FOOTNOTES

Wm. C.toJ. Wright.“Dear Sir,—As I am to have the pleasure of seeing you on Wednesday, I shall say the less here. But, as to the now most interesting subject, I cannot help saying a few words, as they may be usefully communicated to Mr. Bagshaw and Mr. Hansard,in confidence. My resolution is to plead my own cause, if I am well in health. Nothing upon earth, illness excepted, shall make me forego this resolution. I am also resolved to defend; that is, tojustify; and to render the affair a great public question. The sooner we begin, the sooner we shall be well prepared, and the more likely to secure a favourable issue. You will know how and where to get me the authorities, or facts, for showing,—“1. That the ministers, or their partisans, have been employed for more than six months in publishing libels against me; atrocious falsehoods (such as the 4000l.story) for the purpose of exciting, in the public mind, an evil opinion of me; and thus pave the way for this state prosecution.“2. That the ministers themselves (or, at least, Canning, &c.) have written libels, if these be libels; and, upon this point, to get together all theaccusations, and all thenicknames, used by the Anti-Jacobins against Moira, Nichol, &c.“3. That there werecaricaturesprepared under the eye of Canning, &c., and of whom, and how they were to be represented as traitors.“4. That there are writers hired, or paid, by the Government.“5. To get a good historical view of the state prosecutions for libel, and show how they have originated with bad Governments and wicked lawyers; and to show, inshort, that the Stuarts suffered more from this cause than from any other.“6. To get collected, all the best speeches and strong sayings of eminent men against an army of foreigners in England. You will easily get me some good matter upon this subject, by looking back into theParliamentary History.“7. Think of any of the poets who have written against mercenary foreign armies.“8. Have not the Swiss and Walloon Guards, in Spain, now joined Buonaparte?“9. I must have, from good authority, the particulars of the contract made with the German Legion, about not being sent out of Europe.“It will be time enough to set about any part of this, after you have been here; but you will turn your mind to the several points in the meanwhile.“Be particular in attending, now, to any publication whatever, wherein mention is made of this prosecution, and especially if it has for its object the prejudicing of the public against me. When I get hold of such a thing, I shall begin my operations.“Do as you please about mentioning my intention to defend myself, to Hansard, or any of them; but be sure to tell them from me, that I hold the thing in contempt; that I am no more afraid of the rascals than I could be of so many mice. And, really, if we have anhonest jury, it will be a famous thing altogether.“I thank you very kindly for your news about my wife. I am a great deal more anxious about her than about the prosecution.”

Wm. C.toJ. Wright.

“Dear Sir,—As I am to have the pleasure of seeing you on Wednesday, I shall say the less here. But, as to the now most interesting subject, I cannot help saying a few words, as they may be usefully communicated to Mr. Bagshaw and Mr. Hansard,in confidence. My resolution is to plead my own cause, if I am well in health. Nothing upon earth, illness excepted, shall make me forego this resolution. I am also resolved to defend; that is, tojustify; and to render the affair a great public question. The sooner we begin, the sooner we shall be well prepared, and the more likely to secure a favourable issue. You will know how and where to get me the authorities, or facts, for showing,—

“1. That the ministers, or their partisans, have been employed for more than six months in publishing libels against me; atrocious falsehoods (such as the 4000l.story) for the purpose of exciting, in the public mind, an evil opinion of me; and thus pave the way for this state prosecution.

“2. That the ministers themselves (or, at least, Canning, &c.) have written libels, if these be libels; and, upon this point, to get together all theaccusations, and all thenicknames, used by the Anti-Jacobins against Moira, Nichol, &c.

“3. That there werecaricaturesprepared under the eye of Canning, &c., and of whom, and how they were to be represented as traitors.

“4. That there are writers hired, or paid, by the Government.

“5. To get a good historical view of the state prosecutions for libel, and show how they have originated with bad Governments and wicked lawyers; and to show, inshort, that the Stuarts suffered more from this cause than from any other.

“6. To get collected, all the best speeches and strong sayings of eminent men against an army of foreigners in England. You will easily get me some good matter upon this subject, by looking back into theParliamentary History.

“7. Think of any of the poets who have written against mercenary foreign armies.

“8. Have not the Swiss and Walloon Guards, in Spain, now joined Buonaparte?

“9. I must have, from good authority, the particulars of the contract made with the German Legion, about not being sent out of Europe.

“It will be time enough to set about any part of this, after you have been here; but you will turn your mind to the several points in the meanwhile.

“Be particular in attending, now, to any publication whatever, wherein mention is made of this prosecution, and especially if it has for its object the prejudicing of the public against me. When I get hold of such a thing, I shall begin my operations.

“Do as you please about mentioning my intention to defend myself, to Hansard, or any of them; but be sure to tell them from me, that I hold the thing in contempt; that I am no more afraid of the rascals than I could be of so many mice. And, really, if we have anhonest jury, it will be a famous thing altogether.

“I thank you very kindly for your news about my wife. I am a great deal more anxious about her than about the prosecution.”

Hecontinues to remind his correspondent that it will answer no purpose to soothe his anxiety by flattering him with hopes of escape. At the end of the year, there is, however, still no prospect of the trial coming on. The following is dated 31st December:—

“What I want information about, relative to the approaching trial, is, in the first place, a reference to all the debates which you know anything of, against foreign troops.… You said that Mr. Bosville had a list of instances of those countries who had fallen under a defence by foreign troops. Can you get it from him? It would do for a mere enumeration in a speech. Arguments against a mercenary army apply equally well to foreign troops. I shall think of other matter in my next. I will prepare everything here against the 23rd, and, as soon as we find that the causeisto come on, I will set off for London, and continue there till the cause be over. In the meanwhile, I will arrange a defence in my own way. If we have an honest, I mean animpartialjury, I am no more afraid of Vicary than I am of a fly.”

On the 8th January, he writes:—

“… I have read the trial of Tooke all through, and also his other trial, in the case of Fox’s action against him.… What villains he had to deal with! His life is a history of the hypocritical tyrannies of this jubilee[2]reign. I shall profit a good deal from this reading; but mine must be a defence of a different sort; less of lawknowledge, and more of a plain story, and an appeal to thegood senseandjusticeof my hearers.“I do not know that I mentioned the following things to you before:—“1. That number of theCourierwhich contained the article that I took for a motto to the flogging article.“2. Those numbers of thePostandCourierwhich, as you told me, contained an exhortation to prosecute me.“Indeed, we should have files of those papers for the last eight months; for I must dwell upon the endeavours to excite prejudice against me.”

“I do not know that I mentioned the following things to you before:—

“1. That number of theCourierwhich contained the article that I took for a motto to the flogging article.

“2. Those numbers of thePostandCourierwhich, as you told me, contained an exhortation to prosecute me.

“Indeed, we should have files of those papers for the last eight months; for I must dwell upon the endeavours to excite prejudice against me.”

The same letter proceeds to mention his plans for arranging his pecuniary affairs—a matter of hardly-inferior importance, considering their tangled condition. As soon as possible, he will then go up to London to await events.

“… I do not know whether they have given a notice of trial, formally; but I think they will.… They feel the deep wounds I have given them; and they lose sight of everything but revenge. I really do not know which I ought to wish for—a trial or anolle prosequi. My character and fame call for the former; but then, my health and my dearly-beloved family call for the latter, or for anything which shall preclude the chance of a villainous sentence. However, I am rather indifferent about thematter.…“… God send us good luck; but if not, goodheart, which I trust I, at least, shall not want. My intention is to meet my accusers in a manner worthy of the advocate of truth.”

“… God send us good luck; but if not, goodheart, which I trust I, at least, shall not want. My intention is to meet my accusers in a manner worthy of the advocate of truth.”

Mr. James Perry was in trouble again, early in 1810. The Attorney-General had filed information against theMorning Chronicleand theExaminer, for a paragraph in which the Whig hopes of the day were embodied. These hopes were to be fulfilled when the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne, and the obnoxious paragraph ended with these words:—

“Of all monarchs, indeed, since the Revolution, the successor of George the Third will have the finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular.”

The interpretation put upon this by the “friends of order”[3]was, that the life of George III. stood between his people and the blessings in store for them! Mr. Perry conducted his own defence, and was acquitted; and the record as against theExaminerwas forthwith withdrawn. Thisoccurrence was a subject of rejoicing to the whole tribe of scribblers,—at least, of those who were not subsidized; and the failure of the prosecution correspondingly inflamed the minds of the administration. Peter Finnerty was another victim of this year. And, after some further halting, it was determined to bring forward the record against Mr. Cobbett, after his friends had begun to be tranquilized with the hope that he would not be molested.

It is highly probable, but for the urging to prosecution, on the part of the ministerial press, that he might have been let alone. But they would not be true to the common cause. Bound in the fetters of party, or of pence, the press was, as yet, ignorant of the latent force which has since made of it a Fourth Estate. And, with respect to Mr. Cobbett, it is impossible to withhold the conviction that the envy and the injustice of his rivals had more to do with moulding his fortunes than all other causes put together.

Wm. C.to J. W.“Your letter, this day got, contained the best and most agreeable news.… We have all, I and my wife, six children, and every soul in the house, drunk Mr. Perry’s health. I made even little Susan lisp out the words. Pray give my kindest and most respectful compliments to him; and tell him that I do not only most heartily rejoice at his success (which, by the bye, does not surprise me), but beg leave to present my sincere thanks; in which, I trust, I only participate with the rest of the gentlemen connected with the press. Nothing but the necessity of attending to my concerns here this week would have prevented me from returning to town immediately, in order to endeavour to urge in person, what I request you to urge for me; namely, a public dinner at the Crown and Anchor, of ‘the Friends of the Liberty of the Press,’ at which we ought to pass a vote of thanks to Mr. Perry, and to proclaim some principles that may be of the utmost importance in future. Now is the time for us to assert our rights, and the respectability of our profession and character.[4]… Mr. Perry has done more good than any man of his time, and it is for us to profit by it.…”

Wm. C.to J. W.

“Your letter, this day got, contained the best and most agreeable news.… We have all, I and my wife, six children, and every soul in the house, drunk Mr. Perry’s health. I made even little Susan lisp out the words. Pray give my kindest and most respectful compliments to him; and tell him that I do not only most heartily rejoice at his success (which, by the bye, does not surprise me), but beg leave to present my sincere thanks; in which, I trust, I only participate with the rest of the gentlemen connected with the press. Nothing but the necessity of attending to my concerns here this week would have prevented me from returning to town immediately, in order to endeavour to urge in person, what I request you to urge for me; namely, a public dinner at the Crown and Anchor, of ‘the Friends of the Liberty of the Press,’ at which we ought to pass a vote of thanks to Mr. Perry, and to proclaim some principles that may be of the utmost importance in future. Now is the time for us to assert our rights, and the respectability of our profession and character.[4]… Mr. Perry has done more good than any man of his time, and it is for us to profit by it.…”

Another public incident, of this period, was the celebrated conflict of Sir Francis Burdett with “Mr. Speaker.” Mr. Gale Jones had been imprisoned by the House of Commons; and Burdett took occasion to address his constituents,—by means of a long letter in Cobbett’sRegister—denying the power of the House to imprison any but its own members. The letter was composed by Cobbett himself.

Mr. Speaker walked home from church[5]with Mr. Perceval on the following day. The latter proposed to move the House to commit Burdett to the Tower, and order the attendance of Cobbett. And so, as every one knows, the metropolis was upset, for the space of two or three months, by an indecent squabble, which brought the House into great disrespect, and made Burdett the idol of the populace. In the end, it required 50,000 soldiers and militia to get him into the Tower; but not all the king’s horses, nor all the king’s men, could rend away the mantle of ridicule which the action of ministers had brought upon themselves.

Mr. Cobbett was not ordered to attend the bar of the House. More the pity: Cobbett in Newgate, illegally imprisoned by order of the House of Commons, would have been a very different affair to Cobbett in NewgateexThe Attorney-General! Yet he was not forgotten.

Wm. C.to J. W.“So, then, the honourable House have, at last, resolved to have theRegisterread to them. That is one sign of amendment, and if they do but follow it up by a similar motion every week, it cannot fail to do them a great deal of good, if anything in this world can do them good. If they call me before them, I shall say that, as the Speaker himself sent me his speech to publish, I, of course, thought it right to publish the speech of any member of the House, especially when he put his name to it.“But what I am, at this moment, anxious about, is that Mr. Madocks should again bring forward his last year’s motion. You will perceive that the worry now making is about breaches of privilege, tending to degrade and vilify the House. Now, what can have so clear and strong a tendency this way, as the havingsold seats in the House, and the having turned out a member for not being willing to vote against his conscience? Why not punish those who were guilty of such offences? This is the ground whereon to proceed; and what a fine, what a striking, what a glorious effect it would have now, to renew Mr. Madocks’s motion! What could they do? What could theysay? Good God! what an exhibition they would make before the country!…”“… So far so good! I am delighted with what has taken place, and especially with the conduct of Lord Folkestone,[6]who, as I always told you, is the truest man in all England. Don’t you remember the eulogium that we pronounced upon him, at your house, on Friday? That is the good of him: you may always depend upon him for more than he promises you. Who would have thought, some years ago, that he would have been the man to answer the minister? And to beat him, too! His speech, even as reported, is a master-piece; and there was no time for preparation. I always told him what he was able to do, if he could but muster up courage.…”“… The decision upon the Walcheren affair is what was to be desired, I think, looking to the only object which we ought to have in view, a Reform of the Parliament. Now, then, what will the Edinburgh Reviewers say? I shall now quote their own words against themselves. Will they now openly join us, as they said they would, or will they again shuffle? At any rate, the honourable House, so far from agreeing with the country, have approved of what the country has most unequivocally condemned. This cannot fail to tell. Will the Whigsnowjoin the people? They have no other rational course left, but will they not rather sink into eternal oblivion?”

Wm. C.to J. W.

“So, then, the honourable House have, at last, resolved to have theRegisterread to them. That is one sign of amendment, and if they do but follow it up by a similar motion every week, it cannot fail to do them a great deal of good, if anything in this world can do them good. If they call me before them, I shall say that, as the Speaker himself sent me his speech to publish, I, of course, thought it right to publish the speech of any member of the House, especially when he put his name to it.

“But what I am, at this moment, anxious about, is that Mr. Madocks should again bring forward his last year’s motion. You will perceive that the worry now making is about breaches of privilege, tending to degrade and vilify the House. Now, what can have so clear and strong a tendency this way, as the havingsold seats in the House, and the having turned out a member for not being willing to vote against his conscience? Why not punish those who were guilty of such offences? This is the ground whereon to proceed; and what a fine, what a striking, what a glorious effect it would have now, to renew Mr. Madocks’s motion! What could they do? What could theysay? Good God! what an exhibition they would make before the country!…”

“… So far so good! I am delighted with what has taken place, and especially with the conduct of Lord Folkestone,[6]who, as I always told you, is the truest man in all England. Don’t you remember the eulogium that we pronounced upon him, at your house, on Friday? That is the good of him: you may always depend upon him for more than he promises you. Who would have thought, some years ago, that he would have been the man to answer the minister? And to beat him, too! His speech, even as reported, is a master-piece; and there was no time for preparation. I always told him what he was able to do, if he could but muster up courage.…”

“… The decision upon the Walcheren affair is what was to be desired, I think, looking to the only object which we ought to have in view, a Reform of the Parliament. Now, then, what will the Edinburgh Reviewers say? I shall now quote their own words against themselves. Will they now openly join us, as they said they would, or will they again shuffle? At any rate, the honourable House, so far from agreeing with the country, have approved of what the country has most unequivocally condemned. This cannot fail to tell. Will the Whigsnowjoin the people? They have no other rational course left, but will they not rather sink into eternal oblivion?”

In the middle of May, the Attorney-General had made up his mind; and Mr. Cobbett came up to London to the “naming” of the jury.

Upon his return to Botley, his hands are fuller than ever. Money has to be provided, so that there shall be no tradesmen in Hampshire left unpaid. “Since last January we have paid for everything, the butcher excepted, as we have had it. No bills of any sort; and I must leave here none at all, if I can help it, when I go up to the trial.”

Copy for theRegistergoes up to London in undiminished quantity; and there is, besides, the preparation for his defence. Friends furnish hints, and supply him with books:—

“To-day has been devoted wholly (since seven o’clock) to the reading of the volumes sent me by the coach. That sent by Mr. Holt White is full of most excellent matter. In short, if those who are to decide are notbaseness itself, I am safe.”

Those who were to decide were, at length, brought together, and they took two minutes over it.

[1]“In after-life he [‘my father’] described the ‘Hydra’ as a hell upon the waters, and the brutal flogging of the sailors for the most trivial offences as something too horrible for contemplation. ‘Often,’ he used to say, ‘have I wondered that men, who were treated as if they had neither hearts nor souls, should yet, in the hour of danger and of duty, forget their wrongs and indignities, act like true heroes, and pour out their heart’s blood with sublime unselfishness for a country that treated them so detestably.’—Charles Mackay, “Forty Years’ Recollections,” i. p. 13.

[2]On the previous 25th of October, the occasion of the King’s entering the fiftieth year of his reign, there had been great “rejoicings.” The Parliamentary Reformists, however, did not approve of it, holding thatthe prosperity of the countrywas a hypocritical and delusive cry. Mr. Cobbett boasted of his refusal to subscribe toward giving the twelve hundred thousand paupers “that rarity, that luxury, a bellyful,” and gave very good reasons for it. The Whig papers, too, heaped much derision upon the affair. One of the incidents of the day was a fellow sticking up a placard at Charing Cross, in these terms: “May God disperse the votaries of Cobbett, as the clouds of this day!”

[3]Thefriends of orderwere fairly proficient in the language of the fish-market; e.g., “To the indignation and execration of the British nation do we therefore consign this damning specimen of the abominable and infamous sentiments by which the base faction are impelled in their most unprincipled and diabolical pursuits,” was the remark of thePost, at the close of its comments upon the wickedChronicle.

[4]The “profession and character” of the fraternity had just been roughly assailed in Parliament by Mr. Windham. The question of excluding reporters from the gallery of the House of Commons was one which would come up at intervals, and it was one upon which most public men changed their opinions, from time to time, according to circumstances. Mr. Windham was now for shutting the gallery; and he described the publishers of the Debates as bankrupts, lottery-office keepers, footmen, and decayed tradesmen, and he had heard “that they were a sort of men who would give into corrupt misrepresentations of opposite sides.” As Mr. Wright was the only person among the parliamentary reporters who could be put under the head of “bankrupts,” thePolitical Registergave Mr. Windham a castigation.The venal writers of the day, of course, called this black treachery and ingratitude. But then such writers had no interest in upholding the craft—rather the other way. Of this class was theSatirist, or Monthly Meteor, one of the foulest pieces of rubbish that ever disgraced the periodical press. This paper recommended that Cobbett’s article (which was in extremely temperate terms) should be framed and glazed by every public man, as a warning never to trust this wretch, &c.TheSatiristwas one long-drawn libel. The editor must have been utterly insusceptible of shame, or else must have been in the habit of deadening his moral feelings by artificial means. Even the good and patriotic Whitbread was represented as one who delighted in practising, upon his own estate, that tyranny against which he declaimed in the House of Commons. As for Finnerty, he is always “the miscreant,” and Mr. Wardle, “the l——r.” Wright is described as “the poor devil who now corrects Cobbett’s bad English, edits his Parliamentary History, brushes his coat, puffs him in coffee-houses and debating-shops, and does all his other dirty work,” &c.It is very difficult to please everybody. TheExaminerpresently began to write down Mr. Windham, supporting itself with this affair of the reporters, and howled at Mr. Cobbett for not doing the same. The fact being that Cobbett was especially careful to avoid needless animadversions upon his old friend.

The venal writers of the day, of course, called this black treachery and ingratitude. But then such writers had no interest in upholding the craft—rather the other way. Of this class was theSatirist, or Monthly Meteor, one of the foulest pieces of rubbish that ever disgraced the periodical press. This paper recommended that Cobbett’s article (which was in extremely temperate terms) should be framed and glazed by every public man, as a warning never to trust this wretch, &c.

TheSatiristwas one long-drawn libel. The editor must have been utterly insusceptible of shame, or else must have been in the habit of deadening his moral feelings by artificial means. Even the good and patriotic Whitbread was represented as one who delighted in practising, upon his own estate, that tyranny against which he declaimed in the House of Commons. As for Finnerty, he is always “the miscreant,” and Mr. Wardle, “the l——r.” Wright is described as “the poor devil who now corrects Cobbett’s bad English, edits his Parliamentary History, brushes his coat, puffs him in coffee-houses and debating-shops, and does all his other dirty work,” &c.

It is very difficult to please everybody. TheExaminerpresently began to write down Mr. Windham, supporting itself with this affair of the reporters, and howled at Mr. Cobbett for not doing the same. The fact being that Cobbett was especially careful to avoid needless animadversions upon his old friend.

[5]Lord Colchester’s “Diary and Correspondence,” ii. 240.

[6]Lord Folkestone had reminded the House, on the 26th March, that it had been the practice of Andrew Marvel to write a full account of the proceedings of the House of Commons to his constituents every week.

On the 15th June, 1810, the Court of King’s Bench was at last prepared to hear the Attorney-General’s story. Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Budd, Mr. Bagshaw, and Mr. Hansard accordingly appeared, to answer the charge of writing, printing, and publishing a seditious “libel.” Stern Ellenborough presided within, and a deeply-interested public waited without, the Court.

Withal,—Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Ellenborough, and the expectant public, each and every one knew, in his heart, that Mr. Cobbett was about to be tried for exposing the king’s ministers; for his sarcasms over the Duke of Clarence and “Mother Jordan;” for showing up Mrs. Clarke; for his discoveries in political corruption; aye, and for quarrelling with theMorning Post.

Mr. Attorney-General’s story, however, dealt with none of these topics. The burden of his tale was, that the defendant charged the Government with cruelty, and suggested to the wicked mutineers the cruelty and injustice of their punishment. That certain brave and honourable men had been driven from their own land, and had “sought shelter in ours;” and had offered their blood for the glory and safety of their adopted country. That the defendant’s paper was a libel on the brave and honourable men; while its obvious tendency was to deter the common people from entering the militia.

The speech of the defendant was temperate, even to tameness. The opportunity of accumulating fire and passion, in support of unwelcome truth, was thrown away. But there is little doubt that Cobbett had some faith left in the honesty of a jury; besides a fallacious belief that the ostensible cause of the prosecution was the real one, and that the matter would be decided upon its merits. Had he, rather, boldly scorned the adversary, and dared him to disprove that the present was an episode in political warfare, which gave undue advantage (for the time) to the cause of might against right: at the same time, reiterating his wish to excite the public indignation against amateur tyranny, had kept up an attitude of defiance,—the foe would have been cowed, although, perhaps, not made more relenting. There was no mercy in Vicary Gibbs, nor in Lord Ellenborough, toward the champions of the press; and Mr. Cobbett, as champion for the day, should have recollected that the cause itself was again on its trial. The day would be certain to go against him; it was notoriously a personal attack; but, had he chosen to disregard his own personality, and to hurl back in the Attorney’s face the persecuting character which that worthy had given to his office,—he would have dealt that stroke at licensed hypocrisy which was left for the task of William Hone.

One grave error was committed by Mr. Cobbett in his defence: it was very weak for him to say that the words were writtenin haste.[1]Otherwise, the general burden of his speech was: how atrociously he had been calumniated, from his first appearance as an independent writer, to the present moment, with the Attorney’s unjust imputations on his loyalty and honesty; and how the Government was known to be influencing the propagation of such calumny. That he had done good to his neighbours and to his country, according to his measure. That the Attorney’s forced construction of his words could not be borne out. That his attachment to the British soldier could not be questioned. That the so-called Hanoverian legion was composed, to a great extent, of persons of no country; and that they were a nuisance, from their general bad behaviour, in whatever part of England they happened to be quartered.[2]

This last was, of course, a fresh libel, of which the Attorney-General did not fail to make a new point. And he had the meanness to try and prove that the delay in the prosecution was the defendant’s own doing.[3]He thought, too, that the defendant had better consulted his character and fame, by going along with the three other culprits, in suffering judgment to go by default.

Lord Ellenborough went through the libelseriatim, making his own comments; and concluded, after asking the jury whether its tendency was not to injure the military service,—

“It is for you to say whether these be words escaped in haste from a man, otherwise writing temperately, but whose zeal overshot his discretion; or whether they are the words of a man who wished to dissolve the union of the military, upon which, at all times, but now especially at this time, the safety of the kingdom depends. If this latter be the case, surely the defendant will meritedly fall under the character of that seditious person, which the information charges him with being. In cases like the present, the law requires me to state my opinion to the jury; and, where I have held a different opinion to that which I have of the present case, I have not withheld it from the jury. I do pronounce this to be a most infamous and seditious libel.”

It was now midnight, and the jury had nothing in the shape of a doubt in their minds. Why should they have? They had no doubts when they took their seats in the morning. Juries were juries in those days; why should they have doubts, at the end of a drama, for the particular conclusion of which they were particularly brought together?

So they “consulted” for about two minutes, and returned their verdict of “Guilty.”

J. SwanntoJ. Wright.“I learned the unfortunate result of the trial about two o’clock on Friday, and immediately hastened to the hotel, Covent Garden, to see if Mr. Cobbett would require any bail, but I found he had left town. I need not tell you how much I am concerned at the verdict.…”

J. SwanntoJ. Wright.

“I learned the unfortunate result of the trial about two o’clock on Friday, and immediately hastened to the hotel, Covent Garden, to see if Mr. Cobbett would require any bail, but I found he had left town. I need not tell you how much I am concerned at the verdict.…”

Wm. C.to J. W.“I found Mrs. Cobbett very well, and quite prepared for what had happened. She bears the thing with her usual fortitude; and takes hourly occasion to assure me that she thinks I have done what I ought to do. In this she is excellent. She is the only wife that I ever saw, who, in such circumstances, did not expresssorrow, at least, for what the husband had done; and, in such cases, sorrow is only another word forblame. Nancy was a good deal affected, but she soon got over it. If I had but about three weeks for preparation I should like it better; but I must settle things here as well as I can. Dr. Mitford will tell youwhat has been suggested to me, and what (if anything) will be done in consequence of it.“Send me by the coach to-morrow … Mother Clarke’s book, for I must notice the contents of it this week. You will have, in my writing, twenty-four columns, the greater part of it by to-morrow’s and next day’s posts. The rest of the double-number I should like to have made up of proceedings about reform, such as have appeared in theTimesand other daily papers; but, at present, the more harmless the things are the better. I shall write as boldly as ever, but I will take care of my subjects. The proofs of approaching scarcity can be no longer disguised. It will be very great and complete indeed. I shall be disappointed if the quartern loaf be not half-a-crown before Christmas. I wonder whether it be true that Buonaparte has stopped the exportation of corn from his dominions? If it be, you will soon see the effect of it. You see, that no rascal of a newspaper has touched upon the subject. It will come upon us by-and-bye with a vengeance.”

Wm. C.to J. W.

“I found Mrs. Cobbett very well, and quite prepared for what had happened. She bears the thing with her usual fortitude; and takes hourly occasion to assure me that she thinks I have done what I ought to do. In this she is excellent. She is the only wife that I ever saw, who, in such circumstances, did not expresssorrow, at least, for what the husband had done; and, in such cases, sorrow is only another word forblame. Nancy was a good deal affected, but she soon got over it. If I had but about three weeks for preparation I should like it better; but I must settle things here as well as I can. Dr. Mitford will tell youwhat has been suggested to me, and what (if anything) will be done in consequence of it.

“Send me by the coach to-morrow … Mother Clarke’s book, for I must notice the contents of it this week. You will have, in my writing, twenty-four columns, the greater part of it by to-morrow’s and next day’s posts. The rest of the double-number I should like to have made up of proceedings about reform, such as have appeared in theTimesand other daily papers; but, at present, the more harmless the things are the better. I shall write as boldly as ever, but I will take care of my subjects. The proofs of approaching scarcity can be no longer disguised. It will be very great and complete indeed. I shall be disappointed if the quartern loaf be not half-a-crown before Christmas. I wonder whether it be true that Buonaparte has stopped the exportation of corn from his dominions? If it be, you will soon see the effect of it. You see, that no rascal of a newspaper has touched upon the subject. It will come upon us by-and-bye with a vengeance.”

What had been suggested?

The reader will recollect [ante, p. 96] that the notion of any intercession on his behalf was warmly deprecated by Mr. Cobbett from the very first; and no sign of a craven spirit had appeared during all these twelve tantalizing months. His mind was made up. The long-deferred prospect of a term in prison had been getting still more remote, and its accompanying terrors would be unheeded. But, back again among his beloved fields and woods, and surrounded by a little family which could but dimly appreciate the situation; struck with anxious cares that must result from his predicament, he listens to asuggestion.

The form and the terms of that suggestion are unknown, and will probably remain unknown; that is of little consequence, however. Suffice it to say, that before a week was out, negotiations were going on, through Mr. John Reeves, for some measure of indulgence, by which, at least, the Attorney-General was to hold his hand, and not move the Court for judgment. At the same time, a farewell article was prepared for thePolitical Register; for Mr. Cobbett foresaw that he could not continue it without softening his tone, if he were to be indulged; and softening his tone was out of the question. Preparations were made for disposing of the remaining sets of the work, and for renouncing his profession of political writer, “until better days.”

This weakness did not last long. Therewould seem to have been a suspicion that the Government were enticing him into making the sacrifice before letting the law come down in all its force.

Wm. C.to J. W.“I will not sacrifice fortune without securing freedom in return. It would be both baseness and folly. Your threat to R[eeves] was good, and spoke my sentiment exactly. I have not time for telling you my plan now; but let it suffice that, really, from the bottom of my soul, I wouldRATHERbe called up than put down theRegister.”

Wm. C.to J. W.

“I will not sacrifice fortune without securing freedom in return. It would be both baseness and folly. Your threat to R[eeves] was good, and spoke my sentiment exactly. I have not time for telling you my plan now; but let it suffice that, really, from the bottom of my soul, I wouldRATHERbe called up than put down theRegister.”

On the following day, Peter Finnerty posted up to London with full powers to stop negotiation, and to see that the farewell article was cancelled. Need it be said that the affair got wind? It was intended to get it in the wind. No one can doubt that this was a final effort to add to the discomfiture, and tarnish the reputation, of a really brave man, by exposing him to the charge of having sold himself at last.

And the effort was, to some extent, successful. Absurd versions of the story were circulated for years afterwards, and ridiculous misrepresentations are still afloat: all of which have the merit of being consistent, on one point, viz., in the exhibition of an unquenchable hatred toward one of the bravest and faithfulest souls that ever breathed.

After Finnerty’s departure, the spirits of the little household arose once more. “Indignation and resentment took place of grief and alarm;” Mrs. Cobbett and her little Nancy got their courage back again; and the master wrote up to London—“The best way is to be as calm as possible, and to wait with patience for better days.” Even Mr. Wright, inspired with returning pluck, thinks there ought to be “something powerful” sent up for next week’s paper.

On the 5th of July, the four defendants answered to their bail, while the Attorney-General prayed the judgment of the Court. Fresh hypocrisy was uttered, of course:—

“The army, against whom this libel is in a peculiar manner directed, calls on the Court for judgment against its traducer.… The Government calls for confirmation of its legal powers.… The country calls for protection against the numerous evils which the propagation of such publications was calculated to engender.… Justice is called for; and justice, to be sure, will be tempered with mercy. But the Court will not forget that mercy is due to the public, as well as to the defendant at the bar.”

The defendants were forthwith committed to the King’s Bench prison, with directions that they be brought up on the following Monday to receive sentence.

TheRegister, meanwhile, had been for two consecutive weeks without any contribution to the topics of the day, on the part of the editor; and now, again, he is compelled to apologize, for the third time, for a similar omission.[4]He had not nearly completed his domestic arrangements, before it was necessary to leave Botley for the last time. And, as for sitting down to write for the information or the amusement of the public, every one must feel the impossibility of his being able so to divert hismind from the circumstances in which he was now placed. He could not banish the thought, that exactly ten years ago to the very day, he landed in England, “after having lost a fortune in America solely for the sake of that same England;” yet his reflections, he added, were “in some measure driven out by the contempt which I feel for the venal slaves who have seized upon this (as they regard it) moment of my depression, to misrepresent and insult me.”

Westminster Hall was crowded on the following Monday. Strangers were ordered to be removed from the lower part of the Court; but the order had to be disregarded, for fear of adding to the confusion. Ellenborough, with three other judges, occupied the bench, of whom Mr. Justice Grose was the one selected to pass sentence. After judgment had been prayed, in the usual form, the judge proceeded to remark upon the enormity of the offence:—

The libel was a work which no well-disposed mind could doubt to have been framed for the most pernicious objects. Looking at the time at which it was written—looking at the circumstances of the world—there could be no doubt of the evil intentions of the paper. The whole tendency of it was, in so many words, to excite unwillingness and dislike to the service of the country, amongst those who are to be its defence, and to insult those foreigners who are in our service, to deprive thecountry of their honourable assistance, and to paralyze the energies of the State. The objects of the libel were too palpable for doubt, &c.… “The jury found you, William Cobbett, guilty, upon the fullest and most satisfactory evidence. If it were to be allowed, that your object was not to enfeeble and embarrass the operations of Government, there can be no ground for exculpating you from the guilt of libelling, for the base and degrading object of making a stipend by your crime. If there had been no other imputation upon you, the Court, as protecting the purity and peace of the public mind, would have felt itself called on to punish you severely. It is strange that a man who mixes so much in general and private life, as you do, should not see that such acts, as those for which you have been tried, are only productive of mischief to every mind that is influenced by them; and that they necessarily terminate in punishment on the guilty authors. It is strange that experience should not have taught you, and that you should be only advancing in a continual progress of malignity. What were the circumstances which you distorted in your libel? the whole intention of which was to throw disgrace on the Government, and to disgust and alienate the army. If you had anything to offer in extenuation, you might have offered it; the Court would have received it; and, at all events, impartial justice would have been dealt to you. I now pass the sentence of the Court upon you, William Cobbett, as the principal criminal amongst those who now stand before the Court: the Court do accordingly adjudge that you, William Cobbett, pay to our Lord the King a fine of 1000l.; that you be imprisoned in His Majesty’s gaol of Newgate for the space of two years, and that at the expiration of that time, you enter into a recognizance tokeep the peace for seven years—yourself in the sum of 3000l., and two good and sufficient sureties in the sum of 1000l.each; and further, that you be imprisoned till that recognizance be entered into, and that fine paid.”

Mr. Hansard was then sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in the King’s Bench, and to enter into recognizances for three years. Mr. Budd and Mr. Bagshaw were each sent to the same prison for a period of two months.

A smile[5]arose on Cobbett’s face as the terms of this dread sentence were unfolded,—a sentence which must needs either crush its victim into irrevocable ruin, or so press down upon an unknown and unsuspected buoyancy, as to bring upon its authors a recoil from the effects of which they would never escape.

From that hour, the sword which had been so near laying by to rust, had its blade new tempered, whilst the scabbard was clean cast away for ever.

[1]Augustus de Morgan gives a story which he had from Francis Place. Place was, with others, advising Cobbett as to the proper line of defence. “Said Place, ‘You must put in the letters you have received from Ministers, Members of the Commons, from the Speaker downwards, about yourRegister, and their wish to have subjects noted. You must then ask the jury whether a person so addressed must be considered as a common sower of sedition, &c. You will be acquitted; nay, if your intention should get about, very likely they will manage to stop proceedings.’ Cobbett was too much disturbed to listen; he walked about the room, ejaculating, ‘D—— the prison!’ and the like. He had not the sense to follow the advice, and was convicted.”Vide“Budget of Paradoxes,” p. 119.

[2]Robert Huish, who is by no means favourably disposed towards Cobbett, says upon this point, “The truth was on Cobbett’s side, as every one can substantiate who had ever the misfortune to reside in the place where the German mercenaries were quartered.”

[3]“The use which Sir Vicary Gibbs generally made of his power of issuingex officioinformations was to lay an information against the offending writers, but not to proceed to trial, exacting a promise from them that, if he did not pursue it, they would write nothing offensive to the Government, and thus holding itin terroremover their heads.”—Andrews’s “British Journalism,” ii. 57.

[4]This omitting to write for two or three weeks, together with the rumoured dropping of theRegister, created tremendous sensation among the scribbling fraternity. TheMorning Chroniclereturned to Cobbett all the warm feelings which Perry had received from him. TheExaminer, on the other hand, was mercilessly unjust. That vigorous paper was then in its early priggish days, and could brook no rivalry. Leigh Hunt looked with contempt upon all the set of Cobbetts and Cochranes, as not Reformists after his sort, and he now proceeded to attack Cobbett violently for his timidity, and for his whining about being torn from his home, &c.; adding that politicians must be prepared to endanger individual freedom for the sake of the general good. But then the “spirit of martyrdom had been inculcated” in the Hunts from the very cradle.The readers of theExaminer, however, were not at one with their editor upon this point. One correspondent thought it ill-befitting a Reformist to overlook all the merits of a fellow-labourer, just at the moment of his being down, and “to dwell with a malignant ecstasy on all the failings that industrious malice could scrape together from years of bold and zealous service.” It was also pointed out, with much justice, that Mr. Cobbett was singular in this: that he not only confessed his errors when he had found them out, but argued clearly and decisively against them. Of course, theExaminerwas so clever that it had no errors to retract.Leigh Hunt appears to have discovered, in after-years, that he often made extravagant demands upon other people’s virtue; and the allusion, in his autobiography, to some want of charity toward other people’s opinions, points to this period, when intolerance could animate the Radical quite as easily as the privileged mind.Mr. Redhead Yorke had long been converted from Radicalism, and had no sympathy for the delinquent. But he was, now, on the other side.

The readers of theExaminer, however, were not at one with their editor upon this point. One correspondent thought it ill-befitting a Reformist to overlook all the merits of a fellow-labourer, just at the moment of his being down, and “to dwell with a malignant ecstasy on all the failings that industrious malice could scrape together from years of bold and zealous service.” It was also pointed out, with much justice, that Mr. Cobbett was singular in this: that he not only confessed his errors when he had found them out, but argued clearly and decisively against them. Of course, theExaminerwas so clever that it had no errors to retract.

Leigh Hunt appears to have discovered, in after-years, that he often made extravagant demands upon other people’s virtue; and the allusion, in his autobiography, to some want of charity toward other people’s opinions, points to this period, when intolerance could animate the Radical quite as easily as the privileged mind.

Mr. Redhead Yorke had long been converted from Radicalism, and had no sympathy for the delinquent. But he was, now, on the other side.

[5]Times, July 10th.

So the patriot was down. Down, among the felons. To keep company, for a period of two years, “with swindlers, and with persons convicted of the most detestable crimes,” was he set down; unless he should ransom himself away from their immediate society. There he was, torn away from home, subjected to untold difficulties, financial and other, and deprived of liberty—in the cause of humanity and of national justice.

The absurdity of this outrageous sentence was soon manifest. The whole country cried “Shame!” Even the toad-eating ministerial newspapers were silent. Save mutilation, it was going back two hundred years.

Not that this was a solitary affair: there were other sufferers in durance vile, or with the prospect of it over their heads; and the existing generation had not forgotten the victims of 1792-4. But this was so notorious: here was a man whose writings were patriotic, manly, eloquent;—and so far unsurpassed by those of any of his cotemporaries—bundled into jail for speaking the plain truth about public affairs, and proving it as he went along.

Exactly a year ago it had been openly declared that they were determined to crush him! And now the blow had fallen:—

“They thought that this savage sentence would break my heart, or at least silence me for ever. It was, indeed, a bloody stab. They thought they had got rid of me. Just after the verdict ofguiltywas found, Perceval met his brother-in-law Redesdale, at the portal of Westminster Hall. They shook hands, and gave each other joy!… Curtis[1]met Tierney in the Hall: ‘Ah! ah! we have got him at last,’ said Curtis. ‘Poor Cobbett! let him be bold now!’ The old place-hunter answered, ‘D—n him! I hope they’ll squeeze him!’ They did squeeze indeed; but their claws, hard as they were, did not squeeze hard enough.… The ruffians put me into prison in lucky time for me—put me into prison, and tied me to the stake of politics.”

But let that pass. A prison is a prison. A convicted libeller is a convicted libeller. And, a convicted libeller having made his bed, let him lie upon it! The wretch should have taken into the account, when he made his stab at a merciful but just executive, that he ran the risk of beingthrown into the enforced companionship of other villains. He had made his choice: it was not for him to complain that the logic of events had left him in jail, and that folks outside were laughing at him. Yes, let that pass, it is no concern of ours. That which it behoves us to consider—that which is infinitely more interesting to us—is this question,What came of it all?

In the first place, before Mr. Cobbett was released, flogging had become so discredited as to be nearly in desuetude, as regards the British army. Secondly, the degrading practice was totally abolished in the United States army, by Act of Congress of April 10th, 1812.

As was observed in a previous chapter, this topic was now uppermost in the public mind. And, as though sufficient warning had not been derived from the fate of Cobbett, a reckless provincial editor must needs court a similar martyrdom. This was Mr. Drakard, of theStamford News, who admitted into his paper, of the 24th August, a bitter paragraph concerning “ONE THOUSAND LASHES;” a paragraph “of a nature so infamous, so seditious, and so dangerous, that no good man who heard it read could restrain his resentment,” &c. Of course. So, as Mr. Drakard had made his bed, he might lie upon it; which he did, for the space of eighteen months in Lincoln jail,[2]—for the sake of dear good men, who could not“restrain their resentment” at being told, that punishment and merciless barbarity were not convertible terms.

Those were, indeed, good old times. If there is anything, more than another, which stamps mediocrity upon the governing men of that day (not excepting the “first gent.” himself), it is their persistent disregard of the affections of the people, as displayed in the measures entertained by the Legislature;[3]the callosity of heart and mind with which they faced any appeal to the better feelings of human nature, on behalf of the unnumbered and unwashed.

At last, however, flogging was being deprecated. And it is due to Sir Francis Burdett, to record, that he was instrumental in bringing the attention of Parliament to the matter. He had moved, in 1808, without effect, that a return of floggingsbe presented to the House. Again, in 1811, he revived the subject, with the result that a clause found its way into the Mutiny Bill, having for its tendency the “lessening the quantity of flogging in the army.” In the following Session, Burdett insisted upon the necessity of abolishing the practice altogether: vainly, however; although his action produced an unmistakable change in the tone of Government and its supporters.

During this discussion, in March, 1812, Mr. Brougham brought Cobbett’s name into the proceedings, to the infinite disgust of some ministerial toad-eaters. They protested: they “felt extremely hurt that the indiscreet language of the learned gentleman should go out to the public, as bidding the army look up to Mr. Cobbett for redress, instead of to their own officers.”

They had done better to leave Mr. Cobbett to his own native insignificance; and not rouse him, with his whip-cord in hand:—

Back to Index Next