all my life. We were hardly upon the
common when we found a hare _sitting_ (a very rare thing upon
heath). All the rest, namely William, Frederick, and my man,
took their stations in such places as enabled them to follow
the dogs, and to see the course, whichever way she might take.
I then went and started her. We had a course of thirty turns
at least, and, after a very long and most beautiful course, we
had the pleasure to see her save her life by darting to the
copse with Princess not twelve feet behind her. The dogs were
terribly cut and strained, but they will be well again before
you and Mr. Murphy come.”
There is a great importation of American trees early this year, which
gives Mr. Wright some trouble to attend to, out of his ordinary line;
in return for which he is to have a farm some day, and American trees
to beautify it with. He is expected at Botley again in March, and is
to bring, amongst other matters, “two quarto blank books, with a good
stiff cover, for Nancy to copy her grammar lessons in. I am teaching
her; she learns very fast,” &c. And, they “all go to church of a
Sunday.”
An impending duel between Mr. Elliott and Mr. Paull is alluded to in
the following:--
“… The third is an article about Paull and Elliott. Leave
out the words _manly_ and _excellent_ as applied to Paull’s
letter; and, observe, soften every phrase that I have used in
commendation of him or his conduct, if any such you find; for I
now see that he has been challenging; and I will have nothing
more to do with him, until I see a total change of conduct in
this respect.”
“… I am glad Mr. Paull is exposed to no prosecution. I trust
he will take great care. I have a hundred times warned him of
his danger. They would imprison him as sure as he is alive.… I
shall always defend Mr. Paull and his cause; but you know how
I abhor anything covert; and, upon my word, I cannot say that
a man who would consent to be sent to a hiding-place, ought to
be believed upon his oath. Those that are used to such devices
may look upon them calmly; but this is not, and I hope in God
it never will be, the case with, yours, &c.”
A petition against Sheridan’s return for Westminster, on the part of
Paull, now provided matter for discussion; and this, along with the
unceasing campaign against sinecures, and the sudden dispersion of
the _lost sheep_ (as “All the Talents” were now called), kept the
ready writer going merrily. Too merrily, indeed; a little cloud was
gathering. Lord Grenville confided to somebody, that Cobbett was
destroying the characters of all public men. Lord Howick[5] became
unfavourably impressed with his vehemence, and threatened prosecution.
Above all, the anonymous press had no mercy upon him, although it
prudently avoided fair discussion. In March, Wright is asked for his
opinion as to men’s feelings, in town.
“As to the result, I fear nothing. And the way to fear nothing,
is to act always fairly and honestly.”
Only let him have open ground to go upon, and a good sight at the enemy.
Early in April, Mr. Cobbett writes:--
“What you told me about Mitford’s report has given me some
uneasiness, on account of the trouble that prosecutions would
give me; but as to the House, the d---- House, I set it at
defiance, if it will only confine its vengeance to its own
villainous powers. It is not, however, worth while to make
any inquiries. It would be a good jest for the Whigs to begin
to prosecute now. I’ll assure you, I was most cursedly afraid
of them before. Howick is a perfect Bashaw; and apostates are
proverbially persecutors. God knows I need say no harm of
either party. They furnish me with ample quantities of good
and true censure of one another. I am deeply impressed with
the necessity of caution; but if they are resolved to plague,
plague they may. Should anything of this sort happen, I am
determined to plead my own cause, be the consequence what it
may.… This talk of prosecution has exasperated me against them
beyond measure; and my own safety shall be the only standard of
my vengeance. Villains! They profess liberty; they set their
hired scoundrels to write me and truth out of countenance; and
the moment they feel the weight of my lash, they talk of the
law, that law against which they have so much enveighed, which
they know to be so unjust, and the administration of which they
know to be so basely partial.
“Cultivate Lord C[ochrane] and Colonel J[ohnstone]. They are
good and true friends to us, and, what is more, to their
country.
“Pray send the _Chronicle_, when there is any violent or
severe attack upon ministers or Parliament. Green[6] has been
complaining to Reeves. The mean dog! Reeves begs me to spare
him. I shall tell Reeves the provocation. If the rascal thus
smarts at a parenthesis, what would he do at a sentence such
as I could treat him with? As to the line of politics, _safe_
is the word.… I hear that my friend Finnerty’s 100_l._ is
coming out. Oh what a d---- thing this writing for hire is! The
motion[7] has cost me more labour than I thought for, wishing
to work in many interesting facts.…”
The new elections are coming on in April, and Mr. Cobbett is determined
not to interfere, unless positively compelled. As soon as the election
is over, he will “set about writing sober essays of _exposure_: quote
from official documents, state the bare facts, and lament, as I most
sincerely do, the inevitable consequences.” He foresees the inutility
of Mr. Paull contesting Westminster again, and the event proves that
he is right. But he continues his unasked-for advice to the electors.
And he does keep to facts, facts which all who have eyes may see.
Seats in Parliament are being openly advertised for sale in the daily
papers,[8]--in _Whig_ papers; and this villainous scribbler presses for
an explanation, particularly from that party which is always flaunting
the flag of 1688, and which yet rails at him, and abuses him, and
calls him nicknames, for trying to hold them to their principles.
As for his own writings, conscious though he be of their power and
clearness, and of the admiration excited by them in the minds of all
who are not the recipients of his lashing, he will be more than ever
guarded in expression:--
“… I see the fangs of the law open to grasp me, and I feel the
necessity of leaving no hold for them, and even no ground for
silly cavillers, upon the score of coarseness or violence. I
am armed with undeniable facts, and my reasoning (at least in
my own opinion of it) shall be as undeniably conclusive. The
times are auspicious to us, and we have nothing to fear but the
effects of ungovernable indignation.”
“… As to the ‘large pamphlet that is coming out against us
all,’ the larger it is, the better it will be for the author;
for the fewer people will read it, and the fewer the readers,
the fewer those who will despise him. That any creature upon
two legs should be so foolish!”
In the early part of this history, allusion was made to the growing
impoverishment of the labouring classes. A quarter of a century was now
elapsed, since the Hereditary Pauper started into being; and his race
was now numbered by the million. The parishes were raising six millions
sterling, for purposes of relief; and the recipients were going
steadily down, down, down. They were becoming practically enslaved. The
average rural labourer was now feeding upon bread, vegetables, and
water. His children were uneducated; his wife was in rags; his dwelling
was either a ruin or a hovel.
And, it is very curious matter for reflection, to note how ready the
comfortable classes were to acquiesce in tolerating this state of
things. Schemes of amelioration were broached by a few, but they were
generally based upon a total ignorance of first-cause. Your social
tinker,--amiable, bland, and very serious,--caught a glimpse of the
poor wretches so far beneath him; and, straightway recollecting the
words of Scripture, that the poor should “never cease out of the land,”
opened his purse-strings, exhorted his friends to do the like,--and
left matters worse than before.[9] Your local authority, and your
parson-pluralist, deeply impressed with the need of preserving the
“indispensable gradations of society,” in their full integrity,
refused a cow to the cottager, lest he should be thereby rendered too
independent! absolutely ignorant of the fact, that forty or fifty
years previously, the rural labourer not only had his cow,--but his
pigs, his geese, his beer, and his bacon, and a tolerable share of
the comforts of life: his outward condition, in point of fact, being
scarcely inferior to that of the farmers, and even the clergy, around
him.
Now, in this year of grace 1807, there was no man living who was a
better authority on this topic, than the hero of these pages. And, what
is more, there was no living being, who had a tenderer sympathy with
the wants and the wailings of the meanest fellow-creature; be it a
skylark, or be it a ploughboy.
And the tinkers, and the tailors, solemnly going to work with new
patches, the only end of which must be the further enslavement and
degradation of the poor; and the end of which could not possibly be the
healing of their stomachs, or the mending of their breeches and their
gowns; he now bursts out,--
“I, for my part, should not be at all surprised, if some one
were to propose the selling of the poor, or the mortgaging
of them to the fund-holders. Ay! you may wince; you may cry
Jacobin and Leveller as long as you please. I WISH TO SEE THE
POOR MEN OF ENGLAND WHAT THE POOR MEN OF ENGLAND WERE WHEN I
WAS BORN; AND FROM ENDEAVOURING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WISH NOTHING
BUT THE WANT OF MEANS SHALL MAKE ME DESIST.”
Mr. Whitbread’s Poor Law Bills[10] of 1807 were the present occasion
of the subject being before the public.
The income-tax was ten per cent., and the quartern loaf averaged
eleven-pence, at this period; whilst the wages of the rural labourer
were so low, that the parish universally supplemented them in the form
of relief. This practice, indeed, had become such an abuse, that the
farmer would refuse to employ men at fair wages--throw them upon the
workhouse,--and then take their labour upon the reduced scale paid
out of the rates; thus entailing upon his neighbours a share of the
expenses of his own establishment. In many parishes _every_ labourer
was a pauper.
At the same time, capitalists and stock-jobbers were amassing wealth,
in an unprecedented degree; whilst more than a million sterling,
annually, was diverted from the public resources, into the pockets
of sinecurists. All the idleness and luxury, thus created, helped
to augment the price of the necessaries of life; and the inevitable
consequences of unproductive expenditure ensued, in a continued
diminution of the resources of those persons who earned their living.
And what was the _bolus_, proposed to be applied for the cure of this
alarming cancer? _Educate the children of the poor!_ Positively! As
though the children of the poor (at least, of the rural poor) did not
pick up their education day by day, from the moment that they could
crawl out into the fields to scare away the rooks; as though ploughing,
mowing, threshing, and reaping,--loading a waggon, and guiding a
team, could not be better acquired, on the old lines, than by having
the unreceptive bucolic brain first gorged with reading, writing,
and arithmetic! And this new reforming agency, mark you, was to be a
further expense to the rate-payers; already at their wits’ end to know
how, themselves, to keep the wolf from the door. Is it any wonder,
then, that persons who, like Mr. Cobbett, not only knew the real wants
and temptations, and difficulties of the labourer, raised their voices
indignantly?
That it should be imputed to the poor, that it was their IGNORANCE and
VICE which had brought them low: that any other cause, but the increase
of luxurious idlers, and the draining of the national resources
by exorbitant taxation, could lie at the root of the evil: that a
generation of plutocrats should have grown up, who looked upon the
“lower orders” as of less consequence than their horses, their dogs,
and their poultry, was not to be borne in silence, whilst the pen of a
ready writer was at hand to defy such thoughtless misrepresentation.
From this time, then, until the period of his death, Cobbett’s voice
was raised on behalf of the suffering Labouring Classes of England.
An adequate return for their labour, and some respect toward them as
fellow-creatures, he was determined to get; and he would suffer no
opposition, no ignominy, to hinder his endeavours.
* * * * *
But, what was his own practice; and what was the condition of the
labourers in his own service?
Precisely that, which could alone render them independent and
prosperous. He would have no paupers; and, although they were,
generally, married men with families, no one was allowed to remain in
his service who required parish assistance. As he gave high wages, and
provided them with a free dwelling, the need of this stipulation is
obvious. But, they had to work for it all: Mr. Cobbett would have a
day’s work for a day’s pay; and so have no obligation left, on either
side, when they came to eventide. Men might be independent, and they
might be saucy, too; but better these, a thousand times, than cringing
hypocrisy,--than the enslavement of idleness at starvation-pay.
Not only this: Mr. Cobbett’s was a measure full and running over;--
“My house was always open to give them victuals and drink
whenever they happened to come to it, and to supply them with
little things necessary to them in case of illness; and in case
of illness their wages always went on just as if they had been
well.”
Seventy years will pass away, and carry off with them most direct
evidence, leaving little beyond shadowy traditions. But there are,
yet living at Botley, aged persons who were long in Mr. Cobbett’s
service, as gardeners and farm-labourers. And these persons, one and
all, represent his days at Botley as a time of exceptional comfort
and well-being; and his service as one of well-paid, hard-working
earnestness. Hated and envied by some of his neighbours, he was
maligned, and abused, and misrepresented, as earnest people always
are;[11] but there were a far greater number, who welcomed the current
of joy, and freedom, to which he had given rise. And the recollection
of his name will still restore a transient smile to the withered
features of a man, whose lengthened span of life may be due, in great
measure, to the habits of industry and thrift and independence acquired
in the service of William Cobbett.
FOOTNOTES
[1] All this sketch (in Cobbett’s own words, written in 1832) is as
faithful as it is graphic. The event provided ample resource for the
witlings of the day. See, for example, “A History of the Westminster
Election in November, 1806,” with its coloured picture of the hustings;
also, “The Rising Sun; a Serio-comic Satiric Romance,” vol. ii., in
which Paull’s bottle-holder appears as _Mr. Cobwell_, a man of great
talents and strength of mind,” &c.
[2] Afterwards collected into a volume, under the title of “The
Political Proteus: a view of the Character and Conduct of R. B.
Sheridan, Esq.,” &c., and published by Budd and others. Sheridan’s
“dramatic loyalty” (as it was happily expressed), was a constant
theme of the caricaturists of the day. Cobbett makes a note, in one
of his “summaries,” of twenty-five public pledges which Sheridan had
abandoned, and promises that they shall be “detailed one of these days.”
[3] The misunderstanding between Burdett and Paull culminated in a
duel, in which both were wounded. The affair was a rather silly one,
and brought out some wit. Mr. Paull was a little, fiery man, or he
would have succeeded better as a politician. Mr. Horne Tooke said to
him one day, “You are a bold man, and I am certain you’ll succeed;
only, as Cobbett says, _keep yourself cool_.”
[4] “The Learned Languages” was the title of a controversy which arose
in the _Register_ early in 1807. Mr. Cobbett was out of his sphere on
this topic, and his correspondents (who were at all humorous) saw a
ready application of the fable concerning a fox who had lost his tail.
Others were more serious, and thought that the knowledge of the Latin
and Greek classics “kept together the higher orders of society, and
separate from the lower orders.”
[5] Afterwards Earl Grey, who carried the Reform Bill of 1832.
[6] Otherwise John Gifford. Cobbett had made an allusion to his change
of name, parenthetically adding, “for cogent reasons, no doubt.”
[7] Mr. Robson’s renewed motion on the Barrack-office. Cobbett prepared
and wrote out these motions for him.
[8] “Seat in a Certain Assembly.--Any gentleman having the disposal of
a close one may apply,” &c., &c.--_Morning Post_, May 1, 1807.
“A Certain Great Assembly.--Fourteen hundred guineas per annum will be
given for a seat in the above Assembly. Letters addressed to,” &c.,
&c.--_Morning Chronicle_, May 21, 1807.
[9] Even Mr. Wilberforce, busied with the wrongs of distant races,
had remarkably low and narrow views concerning the _lower orders_ of
his own country, as he called them. In 1801, he “nearly resolves” to
move in Parliament for a grant of one million for their relief! At
another time he thinks Government should relieve, privately, some of
the distress, “and afterwards allege that they did not do so publicly
for fear of producing a mischievous effect abroad.” And one’s patience
is almost exhausted at hearing him call the people “tainted” with
disaffection, when everybody knows they are starving. _Vide_ his “Life,
&c.,” iii., 3, 6, 13.
[10] Samuel Whitbread (1758-1815) had entered Parliament in 1790, and
became an adherent of Mr. Fox, after whose death he was one of the
principal leaders of opposition. A genuine philanthropist, guided by
deep religious impressions, he spent a large portion of his wealth in
endeavouring to ameliorate the condition of the poor, in and around his
Bedfordshire estates.
[11] On one occasion, in the summer of 1809, there was a grand
field-day over “Cobbett, the Oppressor of the Poor,” &c., &c. A boy in
his service had absconded, after having received his wages beforehand;
and, being brought before the magistrates at Winchester, was sent to
prison for a week. But, through some informality on the part of the
constable who arrested him, the relatives of the boy were induced to
bring an action against Cobbett, the constable, and another local
officer, the damages being laid at one thousand pounds! The papers
were, instantly, full of the affair; several columns appeared in the
_Post_, to the exclusion of important war news; Gillray had a picture
of the oppressor thrashing the naked boy tied to a post; women of
fashion came to see the poor creature in prison. The three defendants
had to pay ten pounds between them; and the fact of _a conviction_
was sufficient for exulting detractors. The boy afterwards admitted,
however, that he ran away from Mr. Cobbett’s because he had to get up
as early as his master.
“In private life Mr. Cobbett is an exceedingly pleasant companion,
and an excellent husband and father. It has been asserted that he is
harsh to those who are in his service, but this appears to me to be
a calumny. That he expects his labourers to perform their duty is
certain, and in this he is truly their friend. Industrious himself, he
hates idleness in others. But he is willing to pay them liberally, and
to contribute to their happiness. I have been more than once at Botley,
and must say that I have never anywhere seen such excellent cottages,
gardens, and other comforts appropriated to the labouring class as
those which he erected and laid out on his estate.”--(From “Public
Characters of All Nations,” Sir R. Phillips, Lond., 1823).
Alexander Somerville once met with a former Botley servant of
Cobbett’s, who declared that he “would never wish to serve a better
master.” (“The Whistler at the Plough,” p. 263, Lond., 1852).