CHAPTER XVI.

“THEY NATURALLY HATE ME.”

There was a Mr. Homan, M.P., a friend of Sheridan’s, and a defender of his reputation, who came down to the House of Commons, one day in the Session of 1807, and announced that a friend of his had just called upon Mr. Cobbett, at Botley; and found him living in a “pig-stye.” Now, this gentle sally, on the part of a jocular senator, may be selected (out of many, more or less serious) in order to indicate the prominent place now occupied by Cobbett in men’s minds. Addressing with familiarity the leading characters of the day, (always in the first-person-singular, be it remembered), he is herding with, and advocating the cause of, the lowest of the low. Occupied with such vulgar pursuits as gardening and planting, and tending dogs and pigs, he is actually daring to instruct and to lead the successors of Burke and of Pitt. One of the “swinish multitude” is here, having poked his nose through the crowd, strutting along cheek-by-jowl with cabinet ministers, and positively claiming a share of the foot-way!

The worst of it all is, that this presumptuous fellow is not in the wrong. Nobody can convict him of a misstatement of facts; no one can answer his arguments; no one can match his brilliant language. Yet, people won’t leave him alone: they will put their pop-guns into range; they will throw dirt, unmindful of the consequences of handling dirt. And, these failing,--as the passionate schoolboy, unable to wreak his vengeance openly, for just castigation, sneaks;--they sneak. They watch his footsteps, if so he can be tripped-up.

But the intended victim learns wariness as he proceeds. Who should be tripped-up, that plants one foot securely before the other is raised? that gives chapter-and-verse for his facts? that dreads no bogy whatsoever? and who still wants to know so many interesting little secrets, which he has a perfect right to know, and which he is determined to know?

* * * * *

Several opposition papers had already been tried, previously to this date. The Addington ministry set up _The Pilot_, and the _Royal Standard_; but these soon died

“Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung,”

and are, probably, only rescued from utter oblivion by this sternly-truthful page. An imitation _Register_, edited by Mr. REDHEAD YORKE,[1] had a longer lease of life;--known as _Yorke’s Weekly Political Review_, the first number appeared in November, 1805, and ran to several volumes. But it never attained to any authority. _Flower’s Political Review and Monthly Register_, printed at Harlow, lasted several years. This journal gave a mild sort of support to reform, without extravagance of tone; and reprinted, from time to time, such works as “Locke on Government,” and Bolingbroke’s “Patriot King.”

Later on, appeared the _National Register_, with the openly-avowed object of producing “candid, but intrepid strictures” upon Mr. Cobbett and the political pamphleteers. And in 1809, a very grand show was made, in the prospectus of BLAGDON’S _Weekly Political Register_:--

“This new political paper will be printed in the same manner as COBBETT’S REGISTER.

“In every number will be inserted an exposition of the daring libels and audacious falsehoods promulgated by COBBETT.

“All who are acquainted with the paper of COBBETT, may perfectly understand the nature of the one here proposed, &c., &c.

“The history of the political life and writings of WILLIAM COBBETT will be commenced in the first number, and continued every week, till concluded.”

Such a very funny prospectus: such a marvel of self-sufficiency, ignorance, and malignity: really should have been supported better. But, no! people didn’t want to be told afresh, that misgovernment ought to be hushed up for the sake of great reputations; and Mr. Blagdon disappeared, along with all the other political dolphins, that must need display their back-fins for one transient moment, with no other end than to whet curiosity or excite wonder.

Some of the pamphlets fared better. But then, they were freely distributed by the agents of Government. The story of the Court-Martial, published in 1809, was understood to be an open effort, on the part of ministers and their adherents, to damage the honour of Mr. Cobbett: indeed, it could not have been otherwise, seeing the amount of official matter which the thing contained.[2] Besides a half-crown edition, it was issued in a cheap form for distribution.

Then there was “Cobbett Convicted, and the Revolutionist Exposed:” a task of no great difficulty, of course,--seeing that it was “The Parliamentary Reformer” brought face to face with old “Peter Porcupine,” the hater of demagogues and the denouncer of revolution. A kindred publication was “Elements of Reform,” sold at sixpence, and largely distributed amongst the people; so that they might see for themselves how excessively wrong, how truly inconsistent, it was, for any person to change his opinions when he got older and wiser.

One of the most curious evidences of the spirit of persecution, which was abroad among ministerialists, is furnished by Lord Colchester, under date May 7th, 1809.[3] He was at that time “Mr. Speaker,” and was walking home after church with Mr. Perceval. The latter, communicating his thoughts on various topics, at last comes to Cobbett:--

“He thought Cobbett had at last committed himself in his paper upon the House of Commons’ vote (for rejecting Lord Folkestone’s motion for a Committee to inquire into the sale of all places in the State, &c.), but, when he showed me the paper, it did not so strike me that the libel was more violent than what all the opposition papers contained every day; nor was it such as could usefully be proceeded upon.”

What Mr. Cobbett had said, you will find in the _Register_ of the previous day. And, if you think that the word “libellous” applies to his remarks, you have leave to bring a charge of assault and battery against that man, who has violated the sanctity of your mouth, in withdrawing therefrom the tooth which distressed you, and which embittered your existence.

* * * * *

The foregoing notes, somewhat anticipatory in point of time, will enable the reader to understand the danger which was now attending Mr. Cobbett’s footsteps. He was running the gauntlet of all those who had anything to fear from too much light; and they naturally hated him. Not that he was alone: the Reformists were increasing in number. But Mr. Cobbett was the most daring of the lot; inspiring all the rest with pluck and animation. Even in the House of Commons, the division lists showed how a feeling of shame was growing upon a greater number of its members. As early as 1807, a Reversion Bill passed the Commons, the object of which was to prevent the future granting of sinecure places _two or three deep_; this was, however, thrown out in the Lords.

* * * * *

And all this did not interrupt the joys down in Hampshire:--

“… I have the finest melons, Indian corn, and Carolina beans that ever were seen.”

“We are just setting out to meet Mr. Bagshaw,[4] and as a proof of our having anticipated your hopes about amusing him, we have made all the preparations for taking him with us to Morn Hill Fair to-morrow, which is upon the heights above Winchester, and which is the greatest fair, for one day, that is known in England. There are several scores of acres of ground covered over with bacon, cheese, hops, leather, &c. About Wednesday he will go to Portsmouth.”

“I hope soon to send hares to everybody. I have killed some, and have, as usual, given them away. I take my young bitch to Everley, where she is to run a match that Dr. Mitford has made; but I shall leave betting and matches to others, though I cannot say but I should like to see my dogs win.”[5]

“Hares and post-offices do not congregate together, I find. There is none of the latter nearer to Everley than this place [Andover, November, 1807].… I am now starting for Everley with Nancy, Mrs. Cobbett having declined the trip. She will go to Dr. Mitford’s. I saw William at Winchester, who is grown very much, and who behaved just as a son of mine ought to behave. So cleanly, so orderly, so attentive, so punctual, and so manly, just as I was at his age; I hope the qualities will be more durable with him.”

“… Almost all the money I draw is expended in preparations for planting, and in making a new footpath along the side of my farm, in order to stop up the one that passes through it, and which is an injury to the estate. These pecuniary pinches give me great uneasiness, at times; but they will cease before it be long; and if it please God to preserve my life, they will cease much about the time that my grand planting scheme will be actually completed. There is here a little coppice, which I think will be to be sold; and which I intend you shall have.… I am very desirous that you should have an inch of land that you might set your foot upon, and say, ‘this is mine.’ But pray never talk to any one about these matters.”

Mr. Wright is particularly requested not to lend the little mare, but to make use of it himself:--

“I hope you ride a good deal. I wish to God you would rise early. It is the finest thing in the world for health. I am in my coppice by six o’clock in the morning; but then, I am in bed by ten at latest.”

The following occurs, as a postscript, on the back of a letter to Wright:--

“My dear little James,--your little dog is very well, and the rabbits are in their new house. God bless you.--Wm. C.”

An old acquaintance turns up, one day in the spring of 1808:--

“This day the most wonderful thing, which I have met with in my whole wonderful life, has happened to me. A gentleman came to me this morning from London, to show me, and to consult me upon, the publication of a work upon _Metaphysicks_. He appeared to be a very learned and very accomplished man, and so I find him, upon some hours of conversation; and, would you believe it, he then discovered himself to me; and I found him to be the same whom I left in England, twenty-three years ago, a fifer, in the recruiting party that I belonged to! This has occupied me the whole day. He was about two years younger than myself, and I have thought and talked of him ten thousand times, having had a most affectionate regard for him.… You shall see my old acquaintance when I get to town.”

The letters of this period are filled with cautions, that every means be taken to avoid occasion of real offence. “Copy” for the _Register_ is to be carefully scanned, and communications from sympathizing correspondents are to be softened in their tone, before committal to the printer. Some of these latter are far too plain-spoken. An awakened public opinion, too liable to rush to extremes, must be kept within proper limits, as regards its expression. There is no disposition to go to jail for the sake of brilliant periods and caustic paragraphs. The “villains” could be lashed vigorously enough without any need of departing from facts.

Questions of libel were by no means infrequent, during these years. And, with Lord Ellenborough’s severe opinions on that topic, there was plenty of reason to fear any conflict with authority. An action brought by an offended author against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, in July 1808, for a skit upon a certain book of travels, brought Mr. Cobbett forward, in several letters upon the subject of libel law; in which he pointed out very clearly, that principles had retrograded since the days of Pope and Swift, who certainly had no idea that to write and publish truth was any crime:--

“The whole tenor of their works proves, that, so long as they confined themselves to the stating of what was _true_, they entertained no apprehensions as to the consequences.… They were afraid of no constructive libels; nor, if they chose to express their disapprobation of the conduct of kings and princes, did they fear the accusation of _disloyalty_. And what would they have said, had they been told that, in their country, it would become a crime to wound men’s feelings by holding them up to ridicule? Ridicule is a thing that will not attach _where it ought not_,” &c., &c.

His own idea (which, however, he did not always put into practice) was to live it down; and, as for calumny, he had advised Mr. Paull, and he had so advised others, to let falsehood come to the inevitable over-reaching of itself.

As for caricatures,--

“Caricatures are things to laugh at. They break no bones. I, for instance, have been represented as a bulldog, as a porcupine, as a wolf, as a sans-culotte, as a nightman, as a bear, as a kite, as a cur; and, in America, as hanging upon a gallows. Yet, here I am, just as sound as if no misrepresentation of me had ever been made.”

This was no idle boast. The Anti-Cobbett squibs and caricatures were a standing source of amusement, even with the little boys and girls, at Botley house. The articles, above alluded to, had produced a fresh crop. He writes to Mr. Wright upon “our friends the satirists:”--

“They seem half-distracted. How angry they are, that I did not take notice of what they said of myself! All those who know anything of me, know their assertions or insinuations to be false; and, as to those who know nothing of me, they are of no consequence to me, or to anybody else.”

But, the jealousy of the press was beyond everything.[6] Unfairness and malignity marked all references to Cobbett, who was really doing them better service than any one individual, beside, could be credited with. It is true, he never spared his cotemporaries, when in fight; but let them be for a moment in trouble, and his shield was at once raised, by his proclamation of the Liberty of the Press; and of his doctrine that there was nothing so mean, “nor so truly detestable,” as that of seeking, through the law, vengeance for a literary defeat. No such generosity, however, could be remembered in the midst of party fights; and, even where there was real ability and talent, as with the _Morning Chronicle_ under James Perry, newspaper polemics of that day were marked by misrepresentation and abuse.

* * * * *

The inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, brought about by the discovery of corrupt influence in the disposal of promotions, &c., kept society amused for several months, during the year 1809; and, indeed, threw everything else into the shade, not excepting the new tide of affairs in the Peninsula. Mr. Cobbett was in the front, as might have been expected.

The circumstances were these. The Duke of York had now been the Commander-in-Chief for several years, to the great benefit of the service. It was generally acknowledged that increased efficiency and discipline had been introduced into the army since his appointment. Yet, whispers had begun to be circulated, conveying grave insinuations against his Royal Highness; and there were those who openly predicted his speedy dismissal.

All this was, however, treated by “the loyal” as wicked conspiracy, libel, Jacobinism, and so forth. And the Duke might have escaped exposure, had it not been for a brave Irishman, who ventured upon publishing his grievances,[7] and risking the inevitable dangers. As it happened, Major Hogan’s pamphlet came just in the nick of time, gave the Duke’s enemies an opportunity, and the Reformists a grievance. Here is Mr. Cobbett’s first short reference, directing public attention to it:--

“This, I scruple not to say, is the most interesting publication that has appeared in England for many years. It should be read by every individual in the nation. Oh, what a story does this gentleman tell! What a picture does he exhibit! What facts does he unfold! If _this_ produce no effect upon the public, why, then, we are so base and rascally a crew, that it is no matter what becomes of us. We are unworthy of the name of men, and are beneath the beasts that perish.”

The facts being, in short, that Major Hogan found he could get the promotion he wanted by paying 500_l._ to the Duke’s mistress, Mrs. Clarke; after he had waited long and hopelessly for it, on direct application to the Duke himself.

There was some hesitation in accepting Major Hogan’s statement; meanwhile, Finnerty, who had edited the pamphlet, and the publisher, Bagshaw, were prosecuted. Mr. Cobbett, himself, thought the story far too gross to be true,--that a “peculating pimp,” (as he called her), had gone round to the major’s hotel with hush-money: had been refused: and that such doubtful personage could be no other than the artful mistress of the Prince. However, light came upon the matter from another quarter, which laid the whole thing before the public gaze; and, in the end, caused the temporary retirement of the Duke from his office.

Mr. Gwyllym Lloyd Wardle[8] was the agent of inquiry. He brought the matter before the House of Commons, in January, 1809, supported by several clear instances; in which it was shown that Mrs. Clarke was having a large share in the patronage of the War Office, and was making a good deal of money over it; besides, that several clergymen owed their advancement to her. So, there was a Committee of the whole House; many witnesses were examined,--

“Thaïs led the way,--”

and the faithful Commons could attend to nothing whilst this was going on. Corunna faded into insignificance, and became a mocking sound; and no one seemed to think that the war was of any consequence, until this interesting affair was disposed of.[9]

The upshot of all was, that the Duke of York was exculpated from any guilty participation in these malpractices; but he at once resigned the office of commander-in-chief, and dismissed the author of his troubles.

Colonel Wardle was publicly thanked for his disinterested service, in all the principal towns in the kingdom. He did not escape malignity however; and his popularity on the one hand was balanced by persecution on the other, headed by Mrs. Clarke herself. After the lapse of a year or so, she produced a very naughty, brazen-faced book, under the title of “The Rival Princes;”[10] in which most of the gentlemen who had aided in exposing her were more or less libelled. It was a book that could only have been produced by a courtesan, and it, probably, did not do any harm either to Colonel Wardle, or to any of those whose names were involved. Mr. Cobbett’s name appears in it, as having been incited to anger against the Duke, on account of the latter having thought it prudent not to receive Cobbett at dinner, as an opposition writer. Mr. Cobbett thereupon informed his public that he had been introduced to Mrs. Clarke, and was invited to dine with her; but that his wife disapproved of any such questionable acquaintance, and he didn’t go.[11]

It is exceedingly probable that the Royal Family were getting offended with Mr. Cobbett, in spite of his professions of loyalty to the constitution, and his really affectionate references to the king; and it would surprise no one, at this distance of time, to learn that the Prince of Wales and Mr. Perceval were putting their heads together with a view to silencing him. That which brought Mr. Cobbett into the one great trouble of his life happened soon after the above-mentioned events.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Mr. H. Redhead Yorke was a barrister with a love for politics and some ability in political disquisition. He had been imprisoned in York Castle, on account of his writings, in 1794; but had now, in maturer years, become more “loyal.”

[2] Brougham, in his partial way, thought the business “much against him,” and insinuated that the story might have been made to look worse. _Vide_ “Memoirs,” i. 437.

The _British Critic_, doing penance for its former sins, says, “This is merely a report of certain facts, which it has appeared useful to bring forward at this time,” &c.

[3] “Diary and Correspondence,” ii. 183.

[4] The well-known newsman of Bow Street, Covent Garden. He had been the publisher of the _Register_ since its commencement.

[5] Here are reminiscences of Everley, written nearly twenty years after:--

“Not far above Amesbury is a little village called Netheravon, where I once saw _an acre of hares_. We were coursing at Everley, a few miles off, and one of the party happening to say that he had seen _an acre of hares_ at Mr. Hicks-Beach’s at Netheravon, we who wanted to see the same, or to detect our informant, sent a messenger to beg a day’s coursing, which being granted, we went over the next day. Mr. Beach received us very politely. He took us into a wheat stubble close to his paddock; his son took a gallop round, cracking his whip at the same time; the hares (which were very thickly in sight before) started all over the field, ran into a flock like sheep, and we all agreed that the flock did cover an acre of ground.”

“This is the most famous place in all England for coursing. I was here, at this very inn, with a party eighteen years ago; and the landlord, who is still the same, recognized me as soon as he saw me. There were forty brace of greyhounds taken out into the field on one of the days, and every brace had one course, and some of them _two_. The ground is the finest in the world: from two to three miles for the hare to run to cover, and not a stone, nor a bush, nor a hillock. It was here proved to me that the hare is by far the swiftest of all English animals; for I saw three hares in one day _run away_ from the dogs. To give dog and hare a fair trial, there should be but _one_ dog; then, if that dog got so close as to compel the hare _to turn_, that would be a proof that the dog ran fastest. When the dog, or dogs, never get near enough to the hare to induce her to turn, she is said, and very justly, to run away from them; and, as I saw three hares do this in one day, I conclude that the hare is the swifter animal of the two.”

[6] The first genuine piece of criticism upon Cobbett’s writings, which had any real talent, was an article by Francis Jeffery in the _Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1807. But it had the same conspicuous failure which attended all partisan writers, and Whigs above all, in their efforts to define political consistency.

This article furnished the material out of which all subsequent attacks upon Cobbett’s alleged “tergiversation” would seem to have been founded. While, however, there was abundant material for comparison, there was no impugning the justness of his reasons for a change of views; nor, indeed, was any attempt made to do so. Both Jeffery and his copiers studiously avoided arguing out Cobbett’s conclusions. It was all-sufficient, in the eye of a party writer, to wreck a man’s reputation who had once openly forsaken a cause.

And yet, the reviewer, near the opening of his article, says the _Register_ “can only be acceptable to men of some vigour of intellect, and some independence of principle.” That was the very root of the matter. Imagine the _Edinburgh_ of that day being acceptable to men of any independence of principle! The very number in question has an article on Catholic Relief, which not only contains sentiments differing from Jeffery’s, but the very opposite to those enunciated by the same review only three years before.

But there was one leading difference between the Whig writer and Mr. Cobbett--they were place-hunters and he was not, and no awkward “comparisons” could wipe out this notorious fact.

[7] “An Appeal to the Public and a Farewell Address to the British Army, by Brevet-Major Hogan, who Resigned his Commission in consequence of the Treatment he experienced from the Duke of York, and of the System that prevails in the Army respecting Promotion” (London, 1808).

[8] Mr. Wardle was a man of fortune, a native of Cheshire, who had served in Ireland during the rebellion; he entered Parliament, as Member for Oakhampton, in the year 1807. This affair of the Duke of York brought him vast popularity.

Francis Place says that Colonel Wardle was a weak and timid man, without the capacity to estimate either his own powers or resources, and that, had he foreseen the trouble and vexation his motion would have occasioned him, he would not have made it. Mr. Brooks (another Westminster politician) raised a subscription of 4000_l._ for Wardle. See Place MSS. in the British Museum (Addl. 27,850).

[9] The details of this inquiry are accessible, in the _Annual Register_ of the year; and Lord Colchester’s Diary, vol. ii., gives some outline of the plans of Ministers concerning the Duke’s defence. Cobbett’s _Register_ was, of course, very entertaining over the matter.

[10] “The Rival Princes; or, A Faithful Narrative of Facts relating to Mrs. M. A. Clarke’s Political Acquaintance with Colonel Wardle, Major Dodd, &c., &c., who were concerned in the Charges against the Duke of York.” 2 vols., London, 1810.

[11] This book brought out a good deal of humour and some imitations. One which will interest us is, “The Rival Impostors; or, Two Political Epistles to two Political Cheats. The first addressed to G. L. Wardle, Esq., M.P.; and the second to William Cobbett, &c., &c.” The latter’s share was an “Analysis” of the Court Martial. The argument is worthless, and the language fearfully gross. Here is a mild specimen:--

“Now blush, thou unparalleled liar![A] if not at thy wickedness,” &c., &c.

[A] “Gentle reader, pardon this coarse expression; none other in the English language is sufficiently strong to express my horror and contempt of the miscreant to whom it is applied.”