filthy curs, and put them in motion? Some persons, no
matter who, but, I believe, some suffering tradesmen, in
London, agreed to call a meeting of _distressed_ people in
Spa-fields, in order to present a petition on the subject of
their sufferings: one of the Committee, who had called
this Meeting, wrote to Mr. Hunt to come and assist at it.
This he did. Being there, he proposed a Petition, which
was agreed to. This Petition has appeared in the _Statesman_
newspaper, to which I refer the reader; and when
he has looked at it, he will be convinced, that, if the language
of _moderation_ be desirable, the language of this
petition is much _more moderate_ than that of almost any
petition, which has recently appeared in print. Upon
what _ground_, then, is this outrageous abuse founded? The
Meeting separated very quietly; never did any Meeting
partake less of riotous behaviour. In the evening of the
same day, a mob of boys and others attacked some _bakers'_
and _butchers'_ shops. But, whose fault was this? Was
it Mr. Hunt's, who seems to have spent a quarter of an
hour in endeavouring to convince his hearers, _that to commit
such acts was to prove themselves unworthy of relief_;
or, was it the fault of those pestiferous vehicles of falsehood,
the _Courier_ and the _Times_, who are incessantly
_inveighing against the avarice of bakers and butchers_?
"It is clear, that these proceedings of the evening had
no connection with the Meeting, but, on the contrary,
that every thing which was said at the Meeting had a
natural tendency to prevent them. As to the _attack on
the office of the Morning Chronicle_, that might possibly
arise out of what Mr. Hunt said at the Meeting. And,
what then? Was he to endure the calumnies, the unprovoked
calumnies, of that paper _for years_, and never reply
a word? It would have _cost him hundreds of pounds_ to
cause to be published in that paper _answers_ to a hundredth
part of the base attacks upon him contained in that
same paper. And, was he never to answer in any way?
Was he, when he had a hundred thousand men within his
hearing, to abstain from expressing his indignation at the
conduct of that paper, lest, by possibility, the indignation
might be catching? _The Morning Chronicle_, _The Courier_,
and _Times_, make no scruple to endeavour _to cause
him to be knocked in the head_; they point him out for
either hanging or murdering; they are ready beforehand
with an apology for any one who may take his life. And
is he, who can find no entrance into their columns, without
covering his paragraph with gold, to abstain from uttering
a word against them when he comes before a public
meeting, lest the people should espouse his cause and
demolish their windows? Whence have _they_ derived this
privilege of assaulting him with impunity? He has no
newspaper in his hands. He has no means of answering
them through the press. They assail him, sitting snugly
in their offices. They assail him daily. And, is he never
to open his lips at any time, or at any place?
"Where, then, is the ground of all this infamous abuse?
After accusing Mr. Hunt of having raised a mob for _treasonable_
purposes, some of the papers have, in the most
_serious_ manner, asserted that he was _insane_, and that he
had been to a _madhouse_! Is not this a pretty stretch of
calumny? Is a man bound to endure this in _silence_? 'He
has his redress _at law_.' Oh! the base cowards! Their
answer is worse than their crime.
"Was it any _fault_ in an Englishman, living in the country,
to come to London to take part at a _Meeting of Englishmen
in distress_? Was this any _fault_? No one can
say that it was.--The Meeting had been advertised many
days before any knowledge of it reached Mr. Hunt; he
was requested to come up; and who can blame him for
coming? However, it is not a question of blame or no
blame; he had _a right_ to come, and he chose to exercise
his right. If, indeed, the invitation had been from persons
in _prosperity_, he might have easily declined; but, I
do not see how he was to resist the call of people in distress.
"But his speech, that was '_inflammatory_.' Good God!
what is _not_ inflammatory now-a-days? But, though the
speech might, and, I dare say, did contain matter much
stronger than that which I have read in the report of it,
I am very sure that it could not surpass what I have read in
the _Morning Chronicle_ within this month; and that it
could not surpass (for nothing can surpass) the inflammatory
matter in the _Times_ and the _Courier_ on the subject
of their alleged extortions of the Bakers and Butchers.
Besides, as to the printed reports of the speech, Mr. Hunt
was wholly _at the mercy of the Reporters_. They have
made him say just what they pleased, and he has no redress;
no means of correction; no chance of being heard
in explanation. They impute to him the having asserted,
that _Lady Oxford_ is on the _pension list_. This was false,
as he has since proved to me by the list which he read.
It has been asserted, that he went to the Meeting with a
tri-coloured flag. This is also false, he never having
known of the existence of any flag until his arrival on the
spot; and, was he to go away merely because some whimsical
persons had _hoisted a flag and a cap of Liberty?_ Besides,
are there not flags enough at contested elections?
Do not freemasons and others parade about with flags?
Why was this meeting not to have a flag, if it chose it?
Call the thing _nonsensical_ if you please, and I shall not
dissent. But, where was the _harm?_ Where was the
justification for all this vile, this atrocious abuse?
"It is said, that Mr. Hunt urged the people to use _physical
force_ if their petition was not granted. This also is
false; or, at least, he assures me that it is; and I believe
him, because it was too foolish for him to think of. But,
how often have we heard of _resistance_ being recommended?
Mr. Fox once recommended it, and he never was
calumniated in this outrageous manner. I have no doubt
that many things escaped Mr. Hunt during his speech,
that he himself wished he had uttered in more select
phrases; but, who is there who is so very choice upon
such occasions? If any one say, that he would do better
to remain in Hampshire or Wiltshire, and take care of his
farms, the answer is, that _he_ is seemingly of a different
opinion. He _chooses_ to take a part in public matters.
He prefers this bustle to the tranquillity of a country life.
The boisterous hallooing of multitudes is more pleasing to
his ears than the chinkling of the plough traces, the bleating
of lambs, or the song of the nightingale. His taste
may be bad; but, a'God's name, do not cover him with
all sorts of infamous names and imputations, on account of
his want of taste. Besides, if this sort of objection were
made to leaders at Public Meetings, we should, I imagine,
have very few meetings. One might be told to keep to
his snuff shop, another to his haberdashery, and so on.
Indeed, the tools of Corruption are so very nice upon this
head, that I have never yet heard of any one trade, or
calling, which they did not despise, if a man who came
forward against abuses happened to be of that trade or
calling; and, on the other hand, there is nothing too low
or vile for them, if it be put forward in Corruption's defence,
or employed as one of her agents.
"We shall see in the end how this most calumniated
gentleman conducts himself. He has engaged to carry
the Prince's answer to the Spa-fields Meeting next Monday
week. Now, if, in the conducting of this business, he
shall be found to have acted the part of a stupid country
jolterhead, or of a head-strong insolent ass, let him be
left to the public contempt; but, if he shall be found to
have carried the matter through with due respect towards
the Prince and his Ministers, and at the same time, with
the spirit and resolution of an independent man, let him
have the praise that will be his due.
"In the meanwhile it must be not a little mortifying
to the _Morning Chronicle_ in particular to see, that _votes of
thanks to Mr. Hunt_ have been passed at many of those
meetings, in different parts of the kingdom, the proceedings
at which meetings Mr. Perry has very highly and
very justly _praised!_ How will this calumniator of Mr.
Hunt account for this? And how will he account for
the speech of Mr. Hunt, at the late Westminster Meeting,
having been re-published in _Norfolk_, and widely circulated
in that county? There can have been no _trick_
made use of by Mr. Hunt to produce these effects. He
has no acquaintances and cronies about the country. Ten
times his fortune would not have purchased him these
marks of popularity. And, why should the people of Spa-fields
be abused for having chosen to ask the assistance of
him, who has received votes of thanks from those very
meetings, both in England and Scotland, the proceedings
of which meetings Mr. Perry of the _Chronicle_ has _praised_
to the skies? Surely, the people in Scotland, in Norfolk,
in Lancashire, cannot have had their judgment _unduly
biassed_ in his _favour!_ They have heard the former outrageous
_abuse_ of Mr. Hunt; never have heard, except by
mere accident, a word in his defence; and, yet they have
most solemnly decided, that his efforts are worthy of their
praise and of their specific thanks.
"Were I, who am acquainted with Mr. Hunt, to say to
him, 'why do you not stay quietly at home and attend
to your country affairs, and pursue the foxes, and hares,
and pheasants, when you find yourself in need of recreation?
You will be much happier in so doing, than in getting
into all this turmoil of politics, and exposing yourself
to so much calumny, and, indeed, to the hatred of
those, whose hatred is full of danger to you.' If I were
to say this to him, would he not be fully justified in asking
me, why _I did not myself_ act upon the principle of
my own advice? _Times_ and _circumstances_ create _men;_
or, at least, they call men forth, who would otherwise
have remained unknown to the end of their days; and the
present are times when it is impossible for such men as
Mr. Hunt to remain dormant.
"Since writing the former part of this article, I have
discovered, that the report of Mr. Hunt's speech in the
_Statesman_ was taken, word for word, or nearly so, from
the _Chronicle_. The evening papers have, I find, _no
reporters_. So that _no true_ account has gone forth; and
thus has the misrepresentation circulated without the
_possibility_ of defence! There is a gentleman in Wiltshire,
whose name is Benett, whose speech, at an agricultural
meeting, about the Corn Bill, was published in all the
London papers, and which speech, as published, drew
down on him the _execrations_ of those same papers, and,
indeed, of the public in general. He said, that he never
uttered such words; that he bad been very grossly
misrepresented. He wrote to some of these same papers a
_contradiction_ of the statement; a _defence of himself_. But,
in order to get in a short paragraph, he was called upon
to pay to one paper _nineteen guineas!_ and, though he
has a fortune of, probably, 10,000_l_. a year, he declared
that his fortune would have been insufficient to obtain the
means of defending himself through the same channels
which had attacked him. A hundred such fortunes would
not have obtained the means of such defence; for, the
moment he had paid for inserting a defence against one
calumny, he would have found another to defend himself
against. What, then, is a calumniated man to do? The
_law!_ The reptiles know how to evade that; and, besides,
where is the fortune sufficient for _law?_ Therefore,
the calumnies must go and take their course. If men
cannot hear up against them, they must hold their peace,
and retire from before the public. Whether Mr. Hunt is
to be driven off by these means remains to be seen.
"WM. COBBETT."
The reader, who is old enough to recollect this circumstance, will
never forget the infamous conduct of the public press at that time. Mr.
Cobbett's description of it, in the above extract, is by no means an
exaggeration. The younger branch of my readers may thus form some faint
idea of what a bold and straight-forward friend of the people had to
encounter in the year 1816. While this cry was yet at its height, I
wrote to Sir Francis Burdett, who was then staying at Brighton, with
General Halse, the Aid-de-Camp of the Prince Regent, and I informed him
of the resolution which had been passed, requesting him, at the same
time, to present the petition to the Prince Regent, a copy of which and
of the resolutions, I enclosed to him as they were published in the
_Statesman_ newspaper. I likewise begged that he would favour me with
an answer, to say when he would please to present it, as I wished to
accompany him, agreeable to the instructions of the meeting. I received
a very laconic answer from the Baronet, saying, that "_he did not choose
to be made a cat's-paw of, neither would he insult the Prince Regent_."
As I had for many years been upon terms of intimacy with Sir Francis
Burdett, and had always acted in strict conformity with his political
principles, I own that I considered that answer to me as a direct
insult, and, in the heat of the moment, I was disposed at once to resent
it as such. From this, however, I was dissuaded by Mr. Cobbett and Major
Cartwright, who were extremely anxious not to do any thing to risk the
loss of Sir Francis Burdett's support to the numerous petitions which
had been agreed to, and were preparing to be sent up to the Parliament,
from all parts of the kingdom.
Mr. Cobbett had addressed several of his Registers to Sir Francis,
pointing out what sort of Reform it was necessary and just the people
should have. In these letters he contended for Annual Parliaments, and
that all direct tax-payers should have a vote, but no others. In his
Register, No. 16, of Volume 31, published on the 19th of October, after
having in a very elaborate manner maintained this doctrine, he says,
"All, therefore, that the Reformers have now to do, is to adhere to the
above-stated main points. _Every man who pays a direct tax to have a
vote; and Parliaments to be elected annually_." The test to ascertain
whether a man should have a vote or not, is laid down by Mr. Cobbett as
follows:--"When a man comes to vote, the Church-wardens who have the
charge of the ballot-box ask his name; the Overseers look into their
rate-book, to see whether he be a TAX-PAYER; finding his name there,
they bid him put in his ballot, which done, home he goes to his
business. _If the Overseers do not find him to be a tax-payer, he, of
course, does not vote_." This was the sort of Reform which, on the
19th of October, 1816, Mr. Cobbett proposed as competent to work our
salvation.
Mr. Cobbett, very properly, attributed a great portion of the evils
which the people endured to the corrupt state of the public press, which
he denominated "_blind guides_." "They are," said he (in speaking of the
provincial papers), "some of them tools of corruption, and some of them
_dumb dogs_, that have not the courage to take the part either of right
or wrong; they are neither one thing nor the other; they are quite
vapid, and, therefore, will the public 'spew them out of their mouths.'
Not, indeed, such papers as the _Nottingham Review_, the _Stamford
News_, the LIVERPOOL MERCURY, and some others, the proprietors of which
do honour to the press, and the pages of which will always be read with
pleasure and advantage." This is the way in which he spoke and wrote of
Mr. Egerton Smith, the proprietor of the _Liverpool Mercury_, in the
year 1816.
After the great public meeting, which had been held in Spa-fields,
on the 15th of November, Mr. Cobbett, in the very next Number of his
Register, published on the 23d of that month, came round all at once to
_Universal Suffrage_; and he says, "In Nos. 16 and 18 I gave my reasons
for _excluding_ from the vote all persons who did not pay direct taxes."
He then very clearly demonstrates the justice of _every one_ having a
vote, and adds, "But, it appeared to me, when I wrote Nos. 16 and 18, to
be too difficult to put this right in motion all at once; and therefore
I recommended the confining of the right of voting _to the payers of
direct taxes_, until there should be time for a reformed Parliament _to
change the mode of taxing_. Since, however, I have come to London, I
have had an opportunity of consulting MAJOR CARTWRIGHT upon the subject;
and the result is, my THOROUGH CONVICTION that nothing short Of
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE would be just, and that such a system is perfectly
practicable." This was published on the 23d of November, 1816. The
reader will have to recollect these things when I come to detail what
took place at the meeting of delegates, in London, on the following
January. _Now_, Mr. Cobbett says that "there are three things for which
I contend--_Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments_, and _Vote by
Ballot_."
As soon as I received Sir Francis Burdett's letter, declining to present
the petition of the distressed people to the Prince Regent, I took the
earliest opportunity of proceeding to Carlton House by myself. When I
arrived there, I was informed that Colonel McMahon, his Royal Highness's
secretary, had left town, and would not return till two o'clock the next
day. I informed the under secretary, who was in waiting, who I was,
and what was my business, and I made an appointment to wait on Colonel
McMahon at two o'clock on the following day. I took care to knock at the
gate at Carlton House at the appointed time, and the moment that the
gate was open, the porter took off his hat, and, ringing a bell,
accosted me by _name_, and requested me to walk forward to the front
door, which I had scarcely reached before the large folding doors of
Carlton House were thrown open, and I was politely requested by the
attendants to walk in, as Colonel McMahon was ready to receive me. I
was ushered into his apartments in great state, and was immediately
introduced to him by name. I was most graciously received by the
Secretary, to whom I stated that I was deputed to present to his Royal
Highness a petition, agreed to at a meeting of nearly one hundred
thousand of his distressed subjects of the metropolis, assembled in
Spafields on the 15th, and that I wished to know when I could have an
audience for that purpose. The Colonel then took his book, and informed
me that the next levee would take place in about three weeks, which was
the first opportunity that I could have of being introduced to his Royal
Highness the Prince Regent. I told him that would be too distant a date,
and I begged to know if there were no means of presenting the petition
earlier, as I had promised to deliver the Prince's answer to the people
on the second of December, when they would assemble again to hear what
the answer was. To this he replied, that the only other means was
to forward the paper through the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, who, he had no doubt, would deliver it to his Royal Master
immediately, as he knew it was considered by the Ministers as a matter
of very considerable importance. I thanked him for his polite attention
and obliging information, and I then retired with the same form as I
entered, the Colonel attending me to the doors, which were thrown wide
open as before.
I immediately wrote a letter to Lord Sidmouth, to appoint a time when
I could have an audience, for the purpose of delivering to him the
petition to be presented to the Prince Regent, and I carried this letter
myself direct to the office of the Secretary of State, and sent it up to
his Lordship, saying, that I would wait in the ante-room for an answer.
In a very few minutes the servant in waiting returned, attended by an
under secretary, who said that Lord Sidmouth would give me an audience
immediately, and he desired that I would follow him. I did so, and was
forthwith introduced into the audience room, where his Lordship received
me with all that parade of overstrained politeness which belongs to a
finished courtier. He was surrounded by some half-dozen lordlings, who,
from the manner in which he ordered them out of the room, appeared to be
hungry expectants, seeking and supplicating some place, office, or boon.
They vanished in a twinkling, and his Lordship could not hear a word for
the world, till I did him the honour to take a seat, which he politely
drew for me. My letter had explained the object of my visit, and, after
having briefly apologised for intruding at a time when he was surrounded
by others, I expressed my wish to have the petition of 100,000 of the
distressed inhabitants of the metropolis, who had assembled in Spafields
the preceding Monday, presented to the Prince Regent; and I then put
into his hands the petition: he read it over attentively, and having
finished the perusal of it, he said that it was a most important paper,
and was couched in such proper language, that he should feel it his duty
to lay it before his Royal Master the very first thing on the following
morning, and he had not the least doubt but every attention would be
paid to the prayer of it. I begged to know if I might expect any reply
from his Royal Highness. He answered, certainly not; it being the
practice never to give any answer to petitions; but, if it was thought
advisable to attend to the prayer of it, his Royal Highness's Ministers
would immediately act upon it, and indeed he had no doubt that it would
receive due attention. He then entered into familiar conversation as to
the nature and extent of the meeting; and I embraced the opportunity
of pointing out, in glowing terms, the great and severe distress under
which the mass of the people were labouring, and expressing my earnest
hopes that some relief would be granted to them. He next introduced
the subject of the _Memorial_, a copy of which, he informed me, he had
received several days before the meeting was held; and he declared, that
if any attempt at going in a body to Carlton House had been made, it
would have been resisted by the military, and that bloodshed would have
been the consequence. He was perfectly aware that I had been the cause
of setting aside the Memorial, and substituting the petition in its
stead; and he emphatically added, "his Majesty's Ministers are greatly
indebted to you, and they are fully sensible that you have been the
cause of preventing a great public calamity; you have prevented the
spilling of human blood." I told him that I had promised to attend
another meeting, in the same place, on the Second of December, to
acquaint them with the result of my application, and I promised him that
I would represent it fairly. With this he appeared perfectly satisfied,
and he repeated the assurance, that he would lay the petition before his
Royal Highness the moment he could gain access to him in the morning,
and that he had no doubt it would receive due attention.