“HEARING MY COUNTRY ATTACKED, I BECAME HER DEFENDER THROUGH THICK AND
THIN.”
Nearly two years had elapsed, before Cobbett’s life was disturbed by
any greater excitement than would be furnished by his daily pursuits
as a teacher of the French language. Even in Philadelphia, where party
spirit was strong, and antipathy to England was particularly manifest,
a busy, hard-working man, with his bread to earn, and who had no
natural taste for politics, had no need to interfere--and Cobbett would
not have interfered, probably, had not the occasion been brought about
almost by accident. The little republicanism which had leavened his
mind, whilst in London, had disappeared, when he came to see more of
human nature in his new country; and the municipal contests, and the
flaring speeches and writings, which excited less industrious minds,
had no charm for him. “Newspapers,” he says, “were a luxury for which
I had little relish, and which, if I had been ever so fond of, I had
not time to enjoy.”
But a circumstance occurred, about the middle of the year 1794, which
aroused Cobbett’s native spirit; and offered, at the same time, an
opportunity for its exercise:--
“One of my scholars, who was a person that we in England should
call a coffee-house politician, chose, for once, to read his
newspaper by way of lesson; and, it happened to be the very
paper which contained the addresses presented to Dr. Priestley
at New York, together with his replies. My scholar, who was a
sort of republican, or at best, but half a monarchist, appeared
delighted with the invectives against England, to which he
was very much disposed to add. Those Englishmen who have been
abroad, particularly if they have had time to make a comparison
between the country they are in and that which they have left,
well know how difficult it is, upon occasions such as I have
been describing, to refrain from expressing their indignation
and resentment; and there is not, I trust, much reason to
suppose, that I should, in this respect, experience less
difficulty than another.
“The dispute was as warm as might reasonably be expected
between a Frenchman, uncommonly violent even for a Frenchman,
and an Englishman not remarkable for _sang-froid_; and, the
result was, a declared resolution, on my part, to write and
publish a pamphlet in defence of my country, which pamphlet
he pledged himself to answer; his pledge was forfeited; it is
known that mine was not. Thus, sir [he is addressing Mr. Pitt],
it was, that I became a writer on politics. ‘Happy for you,’
you will say, ‘if you had continued at your verbs and your
nouns.’ Perhaps it would: but the fact absorbs the reflection;
whether it was for my good, or otherwise, I entered on the
career of political writing; and, without adverting to the
circumstances under which others have entered on it, I think
it will not be believed that the pen was ever taken up from a
motive more pure and laudable. I could have no hope of gain
from the proposed publication itself, but, on the contrary, was
pretty certain to incur a loss; no hope of remuneration, for
not only had I never seen any agent of the British government
in America, but was not acquainted with any one British subject
in the country. I was actuated, perhaps, by no very exalted
notions of either loyalty or patriotism; the act was not much
an act of refined reasoning, or of reflection; it arose merely
from _feeling_, but it was that sort of feeling, that jealousy
for the honour of my native country, which I am sure you will
allow to have been highly meritorious, especially when you
reflect on the circumstances of the times and the place in
which I ventured before the public.
“Great praise, and still more, great success, are sure to
operate, with young and zealous men, as an encouragement to
further exertion. Both were, in this case, far beyond my
hopes, and still farther beyond the intrinsic merits of my
performance. The praise was, in fact, given to the boldness of
the man who, after the American press had, for twenty years,
been closed against every publication relative to England, in
which England and her king were not censured and vilified,
dared not only to defend but to eulogize and exalt them; and,
the success was to be ascribed to that affection for England,
and that just hatred of France, which, in spite of all the
misrepresentations that had been so long circulated, were still
alive in the bosoms of all the better part of the people; who
openly to express their sentiments, only wanted the occasion
and the example which were now afforded them.”
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY was one of the most estimable of men. Among those who
have thrust back the barriers of Ignorance, he holds no mean place,
whether as a student of natural philosophy, or as a Christian teacher.
But he belongs to a period when the Pioneer had to suffer for his
opinions.
Born in 1733, he early evinced the qualities of a thorough student,
mastered several European and Eastern languages, spent his spare cash
in scientific instruments, and entered the ministry as an inflexible
opponent of the cruel notions of “eternal wrath.” He was a man rather
inclined to take always the heterodox side of things, as one who had
discovered that most popular doctrines, in politics and religion, were
founded on baseless traditions. Priestley’s contributions to science
brought him within the fold of the Royal Society; and he was pursuing
his studies at the same time that he had charge of an important
dissenting congregation at Birmingham, when the French Revolution
broke out, in 1789. By this time he was known as an ardent and honest
controversialist, and had numerous warm friendships among the advanced
Liberals of London and Paris; and his position at Birmingham was
becoming hazardous, on account of the denunciations he underwent on
the part of the orthodox in Church and State. Matters came to a crisis
in the summer of 1791; when, a feast being held for the purpose of
celebrating the fall of the Bastille, a mob assembled, highly strung
with loyalty; which, after disturbing the diners, broke the windows of
the hotel, proceeded to demolish Priestley’s and another meeting-house,
his dwelling, and the houses of several other influential dissenters.
In short, there was a genuine riot, for which the county had to pay.
And Dr. Priestley had to leave Birmingham. Nor did three years of
London life, with the fierce controversies of the day, serve to console
him. Having succeeded his friend, the celebrated Dr. Richard Price,
as pastor of a meeting at Hackney, he fought alternately with French
sceptics and with English “divines;” but age was creeping upon him;
his beloved scientific pursuits were being neglected; and he looked
wistfully to the new land of liberty and toleration. His domestic
hearth was a happy one, and he could at least take that with him
wherever he went. So, in the spring of 1794, he set sail for America.
His departure, however, was the signal for a good deal of affectionate
demonstration. Addresses were presented to him, and he left his
native shores with the good wishes and the regrets of thousands. But,
flattering as this was, it was nothing to the reception Priestley
experienced on his arrival at New York. He found himself welcomed to
“a country worthy of him;” to a land where reason had “successfully
triumphed over the artificial distinctions of European policy and
bigotry;” by those who had “beheld with the keenest sensibility the
unparalleled persecutions” which had attended him in his native country.
So, the Philadelphia newspapers of June, 1794, published these
addresses--the most noted of which were from the Tammany Society of
New York, the Democratic Society of the same, the Republican Natives
of Great Britain and Ireland resident in the City of New York, the
Medical Society of New York, and the American Philosophical Society
of Philadelphia. The Philadelphia newspapers, ready for all sorts of
fiery attack upon England, printed these addresses in full, along with
Dr. Priestley’s grateful replies. One of Mr. Cobbett’s intelligent
pupils, in his studious zeal, produces such a newspaper, that his
English exercises may be presented in the English of the day. As one of
his own omelettes, he will have his English served up fresh; no musty
Addison nor dry Delolme for him; no stale oligarchical stuff, ready
for hatching into villainy and oppression; but the sweet, new-laid
principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Which principles,
as exemplified in their latest fruits, Monsieur le Maître d’Anglais
abhors, with all his heart and soul.
Accordingly, there forthwith appeared an anonymous pamphlet, under
the title of “Observations on Priestley’s Emigration;” consisting
of a review of the circumstances which had driven the Doctor from
Birmingham, and eventually from England; and a running commentary upon
the republican addresses which had been presented to him. The whole
tenour of the tract, however, consisted in its expressed horror of the
ruin and desolation which the theorists had brought upon France, and
in pointing out what would be (in the mind of the writer) the logical
result of the new ideas being disseminated in England. Priestley’s
emigration, in point of fact, was made the peg on which to hang an
anti-revolution tirade. Certain sound principles, however, were
enunciated: an extract or two will serve to show this, and, by the
felicitous terms in which they are conveyed, to display the wonderful
command which Cobbett had already acquired over his native tongue.
“System-mongers are an unreasonable species of mortals; time,
place, climate, nature itself, must give way. They must have
the same governments in every quarter of the globe; when,
perhaps, there are not two countries which can possibly admit
of the same form of government at the same time. A thousand
hidden causes, a thousand circumstances and unforeseen events,
conspire to the forming of a government. It is always done by
little and little. When completed, it presents nothing like a
system; nothing like a thing composed, and written in a book.
It is curious to hear people cite the American government as
the summit of human perfection, while they decry the English;
when it is absolutely nothing more than the government which
the kings of England established here, with such little
modifications as were necessary on account of the state of
society and local circumstances. If, then, the Doctor is come
here for a change of government and laws, he is the most
disappointed of mortals. He will have the mortification to
find in his ‘_asylum_’ the same laws as those from which he
has fled, the same upright manner of administering them, the
same punishment of the oppressor, and the same protection of
the oppressed. In the courts of justice he will every day see
precedents quoted from the English law-books; and (which to
him may appear wonderful) we may venture to predict, that it
will be very long before they will be supplanted by the bloody
records of the revolutionary tribunal.”
“Even supposing his intended plan of improvement had been the
best in the world, instead of the worst, the people of England
had certainly a right to reject it. He claims as an indubitable
right, the right of thinking for _others_, and yet he will not
permit the people of England to think for _themselves_.… If the
English choose to remain slaves, bigots, and idolaters, as the
Doctor calls them, that was no business of his; he had nothing
to do with them. He should have let them alone; and, perhaps
in due time, the abuses of their government would have come
to that ‘natural termination,’ which he trusts, ‘will guard
against future abuses.’ But no, said the Doctor, I will reform
you--I will enlighten you--I will make you free.--You shall
not, say the people.--But I will! says the Doctor. By ----, say
the people, you shall not! ‘_And when Ahithophel saw that his
counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and
gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household
in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the
sepulchre of his father._’”
“I am one of those who wish to believe that foreigners come
to this country from choice, and not from necessity.… The
most numerous, as well as the most useful, are mechanics.
Perhaps a cobbler, with his hammer and awls, is a more valuable
acquisition than a dozen philosophi-theologi-politi-cal
empirics, with all their boasted apparatus.”
Mr. Thomas Bradford was again his publisher. The circumstance is fully
related in the American autobiography:--
“When the ‘Observations’ on the Emigration of this ‘martyr to
the cause of liberty’ were ready for the press, I did not,
at first, offer them to Mr. Bradford. I knew him to retain a
rooted hatred against Great Britain, and concluded, that his
principles would prevent him from being instrumental in the
publication of anything that tended to unveil one of its most
bitter enemies. I therefore addressed myself to Mr. Carey.[1]
This was, to make use of a culinary figure, jumping out of the
frying-pan into the fire. Mr. Carey received me as booksellers
generally receive authors (I mean authors whom they hope to
get but little by): he looked at the title from top to bottom,
and then at me from head to foot.--‘_No, my lad_,’ says he, ‘I
don’t think it will suit.’”--_My lad!_ God in heaven forgive
me! I believe that, at that moment, I wished for another yellow
fever to strike the city; not to destroy the inhabitants, but
to furnish me too with _the subject of a pamphlet_, that might
make me rich. Mr. Carey has sold hundreds of the ‘Observations’
since that time, and therefore I dare say he highly approved of
them, when he came to a perusal. At any rate, I must not forget
to say, that he behaved honourably in the business; for, he
promised not to make known the author, and he certainly kept
his word, or the discovery would not have been reserved for the
month of June, 1796. This circumstance, considering Mr. Carey’s
politics, is greatly to his honour, and has almost wiped from
my memory that contumelious ‘my lad.’
“From Mr. Carey I went to Mr. Bradford, and left the pamphlet
for his perusal. The next day I went to him to know his
determination. He hesitated, wanted to know if I could not
make it a little _more popular_, adding that, unless I could,
he feared that the publishing of it would endanger _his
windows_. ‘More popular,’ I could not make it. I never was of
an accommodating disposition in my life. The only alteration
I would consent to was in the title. I had given the pamphlet
the double title of ‘The Tartuffe Detected; or, Observations,’
&c. The former was suppressed, though, had I not been pretty
certain that every press in the city was as little free as that
to which I was sending it, the ‘Tartuffe Detected’ should have
remained; for the person on whom it was bestowed merited it
much better than the character so named by Molière.
“These difficulties, and these fears of the bookseller, at
once opened my eyes with respect to the boasted liberty of the
press. Because the laws of this country proclaim to the world,
that every man may write and publish freely, and because I
saw the newspapers filled with vaunts on the subject, I was
fool enough to imagine that the press was really free for
every one. I had not the least idea, that a man’s windows
were in danger of being broken, if he published anything that
was _not popular_. I did, indeed, see the words _liberty_ and
_equality_, the _rights of man_, the _crimes of kings_, and
such like, in most of the booksellers’ windows; but I did not
know that they were put there to save the glass, as a free
republican Frenchman puts a cockade tricolor in his hat to save
his head. I was ignorant of all these _arcana_ of the liberty
of the press.
* * * * *
“The work that it was feared would draw down punishment on
the publisher, did not contain one untruth, one anarchical,
indecent, immoral, or irreligious expression; and yet the
bookseller feared for his windows! For what? Because it was
not _popular enough_. A bookseller in a _despotic_ state fears
to publish a work that is ‘too popular,’ and one in a free
state fears to publish a work that is not ‘popular enough.’ I
leave it to the learned philosophers of the ‘Age of Reason’ to
determine in which of these states there is the most liberty
of the press; for, I must acknowledge, the point is too nice
for me: fear is fear, whether inspired by a Sovereign Lord the
King, or by a Sovereign People.
“The terms on which Mr. Bradford took the ‘Observations,’
were what booksellers call _publishing it together_. I beg
the reader, if he foresees the possibility of his becoming an
author, to recollect this phrase well. Publishing it together
is thus managed: the bookseller takes the work, prints it, and
defrays all expenses of paper, binding, &c. and the profits,
if any, are divided between him and the author.--Long after
the ‘Observations’ were sold off, Mr. Bradford rendered me an
account (undoubtedly a very just one) of the sales. According
to this account, my share of the profits (my share only)
amounted to the enormous sum of _one shilling and sevenpence
halfpenny_, currency of the State of Pennsylvania (or, about
elevenpence three farthings sterling), quite entirely clear of
all deductions whatsoever!
“Now, bulky as this sum appears in words at length, I presume,
that when 1_s._ 7½_d._ is reduced to figures, no one will
suppose it sufficient to put a coat upon my back. If my poor
back were not too broad to be clothed with such a sum as this,
God knows how I should bear all that has been, and is, and
is to be, laid on it by the unmerciful democrats. Why! 1_s._
7½_d._ would not cover the back of a Lilliputian; no, not even
in rags, as they sell here.”
The allusion to the _coat_ was occasioned by a report, which Cobbett
thought fit to notice, that Mr. Bradford had provided him with the
means of procuring one. Whether the “Observations” proved remunerative
or not, it is certain that the tract was immediately reprinted in
London, by Stockdale, and noticed in the magazines; and we will
presently refer to the comments which were raised in England by the new
politician.
Meanwhile the pamphlet was read, and became notorious; and its author
had discovered where his strength lay. He would prepare another
onslaught upon the anti-federalists.
In order, however, that we may understand the position which Cobbett
soon came to occupy as a politician, it will be necessary to take
a glimpse of the leading questions which were agitating the public
mind of America. The chief cities of the United States, receiving, as
they did, the overflowings of European ebullition, had also their own
internal squabbles, and were become so many centres of revolutionary
intrigue; and the perils and the strife thus engendered opened the
field of political adventure to many an aspiring mind. It was a period
of terrible personal animosities, both in Europe and America: men’s
friendships, and men’s reputations, never had a harder lot, in the
face of differences of opinion.
* * * * *
The Revolution, which culminated in the Declaration of Independence in
the year 1776, did not, in all respects, ultimately suit the tastes
of the whole American people. A numerous section, after the immediate
cause of the quarrel with the mother country had been despatched,
remained “loyal;” and would have been well pleased to see re-union with
England. Others, again, satisfied with Independence, were yet desirous
that the Constitution should be as near as possible on a monarchical
plan, with a basis of government centralized at the capital. A still
larger class,--daily augmented, too, by the arrival of English, Irish,
and French refugees,--were for republicanism pure and simple.
France had given support to the infant republic, from the first; having
recognized “Independence” in 1778, and, from that date, continued to
give aid in the shape of food supplies and war material, during the
progress of the conflict. The treaty of peace being concluded with
Great Britain, in the year 1783, and the States settling down to
consider their future, it was soon discovered that the Constitution,
which had first been hastily framed, was inadequate for the purposes
of good government; there was no power to compel individual states,
where unanimity, or, at least, general consent, was desirable.[2] A new
Constitution was therefore promulgated, by which absolute power was
lodged in a central Federal Congress of the States. From that date the
two prominent political parties came into existence: the one, known as
the Federalist, strongly in favour of centralization; the other, the
anti-Federalist or Democratic party, which was for independent state
sovereignty, and which was too deeply republican in its nature not to
fear the risks, which centralized power would entail upon the new-born
liberties of the nation. The leading partisans on the former side were
Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay; whilst Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison were the most eminent among the Democratic
leaders. It must be noted, however, that the statesmen of both parties
were unanimous on the point of republicanism _per se_: their aim was
one object, about which there could be no further question; their
differences consisted in the consideration of the best means of
attaining it.
Mr. Jefferson had been minister to France; and returned to America in
1790, to take a part in the administration. He has left upon record
his experience, upon resuming his place in society, of the reaction
against extreme republicanism which had already taken place;[3] other
testimony, of similar bearing, could be adduced, but it is hardly
necessary for our purpose, considering the amount of support which
Cobbett received during the whole period of his residence in America.
There seems to have been, in point of fact, a Federal majority from
the very first,--and, when the European war broke out, early in 1793,
this section of the nation sympathized, generally speaking, with the
English. A strong anti-British feeling prevailed, however, among the
Democrats, which was displayed in the most fiery and intemperate
language,[4] and found particular vent in a hearty enthusiasm for the
French cause. The first outbreak of the French revolution was hailed
with joy by the extreme republicans; and, at last, when Mr. Pitt came
to think that England was called upon to declare war against France,
in defence of the old European doctrines, this hatred of England was
naturally intensified. Washington’s proclamation of neutrality was in
vain, to check the ardour of the pen-and-ink warriors; and the constant
arrival of proscribed persons was just so much fuel added to the
flames. Another outbreak of war, between England and America, was even
apprehended; and would have taken place, but for the moderate counsels
which prevailed in the minds of Washington and his advisers.
At this juncture, there arrived as ambassador to the United States,
one GENEST,[5] a man eminently fitted for the useful task of
stirring up strife; and it is, indeed, difficult to believe that
the man was not selected with this object in view. Of the strongest
republican principles, he thoroughly scorned the traditions of
diplomacy; and landed at Charleston [April 1793] more with the air
of a newly-appointed provincial governor than with that of envoy
from a friendly nation. Several weeks elapsed before he presented
his credentials to Washington: meanwhile, he was actually engaged in
superintending the fitting-out of privateers! And on his arrival
at Philadelphia there were festivities and congratulations, and
speeches, to be attended to, before he could condescend to wait upon
the President. His subsequent conduct was all of a piece with this;
till, the President having found it necessary to repudiate a French
vice-consul on account of his gross infractions of neutrality, Genest’s
high-toned appeal upon the matter obliged Washington, at last, to
consider the question of demanding his recall. This was effected in the
following year.[6]
But all this did not happen without largely affecting the temper of the
American people. Although Washington generously distinguished between
the conduct of the minister and “the friendly spirit of the nation
which sent him;” although, as Jefferson records, the Government were
“determined to see, in these proceedings, but the character of the
individual, and not to believe that they were by instructions from his
employers,” yet it was undoubtedly a new spur to the active spirit of
democracy. The Philadelphia politicians, especially, raved and stormed
over the iniquities of Britain and the virtues of France.
A more serious trouble to the American Government arose, soon after
the war between England and France had continued some time. As, when
the young Republic was fighting for its life, they had been assisted
by the French, so they now shipped large aids, chiefly in the shape
of provisions, to the French ports. These cargoes were unquestionably
contraband; and the British Government, holding that view, ordered
that all American vessels be detained,--those laden with corn to
be seized,--and a reasonable price to be paid for the cargoes and
freights. Later on, another order was issued, directed against American
cargoes which consisted of provisions and stores for the French
colonies. All this naturally irritated the Americans; they considered
it simply an infraction of their independence; and they were not
disposed tamely to yield to a power which, in the eyes of many, was not
unlikely to dream of future reconquest.
Some alarm was also aroused by the conduct of the British troops in
Canada, who retook possession of certain frontier forts, which had
been ceded to America at the treaty of peace. At the same time, public
attention was directed to a conference held between Lord Dorchester,
the Governor of Canada, and several Indian tribes; on which occasion
language was held by the Governor, which seemed to carry with it a
willingness on the part of England to proceed to hostilities, upon a
given contingency.
Fortunately, however, the disposition of the American Administration
was such, that the fury of the Democrats was powerless to disturb its
equanimity; and the only serious step, which the Government was induced
to take, was to lay an embargo upon the British shipping in American
ports, for the space of thirty days.[7] It was necessary, however, to
come to an understanding; accordingly, an envoy, in the person of Mr.
Jay, repaired to England with full powers, in the hope that existing
difficulties might be removed, and a proper feeling of amity be
secured, between the two nations.
Mr. Jay’s mission was eminently successful, as regarded the two
Governments; but the Treaty in which it resulted only served to
make the breach wider, that existed between the Democrats and their
opponents. His return to America was signalized by an unexampled
storm of invective and abuse; and Jay had, in fact, to retire from
public life.[8] The principle that the flag does not cover the
merchandise was the feature which gave the greatest offence; but the
real objections were sentimental, and were, in fact, brewing as soon as
Jay’s appointment as envoy became known.[9] The treaty was the work of
the Washington administration, the members of which were known to be
favourably disposed towards England; and it was considered likely to
injure the relations existing between America and France. Its opponents
maintained, from the first, that the disposition of Great Britain being
naturally hostile to the United States, there could be no prospect of
real reciprocity; and, when the document arrived, their first thought
was that its ratification would give umbrage to the French. That,
if the United States could convert the evil disposition of England
into one of amity and peace, the projected treaty would be too high
a price to pay for the change; and if there must be war with either
Great Britain or France, it were “more politic for the state, and more
congenial with the sentiments of the people, to engage the former,” as
France would give aid “with all the energy of her triumphant arms;”
whilst, in the case of a war with France, the Americans could neither
count upon the affections, nor rely upon the power, of Great Britain.
But what served, much more, to augment the numbers and vehemence of the
Radical party, and to foment bad feeling between the two countries,
was the constant stream of refugees from the United Kingdom. Mr.
Pitt’s repressive measures were in full force; and the year 1794
witnessed some of the most glaring instances of tyranny that had been
displayed in England since the days of James the Second. Frequent
trials for “sedition” only served to inflame and to energize the spirit
of free inquiry; and men boldly talked of revolution. Some suffered
imprisonment, many more managed to escape; and of those who escaped,
many found a free asylum in Pennsylvania. Some of these men were of
good education and great natural ability; and all were inspired with
the hopes of the day: an imminent deliverance of mankind, generally,
from all kinds of despotism whatsoever.
So, this is how it was in Philadelphia, in these lively times. The most
enlightened and philosophical city in the United States was, at the
same time, the hot-bed of democracy: the home of all that was aspiring
in the human heart and mind. Thus, we can understand something of
the feelings which animate the breast of Mr. William Cobbett, ardent
Loyalist. He knows little of theoretical politics; his short experience
of republicanism has only, at present, served to show him that man
is little better off as the subject of a sovereign people, than as
a subject of a sovereign king; provided that similar constitutional
principles prevail. His recollections of Tom Paine’s animated book,
and his former enthusiasm for republicanism, are--as in the minds of
thousands of his cotemporaries--crushed and buried beneath the torrent
of blood and tears which has been shed in France. A natural reaction
has set in: his native land, with all her faults, comes back to his
memory as a land of average comfort and well-being; and the thought is
uppermost that, perish “liberty and equality,” if all their results
are to consist in a murdered king, and in the home of his childhood
desolated by the bloodthirsty apostles of progress.
One of these emigrants was Mr. James Thomson Callender. His reading
of English history had caused his mind to dwell, somewhat heavily,
upon the underhand means which ministers and parties had used, to
carry their points, during the last century. Abuses in Church and
State: this is the sort of _pabulum_ for the public taste, and Mr.
Callender, accordingly, undertakes to put them all into a popular
form, under the title of “The Political Progress of Britain.”[10] The
result is, that he is a fugitive before many weeks are over his head,
and any further attacks which he has to make, upon the government of
Mr. Pitt and his predecessors, must be offered from the other side of
the Atlantic. The pamphlet, republished in Philadelphia, comes under
the eye of our neophyte politician, and Mr. Cobbett sniffs war. The
“Political progress” presented just the sort of topic which would serve
as provocation: here was another villain maligning his country, and the
wretch must be made an example of.
Accordingly, on the 8th of January, 1795, Mr. Thomas Bradford has for
sale, “A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats;” consisting of a review of
Callender’s book, followed by a still more daring attack upon the
democratic press and upon the numerous clubs connected with the party.
The “Bone to Gnaw” was a distinct advance upon the “Observations.”
The writer had evidently begun to discuss, and to wrangle. And the
discovery that he had the power to wield a very vigorous pen soon
brought the inclination to use it. There is a good deal of coarseness,
as we should look at it now-a-days, but that was the temper of the
times. The pamphlet raised up a host of enemies, whilst the number of
Cobbett’s admirers proportionately increased; and readers were found,
both in England and America, to give their warmest approbation.
But, among others, was “one Smith, a malignant democrat,” who had
started an “American Monthly Review.” In reviewing “A Bone to Gnaw,”
he endeavoured to weaken the writer’s nerve by attacking his grammar
and composition. To very little purpose, except to bring Mr. Cobbett
up, smiling, with a rejoinder. For, in February, was published “A Kick
for a Bite,” consisting principally of a humorous lesson in the art of
criticism, addressed to the editor of the _Review_; and in March, Part
II. of “A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats.”
It was about this date, January or February, 1795, when some newspaper
correspondent likened the new federalist writer to a porcupine. The
idea was instantly adopted; and Cobbett announces himself to the
editor of the “American Monthly Review,” as “PETER PORCUPINE, at your
service.” Thus arose one of the most famous of pseudonyms.[11] It was a
long while before the bearer of it was generally known, _i.e._ beyond
a very small circle of acquaintances; yet it appears that the “British
Critic,” as early as Dec. 1795, had discovered the owner of the name.
But the publication of a name, pseudonymous or otherwise, furnished
as it were a handle for opponents; one insisted on calling him “Mr.
Hedgehog,” another styled him “the pork-patriot,” and so on. Beyond
the play upon words, however, and fresh showers of Billingsgate upon
the British name, there was very little talent in these early attacks
upon Mr. Cobbett. One of them, which has survived, is excessively tame,
although the writer undertakes to wring Porcupine’s nose, and humble
his vanity and presumption; and proceeds to insinuate, that he conceals
himself through fear of the horsewhip; and that he is neither more nor
less than an obscure pedagogue, whose moral rectitude would not bear
the test of scrutiny beyond the Atlantic.”[12]
“A Bone to Gnaw, Part II.,” is taken up by a denunciation of the
Society of United Irishmen, a democratic club in Dublin, which had
published an account of its proceedings; and of the acts of the
French Convention at Lyons, where unheard-of cruelties had just been
perpetrated. The following bit of humour conveys so many ideas,
illustrative of the prevailing topics of controversy, that it is worth
while reproducing here:--
“It would have been unpardonable in a society like that of
the _United Irishmen_, if, among their numerous addresses,
none was to be found to the firebrand philosopher, Priestley.
‘Farewell,’ say they, in their consolatory address to
him,--‘farewell, great and good man! Your change of place
will give room for the matchless activity of your genius; and
you will take a sublime pleasure in bestowing on Britain the
benefit of your future discoveries.’ Every honest man ought
to wish that this were true; for the doctor has already made
some discoveries of the utmost importance to future chemical
emigrants, if he could be prevailed on to publish them. He
might let his brethren into the secret of buying land (or
rather _rock_) at a dollar an acre, and selling it again at
ninepence-halfpenny. This is a sort of anti-chemistry, by which
copper is extracted from silver; and the process by which it is
accomplished must certainly be a _desideratum_ in the learned
world. The doctor might also favour curious foreigners with the
feats of those American magi, vulgarly called land-surveyors,
whose potent art levels the mountain with the valley, makes the
rough way smooth, the crooked straight; whose creative pencil
calls into being nodding woods and verdant lawns; and, like the
rod of Moses, makes rivulets gush from the solid rock.
“‘Farewell,’ continue the _United Irishmen_, ‘farewell, great
and good man; but, before you go, we beseech a portion of your
parting prayer’ (down upon your marrow-bones, reader) ‘for
Archibald Hamilton Rowan, Muir, Palmer, Margarot, and Gerald,
who are now, like you, preparing to cross the bleak ocean.
Farewell! soon will you embrace your sons on the American
shore, Washington will take you by the hand, and the _shade_
of Franklin look down, with calm delight on the first statesman
of the age, extending his protection to its first philosopher.’
Here is certainly some mistake in the close of this farewell.
What do they mean by the shade of Franklin looking _down_? To
look _down_ on a person one must be in an elevated situation;
and I fancy it is pretty generally believed, by those who
understand the geography of the invisible world, that
Franklin’s _shade_, as it is termed, has taken a different
route, &c.”
Meanwhile, the ferment of the public mind over the British Treaty was
now so intensified, that the people were becoming frantic with rage.
Jay was hung in effigy, and the democratic press poured forth upon his
head an untiring volley of misrepresentation and abuse. In Virginia,
there was an open threat of secession, in case of the treaty being
ratified. At Boston, there were riots. The treaty reached America in
March, but was not presented to the Senate till early in June; but its
articles got wind, in some way or other, and were fully discussed by
the press and the radical clubs long before being entertained by the
Legislature.
An opportunity soon occurred, for Mr. Cobbett to produce another
apology for Anti-Gallic principles. A pamphlet appeared, in the course
of the summer, under the title of “The Letters of Franklin,” dealing
with the treaty question, in a strongly dissuasive manner.[13]
In August, therefore, Mr. Bradford had another work, at the hands of
the now-celebrated Peter Porcupine, entitled, “A Little Plain English,
addressed to the People of the United States, on the Treaty, &c., in
answer to ‘The Letters of Franklin.’” This is, in some respects, one
of the best of Cobbett’s writings. It is almost purely argumentative,
and there is a sobriety of tone, and a seriousness about its logic,
which contrast well with the humour, and even buffoonery, in which he
had previously indulged. There was less to joke about. His opponents
(and especially this “Franklin”) were becoming illogical in their rage.
Mr. Madison wanted to force all the nations of Europe, and especially
Great Britain, into the acceptance of a commercial treaty; and this
one, alas! was positively being carried through in a friendly spirit.
England was noted for her perfidy and double-dealing, and they
therefore could not make a treaty with her; but, as Mr. Cobbett pointed
out, her bad character was rather a reason for binding her hands, and
controlling her overreaching ways. And, as to the magnanimity of the
French Republic, and its desire to “protect” its sister, it was clear
that little could be hoped for on that score, seeing that she was
losing part of her own colonies and making war upon the remainder;
besides that it was notorious that French privateering was quite as
bad as English, as far as it could go, in its depredations on American
commerce. In reality, Cobbett’s aim was to deter the Americans from
a French alliance, as “Franklin’s” desire was to secure it. And
“Franklin,” so ridiculous as to urge the impeachment of the President,
for not having courted the French, and for having sent “the slave, the
coward, the traitor” Jay (of all men) as envoy to Great Britain, is
fairly, but mercilessly exposed.
“A Little Plain English” soon appeared in London, being reprinted by
Rivington, and was instantly welcomed with the applause it deserved.
It was considered to prove, to every impartial mind, that the
engagement entered into between the two countries was honourable to
both. The eloquent and sparkling language, in which his ideas were
conveyed, raised the author into the first rank of English writers.
And, on account of his loyal sentiments, with their anti-revolutionary
bias, Mr. Cobbett was declared, by people at home, to have rendered
inestimable services to his native land.
* * * * *
The British Treaty was, however, in far greater peril than could be
averted by the soundest arguments or the warmest loyalty. Whilst
the treaty was being discussed throughout the States, an incident
occurred which eventually laid bare the real source of the danger which
threatened the amicable negotiations; that danger proved to be French
intrigue.
The incident alluded to was one of that class which furnish the
sensational parts of a melodrama, where a fortunate chance renders
nugatory the craftiest of plans, and buries your villain beneath the
ruin of his own devices. One Captain Goddard (the hero of the piece,
and, of course, a British Tar) has the ill-luck to fall into the
hands of a French privateer. The latter, proceeding homeward from the
American shores, and in charge of despatches from Fauchet, the French
envoy at Philadelphia, is herself obliged, in turn, to strike her
colours to a British frigate, almost within sight of home. Her captain,
pursuant to instructions, goes below to secure Fauchet’s despatches;
and, as the frigate’s boat approaches, commits the precious documents
to the waves. But there’s a British Tar aboard, who, with instinctive
readiness understanding the situation, plunges into the sea, and
secures the packet, is picked up by the boat, and checkmates “Mossoo.”
And Captain Goddard, as he stands dripping on the deck, little knows
what a prize has fallen to his turn!
For, these intercepted despatches contained highly-compromising matter.
A certain member of Washington’s administration, EDMUND RANDOLPH,[14]
Secretary of State, was a thorough-paced Radical, and an opponent of
the President’s policy. Up to the end of July, or the beginning of
August, 1795, he had led the opposition to the treaty; and, although
the Senate and the people had become not only reconciled to its
provisions, but desirous that the affair should be settled, Washington
still felt unable to conclude it, on account of the dissensions in
his Cabinet. But, on the 14th of August, Randolph being absent from
the council, the treaty was ratified. The surprise of the latter was
great, when he heard of this sudden deliberation; and, on learning
the cause, his only resource was to resign his appointment, and to go
home and consider his future. For it actually appeared, that one of the
French Minister’s letters thus intercepted described an interview with
Randolph, in which the latter, and two or three other persons, expected
pecuniary assistance in return for their support of French ascendancy.
So, when the English Embassy produced these precious documents, just
received from London, and urged the immediate ratification of the
treaty, there was only one course for Washington to pursue, viz. to
accede to the request. Mr. Randolph was in sufficient disgrace; but he
was foolish enough to make it widely known, by devoting more than a
hundred pages of octavo to full details of the circumstances which led
to his abrupt departure from office.[15] These pages were given to the
public about the middle of December; and among that eager public was
Mr. William Cobbett,--who saw his opportunity.
So, on the 1st of January, 1796, is announced “A New Year’s Gift to
the Democrats; or, Observations on a Pamphlet, entitled, ‘A Vindication
of Mr. Randolph’s Resignation,’ by Peter Porcupine;” which turns out to
be a very smart piece of writing, calculated to disturb the equanimity
of every French sympathizer in the States.
The preface to “A New Year’s Gift,” &c. is worth giving in full:--
“The Democrats and I have long been in the friendly habit of
making presents to each other; and, this being a season of the
year when an interchange of civilities of this kind is more
particularly looked for, I was just turning about me for a
subject that might serve as some little mark of my attention,
when the vindication of Mr. Randolph’s resignation made its
long-looked-for appearance.
“If the reader knows anything of the Democrats, he will allow
that this vindication is most eminently calculated to furnish
me with the means of making them a grateful offering: and I
was the more anxious to be prompt in the performance of this
duty of etiquette, as, from their present formidable situation,
it was to be feared, that they might have the will as well as
the power to turn their vengeance against me, in case of the
slightest neglect.
“When we take a view of their affairs for a year past, it is
impossible not to perceive that they are wonderfully improved.
They have had address sufficient to stir up the mob to burn the
greatest part of the Federal senators in effigy; they have
dared publickly and vilely to traduce the President of the
United States; their own President has been elected a member of
the legislature of Pennsylvania; the legislature of Virginia
has declared in their favour; and a fresh importation of
thieves and traitors from Ireland is daily expected to arrive.
These are great and solid advantages, and when we add to them
the ‘_precious confessions_,’ which they may, by the help of
‘_some thousands of dollars_,’ be able to draw from their new
and communicative brother, we cannot help regarding their club
as the rising sun of this country.
“To this great luminary, then, I kneel; not to ask a boon, but
to offer one; and such a one as I hope will be acceptable, as
its great object is to commemorate actions flowing from the
purest principles of democracy.”
As for the pamphlet itself, it was in Porcupine’s best style; running
through the items, _seriatim_, to which Randolph had inconsiderately
given needless publicity. Mr. Bradford himself admired it, and showed
it gleefully to his leading customers; several of whom stated that it
had been intended to answer Randolph’s “Vindication,” but that it was
now unnecessary, seeing that Peter Porcupine was in the field; also
that the officers of government were exceedingly delighted with his
publications.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Matthew Carey, an Irishman, born in Dublin, 1760. At a very early
age he was prosecuted for a “libel” on the Government, and retired
to Paris for a time, where he made the acquaintance of Franklin and
Lafayette. He emigrated to Philadelphia in 1784, and in the following
year started the _Pennsylvania Herald_. In 1793 he commenced the
bookselling and printing business, which he continued prosperously
for thirty years. Carey was a public-spirited citizen of Philadelphia
for more than half a century. At his death, in his eightieth year,
his remains were followed to the grave by thousands who recollected
with gratitude his philanthropic labours. Carey’s family is still
represented among the leading Philadelphians.
[2] As Cobbett himself very correctly says, “The war once ended, and
the object of that war obtained, … the Congress became an inefficient
body, and each State, having carefully retained its independent
sovereignty, looked to its particular regulations, and its separate
interests, which were often (not to say always) opposed to the
regulations and the interests of all the other States.--“P. P. Works,”
i. 38.
[3] “Being fresh from the French Revolution, while in its first
and pure stage, and consequently whetted up in my own republican
principles, I found a state of things, in the general society of the
place (New York), which I could not have supposed possible. Being
a stranger there, I was feasted from table to table, at large set
dinners, the parties generally from twenty to thirty. The Revolution
I had left, and that we had just gone through in the recent change of
our own Government, being the common topics of conversation, I was
astonished to find the general prevalence of monarchical sentiments,
insomuch that in maintaining those of republicanism, I had always the
whole company on my hands, never scarcely finding among them a single
co-advocate in that argument, unless some old member of Congress
happened to be present. The furthest that any one would go, in support
of the Republican features of our new Government, would be to say, ‘The
present Constitution is well as a beginning, and may be allowed a fair
trial; but it is, in fact, only a stepping-stone to something better.’
Among their writers, Denny, the Editor of the _Portfolio_, who was a
kind of oracle with them, and styled the Addison of America, openly
avowed his preference of monarchy over all other forms of government,
prided himself on the avowal, and maintained it by argument freely and
without reserve, in his publications.”--T. J. to Wm. Short, Jan. 8,
1825: Jefferson’s “Writings,” vii. 390.
[4] “In the year 1794, or 5, a Mr. Rutledge, who was a judge in South
Carolina, made a speech, in which he besought his country to join
itself with the Republic of France in a mortal war against England.
‘She will,’ said he, ‘never forgive us for our success against her,
and for our having established a free constitution. Let us, therefore,
while she is down, seize her by the throat, strangle her, deliver
the world of her tyranny, and thus confer on mankind the greatest of
blessings.’ As nearly as I can recollect them, these were his very
words. I am sure that I have the ideas correct. I and many more cried
aloud against the barbarity of such sentiments. They were condemned in
speeches and pamphlets innumerable.”--“Political Register,” xxvi. 422.
[5] Edmond Charles Genest, born 1765, died 1834. He possessed
remarkable abilities from his youth, and early entered the diplomatic
service. After four years in Russia as _Chargé d’Affaires_, he was
sent to America, as related in the text; and, having been eventually
superseded, he elected to remain and become naturalized. His life was
thenceforth occupied in promoting improvements in agriculture and
in the arts and sciences. (Vide “Biog. Universelle,” also Drake’s
“American Biography.”)
[6] For full details of this curious episode, see Jefferson,
“Writings,” iv., pp. 32-46; Cobbett, “P. P. Works,” x. 101, _et seq._;
also the “Annual Register,” for 1793-94.
[7] Vide “Annual Register,” 1794, for the interesting state papers on
these topics.
[8] Mr. Jay was a genuine patriot. He was moderate in politics, but no
trimmer. After his retirement he devoted himself to questions of social
improvement, especially the abolition of slavery.
[9] For a complete analysis of the opposition views on the British
Treaty, _vide_ “Life of A. J. Dallas,” pp. 160 _et seq._ As a specimen
of the mad and vindictive feelings then current, see a letter to the
editor of the New York _Argus_, signed “An Individual,” and dated Jan.
17, 1796, in which he informs the editor that the Treaty meets with
his entire disapprobation; and continues, “I have come to a solemn
resolution, that I will not hereafter import, sell, or consume any
goods, wares, or merchandise, the produce or manufacture of Great
Britain and her dependencies. I leave others to act as they please, but
this is my firm determination with respect to myself whilst the said
Treaty continues in force.”
[10] “The Political Progress of Britain; or, An Impartial History of
Abuses in the Government of the British Empire, in Europe, Asia, and
America. From the Revolution in 1688 to the present time: the whole
tending to prove the ruinous Consequences of the popular System of
Taxation, War, and Conquest.” It was a little too violent for its
purpose; and, although it contained a good deal of truth, the tract was
malevolent and unpatriotic, and the author deserved to be prosecuted
(from a ministerial point of view).
The preface to the American edition is worth reading, as telling some
of the story of the times:--“Advertisement.--The first edition of ‘The
Political Progress of Britain’ was published at Edinburgh and London,
in autumn, 1792. The sale was lively, and the prospect of future
success flattering. The plan was, to give an impartial history of the
abuses in government, in a series of pamphlets. But, while the author
was preparing for the press a second number, along with a new edition
of the first, he was, on the 2nd of January, 1793, apprehended, and
with some difficulty made his escape. Two booksellers, who acted as
his editors, were prosecuted, and, after a very arbitrary trial, they
were condemned, the one to three months, and the other to six months of
imprisonment. A revolution will take place in Scotland before the lapse
of ten years at farthest, and most likely much sooner. The Scots nation
will then certainly think itself bound, by every tie of wisdom, of
gratitude, and of justice, to make reparation to these two honest men
for the tyranny which they have encountered in the cause of truth. In
Britain, authors and editors of pamphlets have long conducted the van
of every revolution. They compose a kind of forlorn hope on the skirts
of battle; and though they may often want experience, or influence, to
marshal the main body, they yet enjoy the honour and the danger of the
first rank, in storming the ramparts of oppression.
“The verdict of a packed jury did not alter the opinions of those who
had approved of the publications. Five times its original price hath,
since its suppression, been offered in Edinburgh for a copy. At London,
a new edition was printed by Ridgway and Symonds, two booksellers,
confined in Newgate for publishing political writings. They sell the
pamphlet, and others of the same tendency, openly in prison. It is next
to impossible for despotism to overwhelm the divine art of printing,”
&c., &c.
Mr. Callender eventually became a newspaper editor at Richmond,
Va., and distinguished himself as an uncompromising opponent of the
Federalist administrations.
[11] It cannot be said that the title of “Porcupine” was altogether
appropriate. The vulgar notion (derived from Pliny) that this harmless
animal had the power of shooting its quills at an adversary was
probably the origin of the appellation.
[12] “A Rub from Snub; or, a Cursory Analytical Epistle; addressed to
Peter Porcupine, author of the Bone to Gnaw, Kick for a Bite, &c.,
&c. Containing Glad Tidings for the Democrats, and a word of comfort
to Mrs. S. Rowson, wherein the said Porcupine’s moral, political,
critical, and literary character is fully illustrated.” (Philadelphia,
1795.) Here is a little specimen of the style:--“Nature must have
had the hysterics when you were born; mastiffs howled, and owls sang
anthems to congratulate you into existence, and your jaws must have
been furnished with indissoluble tusks expressive of the disposition
that was inspired within you.”
Mrs. Rowson was an English emigrant, who had arrived in Philadelphia
in 1793, and soon blazed forth as an actress and novelist, and enjoyed
great popularity. One of her novels is still reprinted. Cobbett had
made a review of the “roma-drama-poetic works of Mrs. S. Rowson” the
object of some humour in “A Kick for a Bite.”
[13] It does not appear to be known who was the author of these
anonymous “letters.” Cobbett charged A. J. Dallas with the authorship;
and they certainly have the same stamp as Dallas’s “Features of the
English Treaty.” But it must be left to conjecture. Cobbett gives his
reason for selecting the “Letters” to write down, out of all “the
volumes, or rather _bales_,” that had already appeared, because these
seemed to him the fairest sample of the opinions and language of the
opposers of the treaty. They had originally appeared in the _Aurora_
newspaper.
[14] Edmund Randolph, sometime governor of Virginia, and a very eminent
lawyer of his day. He supported the Revolution, and was disinherited
by his father for deserting the royal cause. He was Secretary of State
1794-5. Born 1753, died 1813.
[15] “A Vindication of Mr. Randolph’s Resignation.” (Philadelphia, S.
H. Smith, 1795.) Mr. Smith advertises afterwards (_Aurora_ of Feb. 17,
1796) that a copyright had been taken out for the “Vindication,” so
that as many entire copies might be diffused as possible; also to cover
the cost of printing. Also, he now gives permission to all the printers
in the United States to republish it if they like.