wretched cant. With Mr. Hunt's family affairs you and I have nothing to
do, any more than he has with ours. We are to look to his conduct as a
public man, and, if he serve us in that capacity, he is entitled to our
gratitude. Suppose, for instance, the plague were in Bristol, and the
only physician, who had skill and courage to put a stop to its ravages,
was separated from his wife and living with the wife of another man;
would you refuse his assistance? Would you fling his prescriptions
into the kennel? Would the canting Messrs. Mills and Elton and Walker
exclaim, "no! we will have none of your aid; we will die rather than be
saved by you, who have broken your marriage vows!" Would they say this?
No; but would crawl to him, would supplicate him, with tears in their
eyes. And yet, suffer me to say, Gentlemen, that such a physician in a
plague would not be more necessary in Bristol than such a man as Mr.
Hunt now is; and that the family affairs of a Member of Parliament is
no more a matter of concern with his constituents than are the family
affairs of a physician a matter of concern with his patients. When an
important service had been received from either, it would be pleasanter
for the benefited party to reflect that the party conferring the benefit
was happy in his family; but, if the case were otherwise, to suppose
the benefit less real, or the party conferring it entitled to less
gratitude, is something too monstrously absurd to be entertained by any
man of common sense.
The remainder of my subject I must reserve for another Letter, and in
the mean while, I am, Gentlemen, your sincere friend, Wm. COBBETT.
_Botley, July 27, 1812._
By the insertion of these letters, which were published at the time,
I shall give the reader a pretty clear insight into the whole of my
exertions at that period. My doing this will show that I entertained and
avowed exactly the same principles of politics at that moment which I do
at this moment, and that I have not deviated to the right or to the
left ever since; and thus I think I shall be enabled, by unquestionable
documentary proof, to shew that I have been the consistent undeviating
friend of universal liberty up to the present day.
It was generally imagined that the return of Mr. Davis would be rendered
void by a committee of the House of Commons, and I was preparing my case
and ready to attack him, as one of the most corrupt and unprincipled
pillars of a corrupt administration, when the Parliament was dissolved,
by proclamation, on the 29th of September, which at once put an end to
my labours relating to that petition. As soon as the Parliament was
dissolved, I addressed a public letter to the Electors of Bristol,
promising them to be at my post on the day of election; which promise,
as will hereafter he seen, I scrupulously observed.
As a petitioner, who had given the proper securities to try the merit
of his appeal, I was entitled to a seat below the Bar in the House of
Commons, and I occasionally availed myself of this privilege. During the
latter part of this Parliament, an interesting discussion took place in
the House of Commons, upon the subject of the treatment of prisoners in
Lincoln Gaol, to which Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Drakard had been sentenced
by the Judges of the Court of King's Bench (Lord Ellenborough, Judges
Grose, Le Blanc, and Bayley,) for the term of eighteen months each,
for _Libels_. Mr. Finnerty had previously sent up a petition, but this
discussion arose upon Sir Samuel Romilly presenting a petition from
Thomas Houlden late a prisoner for debt in the said Gaol of Lincoln. Sir
Samuel moved for a committee of the House, to inquire into the grounds
of the complaint preferred by Mr. Houlden against MERRYWEATHER, the
Gaoler and Dr. CALEY ILLINGWORTH, a Parson Justice, and Visiting
Magistrate. In the 22d volume of Cobbett's Register, a full and ample
account of this interesting debate is given, accompanied by some very
just and most appropriate remarks. In speaking of Mr. Finnerty's
conduct, in bringing this affair before the public, Mr. Cobbett says,
"By his courage and perseverance he has not only bettered his own
condition, but that of others also; and is now, I hope, in a fair way
of doing the public a still greater service. The conduct of the
Magistrates, as they are called, but of the Justices of the Peace, as
they ought to be called, stands in need of investigation more than that
of almost any other description of men in authority; the powers which
they possess are, when one reflects on them, really terrific; if their
conduct is not to be investigated, what responsibility is there? What
check is there? And in what a state are the people who are so much
within their power?" This was Mr. Cobbett's opinion in 1812, but it
appears that similar dreadful evils in 1821 and 1822, are not worthy Mr.
Cobbett's attention, neither have they been thought of sufficient import
to excite the interest of his readers, even although they have been
grappled with and exposed in a much more efficient manner, within the
walls of Ilchester Gaol. I have not the least doubt in my own mind, from
what I have heard from the most respectable authority, but that the
Gaoler, MERRYWEATHER, and the Parson Justice, Dr. CALEY ILLINGWORTH,
were at _that time_ equally criminal with the Gaoler BRIDLE, and the
Parson Justice Dr. HUNGERFORD COLSTON, at the _present_ time.
I believe, through the exertions of Sir Samuel Romilly, a commission was
sent down to Lincoln, to inquire into the conduct of the Gaoler, &c.,
and from that time forth the affair was completely hushed up, and the
said worthy Gaoler was considered as a much injured calumniated
man. This gentleman Gaoler, it seems, has feathered his nest pretty
handsomely. With a handsome salary, besides pickings, "cheese parings
and candle-ends," &c. he has an elegant garden of two acres, fitted up
with hot-houses, &c. equal to any nobleman's, the finest wall fruit, &c.
&c.; the fruit from which walls and hot-houses finds its way upon
the _table_ of the Visiting Justices. By these and other means, Mr.
MERRYWEATHER, I am told, contrives to lead the Worthies as completely by
their noses as Bridle did some of the Somersetshire Worthies.--When,
however, we call to mind who and what these said Magistrates are, and
how they are appointed, this is not to be wondered at so much. It should
always be kept in recollection that ONE HUNDRED POUNDS a year qualifies
any man for a Magistrate; and that they are all appointed by the Lord
Chancellor, at the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County,
who is appointed by the Ministers of the Crown; and that, therefore, the
Lord Lieutenant take cares to recommend _gentlemen_ whose principles and
politics are well known. In most counties they also take care to have
a sufficient sprinkling of Parsons in the Commission of the Peace, a
precious and over-whelming sample of which breed we have in this county.
I have frequently been admonished, by some very worthy men, for making
use of the term PARSON so often, it being looked upon as rather
derogatory to the CLOTH; but, really, gentlemen must excuse me. If the
Clergy do not degrade themselves, nothing that I can say will ever bring
them into disrepute. Why, it was only the other day that I saw, by the
Police Report, published the 19th March, 1822, I think it was, that a
Clergyman of the Church of England was committed to one of the Prisons
of the Metropolis, as a ROGUE and VAGABOND! I have accidentally laid my
hand upon it, and I will insert it as a proof of what a Parson can be.
GUILDHALL.--_R.S---,_ a clergyman who, we understand, once enjoyed
considerable popularity, was brought before Alderman BROWN, on a charge
of having committed an act of vagrancy. Mr. Dunsley, hosier, Cheapside,
stated, that on the previous night the prisoner came to his shop, and
begged charity for himself and family. Ha stated that he had not himself
for a considerable time tasted bread, and that his wife and children
were lying in a deplorable condition at some place in Ratcliffe-highway.
The prisoner was in a disgraceful state of intoxication. The
complainant, who knew him, remonstrated with him upon disgracing himself
as an ordained clergyman, by presenting himself in such a condition. The
prisoner upon this changed his tone, said he would have relief before he
quitted the shop, and became so violent in his abuse, and so outrageous
in his conduct, that the complainant was under the necessity of availing
himself of the protection of an officer, to whom he gave the prisoner in
custody. This, the prosecutor said, was the third time he had been
so treated by the prisoner. The prisoner, in an eloquent address,
deprecated the wrath of the prosecutor, by admitting that his conduct
had been most disgraceful. But he declared it was done without the
slightest reflection, and that his aberrations were occasioned by a
contusion which he received on the brain whilst on service in Egypt. His
family, he admitted, were well provided for, and he promised if he were
this time forgiven, to retire to the country, and endeavour to live upon
his half-pay of fifty-four pounds per annum, in solitude and repentance.
All the eloquence of the unfortunate Divine on this occasion proved
unavailing. Mr. Dunsley pressed the execution of the law, stating that
he had on former occasions received promises of this kind, which were
never thought of by the prisoner after his release. The Alderman
expressed great pain at seeing a Clergyman in such a situation, but
found himself compelled to put the law in force. He committed the
prisoner to the Compter for fourteen days, as a "rogue and vagabond."
I could exhibit some living specimens of Clergymen of the Church of
England, in this county, that would not only be a match for the worthy
described in this police report, but would far surpass in infamy what is
here held up as an example to the world. I could produce an instance
of a man, or at least a thing in the garb of a man, the opprobrium
and scorn of human nature, dressed up on a Sunday in the robes of
priesthood, mounted in the pulpit and defiling the very show of
religion, by pretending to read and preach lessons of holiness and
godliness to those who, the night before, had witnessed him in a
state of beastly intoxication, at a common village alehouse, not only
degrading the character of a clergyman, but even that of the lowest and
most abandoned of the human species, by exhibitions of his person, most
indecent and most revolting to humanity; nor am I alluding to this as
a solitary instance of such conduct, but to his common practice in the
presence of the lowest of his parishioners. I am not drawing the picture
of an imaginary monster, but of a living clergyman of this county; and I
could describe others equally disgusting. These are pretty examples of
morality; these are pretty specimens of clerical purity! There is seldom
a week passes over my head that I do not receive some evidence of the
abandoned behaviour of some of the clergy; and is not this a precious
race of men out of which to select Magistrates! In fact, I scarcely
ever see a farmer, who has not some tale to tell me, of the rapacity,
immorality, or injustice, of some one of these Parson Justices; one
and all exclaiming against the tythe system, which does more to uphold
infidelity than ever did all the works of Voltaire, Rousseau, Mirabaud,
Paine, and all the theological writers that ever existed, put together.
Let it be always remembered, that I know many very honourable
exceptions, even in this county, which appears to be notorious for
profligate and time-serving parsons; for instance, there is the Rev. Dr.
Shaw, of Chelvey, near Bristol; a better christian, both in principle
and practice, does not exist. A more honourable, upright, and public
spirited man does not live; England cannot boast a more pious and
exemplary divine; in _him_ is combined the gentleman, the scholar, the
liberal and enlightened patriot, and real christian. He is an honour to
his country, and he does justice to that profession of which he forms
one of the brightest ornaments. Although labouring under the pressure of
ill health, and approaching the age of eighty, this venerable divine has
made two pilgrimages, a distance of nearly forty miles, to visit the
"Captive of Ilchester," during his incarceration, to console, to
comfort, to cherish, and to cheer him in his dungeon. What a contrast
does this worthy and pious clergyman furnish, to the Clerical Parson
Justice, Dr. Colston! It would be dangerous for me to draw that
contrast; a person who did not know the fact would scarcely believe
that two dignified clergymen of the same diocese, that two doctors of
divinity, could form two such opposite characters. For the honour of the
county of Somerset, and of the cloth also, I can boast the kindness
and attention of many other clergymen, and to no one do I stand more
indebted for repeated acts of that nature than to the patriotic and
public spirited clergyman, the Rev. Henry Cresswell, the Vicar of Creech
St. Michael. I am proud to bear testimony to his zealous co-operation
to assist me and the worthy Alderman Wood, to procure the liberation of
poor old Mr. Charles Hill, who was falsely imprisoned and wrongfully
detained in this Bastile for SIXTEEN YEARS. I had the happiness to
see him liberated, in spite of his remorseless persecutors, who have
repeatedly sworn, ever since I have been here, that he should never
leave Ilchester Gaol alive. It will be recollected that it was this poor
man's sufferings that I made the ground-work of my charges against the
monster of a gaoler and the Magistrates. How much more delightful is
the occupation to record the good, than the evil deeds of one's fellow
creatures; how much more gratifying is it to me, to write of a Dr. Shaw,
than of a Dr. Colston!
When the Parliament was dissolved I was at Rowfant, in Sussex, attending
to my farm, where Sir Francis Burdett and his brother Jones Burdett had
recently been to pay me a visit, for a few days. The Baronet wishing to
purchase an estate in that county, I showed him over several that were
to be sold, but he saw none that he liked, except the one which I
occupied, _Rowfant House_, and the estate of a thousand acres of land
attached to it. This was certainly a most gentleman-like property, and
just such an estate as would have suited the Baronet. The party who had
purchased it would also have been very happy to have disposed of it, if
they could, to have got rid at once of the inconvenience of the lease
which they had granted to me; and as the Baronet appeared to have set
his mind upon it, and had got the ready cash, so that price did not
appear to be an object to him, there seemed to be no obstacle; but, as
I saw the danger of a disagreement between him and myself, in case he
should purchase it, I made him fully acquainted with the nature of my
lease, which empowered me to grub up and destroy six thousand thriving
young oak trees; a measure of all others that would have been the most
annoying to him, because, instead of grubbing up one tree, he would have
planted thousands and encouraged the growth of timber, which was so
congenial to the soil. I perceived very clearly that, were he to
purchase the estate, he would give me my own price for the lease, or
any sum, to save the trees. Instead, however, of thinking of my own
interest, I was anxious to avoid every thing that could produce a
quarrel or a shyness between us, and therefore I took care to put him
fully upon his guard, and to conceal nothing from him, expecting, at all
events, that he would consult me about the terms that I would take
to give up the lease, or at least to give up that part of it which
empowered me to destroy the timber. It was obvious to me that I could
make a handsome sum out of the Baronet, which would have been of no
small importance to me, and yet would have been nothing to him who was
so rich. But I repeat, that I acted from the most disinterested
motives, and far from planning how I could make the most of him, I was
excessively anxious to avoid whatever might lead to any thing like a
money transaction between us. For this reason I unreservedly laid open
the whole affair to him, informing him upon what terms I had offered
to forbear to grub the timber, and almost urging him not to think of
purchasing the estate, with such a lease upon it, till he had reflected
whether he could approve of my conditions for giving up the lease. I
believe that there were few men in the kingdom who would have so acted
as I did, but I valued the friendship of Sir Francis Burdett far above
any pecuniary consideration. The Baronet was a most delightful visitor,
a gentleman-like, easy, unassuming, cheerful inmate; and as we had every
comfort at Rowfant compatible with the residence of a country gentleman,
both he and his brother, but particularly Sir Francis, expressed
themselves as well pleased with their reception as we were with our
visitors.
About a week after the Baronet left us, I received a letter from the
persons who were concerned for the proprietors of Rowfant, to say that
they had entered into a treaty with Sir Francis Burdett for the estate
at Rowfant, which treaty they expected would be completed in a few days.
I was rather surprised at this intelligence; and although I concluded
that Sir Francis Burdett had made up his mind to purchase the estate
and comply with my terms; and although I knew that it would answer the
purpose of Sir Francis to give me what I asked, even had it been double
the sum, yet I had a sort of inherent dread of any money transaction
between us, a sort of presentiment that it might be the cause of some
disagreement, which might end in shyness. I therefore wrote to him
immediately, requesting him by all means not to purchase the estate till
he and myself had settled definitively the terms upon which I was to
give him up the lease, as I knew that he was also desirous at once to
have the house as a residence. I did this from the purest motives, and
from a most anxious wish not to have the Baronet in my power; for fear
that he might suspect me of having made a market of him. I believe,
nevertheless, that the very means that I took to prevent any chance of
any thing of the sort, tended to create a suspicion on his part, and he
suddenly broke off the bargain, and never mentioned the subject after
except in a casual manner. Thus did it happen, I have no doubt, that,
from an over delicacy in striving to avoid every thing like the shew
of over-reaching, or taking advantage of the Baronet's liberality, I
excited in him a suspicion which I by no means merited. As it turned
out afterwards that political disagreements occurred between us, I
am, however, most happy that we never had any the slightest money
transaction. Some time after this, I disposed of the lease of this
estate for five hundred pounds more than I should have demanded of
him; a fact which proves at once that I acted towards him in the most
honourable manner, and that I had no reason to regret his not having
purchased the property.
On the 15th of August Mr. Cobbett published his Third Letter to the
Independent Electors of Bristol, and, as these letters will give the
reader a clear insight into the whole affair, I shall insert the whole
of them in this work. This Bristol election was a very important
transaction of my history, and one to which, I have no doubt, I may
fairly attribute some part of my sentence of TWO YEARS AND SIX MONTHS,
and a very considerable portion of the persecution and ill-treatment
which I have experienced from the local authorities and Magistrates of
this county; and for this reason I wish to have the whole placed fairly
upon record.
TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF BRISTOL.
GENTLEMEN,--Before I resume the subject, upon which I addressed you in
my last, give me leave to explain to you what I mean by an _independent
elector_. I do not mean a man who has money or land enough to make him
independent; for, I well know, that money and land have no such effect;
as we see every day of our lives, very rich men, and men of what is
called family too, amongst the meanest and most dirty dependents of
the ministry or the court. Independence is in the mind; and I call
independent that man, who is, at all times, ready to sacrifice a part,
at least, of what he has, and to brave the anger and resentment of
those from whom he derives his living, rather than act, in his public
capacity, contrary to the dictates of his own mind. This is what I mean
by an independent man. The journeyman who carries all his fortune in a
silk handkerchief is as likely to be an independent man as is a Lord or
a 'Squire; and, indeed, we find him much oftener worthy of the name.
It is to men of this description that I address myself upon the present
occasion, and to their attention I now beg leave to recall some of the
circumstances of the late election at Bristol, or, rather, the late
_contest_; for, according to my notion of the law, there can be _no
election_ where soldiers are present during any portion of the time,
from the beginning to the end of the poll.
Of the two candidates, generally, I have spoken before; but, I now wish
to draw your attention more particularly to the pledges tendered you,
and given you, by Mr. Hunt. He promised and vowed three things: 1st.
That he never would, as long as he lived, either directly or indirectly,
pocket a single farthing of the _public money_. This, Gentlemen, is,
with me, and so, I trust, it is with you, a capital point. Indeed, it
always appears to me necessary to the safety of the electors, as far
as the fidelity of their member goes. If the man elected can take the
public money, is not the temptation too great for most men? In short,
what can be more absurd, what can be more revolting to reason, what more
shocking to common sense, than the idea of a man's being _a guardian of
the public purse_, while, at the same time, he votes, in that capacity,
part of the people's money into his own pocket? In all the other
situations of life we see the payer and the receiver a check upon each
other; but, in the case of a Member of Parliament who receives part of
the public money, there is no such check.
We are often asked, whether we would wish gentlemen of great talents to
serve the country as Secretaries of State, Chancellors of the Exchequer,
&c. &c. without any pay? To which I, for myself, answer _no_. I would
not only have them paid, but _well paid_; but I would not have them sit
in parliament while they received the pay. If we are told that this is
_impracticable_, we point to the experience in its support; for, in the
United States of America, there are no paid officers in the Legislature.
No man can be a member of either House who is in the receipt of a
six-pence of the public money under the Executive; and, what is more, he
cannot receive any of the public money, in the shape of salary, during
the time for which he has been elected, if the office from which the
salary is derived has been created or its income increased since his
election. This is the case in America. There are no chancellors of the
exchequer, no secretaries of state, or of war, or of the admiralty, in
either House of Congress; there is no _Treasury Bench_; there are no
ministers and none of those other things of the same kind, and which I
will not here name. Yet is America now exceedingly well governed; the
people are _happy_ and _free_; there are about _eight millions_ of them,
and there are _no paupers_; in that country poor men do not, to be sure,
crawl almost upon their bellies before the rich, but, there are very few
murders. I lived eight years in the largest city in the country, and
there was no human being _hanged_, or otherwise put to death for a
crime, while I lived there. The country, therefore, must be pretty well
governed, and yet there is no member of either House of the Legislature
who is in any office whatever under the government. The members are
_paid for their time_, and paid their expenses to and from the place of
sitting. They are appointed by the people and paid by the people;
they are the people's representatives, and are not suffered to be the
servants of, or to receive pay from, any body else.