“I HAVE ALWAYS SHOWN MY ENMITY TO EVERY SPECIES OF PUBLIC FRAUD OR
ROBBERY.”
Seven years of army-life had completed the drill of William Cobbett.
Master of himself, in every sense of the word, his campaign was now
to begin. Putting off his red-coat, of which he had been proud enough
withal, he entered upon the last stage of that educational process
which, sooner or later, was to bear some fruit. He had studied men
in the world of books, and he had seen something of them in the
circumscribed arena of one class, viz. the military. But of mankind
as a whole he knew almost nothing: and he would blunder on, for long
years, before getting that sort of wisdom.
However, he came back from Nova Scotia with two closely-linked ideas
uppermost in his mind--an intense affection for the soldiery and for
the classes from which they were drawn, and the deepest disgust at
the peculation which added to their natural privations. He had never
read the newspapers, and was ignorant of politics; he did not know that
the public service was at that period eaten into by corruption as far
up as the Treasury Bench, and that the specimens of venality that he
had witnessed were only examples of a system that pervaded all classes
of officialism. In point of fact, he did not know that returning to
England and obtaining his discharge, with the determination to expose
peculation, he had set his foot upon a track which would in after-years
give him the distinction of having mainly contributed to the disgrace,
the utter confusion, of “the race that plunder the people.” Beyond
all, he did not know that, far from getting any credit from any soul
upon earth, the sure reward for raking up the misdeeds of the “public
plunderers” was contumely and malignity to the bitterest degree.
* * * * *
The first thing, of course, which Cobbett attended to upon reaching
England in December, 1791, was his love affair with ANN REID. He
found her in service, with his money unbroken; and “admiration of
her conduct, and self-gratulation on this indubitable proof of the
soundness of my own judgment, were now added to my love of her
beautiful person.” So that matter was settled, from that moment, and on
the 5th of February, 1792, they were married at Woolwich. They appear
to have lived in London for a few weeks. Here is one anecdote of the
period--
“I was about two months in London; and some one led me to spend
two or three evenings in the week at Coachmakers’ Hall, where
there was a debating society[1] that held its regular sittings.
The ‘Cruelties of the Slave Trade’ was the standing subject; it
was the fashionable cant of the day; the country was in peace
and in great prosperity, and this was a sort of overflowing of
the idle feelings of the nation. The hall used to be crowded to
excess, and with as many women as men. It did not require much
talent to be eloquent upon such a subject, especially as there
was perfect _freedom as to facts_, and as to _contradiction_,
that was nearly as much as a man’s life was worth.… In
consequence of the _intense_ oratory of the Coachmakers’ Hall,
and of little lying books, and delightfully-disgusting pictures
… my _wisdom_ decided that my wife and I should never more use
sugar or coffee, these being, as the orators assured me, highly
impregnated with the sweat and blood of the poor blacks.”
The young couple adhered to this resolve until some time after they had
settled in Philadelphia.
The debating societies in London had other subjects, too, to occupy
their minds; the progress of the French Revolution having strongly
excited the popular mind. In May a proclamation was issued against
meetings and seditious writings, and as the year went on there was
increasing ferment. Although the country was at peace, His Majesty’s
ministers were really contemplating war against France; and the
Government had enough on its hands, endeavouring, at one and the
same time, to quell these feelings and to humour the military and
naval forces. It was found necessary, early in the year, to make some
important changes in the Navy Victualling Department, in consequence
of wholesale corruption, and prostitution of the public money, being
unexpectedly brought to light.[2] The sister service had also its
grievances, a stringent warrant having been issued regulating the
soldiers’ equipment, and reprobating extravagance and waste.[3] In
February, a curious item appeared in the discussion on the estimates of
the year, in the shape of an additional allowance to the soldiers’ pay,
which was distinctly a bait thrown out to humour the private soldier,
victim of the said extravagance or something worse.--Concerning which
item in the estimates we shall see presently.
Meanwhile, William Cobbett was spending his honeymoon in completing
the plans he had designed several years before, for bringing certain
officers of the 54th Regiment before a court-martial. And, as to the
history of this affair, we must have full details, because we cannot
otherwise see very clearly how he came to fail in this his first
onslaught upon public fraud.
Rapid writers have been content to say that he was bought off; that
he carefully avoided all reference to the affair; that no trace of
any allusion to it occurs in his subsequent writings; that there was
something unpleasant which would tell against himself, and so he
stopped short, &c. Indeed, the paragraph-monger began it; for the
_London Chronicle_ of the 28th March, after mentioning the holding of
the court-martial, adds that “the person who was to have prosecuted the
above officers was formerly sergeant-major of the regiment. It is said
that he has fled to France on account of some misconduct.”
No such thing at all, paragraph-monger! And, no such things at all, ye
rapid writers! You don’t know this man. You don’t know how he retires
from the unequal conflict with money, prescription, aristocratic
influence. Let him flee from anticipated vengeance, and see him return
one day, himself always incorruptible, with such a budget, such a
quiverful!--come back and tell you, with absolute calmness, that he
lays his account with “being calumniated, and with being the object of
the bitterest and most persevering malice.” And why? Because he has
made the war upon CORRUPTION his own particular business, and has found
out that the cruelties which wounded his earnest soul, in those hapless
Nova Scotia days, were just part of a system which was sapping his
country’s strength. No part nor lot would he have in it. And, rather
than seem to support it, he has spurned brilliant offers, which would
have made him rich and high-stomached; and has chosen the part, the
reward of which is calumny and annoyance of every description. See how
he glories, at last, in the conflict, and how fully he knows the nature
of his foe:--
“No sooner does a man become in any degree formidable to her
[‘corruption’], than she sets to work against him in all the
relationships of life. In his profession, his trade, his
family; amongst his friends, the companions of his sports, his
neighbours, and his servants. She eyes him all round, she feels
him all over, and if he has a vulnerable point, if he has a
speck, however small, she is ready with her stab. How many
hundreds of men have been ruined by her without being hardly
able to perceive, much less name, the cause; and how many
thousands, seeing the fate of these hundreds, have withdrawn
from the struggle, or have been deterred from taking part in
it!”
In the year 1809, Mr. Cobbett was at about the zenith of his fame.
Completely emancipated from the aristocratic influence under which he
had, several years before, appeared as a political writer in England,
his eyes were thoroughly opened to the need of Parliamentary Reform.
Early this year his energies had been principally directed on behalf
of this popular cause, but he had also dealt hardly with certain
notorious scandals. When our history comes to that period, we shall
see the various means made use of by his opponents in the endeavour to
silence him; but it is necessary now to refer to that year, because one
of those means was the circulation of a pamphlet with the following
title:--
“Proceedings of a General Court Martial held at the Horse
Guards, on the 24th and 27th of March, 1792, for the trial
of Captain Richard Powell, Lieutenant Christopher Seton, and
Lieutenant John Hall, of the 54th Regiment of Foot, on several
charges preferred against them respectively, by William
Cobbett, late Sergeant-Major of the said regiment; together
with several curious letters which passed between the said
William Cobbett and Sir Charles Gould, Judge-Advocate-General;
and various other documents connected therewith, in the order
of these dates.” [London, 1809.]
Copies of the pamphlet were distributed broadcast over the country,
and in Hampshire, where Cobbett was then living, carriage people
threw them out to the passers-by as they drove along. A very great
number must have got into circulation; and, as pamphlets go, it is not
now a particularly rare one. Of government pamphleteering we shall
have more to say anon; for the present, we will confine ourselves to
Cobbett’s full and complete answer as given in an address to the people
of Hampshire, in the “Political Register” for June 17, 1809. Full,
complete, and satisfactory it was; nobody referred to the matter again.
Even the pamphleteering system itself fell into desuetude for several
years. Other and more arbitrary means were adopted, in the attempt to
stifle this voice--to shut this mouth.
The pamphlet consisted chiefly of a selection of letters, which
passed between the accused officers, the Judge-Advocate-General, and
William Cobbett; and concluded with an account of the trial. The
three officers appeared perfectly willing to meet the charges; and
as for the prosecutor there could be no doubt as to the earnestness
of his intention,[4] _up to within about a week of the date_ first
appointed for the court-martial. That date was the 24th of March; and,
on the court assembling, no prosecutor appeared, the result being a
postponement to the 27th. On that day, the court having reassembled,
the Judge-Advocate-General was himself sworn, and deposed that he
had made ineffectual efforts to discover the prosecutor, whilst the
landlady at whose house Cobbett had lodged stated that he had removed
the previous week. This witness also produced the three last letters
of the Judge-Advocate-General to William Cobbett, unopened; which
letters stated (1) that an important witness for the prosecution was
not likely to be well enough to attend, (2) that the day of the trial
was fixed, and (3) that the trial was postponed. The charges were
then read, to the effect that the accused had made false musters,
mustered persons who were not soldiers, made false returns to the
Brigadier-general commanding at New Brunswick, misapplied work-money
earned by the non-commissioned officers and men, deducted firewood from
the allowance, and disposed of it for their own purposes, disposed
of clothing belonging to the men, and obliged them (whilst they were
clothed in rags) to accept of an inadequate sum in lieu of the said
clothing, signed false certificates respecting the clothing, and
defrauded the men of bread. After the “acquittal,” a memorandum was
submitted to the law officers of the crown, upon the whole case. Their
opinion was, that, unless there were proof of conspiracy with others,
Cobbett could not be criminally prosecuted; but that the parties
injured by his conduct, which was certainly most highly blamable, might
maintain actions upon the case against him.
Such was the offending pamphlet: on the 3rd of June, 1809, a notice
appears in the “Political Register,” of its publication, evidently
under the sanction of Government; also, that Mr. Cobbett will take
the earliest opportunity of giving a full account of the matter. He
repudiates positively every insinuation of having acted, at any time
of his life, dishonestly or dishonourably; at the same time, had the
whole of the papers connected with this affair been published without
misrepresentation he never would have noticed the thing at all, but
have left the documents to speak for themselves. A fortnight later
a double number of the “Register” contains the full account, with a
great deal more in the shape of commentary, touching the topics of
the day;--it occupies the fifth of a series of Letters to the people
of Hampshire, which Cobbett was then writing, on the subject of
Parliamentary Reform. And it is necessary, in order to do justice to
the whole story, to reproduce a great portion of it here.
After repeating the tale of his honourable discharge from the army, he
proceeds to say:--
“The object of my thus quitting the army, to which I was,
perhaps, more attached than any man that ever lived in the
world, was to bring certain officers to justice for having, in
various ways, wronged both the public and the soldier. With
this object in view, I went straight to London the moment I
had obtained my liberty and secured my _personal safety_,
which, as you will readily conceive, would not have been the
case if I had not first got my discharge.… This project was
conceived so early as the year 1787, when an affair happened
that first gave an insight into regimental justice. It was
shortly this: that the quarter-master, who had the issuing of
the men’s provisions to them, _kept about a fourth part of it
to himself_. This, the old sergeants told me, had been the case
for _many years_; and they were quite astonished and terrified
at the idea of my complaining of it. This I did, however; but
the reception I met with convinced me that I must never make
another complaint, till I got safe to England, and safe out
of the reach of that most curious of courts, a COURT-MARTIAL.
From this time forward I began to collect materials for an
exposure, upon my return to England. I had ample opportunities
for this, being the keeper of all the books, of every sort,
in the regiment, and knowing the whole of its affairs better
than any other man. But the winter previous to our return to
England, I thought it necessary to make extracts from books,
lest the books themselves should be destroyed. And here begins
the history of the famous court-martial. In order to be able to
_prove_ that these extracts were correct, it was necessary that
I should have a _witness_ as to their being _true copies_. This
was a very ticklish point. One foolish step here would have
sent me down to the ranks with a pair of bloody shoulders. Yet
it was necessary to have the witness. I hesitated many months.
At one time I had given the thing up. I dreamt twenty times, I
daresay, of my papers being discovered, and of my being tried
and flogged half to death. At last, however, some fresh act
of injustice toward us made me set all danger at defiance.
I opened my project to a corporal, whose name was _William
Bestland_, who wrote in the office under me, who was a very
honest fellow, who was very much bound to me for my goodness
to him, and who was, with the sole exception of myself, the
only sober man in the whole regiment. To work we went, and
during a long winter, while the rest were boozing and snoring,
we gutted no small part of the regimental books, rolls, and
other documents. Our way was this: to take a copy, sign it
with our names, and clap the regimental seal to it, so that we
might be able to swear to it when produced in court. All these
papers were put into a little box, which I myself had made for
the purpose. When we came to Portsmouth there was a talk of
searching all the boxes, &c., which gave us great alarm, and
induced us to take out all the papers, put them in a bag, and
trust them to a custom-house officer, who conveyed them on
shore to his own house, whence I removed them in a few days
after.
“Thus prepared, I went to London, and on the 14th of January,
1792, I wrote to the then Secretary at War, Sir George Yonge,
stating my situation, my business with him, and my intentions;
enclosing him a letter or petition from myself to the King,
stating the substance of all the complaints I had to make; and
which letter I requested Sir George Yonge to lay before the
King. I waited from the 14th to the 24th of January without
receiving any answer at all, and then all I heard was that he
wished to see me at the War-office. At the War-office I was
shown into an antechamber amongst numerous anxious-looking
men, who, every time the door which led to the great man was
opened, turned their eyes that way with a motion as regular and
as uniform as if they had been drilled to it. These people
eyed me from head to foot, and I never shall forget their look,
when they saw that I was admitted into paradise, without being
detained a single minute in purgatory. Sir George Yonge _heard
my story_; and that was apparently all he wanted of me. I was
to hear from him again _in a day or two_, and after waiting
for _fifteen days_, without hearing from him or any one else
upon the subject, I wrote to him again, reminding him that I
had from the first told him that I had _no other business in
London_; that my stock of money was necessarily scanty; and
that to detain me in London was to ruin me. Indeed, I had in
the whole world but about 200 guineas, which was a great deal
for a person in my situation to have saved. Every week in
London, especially as, by way of episode, I had now _married_,
took at least a couple of guineas from my stock. I therefore
began to be very impatient, and, indeed, also very suspicious
that military justice, in England, was pretty nearly akin to
military justice in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The letter
I now wrote was dated on the 10th of February, to which I
got an answer on the 15th, though the answer might have been
written in a moment. I was, in this answer, informed that
it was the intention to try the accused upon only _part of
the charges_ which I had preferred; and from a new-modelled
list of charges sent me by the Judge-advocate, on the 23rd of
February, it appeared that, even of those charges that were
suffered to remain, _the parts the most material were omitted_.
But this was not all. I had all along insisted that, unless
the court-martial were held in _London_, I could not think of
appearing in it; because, if held in a garrisoned place like
Portsmouth, the thing must be a mere mockery. In spite of this,
however, the Judge-advocate’s letter of the 23rd of February
informed me that the court was to be held at Portsmouth or
Hilsea. I remonstrated against this, and demanded that my
remonstrance should be laid before the King, which, on the
29th, the Judge-advocate promised should be done by himself;
but, on the 5th of March, the Judge-advocate informed me that
he had laid my remonstrance before--_whom_, think you? _Not the
king_, but _the accused parties_, who, of course, thought the
court ought to assemble at Portsmouth or Hilsea, and doubtless
for the very reasons that led me to object to its being held
there.
“Plainly seeing what was going forward, I, on the 7th of March,
made, in a _letter to Mr. Pitt_, a representation of the whole
case, giving him a history of the obstacles I had met with,
which letter concluded thus: ‘I have now, sir, done all a man
can do in such a case. I have proceeded regularly, and I may
add, respectfully, from first to last; if I am allowed to serve
my country by prosecuting men who have injured it, I shall do
it; if I am thwarted and pressed down by those whose office it
is to assist and support me, I cannot do it; in either case, I
shall be satisfied with having done my duty, and shall leave
the world to make a comparison between me and the men whom
I have accused.’ This letter (which, by-the-bye, the public
robbers have not published) had the effect of changing the
place of the court-martial, which was now to be held in London;
but, as to my other great ground of complaint, the leaving
of the _regimental books unsecured_, it had no effect at all;
and it will be recollected that, without those books, there
could be, as to most of the weighty charges, no proof adduced
without bringing forward _Corporal Bestland_, and the danger
of doing that will be presently seen. But now, mark well as to
these books: as to this great source of that kind of evidence
which was not to be brow-beaten, or stifled by the dangers of
the lash. Mark well these facts, and from them judge of what I
had to expect in the way of justice. On the 22nd of _January_
I wrote to Sir George Yonge, for the express purpose of having
the books secured; that is to say, taken out of the hands and
put out of the reach of the parties accused. On the 24th of
January he told me that HE HAD _taken care to give directions_
to have these documents secured. On the 18th of February, in
answer to a letter, in which I (upon information received from
the regiment) complained of the documents not having been
secured, he wrote to me--and I have now the letter before me,
signed with his own hand--that he would write to the colonel
of the regiment about the books, &c.: ‘although,’ says he, ‘I
cannot doubt but that the regimental books _have been_ properly
secured.’ This was on the 18th of February, mind; and now it
appears, from the documents which the public-robbers have put
forth, that the first time any order for securing the books was
given was on the _15th of March_, though the Secretary told
me he had done it on the _24th of January_, and repeated his
assertion in writing on the _18th of February_. There is quite
enough in this fact alone, to show the public what sort of a
chance I stood of obtaining justice.
Without these written documents nothing of importance could be
proved, unless the non-commissioned officers and men of the
regiment should happen to get the better of their dread of
the lash; and, even then, they could only speak from memory.
All, therefore, depended upon those written documents, as to
the principal charges. Therefore, as the court-martial was to
assemble on the 24th of March, I went down to Portsmouth on
the 20th, in order to know for certain what was become of the
books; and I found, as indeed I suspected was the case, that
they had _never been secured at all_; that they had been left
in the hands of the accused from the 14th of January to the
very hour of trial; and that, in short, my request as to this
point, the positive condition as to this most important matter,
had been totally disregarded. There remained, then, nothing
to rest upon with _safety_ but our extracts, confirmed by the
evidence of Bestland, the corporal, who had signed them along
with me; and this I had solemnly engaged with him not to have
recourse to, unless he was first out of the army; that is to
say, out of the reach of the vindictive and bloody lash. He was
a very little fellow, not more than about five feet high, and
had been set down to be discharged when he went to England;
but there was a suspicion of his connexion with me, and
therefore they resolved to keep him. It would have been cruel,
and even perfidious, to have brought him forward under such
circumstances; and, as there was no chance of doing anything
without him, I resolved not to appear at the court-martial,
unless the discharge of _Bestland_ was first granted.
Accordingly, on the 20th of March, I wrote from Fratton,
a village near Portsmouth, to the Judge-Advocate, stating
over again all the obstacles that had been thrown in my way,
complaining particularly that the books and documents had been
left in the possession of the accused, contrary to my urgent
request and to the positive assurances of the Secretary at
War, and concluding by demanding the discharge of a man, whom
I should name, as the only condition upon which I would attend
the court-martial. I requested him to send me an answer by the
next day, at night, at my former lodging; and told him,[5]
that unless such answer was received, he and those to whom my
repeated applications had been made, might do what they pleased
with their court-martial; for that I confidently trusted that
a few days would place me beyond the scope of their power.
No answer came, and as I had learned in the meanwhile that
there was a design to prosecute me for _sedition_, that was an
additional motive to be quick in my movements. As I was going
down to Portsmouth I met several of the sergeants coming up,
together with the music-master; and as they had none of them
been in America, I wondered what they could be going to London
for; but, upon my return, I was told by a _Captain Lane_, who
had been in the regiment, that they had been brought up to
swear that at an entertainment given to them by me before my
departure from the regiment, I had drunk ‘_the destruction of
the House of Brunswick_.’ This was false; but I knew that that
was no reason why it should not be _sworn_ by such persons, and
in such a case. I had talked pretty freely upon the occasion
alluded to; but I had neither said nor thought against the
King; and, as to the _House of Brunswick_, I hardly knew what
it meant. My head was filled with the corruptions and the
baseness in the army. I knew nothing at all about politics. Nor
would any threat of this sort have induced me to get out of
the way for a moment, though it certainly would if I had known
my danger, for glorious ‘Jacobinical’ times were just then
beginning. Of this, however, I knew nothing at all. I did not
know what the _Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act_ meant. When
you have a mind to do a thing, every trifle is an additional
motive. Lane, who had enlisted me, and who had always shown
great kindness toward me, told me they would send me to Botany
Bay; and I now verily believe, that if I had remained, I should
have furnished a pretty good example to those who wished to
correct military abuses. I did not, however, leave England from
this motive. I could not obtain a chance of success, without
exposing the back of my poor faithful friend Bestland, which
had I not pledged myself not to do, I would not have done. It
was useless to appear, unless I could have tolerable fair play;
and, besides, it seemed better to leave the whole set to do as
they pleased, than to be made a mortified witness of what it
was quite evident they had resolved to do.
“Such is the _true_ history of this affair, which had the
public-robbers given it as it stood, unmutilated, not a word
should I ever have published, by way of defence or explanation.”
Cobbett then proceeds to show the hollow and tricky nature of the
attack, by summing up the points which tend obviously to show that the
whole is a trumped-up charge against his honour and his reputation;
first stating that the five letters from himself, which appear in the
pamphlet, were the least important of twenty-seven which he actually
wrote, including one to Mr. Pitt, and one, in the shape of a petition,
to the King. He then reminds his readers that he would have scarcely
put himself to the expense of two or three months’ living in London,
and to the trouble of writing so many letters and of dancing attendance
at the Horse Guards, if he hadn’t a good case and were not in earnest
about it; that nine years had elapsed since his return to England, and
no process had been taken upon the opinion of the Attorney-General and
his colleague; that his “Life and Adventures of Peter Porcupine” was
reprinted in London, in 1796, at the express desire of Mr. Canning,
_i.e._ only four years after the incident, and yet nothing had been
done to supply the omission (in that publication) of the court-martial
story; that he had, when dining with Mr. Pitt in August, 1800, talked
freely about Fitzgerald and about the army “for the express purpose of
leading him on to talk about the court-martial, but it was avoided. In
fact, they all well knew that what I had complained of was true, and
that I had been baffled in my attempts to obtain justice only because I
had neither money nor friends.” That General Carleton (late Governor of
Nova Scotia) had visited him in England, since his return, and that the
Duke of Kent had talked to him in Halifax about the regiment and its
affairs in the year 1800; yet both these distinguished officers must
have known all about the court-martial, the Governor’s name, in point
of fact, having occurred in one of the “charges.” Besides this, there
could be little doubt that the whole facts were not put before Sir
John Scott and Sir John Mitford, or their opinion would have been very
different from what it was.
Finally, he reminds his readers that he had, in the year 1805, himself
given the cue. Which was certainly the case, as may be seen by
referring to his writings of that date:--
“In the printed account of my life, there is a small chasm.
When I published that account I was in the midst of the
revilers of England, and particularly of the English army; or,
I should have then stated, that the primary cause of my leaving
the army, that the circumstance which first disgusted me, and
that finally made me resolve to tear myself from a service, to
which my whole mind and heart were devoted, was, the abuses,
the _shocking_ abuses as to money-matters, the _peculation_, in
short, which I had witnessed in it, and which I had, in vain,
endeavoured to correct. What those abuses were, by whom they
were committed, and how, after I quitted the army, I failed in
obtaining redress, it would not now, after many of the parties
are dead, be proper for me to state; but, if the ‘Society of
Gentlemen’ have, as it is more than probable they have, access
to the records of the War Office, and can obtain leave to
publish the correspondence upon the subject, the public will
then see that I have all my life, and in all situations, been
the enemy of peculation. It is, however, incumbent upon me to
state, that I have good reason to believe that my failure upon
that occasion was in no way to be ascribed to Mr. Pitt, who,
as far as a person in so obscure and perfectly friendless a
situation as I then was, could judge, was, as to the matter in
question, the friend of fair inquiry and of justice.”
We may safely dismiss this matter. Should the reader find it worth
his while to rake up this old pamphlet, and compare it with Cobbett’s
“full account,” he may find a stray divergence of date or of trifling
fact; but nothing more than, as a careless omission, will serve to
establish the good faith of the man--a class of evidence which is often
as serviceable as a statement clear and unfaltering to the minutest
detail. Why the affair went off as it did is obvious to any one who
knows the world, and the rules of society, better than Cobbett did: it
was a hopeless task, from the very first, to undertake it upon his own
responsibility, without professional assistance. A mistake, however,
which he seldom corrected through life; and the consequence being that
he as seldom succeeded in gaining a cause: he persisted, to the very
last, in being his own advocate--and with the proverbial result.
Let us turn, then, to another incident of this year. An incident which
has given the biographer a good deal of trouble; as it presents an
occasion upon which it has seemed difficult to reconcile two statements
which, at first sight, seem to vary.
For this purpose, we must again refer to a later date in the history.
In the year 1805, Mr. Cobbett made himself very offensive to the
Government over the unfortunate difficulties of Lord Melville. The
whole contest, between the Government and its opponents, was of the
hottest; and the choicest Billingsgate passed between them. One
periodical, inspired by the Pitt and Melville party, made it its
business to assail Cobbett in particular; and, on the 27th of July of
the above-mentioned year, the following passage occurred:--
“As Mr. Cobbett can hardly fail to read this review, I beg
leave, through its medium, to ask that worthy patriot if he
knows who was the author, and industrious circulator through
the army, of a pamphlet entitled _The Soldiers’ Friend_,
published about the same time, but fraught with ten times more
mischief than Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’? A pamphlet calculated to
render soldiers discontented with their situation, and incite
them to mutiny and rebellion; a pamphlet which, in short, I
have no hesitation in saying, was a considerable source of the
naval mutiny at the Nore.”
Now, by the time this effusion appeared in public, Cobbett had begun to
incur the severest displeasure of his opponents; he had created mortal
enemies by the development of his warfare upon “corruption.” Caricature
was at work, keeping pace with the most virulent attacks on the part of
the ministerial press. For all which he did not care a pin, but this
charge of sedition was more than he could stand. Perfectly happy (as
his letters of that date will show), both in his domestic pursuits and
in the general public appreciation which he was then possessing, he
enjoyed fair fight; but this beginning of dark insinuation roused him;
and, for the first time since his return to England, he entered upon a
proud and energetic boast of the services which he had rendered to his
country. The part with which we have at present to do is the answer to
the charge of sedition, which is as follows:--
“During the interval of my discharge and of my departure for
France, a proposition, preceded by a speech of the Secretary
at War, was made in parliament to augment the pay of the army.
Some parts of the speech contained matter which a person,
with whom I was acquainted, and to whom I had communicated my
information upon such subjects, thought worthy of remark in
print. Hence arose a little pamphlet, entitled the _Soldiers’
Friend_. Of this pamphlet I was not the author; I had nothing
to do either with the printing or the publishing of it; and
I never had in my possession, or ordered to be sent to any
person, or to any place, three copies of it in my life; and
I do not believe that 500 copies, in the whole, ever went
from the bookseller’s shop; a fact, however, that may easily
be ascertained by application to Mr. Ridgway, who was the
publisher of it.”
Here, then, is a distinct disavowal: a circumstance that is calculated
to worry the impartial biographer, anxious to be fair toward a
good (though sometimes ill-advised) man; the reason for its being
a disturbing factor lying in this, that the _Soldiers’ Friend_ is
enumerated, on two distinct occasions during the closing years of
Cobbett’s life, among the writings by which he had helped to benefit
his fellow-men. Let us have his own words (June, 1832):--
“The very first thing I ever wrote for the press in my life was
a little pamphlet entitled the _Soldiers’ Friend_, which was
written immediately after I quitted the army in 1791, or early
in 1792. I gave it in manuscript to Captain Thomas Morrice (the
brother of that Captain Morrice who was a great companion of
the Prince of Wales); and by him it was taken to Mr. Ridgway,
who then lived in King Street, St. James’s Square, and Mr.
Ridgway (the same who now lives in Piccadilly) published it. I
do not know that I ever possessed the pamphlet, except for a
week or two, after it was published, &c., &c.”
Now these two statements cannot, on a superficial reading, be easily
reconciled; and they form, together, an instance which may be eagerly
seized upon, on the part of those who would continue to represent
Cobbett as a man who would wilfully utter contradictory things.
But, upon examining the matter somewhat more closely, we know, even
better than Cobbett himself, something of the actual circumstances.
In the first place, the great probability is that Cobbett was not the
_originator_ of the pamphlet; that this Captain Thomas Morrice, or
somebody else (still more interested in awakening the public mind on
army-frauds) had instigated him to put his ideas upon paper. The speech
of the Secretary-at-War, above referred to, occurs in a debate upon the
army estimates, on the 15th February, 1792--a debate in which Mr. Fox,
among others, took part; and the item of an additional allowance to the
soldiers was that which was the immediate inspiration of the pamphlet;
besides being, in all likelihood, productive of some little excitement
in military circles generally.[6]
Secondly, it will be observed that the sting of the charge against
Cobbett lay in this: that he had been instrumental in spreading
sedition in the naval and military services. Now, this was totally
false. It _is_ a fact that the “Soldiers’ Friend” was afterwards
circulated largely, and provoked antagonism; but of this Cobbett
knew nothing, and could not know anything, for he had long been safe
in Philadelphia, far away from English domestic politics, and much
more concerned in earning his bread-and-cheese by hard work, than in
spreading the principles of the French Revolution. Those who made it
their business to circulate clever and spicy pamphlets, saw the merit
of this one, and reprinted it for their own objects.
How we come to be satisfied upon this point is this: the pamphlet
published by Ridgway (8vo, 6_d._) was mentioned among “new
publications,” in the “Scots Magazine” for June, 1792; and reviewed
by the “Monthly” and the “Critical” of the same month. Although
the “Critical Review” professes to know the person who had been
distributing it “on the parade in St. James’s Park,” this sixpenny
pamphlet did not long continue to burden Mr. Ridgway’s shelves. It is
possible that there is now no copy in existence. But, in the following
year, a cheap reprint appeared, without printer’s or publisher’s
name--which had an extensive circulation; for it was answered by
anti-reform tracts, such as “A Few Words to the Soldiers of Great
Britain,” “The Soldier’s and Sailor’s Real Friend,” &c.
So, the matter seems clearer. Cobbett is in London, preparing for the
grand exposure; he has sympathizers, who durst not, however, show
themselves. This Captain Morrice (or somebody) thinks that the speech
on the army estimates contains “matter worthy of remark in print.”
William Cobbett not only agrees with him (somebody), but he is burning
with the desire to set right certain cases of practical injustice, with
which he is only too familiar: (of the quarter-master of the regiment
defrauding the men of their rice and peas by means of short weights,
and so forth,--to the tune of unutterable meannesses.) William Cobbett
has the pen of a ready writer, and a grasp of hard facts withal. Hence
arises a “little pamphlet:” a little pamphlet, published in respectable
octavo form, by a highly respectable house; addressed to the
aristocratic and well-to-do section of society, and published at their
very doors. With this printing and publishing W. Cobbett has “nothing
to do;” and he never sees it again after a week or so. But there’s some
real stuff in it; and, next year, real stuff is much in vogue!
Those were lively times, in 1792. The extreme “horrors” of the French
Revolution had not yet been displayed; and the news from France, with
the new and glorious doctrines of Liberty and Equality, were being
eagerly embraced by a large section of the English people. Besides
the Society of Free Debate, there were others established in London,
which soon caused alarm on the part of the Government; for their
influence and consequence rapidly grew, on account of the frequency
and publicity of their meetings, and the readiness with which all
persons were invited to come and deliver their sentiments. Of course,
ministerial alarm soon took action. The king’s proclamation appeared in
May: new life was put into the magisterial office; the trumpery police
force of that day was reorganized; and prosecutions for libel became
frequent. “Not a pamphlet or paper was published, in which any measure
of government was animadverted on or disapproved of, but proceedings
were immediately commenced against the parties who either wrote,
edited, printed, or published it.”[7]
So, London is no place for our ex-sergeant, even if his plans are not
already formed. With all his loyalty, he is beginning to think there
must be something in republicanism. And he will carry out his notion
of going to the United States of America; after having visited France,
with the object of perfecting himself in the language of that country:--
“From the moment that I resolved to quit the army, I also
resolved to go to the United States of America, the fascinating
and delusive description of which I had read in the works
of Raynal. To France I went for the purpose of learning to
speak the French language, having, because it was the language
of the military art, studied it by book in America. To see
fortified towns was another object; and how natural this was
to a young man who had been studying fortification, and who
had been laying down Lille and Brisach upon paper, need not be
explained to those who have burnt with the desire of beholding
in practice that with which they have been enamoured in theory.”
As matters stood, then, in March, 1792, there was no longer any
occasion for delay; and it appears that he landed in France before the
month was out: very much startled and amused, by the way, at seeing
written up over a shop-door in Calais,--“_Ici l’on a des Assignats, dès
cent francs à un sou._” He settled at Tilq, a little village near St.
Omer, and remained there for about five months. He found the people so
unexpectedly kind and hospitable, to a degree that he had never been
accustomed to, that all those prejudices, with which Englishmen, at
that time, regarded their brave and impulsive neighbours, and which
prejudices were fully developed in his own breast--were dispelled
in a few weeks. What with his newly-married bliss, and his perfect
health, and his zealous reading and study, this must have been the very
happiest period of Cobbett’s life. He did intend to go to Paris for
the winter, but the troublous times prevented that purpose:--
“I perceived the storm gathering: I saw that a war with England
was inevitable, and it was not difficult to foresee what would
be the fate of Englishmen in that country, where the rulers
had laid aside even the appearance of justice and mercy. I
wished, however, to see Paris, and had actually hired a coach
to go thither. I was even on the way, when I heard at Abbeville
that the king was dethroned and his guards murdered. This
intelligence made me turn off towards Havre-de-Grâce, whence I
embarked for America.”
[APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.]
EXTRACTS FROM
“THE SOLDIERS’ FRIEND; or, Considerations on the late pretended
Augmentation of the Subsistence of the private Soldiers.
“[Motto] ‘Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the
law.’--_Goldsmith._
“Written by a Subaltern. Price Twopence, or one hundred copies, 10_s._
6_d._ 1793.
“Amongst the many curious manœuvres of the present
administration, I do not recollect one that marks more
strongly its character than the late alteration in the pay
and establishment of the army. The augmentation (as they
would insinuate it is) of the pay of the British soldiers is
represented as arising from a consideration of the wretchedness
of their situation; and the pretended reduction of the foot
forces is held out to the public as an act of œconomy. The
people, I am much afraid, are satisfied with this.… The
situation of the privates in our marching regiments of foot
was really so miserable, that every one endued with the least
compassion, must rejoice to find that a _morsel of bread_ has
been by any means added to that scanty meal; and the enormous
load of taxes, that press out the very vitals of the people,
ensures a favourable reception to every reduction, or pretended
reduction, of public expense, let it be ever so trifling or
absurd.…
“I propose to make a few observations on the alteration that
has taken place in the soldiers’ pay; in doing which, although
I shall be very concise, I have the vanity to think I shall
discover a little better information on the subject than the
Secretary at War did at his opening of it in the House of
Commons; when he observed (after having stated the saving that
would arise from the reduction in the infantry) that ‘against
this saving he had to mention an increase that had been made to
the pay of the private soldiers to the amount of 23,000_l._ The
situation of the privates had long been admitted to have been
extremely hard. It had in _former years_ been the regulation
that a soldier should receive three shillings a week for his
subsistence. It has _of late years so happened_ that he had not
had for that purpose above eighteenpence or two shillings. This
was evidently too little for the bare purpose of existence.
By the late regulation his pay was to be made adequate to the
subsistence the common soldier _formerly enjoyed_, an object
which he was confident would meet with the warm approbation of
every man.’…
“As the Secretary observed, ‘the situation of the privates
had long been admitted to have been extremely hard;‘ but
people had not the least notion that it ’had so happened of
late years, that the soldier had only eighteenpence or two
shillings a week for his subsistence.’ Men of humanity thought
the soldier’s situation hard, but every one thought that he
received _three shillings a week_ for his subsistence; and why
any man unacquainted with the abuses of the army should think
otherwise I cannot imagine, seeing that there is an Act of
Parliament, a law of the land, that declares it shall be so.”
[After reciting the regulations that existed, and which were yearly
renewed in each Mutiny Act, he proceeds:--]
“It has _so happened!_ and for years too! astonishing! It
has _so happened_ that an Act of Parliament has been most
notoriously and shamefully disobeyed for years, to the extreme
misery of thousands of deluded wretches (our countrymen), and
to the great detriment of the nation at large; it has _so
happened_ that not one of the offenders has been brought to
justice for this disobedience, even now it is fully discovered;
and it has _so happened_ that the hand of power has made
another dive into the national purse, in order--not to add to
what the soldier ought to have received; not to satisfy _his_
hunger and thirst; but to gratify the whim or the avarice of
his capricious and plundering superiors.”
[After a good deal more, to the same effect, the writer reverts to the
new demand upon the national purse by the Secretary at War:--]
“This is certainly the most curious mode of rectifying abuses
that ever was heard of; and it points out in the clearest
light the close connexion that exists between the _ruling
Faction_ in this country and the military officers; and this
connexion ever must exist while we suffer ourselves to be
governed by a _Faction_. If any other body of men had thus
impudently set the laws of the land at defiance,--if _a gang
of robbers_, ornamented with red coats and cockades, had
plundered their fellow-citizens, what would have been the
consequence? They would have been brought to justice, hanging
or transportation would have been their fate; but, it seems,
the Army is become a _Sanctuary_ from the power of the law.
Nor shall we be at all surprised at this, if we consider that
a standing army is the great instrument of oppression, and
that a very numerous one may in a little time be necessary. I
am not, therefore, blaming the ministry for this proceeding.
I really think they have acted with a great deal of prudence
in procuring the 23,000_l._ for their supporters; but (as it
was all amongst friends) I think the business might have been
opened in a more unequivocal manner; as thus, in the language
of truth:--
“‘The situation of the privates has long been admitted to
be extremely hard. It is a law (which in former years was
obeyed) that a soldier shall receive three shillings a week
for his subsistence. It has so happened that of late years
the officers have thought proper to despise this law, and to
give the soldier only eighteenpence or two shillings. This is
evidently too little for the bare purpose of existence; and
though he has subsisted on it of late years, and might with
our good will have done so to the day of judgment, as there
now is a necessity to humour the wretch a little, _for reasons
best known to ourselves_; we have, by a late regulation, made
his pay adequate to what he always ought to have enjoyed: an
object that we are confident must meet the warm approbation of
our majority in this House. The public burden will, indeed, be
increased by this, but it is certainly much better to tax the
people to their last farthing than to wound the _honour_ of
our trusty and well-beloved, the officers of the army, by any
odious and _ungentlemanlike_ investigation of their conduct.’
“It particularly becomes you, the British Soldier, to look upon
this matter in its proper light. The pretended addition to
your subsistence is, in fact, no addition at all; you will now
receive no more than you always ought to have received.… If you
should have the fortune to become a non-commissioned officer,
and were to deduct but a penny from a man unlawfully, you know
the consequences would be breaking and flogging, and refunding
the money so deducted; but here you see your officers have been
guilty of the practice for years, and now it is found out not a
hair of one of their heads is touched; they are even permitted
to remain in the practice, and a sum of money is taken from the
public to coax you with, now it seems likely that you may be
wanted.…
“Soldiers are taught to believe everything they receive _a
gift from the Crown_. Cast this notion from you immediately,
and know that there is not a farthing you receive but comes
out of the _public purse_. What you call your _King’s Bounty_,
or _Queen’s Bounty_, is no bounty from either of them: it
is 12_s._ 2_d._ a year of the public money, which no one can
withhold from you; it is allowed you by an Act of Parliament,
while you are taught to look upon it as a present from the King
or Queen!--I feel an indignation at this I cannot describe--I
would have you consider the nature of your situation, I would
have you know that you are not the servant of _one man_ only;
a British soldier never can be that. You are a servant of the
whole nation, of your countrymen, who pay you, and from whom
you can have no separate interests. I would have you look upon
nothing that you receive as _Favour_ or a _Bounty_ from Kings,
Queens, or Princes; you receive the wages of your servitude; it
is your property, confirmed to you by Acts of the Legislature
of your country, which property your rapacious officers ought
never to seize on, without meeting with a punishment due to
their infamy.”
“FINIS.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] This was The Society of Free Debate, one of several which had just
been set on foot. For some interesting particulars of these societies
_vide_ “Memoirs of John Thelwall” (London, 1837).
[2] _Public Advertiser_, April 10, 1792.
[3] _Scots Magazine_, Jan., 1792.
[4] “I have placed myself in London, sir, and have continued here ever
since the 26th December last, for no other purpose than the prosecution
of this affair” (Letter of 23rd February).
“I must beg leave, sir, _once more_ to request that you will be pleased
to lay my representation of this matter [_locale_ of the court-martial]
before the King, and that as soon as possible” (4th March).
“If my accusation is without foundation, the authors of cruelty have
not yet devised the tortures I ought to endure” (11th March).
The letter of the 16th March expresses the astonishment of the writer
that _the greatest part of the charges were to be left out_!--which
throws much light on the subject.
[5] This accounts for the paragraph in the _London Chronicle_; a thing
which is inexplicable till one comes to this sentence.
[6] Not to interrupt the thread of the narrative, we will append
to this Chapter one or two extracts from the “Soldiers’ Friend”--a
course which will at one and the same time tell the whole story of the
grievance, and introduce us to the first essay of Cobbett’s pen.
[7] “Memoirs of John Thelwall,” i. 89.