“WHEN I LEFT THEM, I CERTAINLY DID SHAKE THE DUST OFF MY SHOES.”
As a champion of the liberty of the press, Mr. Cobbett holds a place
among the very foremost; and, indeed, a minor object of the biographer,
in this history, is to establish his claim to that place. But it may
still remain open to question how far that liberty is to go: perhaps it
will always vary, according to each particular judge and jury,[1] as to
what is “liberty” and what is “libel.” It is certain that the two cases
in which Cobbett was involved, while a newspaper-writer in America,
were decided without much consideration of their real merits. One went
in his favour, the other against him; and both the prosecutions were
undertaken, instigated by political rancour. We have got the better of
this sort of thing, at last, in England; but only after much shame. And
we are not perfect yet.
Mr. Cobbett’s career of “crime,” during these tumultuous days in
Philadelphia, consisted in his being a genuine satirist. In this
respect he was unapproachable by any of his scribbling brethren; and
there lay the fundamental reasons for the hatred of those who were
amongst his opponents. He had imported into the arena of political
controversy the squibbing propensities of his great master, Jonathan
Swift; and, armed with the results of his laborious study of grammar
and logic, it was useless for any one to expect successfully to
contend with him on his own ground. The weapons, therefore, to which
they resorted were lies and filth of most abominable character. The
phlegmatic, practical, native Pennsylvanian could sit and laugh over
Porcupine’s hard hits, for they did not, as a rule, touch him. But
the hot-blooded importations since the Revolution--soured with the
mortified feelings occasioned by unwilling expatriation--rendered more
and more violent by the intoxicating influence of French principles,
and, to some extent, made reckless by the exigencies of change, were
a different class. The vocabulary of personal abuse formed their
resource. It is not very surprising, then, to find after a time some
disposition, on the part of Cobbett, to yield to a similar indulgence
in coarse language. Upon the whole, however, a perusal of his American
writings does not justify the calumnious epithets which have been
bestowed upon them. All true humourists, from Rabelais downwards, have
suffered a similar penalty. The knave, even more than the fool, both
fears and hates your lampooner, and can only resort to base imputations
in the expectation that a part of his slime must stick. We, in these
later days, will take to heart the maxim of Montesquieu: _To judge
justly of men, we must overlook the prejudices of their times._ We
know Mr. Cobbett to have been an earnest, honest, high-spirited man,
whose whole life, both public and private, was governed by principles
of conduct which were far in advance of his times; an uncorrupt
politician, who may be placed by the side of Andrew Marvel; a husband
and a parent, whose example cannot be excelled; in a day when most
public writers had their price, and when the bonds of family ties were
exceptionally loose.
* * * * *
The Chief Justice of the State of Pennsylvania, at this date, was
one Thomas M’Kean: a violent democrat, and a somewhat unscrupulous
character. Every democratic state, in the early stages of its history,
is much like a simmering pot; and it is not improbable that Mr. M’Kean
belonged to that portion of its contents which floats on the surface.
Cobbett’s account of him is so bad, and the freedom with which he
denounced him to his face was so uncompromising, that the historian
would naturally hesitate to make any needless reference to the chronic
feud which existed between them. At the period of the Revolution M’Kean
had distinguished himself by cruelty to all political opponents, and
particularly to any Quakers who ran foul of him.[2] Besides being hated
for his partiality, he is alleged to have been a notorious drunkard;
he had been horsewhipped by a fellow-citizen; and it was stated that a
number of members of the bar had signed a memorial to the effect that
“so great a drunkard was he that, after dinner, person and property
were not safe in Pennsylvania.” According to Oliver Wolcott, a leading
member of the Washington and Adams administrations, Peter Porcupine’s
exposure of M’Kean was not by any means undeserved; and that he openly
supported the seditious clubs which were ever seeking to undermine the
Federal Constitution.[3] It is certain that Cobbett spared no pains
to remind the public of the little defects in M’Kean’s character. The
Chief Justice, therefore, made it his business to attend closely to the
sayings and doings of Peter Porcupine.
He was not long in finding an opportunity which might serve to bring
the latter within his power. The Chevalier D’Yrujo, envoy from Spain,
had written a dictatorial letter to Pickering, Secretary of State,
after the pattern of the French, and tending, likewise, to reduce the
independence of the United States to a mere shadow. Mr. Cobbett at once
undertakes to keep a vigilant eye upon the affair; and his _Gazette_
gleams forth with such paragraphs as this:
“We hear that DON SANS-CULOTTA DE CARMAGNOLA MINOR[4] is
preparing another _Diplomatic Blunderbuss_. Forewarned,
forearmed;--but, whether armed or not, it is to be hoped that
nothing discharged from that most contemptible quarter will
ever scare the people of America.”
At length, the editor receives two or three communications, which
he prints: being strong appeals against foreign interference, and
reflecting too plainly upon the persons who were causing the liability
to that danger. That danger, however, is not so great, in the eyes of
Chief Justice M’Kean, as the danger of allowing Britishers to interfere
in American politics. Accordingly, the printer and publisher of
_Porcupine’s Gazette_ is served with a bill of indictment; charging him
with defaming His Catholic Majesty the King of Spain, his envoy, and
the Spanish nation, with the object of alienating their affections and
regard from the Government and citizens of the United States.
The heat of the judge’s resentment was, perhaps, intensified by the
feelings of a father-in-law; for his daughter, one of the belles of
Philadelphia, had espoused the distinguished Chevalier. It was several
months before the case was brought to trial; but, at length, at the
November sessions (1797) the bill of indictment was presented to the
Grand Jury, and Chief Justice M’Kean proceeded with his charge. He
began with a “definition of the several crimes which generally fall
under the cognizance of such a court, as treason, rape, forgery,
murder, &c., &c. But these his honour touched slightly upon. He brushed
them over as light and trifling offences, or, rather, he blew them
aside as the chaff of the criminal code, in order to come at the more
solid and substantial sin of LIBELLING,” and proceeded to attack the
defendant with the greatest bitterness. It was in vain, however. The
Grand Jury threw out the bill, to the judge’s great discomfiture.
Mr. Cobbett, with his usual alacrity and fearlessness, at once
proceeded to draw up a statement of the whole affair, and produced a
pamphlet under the title of the “The Republican Judge; or the American
Liberty of the Press, as exhibited, explained, and exposed, in the
base and partial prosecution of William Cobbett, for a Pretended
Libel against the King of Spain and his Ambassador.” On reading the
judge’s charge, it is difficult to believe how an honest man could have
selected the comparatively mild effusions of _Porcupine’s Gazette_ for
prosecution; seeing that his own partisans had used with impunity the
vilest epithets toward the “The Father of his country;” one paper,
indeed, charged Washington with murder. Here is one passage from
M’Kean’s speech, for example: “Libelling has become a national crime,
and distinguishes us not only from all the states around us, but from
the whole civilized world. Our satire has been nothing but ribaldry
and Billingsgate; the contest has been, who could call names in the
greatest variety of phrases; who could mangle the greatest number of
characters; or who could excel in the magnitude or virulence of their
lies,” &c., &c. And Mr. Cobbett showed pretty plainly, by a judicious
selection of recent anti-federal blackguardisms,[5] what was the real
nature of the fight. For himself, he writes in his best manner, as the
following will show:--
“As to my writing, I never did slander any one, if the
promulgation of useful truths be not slander. Innocence and
virtue I have often endeavoured to defend, but I never defamed
either. I have, indeed, stripped the close-drawn veil of
hypocrisy; I have ridiculed the follies, and lashed the vices
of thousands; and have done it sometimes, perhaps, with a rude
and violent hand. But these are not the days for gentleness and
mercy. Such as is the temper of the foe, such must be that of
his opponent. Seeing myself published for a rogue, and my wife
for a * * * * *; being persecuted with such infamous, such base
and hellish calumny in the philanthropic city of Philadelphia,
merely for asserting the truths respecting others, was not
calculated, I assure you, to sweeten my temper, and turn my ink
into honey-dew.
“My attachment to order and good government, nothing but the
impudence of Jacobinism could deny. The object, not only of
all my own publications, but also of all those which I have
introduced or encouraged, from the first moment that I appeared
on the public scene to the present day, has been to lend some
aid in stemming the torrent of anarchy and confusion; to
undeceive the misguided, by tearing the mask from the artful
and ferocious villains, who, owing to the infatuation of the
poor, and the supineness of the rich, have made such a fearful
progress in the destruction of all that is amiable, and good,
and sacred among men. To the Government of this country, in
particular, it has been my constant study to yield all the
support in my power. When either that Government, or the worthy
men who administer it, have been traduced and vilified, I have
stood forward in their defence; and that, too, in times when
even its friends were some of them locked up in silence, and
others giving way to the audacious violence of its foes. Not
that I am so foolishly vain as to attribute to my illiterate
pen a thousandth part of the merit that my friends are inclined
to allow it.”
There was, however, another string to the bow, in the hand of Mr.
Cobbett’s enemies--which bow, being handled with dexterity and
resolution, eventually sent its weapon home.
It would appear, from an insight into the local and personal history
of these stormy times, that a man’s reputation depended entirely
upon the nature of his political leanings. There was not a single
public character, then living, who did not suffer the penalties of
partisanship. In all professions, the man who emerged ever so slightly
from obscurity found himself, on one side or another, involved in a
stupendous party conflict--a conflict in which no feelings were spared
by his opponents, and no fulsome praise left out by his friends.
His faults exposed, his weaknesses magnified, and his best actions
distorted--he, in turn, heaped upon his adversaries similar contumely.
To take by itself (if it were possible) the general sum of abuse,
one would conclude that society was a collection of base ruffians,
aiming at mutual extermination; on the other hand, ignoring all that
opponents said, it would be easy to prove that everybody was a truly
disinterested patriot. And Americans have such a strong tendency to
eulogize the departed, that, strange to say, the grave no sooner
closes over one of their statesmen or politicians, and his part in the
struggle for place and power is no more, than his name is at once
purged.
There is no doubt at all, that many unscrupulous men were in the
front, at the time in which we are now interested--many who, having
once made their influence felt, were enabled with the assistance of
fortune and audacity to hold their own; in spite of public exposure,
their vigour and native abilities made them necessary to their
party.[6] This was the class of men that Cobbett loved to fight--a
class unknown in the land whence he came: indeed, unknown to the
world of men which he had himself created; for it must be noted that
Mr. Cobbett had a very limited acquaintance with human nature in its
depths. The reading and study, which he had gone through some years
before, were all of too abstract a character to make a man of the
world (as it is called). Mankind from books he knew well, an ideal
Mankind, which the self-educated are especially liable to conjure up,
and by means of its gigantic and perfect form, to hide that subtle,
wayward, self-absorbed creature of many motives, called MAN. In this
superficiality, as regards the hidden springs of human action, and the
consequent inability to transfer himself, mentally, into the standpoint
of his antagonist, lies the key to Cobbett’s frequent failure, just
when a little considerate yielding to the feelings of that antagonist
would have produced conviction. There were certain rough notions of
perfectibility about his conceptions of Humanity which did not admit of
the smallest incline toward what he thought to be wrong. In short, he
was a Soldier, from beginning to end; and as a soldier he lived, and
worked, and wrote, and fought, with his face to the enemy;--which enemy
must needs be dealt with uncompromisingly, if it meant fighting at all.
* * * * *
The city of Philadelphia, with all its native and acquired advantages,
at last got an unenviable distinction, toward the close of the last
century, as a plague-spot. As in all such capitals, increasing almost
too rapidly, the population crowded together in limited space; and the
dissolute and the very poor, as those classes always do under similar
circumstances, began to be a detriment to the health of the city.
Sluggish drainage and indifferent water-supply did their fell work.
Nearly half of the children born in the city died under two years of
age, with stomach or bowel complaints. At last, in 1793, the yellow
fever, which had not visited the city for thirty-one years, reappeared,
and carried off 4000 inhabitants in the course of about three months.
And with the yellow fever came the doctors, of course; who, amongst
themselves, roused one of those curious disputes for which the history
of medical science is somewhat famous. A yellow-fever literature sprang
up; statistics were brandished about; wonderful and novel remedies were
suggested; and one of the more ingenious of the doctors came to the
front in the person of Benjamin Rush.
Dr. Rush is one of the highly-eulogized. His benevolence was
unexampled, and he was “honoured and esteemed, both at home and
abroad. It was his constant object to popularize and render attractive
the principles of medicine.”[7] He gave away his Sunday fees in
charity;--and had a more intimate acquaintance with the human pulse
than any man living!
After several attempts to master the yellow fever, of which violent
purging formed the leading idea, Dr. Rush hit upon the plan of copious
bleeding; and so successful was it (according to his own account) that
ninety-nine out of every hundred of the cases he treated recovered! The
other doctors said that Rush’s treatment was certain death. And so on.
The yellow fever went away for that time, but returned in 1797
with similar fatal results. Phlebotomy became again the rage,
and the doctors still disagreed. Dr. William Currie implored his
fellow-citizens to “open their eyes.” A Scotch physician, passing
through Philadelphia, wrote a long letter to _Porcupine’s Gazette_,
in which he argued strongly against this artificial hemorrhage, and
declared that the physicians of the city had sunk from a position of
eminence to “a condition bordering on contempt.”
But Dr. Rush had other merits, for he was a zealous republican, and a
member of the Democratic Society of Philadelphia. He had supported
Independence from before the Revolution, and was now one of that set
of politicians who opposed Federalism; and, having thus incurred the
displeasure of the British Corporal, that eminent writer resolved
to have a fling at the doctor--a matter which was not so difficult,
seeing that Rush had already inspired some amount of ridicule on the
part of his fellow-citizens. Cobbett’s reading enabled him at once to
find a parallel to the zealous phlebotomist. “Gil Blas” had already
furnished him with many a happy stroke of humour, and, now that a rash
bleeder was to be taken to task, where could be found anything so
appropriate as the character of _Dr. Sangrado_, who would draw from a
patient several porringers of blood in one day, who would bleed in a
dropsy, who thought bleeding the proper means for supplying the want
of perspiration, and who stood alone in his strange opinions? The
picture was complete; and when to this jest was added the epithet of
“quack,” besides an insinuation that Dr. Rush killed and tortured with
purgatives more patients than he cured, the latter found it necessary
to speak out, lest his fame and practice should be irretrievably
damaged.
Besides Cobbett, another editor made himself obnoxious to Dr.
Rush. This was Mr. J. W. Fenno, who had succeeded his father in
the proprietorship of the _Gazette of the United States_, and who
was firing away against bleeding in much the same spirit as Peter
Porcupine. Also, “many gentlemen of Philadelphia (not physicians)
expressed to me their dread of the practice and their indignation at
the arts that were made use of to render it prevalent. They thought,
and not without reason, that it was lawful, just, and fair to employ
a newspaper in decrying what other newspapers had been employed to
extol. In fact, I wanted very little persuasion, to induce me to combat
the commendations of a practice which I had always looked upon as a
scourge to the city in which I lived; but this practice and the wild
opinions of the inventor and his followers really appeared to me to be
too preposterous, too glaringly absurd, to merit serious animadversion;
while, therefore, I admitted the sober refutations of those medical
gentlemen who thought Rush worth their notice, I confined myself to
squibs, puns, epigrams, and quotations from ‘Gil Blas.’ In this _petite
guerre_ I had an excellent auxiliary in Mr. Fenno, Jun. Never was a
paper war carried on with greater activity and perseverance, or crowned
with more complete success.”
So, in October, 1797, the fever being at its worst, Dr. Rush makes the
following communication to the _Philadelphia Gazette_:--
“Mr. Brown,--Having brought actions against John Fenno, junior,
and William Cobbett, for their publications against me in their
papers, I request you not to insert anything in your paper
which may be offered, in answer to those publications, or in
defence of my character.
“BENJ. RUSH.”
Well, this was “libel,” certainly. A man who was compelled to ask
his friends to desist from repartee must be suffering either in his
sensibilities or in his income; and whatever justification there may
have been, it is always held that a charge of libel can be entertained
in such cases.
The suit against Fenno was never heard of more. Mr. Fenno was an
American, although a political opponent. Not so, however, with Peter
Porcupine’s case; for there were others behind Dr. Rush who wanted some
old scores paid off. But the trial was put off from time to time, until
two years had elapsed.
“At last, on the 13th December, 1799, it was resolved to bring
it to an issue. The moment I saw the jury-list, ‘Ah,’ said I
to a friend that happened to be with me, ‘the action of Rush
is to be tried this time.’--We looked over the list again and
again, and, after the most mature consideration, we could find
but seven men out of the forty-eight whom we thought fit to be
trusted on the trial; but, as I had the power of rejecting no
more than twelve, there were left, of course, twenty-nine whom
I disapproved of; and, as every one of these seven was struck
off by Rush, there remained not a single man on the jury in
whose integrity I had the slightest confidence.”
Meanwhile, Peter Porcupine had been for some time considering a
plan for removal from Philadelphia. The Chief Justice M’Kean was a
candidate for governorship of the State, and Cobbett openly stated his
determination not to remain, in the case of his election, any longer a
resident of Pennsylvania. The event proved that the Democratic element
was the stronger, for M’Kean was elected by a small majority over
his Federal opponent. Accordingly, _Porcupine’s Gazette_ having been
discontinued at the end of October, Mr. Cobbett made preparations for
transferring his business to New York. It would almost appear that
advantage was wilfully taken of his temporary absence from Philadelphia
to bring the cause to an issue; “it was known that my books, furniture,
&c., &c., were already sent off to New York, but I remained in the
neighbourhood of the city (where I was seen every day) in order to
be present at the trial, if it should come on. On the 7th of December
there was no prospect of the cause being brought to trial; on the
8th, therefore, I came off for New York, where my affairs required my
presence. On the 11th, my correspondent wrote me that the cause was put
off to another court; but the very next day it was all at once resolved
to bring it to trial immediately.” He attributes this sudden decision
to the advertisement in the newspapers, signifying his arrival in New
York, and his resolution not to revive his _Gazette_.
Mr. Cobbett’s leading counsel was EDWARD TILGHMAN, a gentleman who had
acquired distinction at the bar, and whose name is still remembered
with honour. He had been recently a candidate for representing the
state in Congress, but was beaten by John Swanwick, Democrat. Mr.
Tilghman took up Cobbett’s side _con amore_; but there is no record
of his speech.[8] _Claypoole’s Advertiser_ goes so far as to say that
“the pleadings on both sides were lengthy, ingenious, and eloquent,”
but does not reproduce them. Mr. Harper, however, another counsel for
the defendant, is stated by Brown’s _Gazette_ to have spoken as though
he had a bad cause in hand, and “appeared resolved not to defend it at
the sacrifice of his honour and character as a gentleman.” The judge’s
summing-up has not, likewise, gone into oblivion; for Mr. Cobbett took
pains to preserve it, and it appears among his reprinted American
publications.
The judge (Shippen) dwelt strongly upon the imputation of personal
malice, which had been advanced by the prosecution, and urged that
no attempt had ever been made to combat the doctor’s arguments
with regard to the system he had pursued with his fever-patients.
To call the plaintiff a quack and an empiric--to charge him with
intemperate bleeding, and the injudicious administration of mercurial
purgatives, and with “puffing himself off,” besides calling him the
Samson of medicine, for he had “slain his thousands”--was slander,
and a pernicious abuse of the liberty of the press. He concluded with
reminding the jury that offences of this kind had, for some time past,
too much abounded in the city, and it was high time to restrain them;
and, to suppress so great an evil, it would not only be proper to give
compensatory, but exemplary damages! Which the jury did, to the tune
of five thousand dollars, and to the dismay of the defendant.
The court was crowded with the plaintiff’s friends, and the
announcement of the verdict was received with great applause. Outside
there was also much rejoicing, although the newspaper-men heard the
news with mingled feelings. They professed to “derive pleasure and
satisfaction” therefrom, and behaved very tenderly to each other for
several days. Mr. Duane’s paper, the _Aurora_, which had been fifty
times as bad as _Porcupine’s Gazette_, was subdued and silent; its old
opponent, the _Philadelphia Gazette_ ironically observed that “not a
single sally of wit or sprightliness, and, what is more surprising, not
many lies or much impudence, have appeared in it since this memorable
verdict was given.… No wonder Master Duane looks pale, &c., &c.” But
the same paper was somewhat rash to continue in the following strain,
referring to Dr. Priestley:--
“The _repose-seeking_ philosopher of Northumberland
[Pennsylvania] will hardly exult at the late verdict. He, too,
may be the subject of future litigation; and, although his grey
hairs should rise in frightful hostility with the infamy of his
pen, justice insulted, violated justice, may alight upon the
head of the venerable Jacobin.”
In a week or so, however, the papers recovered their tone; Brown’s
_Gazette_ reviled Governor M’Kean; the _Aurora_ abused the British
Embassy; whilst Mr. Woodward, of 17, Chesnut Street, advertised a full
report of the trial, price 2_s._ 9½_d._
As for the benevolent plaintiff, he obtained immediate execution;
for the Sheriff was disposing of Mr. Cobbett’s goods nine days after
the verdict was given.[9] And Mr. Cobbett himself made further
advertisement that he would, in a few days, recommence his bookselling
business, at New York, “with an assortment which his late importations
from London have rendered even more extensive and elegant than that
which he usually kept in Philadelphia.”
The oddest thing of all was, that George Washington departed this life
during the time the trial was proceeding, having been bled and purged
to death on the Rush system! According to the medical certificate,
published in the _New York Daily Advertiser_ of the 30th of December,
several doses of tartar emetic were administered, and upwards of
forty ounces of blood drawn, between Friday night and Saturday night,
the 13th and 14th of that month! The reputed cause of his death was
inflammatory sore throat.
Several letters are extant, written by Cobbett to his counsel, which
the biographer is enabled to present to the reader.[10] The first is
dated from Bustleton, a small place (at that date), a few miles out of
Philadelphia, where Cobbett had for some time past occasionally dwelt,
when business would let him get out into the fields to ruralize.
WM. C. to EDWARD TILGHMAN (_Dec. 9, 1799_).
“Sir,--I am this moment setting off for New York. In case of
a decision against me, in both or in either of the cases,[11]
you and the other gentlemen will please to remove the causes
into the High Court of Errors and Appeal, where I think I shall
stand a better chance of justice. If Quack Rush should obtain a
verdict for any sum less than _four hundred dollars_, you tell
me, that sum must immediately be paid,--and you will please,
sir, to apply in that case to Mr. John Morgan, No. 3, So. Front
Street, who will provide the money without delay. If security
be wanted, the same gentleman will be my security; he is worth
more than ten times the sum, and will cheerfully pay attention
to anything you request of him in my name. The other gentleman,
of whom I spoke to you, I could not see, and, as I was obliged
to leave town, another friend was necessary to be applied to.
All you will have to do will be to give Mr. Morgan timely
notice, and explicit instructions, and he will fail in nothing
that you may desire him to perform for my service.
“I am perfectly well assured that, by leaving my causes in such
hands, I have taken all the precaution that can be taken; but
if he should finally prevail against me, I shall not be much
disappointed; and, let the matter go how it will, I will most
honourably discharge every demand my counsellors shall make,
and I shall for ever retain a due sense of the obligations I am
under to them.--I am, &c.”
The following is dated New York, and was written, apparently, as soon
as the news of the verdict came:--
WM. C. to EDWARD TILGHMAN (_Dec. 18, 1799_).
“Sir,--If anything, done by a Philadelphia Court and Jury,
could astonish me, the decision in Rush’s case certainly
would. It is, however, in vain to complain.… My friend North
will tell you that I at once resolved _not to flee_ from the
worst. It was, doubtless, your anxiety for my welfare that led
you to advise me to this step, and, therefore, I sincerely
thank you for it, more especially as it was, on your part, a
striking proof of disinterestedness; but, sir, it would never
do. No, the republicans may rob me, and probably they will, of
everything but my _honour_, but that is, in these degenerate
times, too scarce a commodity to be sold for 5000 dollars. In a
sovereign citizen, flight from a writ might be very becoming;
but in me, who have the honour to be an Englishman, and the
greater honour to be a subject of George the Third, it would be
esteemed a most cowardly and disgraceful act. It would indicate
a consciousness of guilt; it would blast the fair reputation
which I have hitherto preserved, and which it is my duty to
transmit untarnished to my children.
“North tells me that you say they will come here and seize my
body. Blessed be God, the villains cannot seize my soul. Let
them come. Imprisonment in such a cause has no horrors for me.
Were I to be put to death, I should only share the fate of
ROBERTS and CARLISLE.
“It cannot be many days, ere every man of sense will be
convinced that I am not mulcted in this shameful manner for
being a _libeller_, but for being an _alien_, an _Englishman_,
a _royalist_, and for having had the ‘_audacity_,’ as it is
termed, to come into a republican country and swear that I
still retained my allegiance to the sovereign, whose paternal
arm protected me in my infancy, and nursed me to manhood. This
is my great crime; and that an attempt to ruin me has been made
for this, and for this alone, I shall not fail to prove to the
conviction of every impartial mind.
“In the meantime, sir, I earnestly request that you will be
pleased to forward me (under cover to Mr. Thomas Roberts,
No. 134, Pearl Street, New York) the following papers duly
authenticated:--
“1. A transcript of the declaration.
“2. A copy of the petition and affidavit, presented for the
purpose of removing the cause into the Federal Court, with the
decision of the Court hereon.
“3. A transcript of the judgment, as soon as recorded.
“4. A minute of the motion (which North says you will make) for
a new trial, with the decision hereon.
“5. A list of the jury.
“From the account I have received from my friend North, I think
myself under great obligations to you for your exertions in my
behalf. I wish I could say the same with respect to the conduct
of Mr. Harper.--I am, &c.”
WM. C. to E. TILGHMAN (_30th Dec._).
“Sir,--I wrote you some time ago, but have as yet received no
answer, which I impute to the time which it requires to get the
papers. I now take the liberty to trouble you for advice on the
following points:--
“1. Morgan was in advance to me in a much greater sum than all
the property in his hands amounts to. Cannot he dispose of that
property before the Court meets?
“2. By now selling my debts (in Pennsylvania) to some one here,
cannot the person whom I sell them to have them collected
there, without being subject to any annoyance?
“3. Having an article of considerable value in Pennsylvania,
suppose I sell it to some one here, cannot this person go
and claim it and bring it away (if he finds it not already
attached) without accounting for it to any one?
“I mean not to budge an inch, but to stand and face everything
that can be done against me; and the more injustice that is
committed against me, the better I shall like it; but I want
to hamper them as much as possible, in order to obtain as many
facts against them as I can get.
“They have not brought Fenno’s affair to trial, you see! But he
is not an Englishman; he is a citizen; he has not avowed his
allegiance to King George.
“I hear that the rascally sovereign people hissed you while you
were pleading on my behalf; you, undoubtedly, understood this
as a very high compliment, and trust that the day will yet come
when you will have no need to be afraid of such base miscreants.
“Be assured that, though I may be embarrassed a little for a
few months (by being obliged to be prepared for the worst), I
will not fail to discharge to the full every demand you may
have against me. My business here is very flourishing, and my
reception, in every respect, forms a striking contrast with
what I experienced at Philadelphia. In hopes of hearing from
you soon,--I remain, &c.”
E. TILGHMAN to WM. C.
“I have yours of yesterday. My answer to your other letter is
in the post-office, and was written immediately on the receipt
of it.
“1. Mr. Morgan may pay himself out of any partnership property,
for whatever he is in advance to you in consequence of such
partnership. Other property of yours in his possession, and
not appropriated by you to the payment of him, is liable to
attachment, unless he turns it into money and carries it to his
own credit before an attachment comes.
“2. A _bonâ-fide_ sale for a full consideration of your debts
in Pennsylvania to a person in New York will certainly be good.
Such person may compel your debtors to pay the money to him,
unless an attachment has been laid in the hands of the debtor
previously to such sale.
“3. What has been said (2) applies to the third query. It is
to be understood that the sale must be a real one, for a full
value, and not with intention to defeat a creditor of his debt.
A court and jury will judge what was the intention.
“I do not believe I was hissed by the gods. Such gods I have
never either feared or worshipped, from my youth upwards, nor
shall my grey hairs be disgraced by either. There was a clap
when the verdict was given. It was rather a faint one, and the
court declared its disapprobation of it.--I am, &c.”
Mr. Cobbett was not ruined by the verdict. The enforced sale of the few
effects left in Philadelphia fetched a trifling sum; and was the cause
of unnecessary annoyance, in that a large quantity of newly-printed
matter, in sheets, was thus disposed of at a sacrifice. But the
damages[12] were discharged by voluntary subscription.
“The decision was, in America, regarded as unjust; and, that I
was regarded as a person most grossly injured, was fully proved
by the offer that was made me at New York, to pay the damages
in my stead. This offer I did not accept of, a similar offer
having been before made by some of my own countrymen in Canada
and the United States, of which offer I had accepted.”
The expenses of the trial, however, were some three thousand dollars
more; and this liability hampered his efforts, for a time. But Mr.
Cobbett seems, at the end of the year, to have begun to think of
revisiting England, at least for a time. The following (unpublished)
letter is evidently written in haste, in reply to one from London:--
“Wm. C., New York,
to John Wright, Bookseller, Piccadilly (Jan. 4, 1800).
“Dear Sir,--I have but two moments to tell you of a very
infamous affair. You heard, about two years ago, of a
villainous quack, by the name of Rush, having sued me for
scandal. The trial has been studiously put off till since I
came here, and the villains have sentenced me to pay 5000
dollars damages! Never mind. They cannot ruin me, while I have
my soul left in me. Be not uneasy. We have given bail here,
where I have good friends. They will get the money from us in
April next. I shall, if I live, be in London in June. You will
have many things from me next packet. Washington is dead. Adieu.
“P.S.--When you tell Mr. Gifford this news, assure him that I
am not cast down. I will fight as I retreat to the very water’s
edge. North and the things came safe. Another packet is in,
and will leave this in about two weeks. Then you will get the
things that I am preparing. Continue my monthly supply, but
confine yourself in your letters to mere matters of business.
The _Wodrop Sims_ is not yet arrived, and, of course, I have
not those things. I shall leave an agent here, and a good one;
a good, honest Englishman. Expect to hear from me next packet,
and to receive several valuable things, with the plan of my
future operations.”
From the energy with which Cobbett was laying the foundation of a
new business in New York, one is inclined to believe that he did not
meditate a permanent return to England. Sundry advertisements appear,
which show that he was desirous of extending his American connexion.
But the idea of resuscitating _Porcupine’s Gazette_ was finally
abandoned, and a farewell number was distributed to the subscribers in
January, 1800, in which he gave an account of recent events, and of his
plans for the future. In February, he commenced a new periodical under
the name of the _Rushlight_, which was much relished by the public, and
had a very large sale.[13] This was, however, a not very creditable
publication, being so full of the editor’s personal grievances against
the Philadelphians that there was scarce room for anything else.
In point of fact, the severity of the verdict upset Mr. Cobbett; he did
not recover his equanimity again. The invitations from England, to come
home, were pressing; there seemed to be far better prospects for him
here, and it is probable that he found a good deal in New York to make
him dissatisfied with his equivocal position as a Royalist.
One of the great plans, interrupted by the breaking up of his
Pennsylvanian business, was a collected edition of his American
writings. As far back as February, 1799, Cobbett had issued a
prospectus, announcing the republication of “a new, entire, and neat
edition of PORCUPINE’S WORKS,” and its preparation was going on during
the whole of that year.[14] But the seizure of his goods, by order of
the sheriff, included the principal portion of this new “edition,”
in sheets; and all this was sacrificed. An announcement, therefore,
appears on the cover of _Rushlight_, No. II., that PORCUPINE’S WORKS
would be published in London.
Orders for English books were invited, and subscription lists opened
for the leading magazines and periodicals, during the early part of
the year. But it was quite clear that Porcupine was finding himself
out of his element. The loss of his immediate neighbours helped to
unsettle him, and his best friends were left behind in Philadelphia.
That he was making money, and getting a business together once more, is
evident from the following note.
“Wm. C. to John Wright, London (May 9, 1800).
“Dear Sir,--I have had the good luck to be able to fulfil my
intention of making you another remittance by this packet
(which is to sail to-night) in good bills of exchange, which I
enclose in this letter, to the amount of 93_l._ 9_s._ 4½_d._
sterling. I have written you a good deal this time, but I
cannot … [torn] without once more requesting you not to forget
our _order_, because … pends upon its immediate execution. I
remain, &c.
“P.S.--If I have not mentioned _Weld’s Travels_ in my order,
send twenty of them, neatly bound.”
However, in the course of this month Mr. Cobbett issued a farewell
address to the American public; and, on the 1st of June, set sail for
England, taking Halifax on his way.
* * * * *
It was not many years before Cobbett found that his affections
were bound up in transatlantic memories. And, although he despised
republicanism to the last day of his life, he very soon came to admire
much of the American character, and to follow with deep interest
the fortunes of the republic. A few short years after this date his
experience of mankind was getting riper; and his political education
was beginning to enlighten his mind concerning those objects which are
most worth the struggles of a people.
In a letter to the people of the United States of America, February,
1803, he says,--
“With some few exceptions, I have long forgiven and forgotten
all the injuries, with which the worst of you, in your folly
and your madness, endeavoured to load me; while, on the other
hand, I cherish the remembrance of all those acts of indulgence
and of friendship which I have, in greater abundance than any
other person, experienced at American hands.… If no man ever
had more enemies, no one ever had half so many friends, and
these the warmest and most sincere. Never, therefore, does
America, and Pennsylvania in particular, come athwart my mind
unaccompanied with the best wishes for their prosperity and
happiness.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] “Is he a man I choose to punish?--I make it a libel. Is he a man I
choose not to punish?--I make it a non-libel.”--_Bentham_: _Works_, v.
281.
[2] There is one incident of the Revolutionary War (for the catastrophe
of which M’Kean is held responsible) which arouses the old Adam in
the breast of the Pennsylvanian Quaker to this very day. John Roberts
and Abraham Carlisle, two very worthy members of the Society of
Friends, were arraigned, condemned, and hanged, ostensibly for having
given assistance and comfort to the British troops when occupying
Philadelphia--a perfectly groundless charge. The thing was done to
“save the country,” _à la Française_.
[3] _Vide_ Wolcott’s “Memoirs, &c.,” i. 231, ii. 388, &c.
[4] “Dansons la _Carmagnole_” was one of the French revolutionary songs.
[5] Both Mifflin, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and M’Kean himself,
had many a time committed themselves to the foulest aspersions against
Britain, as well as their own country, on occasion, “after the cloth
was removed.” But Mr. Bache, whether at a civic feast, or in the
columns of the _Aurora_, was a real professor of venom. Britain is
a “perfidious nation;” its people are “bloody savage islanders;”
the Government “a mixture of tyranny, profligacy, brutality, and
corruption;” and he would heartily rejoice if the Royal family “were
all decently guillotined.” And concerning Spain, for several years
preceding the new amicable arrangements, we read of the “slaves of
Madrid,” the “most cowardly of the human race;” the “ignorant soldiery
of the infamous tyrant of Castile!” &c.
[6] There was one William Blount, for example, who was expelled the
Senate, on account of intrigue, or downright treachery, went home to
Tennessee, was received with acclamations, and re-elected Governor of
the State!
[7] _Duyckinck_, i. 294. See also “An Eulogium upon Benjamin Rush,
M.D.,” by David Ramsay, M.D. (Philadelphia, 1813), for some particulars
of his life and career. He died in April, 1813, aged sixty-nine.
Several members of his family attained distinction, the most notable
being his son Richard, who was ambassador to London in 1821, and who
filled that office with great dignity and credit. His “Recollections of
a Residence at the Court of London” has been several times reprinted.
Dr. Rush and his systems had much opposition to contend with, in
England as well as in America; _vide_, _inter alia_, a pamphlet by
Dr. William Rowley, a London physician, who calls him the celebrated
professor of singularities, &c.: “Treatise on Putrid, Malignant,
Infectious Fevers” (London, 1804).
[8] It was usual at that time for the offices of attorney and counsel
to be united in one person. The practice is not even now discontinued;
and there must be some advantages connected therewith which would
recommend it in England.
[9] Advertisement from the _Aurora_ of Dec. 24:--“Philadelphia, Dec.
20, 1799.--By virtue of a writ of Fieri Facias to me directed, will
be sold by public vendue, on Tuesday, the 24th of Dec. inst., at one
o’clock in the afternoon, at the house lately occupied by William
Cobbett, editor of _Porcupine’s Gazette_, &c. A quantity of books,
types and type-boxes, two printing-presses, sundry books in sheets;
also 1 mahogany desk, 1 dining do., 1 octagon card-table, 1 walnut
book-case, 8 pictures, 14 windsor chairs, sundry pine-tables and old
chairs, 2 writing-desks, and printing-stands. Also a smoke-jack and
spit, one ten-plate stove and pipes, &c. Seized and taken in execution
as the property of said Cobbett, and sold by Jonathan Penrose, Sheriff.”
[10] Through the courtesy of Mr. William M. Tilghman, a grandson of the
great lawyer.
[11] “Both of the cases:” there is no trace of anything to explain this.
[12] According to Duyckinck, Dr. Rush is said to have distributed the
5000 dollars amongst the poor (i. 294).
[13] _Vide_ Duyckinck, i. 294, art. Rush.
[14] A copy of the original circular has fallen into the hands of the
present writer. It is dated Feb. 5th, 1799. The volumes were expected
to reach sixteen in number, and the price (to subscribers) was to be
twenty dollars, or four and a half guineas. The following extracts from
this prospectus will give some idea of the extent to which Cobbett’s
writings had been already circulated:--
“Of each pamphlet, published under my assumed name of Peter Porcupine,
about six thousand copies, upon an average, have been printed and
sold in America. The sale of those which have been honoured by a
republication in England has probably been much greater. All of them,
I believe, have passed through three or four, and some, in an abridged
state, have attained to ten, twelve, and even seventeen editions.… As
to the _Gazette_, such has been the increasing demand for it that,
though for a long time I laid by a hundred files for sale, I can
at this moment make up but three complete for the first year. Thus
situated, the orders which I have received from all parts for complete
sets of the pamphlets and complete files of the paper have been a
mortification to me rather than a pleasure,” &c.