“WHATEVER OTHER FAULTS I MAY HAVE, THAT OF LETTING GO MY HOLD IS NOT
ONE.”
Among the topics which, of recent years, had been current matter for
discussion, our relations with the United States were not the least
important. The dispute, arising from repeated violations of neutrality
on the part of England, which ultimately led to the war of 1812, was
the fruit of purely administrative errors; and had nothing to do with
the popular sentiment of this country. The two nations had become
reconciled, for fifteen years past; and, had it not been for the
arbitrary assumptions put forth by the British Government, on the basis
of our alleged naval supremacy, every aspect gave promise of close
international friendship.
It may be said, however, that the contest had its beneficial side.
The peace, which ensued, has never since been broken: quite as much,
perhaps, because conciliation has since become the ruling idea in
English foreign politics, as on account of any fanciful beliefs in the
abstract inutility of war. The last lingering traditions, as to the
possibility of the Yankees being coerced, were banished from the minds
of English statesmen by the events of this naval war; and, such point
gained, the fogs of many minor prejudices naturally disappeared.
* * * * *
Of those persons who, with pen in hand, aided in the solution of the
questions in dispute with, and in the enlightenment of the people
concerning, the United States of America, there is none whose services
can be compared with those of the subject of these pages. Whilst the
London press was encouraging the Government, besides misleading the
people as to the real nature and prospects of the conflict, Mr. Cobbett
was declaring, as he had been declaring from the first: that the points
in dispute would have to be given up, or the war would last for years.
Mr. Cobbett’s patriotism, and Mr. Cobbett’s decency were, as usual,
called in question; but the “points” were unreservedly relinquished,
and Mr. Cobbett was right, once more.
So, it came to pass that another reconciliation ensued besides that
between the two peoples. The Republicans of New York and Philadelphia
discovered that Peter Porcupine was not such a vile wretch after all.
They read his _Register_, and reprinted portions of it.[1] They sent
him newspapers. And one effusive committee, of Albany, New York, sent
him a suit of clothes (“made of cloth manufactured in this State, from
wool grown within it.”)[2]
There followed, of course, effusiveness on the part of Mr. Cobbett.
Theirs was a free country, where the truth might be spoken and written,
without fear of an Attorney-general; there were still many political
evils rampant there, but the mass of the people were enlightened; they
would produce their own wool, in spite of the Yorkshire clothiers;
they would soon have a fleet, have manufactures, take the lead in
agriculture, and set an example to the world of civil and religious
liberty. And, he expressed his great pleasure, nay pride, that his
weekly essays were thought worthy of being moulded into pamphlets and
books, for the use of the free American nation.
All this led, at last, to closer intercourse, and, upon repeated
difficulties occurring with the Post Office, Mr. Cobbett resolved
to attempt an American edition of the _Political Register_, with
the twofold object of cementing these pleasant relations, and of
allowing a little more freedom in the handling of certain delicate
matters. Accordingly, an office was opened in New York, early in 1816,
(under the care of one Oldfield, and a nephew, Henry Cobbett), for
the purposes of this republication. This was not, however, an affair
of long continuance; its failure being partly due to post-office
vigilance, by means of which a good deal of the MS. despatched to
America found its way into the office of Lord Castlereagh.
It will be understood, then, that there were plenty of inducements
for a short visit to the United States. And, upon landing at New York,
early in May, 1817, Mr. Cobbett found that he had rightly judged the
temper of the Americans; for he was immediately surrounded with new
friends; while old ones from Pennsylvania turned up from time to time.
His first step, the day after his arrival, was to cross into Long
Island and look about for a farm: an object of no very great
difficulty. The next was to begin writing to his “beloved countrymen.”
And the next may be guessed from the fact, that, on the day that his
countrymen once more read the _Register_ in the middle of July, a crop
of peas was gathered which he had himself sown.
The farm in Long Island soon became the house of call for emigrants
from England. Farmers who had “escaped from the tax-gatherer,”
and had brought out the remnant of their fortunes; journeymen and
labourers, “escaping from tyranny;” countrymen, fleeing from ruin and
starvation--even tradesmen, in despair, were flocking over; besides
numbers of people who, from their previous training or occupations,
were unfit for emigration. And the people of England, in consequence,
knew more about life in America than they ever knew before.[3]
Intermingled with the usual comments and warnings on current politics,
Mr. Cobbett gave his readers minute and graphic details of his mode
of life, and of the happiness and comfort around him: with no taxes,
tithes, nor game-laws; no excisemen, spies, nor packed juries; no
Castlereaghs, Eldons, Ellenboroughs, nor Sidmouths; labourers with
plenty to eat and drink;--a fine climate, good neighbours, and a
wide-spreading scene of general comfort and well-being; for everybody
who came out resolved to work with honesty and spirit.
Of course, all these glowing accounts would sometimes bring out the
wrong sort of men. Not only the lazy, who had estimated the prospects
of emigration without including the important factor of hard work:
but agents, and land-jobbers, and superficial gallopers through the
country; many of these were induced to come, and went home again to
tell of their disgust, at not finding the riches of the country flow
into their open mouths.[4]
Upon the whole, Mr. Cobbett must be considered to have greatly
benefited his fellow-countrymen by his short settlement in Long Island;
not only by truthful and painstaking accounts of the modes of life,
and the resources of the country, but by his oft-repeated inculcation
of industry, perseverance, and the moral virtues. But this is not all.
This period saw the commencement of what is, in some respects, the
most useful part of Mr. Cobbett’s career; that part, namely, during
which he served the cause of sound popular education.
His purpose, to this end, is first announced in a letter to Mr. Benbow,
one of the recently imprisoned printers under the “Gagging” Act:--
“I now proceed to develope my plan for assisting in the
acquirement of book-learning all those against whom the
Borough-mongers have, in a great degree, closed the door to
such learning, and whom they have the insolence to denominate
the ‘Lower Orders.’ To effect this object it is my intention
to publish, at a very cheap rate (though the word _cheap_ may
shake the nerves of Sidmouth and Canning to jelly)--at a very
cheap rate it is my intention to publish--First, ‘An English
Grammar for the use of apprentices, plough-boys, soldiers,
and sailors.’ Second, ‘A History of the Laws and Constitution
of England,’ for the use of the same description of persons.
Third, ‘A History of the Church and of Religion in England,
in which will be seen the origin of the present _claims_ of
the clergy, and in which their _duties_ will also be shown,’
for the use of the same description of persons. Fourth, ‘A
view of the present state of the Income, Debt, and Expenses
of the Kingdom; its Population and Paupers; its causes of
Embarrassment and Misery, and the means of Restoration to ease
and happiness,’ for the use of the same description of persons.”
The plan was not carried out in its entirety; although much of the
material was furnished, in one form or other, in the pages of the
_Register_ during the ensuing years of its course. The idea, at any
rate, was pursued in the numerous essays on history and political
economy presented to his readers from time to time. As for the Grammar,
that was put in hand at once, and was published in London in December,
1818.
The success of the “English Grammar” was what might have been expected.
Ten thousand copies were sold in a few weeks; a third edition being
called for before the end of February. And it holds its own to this
day--not as a class-book, for which it is unfit from its verbosity
and its odd mixture of politics and humour; but for the purpose of
self-education, for which it is of unrivalled value.
The Grammar had been preceded, in London, by “A Year’s Residence
in America,” which purported to give current information as to the
condition and prospects of the country, besides a journal of his own
proceedings. Mr. Cobbett’s hands were, therefore, full of work as ever;
and his mind full as ever of thoughts concerning his own country. He
tells Major Cartwright (who had written to inform Cobbett that he might
safely return home) that he has begun several works, which, if he does
not finish them now, he is sure he never shall. A little later, he
writes to Henry Hunt, that he shall move the moment he thinks that he
can do more good that way than by remaining; feeling quite certain as
to the final issue of the great cause.
And he tells his readers that he has, in no sense, abandoned England:
that the farther he is distant from England the stronger he always
finds his attachment toward her. A year’s absence had cooled his
resentment; while it had, if possible, added to his feelings of
affection toward his countrymen. “All the good that he had left behind
was constantly in his thoughts, while the bad gradually became less and
less frequently thought of.”
Not that, however, the warfare upon Corruption was to cease. He was
there “to uphold the honour of England,” and to “aim deadly blows
against her tyrants.” And no better proof of the need of his lash could
be found, than is furnished by the continued attacks upon his character.
But he had the ear of millions of people, who were suffering, more or
less undeservedly, from the tyranny and misgovernment of irresponsible
persons; and what was it, that the supporters of the Irresponsible
classes continued their falsehoods and malignity? So the _Register_
pursued its wonderful course, “skimming over the face of the Atlantic
like the dove, of the innocence of which it partook;” and still finding
its way into thousands of English cottage homes.
The governing principle of Mr. Cobbett’s political leanings was,
still, his hatred of a paper-currency. And, in the year 1819, upon
hearing that Parliament was preparing to authorize an early resumption
of cash payment on the part of the Bank of England, he foresaw the
inevitable panic and distress which must further ensue, before the
country could again tread the path of prosperity. Hence, he thought,
the opportunity for the Parliamentary Reformers: the certainty that the
cause would be nearer of attainment; and he at once prepared for his
return home. There was little to keep him in Long Island, separated
from the bulk of his family: a farm was easily disposed of; and an
accidental fire upon the premises--which caused him to seek shelter
in a tent, “the walls of which were made of _Morning Chronicles_ and
_Couriers_, pasted upon laths that were a foot asunder,”--only gave
occasion for expediting his departure.
There was, however, another “duty” (as he deemed it) to perform before
leaving the soil of America. That self-imposed task was one of the most
difficult, one of the most delicate, to which a man might lend himself:
the attempt to do honour to a name which the world had chosen to scorn.
The severest test, which Mr. Cobbett had ever yet applied to public
opinion, was now to be outdone; for the name in question was that of
THOMAS PAINE.[5]
Chalmers’s life of Paine, written in 1792, had merits of its own, which
suited the violent and depraved taste of the times. It speedily ran
through many editions; and no one contributed more to its circulation
than Peter Porcupine, who reprinted it in his _Censor_ of September,
1796, “interspersed with remarks and reflections.” But a neophyte
writer, ardent in cotemporary loyalism, reading and greedily sucking-in
the venomous plausibilities of Chalmers, is one thing: the same person
coming to read, in his days of maturity, Paine’s eloquent pleadings
against oppression and misrule, is another; especially if maturity
of strength and wisdom has brought with it a full admission of old
weaknesses: renunciation of ignorance and folly. So Mr. Cobbett
found that Thomas Paine was not such a blackguard: not so deserving
of the abuse which he had helped to pour upon him; and proceeded,
accordingly, to make reparation, by extolling Paine’s merits as a
writer (whilst, however, condemning his theology), and recommending the
writings to his friends, whenever opportunity served. That which had
led him to study Paine for himself was “The Decline and Fall of the
English System of Finance,” a pamphlet in which Paine had distinctly
foretold the bursting of the paper-money bubble; and the reader will
understand Cobbett’s great enthusiasm, upon the discovery that Paine’s
elucidations furnished him with a key to what he considered the leading
peril of the nation.
All this, however, might have casually passed into the catalogue of Mr.
Cobbett’s “inconsistencies,” without attracting special notice, but for
the following circumstances:--
Paine had wished to be buried in the Quaker burial-ground of New York;
but the request was denied--the principal alleged reason being that
many persons had already accused the sect of Deism, and that, if they
allowed this interment, the accusation would have a circumstance to
rest upon. Mr. Paine was, therefore, buried in the corner of one of his
own fields.
In September or October, 1819, the land having been previously sold,
with a reservation of that particular spot, the person, whose business
it was to take care of that little corner, was so sensible of the risk
of disturbance to Paine’s ashes that he commenced a negotiation for the
purpose of having them transferred to a New York churchyard. The utmost
that could be obtained was “leave to put them in the ground in a refuse
place, where strangers and soldiers and other friendless persons were
usually buried.”
Under these circumstances, Mr. Cobbett (whose farm lay only a few miles
off from New Rochelle) resolved that Paine’s bones should “really have
honourable burial!”
“Paine lies in a little hole under the grass and weeds of an
obscure farm in America. There, however, he shall not lie,
unnoticed, much longer. He belongs to England. His fame is the
property of England; and if no other people will show that they
value that fame, the people of England will. Yes, amongst the
pleasures that I promise myself, is that of seeing the name of
Paine honoured in every part of England; where base corruption
caused him, while alive, to be burnt in effigy.”
Now this, be it observed in passing, was quite in accord with Cobbett’s
habitual notions as to the reverent treatment of the dead; as any
industrious reader of him well knows.[6]
He now proceeded to keep the subject alive by frequent references; and,
at last, announced that the coffin had been taken up, and would be sent
off to England in the same condition as it was found.
“We will honour his name,” he says, “his remains and his
memory, in all sorts of ways. While the dead Borough-mongers,
and the base slaves who have been their tools, moulder away
under unnoticed masses of marble and brass, the tomb of this
‘Noble of Nature’ will be an object of pilgrimage with the
people.… Let this be considered the act of the Reformers of
England, Scotland, and Ireland. In their name we opened the
grave, and in their name will the tomb be raised. We do not
look upon ourselves as adopting _all_ Paine’s opinions upon
all subjects. He was a great man, an Englishman, a friend of
freedom, and the first and greatest enemy of the Borough and
Paper System. This is enough for us.”
So, with this unusual piece of luggage in his possession, Mr. Cobbett
returned to England, reaching Liverpool at the end of November, 1819,
in company with his son William.
* * * * *
The conspiracy panic had well-nigh died away. But, in August, 1819,
the memorable occurrence, known as the Manchester massacre, was the
means of reanimating the fears of ministers, through the spirit of
indignation which it had roused throughout the land. Parliament was
called together in November, for the purpose of fresh repressive
legislation; the product of which was the celebrated series, known as
the _Six Acts_.[7]
It was at this juncture that Mr. Cobbett met his friends again at
Liverpool: to the dismay of some, who told him that he was “jumping
into the lion’s mouth:” to the joy of the great body of Reformers, who
hastened to testify their gratification by every means in their power.
From the towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, especially, the Reformers
crowded forward with addresses of welcome: in spite of the revived
opposition of authority--opposition which was displayed in an unusual
manner; as, when a poor fellow was put into jail, for going round
the town of Bolton with the crier’s bell, in order to announce Mr.
Cobbett’s safe return. Into jail, for ten weeks![8]
There was no need for violence on either side. As for Mr. Cobbett,
he was constantly urging that “our cause” was “too good for any
violence:” that he would have nothing to do with Reformers who called
themselves Republicans. His first essays, after his return, are models
of temperateness and wisdom: advice to the prime minister upon the
condition of the country, and advice to the Reformers on sobriety and
frugality: writings which would have raised a new man to immediate fame
and fortune. But, they came from an old offender, whose unasked advice
had too long been a terror. Violence, on the part of Mr. Cobbett’s
opponents, did not cease--and he had, unfortunately, by his own
imprudence, placed the means of violence in their hands. In the first
place, the incident of Paine’s bones, coming at the time it did, was
enough to damn any man’s reputation for discretion as to the fitness
of things--nothing could have been more inopportune. In America, it
was true, people were beginning to understand Paine, and republish
his works. But in England, he was known only by his theology; and was
branded as an Atheist, by the hirelings who could not, or dare not
try to, refute him. No name on earth was buried beneath such a weight
of obloquy. So, nothing could be easier, nothing so effective, as to
couple the two names. And any fool who chose to call Mr. Cobbett an
atheist, upon the word of some “constitutional” pamphleteer, could
do so. As for the unfortunate bones, there never was such a joke! An
ephemeral literature actually sprung up, on the topic[9]--whilst, from
the custom house officers at Liverpool, startled at the unexpected
importation,--to the man who now has them in his possession: from the
man who recorded the arrival of the “bone-grubber,” to our very latest
historical sketcher: the affair has been a laughing-stock.
And it cannot be said that this derision is altogether unmerited. Mr.
Cobbett ought to have known his countrymen well enough, to remember
that “relics” of this sort are thrown away upon them. He should have
known that such a freak as his could only be safely performed, by
an organized and influential public movement; and then, only, with
a certainty of having to face disagreeable controversy. That the
bones will be wanted, some day, may be safely predicted; knowing
what we do of THE WHIRLIGIG OF TIME. But the business of raising a
monument, recording the wisdom and political virtues of Thomas Paine,
will scarcely be within the scope of that man’s powers who “stands
alone.”[10]
Again, a subject which had greatly disturbed the minds of Mr. Cobbett’s
friends was his relation with Sir Francis Burdett. The latter had
advanced money to Cobbett (or to Wright for him), and there appeared
little probability of its being repaid. Mr. Cobbett had acknowledged
the debt (with some sort of protest, however), and promised to repay
it, after he was enabled to provide for his family again.
Sir Francis Burdett had already inspired suspicion, in the breasts
of the Reformers, as not being in earnest. He had called upon the
people, for several years past, to “rally” and to “come forward,”
and so on; but would back out of it at a critical juncture. He was
still “Westminster’s pride and England’s glory,” in the hands of
a Westminster clique; but, when the troubles of 1816-1817 began,
he seemed to shrink from the cause of Reform. Perhaps he dreaded
Republicanism, or had some other good reason for his backwardness.
Certain it is, that, just before the opening of parliament in 1817,
when all the leaders were wanted at their posts, Burdett was not there.
And, upon Lord Cochrane proposing an amendment to the Address, which
would have at least produced debate, Sir Francis allowed the motion
to drop without a seconder. Now, this was so much like all the Whig
popularity-hunting; and this end so much like the end of that,--that
Cartwright and all the hearty Reformers ceased to put great faith
in Burdett; and Mr. Cobbett only spoke the feelings of all, when he
indignantly pointed out what was very like a betrayal of the cause. The
only explanation that appears to have been obtained from Burdett was a
protest against “being used as a puppet.”
Among the newspaper anecdotes which synchronized with Cobbett’s
departure for America, was one concerning the debt of 3000_l._ to Sir
Francis. This was the first the public heard of it. And, upon Mr.
Cobbett proceeding to castigate Burdett for his lukewarmness, people
called it “ingratitude” and “inconsistency.” This, however, might
have been treated with contempt, but for the publication of some
correspondence in the _Examiner_, which made it appear that Mr. Cobbett
meant to repudiate the debt; a construction which it was quite possible
to form, without knowing all the circumstances, and by the easy process
of reading “extracts.”[11]
So, after Cobbett’s return from America, almost till the last year of
his life, his money-affairs with Burdett were repeatedly cropping up,
both in the newspapers and in the _Political Register_. The matter is
not creditable to either of the parties. And when, after Cobbett’s
death, upon a proposal to raise some kind of memorial, Sir Francis sent
the 3000_l._ bond to the committee, telling them that they could take
his subscription out of that; it looked a very unworthy proceeding on
the part of a man, who had really owed a vast deal of his popularity
and distinction to Mr. Cobbett’s zealous advocacy. Burdett’s vanity
was at least equal to Cobbett’s egotism; and neither could forgive the
other, after their special weaknesses had been shown up at each other’s
hands. Several endeavours at reconciliation were made, on the part of
mutual friends, but they ended in nothing.
Another episode, of this period, gave still more trouble to Mr.
Cobbett. There was an influential batch of politicians in Westminster,
of which Francis Place was one of the leaders. Their liberalism went
in the line of electoral purity, and verged toward Republicanism; and
their favourites were Burdett and Hobhouse. At the election of June,
1818, Henry Hunt stood as a candidate, and this clique (known as the
Rump Committee) opposed him with all their might. The secretary and
agent was one Thomas Cleary, who had given much aid as promoter of
Hampden clubs throughout the country, and was studying as a barrister.
Mr. John Wright was connected with this set; and, being in possession
of several hundred of Cobbett’s old letters,[12] found one among them
which reflected strongly upon Hunt’s private character. We have already
perused it, as the reader will recollect.[13] Wright showed this to
Francis Place, and Place showed it to Cleary, who read it out to the
electors, on the first opportunity: adding, “In the language of Mr.
Cobbett, I have only to say, ‘He’s a sad fellow, beware of him.’” So
electoral purity draws the line at some point or other: in this case,
at the point outside of which lies a detestable breach of confidence.
The consequences may be imagined. Mr. Cobbett first heard of it through
the medium of a New York paper, and lost his temper over it. Both
Cobbett and Burdett had associated with Mr. Hunt, of late years: had
gone sporting with him, and had even been under the same roof with “the
lady.” This was stronger in Mr. Cobbett’s recollection than the memory
of his first scanty acquaintance with Hunt; and a hasty note, written
more than ten years ago, had entirely faded from his memory. So he, in
his first outburst of anger, charged Cleary with forging the letter;
and, afterward, on several occasions, represented Wright as a rogue,
“unparalleled in the annals of infamy;” giving his readers a graphic
story of how the latter had falsified accounts; and how his little son
had been a witness (in Newgate) of the “big drops of sweat standing
upon the caitiff’s brow,” upon the occasion of his detection.
Now, this was quite indefensible. And the only excuse that can be made
is that Mr. Cobbett had been gradually losing his habitual coolness
and calmness in the face of calumny. Instead of his old habit of
treating it with contempt, he had begun the practice of answering
misrepresentation: the very thing that your scandal-monger likes. And,
in this case, three thousand miles away, with at least three months’
interval between a calumny and the possibility of a retort; and with
a growing habit of nursing political and personal grievances: it is
no wonder that he flew into a passion; and, in the end, so exposed
Mr. Cleary that many of the latter’s friends refused to have any
more dealings with him, or even to hold discourse with him. So, upon
Cobbett’s return to England, Cleary challenged him to fight; of course
to no purpose. He then brought an action, laying the damages at two
thousand pounds. The jury showed what they thought of the matter, by
awarding him forty shillings.[14]
A few days afterward, the case of _Wright_ v. _Cobbett_ was heard.
This was a more serious affair. The imputations against Wright were
quite needless, even if they could be justified. And the defendant, at
the last moment, withdrew his plea of justification from the record,
and based his defence upon the fact that his son (and not himself) was
the present proprietor of the _Register_: that his sons were in the
habit of altering his manuscript at their discretion. These technical
pretences, so commonly resorted to, might have answered very well in
the hands of a practised lawyer; but, with the “defendant in person,”
it was like a child playing with edged tools. And against Scarlett,
too, one of the cleverest counsel of the day; a man who hated the
Reform set; and who had, in the House of Commons, alluded to Cobbett
as a “contemptible scribbler,” and, on the present occasion, could go
out of his way to say how much he approved of Cobbett’s early estimate
of Paine, and his former writings generally. He maintained that the
letter which Cleary read, and which had caused all the trouble, was
one intended for publication, although the judge (at the former
trial) had very strongly reprobated Cleary’s conduct. Whilst he, of
course, enjoyed a complete triumph over the withdrawal of the plea of
justification, and the clumsy efforts of the defendant to make his sons
responsible.
The folly and conceit of appearing “in person” was never more signally
exemplified; especially as Mr. Cobbett had, just then, his hands full
over the poor Queen,[15] and over his own chaotic pecuniary affairs;
and it was sufficiently punished by the result. The jury deliberated
for nearly two hours, and brought in a verdict of 1000_l._ damages.
* * * * *
These things were “much against him,” as Lord Brougham would say. The
press got into the way of saying that Cobbett had lost all character,
and all respect, and so on. New pamphlets came out: the patriot was
really down, this time; and his fate squared so neatly with all that
had been predicted of him, and of every subverter of the constitution.
But, there are reputations, and reputations:
“Pygmies are pygmies still, though perch’d on alps,
And pyramids are pyramids in vales!”
And, whilst a good name is not to be thought lightly of, it is not
every one’s esteem that can be considered man’s best and highest
reward. The hollow, specious, moral judgments of mankind, when under
the dominion of prejudice, are not the standards by which to judge the
men of life and earnestness: the men whose convictions, and not whose
personal interests, mark their path. And, in the case in point: the
moral judgment of all the toad-eaters and the place-hunters of the day
could hardly be a desirable standard, wherewith to gauge the character
of a man whose faults lay just upon the surface; whose faults could, by
no possible twist or distortion of idea, be shown to proceed from bad
impulses.[16]
What “interests” Mr. Cobbett had, were now unmistakably identified with
those of the labouring classes of England; and, at last, he had got a
good hearing from those classes. The distinction of classes, wantonly
and unnecessarily proclaimed for twenty years past, was now confirmed;
and the ten years of George the Fourth’s reign mark the period of
conflict which was partly the result of this forced distinction. The
end of this conflict, and the ultimate triumph of the popular cause,
is matter of history: the bloodless reformation of 1832 has saved
the British Constitution, instead of destroying it. That triumph of
principles was the work of neither Whig nor Tory. It came from the
provoked and suffering people themselves. The greater the provocation,
the deeper the suffering,--the more certain was to be the end: and
from them, alone, it came. And, as more light is thrown, from time to
time, upon these stirring days, the better can we see who were the real
leaders and guiders in Reform; and who was the greatest of them all.
For, until this SAMSON arose, the progress of the cause had been little
better than a series of ridiculous evasions and desertions.
FOOTNOTES
[1] _Niles’s Register_, published at Baltimore, a weekly journal of
extended influence, had begun by abusing Cobbett, but speedily found it
was better worth while to reprint his writings concerning America. Some
of the independent republications were,--
“Porcupine Revived; or, An Old Thing Made New. Being (1) An Argument
against the Expediency of a War with England; (2) An Exposition of the
Absurdity of sending Albert Gallatin to treat with the British. By
William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1813.) The editor is a Federalist,
and thinks it surprising that Cobbett should have described so
accurately seventeen years ago the _present_ condition of the States.
“Letters on the Late War between the United States and Great Britain,
&c., &c., by William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1815). The preface is
highly eulogistic, and forgives all Cobbett’s former wickedness.
“The Pride of Britannia Humbled; or, The Queen of the Ocean Unqueen’d
by the American Cock-boats, &c., &c. Illustrated and demonstrated
by four Letters to Lord Liverpool, by William Cobbett, Esq.”
(Philadelphia, 1815). This editor is also very magnanimous.
It was a marked characteristic of the estimates formed by Cobbett’s
cotemporaries that the party, or the set, which he for the time being
appeared to support, readily overlooked his former opinions and
so-called “inconsistencies.” This applies to London, as well as to
Philadelphia. Never was a man so readily forgiven. Envy alone was his
enduring enemy, as it always is to great abilities and to superior
personal character.
[2] We get a glimpse of home over this incident:--“The youngest asked
where Albany was. He ran to the map. And then the little pamphlet from
Boston; they looked into it; they saw the same thing which they had,
one or the other of them, written at my dictation only a few months
before. Who would barter such pleasures for all the wealth and all the
titles in the world?”
[3] That cruel urgency, _want of space_, forbids the insertion here of
many a smart illustrative extract from Cobbett’s American writings.
The following must suffice, being parts of a letter “to the people of
Botley,” dated 10th November, 1818:--
“My old Neighbours,--Great as the distance between you and me is, I
very often think of you, and especially when I buy _salt_, which our
neighbour Warner used to sell us for 19_s._ a bushel, and which I buy
here for 2_s._ 6_d._ This salt is made, you know, down somewhere by
Hamble. This very salt, when brought here from England, has all the
charges of freight, insurance, wharfage, steerage to pay. It pays,
besides, one third of its value in duty to the American Government
before it be landed here. Then, you will observe, there is the profit
of the American salt merchant; and then that of the shopkeeper who
sells me the salt. And, after all this, I buy that very Hampshire salt
for 2_s._ 6_d._ a bushel, English measure. What a Government, then,
must that of the borough-mongers be! The salt is a gift of God. It is
thrown on the shore. And yet these tyrants will not suffer us to use it
until we have paid them 15_s._ a bushel for liberty to use it.…
“You are compelled to pay the borough-mongers a heavy tax on your
_candles_ and _soap_. You dare not _make_ candles and soap, though
you have the fat and the ashes in abundance. If you attempt to do
this, you are taken up and imprisoned; and if you resist, soldiers are
brought to shoot you. This is _freedom_, is it? Now we, here, make our
own candles and soap. Farmers sometimes _sell_ soap and candles, but
they never _buy_ any. A labouring man, or a mechanic, buys a sheep
now and then. Three or four days’ work will buy a labourer a sheep to
weigh sixty pounds, with seven or eight pounds of loose fat. The meat
keeps very well, in winter, for a long time. The wool makes stockings,
and the loose fat is made into candles and soap. The year before I
left Hampshire, a poor woman at Holly Hill had dipped some rushes in
grease to use instead of candles. An exciseman found it out, went and
ransacked her house, and told her that, if the rushes had had _another
dip_, they would have been _candles_, and she must have gone to gaol!
Why, my friends, if such a thing were told here, nobody would believe
it.…
“I have had living with me an English labourer. He smokes tobacco,
and he tells me that he can buy as much tobacco here for three cents,
that is about three English half-pence, as he could buy in England for
three shillings. The leather has no tax on it here; so that, though the
shoemaker is paid a high price for his labour, the labouring man gets
his shoes very cheap. In short, there is no excise here, no property
tax, no assessed taxes. We have no such men as Chiddel and Billy Tovey
to come and take our money from us; no window-peepers; no spies to keep
a look out as to our carriages, and horses, and dogs.… We may wear
hair-powder if we like, without paying for it, and a boy in our houses
may whet our knives without our paying 2_l._ a year for it.”
“I have talked to several farmers here about the tithes in England,
and _they laugh_. They sometimes almost make me angry, for they seem,
at last, not to believe what I say when I tell them that the English
farmer gives, and is compelled to give, the parson a tenth part of
his whole crop, and of his fruit, and milk, and eggs, and calves, and
lambs, and pigs, and wool, and honey. They cannot believe this. They
treat it as a sort of _romance_.…
“To another of my neighbours … I was telling the story about the poor
woman at Holly Hill, who had nearly dipped her rushes once too often.
He is a very grave and religious man. He looked very seriously at me,
and said that falsehood was falsehood, whether in jest or earnest.”
[4] There was a good deal of controversy concerning land-jobbing in
America about this time. Mr. Morris Birkbeck, a prosperous farmer at
Wanborough, in Surrey, left England with some highly coloured notions
in his mind concerning the western territories of the United States,
and produced two separate accounts, with the object of inducing British
emigrants to follow him (“Notes on a Journey in America, from the
Coast of Virginia to the Territory of Illinois,” and “Letters from
Illinois”). Cobbett gave him a letter or two, under the impression
that Birkbeck’s expectations were too fascinating. Mr. Birkbeck
was unfortunately soon afterwards drowned in crossing a river. Mr.
Henry Bradshaw Fearon, surgeon, went out under the auspices of some
emigration committee. His was a somewhat “evil report,” and amongst
other matters recorded a visit to Cobbett’s house in Long Island,
which, he said, was mouldering to decay, that the fences were in
ruins, and that the scene produced thoughts of melancholy (“Sketches
of America: a Narrative of a Journey of 5000 Miles through the
Eastern and Western States of America; with Remarks on Mr. Birkbeck’s
‘Notes’ and ‘Letters’”). The same candid pen which had endeavoured to
check Birkbeck’s too great enthusiasm now had the duty to perform of
chastising the author of these misrepresentations, and of Fearon’s
general bad account of the Americans. Mr. Benjamin Flower also
travelled westward, and sent home “Letters from the Illinois” (London,
1822). See, besides these, Faux’s “Memorable days in America” (London
1823).
[5] Mr. Paine has been variously described as a traitor, an apostate,
a seducer, an infidel, a rogue, an outcast, and--“one of the most
enlightened and benevolent men that ever lived.” The reconciling of
these things must be left to his biographer; meanwhile, the following
facts are all that are necessary to be at present noted:--Paine had
been an exciseman, and discovered that he could write by the production
of an eloquent pamphlet upon some grievance of the excise-officers.
He had written poems, and enjoyed the friendship of Oliver Goldsmith.
Being introduced to Dr. Franklin, he was induced to visit Philadelphia;
and there he wrote a pamphlet under the title of “Common Sense,” which
is generally asserted to have been a leading factor in producing the
Declaration of Independence, being read and reprinted by hundreds of
thousands. Honours came upon him; he was made Secretary to Congress
for Foreign Affairs, and remained in America some dozen years. At
the outbreak of the French Revolution, Paine was in London again,
enjoying the friendship of Edmund Burke, whom, from the part the
latter took concerning the American Revolution, Paine “naturally
considered a friend to mankind.” Mr. Burke’s celebrated “Reflections
on the Revolution in France” was, however, the means of sundering this
friendship; and the tract was answered by Paine in “The Rights of
Man,” a pamphlet which produced even more delight among the advanced
liberals of the day than Burke’s had with the terrified aristocracy.
The “answer” to Paine was his “Life,” “by Francis Oldys, A.M.” (one
of the most horrible collections of abuse which even that venal
day produced), written by George Chalmers, a Government clerk and
pamphleteer, who, by the way, did much better work as an antiquarian
and historical compiler. A second part of “The Rights of Man” followed
this, and a Government prosecution succeeded that. A verdict of guilty,
however, found the culprit a Member of the French National Convention;
for no less than four constituencies had elected him, on his reputation
alone. He sat for Calais; was near losing his head, for his vote on
the side of humanity, when Louis XVI. was arraigned; wrote “The Age
of Reason” in prison; eventually returned to America, and died (1809)
in his seventy-third year, at his farm at New Rochelle, Long Island;
which farm had been the gift of the nation about a quarter of a century
previously.
[6] As, for example, under the head “Peterborough,” in the
“Geographical Dictionary,” where Cobbett enters into a lament that to
“the infamy” of Henry VIII., “and the shame of after-ages, there is no
monument to record” the virtues and sufferings of Catherine of Arragon,
who lies beneath the floor of the Cathedral; that the remains of Mary
Queen of Scots had been taken thence to Westminster Abbey, while those
of the _virtuous_ queen were suffered to remain unhonoured, &c.
[7] To Prevent the Training of Persons to the Use of Arms.
For the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of Blasphemous and
Seditious Libels.
To Authorize the Seizure and Detention of Arms on the part of Justices
of the Peace.
To Subject certain Publications to the Newspaper-Stamp Duty.
For more effectually Preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies.
To Prevent Delay in the Administration of Justice in Cases of
Misdemeanour.
[8] “Authority” must have been in a terrible fright, if we may judge
from the following (from the _Statesman_ [London] newspaper, Dec. 2,
1819):--
“Manchester, Nov. 29.--Expected arrival of Mr. Cobbett.--Though the
morning was very rainy, the expectation of Mr. Cobbett’s arrival in
this town attracted great numbers of persons from different parts of
the country. The local authorities were on the alert, and military
arrangements were made, which were as formidable as those of the 16th
of August. Several pieces of cannon were brought into the town last
night, but the yeomanry cavalry had received no orders, nor did they
make their appearance to-day. Hussars were stationed on different parts
of the Liverpool road, in order to give immediate information of Mr.
C.’s movements.”
The Borough reeves and constables placarded the town, recommending the
people to keep within doors, and also addressed Mr. Cobbett, informing
him that if he made a public entry into Manchester, it would be their
“indispensable duty immediately to interfere.”
The Reformers met this with a counter-placard:--“No procession.--In
consequence of a placard posted this morning (joined with military
arrangements, similar to those which preceded the fatal 16th of August
last), … the _real friends_ of peace (the principal Reformers of
Manchester) request the public not to give the fiends of St. Peter’s
another opportunity of shedding innocent blood, but to stay at home,
and thus disappoint them of their prey.”
[9] “Ode on the Bones of the Immortal Thomas Paine, newly transferred
from America to England, by the no less immortal William Cobbett, Esq.”
“Sketches of the Life of Billy Cobb and the Death of Tommy Pain,
compiled from Original Documents obtained in an Original Manner.”
“The Real or Constitutional House that Jack Built,” has a cut of
Cobbett shouldering a coffin. The character of this pamphlet may be
judged by the following, addressed to the “first gent:”--
“This is the prince of a generous mind,
The friend of his country and all mankind,
Who, lending his ear to the dictates of truth,” &c.
As for the newspaper rhymesters, the episode of “Cobbett and Paine”
was quite a godsend to them. And the reader who knows anything of
election-squibbing will recall his own delights, when he thinks of the
fun the Preston and Coventry people came to have over these poor bones.
[10] Oddly enough, there was another case of “bone-grubbing,” just
after this escapade of Cobbett’s. The remains of Major André were
exhumed and brought to England; and, considering that that unlucky
officer met with the usual fate of a detected spy, the circumstance
afforded Mr. Cobbett a fair opportunity of returning some of the
pleasantries. As André’s name has not yet been dropped from the
biographical dictionaries, his story will be found in “Chambers’s
Encyclopædia,” and elsewhere.
[11] _Vide_ “Correspondence between Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Tipper, and
Sir Francis Burdett.” “A Letter to the Friends of Liberty, on the
Correspondence, &c., by Thomas Dolby.” “A Defence of Mr. Cobbett,
against the Intrigues of Sir Francis Burdett and his partisans.”
[12] Which letters, preserved in two quarto volumes, have happily
become the property of the nation.
[13] _Vide_ page 65.
[14] Brougham was Cleary’s counsel. Cobbett very ably defended himself,
and produced one of his best jokes on this occasion. Referring to
the plaintiff’s diminished prospects at the bar, alleged to be in
consequence of these events, he added, “It was held to be a crime, even
by poachers, to destroy young birds; and how criminal, then, must he
(the defendant) be, if he really had _crushed a lawyer in the egg_!”
[15] Cobbett’s action with reference to Queen Caroline is another of
those matters which caused unmitigable hatred on the part of the “first
gent” and his ministers. He had contributed, during the year 1811, to
the republication of the notorious “Book,” the entire impression of
which was supposed, till then, to have been destroyed. On the Queen’s
return to England, in 1820, the Reformers took up her cause with great
zeal, under some impression that their own was identified therewith.
Whilst Brougham, and Denman, and the leading Whigs patronized her in
public; Dr. Parr, Alderman Wood, and Mr. Cobbett were at her elbow
behind the scenes. The celebrated letter from the Queen to the King
(which was returned unopened, but read with eager delight by all the
nation) was from Cobbett’s pen.
The whole story is graphically told by Cobbett, in the “History of the
Regency and Reign of George IV.,” and his cotemporary articles will be
found in the _Registers_ of 1820.
[16] Among the anti-Cobbett literature of this period which has not
utterly perished, may be named,--
“The Political Death of Mr. William Cobbett” (Edinburgh, 1820), a short
collection of slanders, intermingled with just sufficient truth to
float it.
“The Book of Wonders” (London, 1821), an occasional publication. The
second number was a _verbatim_ report of the trial in Wright _v._
Cobbett, illustrated with notes.
“Cobbett’s Gridiron: written to warn Farmers of their Danger, and to
put Landowners, Mortgagees, Lenders, Borrowers, the Labouring, and
indeed all Classes of the Community on their Guard” (London, 1822).
“The True Patriot,” No. 1, May 15, 1824,--should have been entitled
“The Truthful Hypocrite.”
“Cobbett’s Reflections on Religion,” and “Cobbett’s Reflections on
Politics” (Sunderland, _circa_ 1820-1), were “loyal” selections from
his early writings.
“The Gridiron; or, Cook’s Weekly Register.” First number, March 23,
1822. Here are specimens of it:--
[“Our present intention is, principally, to exterminate Cobbett from
the political world. The time required to effect this, of course,
cannot be distinctly defined.…
“In our immediate attacks upon Cobbett, we request our readers to
excuse the coarseness of the language adopted.”
“Farmers’ wives.--It is now but a few years since that an old
shameless, wicked fellow rose up from his bed to pray for your
husbands’ destruction. This wicked fellow’s name is no other than
Cobbett,” &c.]
No. 2 speaks of the increasing demand for the first number. No. 3
is reduced to sixpence, for the purpose of affording a more general
circulation. No. 4, ?????
All this anonymous rubbish did more good than harm, as obvious
hypocrisy always will, under similar circumstances. A more respectable
opponent was Henry White, a well-known Whig writer of the day. People
said he was jealous of Cobbett. He was a very able man, and had himself
been well abused by the _Times_ and other papers, on account of his
strict partisanship. After many years of animadversion, he produced
“A Calm Appeal to the Friends of Freedom and Reform, on the Double
Dealings of Mr. Cobbett, and the baneful tendency of his Writings. With
a vindication of the Whigs, and the Patriots of Westminster and the
Borough of Southwark, against his Scurrilous and Malignant Aspersions.
By Henry White, late editor of the _Independent Whig_, the _Charles
James Fox_, the _Independent Observer_, the _Sunday Times_, the _Public
Cause_, &c., &c.” (London, 1823). Referring to his own party, White
says, “What virtue, what wisdom, what real patriotism there is in the
country, he knows _they_ possess.”