FOOTNOTES

“If I have life for only a year or two at farthest, I shall be back with them again. The beautiful country through which I have so lately travelled, bearing, upon every inch of it, such striking marks of the industry and skill of the people, never can be destined to be inhabited by slaves. To suppose such a thing possible would be at once to libel the nation and to blaspheme against Providence. Let my readers not fear my finding out the means of communicating to them whatever I write. They will see the political pamphlet revive and be continued, until the day when they will find me again dating my addresses to them from London or from Botley.“Wm. Cobbett.“Liverpool, 28th March, 1817.”

“Wm. Cobbett.

“Liverpool, 28th March, 1817.”

The suspension of theRegisterlasted for about three months. On the 12th of July it was resumed, with a letter dated from Cobbett’s residence, May 8th, and the journal was kept up without further interruption. Only on one or two occasions did a number appear in which there was not a communication from the exiled editor.

But his place in the journalistic world was not left utterly vacant. William Hone led the way, with hisReformists’ Register, among a series of similar publications.[7]Indeed, it was understood that Hone’s Register occupied the position which Mr. Cobbett had temporarily abdicated. Hone had been a staunch supporter, since thePolitical Registerhad become popularized; besides making a depôt for that journal at his little shop in the Old Bailey, he had recently reproduced the Americanautobiography of Peter Porcupine in a cheap form.[8]

In the course of the summer of this year, an exposure of the spy system was made in the House of Commons; and it was proved, over and over again, that nearly all the serious riots had been instigated by these wretches, actually in the employ of Government. The result was a public condemnation of the infamous system, and its immediate disuse on the part of ministers. And, as a matter of course, all the signs of turbulence in the country ceased; the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act being repealed soon after the next meeting of Parliament. In fact, every day proved, more and more clearly, that it was nothing but fear which had magnified a few local discontents—by means of that powerful lens, Anti-Reform—into designs upon the fabric of the Constitution.

But the mischief done to the temper of the people was irreparable. Those persons (of whom there must be some proportion, even among such a phlegmatic race as the English) whose reforming zeal was easily raised to fever heat, got into trouble; and several suffered the capital penalty for treason, during the years 1817-19. Their imprudence, however, could not delay, for long, the imminent Reform; the violence done to popular feeling, by a combination of cruelty and weakness, was bearing its fruit; and this is how, in spite of its natural claims upon the patriotism of Englishmen, Toryism came to bear undeserved opprobrium. We, who are of no party but that of Progress and Enlightenment, and who have long ceased to believe in traditional politics, whether Whig or Tory, will not fail to take to heart again the lesson: that violence, impatience, and selfish prescription are as much out of place in the political as in the moral world. We have had ample opportunities of noting this, during the last half-century; and if there is anything upon which we may congratulate ourselves, it is that we have had Melbournes and Peels, Russells and Palmerstons, during a period of European revolution, instead of such men as the favourites of George the Third.

[1]Keeping watch, in the times of which we are speaking, was not exclusively from the constable’s point of view. The hand of intrigue was always prepared, in order to purchase silence, as it had been for a century past. When the Hunts were about to enter prison on account of their libel upon the Regent, they had the opportunity of refusing an immunity from punishment if they would consent to hold their tongues for the future. And an offer was sent to Cobbett to remit the 1000l.fine, just before his release in 1812, if he would promise not to support the cause of the Princess of Wales.

[2]TheCourierwas generally suspected of being a subsidized paper. TheEdinburgh Reviewcharacterized it thus:—“A paper of shifts and expedients, of base assertions and thoughtless impudence. It denies facts on the word of a minister, and dogmatizes by authority.”

[3]One likes to hear both sides, when there is a trifling difference of opinion:—“If Cobbett and Hunt were really honest men, and really wished well to the cause of Reform, they would abstain from meddling with it.… If a man wants to repair his mansion, and an adviser comes and tells him that he will do no good except he pull it altogether down and rebuild it, the owner immediately begins to think it better that he should continue to live in the old house as it is rather than run such risks.”—Times, Jan. 28, 1817.“Mr. Cobbett, whose sincerity in the cause of the country can no longer be questioned by any party,” &c., &c.“He has increased his circulation tofortyandfifty thousandper week; and thus his work tends to counteract the unprincipled sophistry of certain of the daily newspapers and of their satellites through the country. As Mr. C. gives no quarter to the partisans of war and corruption, and to the sinecurists and peculators who devour the substance of the people, and as he is the able advocate of the vital question of Parliamentary Reform, we conceive it to be our duty to recommend hisRegisterto the favourable attention of our liberal and enlightened readers.”—Monthly Magazine, January, 1817.

[3]One likes to hear both sides, when there is a trifling difference of opinion:—

“If Cobbett and Hunt were really honest men, and really wished well to the cause of Reform, they would abstain from meddling with it.… If a man wants to repair his mansion, and an adviser comes and tells him that he will do no good except he pull it altogether down and rebuild it, the owner immediately begins to think it better that he should continue to live in the old house as it is rather than run such risks.”—Times, Jan. 28, 1817.

“Mr. Cobbett, whose sincerity in the cause of the country can no longer be questioned by any party,” &c., &c.“He has increased his circulation tofortyandfifty thousandper week; and thus his work tends to counteract the unprincipled sophistry of certain of the daily newspapers and of their satellites through the country. As Mr. C. gives no quarter to the partisans of war and corruption, and to the sinecurists and peculators who devour the substance of the people, and as he is the able advocate of the vital question of Parliamentary Reform, we conceive it to be our duty to recommend hisRegisterto the favourable attention of our liberal and enlightened readers.”—Monthly Magazine, January, 1817.

“Mr. Cobbett, whose sincerity in the cause of the country can no longer be questioned by any party,” &c., &c.

“He has increased his circulation tofortyandfifty thousandper week; and thus his work tends to counteract the unprincipled sophistry of certain of the daily newspapers and of their satellites through the country. As Mr. C. gives no quarter to the partisans of war and corruption, and to the sinecurists and peculators who devour the substance of the people, and as he is the able advocate of the vital question of Parliamentary Reform, we conceive it to be our duty to recommend hisRegisterto the favourable attention of our liberal and enlightened readers.”—Monthly Magazine, January, 1817.

[4]It appears from a memorandum, printed in Mr. Yonge’s “Life and Administration of Lord Liverpool” (vol. ii. 298), that Robert Southey recommended, if he did not primarily suggest, these severities. He names “Cobbett, Hone, and theExaminer, &c.,” as the writers who are to be stopped, and thinks that their imprisonment should be “such as will prevent them from carrying on their journals.”

[5]“Not he who demands rights, but he who abjures them, is an anarchist.”—J. Horne Tooke.

[6]“As might be expected, falsehoods out of number, and in every garb, have been circulated in regard to a man who never compromised with his convictions.”—Monthly Magazine, May, 1817.There were many, it must be said, who looked at the matter in its proper light, and fairly pointed out that Cobbett had been driven away.

[6]“As might be expected, falsehoods out of number, and in every garb, have been circulated in regard to a man who never compromised with his convictions.”—Monthly Magazine, May, 1817.

There were many, it must be said, who looked at the matter in its proper light, and fairly pointed out that Cobbett had been driven away.

[7]“Hone’s Reformist’s Register,” “Sherwin’s Political Register,” “The Republican,” edited by Carlile; “The Black Dwarf” of T. J. Wooler; “The Yellow Dwarf,” &c. “The Black Dwarf” was a somewhat remarkable fellow. He dealt fiercely with the prevailing political hypocrisies and abuses in Church and State. Wooler was very angry over Cobbett’s flight to America, but soon condoned the matter. “The Yellow Dwarf” had some severe articles upon the spy system, and the libel laws, and the unfortunate State prisoners. William Hazlitt appears among the contributors.“Shadgett’s Weekly Review” was an opposition affair, started with the object of trying to put down these irrepressibles. Some sketches from this journal were collected and republished under the title of “The Political Quixote; or, The Adventures of the Renowned Don Blackibo Dwarfino and his Trusty Squire, Seditiono; a Romance, in which are introduced many Popular and Celebrated Political Characters of the Present Day” (London, 1820). One of the “characters” is Pietro Porcupino.TheUlster Registerprinted at Belfast (“for the proprietor, John Lawless, Esq.”), was a partial reprint of Cobbett’s.

“Shadgett’s Weekly Review” was an opposition affair, started with the object of trying to put down these irrepressibles. Some sketches from this journal were collected and republished under the title of “The Political Quixote; or, The Adventures of the Renowned Don Blackibo Dwarfino and his Trusty Squire, Seditiono; a Romance, in which are introduced many Popular and Celebrated Political Characters of the Present Day” (London, 1820). One of the “characters” is Pietro Porcupino.

TheUlster Registerprinted at Belfast (“for the proprietor, John Lawless, Esq.”), was a partial reprint of Cobbett’s.

[8]With his incurable propensity for parody, Hone closed up this pamphlet thus:—“Now the rest of the acts and life of this author, are they not written in the volumes of hisPolitical Registerand other works?”

Among the topics which, of recent years, had been current matter for discussion, our relations with the United States were not the least important. The dispute, arising from repeated violations of neutrality on the part of England, which ultimately led to the war of 1812, was the fruit of purely administrative errors; and had nothing to do with the popular sentiment of this country. The two nations had become reconciled, for fifteen years past; and, had it not been for the arbitrary assumptions put forth by the British Government, on the basis of our alleged naval supremacy, every aspect gave promise of close international friendship.

It may be said, however, that the contest had its beneficial side. The peace, which ensued, has never since been broken: quite as much, perhaps, because conciliation has since become the ruling idea in English foreign politics, as on account of any fanciful beliefs in the abstract inutility of war. The last lingering traditions, as to the possibility of the Yankees being coerced, were banished from the minds of English statesmen by the events of this naval war; and, such point gained, the fogs of many minor prejudices naturally disappeared.

Of those persons who, with pen in hand, aided in the solution of the questions in dispute with, and in the enlightenment of the people concerning, the United States of America, there is none whose services can be compared with those of the subject of these pages. Whilst the London press was encouraging the Government, besides misleading the people as to the real nature and prospects of the conflict, Mr. Cobbett was declaring, as he had been declaring from the first: that the points in dispute would have to be given up, or the war would last for years. Mr. Cobbett’s patriotism, and Mr. Cobbett’s decency were, as usual, called in question; but the “points” were unreservedly relinquished, and Mr. Cobbett was right, once more.

So, it came to pass that another reconciliation ensued besides that between the two peoples. The Republicans of New York and Philadelphia discovered that Peter Porcupine was not such a vile wretch after all. They read hisRegister, and reprinted portions of it.[1]They sent him newspapers. And one effusive committee, of Albany, New York,sent him a suit of clothes (“made of cloth manufactured in this State, from wool grown within it.”)[2]

There followed, of course, effusiveness on the part of Mr. Cobbett. Theirs was a free country, where the truth might be spoken and written,without fear of an Attorney-general; there were still many political evils rampant there, but the mass of the people were enlightened; they would produce their own wool, in spite of the Yorkshire clothiers; they would soon have a fleet, have manufactures, take the lead in agriculture, and set an example to the world of civil and religious liberty. And, he expressed his great pleasure, nay pride, that his weekly essays were thought worthy of being moulded into pamphlets and books, for the use of the free American nation.

All this led, at last, to closer intercourse, and, upon repeated difficulties occurring with the Post Office, Mr. Cobbett resolved to attempt an American edition of thePolitical Register, with the twofold object of cementing these pleasant relations, and of allowing a little more freedom in the handling of certain delicate matters. Accordingly, an office was opened in New York, early in 1816, (under the care of one Oldfield, and a nephew, Henry Cobbett), for the purposes of this republication. This was not, however, an affair of long continuance; its failure being partly due to post-office vigilance, by means of which a good deal of the MS. despatched to America found its way into the office of Lord Castlereagh.

It will be understood, then, that there were plenty of inducements for a short visit to the United States. And, upon landing at New York, early in May, 1817, Mr. Cobbett found that he had rightly judged the temper of the Americans; for he was immediately surrounded with new friends; while old ones from Pennsylvania turned up from time to time.

His first step, the day after his arrival, was to cross into Long Island and look about for a farm: an object of no very great difficulty. The next was to begin writing to his “beloved countrymen.” And the next may be guessed from the fact, that, on the day that his countrymen once more read theRegisterin the middle of July, a crop of peas was gathered which he had himself sown.

The farm in Long Island soon became the house of call for emigrants from England. Farmers who had “escaped from the tax-gatherer,” and had brought out the remnant of their fortunes; journeymen and labourers, “escaping from tyranny;” countrymen, fleeing from ruin and starvation—even tradesmen, in despair, were flocking over; besides numbers of people who, from their previous training or occupations, were unfit for emigration. And the people of England, in consequence, knew more about life in America than they ever knew before.[3]Intermingled with the usual comments and warnings on current politics, Mr. Cobbett gave hisreaders minute and graphic details of his mode of life, and of the happiness and comfort around him: with no taxes, tithes, nor game-laws; no excisemen, spies, nor packed juries; no Castlereaghs, Eldons, Ellenboroughs, nor Sidmouths; labourers with plenty to eat and drink;—a fine climate, good neighbours, and a wide-spreading scene of general comfort and well-being; for everybody who came out resolved to work with honesty and spirit.

Of course, all these glowing accounts would sometimes bring out the wrong sort of men. Not only the lazy, who had estimated the prospects of emigration without including the important factor of hard work: but agents, and land-jobbers, and superficial gallopers through the country; many of these were induced to come, and went home again to tell of their disgust, at not finding the riches of the country flow into their open mouths.[4]

Upon the whole, Mr. Cobbett must be considered to have greatly benefited his fellow-countrymen by his short settlement in Long Island; not only by truthful and painstaking accounts of the modes of life, and the resources of the country, but by his oft-repeated inculcation of industry, perseverance, and the moral virtues. But this is not all. This period saw the commencement of what is, in some respects, the most useful part of Mr. Cobbett’s career; that part, namely, during which he served the cause of sound popular education.

His purpose, to this end, is first announced in a letter to Mr. Benbow, one of the recently imprisoned printers under the “Gagging” Act:—

“I now proceed to develope my plan for assisting in the acquirement of book-learning all those against whom the Borough-mongers have, in a great degree, closed the door to such learning, and whom they have the insolence to denominate the ‘Lower Orders.’ To effect this object it is my intention to publish, at a very cheap rate (though the wordcheapmay shake the nerves of Sidmouth and Canning to jelly)—at a very cheap rate it is my intention to publish—First, ‘An English Grammar for the use of apprentices, plough-boys, soldiers, and sailors.’ Second, ‘A History of the Laws and Constitution of England,’ for the use of the same description of persons. Third, ‘A History of the Church and of Religion in England, in which will be seen the origin of the presentclaimsof the clergy, and in which theirdutieswill also be shown,’ for the use of the same description of persons. Fourth, ‘A view of the present state of the Income, Debt, and Expenses of the Kingdom; its Population and Paupers; its causes of Embarrassment and Misery, and the means of Restoration to ease and happiness,’ for the use of the same description of persons.”

The plan was not carried out in its entirety; although much of the material was furnished, in one form or other, in the pages of theRegisterduring the ensuing years of its course. The idea, at any rate, was pursued in the numerous essayson history and political economy presented to his readers from time to time. As for the Grammar, that was put in hand at once, and was published in London in December, 1818.

The success of the “English Grammar” was what might have been expected. Ten thousand copies were sold in a few weeks; a third edition being called for before the end of February. And it holds its own to this day—not as a class-book, for which it is unfit from its verbosity and its odd mixture of politics and humour; but for the purpose of self-education, for which it is of unrivalled value.

The Grammar had been preceded, in London, by “A Year’s Residence in America,” which purported to give current information as to the condition and prospects of the country, besides a journal of his own proceedings. Mr. Cobbett’s hands were, therefore, full of work as ever; and his mind full as ever of thoughts concerning his own country. He tells Major Cartwright (who had written to inform Cobbett that he might safely return home) that he has begun several works, which, if he does not finish them now, he is sure he never shall. A little later, he writes to Henry Hunt, that he shall move the moment he thinks that he can do more good that way than by remaining; feeling quite certain as to the final issue of the great cause.

And he tells his readers that he has, in no sense, abandoned England: that the farther he is distant from England the stronger he always finds his attachment toward her. A year’s absence had cooled his resentment; while it had, if possible, added to his feelings of affection toward his countrymen. “All the good that he had left behind was constantly in his thoughts, while the bad gradually became less and less frequently thought of.”

Not that, however, the warfare upon Corruption was to cease. He was there “to uphold the honour of England,” and to “aim deadly blows against her tyrants.” And no better proof of the need of his lash could be found, than is furnished by the continued attacks upon his character.

But he had the ear of millions of people, who were suffering, more or less undeservedly, from the tyranny and misgovernment of irresponsible persons; and what was it, that the supporters of the Irresponsible classes continued their falsehoods and malignity? So theRegisterpursued its wonderful course, “skimming over the face of the Atlantic like the dove, of the innocence of which it partook;” and still finding its way into thousands of English cottage homes.

The governing principle of Mr. Cobbett’s political leanings was, still, his hatred of a paper-currency. And, in the year 1819, upon hearing that Parliament was preparing to authorize an early resumption of cash payment on the part of the Bank of England, he foresaw the inevitable panic and distress which must further ensue, before the country could again tread the path of prosperity. Hence, he thought, the opportunity for the Parliamentary Reformers: the certainty that the cause would be nearer of attainment; and he at once prepared for his return home. There was little to keep him in Long Island, separated from the bulk of his family: a farm was easily disposed of; and an accidental fire upon the premises—which caused him to seek shelter in a tent, “the walls of which were made ofMorning ChroniclesandCouriers, pasted upon laths that were a foot asunder,”—only gave occasion for expediting his departure.

There was, however, another “duty” (as he deemed it) to perform before leaving the soil of America. That self-imposed task was one of the most difficult, one of the most delicate, to which a man might lend himself: the attempt to do honour to a name which the world had chosen to scorn. The severest test, which Mr. Cobbett had ever yet applied to public opinion, was now to be outdone; for the name in question was that ofThomas Paine.[5]

Chalmers’s life of Paine, written in 1792, had merits of its own, which suited the violent and depraved taste of the times. It speedily ran through many editions; and no one contributedmore to its circulation than Peter Porcupine, who reprinted it in hisCensorof September, 1796, “interspersed with remarks and reflections.” But a neophyte writer, ardent in cotemporary loyalism, reading and greedily sucking-in the venomous plausibilities of Chalmers, is one thing: the same person coming to read, in his days of maturity, Paine’s eloquent pleadings against oppression and misrule, is another; especially if maturity of strength and wisdom has brought with it a full admission of old weaknesses: renunciation of ignorance and folly. So Mr. Cobbett found that Thomas Paine was not such a blackguard: not so deserving of the abuse which he had helped to pour upon him; and proceeded, accordingly, to make reparation, by extolling Paine’s merits as a writer (whilst, however, condemning his theology), and recommending the writings to his friends, whenever opportunity served. That which had led him to study Paine for himself was “The Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance,” a pamphlet in which Paine had distinctly foretold the bursting of the paper-money bubble; and the reader will understand Cobbett’s great enthusiasm, upon the discovery that Paine’s elucidations furnished him with a key to what he considered the leading peril of the nation.

All this, however, might have casually passed into the catalogue of Mr. Cobbett’s “inconsistencies,” without attracting special notice, but for the following circumstances:—

Paine had wished to be buried in the Quaker burial-ground of New York; but the request was denied—the principal alleged reason being that many persons had already accused the sect of Deism, and that, if they allowed this interment, the accusation would have a circumstance to rest upon. Mr. Paine was, therefore, buried in the corner of one of his own fields.

In September or October, 1819, the land having been previously sold, with a reservation of that particular spot, the person, whose business it was to take care of that little corner, was so sensible of the risk of disturbance to Paine’s ashes that he commenced a negotiation for the purpose of having them transferred to a New York churchyard. The utmost that could be obtained was “leave to put them in the ground in a refuse place, where strangers and soldiers and other friendless persons were usually buried.”

Under these circumstances, Mr. Cobbett (whose farm lay only a few miles off from New Rochelle) resolved that Paine’s bones should “really have honourable burial!”

“Paine lies in a little hole under the grass and weeds of an obscure farm in America. There, however, he shall not lie, unnoticed, much longer. He belongs to England. His fame is the property of England; and if noother people will show that they value that fame, the people of England will. Yes, amongst the pleasures that I promise myself, is that of seeing the name of Paine honoured in every part of England; where base corruption caused him, while alive, to be burnt in effigy.”

Now this, be it observed in passing, was quite in accord with Cobbett’s habitual notions as to the reverent treatment of the dead; as any industrious reader of him well knows.[6]

He now proceeded to keep the subject alive by frequent references; and, at last, announced that the coffin had been taken up, and would be sent off to England in the same condition as it was found.

“We will honour his name,” he says, “his remains and his memory, in all sorts of ways. While the dead Borough-mongers, and the base slaves who have been their tools, moulder away under unnoticed masses of marble and brass, the tomb of this ‘Noble of Nature’ will be an object of pilgrimage with the people.… Let this be considered the act of the Reformers of England, Scotland, and Ireland. In their name we opened the grave, and in their name will the tomb be raised. We do not look upon ourselves as adoptingallPaine’s opinions upon all subjects. He was a great man, an Englishman, a friend of freedom, and the first and greatest enemy of the Borough and Paper System. This is enough for us.”

So, with this unusual piece of luggage in his possession, Mr. Cobbett returned to England, reaching Liverpool at the end of November, 1819, in company with his son William.

The conspiracy panic had well-nigh died away. But, in August, 1819, the memorable occurrence, known as the Manchester massacre, was the means of reanimating the fears of ministers, through the spirit of indignation which it had roused throughout the land. Parliament was called together in November, for the purpose of fresh repressive legislation; the product of which was the celebrated series, known as theSix Acts.[7]

It was at this juncture that Mr. Cobbett met his friends again at Liverpool: to the dismay of some, who told him that he was “jumping into the lion’s mouth:” to the joy of the great body of Reformers,who hastened to testify their gratification by every means in their power. From the towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, especially, the Reformers crowded forward with addresses of welcome: in spite of the revived opposition of authority—opposition which was displayed in an unusual manner; as, when a poor fellow was put into jail, for going round the town of Bolton with the crier’s bell, in order to announce Mr. Cobbett’s safe return. Into jail, for ten weeks![8]

There was no need for violence on eitherside. As for Mr. Cobbett, he was constantly urging that “our cause” was “too good for any violence:” that he would have nothing to do with Reformers who called themselves Republicans. His first essays, after his return, are models of temperateness and wisdom: advice to the prime minister upon the condition of the country, and advice to the Reformers on sobriety and frugality: writings which would have raised a new man to immediate fame and fortune. But, they came from an old offender, whose unasked advice had too long been a terror. Violence, on the part of Mr. Cobbett’s opponents, did not cease—and he had, unfortunately, by his own imprudence, placed the means of violence in their hands. In the first place, the incident of Paine’s bones, coming at the time it did, was enough to damn any man’s reputation for discretion as to the fitness of things—nothing could have been more inopportune. In America, it was true, people were beginning to understand Paine, and republish his works. But in England, he was known only by his theology; and was branded as an Atheist, by the hirelings who could not, or dare not try to, refute him. No name on earth was buried beneath such a weight of obloquy. So, nothing could be easier, nothing so effective, as to couple the two names. And any fool who chose to call Mr. Cobbett an atheist, upon the word ofsome “constitutional” pamphleteer, could do so. As for the unfortunate bones, there never was such a joke! An ephemeral literature actually sprung up, on the topic[9]—whilst, from the custom house officers at Liverpool, startled at the unexpected importation,—to the man who now has them in his possession: from the man who recorded the arrival of the “bone-grubber,” to our very latest historical sketcher: the affair has been a laughing-stock.

And it cannot be said that this derision is altogether unmerited. Mr. Cobbett ought to have known his countrymen well enough, to remember that “relics” of this sort are thrown away upon them. He should have known that such a freak as his could only be safely performed, by an organized and influential public movement; and then, only, with a certainty of having to face disagreeable controversy. That the bones will be wanted, some day, may be safely predicted; knowing what we do ofTHE WHIRLIGIG OF TIME. But the business of raising a monument, recording the wisdom and political virtues of Thomas Paine, will scarcely be within the scope of that man’s powers who “stands alone.”[10]

Again, a subject which had greatly disturbed the minds of Mr. Cobbett’s friends was his relation with Sir Francis Burdett. The latter had advanced money to Cobbett (or to Wright for him), and there appeared little probability of its being repaid. Mr. Cobbett had acknowledged the debt (with some sort of protest, however), and promised to repay it, after he was enabled to provide for his family again.

Sir Francis Burdett had already inspired suspicion, in the breasts of the Reformers, as not being in earnest. He had called upon the people, for several years past, to “rally” and to “come forward,” and so on; but would back out of it at a critical juncture. He was still “Westminster’s pride and England’s glory,” in the hands of a Westminster clique; but, when the troubles of 1816-1817 began, he seemed to shrink from the cause of Reform. Perhaps he dreaded Republicanism, or had some other good reason for his backwardness. Certain it is, that, just before the opening of parliament in 1817, when all the leaders were wanted at their posts, Burdett was not there. And, upon Lord Cochrane proposing an amendment to the Address, which would have at least produced debate, Sir Francis allowed the motion to drop without a seconder. Now, this was so much like all the Whig popularity-hunting; and this end so much like the end of that,—that Cartwright and all the hearty Reformers ceased to put great faith in Burdett; and Mr. Cobbett only spoke the feelings of all, when he indignantly pointed out what was very like a betrayal of the cause. The only explanation that appears to have been obtained from Burdett was a protest against “being used as a puppet.”

Among the newspaper anecdotes which synchronized with Cobbett’s departure for America, was one concerning the debt of 3000l.to Sir Francis. This was the first the public heard of it. And, upon Mr. Cobbett proceeding to castigate Burdett for his lukewarmness, people called it “ingratitude” and “inconsistency.” This, however, might have been treated with contempt, but for the publication of some correspondence in theExaminer, which made it appear that Mr. Cobbett meant to repudiate the debt; a construction which it was quite possible to form, without knowing all the circumstances, and by the easy process of reading “extracts.”[11]

So, after Cobbett’s return from America, almost till the last year of his life, his money-affairs with Burdett were repeatedly cropping up, both in the newspapers and in thePolitical Register. The matter is not creditable to either of the parties. And when, after Cobbett’s death, upon a proposal to raise some kind of memorial, Sir Francis sent the 3000l.bond to the committee, telling them that they could take his subscription out of that; it looked a very unworthy proceeding on the part of a man, who had really owed a vast deal of his popularity and distinction to Mr. Cobbett’s zealous advocacy. Burdett’s vanity was at least equal to Cobbett’s egotism; and neither could forgive the other, after their special weaknesses had been shown up at each other’s hands. Several endeavours at reconciliation were made, on the part of mutual friends, but they ended in nothing.

Another episode, of this period, gave still more trouble to Mr. Cobbett. There was an influential batch of politicians in Westminster, of which Francis Place was one of the leaders. Their liberalism went in the line of electoral purity, and verged toward Republicanism; and their favourites were Burdett and Hobhouse. At the election of June, 1818, Henry Hunt stood as a candidate, and this clique (known as the Rump Committee) opposed him with all their might. The secretary and agent was one Thomas Cleary, who had given much aid as promoter of Hampden clubs throughout the country, and was studying as a barrister. Mr. John Wright was connected with this set; and, being in possession of several hundred of Cobbett’s old letters,[12]found one among them which reflected strongly upon Hunt’s private character. We have already perused it, as the reader will recollect.[13]Wright showed this to Francis Place, and Place showed it to Cleary, who read it out to the electors, on the first opportunity: adding, “In the language of Mr. Cobbett, I have only to say, ‘He’s a sad fellow, beware of him.’” So electoral purity draws the line at some point or other: in this case, at the point outside of which lies a detestable breach of confidence.

The consequences may be imagined. Mr. Cobbett first heard of it through the medium of a New York paper, and lost his temper over it. Both Cobbett and Burdett had associated with Mr. Hunt, of late years: had gone sporting with him, and had even been under the same roof with “the lady.” This was stronger in Mr. Cobbett’s recollection than the memory of his first scanty acquaintance with Hunt; and a hasty note, written more than ten years ago, had entirely faded from his memory. So he, in his first outburst of anger, charged Cleary with forging the letter; and, afterward, on several occasions, represented Wright as a rogue, “unparalleled in the annals of infamy;” giving his readers a graphic story of how the latter had falsified accounts; and how his little son had been a witness (in Newgate) of the “big drops of sweat standing upon the caitiff’s brow,” upon the occasion of his detection.

Now, this was quite indefensible. And the only excuse that can be made is that Mr. Cobbett had been gradually losing his habitual coolness and calmness in the face of calumny. Instead of his old habit of treating it with contempt, he had begun the practice of answering misrepresentation: the very thing that your scandal-monger likes. And, in this case, three thousand miles away, with at least three months’ interval between a calumny and the possibility of a retort; and with a growing habit of nursing political and personal grievances: it is no wonder that he flew into a passion; and,in the end, so exposed Mr. Cleary that many of the latter’s friends refused to have any more dealings with him, or even to hold discourse with him. So, upon Cobbett’s return to England, Cleary challenged him to fight; of course to no purpose. He then brought an action, laying the damages at two thousand pounds. The jury showed what they thought of the matter, by awarding him forty shillings.[14]

A few days afterward, the case ofWrightv.Cobbettwas heard.

This was a more serious affair. The imputations against Wright were quite needless, even if they could be justified. And the defendant, at the last moment, withdrew his plea of justification from the record, and based his defence upon the fact that his son (and not himself) was the present proprietor of theRegister: that his sons were in the habit of altering his manuscript at their discretion. These technical pretences, so commonly resorted to, might have answered very well in the hands of a practised lawyer; but, with the “defendant in person,” it was like a child playing with edgedtools. And against Scarlett, too, one of the cleverest counsel of the day; a man who hated the Reform set; and who had, in the House of Commons, alluded to Cobbett as a “contemptible scribbler,” and, on the present occasion, could go out of his way to say how much he approved of Cobbett’s early estimate of Paine, and his former writings generally. He maintained that the letter which Cleary read, and which had caused all the trouble, was one intended for publication, although the judge (at the former trial) had very strongly reprobated Cleary’s conduct. Whilst he, of course, enjoyed a complete triumph over the withdrawal of the plea of justification, and the clumsy efforts of the defendant to make his sons responsible.

The folly and conceit of appearing “in person” was never more signally exemplified; especially as Mr. Cobbett had, just then, his hands full over the poor Queen,[15]and over his own chaotic pecuniary affairs; and it was sufficiently punished by the result. The jury deliberated for nearly two hours,and brought in a verdict of 1000l.damages.

These things were “much against him,” as Lord Brougham would say. The press got into the way of saying that Cobbett had lost all character, and all respect, and so on. New pamphlets came out: the patriot was really down, this time; and his fate squared so neatly with all that had been predicted of him, and of every subverter of the constitution.

But, there are reputations, and reputations:

“Pygmies are pygmies still, though perch’d on alps,And pyramids are pyramids in vales!”

“Pygmies are pygmies still, though perch’d on alps,

And pyramids are pyramids in vales!”

And, whilst a good name is not to be thought lightly of, it is not every one’s esteem that can be considered man’s best and highest reward. The hollow, specious, moral judgments of mankind, when under the dominion of prejudice, are not the standards by which to judge the men of life and earnestness: the men whose convictions, and not whose personal interests, mark their path. And, in the case in point: the moral judgment of all the toad-eaters and the place-hunters of the day could hardly be a desirable standard, wherewith to gauge the character of a man whose faults lay just upon the surface; whose faults could, by no possible twist or distortion of idea, be shown to proceed from bad impulses.[16]

What “interests” Mr. Cobbett had, were now unmistakably identified with those of the labouring classes of England; and, at last, he had got a good hearing from those classes. The distinction of classes, wantonly and unnecessarily proclaimed for twenty years past, was now confirmed; and the ten years of George the Fourth’s reign mark the period of conflict which was partly the result of this forced distinction. The end of this conflict, and the ultimate triumph of the popular cause, is matter of history: the bloodless reformation of 1832 has saved the British Constitution, instead of destroying it. That triumph of principles was the work of neither Whig nor Tory. It came from the provoked and suffering people themselves. The greater the provocation, the deeper the suffering,—the more certain was to be the end: and from them, alone, it came. And, as more light is thrown, from time to time, upon these stirring days, the better can we see who were the real leaders andguiders in Reform; and who was the greatest of them all. For, until thisSamsonarose, the progress of the cause had been little better than a series of ridiculous evasions and desertions.

[1]Niles’s Register, published at Baltimore, a weekly journal of extended influence, had begun by abusing Cobbett, but speedily found it was better worth while to reprint his writings concerning America. Some of the independent republications were,—“Porcupine Revived; or, An Old Thing Made New. Being (1) An Argument against the Expediency of a War with England; (2) An Exposition of the Absurdity of sending Albert Gallatin to treat with the British. By William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1813.) The editor is a Federalist, and thinks it surprising that Cobbett should have described so accurately seventeen years ago thepresentcondition of the States.“Letters on the Late War between the United States and Great Britain, &c., &c., by William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1815). The preface is highly eulogistic, and forgives all Cobbett’s former wickedness.“The Pride of Britannia Humbled; or, The Queen of the Ocean Unqueen’d by the American Cock-boats, &c., &c. Illustrated and demonstrated by four Letters to Lord Liverpool, by William Cobbett, Esq.” (Philadelphia, 1815). This editor is also very magnanimous.It was a marked characteristic of the estimates formed by Cobbett’s cotemporaries that the party, or the set, which he for the time being appeared to support, readily overlooked his former opinions and so-called “inconsistencies.” This applies to London, as well as to Philadelphia. Never was a man so readily forgiven. Envy alone was his enduring enemy, as it always is to great abilities and to superior personal character.

“Porcupine Revived; or, An Old Thing Made New. Being (1) An Argument against the Expediency of a War with England; (2) An Exposition of the Absurdity of sending Albert Gallatin to treat with the British. By William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1813.) The editor is a Federalist, and thinks it surprising that Cobbett should have described so accurately seventeen years ago thepresentcondition of the States.

“Letters on the Late War between the United States and Great Britain, &c., &c., by William Cobbett, Esq.” (New York, 1815). The preface is highly eulogistic, and forgives all Cobbett’s former wickedness.

“The Pride of Britannia Humbled; or, The Queen of the Ocean Unqueen’d by the American Cock-boats, &c., &c. Illustrated and demonstrated by four Letters to Lord Liverpool, by William Cobbett, Esq.” (Philadelphia, 1815). This editor is also very magnanimous.

It was a marked characteristic of the estimates formed by Cobbett’s cotemporaries that the party, or the set, which he for the time being appeared to support, readily overlooked his former opinions and so-called “inconsistencies.” This applies to London, as well as to Philadelphia. Never was a man so readily forgiven. Envy alone was his enduring enemy, as it always is to great abilities and to superior personal character.

Back to Index Next