“AT LAST GOT THE BETTER OF ALL DIFFIDENCE IN MY OWN CAPACITY.”
The popular clamour against the Government of Great Britain was now
at its height. The very name of England was such a by-word, that even
immigrants learnt to evade a direct confession that that was their
native land,--unless it so happened that the vengeful Pitt, by the
advice and verdict of twelve good men and true, had been the cause
of expatriation. The marble statue of Chatham had been hanged and
afterwards beheaded, and the effigies of King George II. had been
solemnly desecrated. The name of George III. was seldom heard in
Philadelphia without being graced by some contumelious epithet.
But there were not wanting signs, at the close of the year 1796,
that the tide was turning in favour of reconciliation with the old
country. The insolence of each successive French envoy was becoming
too apparent--too ridiculous--for any but the blindest partisans to
overlook; and the present representative of the French Convention,
Adet, having announced that the Directory were highly incensed at the
ratification of the British treaty, many reflecting Americans began to
consider that “fraternity” was one of those good things of which they
might have, on occasion, too much. The best of it was, that French
privateering did quite as much harm as English, whilst the American
prize-courts persisted in dealing fairly and impartially with all cases
brought to their knowledge, irrespective of nationality.
A certain estrangement naturally grew between the two republics, and
the high-toned conduct of Adet--more like that of a spoiled child than
anything worthy of his dignified office--was highly characteristic
of the then rulers of the French nation. The American administration
was first startled by reading, in the newspaper, a note from the
French Convention which had not yet been submitted to the Secretary of
State--a document which, indeed, it was in their discretion to publish
at all. The ground of complaint being the new position of English and
American merchant-vessels flowing from the new treaty, the answer of
the Secretary of State was by no means conciliatory. After a few days’
consideration, therefore, Mons. Adet informed the American Government
(and the public by means of an advertisement[1] in the _Aurora_!) that
he “suspends himself from his functions” as minister-plenipotentiary
of the French Republic. This measure, he subsequently adds, is “not to
be considered in the light of a rupture, but as a mark of the sense
of injury” felt by the Convention … “which is to last until they can
obtain satisfaction.”
Now, a jealousy of British supremacy, and a watchful eye upon the
dealings of that perfidious nation, were a very proper state of
consciousness for a patriotic Frenchman; but the attempt to enforce,
time after time, French dictation, was quite another thing. And
when, a few months after, the fact came out that three American
envoys to Paris were refused the usual diplomatic courtesies, because
they refused to pledge the present of a large sum of money to the
impecunious Directory, it is no wonder that coolness and indifference
began to spread, on the part of Americans generally, toward the sister
Republic.[2] In the course of two or three years, contrariwise,
England began to occupy that place in the hearts of the American people
from which she had been excluded for a quarter of a century.
There were many circumstances which contributed to heal the differences
between the two countries; but the failure of French intrigue, and
the steady consistency of the Federalist statesmen, were the leading
factors. It is clear that Washington had great suspicion of the
motives of France, and was anxious to control the tendency of many
of his fellow-citizens to be led away by the delusive fancies of
that regenerated country. His farewell address to the people of the
United States (one of the noblest papers of the kind ever penned)
counsels them to steer clear of permanent alliances with other nations,
especially with those of Europe, as their interests could have but a
remote relation one with another. He adds,--
“Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government.… Excessive partiality for one foreign
nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom
they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to
veil and even to second the arts of influence on the other.
Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite,
are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools
and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to
surrender their interests.”[3]
So, from this period, the Federal press began to gain upon its
opponents, and one of its acknowledged leaders was Mr. William Cobbett.
* * * * *
The “Political Censor” was continued to the eighth number, being
published monthly, excepting when interrupted by a pamphlet with some
distinctive aim. One of these latter was a collection of Adet’s notes
and proclamations above alluded to, under the title of “The Diplomatic
Blunderbuss.” The “Censor,” besides a running commentary on the debates
in Congress, was occupied by violent attacks on Tom Paine (including a
reproduction of George Chalmers’s biography of that worthy), and upon
the French sympathizers; one whole number being devoted to “Remarks on
the Blunderbuss.”
But the tardy publication of a monthly protest against his opponents
was not enough for the now full-fledged powers of Peter Porcupine.
He feels his feet: he knows his strength. Friends and admirers are
flocking to his shop, urging him to the fray.
The political part of the daily press which possessed the best literary
talent was, in Philadelphia, mainly on the side of the Democrats;
whilst many Englishmen were there, disinclined to be known as such, and
none daring (except this “daring scoundrell”) to utter a word in public
in defence of his native country. There must, therefore, be a daily
Federal paper, of most distinctive principles, established in the camp.
Accordingly, an announcement appears, in Mr. Fenno’s _Gazette_ of the
1st of February, 1797, as follows:--
“Proposals by William Cobbett, opposite Christ Church,
Philadelphia, for publishing a newspaper, to be entitled,--
“PORCUPINE’S GAZETTE AND DAILY ADVERTISER.
“Methinks I hear the reader exclaim: ‘What! have we not
gazettes enough already?’ Yes, and far too many; but those that
we have are, in general, conducted in such a manner that their
great number, instead of rendering mine unnecessary, is the
only cause that calls for its establishment.
“The gazettes in this country have done it more real injury
than all its enemies ever did, or can do. They mislead the
people at home, and misrepresent them abroad. It was these
vehicles of sedition and discord that encouraged the counties
in the west to rebel; it was they that gave rise to the
depredations of Britain, by exciting the people to such acts of
violence against that nation as left no room to doubt that we
were determined on war; and it was they, when an accommodation
had been happily effected, that stirred up an opposition to it
such as has seldom been witnessed, and which was overcome by
mere chance. These gazettes it was that, by misrepresenting the
dispositions of the people, encouraged the French to proceed
from one degree of insolence to another, till at last their
minister braves the President in his chair, and a bullying
commander comes and tells us that his only business is to seize
our vessels, in violation of a treaty, in virtue of which alone
he claims a right to enter our ports: and it is these gazettes
that now have the impudence to defend what their falsehood and
malice have produced.
“I shall be told that the people are to blame; that they are
not obliged to read these abominable publications. But they
_do_ read them; and thousands who read them read nothing else.
To suppress them is impossible; they will vomit forth their
poison; it is a privilege of their natures that no law can
abridge, and therefore the only mode left is to counteract its
effects.
“This must be done, too, in their own way. Books, or periodical
publications in the form of books, may be of some service, but
are by no means a match for their flying folios. A falsehood
that remains uncontradicted for a month begins to be looked
upon as a truth, and when the detection at last makes its
appearance, it is often as useless as that of the doctor who
finds his patient expired. The only method of opposition,
then, is to meet them on their own ground; to set foot to foot;
dispute every inch and every hair’s breadth; fight them at
their own weapons, and return them two blows for one.
“A gazette of this stamp is what I have long wished to see,
but I have wished and expected it in vain. Indignation at
the supineness of others has at last got the better of all
diffidence in my own capacity, and has determined me to
encounter the task. People have heard one side long enough;
they shall now hear the other.”
Then follow the conditions of publication, subscription, &c. Sufficient
support was given to the project to enable the publisher to issue the
first number on the 5th of March; indeed, there were more than one
thousand subscribers’ names on his books by that date.
John Adams had just succeeded to the Presidential chair, and Mr.
Cobbett determined that his paper should be the means by which all the
assistance in his power might be rendered to the new administration. It
was to be a rallying-point for the friends of Government. The editor’s
introductory address announced that he was not going to be a mere
newsmonger; although he certainly expected, from the encouragement
he had received, to be behind no other in the early possession of
intelligence, whether home or foreign. It was to be an unmistakably
partisan paper, and to be at the service of all correspondents who were
disposed to assist him.
_Porcupine’s Gazette_ had a course of nearly three years. It was
consistent in its principles from beginning to end of its career,
but it was violent toward its adversaries--too violent, in point of
fact, for many of Peter’s friends; and there were some, indeed, who
believed him to be really hostile to American politics altogether--many
considered him a dangerous ally; and, in those days of terrible
political animosity, a friend might be turned into a foe at a moment’s
notice.
In truth, Mr. Cobbett’s determination was to take the side of England,
whatever happened, in all the international questions which were at
that time constantly arising; and he meant to make his paper the
vehicle of his passionate feelings on such topics. According to his
own account, often repeated in after-years, he was mainly instrumental
in preventing America from joining France in the war then raging;
and it is probable that he really had a very considerable share in
restoring the bonds of good feeling between America and England. The
proof of this lies, to a great extent, in the evidences of opposition
which have survived. It was, indeed, far into the nineteenth century,
before the democratic newspaper-writers of America ceased to defame the
“pensioned” British corporal.[4]
It is not necessary, however, to dwell any longer upon the stormy
events of that era. Suffice it to say that even Americans themselves
recommend the study of Cobbett’s writings, in order to understand the
history of parties.
* * * * *
Amid all this exciting warfare, Mr. Cobbett’s life in Philadelphia was
full of amenities of one kind or other. He did not like the Americans:
their republican insolence was too much for him; but among the families
of the older settlers he found much excellence of character. “A part of
the people of the United States,” he says, “always appeared to me to
be among the best of mankind. Scrupulously upright, hospitable, kind
and generous to excess, and most nobly steady in their friendships.”
But the riff-raff, composing many of the newer emigrants, disgusted
him with republicanism; and he would meet their violence with manifold
vigour. The coarseness which too often disgraced his writings in later
life--after his temper had been soured by outrageous tyranny--is to
be traced back to this period, when threats of being murdered, or
tarred-and-feathered, poured in upon him; and when slander after
slander was invented, and which did not even spare his wife, in order
to induce him to give up British advocacy.
Some of the friendships he made in America lasted till death. His
landlord, Oldden (already mentioned), wanted him to take the house
off his hands as a free gift. James Paul, another Quaker and a farmer,
gave a name to Cobbett’s second son. Several men followed him to
England, and had some share in his future fortunes. And, as time went
on, the members of the British Embassy were not ashamed to honour him
with their acquaintance. As early as 1798, Mr. Liston,[5] who was
then envoy, informed Cobbett that the Government at home were fully
sensible of the obligations which the country owed him--that they were
prepared to advance his interests, or those of his relatives. To all
such offers he persisted in a firm and honourable refusal--a conduct
which naturally served to produce feelings of respect and admiration
on their part. Lord Henry Stuart, another member of the Embassy, was
likewise a great supporter of Cobbett, besides having certain sporting
sympathies, which were revived in after-years. Business relations were
also commencing with several London booksellers.
Several good anecdotes might be reproduced here, to illustrate the
manner of Cobbett’s life in Pennsylvania. He was always ready to
recall, in his later years, the incidents of that period, when he would
point a moral or adorn a tale. Here, for example, is a “shooting”
story:--
“I was once acquainted with a _famous shooter_, whose name was
William Ewing. He was a barrister of Philadelphia, but became
far more renowned by his gun than by his law cases. We spent
scores of days together a-shooting, and were extremely well
matched--I having excellent dogs, and caring little about my
reputation as a shot--his dogs being good for nothing, and he
caring more about his reputation as a shot than as a lawyer.
The fact which I am going to relate, respecting this gentleman,
ought to be a warning to young men how they become enamoured of
this species of vanity. We had gone about ten miles from our
home to shoot where partridges were said to be very plentiful.
We found them so. In the course of a November day, he had,
just before dark, shot, and sent to the farm-house, or kept
in his bag, _ninety-nine partridges_. He made some few double
shots, and he might have a _miss_ or two, for he sometimes
shot when out of my sight, on account of the woods. However,
he said that he killed at every shot; and, as he had counted
the birds, when we went to dinner at the farm-house and when
he cleaned his gun, he, just before sunset, knew that he had
killed ninety-nine partridges, every one upon the wing, and
a great part of them in woods very thickly set with largish
trees. It was a grand achievement; but, unfortunately, he
wanted to make it _a hundred_. The sun was setting, and in
that country darkness comes almost at once; it is more like the
going out of a candle than that of a fire; and I wanted to be
off, as we had a very bad road to go; and as he, being under
petticoat government--to which he most loyally and dutifully
submitted--was compelled to get home that night, taking me
with him, the vehicle (horse and gig) being mine. I therefore
pressed him to come away.… No, he would kill the _hundredth_
bird! In vain did I talk of the bad road and its many dangers
for want of moon. The poor partridges, which we had scattered
about, were _calling_ all around us; and, just at this moment,
up got one under his feet, in a field in which the wheat was
three or four inches high. He shot, and _missed_. ‘That’s it,’
said he, running as if to pick up the bird. ‘What!’ said I,
‘you don’t think you killed, do you?’ ‘Why, there is the bird
now, not only alive, but _calling_, in that wood,’--which was
about a hundred yards distance. He, in that _form of words_
usually employed in such cases, asserted that he shot the bird
and saw it fall; and I, in much about the same form of words,
asserted that he had missed; and that I, with my own eyes, saw
the bird fly into the wood. This was too much! To miss once
out of a hundred times! To lose such a chance of immortality!
He was a good-humoured man; I liked him very much; and I could
not help feeling for him when he said, ‘Well, sir, I killed the
bird and if you choose to go away and take your dog away, so
as to prevent me from finding it, you must do it; the dog is
yours, to be sure.’ ‘The dog,’ said I, in a very mild tone,
‘why, Ewing, there is the spot, and could we not see it upon
this smooth green surface if it were there?’ However, he began
to _look about_, and I called the dog, and affected to join
him in the search. Pity for his weakness got the better of my
dread of the bad road. After walking backward and forward many
times upon about twenty yards square, with our eyes to the
ground, looking for what both of us knew was not there, I had
passed him (he going one way and I the other), and I happened
to be turning round just after I had passed him, when I saw
him, putting his hand behind him, _take a partridge out of his
bag and let it fall upon the ground_! I felt no temptation to
detect him, but turned away my head, and kept looking about.
Presently he, having returned to the spot where the bird was,
called out to me, in a most triumphant tone, ‘Here, here! Come
here!’ I went up to him, and he, pointing with his finger down
to the bird, and looking hard in my face at the same time,
said, ‘There, Cobbett; I hope that will be a warning to you
never to be obstinate again!’ ‘Well,’ said I, ‘come along;’ and
away we went as merry as larks. When we got to Brown’s, he told
them the story; triumphed over me most clamorously; and, though
he often repeated the story to my face, I never had the heart
to let him know that I knew of the imposition, which puerile
vanity had induced so sensible and honourable a man to be mean
enough to practise.”
One of Mr. Cobbett’s warmest adherents, in Philadelphia, was the Rev.
James Abercrombie, minister of the American Episcopal Church, and
incumbent of Christ Church, opposite which was situated Porcupine’s
shop. He was a man held in great esteem as a preacher, and as a teacher
of the young.[6] But he got into disgrace with the Democrats, who
called him “one of Peter Porcupine’s news-boys.” A correspondence was
kept up between Cobbett and the doctor, for some time after the return
of the former to London. It must be noted, by the way, that, soon after
Porcupine had set up the defiant British standard, there were not
wanting many to support him;[7] but, as he says, they kept suitably
in the rear. A complaint of the _Aurora_ newspaper speaks for itself,
as to the power and number of its opponents:--“The British faction,
composed of apostate Whigs, old Tories, toad-eaters of Government,
British riders and runners, speculators, stock-jobbers, bank-directors,
mushroom merchants, &c., &c.” There is no doubt, however, that Mr.
Cobbett’s boast, of being the forlorn hope to less adventurous spirits,
was true enough; and that his admiring fellow-countrymen, both at home
and in America, considered that his undaunted British advocacy merited
the highest encomiums and rewards. What they did say in England may be
reserved to another chapter.
Meanwhile, we must now consider the circumstances which ultimately led
to Mr. Cobbett’s return home. He persisted, from the first, in being
looked upon as an alien; rightly thinking that the taking out letters
of naturalization would impair his right to defend his native country.
But the intention to return to England was, at this time, very distant
from his mind.
FOOTNOTES
[1] An act justly stigmatized by Oliver Wolcott as “the grossest insult
ever offered to a nation not yet subjugated.”--“Memoirs, &c.,” i. 380.
[2] In July, 1797, the French treaties then existing were solemnly
repudiated by Act of Congress.
[3] For this and other interesting State papers the student may consult
the _Annual Register_, where they are printed in full.
[4] One of the most violent of Cobbett’s adversaries was no less a
person than Matthew Carey. The latter was at this time a hot-headed
young Irishman, and _would not_ have his toes trodden upon. He seems
to have taken particular offence at the story of his having refused to
publish Cobbett’s first pamphlet; and afterwards, when J. W. Fenno had
included his name among a list of the United Irishmen, and Cobbett had
reproduced it with sarcastic reference to the “O’Careys,” he burst out
into a fearful display of ill-temper. His Billingsgate was terrible. He
produced “The Porcupiniad: a Hudibrastic Poem,” and “A Plumb Pudding
for the Humane, Chaste, Valiant, Enlightened Peter Porcupine.” The
latter is embellished with a vignette, exhibiting a porcupine suspended
from a street lamp-post; and it would be impossible to exceed the
virulence of its style or the vileness of its language, whilst, in
truth, Cobbett had endeavoured to avoid falling foul of Carey. But
time healed all this. Thirty years later, Cobbett and Carey were
corresponding in their old age as if there had never been anything of
the sort.
Another opponent was William Duane, also an Irishman of some talent,
who had succeeded Bache as editor of the _Aurora_. And there are some
curious effusions among the poems of Philip Freneau, a man whose
writings breathe the most virulent hatred, not only against Great
Britain, but against the Washington and Adams administrations.
The poet of the other side was William Cliffton, who died at an early
age in 1799. He was a warm admirer of Cobbett, and a hearty Federalist.
When Gifford’s “Baviad and Mæviad” was republished in America, he
composed, at Cobbett’s request, an Epistle Dedicatory, addressed to Mr.
Gifford.
[5] “A gentleman for whom I entertained a very high respect, and whose
conduct constantly evinced that he was not merely a receiver of the
public money, but one who had the interest and honour of his king and
country deeply at heart.”--_Political Register_, viii. 548.
[6] Dr. Abercrombie died in 1841, at a very advanced age.
[7] By the month of August, 1797, the _Gazette_ had more than 2500
subscribers.