“THEY NATURALLY HATE ME.”
There was a Mr. Homan, M.P., a friend of Sheridan’s, and a defender of
his reputation, who came down to the House of Commons, one day in the
Session of 1807, and announced that a friend of his had just called
upon Mr. Cobbett, at Botley; and found him living in a “pig-stye.”
Now, this gentle sally, on the part of a jocular senator, may be
selected (out of many, more or less serious) in order to indicate the
prominent place now occupied by Cobbett in men’s minds. Addressing
with familiarity the leading characters of the day, (always in the
first-person-singular, be it remembered), he is herding with, and
advocating the cause of, the lowest of the low. Occupied with such
vulgar pursuits as gardening and planting, and tending dogs and pigs,
he is actually daring to instruct and to lead the successors of Burke
and of Pitt. One of the “swinish multitude” is here, having poked his
nose through the crowd, strutting along cheek-by-jowl with cabinet
ministers, and positively claiming a share of the foot-way!
The worst of it all is, that this presumptuous fellow is not in the
wrong. Nobody can convict him of a misstatement of facts; no one can
answer his arguments; no one can match his brilliant language. Yet,
people won’t leave him alone: they will put their pop-guns into range;
they will throw dirt, unmindful of the consequences of handling dirt.
And, these failing,--as the passionate schoolboy, unable to wreak his
vengeance openly, for just castigation, sneaks;--they sneak. They watch
his footsteps, if so he can be tripped-up.
But the intended victim learns wariness as he proceeds. Who should
be tripped-up, that plants one foot securely before the other is
raised? that gives chapter-and-verse for his facts? that dreads no
bogy whatsoever? and who still wants to know so many interesting
little secrets, which he has a perfect right to know, and which he is
determined to know?
* * * * *
Several opposition papers had already been tried, previously to this
date. The Addington ministry set up _The Pilot_, and the _Royal
Standard_; but these soon died
“Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung,”
and are, probably, only rescued from utter oblivion by this
sternly-truthful page. An imitation _Register_, edited by Mr. REDHEAD
YORKE,[1] had a longer lease of life;--known as _Yorke’s Weekly
Political Review_, the first number appeared in November, 1805, and ran
to several volumes. But it never attained to any authority. _Flower’s
Political Review and Monthly Register_, printed at Harlow, lasted
several years. This journal gave a mild sort of support to reform,
without extravagance of tone; and reprinted, from time to time, such
works as “Locke on Government,” and Bolingbroke’s “Patriot King.”
Later on, appeared the _National Register_, with the openly-avowed
object of producing “candid, but intrepid strictures” upon Mr. Cobbett
and the political pamphleteers. And in 1809, a very grand show was
made, in the prospectus of BLAGDON’S _Weekly Political Register_:--
“This new political paper will be printed in the same manner as
COBBETT’S REGISTER.
“In every number will be inserted an exposition of the daring
libels and audacious falsehoods promulgated by COBBETT.
“All who are acquainted with the paper of COBBETT, may
perfectly understand the nature of the one here proposed, &c.,
&c.
“The history of the political life and writings of WILLIAM
COBBETT will be commenced in the first number, and continued
every week, till concluded.”
Such a very funny prospectus: such a marvel of self-sufficiency,
ignorance, and malignity: really should have been supported better.
But, no! people didn’t want to be told afresh, that misgovernment ought
to be hushed up for the sake of great reputations; and Mr. Blagdon
disappeared, along with all the other political dolphins, that must
need display their back-fins for one transient moment, with no other
end than to whet curiosity or excite wonder.
Some of the pamphlets fared better. But then, they were freely
distributed by the agents of Government. The story of the
Court-Martial, published in 1809, was understood to be an open effort,
on the part of ministers and their adherents, to damage the honour
of Mr. Cobbett: indeed, it could not have been otherwise, seeing the
amount of official matter which the thing contained.[2] Besides a
half-crown edition, it was issued in a cheap form for distribution.
Then there was “Cobbett Convicted, and the Revolutionist Exposed:”
a task of no great difficulty, of course,--seeing that it was
“The Parliamentary Reformer” brought face to face with old “Peter
Porcupine,” the hater of demagogues and the denouncer of revolution.
A kindred publication was “Elements of Reform,” sold at sixpence, and
largely distributed amongst the people; so that they might see for
themselves how excessively wrong, how truly inconsistent, it was, for
any person to change his opinions when he got older and wiser.
One of the most curious evidences of the spirit of persecution, which
was abroad among ministerialists, is furnished by Lord Colchester,
under date May 7th, 1809.[3] He was at that time “Mr. Speaker,” and was
walking home after church with Mr. Perceval. The latter, communicating
his thoughts on various topics, at last comes to Cobbett:--
“He thought Cobbett had at last committed himself in his
paper upon the House of Commons’ vote (for rejecting Lord
Folkestone’s motion for a Committee to inquire into the sale
of all places in the State, &c.), but, when he showed me the
paper, it did not so strike me that the libel was more violent
than what all the opposition papers contained every day; nor
was it such as could usefully be proceeded upon.”
What Mr. Cobbett had said, you will find in the _Register_ of the
previous day. And, if you think that the word “libellous” applies to
his remarks, you have leave to bring a charge of assault and battery
against that man, who has violated the sanctity of your mouth, in
withdrawing therefrom the tooth which distressed you, and which
embittered your existence.
* * * * *
The foregoing notes, somewhat anticipatory in point of time, will
enable the reader to understand the danger which was now attending Mr.
Cobbett’s footsteps. He was running the gauntlet of all those who had
anything to fear from too much light; and they naturally hated him. Not
that he was alone: the Reformists were increasing in number. But Mr.
Cobbett was the most daring of the lot; inspiring all the rest with
pluck and animation. Even in the House of Commons, the division lists
showed how a feeling of shame was growing upon a greater number of its
members. As early as 1807, a Reversion Bill passed the Commons, the
object of which was to prevent the future granting of sinecure places
_two or three deep_; this was, however, thrown out in the Lords.
* * * * *
And all this did not interrupt the joys down in Hampshire:--
“… I have the finest melons, Indian corn, and Carolina beans
that ever were seen.”
“We are just setting out to meet Mr. Bagshaw,[4] and as a proof
of our having anticipated your hopes about amusing him, we have
made all the preparations for taking him with us to Morn Hill
Fair to-morrow, which is upon the heights above Winchester,
and which is the greatest fair, for one day, that is known in
England. There are several scores of acres of ground covered
over with bacon, cheese, hops, leather, &c. About Wednesday he
will go to Portsmouth.”
“I hope soon to send hares to everybody. I have killed some,
and have, as usual, given them away. I take my young bitch
to Everley, where she is to run a match that Dr. Mitford has
made; but I shall leave betting and matches to others, though I
cannot say but I should like to see my dogs win.”[5]
“Hares and post-offices do not congregate together, I find.
There is none of the latter nearer to Everley than this place
[Andover, November, 1807].… I am now starting for Everley with
Nancy, Mrs. Cobbett having declined the trip. She will go to
Dr. Mitford’s. I saw William at Winchester, who is grown very
much, and who behaved just as a son of mine ought to behave. So
cleanly, so orderly, so attentive, so punctual, and so manly,
just as I was at his age; I hope the qualities will be more
durable with him.”
“… Almost all the money I draw is expended in preparations for
planting, and in making a new footpath along the side of my
farm, in order to stop up the one that passes through it, and
which is an injury to the estate. These pecuniary pinches give
me great uneasiness, at times; but they will cease before it
be long; and if it please God to preserve my life, they will
cease much about the time that my grand planting scheme will
be actually completed. There is here a little coppice, which I
think will be to be sold; and which I intend you shall have.…
I am very desirous that you should have an inch of land that
you might set your foot upon, and say, ‘this is mine.’ But pray
never talk to any one about these matters.”
Mr. Wright is particularly requested not to lend the little mare, but
to make use of it himself:--
“I hope you ride a good deal. I wish to God you would rise
early. It is the finest thing in the world for health. I am in
my coppice by six o’clock in the morning; but then, I am in bed
by ten at latest.”
The following occurs, as a postscript, on the back of a letter to
Wright:--
“My dear little James,--your little dog is very well, and the
rabbits are in their new house. God bless you.--Wm. C.”
An old acquaintance turns up, one day in the spring of 1808:--
“This day the most wonderful thing, which I have met with in
my whole wonderful life, has happened to me. A gentleman came
to me this morning from London, to show me, and to consult
me upon, the publication of a work upon _Metaphysicks_. He
appeared to be a very learned and very accomplished man, and
so I find him, upon some hours of conversation; and, would
you believe it, he then discovered himself to me; and I found
him to be the same whom I left in England, twenty-three years
ago, a fifer, in the recruiting party that I belonged to! This
has occupied me the whole day. He was about two years younger
than myself, and I have thought and talked of him ten thousand
times, having had a most affectionate regard for him.… You
shall see my old acquaintance when I get to town.”
The letters of this period are filled with cautions, that every means
be taken to avoid occasion of real offence. “Copy” for the _Register_
is to be carefully scanned, and communications from sympathizing
correspondents are to be softened in their tone, before committal to
the printer. Some of these latter are far too plain-spoken. An awakened
public opinion, too liable to rush to extremes, must be kept within
proper limits, as regards its expression. There is no disposition to
go to jail for the sake of brilliant periods and caustic paragraphs.
The “villains” could be lashed vigorously enough without any need of
departing from facts.
Questions of libel were by no means infrequent, during these years.
And, with Lord Ellenborough’s severe opinions on that topic, there was
plenty of reason to fear any conflict with authority. An action brought
by an offended author against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, in July 1808,
for a skit upon a certain book of travels, brought Mr. Cobbett forward,
in several letters upon the subject of libel law; in which he pointed
out very clearly, that principles had retrograded since the days of
Pope and Swift, who certainly had no idea that to write and publish
truth was any crime:--
“The whole tenor of their works proves, that, so long as they
confined themselves to the stating of what was _true_, they
entertained no apprehensions as to the consequences.… They
were afraid of no constructive libels; nor, if they chose
to express their disapprobation of the conduct of kings and
princes, did they fear the accusation of _disloyalty_. And
what would they have said, had they been told that, in their
country, it would become a crime to wound men’s feelings by
holding them up to ridicule? Ridicule is a thing that will not
attach _where it ought not_,” &c., &c.
His own idea (which, however, he did not always put into practice)
was to live it down; and, as for calumny, he had advised Mr. Paull,
and he had so advised others, to let falsehood come to the inevitable
over-reaching of itself.
As for caricatures,--
“Caricatures are things to laugh at. They break no bones.
I, for instance, have been represented as a bulldog, as a
porcupine, as a wolf, as a sans-culotte, as a nightman, as
a bear, as a kite, as a cur; and, in America, as hanging
upon a gallows. Yet, here I am, just as sound as if no
misrepresentation of me had ever been made.”
This was no idle boast. The Anti-Cobbett squibs and caricatures were
a standing source of amusement, even with the little boys and girls,
at Botley house. The articles, above alluded to, had produced a fresh
crop. He writes to Mr. Wright upon “our friends the satirists:”--
“They seem half-distracted. How angry they are, that I did not
take notice of what they said of myself! All those who know
anything of me, know their assertions or insinuations to be
false; and, as to those who know nothing of me, they are of no
consequence to me, or to anybody else.”
But, the jealousy of the press was beyond everything.[6] Unfairness
and malignity marked all references to Cobbett, who was really doing
them better service than any one individual, beside, could be credited
with. It is true, he never spared his cotemporaries, when in fight;
but let them be for a moment in trouble, and his shield was at once
raised, by his proclamation of the Liberty of the Press; and of his
doctrine that there was nothing so mean, “nor so truly detestable,” as
that of seeking, through the law, vengeance for a literary defeat. No
such generosity, however, could be remembered in the midst of party
fights; and, even where there was real ability and talent, as with the
_Morning Chronicle_ under James Perry, newspaper polemics of that day
were marked by misrepresentation and abuse.
* * * * *
The inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, brought about by the
discovery of corrupt influence in the disposal of promotions, &c., kept
society amused for several months, during the year 1809; and, indeed,
threw everything else into the shade, not excepting the new tide of
affairs in the Peninsula. Mr. Cobbett was in the front, as might have
been expected.
The circumstances were these. The Duke of York had now been the
Commander-in-Chief for several years, to the great benefit of the
service. It was generally acknowledged that increased efficiency and
discipline had been introduced into the army since his appointment.
Yet, whispers had begun to be circulated, conveying grave insinuations
against his Royal Highness; and there were those who openly predicted
his speedy dismissal.
All this was, however, treated by “the loyal” as wicked conspiracy,
libel, Jacobinism, and so forth. And the Duke might have escaped
exposure, had it not been for a brave Irishman, who ventured upon
publishing his grievances,[7] and risking the inevitable dangers. As it
happened, Major Hogan’s pamphlet came just in the nick of time, gave
the Duke’s enemies an opportunity, and the Reformists a grievance. Here
is Mr. Cobbett’s first short reference, directing public attention to
it:--
“This, I scruple not to say, is the most interesting
publication that has appeared in England for many years. It
should be read by every individual in the nation. Oh, what a
story does this gentleman tell! What a picture does he exhibit!
What facts does he unfold! If _this_ produce no effect upon the
public, why, then, we are so base and rascally a crew, that it
is no matter what becomes of us. We are unworthy of the name of
men, and are beneath the beasts that perish.”
The facts being, in short, that Major Hogan found he could get the
promotion he wanted by paying 500_l._ to the Duke’s mistress, Mrs.
Clarke; after he had waited long and hopelessly for it, on direct
application to the Duke himself.
There was some hesitation in accepting Major Hogan’s statement;
meanwhile, Finnerty, who had edited the pamphlet, and the publisher,
Bagshaw, were prosecuted. Mr. Cobbett, himself, thought the story
far too gross to be true,--that a “peculating pimp,” (as he called
her), had gone round to the major’s hotel with hush-money: had been
refused: and that such doubtful personage could be no other than the
artful mistress of the Prince. However, light came upon the matter from
another quarter, which laid the whole thing before the public gaze;
and, in the end, caused the temporary retirement of the Duke from his
office.
Mr. Gwyllym Lloyd Wardle[8] was the agent of inquiry. He brought the
matter before the House of Commons, in January, 1809, supported by
several clear instances; in which it was shown that Mrs. Clarke was
having a large share in the patronage of the War Office, and was
making a good deal of money over it; besides, that several clergymen
owed their advancement to her. So, there was a Committee of the whole
House; many witnesses were examined,--
“Thaïs led the way,--”
and the faithful Commons could attend to nothing whilst this was going
on. Corunna faded into insignificance, and became a mocking sound; and
no one seemed to think that the war was of any consequence, until this
interesting affair was disposed of.[9]
The upshot of all was, that the Duke of York was exculpated from any
guilty participation in these malpractices; but he at once resigned the
office of commander-in-chief, and dismissed the author of his troubles.
Colonel Wardle was publicly thanked for his disinterested service, in
all the principal towns in the kingdom. He did not escape malignity
however; and his popularity on the one hand was balanced by persecution
on the other, headed by Mrs. Clarke herself. After the lapse of a year
or so, she produced a very naughty, brazen-faced book, under the title
of “The Rival Princes;”[10] in which most of the gentlemen who had
aided in exposing her were more or less libelled. It was a book that
could only have been produced by a courtesan, and it, probably, did not
do any harm either to Colonel Wardle, or to any of those whose names
were involved. Mr. Cobbett’s name appears in it, as having been incited
to anger against the Duke, on account of the latter having thought it
prudent not to receive Cobbett at dinner, as an opposition writer.
Mr. Cobbett thereupon informed his public that he had been introduced
to Mrs. Clarke, and was invited to dine with her; but that his wife
disapproved of any such questionable acquaintance, and he didn’t go.[11]
It is exceedingly probable that the Royal Family were getting offended
with Mr. Cobbett, in spite of his professions of loyalty to the
constitution, and his really affectionate references to the king; and
it would surprise no one, at this distance of time, to learn that the
Prince of Wales and Mr. Perceval were putting their heads together
with a view to silencing him. That which brought Mr. Cobbett into the
one great trouble of his life happened soon after the above-mentioned
events.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Mr. H. Redhead Yorke was a barrister with a love for politics and
some ability in political disquisition. He had been imprisoned in York
Castle, on account of his writings, in 1794; but had now, in maturer
years, become more “loyal.”
[2] Brougham, in his partial way, thought the business “much against
him,” and insinuated that the story might have been made to look worse.
_Vide_ “Memoirs,” i. 437.
The _British Critic_, doing penance for its former sins, says, “This is
merely a report of certain facts, which it has appeared useful to bring
forward at this time,” &c.
[3] “Diary and Correspondence,” ii. 183.
[4] The well-known newsman of Bow Street, Covent Garden. He had been
the publisher of the _Register_ since its commencement.
[5] Here are reminiscences of Everley, written nearly twenty years
after:--
“Not far above Amesbury is a little village called Netheravon, where I
once saw _an acre of hares_. We were coursing at Everley, a few miles
off, and one of the party happening to say that he had seen _an acre
of hares_ at Mr. Hicks-Beach’s at Netheravon, we who wanted to see
the same, or to detect our informant, sent a messenger to beg a day’s
coursing, which being granted, we went over the next day. Mr. Beach
received us very politely. He took us into a wheat stubble close to his
paddock; his son took a gallop round, cracking his whip at the same
time; the hares (which were very thickly in sight before) started all
over the field, ran into a flock like sheep, and we all agreed that the
flock did cover an acre of ground.”
“This is the most famous place in all England for coursing. I was here,
at this very inn, with a party eighteen years ago; and the landlord,
who is still the same, recognized me as soon as he saw me. There were
forty brace of greyhounds taken out into the field on one of the days,
and every brace had one course, and some of them _two_. The ground is
the finest in the world: from two to three miles for the hare to run to
cover, and not a stone, nor a bush, nor a hillock. It was here proved
to me that the hare is by far the swiftest of all English animals; for
I saw three hares in one day _run away_ from the dogs. To give dog and
hare a fair trial, there should be but _one_ dog; then, if that dog
got so close as to compel the hare _to turn_, that would be a proof
that the dog ran fastest. When the dog, or dogs, never get near enough
to the hare to induce her to turn, she is said, and very justly, to
run away from them; and, as I saw three hares do this in one day, I
conclude that the hare is the swifter animal of the two.”
[6] The first genuine piece of criticism upon Cobbett’s writings,
which had any real talent, was an article by Francis Jeffery in the
_Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1807. But it had the same conspicuous
failure which attended all partisan writers, and Whigs above all, in
their efforts to define political consistency.
This article furnished the material out of which all subsequent attacks
upon Cobbett’s alleged “tergiversation” would seem to have been
founded. While, however, there was abundant material for comparison,
there was no impugning the justness of his reasons for a change of
views; nor, indeed, was any attempt made to do so. Both Jeffery and
his copiers studiously avoided arguing out Cobbett’s conclusions. It
was all-sufficient, in the eye of a party writer, to wreck a man’s
reputation who had once openly forsaken a cause.
And yet, the reviewer, near the opening of his article, says the
_Register_ “can only be acceptable to men of some vigour of intellect,
and some independence of principle.” That was the very root of the
matter. Imagine the _Edinburgh_ of that day being acceptable to men
of any independence of principle! The very number in question has
an article on Catholic Relief, which not only contains sentiments
differing from Jeffery’s, but the very opposite to those enunciated by
the same review only three years before.
But there was one leading difference between the Whig writer and
Mr. Cobbett--they were place-hunters and he was not, and no awkward
“comparisons” could wipe out this notorious fact.
[7] “An Appeal to the Public and a Farewell Address to the British
Army, by Brevet-Major Hogan, who Resigned his Commission in consequence
of the Treatment he experienced from the Duke of York, and of the
System that prevails in the Army respecting Promotion” (London, 1808).
[8] Mr. Wardle was a man of fortune, a native of Cheshire, who had
served in Ireland during the rebellion; he entered Parliament, as
Member for Oakhampton, in the year 1807. This affair of the Duke of
York brought him vast popularity.
Francis Place says that Colonel Wardle was a weak and timid man,
without the capacity to estimate either his own powers or resources,
and that, had he foreseen the trouble and vexation his motion would
have occasioned him, he would not have made it. Mr. Brooks (another
Westminster politician) raised a subscription of 4000_l._ for Wardle.
See Place MSS. in the British Museum (Addl. 27,850).
[9] The details of this inquiry are accessible, in the _Annual
Register_ of the year; and Lord Colchester’s Diary, vol. ii., gives
some outline of the plans of Ministers concerning the Duke’s defence.
Cobbett’s _Register_ was, of course, very entertaining over the matter.
[10] “The Rival Princes; or, A Faithful Narrative of Facts relating to
Mrs. M. A. Clarke’s Political Acquaintance with Colonel Wardle, Major
Dodd, &c., &c., who were concerned in the Charges against the Duke of
York.” 2 vols., London, 1810.
[11] This book brought out a good deal of humour and some imitations.
One which will interest us is, “The Rival Impostors; or, Two Political
Epistles to two Political Cheats. The first addressed to G. L.
Wardle, Esq., M.P.; and the second to William Cobbett, &c., &c.” The
latter’s share was an “Analysis” of the Court Martial. The argument is
worthless, and the language fearfully gross. Here is a mild specimen:--
“Now blush, thou unparalleled liar![A] if not at thy wickedness,”
&c., &c.
[A] “Gentle reader, pardon this coarse expression; none other in the
English language is sufficiently strong to express my horror and
contempt of the miscreant to whom it is applied.”