“MY FAME HAD PRECEDED ME.”
The reader is probably aware, that your “public-instructor” who,
at the close of the last century, essayed to lead his fellow-men,
had no hold upon the daily press. An occasional jerky paragraph,
or covert insinuation, was all that the newspaper ventured upon,
when its feelings impelled it to break through the traditions of
its calling. Indeed, things were changing at this period, although
not so extensively in London as in France and in America; but the
self-constituted leaders of public opinion were, as yet, restricted
to the pamphlet, or to the periodical review. The student of history
will notice, at least as regards the last quarter of the eighteenth
century, that current opinion on politics is fully represented only in
these journals. Their influence, however, speedily waned soon after
the commencement of the nineteenth century; and, although the popular
review, weekly or monthly, still supposes itself in the van, in our own
days, its thoughts and ideas are appropriated, and often superseded, on
the morrow of their publication.
The “Monthly Review,” redolent of GOLDSMITH and of Griffiths;
the “British Critic,” and the “Gentleman’s Magazine,” of high
Tory principles: and the “Analytical Review,” organ of modern
enlightenment,--were the principal publications of this kind, which
had the ear of the public, at the period of our history. And we shall
be unable to proceed properly with the study of Mr. Cobbett’s life,
without having first traced, from these sources, the rise and progress
of his reputation, ere his return to England.
The “Observations on Dr. Priestley’s Emigration,” appears to have been
reprinted in London immediately after its publication in Philadelphia.
Matters were especially troublesome to the ministry just then, and
the partisans of loyalty eagerly, frantically, seized upon anything
new, in the shape of argument or of declamation, with which to bind
up their rotting timbers. Yet, mark the wonderful inconsistency of
human affairs! The author of this poor plank, groping after political
justice (according to his light), was also the author, or part author,
of a pamphlet which was said to be doing infinite mischief among the
soldiers and sailors,--a pamphlet against which, _at this very time_,
they were actually writing and printing loyal antidotes.
The “British Critic,” then, appears to have been the first to draw
public attention to the new writer. The number for November, 1794,
dedicated several pages to a review of the “Observations,” beginning
with these appropriate remarks:--
“We sometimes elevate a pamphlet, on account of its importance,
to a rank among our primary articles, and this honour is
peculiarly due to a stranger, who comes forward to give his
decision as an umpire, on points wherein the passions of
Englishmen may be supposed sufficiently interested to bias
their judgment. Of this nature is the acute and well-written
American pamphlet here announced, in which the author, while
he addresses himself to Dr. Priestley, as a new settler in
the country, speaks very forcibly on many subjects respecting
England and its public sentiments and conduct. We do not,
therefore, consider the tract as an attack on an individual,
but as a decision upon principles.”
The writer proceeds to express his opinion that the pamphlet is
indeed of American origin, and not fabricated in London. He considers
the fable of the pot-shop [introduced into the Observations, being
an account of the various articles in a crockery-shop, some formed
to honour and others to dishonour, falling out with each other,
and having a general smash] as “strongly in the style of Swift.” He
concludes with a pious hope that the time was coming when, to “excite
discontent and rebellions against government will be universally
considered as a crime too atrocious to be palliated by any speciousness
of theory.”
The “Gentleman’s Magazine” followed suit in its number for January,
1795.
The “Monthly Review,” well-known for the flexibility of its opinions,
was just then on the side of toleration, and considered that there
could be no justification for such abuse of Dr. Priestley; it did not
admire the vulgar fable of the pitcher haranguing the pans and jordans;
and concluded:--
“We have no doubt that London has the honour of being the
native place of this production; although it is pretended, at
the bottom of the title-page, that it was originally printed at
Philadelphia.”
The notice taken of the “Observations,” on the part of the “Analytical
Review,” was in a tone of the severest condemnation. The writer, also
considering that this was no American production, but “engendered
at home in some murky brain,” justly remarked that it was unfair to
continue the persecution of Dr. Priestley, after he had left his
native shores. With much ingenuity, the writer proceeded to point out
that no American would extol the English constitution, nor speak of
reformers as regenerated politicians, nor display such jealousy for the
Church of England, nor discourage the emigrating spirit,--as the author
of the “Observations” had done; and he proceeds to insinuate that
George Chalmers must be the culprit:--
“From the similarity of spirit and style, which we observe
between this production and Oldys’s ‘Life of Thomas Paine,’
were we to indulge ourselves in conjecture, we should conclude
these two pieces to have come from the same pen. But, whoever
be the author of such gross scurrility, and malignant calumny,
it is much to be wished that he were known to the public, that
every honest man might be able to say to his neighbour,--
“Hic niger est: hunc tu, Romane, caveto.”
The “Critical Review,” another respectable “defender of morality and
taste,” did not condescend to notice Peter Porcupine for several
years; and it was not till October, 1798, that the “Observations” (4th
Edition) found occupation for its discriminating pen,--the reviewer
having taken up this pamphlet “to observe scurrility throwing off all
disguise.”
Of all these public guides, the “Analytical” appears to have possessed
the most talent, and the “Monthly” to have been the most independent;
but all were, more or less, ranged on party lines. According to the
political leanings of each writer, so would go his indulgence toward
Peter’s forcible expressions, or his contempt for Peter’s vulgar
comparisons.
The “Bone to Gnaw,” when republished in London, was supported by a long
preface: “A Rod for the Backs of the Critics, containing a Historical
Sketch of the present state of political criticism in Great Britain,
as exemplified in the conduct of the Monthly, Critical, and Analytical
Reviews, &c. Interspersed with anecdotes. By Humphrey Hedgehog.[1]
‘_Melius non Tangere._’” The Historical Sketch (so-called) was a
general attack on revolutionary principles, and their supporters
in the press,--with especial reference to the publications named,
which had “reviewed, or to speak more correctly, _reviled_” the
“Observations.” It is not particularly elegant; and as to any power,
it is milk-and-water against strong ale, compared with the work to
which it is prefixed. But that was the conceit of this Hedgehog; who, a
feeble scarabæcide, had just wit enough to fancy that his little spines
gave him a sort of relationship to him of the quills.
Peter Porcupine was more fortunate in the advocacy of the “British
Critic.” That journal, albeit highly prejudiced, was a formidable
opponent of the ideas of the day. Intense horror of infidelity, united
to warmest loyalty to the Throne and to the Church, pervaded all its
articles. It is no wonder, then, that the editor of this review[2]
made it his business to patronize the trenchant pen of Peter. On the
occasion of noticing “A Little Plain English,” the writer records the
struggles he has had, to maintain that the new politician was from
America,--how “We” were assailed, both in public and private, for “our”
supposed credulity. And when the “Life and Adventures” appeared, the
satisfaction of the reviewer was complete. He continued, from time to
time, to congratulate himself and the public that he had been the first
to discover Peter’s merits; and was by no means disposed to lose sight
of him.
“They who chose at that time to doubt of his existence, would
be very glad, if they could, to disprove it now; but to their
annoyance, and to the vexation of all Jacobins, he undoubtedly
exists; and has done more towards the subversion of the French
interest in America, and consequently towards restoring the
ancient cordiality between that country and Great Britain,
than could possibly have been expected from the efforts of any
single writer. Truth,--Truth was with him; and what can long
subsist against the powers of Truth and Honesty?” &c., &c.
As to his style, the reviewer is indulgent:--
“That this writer is occasionally a little coarse in his style
and expressions, cannot be denied; but, perhaps, he could not
easily attain more refinement except at the expense of some
strength; his object also appears to be to write in a popular
and familiar manner.”
On the other hand, the independent and radical reviewers noticed
Peter with severe animadversions:--“To look into the writings of this
author for _facts_ would be a waste of time.”--“We meet with a strange
_farrago_ of petulance, abuse, false reasoning, and absurdity, into
which it would be disgusting to enter.”--“Absurd comments, gross
misrepresentations, and impudent attacks, both upon the dead and the
living.”--“A writer so weak and infatuated as Peter Porcupine.”
But it must be said, that these despisers of Peter had little of
argument wherewith to withstand him. His positions were generally
just, though sometimes exaggerated; and his violence was thoroughly
consistent from beginning to end,--excepting in this: that he as yet
knew nothing of the wicked oppressions which were going on, in some
quarters, at home. The “Analytical” justly called him to account for
his unfortunate allusions to the freedom of the press in England:--“He
complains that he was allowed _only_ an hour and a half to go out
and find bail. Here, under a similar prosecution, he might have
been arrested, and detained for several days, until his Majesty’s
servants found time to inquire into the securities offered:” with
further comparisons of the American and English procedures, very
disadvantageous to the latter. But this is almost a solitary example of
fair argument; and it looks very much, upon a reperusal of the various
comments which appeared from time to time, that it was only a question
of the richness of one’s vocabulary, as to who could be the most
foul-mouthed in dispute.
But, seeing that sober and respectable SYLVANUS URBAN could uphold
Peter thus: “This lively and animated writer, offensive to some of our
brethren because he tells the truth.”--“Concerning the writer as the
truest patriot in his own country, and the truest friend to honesty
and integrity.”--“If the mercenaries in England and their employers
can confute these just and animated assertions, we will give them
leave to heap harsher abuse than they have yet done on their natural
enemy, Peter Porcupine:”--we may be fully justified in believing that
his vigour and courage were admired, on all hands, not less by his
adversaries than by his friends. As long as he appeared to support a
Party this was natural enough; they could not do less, at the same
time, than attack him with all the force at their disposal.
There does not appear to be any record of the actual, direct, means by
which Porcupine’s writings were introduced to the British public. The
earlier tracts were printed for John Stockdale, and for the Rivingtons.
The “Life and Adventures” are said to have been republished at the
express desire of Mr. Canning; it is probable, therefore, that it is
due to the zeal and acumen of Mr. John Gifford,[3] that Cobbett’s
writings were discovered to be of incalculable value to the supporters
of monarchy. Mr. Gifford was Canning’s right-hand man, as editor. On
the upper floor of the house of Mr. Wright, publisher, of Piccadilly, a
room was rented by the celebrated contributors to the “Anti-Jacobin;”
and here sat Mr. Gifford, conducting the mechanical part of that
undertaking. Mr. Upcott, Wright’s assistant, was here occupied in
transcribing the writings of Canning, Frere, and Ellis, so that their
_incognito_ might be preserved. And Mr. Wright’s book-shop was the
constitutional book-shop of the day.
So it came to pass that Mr. Gifford wrote a lengthy preface to “A Bone
to Gnaw” (as already mentioned), and henceforward attended to the
reproduction of Porcupine’s tracts, which were, of course, published at
the shop of the monarchical bookseller, at 169, Piccadilly. After the
“Anti-Jacobin” was discontinued, Mr. Gifford commenced the publication
of the “Anti-Jacobin Review;” which, supported by Bowles,[4] Whitaker,
Dr. Bisset, and other Tory writers of the day, became the leading
party journal during the remainder of Mr. Pitt’s career. The very
first article in the new magazine was an elaborate review of Cobbett’s
anti-republican struggles, founded upon one of his later tracts; and
it was succeeded, from time to time, by frequent references to “this
staunch friend of social order.” The second volume bears the imprint of
“W. Cobbett, Philadelphia.”
Another celebrity of that day, John Heriot,[5] editor of the _True
Briton_, had some interchange of civilities with Cobbett, the latter
having desired him to supply his paper regularly to Philadelphia. Here
is an extract from Heriot’s answer to the application:--
“Permit me now, sir, to return you my best acknowledgments
for the numbers of your political work, which you did me the
favour to transmit. Of the great merits of Peter Porcupine I
was not before ignorant. I had read some of his political works
with very high satisfaction. I shall be at all times happy,
sir, through the medium of my papers (for I am proprietor of
two), to recommend writings so deserving to the notice of the
British public, and you will, perhaps, admit I can do this with
some success, when I inform you that the circulation of my two
papers extends to nearly 6000 per day. I had an opportunity
lately of making some inquiries respecting you of a gentleman
in my office here, and who formerly held a high diplomatic
mission in America. He seemed to know you well, and spoke
very highly both of your probity and talents. I have only to
repeat, sir, that I shall think myself highly honoured by
your correspondence, and you may at all times rely upon the
best wishes and services of, sir, your most obedient, humble
servant, JOHN HERIOT.”
From a letter to Mr. Nichols, printed in the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for
September, 1835, it appears that Cobbett also sought business relations
in that quarter. The letter (dated August 1, 1797) encloses a file of
_Porcupine’s Gazette_, and proposes to have a monthly exchange of their
respective publications; adding that the writer would be willing to
promote the sale of the “Gentleman’s Magazine” in America, if he could
come to any arrangement with his correspondent.
The following (unpublished) letter to Mr. T. J. Mathias[6] will
also be of great interest to the reader, as tending to show the
authoritative position which he had acquired as a bookseller and
publisher:--
“Wm. C. to the Author of ‘The Pursuits of Literature:’--
“Philadelphia, 12th Mar. 1799.--Sir,--The ‘Translation,’ with
your obliging note in the blank leaf, is come safe to hand.
Nothing that I can address to you can possibly be looked upon
as flattery; you will therefore be assured of my sincerity
when I say that a testimony of approbation under the hand
and seal of the king himself could not have given me greater
satisfaction.
“Your matchless poem on the pursuits of literature is become
very fashionable in the libraries of the Americans; and,
amongst my ‘public services,’ as you are pleased to think them,
I regard my having been the first to introduce this work as
one of the greatest. But neither your awful voice nor that of
an angel, were one to descend, can save America from another
revolution! Your words will, indeed, be like bread thrown upon
the waters; but they will produce no immediate effect here.
“It is with much regret I see the pirating booksellers of
Ireland carrying off the profits which, from this country,
ought to return into the pocket of your bookseller. They send
out cheap editions, by which means they obtain a preference;
and the worst of the business is, they disgrace the work by
publishing it incorrectly.
“If you have seen my papers for a twelvemonth past, you will
not require from me any additional proof of my respect; the
file of papers, which I take the liberty to send you, I
therefore beg you to receive as mere vehicles of intelligence.
Nothing from this country can be a proper return for your
present, unless you will have the goodness to regard as such,
the unfeigned thanks of, sir, your most obliged, &c.”
Allusion has been made, in a previous page, to the offers made, on the
part of the Government at home, to advance Mr. Cobbett’s interests. One
of his own frequent references to that subject will help to illustrate
the subject of this chapter:--
“MR. LISTON, our minister in America, informed me, in the year
1798, I think it was, that the ministers at home were fully
sensible of the obligations due to me from my country, and
that, if I would accept of nothing for myself, they wished me
to point out any of my relations, in the army or elsewhere,
whom they might serve. To which I answered, as nearly as I can
recollect, in the following words:--
“‘As to my relations in the army, I can ask for no promotion
for them, because I have no opportunity of knowing whether such
promotion would be consistent with the good of the service;
and, with respect to my relations out of the army, a sudden
elevation might, perhaps, be very far from contributing to
their happiness, besides which, though it would be my duty to
assist them by means of my own earnings, I should not think it
just in me to be instrumental in throwing them as a burden upon
the nation.’
“I may now have expressed myself with more perspicuity and
conciseness than I did then; but this was the substance of my
answer; and, if I may judge from what I have since witnessed
amongst public writers, I must suppose that Mr. Liston was
utterly astonished. It should be observed, too, that, if there
was a man in the world, through whom such an offer could have
had a chance of success, that man was Mr. Liston--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. I had been a witness of his
zeal, of his real public spirit, of his unremitted attention to
his duty, of the great mischiefs he prevented, and of the great
good which he did; and I respected him accordingly; but neither
that respect, nor any other consideration, could induce me to
depart from that line of perfect independence which I had at
first chalked out to myself, and from which I never have, to
the best of my recollection, for one moment deviated.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] _I.e._ John Gifford.
[2] The _British Critic_ was the joint undertaking of Archdeacon Nares
and the Rev. William Beloe, Prebendary of St. Paul’s. Both these
gentlemen were staunch supporters of Pitt, and received their due
reward in this life. They were also accomplished bibliographers and
literary students, and rendered great service to literary history. The
_British Critic_ lived far into the nineteenth century.
[3] This gentleman (whose original name was John Richards Green) had
got rid of his patrimony, with the assistance of the Jews, at an
early age. To avoid his creditors, he took the surname of Gifford;
and, having discovered acuteness and talent in writing, he soon found
himself under the wing of Pitt, and became one of that statesman’s
ablest supporters in the press. Having been bred to the bar, Mr. Pitt
was enabled to reward his services by the magistracy of a London
police-court, which he held for many years. Gifford wrote, besides
several other historical works, a biography of his distinguished
patron:--“A History of the Political Life of the Right Honourable
William Pitt, including some Account of the Times in which he lived” (3
vols. 4to, London, 1809).
[4] John Bowles, barrister, was the author of several anti-gallican
pamphlets. In one of these he warmly praises the author of “The Bloody
Buoy,” who had executed a “useful and benevolent, though a most painful
and disgusting task.”
[5] Mr. Heriot was a Scotchman of great native ability. He had held
a commission in the Marines, and subsequently produced a novel and
some poems. When the Pitt Ministry resolved to set up a newspaper, the
_Sun_ and the _True Briton_ were established, and Mr. Heriot was chosen
editor, and under his management the papers soon reached a brilliant
circulation. After his retirement from the press, Mr. Heriot held a
valuable appointment in Barbadoes, and subsequently became Comptroller
of Chelsea Hospital, where he died in 1833.
[6] From a collection of letters received by the publisher of “The
Pursuits of Literature,” which was formerly in the possession of
Mathias, and now in the British Museum (Addl. MSS. 22,976).