“THE THOUGHTS OF THE NATION ARE LIKE A CORK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN.”
William Cobbett was now in his fortieth year,[1] in the prime of life,
blessed with unfailing health, unimpaired talents, and habits of
industry, and a sturdy sense of his independence. At this beginning
of the year 1802, he could command anything he chose--not the least
matter being the ear of thousands of ready listeners. It is very easy
to understand and account for the immediate success of the _Political
Register_. The plan had long been in Cobbett’s mind. It partook of the
qualities of his Philadelphia _Censor_, joined to those of a weekly
newspaper: parliamentary debates, public official documents, foreign
intelligence, weekly prices-current, and diary of the weather, &c.,
along with the editor’s summary of politics, made up such a journal as
was wanted--not only for periodical instruction, but that might furnish
a ready means of reference. As projected and as carried out for the
first two years, the _Register_ was far in advance of anything that had
been hitherto attempted. About three hundred subscribers were found, to
start with, the price being 10_d._ per number, fortnightly. But the two
numbers for January were so far successful, that February 6th saw the
commencement of a weekly issue.
From this date until June, 1835 (excepting a break of three months,
April-June, 1817), the famous _Register_ appeared uninterruptedly. Its
form changed from time to time; but its valiant, its unconquerable
editor was the ruling spirit and the chief contributor during the long
period of thirty-three years. Its readers, its patrons, its friends,
its enemies, its own views upon public characters, its own assertions
as to the tendency of events, its own beliefs--all changed from time
to time. But, with the vicissitudes amid which its intrepid career was
run, there was one principle underlying the whole--one foundation from
which it was never removed. That was a strong conservative attachment
to the constitution of the country, allied to deep affection for its
people--sentiments which were never more necessary to be proclaimed
than during the hideous misgovernment of the first quarter of this
century, and sentiments which were never more constantly proclaimed
than through the lips, or by the pen, of William Cobbett. The reader
may, in the course of this entertaining history, be able to satisfy
himself how true--how _very_ true--is this standpoint.
Meanwhile, let us take a few soundings at the outset; let us see
what bottom the lead brings up; steering will then be an affair of
confidence--such perplexities as do arise depending mainly upon the
conditions of wind and storm, tide and current, and not upon unknown
conditions existing beneath the waters. Here, then:--
[1802] “The throne on which God has placed our Sovereign, and
our own prosperity, freedom, and public happiness, which have
no other basis but that throne, are our first and greatest
care.…”
[1817] “A thousand times over have I said that we wanted
_nothing new_. I say so still. We want the laws of England. We
want no innovation. We want to destroy neither Kings, Nobles,
nor Church. We want the laws of England, and _the laws of
England we will have_.”
[1820] “My principles, then, are as follows:--I hold that it is
the duty of us all to do our utmost to uphold a Government in
King, Lords, and Commons. That, as to religion, opinions ought
to be left as God has made them in our minds, perfectly free,
and that persecution on account of religious opinions is of
the worst and most wicked kind. That no man ought to be taxed
but by his own consent, agreeably to the law of the land. That
elections ought to be free.… That the affairs of the nation
ought to be so managed that every sober and industrious and
healthy man ought, out of his own wages, to be able to support
himself, wife, and family, in a comfortable and decent manner.…
That it is the weight of taxes which produces all the miseries
which this nation now suffers.… That the Debt and other fixed
expenses are a mortgage on the labour of every man, woman, and
child, in the country.… That, unless a great change speedily
take place, this nation will become feeble and contemptible as
well as enslaved; and that its capital will be conveyed away to
enrich and to give power to rival nations.”
[1833] “I hold that this, which we have here, is the best sort
of Government in the world.”
At the commencement of the year 1802, that party represented by Mr.
Windham and his friends honestly believed that England was at the feet
of Buonaparte; and, so strongly did they urge their opinions, that the
advocates of peace were beginning to talk again of war, “should it be
found necessary,” even before the definitive treaty arrived in London,
in April. Mr. Cobbett’s view was that we were “a beaten and a conquered
people;” that John Bull was only a spaniel after all. Not that “Boney”
was so much to be feared, as the spirit of the French Republic, which
was sapping the foundations of English loyalty. Anti-Gallicanism seemed
dying out. Noble sentiments were being overpowered by effeminacy, cant,
and the love of money. Loyalty had become “a matter of expedience
rather than what it used to be--a principle of equal force with filial
affection or the love of life.”
But Mr. Addington and his ministry are pledged to peace, and peace must
be tried, if only to expose its inutility. So, while the ministerial
papers blow peace-bubbles, and leave off, for a while, calling “Boney”
wicked names, Mr. Cobbett sighs to think how the paths of glory do
indeed lead but to the grave: for England is approaching her final doom.
The first-fruit of all this is ruffianism in the shape of newspaper
abuse and of mob-tyranny. For the time being, Mr. Cobbett is the most
unpopular man in London, and he knows it--and he defies it:--
“The alliterative words, _peace_ and _plenty_, sound well in a
song, or make a pretty transparency in the window of an idiot;
but the things which these harmonious words represent are not
always in unison.”
Which means, of course, that he will certainly not illuminate
his windows on the forthcoming celebration of the signing of the
Definitive Treaty. His _Register_ is occupied with more letters to Lord
Hawkesbury, written, too, in magnificent style, and furnished with
arguments which might be refused a hearing, but could not be gainsaid.
So the peace-proclaiming cavalcade approaches; the order for
illumination goes forth; and the windows of No. 11, Pall Mall, are once
more shattered, and the ornamental “Crown and Mitre” once more dashed
to the ground.
This time, however, it was a more serious matter for the assailants.
Cobbett had expected something of the kind, and removed his wife and
family to the house of a friend; he gave notice to the police, and was
resolved to reach the culprits, if possible--which he did, for “six of
the villains” were brought up to Bow Street next morning. They were
all in a respectable station in life, two of them being clerks in the
Post Office, and one of these a son of the Rev. William Beloe, who had
formerly been one of Porcupine’s warmest admirers. In the end these
young men were tried at the sessions, and heavily fined.
But the incident furnished Cobbett with material for sarcasm, which
was freely dealt out at intervals. He “would rather be _compelled_ to
illuminate than have a choice, and so have his house demolished by
Government reptiles.” On the king’s birthday (4th June) the people were
not illuminating, as “the practice seems discredited on account of
recent occurrences.” And in the following year, when things were going
wrong again, and the decks were once more being cleared for action, he
ventures to remind Lord Hawkesbury (who had “smiled” at the affair)
that there was a time to weep as well as a time to laugh.
* * * * *
The alternations of tone, on the part of public writers and speakers of
this period, with reference to Buonaparte, are very amusing. They had
called him a tyrant, a despot, a cut-throat, a murderer, an assassin, a
poisoner, a monster, an infidel, an atheist, a blasphemer, a hypocrite,
a demon, a devil, a robber, a wolf, a usurper, a thief, a savage, a
tiger, a renegade, a liar, a braggart, a cuckold, a coward, and a fool.
They now extolled his character: “his courage, his magnanimity, his
wisdom, and even his piety.” A few months later, he was “the most
abominable miscreant that ever breathed.”
No wonder, then, that the man, who had been consistent all through, and
was found to be right at last, must be put down. If there is anything
the average specimen of John Bull hates, it is the man who has caught
him tripping. Hence, from this time, Mr. Cobbett found he had the
bitterest enemies on his native soil. Early in the year 1803, Otto, the
French ambassador, wanted the Government to prosecute him, along with
Peltier. Mr. Windham was exhorted to disavow him. The “British Critic,”
which had suckled Cobbett’s infant reputation, now felt “diffident” of
much that it had said on his behalf; and the Addington ministry had
their eye upon him. As for his rivals in the press, it must be said
that their conduct was unhandsome. Here was the very first man who had
succeeded in obtaining an independent position for the craft;[2] yet
the mere fact of his having rejected the arts of Treasury corruption
was sufficient to rouse their envy. There was Mr. Heriot, for example,
who was getting fat and rich, and was looking forward to some snug
berth to which he might retire, could not bear to see Mr. Cobbett
getting fat and rich on independent principles. So far did this
feeling extend, that a very sad affair presently ensued.
There had been a debate in the House of Commons upon the Defence Bill,
on which occasion Mr. Sheridan had taunted Windham with his connexion
with the _Political Register_, and insinuated that the editor of that
journal had incited the sailors to mutiny. This latter was not only a
flat misrepresentation, but such a thing was totally contrary to Mr.
Cobbett’s habit of mind: if there was a thing he was specially earnest
about, it was the condemnation of resistance to lawful authority--more
especially with regard to the military and naval services. Mr. Windham
answered with spirit, and, for once, spoke with almost as much humour
as Sheridan himself; concluding in the following terms:--
“As to the weekly publication to which the hon. gentleman has
alluded, I entertain all the sentiments of respect which he
supposes me to entertain, both for the work and for its author,
of whom I had a high opinion long before I personally knew him.
I admired the conduct which he pursued through a most trying
crisis in America, where he uniformly supported all those
principles upon which the happiness of mankind depend; where
he uniformly opposed all those principles (including such as
were formerly professed by the hon. gentleman) which tend to
sap the foundations of civil society, and to spread misery and
wickedness through the world; and where, by his own unaided
exertions, _he rendered his country services that entitle him
to a statue of gold_.”
This was too much. Aristocratic and plutocratic animosity had been
growing fast enough, and would have been harmless, even with the aid
of Mr. Sheridan’s gay disingenuousness; but now, this was too much for
the journalists who were struggling (where they were not subsidized)
for ministerial favour. So they echo Mr. Sheridan, and return to the
charge; the _True Briton_ going a little farther than is needed, and
indicating the appropriate punishment:--
“Mr. Windham professes himself to be the _Soldier’s Friend_.
We cannot suppose, however, that his attachment to a certain
_American scribbler_ arises from his being the writer of a work
at the beginning of the French Revolution, bearing that title,
because that work had for its object _to excite the soldiery
to mutiny_,--to which, it seems, the same patriotic writer now
endeavours _to instigate the navy_. We speak merely from what
has been said in the House of Commons, for we think no true
Briton can read the works of the person alluded to with any
kind of temper. The _pillory_ or the _gibbet_ we think a more
appropriate reward than that which Mr. Windham has suggested
for a writer of such a stamp.”
Now, all through Mr. Cobbett’s long life, there was nothing roused his
ire so much (in the way of personality) as the charge of sedition; and
all through his life he was justified in repudiating it. It was not his
way. He was a man for facing his adversaries. And, to the end of his
days, whatever his other errors, he could never be reproached with the
arts of covert warfare. So Mr. Cobbett was nettled; and,--
“in less than three hours after the libel was published, the
libeller, Mr. Heriot, received personal chastisement in the
very apartment where he had fabricated the libel.”
The reader, who may feel interested in the full details of this
squabble, will find Heriot’s version in the _True Briton_ of August
15-22, and Mr. Cobbett’s account in the _Political Register_ for August
20, 1803. It is sufficient to record here, that Mr. Heriot brought an
action for assault, and did not appear to prosecute; and that “focus of
accumulated infamy, the _Political Register_,” went on its way.
* * * * *
Just before the above incident occurred, circumstances had led to the
production of an article in Cobbett’s _Register_, which should now be
mentioned, as indicating, probably, the extremest point of time at
which he gave uncompromising support to the Government.
War had been declared in May, and the nation was again regarding
the quality of its bayonets, and the condition of its belts and its
gaiter-buttons. The fear of invasion was uppermost in the minds of
everybody who had anything to lose, so the “people” must themselves
be roused. Mr. Cobbett therefore prepared a manifesto, and placed it
(through Mr. John Reeves) at the disposal of the ministry. The paper
was not only accepted, but printed and sent round to all the clergy
in the kingdom; accompanied by an official circular, directing them
to post it on the church-doors, and to “deposit copies in the pews,
and distribute them in the aisles,” and amongst the poor, &c.[3]
This appeal to the British nation is a grand piece of writing, in
Cobbett’s best style. And no reader will wonder at the power which
he was acquiring over the public mind, after perusing the following
extracts:--
[Illustration]
“IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS KINGDOM.
“At a moment when we are entering on a scene deeply
interesting, not only to this nation, but to the whole
civilized world; at a moment when we all, without distinction
of rank or degree, are called upon to rally round, and to
range ourselves beneath, the banners of that sovereign under
whose long, mild, and fostering reign the far greater part
of us, capable of bearing arms, have been born and reared up
to manhood; at a moment when we are, by his truly royal and
paternal example, incited to make every sacrifice and every
exertion in a war, the event of which is to decide whether
we are still to enjoy, and to bequeath to our children, the
possessions, the comforts, the liberties, and the national
honours, handed down to us from generation to generation by
our gallant forefathers; or whether we are, at once, to fall
from this favoured and honourable station, and to become the
miserable crouching slaves, the hewers of wood and the drawers
of water, of these very Frenchmen, whom the valour of our
fleets and armies has hitherto taught us to despise; at such
a moment it behoves us, calmly and without dismay, to examine
our situation, to consider what are the grounds of the awful
contest in which we are engaged; what are the wishes, the
designs, and the pretensions of our enemies; what would be the
consequences, if those enemies were to triumph over us; what
are our means, and what ought to be our motives, not only for
frustrating their malicious intentions, but for inflicting just
and memorable chastisement on their insolent and guilty heads.”
[Here follows an account of the events which had brought Europe
to its present disastrous enslavement, and Napoleon to his
present height of power. Concluding with an eloquent reference
to the results of the invasion of Germany in 1796-8, the writer
winds up with the following appeal.]
“Such are the barbarities which have been inflicted on other
nations. The recollection of them will never be effaced:
the melancholy story will be handed down from generation to
generation, to the everlasting infamy of the Republicans of
France, and as an awful warning to all those nations whom they
may hereafter attempt to invade. We are one of those nations;
we are the people whom they are now preparing to invade. Awful,
indeed, is the warning, and, if we despise, tremendous will
be the judgment. The same generals, the same commissaries,
the same officers, the same soldiers, the very same rapacious
and sanguinary host, that now hold Holland and Switzerland in
chains--that desolated Egypt, Italy, and Germany--are at this
moment preparing to make England, Ireland, and Scotland, the
scenes of their atrocities. For some time past, they have had
little opportunity to plunder: peace, for a while, suspended
their devastations, and now, like gaunt and hungry wolves,
they are looking towards the rich pastures of Britain. Already
we hear their threatening howl; and if, like sheep, we stand
bleating for mercy, neither our innocence nor our timidity will
save us from being torn to pieces and devoured. The robberies,
the barbarities, the brutalities they have committed in other
countries, though at the thought of them the heart sinks and
the blood runs cold, will be mere trifles to what they will
commit here, if we suffer them to triumph over us. The Swiss
and the Suabians were never objects of their envy; they were
never the rivals of Frenchmen, either on the land or on the
sea; they had never disconcerted or checked their ambitious
projects, never humbled their pride, never defeated either
their armies or their fleets. We have been, and we have done,
all this: they have long entertained against us a hatred
engendered by the mixture of envy and of fear; and they are
now about to make a great and desperate effort to gratify this
furious, this unquenchable, this deadly hatred. What, then, can
we expect at their hands? What but torments, even surpassing
those which they have inflicted on other nations? They remained
but three months in Germany: here they would remain for ever;
there, their extortions and their atrocities were, for want
of time, confined to a part of the people; here they would be
universal: no sort, no part, no particle of property would
remain unseized; no man, woman, or child would escape violence
of some kind or other. Such of our manufactories as are
movable they would transport to France, together with the most
ingenious of the manufacturers, whose wives and children would
be left to starve. Our ships would follow the same course,
with all the commerce and commercial means of the kingdom.
Having stripped us of everything, even to the stoutest of our
sons and the most beautiful of our daughters, over all that
remained they would establish and exercise a tyranny such as
the world never before witnessed. All the estates, all the
farms, all the mines, all the land and the houses, all the
shops and magazines, all the remaining manufactories, and all
the workshops, of every kind and description, from the greatest
to the smallest--all these they would bring over Frenchmen
to possess, making us their servants and their labourers. To
prevent us uniting and arising against them, they would crowd
every town and village with their brutal soldiers, who would
devour all the best part of the produce of the earth, leaving
us not half a sufficiency of bread. They would, besides,
introduce their own bloody laws, with additional severities;
they would divide us into separate classes, hem us up in
districts, cut off all communication between friends and
relations, parents and children, which latter they would breed
up in their own blasphemous principles; they would affix badges
upon us, mark us in the cheek, shave our heads, split our ears,
or clothe us in the habit of slaves! And shall we submit to
misery and degradation like this, rather than encounter the
expenses of war; rather than meet the honourable dangers of
military combat; rather than make a generous use of the means
which Providence has so bounteously placed in our hands? The
sun, in his whole course round the globe, shines not on a
spot so blessed as this great and now united kingdom. Gay and
productive fields and gardens, lofty and extensive woods,
innumerable flocks and herds, rich and inexhaustible mines, a
mild and wholesome climate, giving health, activity, and vigour
to fourteen millions of people: and shall we, who are thus
favoured and endowed: shall we, who are abundantly supplied
with iron and steel, powder and lead: shall we, who have a
fleet superior to the maritime force of all the world, and who
are able to bring two millions of fighting men into the field:
shall we yield up this dear and happy land, together with all
the liberties and honours, to preserve which our fathers so
often dyed the land and the sea with their blood: shall we thus
at once dishonour their graves, and stamp disgrace and infamy
on the brows of our children; and shall we, too, make this base
and dastardly surrender to an enemy whom, within these twelve
years, our countrymen have defeated in every quarter of the
world? No! we are not so miserably fallen: we cannot, in so
short a space of time, have become so detestably degenerate;
we have the strength and the will to repel the hostility,
to chastise the insolence of the foe. Mighty, indeed, must
be our efforts, but mighty also is the meed. Singly engaged
against the tyrants of the earth, Britain now attracts the eyes
and the hearts of mankind; groaning nations look to her for
deliverance; justice, liberty, and religion are inscribed on
her banners; her success will be hailed with the shouts of the
universe, while tears of admiration and gratitude will bedew
the heads of her sons who fall in the glorious contest.”
The wonderful activity of Cobbett’s pen, at and after this date,
can only be appreciated by a glance at the volumes of his celebrated
journal. On every topic that arose he had something to say. Much of
what he said was accepted by the reflecting part of the public; many of
his predictions were verified, and many falsified by events; and many
of his opinions he learned to alter. But underneath the whole lies a
burning desire for English prosperity, unimpaired by the faintest token
of self-seeking. To enumerate the topics of the day would involve the
delineation of his opinions thereon. They will have to be studied by
the future historian.
It will be sufficient for our purpose to note, therefore, that the
_Political Register_ had already become the vehicle for the ventilation
of most of the questions which were agitating the public mind, from
invasion down to vaccination. Often loaded with prejudice, but very
generally pervaded with liberality, the views of his correspondents
partook of his own ardent spirit, contributing largely to the
enlightenment of the public mind.
That topic which most of all contributed to revolutionize his relations
with his early political friends was the question of Finance. He began
to examine this subject in the year 1803, after having read Adam Smith,
Chalmers, and others in vain, and at last lighted upon Mr. Paine’s
“Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance.” This pamphlet, he
says, was the means of opening his eyes; and from May in this year he
began to urge a reduction of the interest on the national debt, and the
policy of discovering some means of redistributing the wealth of the
country.
But that which, for the time, influenced Cobbett’s career, was his
unsparing criticism upon the ministry of the day. Mr. Addington had
been an object of ridicule from the moment of the first rumour of his
appointment as premier; and his puerile efforts at statesmanship only
served to confirm the original verdict of the public. Narrow-minded
and presuming, he was utterly unfit for a position of authority, in
which he would have to pass beyond the mere traditions of office.
As a personal favourite, however, of the king he was endured for a
while, until his obvious incapacity rendered it imperative that the
destinies of the country should be entrusted to other hands. The want
of decision and energy in the conduct of the war, and the waste and
mismanagement of the military and naval resources of the country, were
highly disappointing to a people whose patriotism for two whole years
was artificially stimulated by rumours of invasion. “Another inactive
and inglorious year sunk the British nation in her own eyes, and in
those of Europe.”[4] This is the general verdict of the cotemporary
chronicler, on reviewing the circumstances which led to Mr. Pitt’s
resumption of office in May, 1804. Until near the period, however, when
the crash came, the self-conceit of this clever ministry was superior
to any free comments; they seemed fated to bring upon themselves
overwhelming disgrace. It is true, there was opposition in Parliament
(as well as in the press), but opposition was ascribed to anything but
its real cause, and was treated with disdain. Upon the report of the
address, when Parliament reassembled in November, 1803, Mr. Windham
ventured to express his dissatisfaction with the incompetency of the
ministry, but “no reply was made to him.”[5]
So the _Weekly Political Register_ was in its glory. The editor was
determined to contribute his share of effort toward relieving the
country from the benefit of Mr. Addington’s services, and transmitting
his name to posterity “with all the contempt it deserved.”[6]
It is not surprising, then, that Mr. Cobbett was now being closely
watched, in order that an opportunity might arise for retaliation. Mr.
Cobbett was helping to ruin the king’s ministers; the ministers would
try and settle Mr. Cobbett. But it must be on some side issue; there
was no need for poor Mr. Addington’s name to come in. There would soon
be rope enough, one way or other.
The affairs of Ireland were again in a muddle. Robert Emmet’s
insurrection had just occurred, and martial law was eventually
proclaimed. Mr. Fox protested in vain against the system under which
that country was governed, as also did the _Political Register_.[7] A
correspondent (Mr. Robert Johnson, a Judge of the Irish Common Pleas)
sent some letters, signed “JUVERNA,” containing an able, but rather
bitter, series of comments upon recent events, to which the editor
gave a prominent place in his journal (November-December, 1803).
These letters opened the flood-gates of wrath; and Mr. Cobbett was,
accordingly, prosecuted in the following May for publishing “certain
libels upon the Earl of Hardwicke, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,” and
others.
“Juverna” had stated, among other matters, that “the government of a
harmless man was not necessarily a harmless government;” that Lord
Hardwicke “was in rank an earl, in manners a gentleman, in morals a
good father and a good husband;” that “he had a good library in St.
James’s Square,” and was “celebrated for understanding the modern
method of fattening sheep as well as any man in Cambridgeshire;” and
he wanted to know if the Viceroy was “one of that tribe who have been
sent over to us to be trained up here into politicians, as they train
the surgeons’ apprentices in the hospitals, by setting them at first to
bleed the pauper patients?”
Against Mr. Justice Osborne (of the Irish King’s Bench) the insinuation
of “Juverna” was that he had _wrongfully_ stated, in a recent charge,
that the progress of crime in Ireland had been effectually checked by
the “well-timed efforts and strenuous exertions of a wise and energetic
government.”
Lord Redesdale, the Irish Chancellor, was sneered at in general terms;
and alluded to as “a strong chancery pleader,” not entitled to claim
one particle of trust or confidence from the public.
The trial was like all the political trials in those days:--imputations
of the worst motives, insinuations of motives undreamt-of, graced
the Attorney General’s speech for the prosecution; Lord Ellenborough
anticipated the decision of the jury by calling the words libellous:
what more was to be expected than a verdict of guilty?[8]
The defendant’s witnesses to character were all eminent men: Mr.
Liston, Lord Henry Stuart, Mr. Windham, Mr. Charles Yorke, the Earl of
Minto, and Mr. John Reeves, successively testified to his loyalty, and
thereby practically supported the non-libellous view of the matter.
The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Adam, pointed out that the avowed object
of the writer was “the support of good government in Ireland, and the
removal of the present administration.” But in vain.
On the next day a civil action for damages was tried in the King’s
Bench, brought by Mr. Plunkett, Solicitor-General for Ireland, on a
passage in one of Juverna’s letters; the ground was all gone over
again, and with a similar result. Mr. Erskine led the prosecution.
* * * * *
From this day Mr. Cobbett had a handle to his name, which his
unreasoning and malicious foes--his envious, his beaten foes--could
flourish at will. He was now a “Convicted Libeller.” And when you
can call a man a convicted libeller or a convicted anything, you may
fill the office of ass to the sick lion, not only with impunity, but
with credit and distinction to yourself. You will even find many base
admirers.
FOOTNOTES
[1] A portrait (_vide_ Frontispiece), engraved by Bartolozzi, appeared
at the close of 1801. Cobbett appears in the surtout and neckcloth of
the period, and has sufficient dignity of mien, notwithstanding his
light hair and round face, and one’s impression that he would look as
well in a smock-frock.
[2] _I.e._, independent, not only of subsidy, but of the shackles of
party.
[3] It appears in the _Political Register_ for July 30, 1803, and may
be found sometimes in old collections of pamphlets and broadsides.
[4] “Annual Register,” 1804.
[5] Lord Colchester’s “Diary,” i. 463.
[6] A very funny pamphlet appeared about this time, which may be
noticed as the first one of its kind, aimed at Cobbett’s _Register_.
The title is “Elements of Opposition” (Hatchard, 1803), and it consists
of a series of rules, founded upon the opinions of Cobbett:--“How to
describe a prime minister;” “How to be outrageous for the public good;”
“How to talk of what you do not know,” &c., &c. The pamphlet went
through several editions.
[7] “It were idle trifling to impute the distractions and general
backwardness of that country to any other cause than the circumstances
in which she has been placed, and the example or wish of those to whose
management she has been entrusted.”--“Annual Register,” 1804.
[8] Jeremy Bentham, in an article on “The Elements of Packing, as
applied to Juries,” comments on this affair. Had he been upon the jury,
he “should not have regarded it as consistent with his oath and duty
to join in a verdict of guilty.” Bentham, also, has a capital note
on the impunity of men of family, and the punishment due to men of
_no_ family, called forth by a question of the Attorney-General. It
certainly was an unnecessary piece of meanness on the part of Perceval
to ask, “Gentlemen, who is Mr. Cobbett? Is he a man of family in this
country? Is he a man writing purely from motives of patriotism?”
&c.--“Works,” v. 66, 80, 106, &c.
The end of this affair was the prosecution of Judge Johnson himself,
in the following year. Cobbett had delivered up the anonymous MS.,
with the admission that the envelope had the Dublin post-mark. The
handwriting was then traced to the worthy judge. The newspapers which
were not slavish supporters of Government greatly disapproved of the
affair; the _Morning Chronicle_ being especially bold in the expression
of its contempt. The judge retired in 1806, upon a pension of 1200_l._
a year.