William Cobbett: A Biography in Two Volumes, Volume II

	PAGE
CHAPTER XIV. 1805-1806.
“I never sat myself down anywhere, without making the Fruits and Flowers to grow”	1
CHAPTER XV. 1806-1807.
“I did destroy their Power to Rob us any longer without the Robbery being perceived”	24
CHAPTER XVI. 1807-1809.
“They naturally hate Me”	45
CHAPTER XVII. 1808-1809.
“The Outcry against me is louder than ever”	63
CHAPTER XVIII. 1809-1810.
“Compared with defeating Me, defeating Buonaparte is a mere trifle”	88
CHAPTER XIX. 1810.
“The Folly, common to all Tyrants, is that they push things too far”	114
CHAPTER XX. 1810-1812.
“To put a Man in Prison for a Year or Two does not kill him”	127
CHAPTER XXI. 1812-1816.
“The Nation never can be itself again without a Reform”	149
CHAPTER XXII. 1816-1817.
“Between Silence and a Dungeon lay my only choice”	173
CHAPTER XXIII. 1817-1821.
“Whatever other Faults I may have, that of Letting go my Hold is not one”	198
CHAPTER XXIV. 1821-1826.
“They complain that the Twopenny Trash is read”	229
CHAPTER XXV. 1821-1831.
“I have pleaded the Cause of the Working-People, and I shall now see that Cause triumph”	249
CHAPTER XXVI. 1832-1835.
“I now belong to the People of Oldham”	275
CHAPTER XXVII. 1835.
“I have been the Great Enlightener of the People of England”	291
Appendix: Bibliographical List of William Cobbett’s Publications	305
Index	321

---

---

The summer of 1805 finds Mr. Cobbett again at Botley with his family. A letter to Wright, dated 5th July, says, “I have found here a most delightful house and a more delightful garden.” Preparations are being made for a prolonged stay, and for the occasional entertainment of his correspondent: “I have given you a deal of trouble, and hope that you will find hereafter some compensation during the time you will spend at Botley.” The carpets are to be taken up (in Duke Street), and all the bedding, &c., to be “removed upstairs, packed in mats or something.” On the 28th of July Cobbett writes—

There is a good deal about Botley and its neighbourhood to charm the tastes of men like Cobbett. A fine open country, which was then to a great extent unenclosed—it was a genuine agricultural and sporting district, of which the little town was the centre. It was quiet enough, not being on the road to anywhere; and the people were as quiet as the village.

As Cobbett himself described them a few years later. The creek of the little river Hamble touches the end of the principal street; and here was a tiny wharf, and a miller’s house. On the farther side of the creek stood the “delightful house and more delightful garden,” which promised such bliss. Here is one of the first resulting joys:—

Now, quiet Botley began to rub its eyes. Here was a new neighbour who kept the wheels of life well greased. Visitors came to and fro; and the coach, or the waggon, had more parcels to carry. The precious scribblings from Botley House augmented the weight of the post-bag.

As autumn drew nigh, the bucolic pulses were quickened by the rumoured revival of English rustic sports. So, quiet Botley was awakening into something like fame.

One of Mr. Windham’s well-known fancies was the noble art of self-defence. Cobbett was entirely with him there; and it so happened, about this time, that a fatal case of pugilism had brought the matter before the public. Mr. Cobbett defended Boxing in the Register, and resolved to promote all kindred manly exercises.

Accordingly, a festive gathering was prepared, for this very first autumn. Here is a copy of the handbill:—

This announcement, scattered over Hampshire and Wiltshire, brought a good company together, and was the precursor of future successes of the same character. As a matter of course, however, Envy made of it another nail for the coffin of Mr. Cobbett’s reputation;—these things were so demoralizing.

The revels being over, preparations for extensive planting were made, the month of October being largely taken up with the transfer of apples, pears, rose-trees, &c., to the newly cleared ground. A letter of the 4th November says,—

The following, dated Botley, 1st December, 1805, throws much interesting light on then current prospects:—

The newly projected great work is “The Parliamentary History,” which is to contain a full report of all the recorded proceedings, from the earliest times to 1803, when “The Debates” were commenced. A prospectus appeared in the ensuing February. This valuable collection was completed in sixteen volumes, and has long since been an indispensable adjunct to a respectable library. Yet the name of its projector has, unaccountably, become dissociated from it.

---

There is reason to believe that these enterprizes were entailing pecuniary embarrassment. The increasing sale of the Register was producing a splendid income; but so much new printing—a greater part of which would require time for it to fructify—along with the settlement and extensive improvements at Botley, could not but exhaust Cobbett’s resources for the time. In fact a purchase of premises at Droxford (a few miles from Botley), about this time, was made with borrowed money. Another scheme, early in 1805, had been a downright failure: this was “Cobbett’s Spirit of the Public Journals for 1804,” being letters, essays, &c., taken from the English, American, and French journals; a work of inestimable value to the student of history and politics, but unattractive to the general reader. The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wright, dated October 16th, 1805, makes ominous reference to the money question:—

And, on the 29th December, in a letter to Mr. Wright, thanking him for his editorial labours, and expressing pleasure at having been the means of giving him another lift in the world, there is some sensitiveness upon money-matters:—

A more interesting message occurs a day or two later:—

The plan proposed, of spending three months of the year in London lodgings, does not appear to have been carried out. During the spring of 1806, Cobbett was living for a short time at Parson’s Green, Fulham; and in June he returned to Botley, permanently, only going up to London when occasion needed.

---

The year 1806 was pregnant with importance concerning the future of this country. The accession of “All the Talents” to power, after the death of Pitt, marked its commencement; and the nation was alive with hopes. Another abortive attempt was made to negotiate peace with Napoleon. The affairs of India, Military Reform, Lord Melville’s Impeachment, filled the public mind. But one matter, above all, which now came to the front: and which, after many years of lagging, now had a fair start,—was that of Parliamentary Reform.

And that which, at length, furnished the motive power to the wheels of Parliamentary Reform, was no other than the invincible Weekly Political Register of Mr. William Cobbett. Fitful had hitherto been the progress made. Few persons of position had been in earnest about it. Very few had dared to give definiteness to their opinions; and the number of those who could be called advocates of Reform, could be counted on the fingers. The most prominent of these was Major Cartwright.[2]

So, upon Mr. Cobbett’s wit and energy being devoted to the discussion of public abuses, and the only real remedy for them, he found himself surrounded by a new class of friends. Cartwright, Burdett, Bosville, and others, no longer singly held their cry, but rejoiced in their new exponent. Here was a man who had been learning all his lifetime, and who could manfully confess his political errors, not only in mere general terms, but to points of detail;—a man who had acquired the high privilege of being maligned, misrepresented, and threatened for the odious crime of speaking the truth in clear and unfaltering, although sarcastic, terms:—one “to whom the public eye turned for light and information.” That was the view, at least, taken by many of the correspondents of the Register. So, if Mr. Cobbett was heaping up wrath in one quarter, his name and his talents were being recognized in another. The people were looking to him,—not the “swinish multitude” of Mr. Burke, nor the “lower orders” of Mr. Wilberforce, but the people who paid the taxes and wanted to see where the money went to.

There was a Mr. Robson, M.P. for Honiton, who particularly “wanted to know,” and insisted on knowing, the truth about certain abuses in the Barrack Department. The truth came out, with a story very much akin to a dead-and-buried affair, in which a former Serjeant to the 54th regiment was concerned. Mr. Cobbett took it up, and even assisted, by interviews with the parties concerned, in helping to expose the matter. The incident is chiefly noticeable, in this history, as being the occasion, alas! of a divergence of sentiment between himself and Windham; who, as Secretary at War, had not met Robson’s motions for inquiry in a spirit according with the professions of his out-of-office days. “Surely there is something in the air of the offices that lowers the minds of men!” was the exclamation of Cobbett; “it was with still better reason than I thought, that I recommended a clean sweeping and a fumigation of the haunts of the Pitts and the Roses!”

At this juncture, Mr. Cavendish Bradshaw, the second member for Honiton, accepted an office which required him to vacate his seat. Upon seeking re-election he found an unexpected opponent in the person of Mr. Cobbett, who hastily issued an address to the electors, offering his services, in the event of no other public-spirited man coming forward. At the last moment, Lord Cochrane appeared, having in the meantime read Cobbett’s letter to the electors; and the latter withdrew in Lord Cochrane’s favour.[3] Mr. Cobbett, however, made a long speech at the hustings, in temperate but most eloquent terms; ridiculing the claims of a sinecure-placeman upon the constituency. Mr. Bradshaw’s remarks were short; but they included the instructive information that the last speaker was a “convicted libeller.” Well, the people of Honiton couldn’t afford to throw away their two-guineas-a-head; so, Mr. Bradshaw was re-elected.

A dissolution of parliament was now imminent, and the new forces promised themselves a glorious time of it. The following letter, dated Botley, 7th July, points to the increasing prominence of Mr. Cobbett’s share in the campaign:—

And, on the 17th:—

The following extracts from letters of July-October, will illustrate several incidents and opinions:—

Amongst new acquaintances of this year was no less a person than Dr. Mitford, probably introduced to Cobbett by Sir William Elford, who was a vigorous Windhamite. The Doctor’s passion for coursing consolidated a friendship which lasted for several years; and we find Cobbett visiting him in December, 1806, at Bertram House, near Reading, from which place several articles in the Register are dated. Miss Mitford has several pleasing recollections of Cobbett, for whom she had considerable esteem.[7]

But, of all his Hampshire friends, there was none so staunch as Viscount Folkestone,[8] a rising whig politician of the day; a man who endeavoured to carry the principles of his pretentious Party into practice, and honestly believed that Mr. Cobbett was, with all his untamable vigour, one of the best exponents of the current political aspirations. Although the time came when, in 1834, their opinions diverged on the Poor Law question, their mutual regard lasted to the very end.

---

---

In September, 1806, Mr. Charles James Fox died, and left one of the seats for Westminster at the disposal of the Whigs. For several years there had been a truce between the Whigs and the Tories, over this celebrated constituency, and each party was represented there. Accordingly, Earl Percy was quietly suffered to succeed to Mr. Fox.

The Whig nominee was no sooner elected, however, than a dissolution, which had been for some time imminent, took place, and the two factions, in their mutual consent, put up Mr. Sheridan and Admiral Hood, Lord Percy having declined to come forward again. Sheridan was a man who was for the winning side, whichever it might be, and he now laid claim to the mantle of Mr. Fox, whose name and whose party had been steadily growing into favour.

During the summer and autumn, Mr. Cobbett had been lecturing the electors of Westminster upon their duties. He pointed out that, with such traditions as theirs, there was less excuse for “base conduct” than in any other body of electors; yet, that the constituency was sinking to the level of a nomination-borough. Base conduct meant: clamouring against “peculators and depredators,” and then being led by the nose by men who not only “clamoured,” but pledged their word to reform, and to inquire into abuses; and who, immediately they got a snug office, found ready excuses for the non-fulfilment of their promises. The case in point was that of Mr. Sheridan, who, now that he was treasurer to the navy, declined to bring forward charges which he had threatened, “lest he should thereby create divisions in the ministry, that is to say, lest he should lose his place.” Mr. Cobbett was requested by a small section to come forward himself; but he refused. The advertisement in the Morning Post of 19th September, announces his determination (vide note, p. 14). But he was actually proposed, on the hustings, by a Mr. Hewlings.

Mr. Cobbett’s candidate was James Paull:—

Mr. Paull had started at the top of the poll. But as the days wore on, the others gained slowly upon him, until, at the close, he was left in a small minority. It was found, however, upon an analysis of the voting, that Paull had polled 3077 plumpers, against Sheridan’s 955, and Sir Samuel Hood’s 1033, whilst the coalition of the two latter had given them each 3240 split votes. Paull’s total was 4481. These figures were solemnly put upon record by the friends of reform (as they now called themselves), in order to show “the manner in which Mr. Paull had been defeated.”

An interesting conflict ensued, between Cobbett and Sheridan, which must not go unnoticed. When the former was attacked by Sheridan in parliament, in August, 1803 (as before related), it was a wilful and unnecessary throwing down of the gauntlet. Mr. Sheridan was not the man who should find fault with another’s popularity-hunting, much less another’s inconsistency; and Mr. Cobbett proceeded to give him the inevitable “Series of Letters,”[2] with which he usually favoured the objects of his animadversion. Mr. Sheridan, now crowing on the Westminster hustings, imputes low birth to his opponents; Mr. Paull’s father was only a tailor, and, as for his bottle-holder, why all the world knows his story. And all the world (except Mr. Sheridan) might have guessed what would have come of that. “Whence came the Sheridans? From a play-actor! from a member of that profession, the followers of which are, in our wise laws, considered and denominated vagabonds.” And Mr. Cobbett proceeds further, and wants to know what are the public services of these persons, Sheridan and his son Thomas, that they should be receiving between seven and eight thousand pounds of the public money? So Tom Sheridan offers to fight, according to a speech of his own at a Sheridan dinner:—

Of course, the only utility of this sort of thing, was to provide material for satire; and Cobbett, on his part, never failed to remind Sheridan of his foibles, nor ceased to look upon his “statesmanship” with the contempt it deserved.

---

The result of this general election was promising enough, to the increasing band of reformers. But, another dissolution, in the following spring, gave a still greater impulse to the popular feeling. Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane headed the poll at Westminster, leaving Elliott (a Windhamite), Sheridan, and Paull out in the cold. It was as early as this that Mr. Cobbett began to suspect Burdett’s sincerity concerning Reform; and he refused, on account of Sir Francis declining to act with Paull,[3] to interfere in this election, although Lord Cochrane begged him to do so. But the powerful Register was as active as ever in the contest of principles which was being waged.

---

We may now glance at some of the correspondence of this winter, 1806-7.

A chronic complaint of Cobbett’s, throughout his life, was being exposed to the payment of unfranked letters. A renewed notice to friends and correspondents appears in January, 1807, informing them that he will not take in such letters. A message to Mr. Wright, about this time, gives him directions on the subject, and mentions that 12s. a week would not pay the postage of letters, of no use at all, and many of them sent merely for persecution.

There is a great importation of American trees early this year, which gives Mr. Wright some trouble to attend to, out of his ordinary line; in return for which he is to have a farm some day, and American trees to beautify it with. He is expected at Botley again in March, and is to bring, amongst other matters, “two quarto blank books, with a good stiff cover, for Nancy to copy her grammar lessons in. I am teaching her; she learns very fast,” &c. And, they “all go to church of a Sunday.”

An impending duel between Mr. Elliott and Mr. Paull is alluded to in the following:—

A petition against Sheridan’s return for Westminster, on the part of Paull, now provided matter for discussion; and this, along with the unceasing campaign against sinecures, and the sudden dispersion of the lost sheep (as “All the Talents” were now called), kept the ready writer going merrily. Too merrily, indeed; a little cloud was gathering. Lord Grenville confided to somebody, that Cobbett was destroying the characters of all public men. Lord Howick[5] became unfavourably impressed with his vehemence, and threatened prosecution. Above all, the anonymous press had no mercy upon him, although it prudently avoided fair discussion. In March, Wright is asked for his opinion as to men’s feelings, in town.

Only let him have open ground to go upon, and a good sight at the enemy.

Early in April, Mr. Cobbett writes:—

The new elections are coming on in April, and Mr. Cobbett is determined not to interfere, unless positively compelled. As soon as the election is over, he will “set about writing sober essays of exposure: quote from official documents, state the bare facts, and lament, as I most sincerely do, the inevitable consequences.” He foresees the inutility of Mr. Paull contesting Westminster again, and the event proves that he is right. But he continues his unasked-for advice to the electors. And he does keep to facts, facts which all who have eyes may see. Seats in Parliament are being openly advertised for sale in the daily papers,[8]—in Whig papers; and this villainous scribbler presses for an explanation, particularly from that party which is always flaunting the flag of 1688, and which yet rails at him, and abuses him, and calls him nicknames, for trying to hold them to their principles.

As for his own writings, conscious though he be of their power and clearness, and of the admiration excited by them in the minds of all who are not the recipients of his lashing, he will be more than ever guarded in expression:—

In the early part of this history, allusion was made to the growing impoverishment of the labouring classes. A quarter of a century was now elapsed, since the Hereditary Pauper started into being; and his race was now numbered by the million. The parishes were raising six millions sterling, for purposes of relief; and the recipients were going steadily down, down, down. They were becoming practically enslaved. The average rural labourer was now feeding upon bread, vegetables, and water. His children were uneducated; his wife was in rags; his dwelling was either a ruin or a hovel.

And, it is very curious matter for reflection, to note how ready the comfortable classes were to acquiesce in tolerating this state of things. Schemes of amelioration were broached by a few, but they were generally based upon a total ignorance of first-cause. Your social tinker,—amiable, bland, and very serious,—caught a glimpse of the poor wretches so far beneath him; and, straightway recollecting the words of Scripture, that the poor should “never cease out of the land,” opened his purse-strings, exhorted his friends to do the like,—and left matters worse than before.[9] Your local authority, and your parson-pluralist, deeply impressed with the need of preserving the “indispensable gradations of society,” in their full integrity, refused a cow to the cottager, lest he should be thereby rendered too independent! absolutely ignorant of the fact, that forty or fifty years previously, the rural labourer not only had his cow,—but his pigs, his geese, his beer, and his bacon, and a tolerable share of the comforts of life: his outward condition, in point of fact, being scarcely inferior to that of the farmers, and even the clergy, around him.

Now, in this year of grace 1807, there was no man living who was a better authority on this topic, than the hero of these pages. And, what is more, there was no living being, who had a tenderer sympathy with the wants and the wailings of the meanest fellow-creature; be it a skylark, or be it a ploughboy.

And the tinkers, and the tailors, solemnly going to work with new patches, the only end of which must be the further enslavement and degradation of the poor; and the end of which could not possibly be the healing of their stomachs, or the mending of their breeches and their gowns; he now bursts out,—

Mr. Whitbread’s Poor Law Bills[10] of 1807 were the present occasion of the subject being before the public.

The income-tax was ten per cent., and the quartern loaf averaged eleven-pence, at this period; whilst the wages of the rural labourer were so low, that the parish universally supplemented them in the form of relief. This practice, indeed, had become such an abuse, that the farmer would refuse to employ men at fair wages—throw them upon the workhouse,—and then take their labour upon the reduced scale paid out of the rates; thus entailing upon his neighbours a share of the expenses of his own establishment. In many parishes every labourer was a pauper.

At the same time, capitalists and stock-jobbers were amassing wealth, in an unprecedented degree; whilst more than a million sterling, annually, was diverted from the public resources, into the pockets of sinecurists. All the idleness and luxury, thus created, helped to augment the price of the necessaries of life; and the inevitable consequences of unproductive expenditure ensued, in a continued diminution of the resources of those persons who earned their living.

And what was the bolus, proposed to be applied for the cure of this alarming cancer? Educate the children of the poor! Positively! As though the children of the poor (at least, of the rural poor) did not pick up their education day by day, from the moment that they could crawl out into the fields to scare away the rooks; as though ploughing, mowing, threshing, and reaping,—loading a waggon, and guiding a team, could not be better acquired, on the old lines, than by having the unreceptive bucolic brain first gorged with reading, writing, and arithmetic! And this new reforming agency, mark you, was to be a further expense to the rate-payers; already at their wits’ end to know how, themselves, to keep the wolf from the door. Is it any wonder, then, that persons who, like Mr. Cobbett, not only knew the real wants and temptations, and difficulties of the labourer, raised their voices indignantly?

That it should be imputed to the poor, that it was their IGNORANCE and VICE which had brought them low: that any other cause, but the increase of luxurious idlers, and the draining of the national resources by exorbitant taxation, could lie at the root of the evil: that a generation of plutocrats should have grown up, who looked upon the “lower orders” as of less consequence than their horses, their dogs, and their poultry, was not to be borne in silence, whilst the pen of a ready writer was at hand to defy such thoughtless misrepresentation.

From this time, then, until the period of his death, Cobbett’s voice was raised on behalf of the suffering Labouring Classes of England. An adequate return for their labour, and some respect toward them as fellow-creatures, he was determined to get; and he would suffer no opposition, no ignominy, to hinder his endeavours.

---

But, what was his own practice; and what was the condition of the labourers in his own service?

Precisely that, which could alone render them independent and prosperous. He would have no paupers; and, although they were, generally, married men with families, no one was allowed to remain in his service who required parish assistance. As he gave high wages, and provided them with a free dwelling, the need of this stipulation is obvious. But, they had to work for it all: Mr. Cobbett would have a day’s work for a day’s pay; and so have no obligation left, on either side, when they came to eventide. Men might be independent, and they might be saucy, too; but better these, a thousand times, than cringing hypocrisy,—than the enslavement of idleness at starvation-pay.

Not only this: Mr. Cobbett’s was a measure full and running over;—

Seventy years will pass away, and carry off with them most direct evidence, leaving little beyond shadowy traditions. But there are, yet living at Botley, aged persons who were long in Mr. Cobbett’s service, as gardeners and farm-labourers. And these persons, one and all, represent his days at Botley as a time of exceptional comfort and well-being; and his service as one of well-paid, hard-working earnestness. Hated and envied by some of his neighbours, he was maligned, and abused, and misrepresented, as earnest people always are;[11] but there were a far greater number, who welcomed the current of joy, and freedom, to which he had given rise. And the recollection of his name will still restore a transient smile to the withered features of a man, whose lengthened span of life may be due, in great measure, to the habits of industry and thrift and independence acquired in the service of William Cobbett.

---

---

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

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:—

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:—

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:—

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

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

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

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:—

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,—

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:”—

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:—

The facts being, in short, that Major Hogan found he could get the promotion he wanted by paying 500l. 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,—

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.

---

---

The little estate, which was being formed on the banks of the Hamble, was now beginning to wear a face of its own, in the spring of 1808. The consolidation of two or three small farms, and the replanting of a large portion of the ground, with oak, thorn, ash, acacia, &c., was the outline of a plan, which now showed some promise of a return. Mr. Cobbett’s favourite notion had been, that a fair provision for his family might be thus made. And now, after three full seasons, the new plantations had entirely fulfilled the expectation.[1] They were flourishing and healthy, and a large supply of material for the London stick-makers appears as part of this year’s cropping. In May, there is another large parcel of land added, containing sixty-seven acres of wood, besides arable land and water-meadow.

All this makes the need of any visit to London still more irksome; and Mr. Wright has to do the honours for his leader. There is talk of a grand demonstration at Westminster, to celebrate the anniversary of Burdett’s election; but Mr. Cobbett doesn’t care to be dragged away from his beloved fields into “the cursed smoke,” as he calls it:—

Although he does not go up to the festival at the “Crown and Anchor,” Mr. Cobbett does justice to the opportunity as a “comment-maker.” In supporting Burdett’s views, as expressed at the meeting, he remarks:—

There is an excursion to Cornwall, in August, on occasion of the trial of Sir Christopher Hawkins and others, at Penrhyn, for corrupt practices at a past election. The electors of Westminster are forthwith treated to a new lecture, upon the prevalence of the “vile traffic” in seats; and Mr. Wright is favoured with an account of the aspect of things and people as they appear from behind the scenes. One remark is interesting: “Notwithstanding all I have said about the lawyers lately, the whole of them have treated me with distinguished civility.”

---

The following, dated 17th September, 1808, is worth preserving, as upon a subject concerning which Mr. Cobbett had some real practical knowledge:—

This last paragraph refers to the convention at Cintra, by which the French army was permitted to retire from Portugal in British ships. This advantage, granted to the ubiquitous enemy, caused a great popular outcry in England. The Hampshire people had a grand demonstration at Winchester, in November; in which occasion Mr. Cobbett took a prominent part.

Another useful scheme is now in preparation. In his reading, necessitated by the production of the “Parliamentary History,” Mr. Cobbett had found the need of an accessible edition of the State Trials; and he resolved to supply the want by reproducing them, with additional matter, in the belief that other students of history would find it of advantage. Mr. Wright entered warmly into the notion, and procured the services of a gentleman to act as editor. This was Thomas Bayly Howell, whose name has sometimes been associated with the work.[3] But there seems to have early arisen some dissatisfaction with him, and the engagement went very near to be cancelled. The following has the first of several references to this matter:—

Concerning the forthcoming “State Trials:”—

A vacancy in the representation of Hampshire brings another county assemblage at Winchester; on which occasion Mr. Cobbett requires each candidate to take a pledge, that, if elected, he would never accept the public money as long as he lived; and would, moreover, use every endeavour to obtain redress of the public grievances, especially that trying one of having their money “voted away by those, amongst whom there are many who receive part of that money.”

That Mr. Cobbett was unwilling to join in a cry against a public character, without reason or justice, was often manifest. His entire freedom from party bias, as such, accounts for the frequent distrust which he inspired, at the same time that it helped to keep away from him the temptation to hunt a man down merely because he was an opponent. For example, he did not readily give ear to the charge made against the Duke of York on the part of Major Hogan, although he was, at the very time, raising the question of the Duke’s exorbitant income. Mr. Cobbett could be just, and loyal too. This story of Hogan’s might suit the tribe of malignant, unreasoning scribblers; but he has no idea of weakening his own writings by an appeal to what looks uncommonly like an invention. The Register holds out several warnings to the Major; and Cobbett tells Mr. Wright more plainly that he believes “Major Hogan has certainly told a d—— lie, and ought to be exposed.… As for Hague,[6] he really seems to have courted a jail.”

He presently adds:—

The dissatisfaction with Mr. Howell would appear to have arisen partly from an extreme slackness in providing “copy;” and, with this, a disposition to consider his own remuneration as of the first importance. The difficulty, however, did blow over.

The following refers to a letter of Major Cartwright’s on the affairs of Spain:—

This one appeared in the Register, but with reference to a succeeding letter:—

The fatal news of Corunna came, and routed up the nation once more, in the course of January. Two of Mrs. Cobbett’s brothers were with the forces there, and no tidings had come from them:—

The two brothers, Tom and Frederick Reid, are safe, however. Little Nancy writes thus to Mr. Wright:—

The very interesting inquiry into the private affairs of the Duke of York was perilous to editors and pamphleteers. Mr. Wright sends word down to Botley of his increasing fears lest his chief should be compromised; and not without reason. The exasperation of ministerialists was at its height. Their writers brought forth wild imputations against the opposition scribblers, and twisted and tortured their language and their meaning. In vain, however; facts could not be gainsaid, and upon facts alone they relied. The Examiner which was then young, got into trouble over Major Hogan; the Morning Chronicle was in danger. But nothing could stop the ball which Colonel Wardle had set rolling.

And, just as Mr. Cobbett had hesitated over Major Hogan, he is still as cautious as ever concerning Wardle; and wants to know, first, his correspondent’s opinion as to Wardle’s capability to bring forward proof of his charges, before entering the lists himself. Yet, the game being started, he laughs away fear; and, acknowledging the kindness of Mr. Wright’s expressions of anxiety, he says he “must stand the brunt. No flinching would either be honourable or politic.” He will defy prosecution, rather than give up the fight, much as he “loves his fields and woods.”

One singular incident of this period is the case of Miss Taylor; a lady who had, unfortunately for herself, to give evidence of her acquaintanceship with Mrs. Clarke. She, with her sister, had kept a school, and the two were earning a respectable livelihood. There was not the slightest ground for tainting her character; but, having to admit, upon a very unnecessary and malicious cross-examination, that she was not born in wedlock, the fathers and mothers of that moral, that highly-toned age, could not brook the notion of their children being educated by a ——, whatever name offended society chose to give her. Her appearance in the inquiry was the prelude to immediate ruin, for her pupils suddenly vanished; and, as the affair got into the papers, it was felt by some of the new “patriots” that, to some extent, she was a martyr to the cause. So they got up a subscription:[8] Mr. Cobbett leading the way; and she was eventually provided for. They should get husbands, he says in one of his letters, “in spite of the Morning Post.” But with his characteristic pertinacity, he will have the money invested in no treacherous “Scrip.” Lord Folkestone suggests India Bonds as a mode of investment; but Cobbett’s answer is that not one farthing of money, the disposal of which lies with him, shall ever be laid out, for one hour, in any India or Government security.

The “rascals” were now at work over the Court-Martial. As related in an early chapter of this history (vol. i. p. 63), a garbled account of the affair was being circulated broadcast over the country. Thousands of copies were sent into Hampshire; and bales of them were brought down by people from London, in their carriages, and tossed out to the passers-by.

For once in a while, then, Mr. Cobbett thinks it proper to notice the current calumny. Although it is obvious that the object of the attack is to discredit him, and thus endeavour to destroy the effect of his weekly writings, the story can be told in a different way when it is discovered that part of it has been suppressed; whilst the motive can, at the same time, be exposed and expounded. Here are Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh conniving at the sale of seats in Parliament,[10] and being exposed to the world: is it any wonder that they should retaliate? Is it any wonder that they also find a story to tell?

But the Weekly Political Register having devoted twenty columns to a version of the story, which has truth and manliness in every sentence, and which throws still more light upon the meanness of its opponents: the thing drops out of sight and hearing! If anybody does bring it up again, it is only the exulting accused himself, who has found one more opportunity, at their own hands, of disconcerting his antagonists.

He is urged to pursue the matter; but he protests his unwillingness to take up his time, and that of his readers, with personal matters. He has only done it now because it gives him an opportunity of showing up the “incomparable baseness” of Corruption; and the futility of her resistance to the impending Reform: the blind and passionate course which she is taking, in order to stifle inquiry.

One letter from Botley, referring to this matter, is worth quoting:—

Again:—

Lose: indeed! the day had come, at last. On the very morrow of these swaggering lines being penned, the Political Register had committed itself.

As, when the heated pursuer, sure of his game as far as will, and equipment, are concerned, is brought to the ground by some mean and unconsidered obstacle: so this eager one, at the very heels of his adversaries, finds himself suddenly prostrate. And the now-exulting foe stands over him; while cries of Habet! Habet! sound upon his ears.

---

---

If there is one thing, more than another, characteristic of the British soldier, it is his attachment to home. Home, that is to say, in the hearts of his countrymen, as well upon the hearth of his parents. You cannot make a hireling of him; nor is he a mere worshipper of glory. The links that bind him to his comrades are the same with those, which remain unsevered between him and the civilian-class whence he sprang. This is obvious enough, when we consider the general demeanour of the people toward his profession. You may see it, plainly, when the soldier is “in trouble;” or, when two red-coats are quarrelling in the street;—but, specially, on that supreme occasion when the band is playing “The girl I left behind me!”

But there have been times where there was danger of these affections being sundered. Notably, during the later days of the Regency, when army-legislation went far to make the soldiery a distinct class, with interests hostile to those of “the mob.” And, during the great war, the employment of German mercenaries for purposes of home defence (whilst the English forces were shedding their blood on the soil whence those had been deported) was naturally productive of some ill-feeling toward the military profession.

Of the popular sentiment, concerning this topic, there was never a better exponent than Mr. William Cobbett, late of the 54th. His constant boast was, that he had been a soldier, and knew soldiers “as well as any man that ever breathed.” His appeals on their behalf, whether addressed to the legislature or to the people, breathe unfaltering affection toward them. He would defend them, would support them, would animate and would advise them, as his brethren. And, while inculcating a spirit of respect and affection toward them, on the part of the people, he constantly objected to everything likely to tend to the degradation of the military character and calling. Did a company pass through Botley, he would superintend the billeting; and could not rest until men and officers were suitably entertained. His army plan, published in 1806, was entirely upon these lines: that the military should be bound to their country by the same ties with the rest of the nation. His anecdotes of soldier-life would, alone, fill a large volume; and, throughout his long life, there was no source from which he could so readily draw a pointed illustration of virtue, of energy, or of loyalty.

---

During the year 1809, his Majesty’s ministers had much to harass them; and not the least of their anxieties was the conduct of the liberal part of the newspaper press, concerning Flogging in the Army and Navy. They were all condemning the tortures of the lash: the abuse, itself, being then as bad as it could be. Such was the outcry against it, that it became evident that there would have to be a struggle over the matter; and, in the fight which did ensue, may be traced some of those elements which eventually gave greater freedom to the press of this country. It was known, at this period, that newspaper-writers had been warned, and that a severe example would be made of the first offender.

---

The Attorney-General, then, is on the watch; and woe betide the wretch who defies Sir Vicary Gibbs!

And who is to be the victim? Shall it be James Perry or Redhead Yorke? or those daring young brothers, whose Examiner is slashing away at everything and everybody they choose to disagree with, and who have just had such a narrow escape over Major Hogan? or one or other of those provincial editors, who would cut off a little finger for the sake of publicity and a wider circulation? Perhaps one of these. But there is game that must be brought down, if possible: the “must” being so urgent, that the game shall be started by our very best dogs. No inefficient pointing here, if you please.

Accordingly, ministerial newspapers make ostentation of flogging-cases. The interests of the country demand: and so on. The exigencies of the nation require: and so forth. The naval and military forces are hot-beds of sedition, and nothing was ever known to cure that, but the cat-o’-nine-tails. And we shall lie at the mercy of the enemy, if the entire nation is not sound on the subject of mutiny: let us not, then, be mealy-mouthed in the stern path of duty!

And the Courier, in its stern path, records (24th June, 1809):—

Now, first, what is flogging—rather, what was it?[1] Let us have a few of Mr. Cobbett’s reminiscences before we proceed:—

Just so.

---

On Saturday, the 1st of July, the Weekly Political Register takes for its motto the above paragraph from the Courier, and begins with the following comments:—

So much for your “comment-maker.”

---

What personage had the distinction of walking home from church with Mr. Perceval, on the following day, history does not record: his comments, then, remain in oblivion. No matter that, however. In about three weeks after the above publication, Mr. Cobbett has news from London, which he thus retails:—

Mr. Reeves appears to have been sounded, by Mr. Wright, upon the possibility of escape from prosecution. Cobbett expresses some displeasure, however, on hearing of this, and adds:—

Instead of any fear of the future, the look-out is rather toward the welfare and increase of his estate. Some plots of land have just been purchased, with the object of making freeholders of Wright, Finnerty, and others. The prospects of harvest are very bad, for the rains have been so incessant, that wheat is growing in the ear; but the trees are coming on “delightfully.” Lord Cochrane arrives home, and comes to see Botley with the tale of his grievances.

Mr. Cobbett pays his occasional visit to Lord Folkestone, at Coleshill; and horses and puppies, and hares and pheasants, reappear in their order, not at all as though the threatened danger would be anything beyond a scare.

---

Among Mr. Cobbett’s friends was one who had become peculiarly bound up in his affairs, through circumstances which must now be noticed.

Mr. John Swann, of Wolvercot and Ensham, in Oxfordshire, was an eminent paper-maker of that day; his mills being the chief sources of supply for the University of Oxford. He had supplied also the paper for the Register from a very early period; and it would appear that a strong attachment existed between him and the Cobbetts. As far back as September, 1805, when purchases of land were being made in Hampshire, somewhat beyond Mr. Cobbett’s command of ready money, Mr. Swann had assisted him by discounting accommodation bills. At the death of the latter, in January, 1807, his brother James succeeded both to the paper-mills and to the accommodation paper; and to the friendship thus continued into another family, we are indebted to some further glimpses of Cobbett’s happy domestic life. Mr. Swann is initiated into the mysteries of planting: eels from the sluggish Oxford streams grace the table at Botley, and game from Hampshire that of Ensham. And, as time fled on, the perilous accumulation of “credit” seemed only to add new links of love.

The following selection from correspondence belongs to the later months of 1808:—

This excursion did not come off till May, 1809, for some reason or other. Mr. Wright was very nearly being entrapped into matrimony on the occasion, with an interesting widow who was one of the visitors.

An important outward change came over the Register at the beginning of the year 1809. Mr. Cobbett had for some time been dissatisfied with the printing of Messrs. Cox and Baylis; and it was therefore transferred to Mr. T. C. Hansard. An improvement was manifest at once, and the Register took the position of those publications which were discarding the antiquated types of the past. Some little notion of the extent of the enterprise that was going on may be gathered by an estimate furnished to Swann of the probable monthly supply of paper that would be required:—

“Register	60	reams.
State Trials	96	“
Parl. History	50	“
Parl. Debates	50	“
Total	256	reams.”

As the Register was in 16 pages 8vo, with occasional supplements, the weekly circulation must have been nearly six thousand at this period. Very soon after this change, the price was raised to 1s. from 10d., at which figure it had stood since its commencement. The price of paper had risen from 24s. to 43s. a ream, and the newspaper stamp from a halfpenny to 3½d.; besides that, other expenses had proportionally augmented. Great must have been the hold which Cobbett had obtained, over a large number of readers, for his journal to have been able to keep its place under such circumstances.

---

The threatened prosecution hung so long over Mr. Cobbett’s head, that some of his friends began to hope that nothing would come of it. He probably thought, for his own part, that the Government were not unmindful of the sort of antagonist he would make, when driven to bay; and that they would think twice before going into the contest without the minutest preparation, and the best possible opportunity. In a letter to Mr. Swann, dated 28th November, he says,—

There will be no lack of preparation, however:—

He continues 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:—

On the 8th January, he writes:—

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.

Mr. James Perry was in trouble again, early in 1810. The Attorney-General had filed information against the Morning Chronicle and the Examiner, 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:—

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 the Examiner was forthwith withdrawn. This occurrence 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.

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’s Register—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 Newgate ex The Attorney-General! Yet he was not forgotten.

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

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

---

---

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 the Morning 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 written in 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 libel seriatim, making his own comments; and concluded, after asking the jury whether its tendency was not to injure the military service,—

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.”

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 a suggestion.

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 the Political 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. There would 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.

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

The Register, 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 his mind 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:—

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.

---

---

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:—

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 being thrown 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 the Stamford 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 floggings be 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:—

It was, then, no idle boast, that imprisonment need not kill, nor even seriously injure, a man: that a jail was “as good a place for study as any other.” But, really, although the temporary loss of liberty is an unpleasant thing, considered in the abstract, there can be no possible objection to a man putting as good a face as he can on the matter. Life itself is nothing but a life-long struggle of a kindred character: to try and get an optimist view of bad circumstances. And, if one must needs take his daily exercise upon the leads of Newgate prison, instead of through his coppices and cornfields: if he must get his “violets and primroses, and cowslips and harebells,” sent up by the carrier, because of their extreme rarity in the street below; let him thank a propitious Heaven for so much!

In point of fact, few prisoners were ever so blessed as Cobbett. The reader is familiar enough (from the pages of “Advice,” &c.) with the current of domestic joy that kept flowing. But, besides having one or other of his family continually with him, there were always sympathizing visitors: personal friends, business acquaintances, deputations from clubs and societies all over the kingdom. And, what was of no little importance, Matthew Wood was sheriff, who attended, in every possible way, to the comfort of his prisoner. Baron Maseres[4] came frequently, and “always in his wig and gown, in order, as he said, to show his abhorrence of the sentence.”

And, as to his health, Cobbett would boast in after years that he never had even a headache for a moment; never enjoyed better health or spirits; never had hopes more lively, or thoughts more gay, than in that prison.

But that which, above all other matters, appeared to be the great solace of his prison-life, was the production of his famous work on the Currency, under the title of “Paper against Gold.”[5] The tricks and contrivances by which paper-money had been, along with the funding system, made the means of placing unwieldy fortunes in the hands of speculators, was his utter abhorrence. The glory was departed from England, in his eyes, if public credit were to hang upon the prosperity of the few, as against the multitude. And, regarding a fictitious currency, shifting in value from day to day, sometimes even from hour to hour, as a leading cause of the debt which was accumulating to such a terrible figure,—he resolved to devote a part of his newly-found leisure to the systematizing of his thought upon the subject.

Accordingly, upon the 1st of September, he commenced a series of papers, founded upon the recent report of the Bullion Committee; tracing the history of the National Debt, and of the schemes for raising money which had been in vogue during the war.

Here is his story (told in 1822) of the first conception of the plan, and his notion of its value:—

So the attempt to crush him was a failure. Rather, they read defiance in every page; and, as time wore on, it was seen that the silence of defeat was on the side of Mr. Cobbett’s foes. The Press ignored him; that Press which had, from envy at his superior talents and his unexampled success, ransacked the vocabulary of Billingsgate in order to abuse a man they could not answer; which had so goaded and inflamed the persecuting spirit of the time, that none dared speak or write who were not sheltered by privilege, or who had not bartered independence for the favour of those in power. Not for several years after this date was there much desire shown, on the part of a ministerial writer, to attract the glance of this rampant lion.

And they might well be quiet. If this imprisonment had neither killed nor cured him, Mr. Cobbett came out of Newgate an altered man. He was now fifty years of age, and a few grey hairs were just appearing. The enormous expenses which he had been put to (amounting, from first to last, to more than six thousand pounds), and the discovery that his business affairs were hopelessly involved, made up a bundle of difficulties which began to tell upon his temper. Good-natured sarcasms made place for bitter ones; and an air of spitefulness would come over his writings when there was more than ordinary cause for resentment. His essays were, albeit brilliant as ever, sometimes marred by the introduction of coarse epithets; and, during the remainder of his career, this cause alone sufficed to estrange many of his friends, and to put a stone into the hand of opponents.

Mr. Cobbett’s writing must be considered as at its very best during the years 1810-12. He probably gave some time to revision; a point which he had been inclined to neglect, and a matter concerning which he seemed utterly heedless in later years; the exclusive devotion to his pen, now so far removed from rural distractions, necessarily produced better work.

But it cannot be said that there was any deterioration in Cobbett’s literary style, beyond the warmth of expression engendered by fiercer animosity. The best known works of William Cobbett belong to the last twenty years of his life; and if they are painfully full of personal hatreds, it must be recollected that those were, indeed, times to try men’s souls; the oppressor and the oppressed had seldom been, in England, in such close conflict; and a leader and guider of men, on the side of the latter, had need to be fierce and uncompromising. The soldier, foremost of your storming-party, has little time to spare for consideration of the personal merits of the foe, whose gunstock is swinging o’er his head.

---

The more serious result, personally, of the sentence pronounced upon Mr. Cobbett, was the utter collapse of his pecuniary fortunes. The enormous profit derived from the publication of the Register might have been sufficient to cover even the profuse expenditure of Botley House, with its hospitality and its planting experiments, but Mr. Cobbett was eminently a person who (as the Hebrew poet has it) earned money to put it into a bag with holes.

This matter, however, might be passed over with light notice, but for its interference with Cobbett’s public services. His is not a solitary instance of a useful life being marred, and its efficiency hindered, by an ignorance of the value of money; and there could hardly be a more decisive evidence of the disastrous results of such ignorance than is presented by this man’s career. Plutus is the most exacting of deities; his votaries must be whole-hearted; let Fortuna come and cast off her shoes as she may.…

It was never Cobbett’s aim to get rich. He had, indeed, hoped to provide a snug competence for his children; but for plans of amassing wealth he had supreme contempt. To earn by labour, and to circulate the proceeds, was his economy; and it cannot be denied that, with proper prudence, that is the right economy. The greatest enemy to national prosperity is the plutocrat; and the next greatest is he who can afford, in the prime of life, to live without labour, through the mistaken munificence or benevolence of another.

---

It would appear, then, that upon accounts being looked into, in the autumn of 1810, money affairs were found to be almost hopelessly entangled. The three great serial works,—the “Debates,” “Parliamentary History,” and “State Trials,” were being produced at a ruinous loss; while the accommodation-paper, chiefly in the hands of Mr. Swann, amounted to thousands of pounds. Cobbett had not looked at his balance for six years! His practice was to ask Mr. Wright to send him ten, twenty, or forty pounds as he wanted it; and to leave the rest of the matter implicitly to him. Wright was, himself, not very clever in the management of money; and, between the two, there came at last the profoundest muddle. It ended in an arbitration, held in the prison; the result being a heavy award against Wright, and a total and irremediable rupture of their friendship. Mr. Budd bought up a large portion of the publications in stock; while Mr. Hansard took into his own hands the three serials which he had been printing for Cobbett.

The quarrel with Mr. Wright is the most painful episode in Cobbett’s life. There can be no doubt that Wright had been a reckless agent, and had been trusted far too much; and his conduct, some years after, in producing an old, long-forgotten, private letter of Cobbett’s, to serve electioneering purposes, was so infamous a breach of confidence, that it may well be believed that his employer’s imputation of dishonesty had foundation in actual fact. Of this matter we shall unhappily hear more in the sequel.[6] The following letter to Mr. Swann (dated Newgate, January 26, 1811) may be selected as best illustrating the existing condition of affairs:—

It was all too late, however. Years of prosperity, with concurrent retrenchment, might have staved off ruin. But, as the ensuing period in the history of England was one of continued disaster to most persons who were not paid out of the taxes, Mr. Cobbett shared the fate of all persons who were not prepared for the storm; and his pecuniary affairs only got from bad to worse. As for the 6500l. due from Wright under the arbitration, there was not the ghost of a chance of that ever being paid.

Under the circumstances, then, it is not surprising to learn that he had already accepted the proffered assistance of his political friends. Colonel Bosville gave him 1000l. as a set-off against some electioneering expenses he had been put to over Mr. Paull; Burdett advanced a large sum chiefly for the purpose of settling with Mr. Swann; and, at last, when the fine had to be paid, it would appear that Cobbett owed the ability to do so to the generosity of another. This disposition to support him and his cause showed itself, however, from the very first, and from all quarters. Even his opponents could not fail to admit the severity of the sentence;[7] while his friends not only offered their sympathy, but proposed a public subscription on his behalf—a proposal, however, which Cobbett declined, at the same time suggesting that those who wished to assist him could not do better than buy the Register.

The end came at last. In compliment to Mr. Cobbett’s untiring industry, and the abundant material provided for its exercise, Old Time had worn his fleetest pair of wings. And on the 8th July, 1812, his last paper in Newgate announced that he had “just paid a thousand pounds to the king: and much good may it do his majesty!”

On the following day, being released, a grand dinner was given at the “Crown and Anchor,” in order to celebrate the occasion; and, as though Fate were determined that he should have no interval of peace, as soon as he had regained his liberty, the opportunity must needs be taken to remind Mr. Cobbett that his opinions had changed from time to time. Burdett took the chair, presiding over some six hundred guests, and the thing was fairly successful, notwithstanding an attempt made to create discord between Cobbett and the chairman of the evening. There was no blinking the fact, however, that Cobbett had lost some friends over the vacillation which he had displayed while within the grasp of Vicary Gibbs; but the ungenerous mortal, who brought the matter forward at the dinner, had no support from his audience; and, indeed, all the leaders among the Reformists[8] had condoned the momentary weakness.

Mr. Cobbett’s release was celebrated, in several places in England, by a public meeting of one kind or other. And as he journeyed homeward, his reception was well-calculated to add to the felicities of the day. At Alton, the bells were set ringing; at Winchester he was stopped to be again entertained at dinner; and, on nearing home, he found the people of Botley had come out in goodly assemblage to meet him, and to listen to his story.

---

---

There is reason to believe that Mr. Cobbett now began seriously to entertain the idea of getting into Parliament. Beyond, however, an address to the electors of Hampshire, in the autumn of 1812, no active step was yet taken. Mr. George Rose was all-powerful in the county, the constituency being thus practically in ministerial hands. One appearance on the nomination-day was enough to satisfy Mr. Cobbett of the hopelessness of a contest.

His return to Botley revealed one great change in sentiment; the parsons were dead against him. This was undeserved, as Cobbett had always been a good, quiet churchman; had written vigorously in support of tithes, and the prior claim to them of the clergy and the poor, as against the Howards, the Russells, and the Greys; and had had many friends amongst the clergy. This new alienation may, however, be due to a circumstance which occurred just before Cobbett’s release;—it was certainly so in one case.

Mr. Daniel Eaton, a small bookseller, and an old offender against established opinion, had recently stood in the pillory for an hour,—that being part of his punishment for selling Paine’s “Age of Reason.” There was much public sympathy with him, the populace actually trying to serve him with “refreshments.” Cobbett had formed pretty strong opinions concerning this degrading punishment, but very much stronger ones concerning the Attorney-General as a prosecutor; and that learned gentleman having foreboded the “consequences, dreadful in the extreme,” which must follow if Paine’s religious principles were suffered to take root, Mr. Cobbett suggested that there would be no better way of averting these consequences than by an answer to the book. “And have we 20,000 clergymen, and will no one of them attempt to give us this answer?” he said. He would call upon his own spiritual pastor, the Rector of Botley, the Rev. Richard Baker.

Mr. Baker consented to undertake the task, but almost immediately withdrew the offer; upon which, Mr. Cobbett reminded him of his ordination vows, and generally played with him, in his own manner, making the poor parson look rather ridiculous.

So, upon his return home, Mr. Cobbett was not welcomed by his spiritual adviser; who even went so far as to refuse the keys of the belfry to those persons who, just then, were so desirous of adding all they could to the clamour of rejoicing.

The Rev. Mr. Baker is a character, in his way. There are some sad stories of him in Cobbett’s Register, which the reader may discover, if his tastes lie in that direction. How he was horsewhipped in the public street,—how he actually professed disbelief in Revelation, while declining to meet the consequences of a public admission of the same,—how he cheated at market, and so on.[1]

There were many such characters in the Church in those deadened days, who, when they entered into the lively election contests of the time, would lead the way of violence. Your political parson could be a famous “rough,” when opportunity served.

So Mr. Cobbett had made another set of enemies—the very set, too, who, if they had given themselves a moment’s opportunity for consideration, would have discovered that he, of all public men, was the one who could serve their cause the best. Instead of that, numbers of the clergy started up as anti-Cobbettites, writing useless tracts on “disaffection,” or meeting him at public gatherings, and trying to shout him down. And this sort of thing lasted as long as Cobbett lived; the clergy never made friends with him again; there were far too many idle shepherds, who thought their interest must suffer if a misguided populace had all that it asked; and who, consequently, resisted Reform with all their might and main.

---

The country squires were dreading, too, the possible effects of Mr. Cobbett’s vigorous writings.

His influence amongst the middle-classes was increasing; and the artisans and labourers were beginning to club together to buy the Register; readers were more numerous than ever.[2] But the landed interest could not, or would not, understand him. The farmer could not see the identity of interest which properly existed between himself and his labourers; and the man who preached this theme was, of course, not to be trusted when dealing with other topics. He told them that ruin was impending; that, immediately upon a cessation of the war, prices would go down, and the consequences would be disastrous. There was no chance of escape, but by immediate Reform, by which means there should be a searching reduction in the public expenditure. The poor-rates were now nearly eight millions. Government annuitants were swelling their numbers with every year of war; dignitaries of state had higher salaries, and courtiers larger pensions; army-contractors and stock-jobbers were swallowing up the wealth of the country, and elbowing out the squires.

So, when the Corn Bill was proposed, Mr. Cobbett was standing alone again, or very nearly alone.[3] In vain did he point out that it would tend to keep up the high price of food, which was already driving the able-bodied out of the country; that the principal reason for keeping up high prices was, that the land might continue to pay the exorbitant taxes, and so continue to support a multitude of idlers. The Corn Bill became law; peace was signed, but plenty came not along with it; and the farmers straightway fell to pieces, dragging all the industry of the country along with them.

During these three or four years (1812-1816), there was more revolution in personal property in England, than there had been seen, in the same space of time, since the Restoration. The terrible load which weighed upon the people may be judged of by the fact that Cobbett was paying, the year after the war, several hundred pounds in direct and indirect taxes. It is not difficult, then, to understand how intolerable would be the burden upon the land, for people whose only resource was the land; and all the more so, that inflated prosperity had engendered improvidence. Tea, coffee, wine, spirits, and other exciseable articles had taken the place of beer on the tables of the farmers; their wives and daughters had found sofas, carpets, and parlour-bells necessary to existence. A generation had grown up which must needs send its butter and eggs to market, instead of carrying them; silk stockings had usurped those of worsted; the fashions were finding their way into the farm-houses. So, in a little while, the poor farmers were breaking stones on the highway by hundreds.

But, if the LAND did not, as yet, understand Mr. Cobbett, the Workshop did. Very soon after he came out of prison, he drew the attention of his readers to the ominous disturbance at Nottingham, on the part of the Luddites. The change which had come over the people—that they should break machinery, disturb the peace, and refuse to sing “God save the King”—was ominous indeed. But how did this come to pass? Not all at once: these things (he pointed out) had been growing up by degrees. Disloyalty and misgovernment ever went hand in hand. The people were beginning to see that the governing classes were occupied, as much as any traders, in looking exclusively after their own interests, and the interests of their adherents.

For an effectual remedy, then, there could only be a reform in the Representation of the people. No innovation: but Reform. No republicanism: but the ancient Constitution. “The nation never can be itself again without a Reform,” was Cobbett’s repeated cry,—echoed, at last, by millions of people.[4]

The brave, the undaunted Lord Cochrane was one of Mr. Cobbett’s coadjutors. They had been near neighbours for many years past; and when the gallant sailor was ashore, many had been the sports which they had seen together. Cochrane’s candidature for Westminster always had the valuable support of the Register; and, when the foul charge was got up against him (purely from political motives) which hung like a nightmare over the rest of his long life, there was no support of his cause equal to the pages of that intrepid journal. So the two men kept together—had long and earnest conferences over the miserable and degraded condition of their country; and worked and waited for the day that must surely come after all this suffering. The nation was now entering upon the most disgraceful period of its history: with a disreputable “first gent” in the chief seat; the pretenders to statesmanship divided into two rival factions, concerning which it can only be said that one was in place and had control over the country’s resources, and the other was out of place; and the mass of the people in a condition, comparable only to that presented by the inhabitants of a hive of bees, in autumn, when their winter store passes into the hands of other than the providers.

---

One day, in September, 1816, after a spring and summer of much trial, during which the country was kept alarmed by acts of violence; mills, frames, and threshing-machines being destroyed, and ricks of corn laid hands on, either by fire or thieves; Cobbett had been talking to his neighbour on these burning topics. They both agreed that, if the people could but be enabled to see the matter in its true light, there would be “an end to all such acts of violence, at once; and of course, to the ignominious deaths of fathers and sons, and the miseries of wives, children, and parents, produced in the end by these acts of violence.” Lord Cochrane’s suggestion was, that it was in the power of Mr. Cobbett to effect this purpose, by writing an essay upon the subject; and, if the price of the Register could for that occasion be reduced to twopence, the desired object would be obtained.

There were misgivings as to the probable success of this effort: that there would be serious loss in its production, and that it would be premature; irresolution went so far as to countermand the instructions to the printer. Futile misgivings these! Before the end of the month, forty-four thousand copies had been sold of the first cheap Register.

And, reader, if you glance at some portions of this splendid essay, you will not wonder at the uproar that ensued; the enthusiastic reception on the part of the “lower orders;” the terror on the part of officialism and prescription; the renewed malignity of the envious press. The effect of this popularizing of the Political Register was prodigious, as we shall see; and as you will understand, if all the numbers were anything like this first one.

After a graphic sketch of the oppressions and the struggles, which obtained in France, and which produced the great Revolution, the writer proceeds:—

The following paragraph is against the republicans, of which there were many advocates, born of the troublous times:—

Such, then, was the clarion, which was to awaken the working-classes of England; to systematize their thoughts, and to give definiteness to their aims.

And such was, also, the stuff which was to terrify, for a little while longer, our dear old friends “Law and Order.” While the hundreds of thousands were welcoming this new gospel, were learning a practicable path for their bewildered feet: the partisans of Government were absolutely dazed, blinded, with terror; and their horror at the growth of liberal opinions (otherwise, “the floodgates of sedition”) completely disabled them from discussing domestic politics with any semblance of calmness. As for the mediocrities in power,—they had succeeded in keeping out the shifty Whigs; but here was a third party coming to the front, with claims as good as their own, and promising to acquire a force which they might withstand in vain. Ministers, in short, were alarmed; and they announced their resolve, in the words of Lord Liverpool, to pursue the “Stern path of Duty!” Lord Sidmouth (now Home Secretary), whose qualities for statesmanship no person, other than his royal patron, had been able to discover since he left the Speaker’s chair in 1802,—was at his wits’ end. And minor lights, as Mr. Wilberforce, sighed and groaned over so much blasphemy as was rife, Cobbett’s being “the most pernicious of all.”

The course of the Stern Path, as regards the subject of these pages, must be described in another chapter. Meanwhile, the immediate consequences of the publication of the first cheap Register remain to be noted.

All sorts of means were taken to hinder the circulation of the now ubiquitous journal. Booksellers who sold the Register were threatened with loss of custom; publicans were threatened with the withdrawal of their licences; hawkers and pedlars were threatened with the police.

Cheap opposition pamphlets were started.[5] The newspapers, which had been pretty quiet concerning Mr. Cobbett’s merits, ever since 1812, now began again:[6] the New Times coming out with a specially grand affair, headed “Cobbett against Cobbett,” which was subsequently issued as a broadside.

And a very serious charge did they bring against this “convicted libeller,” this “firebrand,” this “brutal ruffian,” this “convicted incendiary,” this “hoary miscreant,” and his “ferocious journal.”[7] In what, then, had he manifested this brutality,—this ferocity? By lacerating the naked back of another of his labourers? Running off with another man’s wife? Setting fire to barns and ricks? Defrauding the stock-exchange?

None, none of these things. The criminal was proved, by overwhelming evidence,—“out of his own mouth” indeed—to have formerly denounced Reform!!! Sad fellow!

---

---

When your wife, or your nurse, or your mother-in-law, utters that reproach of hers, “Ah, I told you how it would be!”—the spirit within you is not apt to be tinged with a pervading gratefulness.

Similarly, “a man is not likely to be thanked who calls attention to the vast discrepancies between the theory and practice of the Constitution” (as one of our later philosophers remarks). What with the impertinence of the thing—the implied assertion of superiority—the further implication of failure and muddle on the part of the prescriptive interpreters of the Constitution: the counsel offered by outsiders is rejected with disdain, or put down to anything but disinterested motives.

The shortsightedness and illiberality of the Eldon and Sidmouth type of statesmanship was constantly displayed in this way. Let there be a Reform petition offered to Parliament, and they would refuse to receive it, if, by any means, some technical objection could be raised. Given a civic state dinner, and the ministers would absent themselves if they disagreed with the Lord Mayor’s politics. Let a Sunday paper advocate the correction of financial abuses, and the suspicion is at once raised that the grievance really lies in not having a share of the spoil. Genuine men like Whitbread and Romilly, Roebuck and Cobden, have not always escaped similar imputation, from which their known characters should yet have shielded them.

The ministers of the Regent might, however, have done better justice to themselves, and to their opportunities, but for their contemptible master. The difficulty of conciliating that man was immensely enhanced by his disreputable domestic circumstances, and the daily need of avoiding exposure, by keeping watch[1] upon the Examiners and the Registers of the day. Animadversions upon the conduct of the Irreclaimable are pretty generally wasted; and when the Irreclaimable is in sovereign power, discussion on his personal demerits is apt to be mixed up, somehow or other, with such meaner questions as the welfare of his subjects, and the stability of the Throne. At this stage, “I told you so” becomes sedition; and the next thought is of sabres, and bayonets, and dungeons.

So the Liverpool ministry had their hands full, between this selfish prince and starving people. Throughout the year 1816, there was a determined outcry for Parliamentary Reform and reduction of public expenditure. And being demanded as rights, the end of granting these things was looked upon as something too awful to contemplate.

---

One leading difficulty with the Reformers was as to the mode: Reformers of that day must be divided into classes and sub-classes, when their history comes to be written. There were avowed Republicans at one end of the scale, and advocates of a purified Constitution at the other. Their common opponents, however, not only refused to make distinction, but took hold of minor differences and threw them in the Reformers’ teeth; thus discrediting the entire principle.

For example: Mr. Watson, surgeon, is found to have a number of prepared pike-heads in his house. He is ready to employ force, if it comes to the point. Mr. William Cobbett, editor, takes the liberty of telling the nation that it will never be itself again without a reform. He abhors violence of any sort or kind. Yet both of these persons, along with all those of intermediate shades of opinion, are decried as subverters of the Constitution.

This trick had been kept up for twenty-five years past. And now that “the most powerful and effective public writer that ever appeared,” the “closest political reasoner of his time” (as described by cotemporaries), was the leading writer and reasoner upon Reform in Parliament: the best thing to do was to impute unworthy and wicked motives, and to follow that up by an endeavour to curtail his liberty.

Accordingly, the principal London newspapers were full of Cobbett, from the middle of November, 1816, until the opening of Parliament; the Courier,[2] the Times, and the Morning Post, making it their special business to misrepresent him.[3] And, as the popular ferment had reached a high point, nothing could be easier. Henry Hunt was holding forth to eager multitudes, whose conduct (partly by incitement of Government spies) led to measures being taken for preserving the peace. When the Regent went to open Parliament, a stone was thrown, which broke the window of his carriage. Then the Government tried a raid upon the Hampden Clubs, by hauling up their leading members before a Secret Committee. But, beyond a few scatter-brained individuals who really hoped there was going to be a revolution, there was nothing to fear. As the Times (Feb. 5th) said, “Of anything like plot or conspiracy, in the general and national sense of those words, no symptoms have yet appeared.”

Yet, because people were clamouring for Reform and remission of public burdens, the Home Secretary and his friends were frightened out of their lives. And, because Mr. Cobbett was the leader and guider, upon these topics, he was charged with exciting the labourers and journeymen to “burnings, and plunderings, and devastations, and shedding of blood.” The law officers of the Crown were forthwith instructed to examine the “blasphemous and seditious” pamphlets of the day; but, as Lord Sidmouth was “sorry to say,” they were “unable to find out anything which they could prosecute with any chance of success!”

The Fears gained the day, however; and, to the dismay of the parliamentary opposition, headed by Earl Grey and Sir Samuel Romilly; and under a protest of the Lords, led by the Duke of Sussex, the ministry succeeded in passing a Bill for the Suspension of Habeas Corpus.

---

The astonishing success of the cheap edition of the Register caused a change in Cobbett’s domestic arrangements. The woods and the fields had to be relinquished; and he came up to London, so as to be in the thick of the fight. Accordingly, we find Wm. Cobbett, jun., installed as publisher, at 8, Catherine Street, Strand. The Register is now entered at Stationers’ Hall, on account of the garbled editions that have been printed by others; yet the proprietor “gladly” gives permission to reprint his writings “in any regular newspaper.” A cheap edition of “Paper against Gold” is being issued in weekly numbers; and preparations are made for a new serial, under the title of “The Parliamentary Register.”

With all this writing, and printing and publishing, it must have been hot and exciting work in London. As the day for opening parliament approached, the houses of Burdett, and Cartwright, and Cobbett became the daily resort of Reformers. At this time, Burdett was getting cool over the great question, and the principal labours fell upon the hands of Mr. Cobbett and of Lord Cochrane; the latter, by the way, having charge of a monster petition. Besides this, there were two public appearances in Hampshire: one, on the occasion of a grand meeting upon Portsdown hill, and the other at Winchester. One evidence of the state of popular feeling upon the questions of Reform and of the threatened invasions of the liberty of the people, is shown in the presentation of six hundred petitions to the Commons on the 5th of March alone.

And well might the nation be alarmed. As soon as the preliminaries of the session had been completed, the ministry introduced their Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, and passed also an Act for preventing “seditious meetings and assemblies.” The public voice was thus completely enthralled. And, amid all the hubbub, it was known that the leading object in view was to silence Mr. Cobbett.[4]

The Government might as well have taken up the broom of Mrs. Partington, in order to dispose of Mr. Cobbett. The only effect, upon him, was to provide new and beautiful topics for his readers:—

and so forth; with full exposition of all previous futile attempts upon the progress of liberty and intelligence. The papers in the Register of this period ought to have convinced Ministers of the error of their ways: of the utterly false position in which they had placed themselves. So clear in description; so cogent in their reasoning; so temperate. And withal, so full of the writer’s own humour:—

Clear, and temperate, and lively as they were, however, there was no mincing of matters; even to the pointing out to Lord Sidmouth, at last, that he was the real revolutionist,[5] and that all his efforts were “unavailing as to the work of stifling.”

But, if this was resolution and not mere swagger, how was it to be done? Any one of his neighbours, maliciously disposed, could have Mr. Cobbett brought before a magistrate, and thrown into jail without warning, for any word with a tendency. What is more, they meant to do so.

There was only one way:—

This resolve appears to have been in Mr. Cobbett’s mind since the middle of February, shortly after the introduction of the Gagging Bills, as they were called. It was now the end of March, and the campaign against the popular press was in victorious advance. People could almost hear the prison doors creaking open. When, lo! the persecutors wake up one morning, and find that the wretch has flown!

Have you ever watched, reader, the gyrations of pussy’s face—the involuntary muscular contortions of her jaws, at sight of a dickey-bird, when that gentle creature is on the wrong (but safe) side of a window-pane? Such was the aspect of Authority, when she found that Mr. Cobbett had slipped through her fingers. And such, the impotent anger of his rivals.[6] The explosion of wrath, which took place upon the discovery that he was out of harm’s way, really appears laughable, to look back upon it from this distance of time. He had eloped from his creditors, had been diddling the Stamp Office, had escaped imprisonment for life: he had deserted his family, deserted the cause, deserted his country: and, as for his pretended patriotism, what did his friends think of the brave Cobbett now? Even the Reformists, themselves, felt a shudder of dismay pass over them; whilst the Examiner class of scribblers fell upon the caitiff with their envious sneers, retailing the lies and imputations invented and cast about by their own enemies! But, perhaps the unkindest cut of all was on the part of the Chronicle, when that great bulwark of whiggism, and mock-Reformist, informed its readers that Cobbett had gone off to America because the circulation of the Register had fallen so low, through the operations of Sidmouth’s acts.

The fact of the matter being that, in spite of all that could be said, Mr. Cobbett’s flight to America in 1817, was one of the cleverest and most spirited acts of his life. The decision of character, the singleness of purpose, and confidence in his own resources, displayed on this occasion, are almost unexampled. Hundreds of writers had expatriated themselves, before now; but where was the man to be found, who had done so with a view to a better fighting-ground? Political refugees were swarming throughout the Union, but they were beginning life anew; and who amongst them but had cast the dust of their native country from off their shoes—who but this one proclaimed, “England is my country, and to England I shall return,”—and lived to return and see his work accomplished?

---

The world, then, was looking for its weekly oracle (or weekly trash, or weekly venom, according to the point of view), upon Saturday, the 5th of April, 1817. Rumours had been afloat for several days that Cobbett was in Liverpool, on his way to America; and, upon the world going, with its twopences, to Catherine Street, Strand, rumour developed into certainty. The intending purchaser of a Register received instead,—

As one more specimen of what Cobbett could say, when his heart was more than usually full of tender and earnest feeling, the reader will like to have presented here some portions:—

A postscript adds that the weekly political pamphlet would be revived in about three months’ time. And his readers are assured further that—

The suspension of the Register lasted 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 his Reformists’ 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 the Political Register had become popularized; besides making a depôt for that journal at his little shop in the Old Bailey, he had recently reproduced the American autobiography 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.

---

---

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 his Register, 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 the Political 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 the Register in 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 his readers 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:—

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 the Register during the ensuing years of its course. The idea, at any rate, was pursued in the numerous essays on 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 the Register pursued 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 of Morning Chronicles and Couriers, 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 of Thomas 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 contributed more to its circulation than Peter Porcupine, who reprinted it in his Censor of 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!”

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.

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 the Six 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 either side. 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 of some “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 of THE 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 the Examiner, 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 the Political 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 of Wright v. Cobbett was 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 the Register: 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 edged tools. 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:

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 and guiders in Reform; and who was the greatest of them all. For, until this Samson arose, the progress of the cause had been little better than a series of ridiculous evasions and desertions.

---

---

The ruin which was overtaking all the agricultural interest during the last years of the Regency, put a finishing stroke to the little estate at Botley. It had been heavily mortgaged for some years past; and upon Mr. Cobbett’s return from America, he found himself stripped of everything in the shape of realizable property. The profits from the Register were comparatively smaller than of old; for, although the circulation was prodigious, the expense of its distribution was also very great. The establishment of another daily paper[1] probably added to his pecuniary difficulties. At last there was no resource but bankruptcy, which took place in the course of 1820. The creditors were few, and acted very generously; and Mr. Cobbett afterwards refers to them with the kindliest feelings. One of them, indeed (Mr. George Rogers, of Southampton), went further; and paid the damages and costs in Wright’s action, which followed very soon after the certificate in bankruptcy was issued. The low ebb at which his fortunes now stood, are best described in Cobbett’s own words:—

To live in London, however, or even near it without “fruits and flowers,” was out of the question. Accordingly, we find Mr. Cobbett soon settled at Kensington, cultivating a plot of land as a seed-farm; and his politics and his satire are, thenceforth, mingled with the mysteries of trees and turnips, corn and apples. Unable to resume the practice of planting, for himself, upon a large scale, Mr. Cobbett gave a great impulse to the formation of plantations, on the part of gentlemen who could afford to do it. His old friend, Lord Folkestone, was especially encouraged to improve the grounds at Coleshill by further plantings, and covered many acres with his favourite acacia, then better known under its American name of locust-tree. So great, indeed, became the rage for this particular tree, that more applicants came to Kensington for the seeds than could be served with those imported from America; and Cobbett actually had to purchase them sometimes from the London nurserymen, in whose shops they were lying neglected under another name.

The story of Cobbett’s planting and seed-farming would make an interesting volume. It became the fashion, after his death, to decry his successes,[2] and to minimize his qualities as a farmer; and perhaps with some justice, as regards this latter part of his life, as his hands were always too full of more stirring matters. But he did unquestionable service to the art of planting; and in promoting the restoration of woods and coppices, which had so fatally suffered from the felling and clearing brought about by the war, and by the efforts made by so many persons to save their property by the sacrifice of its timber. And, besides this practical part of the business: ever ready to put his notions into print, he must needs produce more books, in order to popularize his plans; books, however, which have met with comparative neglect, of late years, on account of their special nature. Rural economy and domestic economy are matters which, treated as social arts, get so modified by the rapidly-changing currents of our time, that the mode of one generation is lost amid the fads of the next. But the peculiar merit of Cobbett’s books was their readableness; and, whilst such matters as the Currency and the Corn Laws could be rendered entertaining by his facile pen, it was natural that rural affairs, in which he delighted, and amongst which he heartily believed that the highest domestic felicity was to be found, should derive from that pen the highest charms. There never lived, probably, a writer to equal Cobbett in rural description: one who could, in the midst of some angry polemic, so readily turn off for a moment and present his reader with a country picture; perfectly life-like, glowing with colour and realism: who could make a mere gardening book entertaining.

Whilst in Long Island, Mr. Cobbett had prepared an “American Gardener,” which he published, soon after his return to England; dedicating it to one of his neighbours out there. The “English Gardener,” published a few years later, was a reproduction of this, adapted to the differing conditions of his own country. “The Woodlands,” published early in 1825; a new edition of Tull’s old book on “Horse-hoeing Husbandry,” in 1822; and a guide for the cultivation of Indian corn, completed a useful series of books on rural affairs. All these are marked by sufficient egotism; but they are far more practical than the general run of such works. There is so much painstaking description, and so much lively illustration, that the reader is forced to take an interest in what he is reading. It is almost impossible for one to take in hand the “Woodlands,” without wishing to become a planter.

The “Cottage Economy” was a small work, exclusively for the use of cottagers, with the aim of bringing them back to the habits and ways of their grandparents; in reviving the arts of making bread and brewing beer at home; of keeping cows, poultry, and bees; and, generally, showing the way to become independent of shopkeepers and tax-gatherers. All this Cobbett had seen in his youth, and he was determined to revive these things, if it was to be done. And the immediate popularity of these rural books, coming, as they did, at a period when people were making most desperate efforts to keep the wolf from the door, showed forth an unquestionable fact,—that the people wanted sympathy and guidance, and the means of self-improvement, and were well satisfied to get so much from the man who was fighting their battles for them in another way.

As one example of the amount of influence Cobbett obtained over people, in minor domestic matters, the following may be given:—From a farmer’s daughter in Connecticut, who had sent over to the Society of Arts a straw-bonnet of her own making, he obtained some particulars as to the mode of preparation. Having published the matter in the Register, an importer of Italian straw applied to Mr. Cobbett, requesting to know whether he could undertake to get some American straw imported. Upon seeing some samples of the straw from which the Leghorn hats were made, and looking at it “with the eyes of a farmer,” he perceived that it consisted of dry oat, wheat, and rye stalks, mixed with those of certain common grass plants. This discovery made it clear to him that there was no need of importation; and, proceeding in his usual energetic way, he soon had straw hats and bonnets prepared from English grasses. This opened up a new industry, not only in the homes of the labourers, but on the part of some manufacturers; and its success was so far recognizable, that the Society of Arts, in the year 1823, gave Mr. Cobbett their silver medal, as a token of their approbation. Envy caught sight of this, of course, and asserted itself as usual, with newspaper paragraphs headed, “The Society of Arts humbugged at last!” and so on; but what was that, to disturb the well-earned delight of the man who could ride about the country, and see and hear for himself many a poor cottager at work, otherwise unable to earn a livelihood: who could print letters of grateful thanks from every quarter of the kingdom?

The attempt to naturalize the maize plant was another singular effort of Mr. Cobbett’s; the complete success of which, however, was too much to expect from the English climate. But, by the application of a good deal of zealous labour and attention, many persons did succeed in producing good crops; and there was not only bread made from “Cobbett’s corn,” but paper was made from the stalks.

A most particular aversion of Mr. Cobbett’s was the potato.

This passage is from a Botley Register, of 1813; but it will represent Cobbett’s notions and feelings on the matter during all his life—from the scarcity-period at the beginning of the century (when bills were introduced in Parliament to “encourage” the growth of potatoes; and Ministers of State, at their grand dinners, used fried potato-cakes, as a substitute for bread), to the time when he came to predict a disastrous Irish famine. And it would be hard to deny the force of his arguments; the burden of which was, that in order to keep a people in a condition of semi-barbarism, little else was necessary than to cause potatoes to be the general food of the country. A knife (he pointed out) which even savages rarely dispense with, is not required by the feeder on potatoes. No forethought, and only a minimum of industrious attention, are needed. The love of ease, so natural to mankind, soon prevails, in the absence of incitement to labour—a safe commonplace; but one of vital importance to be borne in mind, when the thoughtless, and the ignorant, and the purse-proud are content to see a whole class of their fellow-beings ranked just above the swine.

Some curious notions used to get afloat, concerning cheap food for the poor. There was the Duke of Richmond’s celebrated discovery of the nourishing qualities of curry-powder; and the recipe of another clever fellow, for making flint-soup. Milk, produced by animals fed upon stewed straw, was discovered to have great fattening properties.…

Yet, with all this considerate device, the ungrateful wretches still whined for their beer and bread and bacon, the dietary of their forefathers. And the editor of a certain “diabolical” publication persisted in telling them that they ought to have it, and they could have it; for, at the time that the ordinary Wiltshire fare was 1¼ pound of bread and a halfpenny per day, he was giving to his own labourers, at Barn Elm, 1 lb. of meat or bacon, 1½ lb. of flour, besides cheese and beer, per day; and three shillings a week in money.

And there was so much wanton cruelty and insolence, under the poor-relief system of those days. Gangs of labourers would be set to work, the leader having a bell round his neck; men were set to draw carts, like so many convicts, instead of using wheel-barrows; and, when there was no immediate work on hand, you might see one carrying a heavy stone up and down; or digging a hole in the ground one day, and filling it up again the next. How all this went on, in England, for ten or twelve years, scarce half a century ago, is past comprehending. It is, however, a fact, that people could not only permit it, but permit it without shame; and could venture to call those persons “diabolical villains,” who blushed for the country which proclaimed itself “the envy of surrounding nations.”

Those who blushed for their country: those who spent their lives in the endeavour to arrest the hand of her oppressors: justly scorned the pleas of submission and contentment, put forth by many well-meaning persons in the shape of “religious” tracts. The man before us (one of that class who practise a good deal more than they preach; who act righteously before they inculcate righteousness on the part of others) could only see, in these precious handbills, inducements to submit to social degradation. But, in truth, acute suffering on the part of the labouring-classes was teaching them as much as Mr. Cobbett, or any one else, could do. To see the name of some fat pluralist on the title-page of a tract against “repining;” to listen to advice and exhortation, based on the comforting prospects of another and better world, on the part of men who were themselves making sure of this one; to see the names of the committees and promoters of this officious piety, and find that they were, in many instances, the names of those who had given a helping-hand to repression; and who continued to inculcate passive obedience, and the extreme naughtiness of the poor wretches in wanting to know something about the real causes of their misery, was too much for millions of the unprivileged and unendowed. They could see, plainly enough, who were the real Sowers of the Wind. And, perhaps, the Church of England has come to see, for herself, how we have reaped a whirlwind of religious indifference; in spite of “revivals,” and “restorations,” and “extensions,” and “functions,” and potterings without number.[3]

---

Not the least important contribution to the cause of the people, on the part of Mr. Cobbett, was his “History of the Reformation.” A curiosity in literature; a clumsy, hastily-drawn indictment; the sport of Protestant controversialists; the work yet served a noble purpose. The scale of misrepresentation and calumny had been too long on one side, and there wanted a thumping weight to restore the balance. And when the world discovered that the story of the Reformation in England had its very dark as well as its very bright side: when people learned what utterly selfish ends it had promoted: the world took a long step forward; stepped up to scrutinize it closely. And if the world found that the rough rude hand of this literary pre-raphaelite had brought some features into disgusting prominence, it was no more than was to be expected, sooner or later. The mere controversy, concerning the mutual recriminations of Papists and Protestants, and concerning their cutting of each other’s throats, is nothing. All that will be going on when the New Zealander comes. But the political nature of that great convulsion, and its important social results, particularly with regard to the shameless transfer of property into the hands of court-favourites, had need to be shown up with a relentless hand.

The occasion, of this “History of the Reformation” being projected, was the rapidly-growing feeling on the subject of Emancipation. Mr. Cobbett had long proclaimed equality of political rights for the Catholic, the Unitarian, and the Jew; and regarded them as oppressed people, as long as their theological disabilities remained.[4] We laugh now-a-days, at such fears as then existed concerning the removal of these disabilities; but we are out of the wood; and the few persons of superior mental stature who, in those times, persisted in declaring to the cowards beneath them, that there was more safety in moving on, than in standing still, had to make their voices heard above a fearful din, of incrimination, and calumny, and petty party strifes.

So, by the time that the cause of Emancipation had taken hold of the public mind: when the press, at last, took it up warmly, and O’Connell was leading the agitation in Ireland: Cobbett had lashed himself into a perfect fury, toward the opponents of religious equality, and toward the inheritors of the Church domains. The ease-loving character of the parsons of his day, the growth of a plutocracy, and the debased condition of the poor: spake too ominously of national decadence. The increasing perils of the country, with all parties trying, at last, to propitiate the Parliamentary Reformers at the same time that they had mortal dread of them, kept his mind at fever-heat; and Mr. Cobbett was less than ever disposed to stay his voice or his pen, when conviction had once seized him. He had nothing to gain, and nothing to lose, by expressing his convictions. Given a fight, he was certain to be seen in the thickest of it.

The urgency of the matter, and the readiness of the public mind to accept a broader view of the Reformation story, were shown, by the immediate success of the History. Published weekly, at a low price, the early numbers reached a sale of upwards of forty thousand; and very little time elapsed, before the work had flown all over Europe and America. The fanatics did not like it, and they don’t like it now.[5] There are persons about us, in these latter days, who consider Emancipation as one of our great national sins, on account of which we shall yet be heavily scourged. “Let them curse, but bless thou!”

The thing did not aim at proselytism; the writer had no intention, nor any expectation, of that. He did expect, however, to see thousands and thousands of converts to the cause of tolerance; and there can be no doubt whatever, that Cobbett’s “History of the Reformation” gave immense impulse to that cause. And, if the book had only been called “The History of the Great Spoliation,” the fanatics would have been disarmed, and perhaps joined with the author in his passionate denunciations; instead of wilfully and wickedly misconstruing his motives, and distorting his arguments.

But the prejudice with which we go through the world is quite as gross as the ignorance with which we enter it; and when we have stuck up such a word as Reformation, and fallen down and worshipped it for a time, we soon become incapable of forming just judgments.

---

The list of Mr. Cobbett’s books, which were directly intended to help the cause to which his life was devoted, is complemented by adding to the above-named, “The Poor Man’s Friend;” “Twelve Sermons;” and “The Emigrant’s Guide.” The first of these he called the most learned work that he had ever written. It consisted principally of short papers on the rights and duties of the poor; which were published monthly, and addressed to the working-people of Preston, after his unsuccessful contest at the election. But the Sermons are better deserving of the palm of superiority. The reader cannot open a page of this volume, without being powerfully struck with Cobbett’s ability to handle any subject illustrating man’s duty to his neighbour. Of course, there is a little touch of politics underlying it all, although only perceptible to one familiar with his political writings; but it is not one whit too much to say, that this volume of sermons would do honour to any Divine, in any Christian Church.

The “Sermons” had a tremendous popularity, for several years. As monthly tracts, they had been originally published in avowed rivalry to the vapid productions of religious doctrinaires, and of the preachers of contentment and resignation under conditions of obvious misgovernment. Some of the clergy had the good sense to use Cobbett’s sermons in their own pulpits; it is to be hoped without generally avowing the source of their inspiration. One reflection persists in intruding itself upon the reader of these tracts; that when men come to enter the ministry, after having been buffeted about the world a bit, and having learned something of human nature, instead of being delivered from a cloister (as from some manufactory), they will understand their business better, and soon have less cause to whine about the “spread” of infidelity and immorality. Until then, things will go on as they do now.

---

That racy volume, “Rural Rides,” came forth to the world in a sufficiently unpretending manner. It was a mere reprint of articles from the Register, which had been generally written at the close of a day’s journey, and without any special object but current reports upon the condition of the people and the country. But none of Cobbett’s writings have been so much quoted as the “Rural Rides,” a fact which is easily understood, considering the circumstance that what would deter most people from literary drudgery, was the very reverse to Mr. Cobbett. A day’s exercise would impart fresh vigour to his mind, and wings to his pen; and the result is, in this case, one of the very liveliest books in the English language.

It was in the autumn of 1821 that the first journal was undertaken. Cobbett’s own affairs were getting more comfortable; he lived quietly at Kensington, not often troubling himself with the publishing-office; and the experiment, of going round to see the farmers for himself, was just in his vein. Agricultural distress was nearly at its worst, and the troubles of the farmers formed the leading topic of the day. Beef and mutton fetched an average of 4½d. per lb., in the month of November; and all rural produce was at a similarly reduced figure. So Mr. Cobbett started off, on horseback, through Berkshire and Wiltshire to Gloucester and Hereford, returning by Oxford to Kensington; with such satisfaction, that he spent much of the winter in similar journeys through parts of southern England. All his intense interest in rural affairs, and the welfare of the country folk: his close observations on soil, and climate, and produce, and his sarcastic reflections on domestic politics, were here served up for his readers in better style than ever. And, at last, having employed a part of the ensuing four or five years in the same manner, and reprinting the journals into a volume, the result was a picture of the cotemporary domestic affairs of England which it would be vain to seek elsewhere. In short, given an inquiry into the condition of the people, at this troublesome period, there could not, possibly, be better means of enlightenment than that of taking Cobbett’s “Rural Rides;” and, making it the basis of such inquiry, to group around it the necessary information and statistics furnished by official reports. While, to the value of Cobbett’s accurate and vivid descriptions of rural scenery, the use made of the “Rural Rides,” on the part of guide-book makers, is sufficient testimony.

The more important result, personally, of these rural journeys, was the frequent opportunity afforded to Mr. Cobbett of meeting the farmers at their market dinners and county meetings. This added immensely to his influence; his opinions, especially on the currency, began to take hold upon men, who had hitherto read his writings with some degree of dislike and dread; and a very short time elapsed, before there were found more Cobbettites in the country towns, than in the larger centres of population.

Another series of rural rides was commenced in 1829. These were more distinctively political tours; and extended to more distant parts, including the manufacturing towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire. The reception Mr. Cobbett met with, and the overflowing attendances upon his lectures, showed, in a surprising degree, the hold he had obtained upon the minds of the working-people. Parliamentary Reform was, at last, no longer to be delayed; and while the Russells and the Greys were getting a due share of credit, for their endeavours to force on the Great Plunge, there was no questioning to whom principally belonged the distinction of having made it inevitable.

---

---

The disinclination on the part of Mr. Cobbett to become a member of Parliament, which had long characterized his taste as a public character, was now changed into an earnest determination the other way. At any time since 1803 he could have done so, either by the good offices of Mr. Windham, or of Viscount Folkestone. But a close borough was his abomination; and his dislike for late hours and London smoke, and his general feeling of contempt for the character of the existing representation, rendered a seat in the House of Commons anything but an object of ambition. Besides, he held, for a long time, the notion, that he could render better services to his country as a representative of the press.

The daring outrages on the popular liberties, however, which had begun under the Regency, changed all this. The character of the House was still pretty much the same, even with the accession of lucky war-contractors and stock-jobbers; and the type of ministerialists was still that of the Perceval set, which had existed since 1807. But now, under Habeas Corpus Suspension, the outlook has changed:—

It is the midst of the “repression” period, in the winter of 1817-18, when the news reaches him at Long Island, of men suffering severe penalties for acts of violence. He thus addresses the electors of Coventry, begging them to have “but a little patience.” … “Let us bear in mind, that a people never dies; and let us also bear in mind the final success which, in all their struggles, crowned the patience, the perseverance, the public spirit and the valour of our forefathers, who never set to work against oppression without subduing it in the end.” … But:—“I am against all desperate means. I am for trying all the gentle means that remain; and, as I have just said, the putting of proper men into Parliament appears to me to be amongst the most efficient of those means.”

Some few weeks after Cobbett’s return to England, George the Third died. A general election shortly ensued, and the opportunity of contesting one of the seats for Coventry then occurred. The voters resident in London had been for some time preparing, by public meetings, to advance Cobbett’s claims on the constituency; and he now presented himself in the city, being received with acclamations on the part of many thousands of people.

But the acclamations of the “lower orders,” as they drew Mr. Cobbett’s vehicle into and around the town, were not voting-power. The election was like elections ordinarily were in those days. Fighting, stabbing, spitting; swearing, and slandering: little hired regiments of roughs prevented anything like fair play; and, although Cobbett headed the poll on the first day, his ultimate failure was complete. Indeed, upon the second day, it was impossible for his supporters to get near the polling-booth, without the risk of being stabbed.[1]

The constituency of Coventry was a very fair one of which to make trial; being a populous manufacturing place, containing a good body of reformers, and electors numbering about 2500. But the corporation was dead against the popular candidate, actively supporting his opponents (Edward Ellice, merchant, and Peter Moore, nabob); and a cartload of money was spent in treating and ruffianism. Mr. Cobbett’s expenses were defrayed partly by a small subscription.

It was six years before another opportunity occurred of meeting a popular constituency, with any prospect of success. But the question was kept alive, of a seat in Parliament. Reformers were sanguine that the franchise was on the eve of being broadened; and the yeomanry were beginning to join them,—a circumstance which brought into being a more influential class of adherents to Mr. Cobbett and his views. One of the more zealous and active of these new friends was Sir Thomas Beevor, a young baronet of Norfolk. He had read the Register for the first time, during the American exile; and his admiration for the courageous writer so grew upon him, that he at last publicly declared himself a Cobbettite and raised a reform camp in his own county. A proposal was at length made,[2] to hold a meeting in London in support of Cobbett’s claims to a seat in Parliament; but it was relinquished, for the present, upon Cobbett’s suggestion that they might properly wait until there was a certain prospect of a dissolution.

Meanwhile, all the matters upon which the moderate reformers had set their hearts were canvassed in the Political Register from time to time: the Game laws and iniquities, Catholic emancipation, the freedom of public speech, the continued distress of the Agricultural interest; along with minor topics, from the hypocrisies in Parliament, to the extortions of the toll-farmers. Much of Mr. Cobbett’s influence had been imperilled by his last American trip, and some of its consequences. But his espousal of the cause of Queen Caroline appears to have completely restored him to his place in the popular mind; and, from that period onward, not all the base slanders which were still showered upon him, nor even his own extravagant vehemence, could rob him of his power.

In the beginning of the year 1826, a renewed effort was made, led by Sir Thomas Beevor, to bring Mr. Cobbett before some constituency. A meeting was held in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, of a very enthusiastic character; and, in a few weeks, several hundred pounds were subscribed. Cobbett, on his part, was determined to make a good fight this time; and he announced that, if elected at all, he must be chosen by persons who chose him for the good of the country, and not for their own profit: that if returned at all, it must be by no corrupt or infamous means; and must be for a place “where some considerable number of the people have something to say in the matter.”

Westminster was thought of, and so was Middlesex; both constituencies in the hands of a narrow clique. It was, however, decided to fix upon Preston, as a town affording the desirable element of a very wide suffrage.[3] Accordingly, the prorogation of Parliament, on the 31st of May, found Mr. Cobbett canvassing the electors. A famous contest ensued: the other candidates being the Hon. E. G. Stanley (afterwards 14th Earl Derby), John Wood, merchant, and Captain Barrie, R.N.; the two first being elected. The numbers were, Stanley 3041, Wood 1982, Barrie 1657, Cobbett 995. There was comparatively little ruffianism, but sufficient impediment to fair voting.[4] Mr. Cobbett talked, for some time afterward, of a petition against the return, but the idea was relinquished. Indeed, he took this defeat in remarkably good humour; and proceeded to console himself and his friends, by recounting those triumphs which he could boast of.

Those were not mean triumphs, although principally at the hands of the “lower orders.” Flags and music: shouting, exulting, and shaking of hands, attended his progress through Blackburn, Bolton, and Manchester, on his way homeward.[5]

It was now quite obvious that popular candidates stood little or no chance, even in the most popular boroughs, in the existing state of the representation. But the prospect of any reform seemed more distant than ever. In Parliament, the question was practically shelved. Lord John Russell seemed, for the time, to have a persuasion that there was little encouragement to press the matter; and Mr. Canning, soon after becoming premier in 1827, declared that he would oppose parliamentary reform to the end of his life, under whatever shape it might appear. Burdett said that “putting aside all the great questions, including among the rest that of Parliamentary Reform,”[6] he saw sufficient reason to support Canning’s administration. And Brougham did not consider that “the late opposition” stood pledged in favour of the question!

Is it any wonder that Whiggism is dead and buried? Call not the Russells and the Greys Whigs: they had deserted the practices (considered apart from the professions) of their party before becoming reformers. If Whiggism had been anything besides profession, parliamentary reform would have been undertaken twenty years before; and the Whigs, as a party, had nothing more to do with it, when it was at last undertaken, than to be the vehicle of the country’s earnest demand.

This is how it came to pass. The French and Belgian revolutions, in the year 1830, powerfully moved all the populations of Europe; and the news of that double convulsion reached the people of England at one of the saddest periods of their history. To quote Mr. Molesworth,[7] “they were going mad with misery.” Machine-breaking and rick-burning kept the country alive with alarm, and sent some poor wretches to banishment or to death. People in the towns began to growl again, as they had growled ten or twelve years before. And the leaders of reform took fresh heart; for they saw that the question could no longer be stifled, with the country in a greater state of degradation than under the Tories of 1817.

So, in the midst of all this trouble, a Reform Bill was introduced. And, looking at the subsequent history of the struggle, and its consequences, it is impossible to avoid this conclusion: that the same prosperity and public confidence, which ensued upon the Act of 1832, might have been the guerdon of the Tories, at the beginning of the century.

---

The writings of Mr. Cobbett had been very severe upon the Whigs. There does not appear any time, in his whole political life, when he had not more or less distrusted them. And, now that the leaders of the party were in power, the individuals themselves were not spared. Cobbett hit off with accuracy, and with bitterest irony, their waverings and inconsistencies. No sooner had George the Fourth shuffled off this mortal coil, than he announced a “History of the Regency and the late Reign;” and, as the successive numbers of the work appeared, the Whigs had the felicity of seeing their old place-hunting fully exposed. Upon the appointment of Earl Grey’s ministry, he declared his belief that they would keep on talking, and speechifying, as of old, without any regard to the promises they had been holding out to the people. Putting a list of twenty-six questions, referring to reform, taxation, tyrannous restraints on liberty, pensions, the six Acts, reduction of the forces, poor laws and game laws, he gave his opinion that none of these things would be touched. And Mr. Cobbett was right; none of these matters were dealt with, except on pressure from without, or on the part of sturdy and independent men of the class of Joseph Hume.

All this told upon the party newly raised to power. Very naturally. But they must have felt a certain insecurity of tenure, to resort to the same mode of retaliation which their political adversaries had exercised, twenty years before. So soon does a lease of power translate itself into a mere parade of force. The Government had not been many weeks in office, before they had the abominable folly to charge Cobbett with being the instigator of the incendiary fires which were then devastating the agricultural districts of England!

This was the basest attempt to destroy Mr. Cobbett that had yet been tried. The end of it was one of the greatest triumphs of his life; and a lesson on political prosecutions, which the other side took much to heart.

The circumstances are these:—The Political Register had been, for several years past, sold at the high price of sevenpence (and sometimes one shilling for a double number), on account of the restrictive stamp laws; and it was believed that the circulation was not of that character which would bring the journal into the hands of the labouring classes, to the extent desired. Mr. Cobbett was determined, however, that he would continue, in some way or other, to instruct the labouring-classes in the elements of political and social economy. This became urgent, during the growing excitement of 1830; and the difficulty was met by reprinting portions in a cheap form, and making a monthly publication thereof. The scornful name which Canning had given to the early cheap Registers was the one adopted; and thus, on the 1st of July, came into the world the first number of “Cobbett’s Twopenny Trash, or Politics for the Poor.” The success of 1816 was repeated, and “Twopenny Trash” flew all over the kingdom: to the very particular horror of the yet undiminished number of pensioners and sinecurists, and of non-resident parsons.[8]

As the winter drew near, the accounts of the rural war were appalling. Incendiary fires, and threatening letters, were sending the farmers out of their wits; and fire-engines and man-traps became part of the farming implements. The labourers, in their ignorance, rendered desperate with hunger, proceeded from outrage to outrage, recklessly destroying food and property; quite unable to understand why anybody else could want anything to eat, if they, the producers, were to do without.

In the midst of all this, Mr. Cobbett came amongst them, both on paper and in person; endeavouring to cheer them with hopes of early relief, and to warn them against violence: “Poverty” (he said), “even in its extreme state, gives no man a right to view his rich neighbour with an evil eye, much less to do him mischief on account of his riches.”

But he also told the “King’s Ministers” how to put a stop to the fires, and that they had better do something, for the poor ignorant rural labourer “would not lay down and die;” endeavoured to palliate the conduct of the labourers, in that they could not live any longer on potatoes and salt; ridiculed the idea that more soldiers were wanted (as had been proposed) in order to keep the country quiet; taunted the Government with their apparent helplessness after so much trumpeting of “glorious” principles and good intentions.

The storm began by a motion, on the part of Mr. Trevor, member for New Romney, aimed at “the publication entitled Cobbett’s Register, of the 11th of December;” which he said contained a malicious libel on “the authorities of the State,” and a gross and unwarrantable attack on “the members of the Church by law established.” The motion was opposed on the ground that a prosecution, such as was aimed at, would be both impolitic and ill-timed; and that the proper corrective was an improved state of the public mind, by the diffusion of sound knowledge and useful instruction. It was ultimately agreed to leave the matter to the discretion of Ministers.[9]

About the same time, one Thomas Goodman, a Sussex labourer, was sentenced to death for arson; and there appeared in the newspapers a short “confession,” which had been wrung from him by a Sussex parson. A few days after, a longer confession appeared; and after that a third, still longer. Mr. Thomas Goodman was eventually respited, and never heard of more; and his escape could only be accounted for, by any rational mind, in his having inculpated Cobbett as the wicked instigator of his crime.[10]

The animus of the clergy was especially shewn toward Mr. Cobbett, on account of his attacks on the tithes: which he continued to maintain were (originally) in part intended for the use of the poor. The “gross and unwarrantable attack” alluded to by Mr. Trevor, was the showing-up of a Suffolk parson; who had made an infamous and lying attack upon Cobbett. Now, some of the more sensible parsons were endeavouring to meet the sad necessities of the day; one worthy Norfolk clergyman, for example, on being petitioned for a reduction of his tithes, sent answer that he “should be satisfied with whatever they might send him.” But the fat pluralists, and the numerous lazy class of that day, were too blind with selfish rage to listen to any reason. The present sufferer from Cobbett’s lash was one of these.[11]

So, with idle shepherds cursing, and newspapers inventing new calumnies, the Government thought they had a case; and an indictment was preferred against Mr. Cobbett, for “a libel, with the intent to raise discontent in the minds of the labourers in husbandry, and to incite them to acts of violence, and to destroy corn-stacks, machinery, and other property.” After some delays, the affair was at last heard in the Court of King’s Bench, on the 7th July, 1831; Lord Tenterden being judge on the occasion, and Sir Thomas Denman, as Attorney-General, conducting the prosecution. The principal Cabinet Ministers were on the bench, (having been subpœnaed by the defendant); as also was his old friend, the Earl of Radnor, who had voluntarily determined to give Cobbett an opportunity of calling him as a witness, if he chose. The defendant appeared in person.

From beginning to end of this trial, it was a manifest error. Denman began with the ridiculous statement that “he understood” that the defendant had “entered the court at the head of a large number of persons whom he had called together by notice;” and proceeded to exhort the jury “to yield to nothing like menace or intimidation, which conduct so improper is calculated and probably intended in some degree to produce.” And his whole speech was one long, groundless imputation, unsupported by a shred of evidence; and based on the fact (which nobody denied, for it was indisputable) which the defendant had clearly pointed out: the close connexion between the reckless conduct of the labourers, on the one hand, and the cause of that conduct; and its results (such as the cheapening of food, and the sudden reduction of the tithes) on the other.

The “extract” from the offending number of the Register, which formed the basis of the indictment, did not include those parts of the essay, which said that the acts of the labourers were unlawful; which quoted the current newspaper stories about the Suffolk clergy who could not get in their tithes: which reminded the Whigs how their praises had been derived from yet-unfulfilled promises: which hit at the newspapers and the borough-mongers; which quoted Bacon and Blackstone; which advocated honesty and freedom of election; which proclaimed, “I am for a Government of King, Lords, and Commons; but, let what else will come, I am for the freedom, the happiness and greatness of England; and, above all things, for the good feeding and clothing of those who raise all the food, and make all the clothing!” No: these would have been the remainder of his argument, and would have enabled a jury not only to understand its whole drift and tenour, but to pronounce the writer a truly wise and patriotic man.

Some of the jury did, evidently, consider the matter a gross absurdity; for, being locked up all night, the twelve were unable to agree to a verdict, and they were forthwith discharged.[12]

Mr. Cobbett’s long speech, in his defence, must have made some of his audience feel grievously uncomfortable. No one was spared; not a soul, whose delinquencies could possibly illustrate the case. There were the Cabinet Ministers sitting in a row before him (including the Chancellor, Brougham), being scolded for their perfidy toward the people; there was the Attorney-General himself, whose promotion in his profession had actually been retarded, on account of his firm adherence to the Whig cause—now prosecuting the press with greater zeal than his Tory predecessor; there were the magistrates who had extorted or invented Goodman’s confession; and there were the party newspapers, with their transparent falsehoods, weather-cock principles, and questionable motives: all scolded anew. All who had contributed, in any degree, to the climax which ended in this trial, were covered with deserved ridicule.

The speech occupied several hours, and it would take nearly fifty of our pages to reproduce it. The points relied on for the defence were, that the indictment contained only garbled extracts from an article which had, as a whole, the exact opposite of the tendency imputed to it; that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (of which society Brougham and Denman were both leading members!) had recently asked Cobbett’s permission to reprint his celebrated Letter to the Luddites against machine-breaking and other violence, with the same objects in view that he had himself; that Mr. Goodman, labourer and incendiary, had been pardoned, or had unaccountably disappeared, since his “confession,” and that there was a letter (which Cobbett produced, and read) written by Goodman himself, totally different in style and spelling; that the Times newspaper had recently libelled the judges, and called the close-borough members “the hired lacqueys of public delinquents,” and yet was unmolested as long as it continued to puff the Ministry; that a declaration from the tradesmen and labourers in and around Battle (who had heard Cobbett’s lectures), made it clear that the persons who had produced the three confessions were.… No, Mr. Cobbett did not apply to their conduct the terms that it deserved, but contented himself with reading the declaration; and, the notorious fact that he had spent the best part of his life in the endeavour to instruct the labouring classes, in the arts of happiness and goodness.

The speech of the defendant was occasionally interrupted by applause; and once by the judge, on the score of irrelevancy; an objection, however, which was not sustained. And a stray joke or two shone out, as when Cobbett spoke of Mr. Gurney (junior counsel) as “a mere truffle-hunter; he neither sees nor smells anything but the immediate object of his search,” in allusion to his special search of the Register for indictable matter; or in his sarcastic reference to the “open, fair, and candid,” professions of the Attorney-General, which he said were traceable not to the wig on his head, but to the whig in his heart; and in such a passage as this, his humour would prevail:—

Upon the whole, this speech was a wonderful performance for a man in his seventieth year. Mr. Cobbett had far too often relied upon his own powers in legal defence; yet his failures as an advocate were failures which any member of the bar might have been proud of. And, in the present case, the charge of sedition was so utterly base and trumpery, that the cause of the prosecution really gave power to his own, by furnishing him with a handle for the bitterest expressions of contempt. He certainly lashed into the Whigs most unmercifully, from time to time; as opportunity brought them again to his mind. For example:—

And, having reviewed the whole charge, and its collaterals, Mr. Cobbett wound up his address as follows—in terms which form a strikingly truthful sketch, not only of the position in which he then stood, but of the position which he occupies (with all his faults) in the hearts and minds of his fellow-countrymen—a brave, earnest, upright, and patriotic man.

The result of this trial was hailed with great satisfaction by nearly all the newspapers. And the chief significance of the episode lies in this: that from that month of July, 1831, the press of this kingdom has been free from political persecution. There can be no doubt whatever, that this trial settled the question as to whether the press was to be gagged or not. The newspapers were good enough to admit so much.

---

---

The progress of the Reform Bill is the foremost topic of the day; and the near prospect of Mr. Cobbett’s election, by some popular constituency, is now more obvious.[1] In the course of September, 1831, there appears his first address to the electors of Manchester, in response to an invitation conveyed to him from a committee formed with the object of endeavouring to secure his return.

The objects which Cobbett now professed to have in view were considerably in advance of those of some years previously; and their publication, in this address, shows distinctly the rapid growth of opinion amongst the mass of the people. Not only the abolition of sinecures, and of all pensions the merit of which could not be readily granted; abolition of tithes; reduction of the standing army; and an equitable adjustment of the currency, were recapitulated, as reforms urgently called for; but he now declared that the National Debt ought to be wiped out, by the sale of ecclesiastical estates, the misapplied portion of the property of corporate bodies, and all the Crown lands; and so to reduce taxation, and the cost of its collection, as to give some hopes of greater prosperity and happiness to “this industrious nation.”

Of course, these things were “revolutionary” for that age. Every great change is revolutionary; but the bad odour attaching to an epithet, in some minds, is no index to the value of the ideas represented. Important changes in the mode of government, particularly as to a greatly-lessened waste of public money, naturally appeared monstrous and wicked to the governing classes, and to their adherents; at a period when bishops died worth half-a-million. And it came just as naturally to the minds of the reformers, the longer the question was delayed, that, by whatever name their proposals might be designated, there could be nothing so monstrous and wicked as to persist in a system which made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The events of the past fifteen years had made a wonderful difference in the minds of the labouring classes. The power of a cheap serial, first exemplified in the publication of Cobbett’s twopenny Register, had become fully recognized. The Penny Magazine, Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal, and similar publications were now beginning their respective careers with astonishing success; along with a host of political sheets. A new sort of education was spreading: that sort of education which made men think for themselves; and, for the first time in history, the “lower orders” were beginning to take an interest in the affairs of other nations beside their own. Well might statesmen be affrighted at the progress of revolution in France and Belgium, and at the growing importance of the American Republic! The knowledge of political good and evil, fresh from those democratic sources, might well alarm them; for it was sinking deep into minds, the fertility of which had been produced by their own haughty failures.

So Mr. Cobbett’s address to the electors of Manchester was denounced as utterly subversive of the institutions of the country. However, he went down to Manchester in the course of the winter, and delivered several lectures, with the object of showing that his principles, on the contrary, would tend to conserve, instead of destroy. Lord Radnor had previously written a letter to one of the Manchester papers[2] warmly supporting him, and offering his aid, in case of a subscription being made. And Cobbett now found, upon visiting Manchester, that he had already won his way into the hearts and minds of the people there. Before he left, a dinner was given in his honour, at which Mr. John Fielden, manufacturer, of Todmorden, presided.

The following will give an example of his general reception in Lancashire. Most of Cobbett’s “egotism” was displayed in answer to personal attacks, and we owe a good deal of biographical matter to those occasions on which he chose to answer. One evening in the House of Lords, the Earl of Falmouth, in passing a sneer over to Lord Radnor, concerning the latter’s nomination-borough of Downton, insinuated that the loss of that borough would be “a bad thing for Cobbett, whom the people would scarcely elect, if left to themselves.” Lord Falmouth had a taste of Mr. Cobbett’s lash, as a reward for his temerity; and Cobbett concluded his paper thus:—

The month of June saw the triumph of the Parliamentary Reformers, and eager preparations were made for canvass. Expectation ran high: the newly-enfranchised took the matter into their own hands; and amongst these were the people of Lancashire. Manchester had sent a member to Parliament in some long past age, but had been for centuries unrepresented, and was now to have two members. Oldham, with a population of over 50,000, was, likewise, to elect two.

Early in July, 1832, Mr. Cobbett received a letter from an Oldham friend, informing him that it was determined to put him in nomination; and that two strangers having unexpectedly commenced a canvass, his friends had at once announced his name, along with that of Mr. John Fielden; the latter having consented to the proposal, with the understanding that Cobbett should be his colleague, if not elected for some other place. Several other constituencies had been thought of; but this unmistakable earnestness on the part of Lancashire decided the matter; and when, in the course of December, the elections came off, Fielden and Cobbett were at the top of the poll for Oldham. The people of Manchester had also put Mr. Cobbett in nomination, but, the result of the contest at Oldham being made known there on the first day of the poll, the votes intended for him were transferred to other candidates.

Meanwhile, another lecturing tour had been undertaken during the autumn, extending into Scotland; and, if one may judge from the reception he met with, Mr. Cobbett was now enjoying greater popularity than at any other period of his life.[3]

The notions which Mr. Cobbett had acquired, concerning the duties belonging to the position in which he was now placed, were quite at variance with any known principles.

Until the æra of the Reformed Parliament it was accounted a preposterous thing for any member to be professedly without a party; and any one entering the House with a popular grievance at his back, as Paull and Burdett and Wardle had done in a previous generation—and as O’Connell and Hume in recent times—to a great extent stood alone. They might get supporters from time to time; but such men were not of the sort which could coalesce with the patrician nominees and the plutocrats, who had hitherto pretended to represent the Commons of England.

Had Mr. Cobbett entered Parliament a quarter of a century previously, when it was within his power to do so through aristocratic influence, he would have been the means of forming a party earnestly devoted to the objects of Reform; and it must be regarded as a serious error on his part, arising though it did from a sturdy regard for his own independence, that he should refuse to do so; and expect to sway the House of Commons, in the smallest degree, from the outside. For it was looked upon, in those days, as something bordering on the seditious, for any one outside the walls of Parliament to pretend to discuss domestic politics; and an affectation of contempt was the only answer to the cleverest and most liberal of amateur statesmanship. As for earnestness, in the consideration of any popular question, it was not there at all; the House of Commons of 1831-2 would never have passed a Reform Bill, only that the clamour of the Unrepresented made the question vital to the existence of the Whig party; and the fiercest opponents to the popular candidates, at the elections which followed, were the ministerialists themselves. To the very last the spectacle was seen of the exclusive classes clinging to what they deemed a prescriptive right to govern.

Such men, then, as Cobbett, and Silk Buckingham, and Roebuck, coming into Parliament for the first time, found themselves there under circumstances favourable only for the exercise of particular individuality; and, unless the possessor of special talents, the event proved that the individual influence of each was very small. The old members would not even listen to them; and the general feeling concerning the new men was that they were astonishingly harmless.

The opening scene has been often enough described. “Some very bad characters have been returned,” says Mr. Greville.[4] Among these “bad characters” is placed the new member for Oldham; who at once establishes his claim to such epithet, by seating himself on the front bench (usually occupied by ministers), and by commencing his first speech with these words:—

But, really, there was nothing to be frightened at. Excepting that Mr. Cobbett seemed to think that a Reformer should be chosen Speaker of a Reformed Parliament, and that some disregard might be paid to the established rules of the House, there was nothing whatever to reward the expectations of those who had trembled at the bare thought of this “diabolical villain” treading the floor of that sacred chamber. There sat, night after night, one of the meekest, most inoffensive of men. When he got up to speak, there stood a fine, tall, hale old fellow, with a face sparkling with humour, and a voice of surprising gentleness; only roused to vehemence when the efforts to cough him down were somewhat too overpowering.

Cobbett’s short career in Parliament has, sometimes, been stigmatized as a failure. It was not a failure. He was a very regular attendant while his health lasted; and he never lost an opportunity of reminding the House what he had been sent there for. And the numerous interruptions and contradictions to which he at first became subject, rather manifested “failure” elsewhere: viz. on the part of many members to understand the awful exigencies of the time, and the responsibility which they ought to have attached to their own position. But their sensibilities were far too keen, to bear with patience Mr. Cobbett’s frequent references to the burdens under which the people still laboured; one member, at last, expressing an opinion that “the constant complaints respecting the distresses of the people were of the most injurious tendency: they were calculated to make all classes politicians”! In short, the first reformed Parliament was, itself, a great failure; and was rightly sent back to the country at the end of two unproductive sessions.

It must be said, however, that the first two or three months of Mr. Cobbett’s attendance in Parliament were not calculated to impress the House in his favour. Although he put up with malicious references to Tom Paine, and to agricultural incendiarism, with remarkable good temper, there was an amount of indiscretion about his mode of bringing up his own special topics, which mightily offended the taste of less self-assertive people. And, upon one occasion, his mode of procedure was so absurd, that he covered both himself and his cause with overwhelming contempt. The circumstances were these:—

A number of gentlemen, led by Mr. Attwood, the member for Birmingham, conceived it to be only just and proper that an inquiry should be made into the state of the country, and the prevailing distress.[5] Lord Althorp considered any such inquiry unadvisable, “because it might lead to an investigation of the consequences produced by the changes in the currency;”—he was willing to consider the subject when it came fairly before the House, but objected to the proposed mode of entertaining it. The motion was lost, by a narrow majority; and it was renewed, about a month afterwards, in another form, only to fail again. Thus, the Whig ministry set their faces against the very Reformers which they had themselves called up.

But Mr. Cobbett wants, above all things, the very thing that Lord Althorp deprecates: “an investigation of the consequences produced by the changes in the currency,” and he is resolved to have it, one way or another. And he can think of no surer means than that of fixing the onus of the public distresses upon the author of those changes in the currency, which he had always considered to be a leading cause of the distress.

Sir Robert Peel was, at this time, leader of the opposition, and the most distinguished man on the Tory side,—admired alike by friend and foe. The hopes of the Tory party were centred in Peel, for no man who had pretended to lead them, since the days of Pitt, could boast a tenth part of the talents which he possessed. His first important part in public affairs had been the carrying through Parliament, in 1819, the bill for the resumption of cash payments; a measure which Mr. Cobbett had treated with ridicule, as one certain to be productive of prolonged disaster to the country. Cobbett’s predictions were, to a great extent, verified by events; and he considered himself, thenceforward, an authority upon that abstruse topic. And he now brought forward a resolution, to the effect that Peel’s “want of knowledge,” displayed in his repeated failures to adjust the currency, since the year 1819, merited his ignominious dismissal from the Privy Council.

No scheme could have been invented, better than this, in order to show Cobbett’s headstrong ineptitude on certain occasions. To go no farther,—the inconsistency of protesting that there was no imputation on Peel’s honour, while proposing what would have been (for him) the very deepest disgrace, was typical of much that explains Cobbett’s frequent failure to impress men of cultivation and refinement; and he gave, in this instance, a signal example of his neglect to consider the fitness of things. Most of what he said was perfectly true, and could not be answered, and was not answered; but the outrageous method of bringing the question forward not only spoilt it all, but brought down upon his head deserved derision. Fielden, and Attwood, and three others, manfully supported him; while the rest laughed and jeered, to their heart’s content.

It was nearly a month after this episode, before Cobbett’s voice was again heard. At length, however, he seems to have learned the temper of the House; and we soon find him thanking “hon. members for the attention with which, &c.” He generally had something to say upon any topic connected with taxation and the well-being of the people, and on several occasions delivered long and effective speeches; as on the Poor Laws, suppression of disturbances in Ireland, and the proposed Factory regulations. On this last question Mr. Fielden was in the front rank as an agitator; and was intensely gratified with the support of his colleague, especially when Cobbett, speaking of the factory children, alluded to “three hundred thousand of the most helpless creatures in the world holding up their hands for mercy.” And one matter appears on the journals of the House, upon Mr. Cobbett’s motion, which resulted in a Select Committee.[6]

In the spring of the following year, ominous signs appeared, which proved that the change in his habits, necessitated by his parliamentary attendance, was telling upon Cobbett’s vigorous constitution; and he was absent from his post for two whole months. The period which elapsed after the dissolution, and before the meeting of the new Parliament in 1835, was not sufficient for thorough restoration to health, and he resumed his duties with a bad cough clinging to him. On the 10th of March, he attempted to speak upon the motion of the Marquess of Chandos to abolish the malt-tax; but he found his voice so hoarse, that he could not make the gentlemen immediately in front hear him; and was obliged to sit down. He still valiantly attended, however, and spoke on several occasions; the last being on the 25th May, in a discussion on agricultural distress.

But his time was come: his place in the House of Commons knew him no more; and, when the House assembled on the evening of the 19th June, a whisper circulated upon the benches to the effect that the member for Oldham was dead.

---

---

So this long fight was over.

For forty years past, Cobbett had waged incessant warfare against political hypocrisy and corruption; here represented by revolutionary theorists; there by political adventures; now, by venal courtiers; again, by uncompromising partisanship in the press. Heedless of personal danger, and proud of his native soil and of his fellow-countrymen, he had never flinched from the pursuit of those whom he regarded as the enemies of his country’s welfare. Often blindly passionate, but always honest, and dominated by the convictions of the hour, he had presented the unexampled phenomenon of a man who could face, single-handed, the world in arms; insusceptible alike to the arts of intrigue, and to the cozening of partisanship.

The character of the London newspaper press, in the earlier years of the present century, bears no comparison with its now-existing posterity, either in character, ability, or influence. Our leading journal, indeed, should scarcely know its own grandfather: appealing, as it does, to the taste of the most highly-cultivated minds of the age; and quite indifferent to anything but the task of representing the best public opinion of the day. As for a “government organ,” there is no such thing; your newspaper now gets upon the wings of the day, or what it supposes the wings of the day, and there catches the best breeze that it can. There is no space for mutual recriminations, with ostentation of “private wire,” and elaborate political and literary reviews, if even the taste for dirt-throwing had not vanished. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest is found to hold good, in journalism as in everything else; and there cannot, possibly, be any better token of the improvement of the age, in taste and morals, than the elevated tone of the more successful leaders of public opinion in our own days.

When the History of the newspaper-press comes to be properly written, it will not be a mere record of the struggles and strifes of proprietors; the successes of the few, and the failures of the many; nor even the extraordinary wealth of anecdote furnished by personal history. Along with these matters will have to be introduced critical studies, derived from close examination of the journals; discovering the amount of prescience with which each may be credited, and the growth and decay of their influence; tracing motives of particular partisanship to their source; and estimating their relative places, in the grand temple of the Fourth Estate.

The task of that historian will find its best reward, in the endeavour to comprehend the first quarter of the nineteenth century. He will see the press first enslaved, then reckless, then persecuted; then partially enslaved again; then gradually presenting a prospect that it will, one day or other, become purified into something like dignity and respectability. For all this long while, it has been strangely unable to endure rivalry and opposition; and its members have vied with one another, as to which could employ the foulest epithets, impute the wickedest motives to opponents, or fawn the most gracefully upon “patrons.” There was no place for independence, in those days; for independent principles were considered to hide the wolf of Jacobinism. The alteration in tone, consequent upon a change of proprietorship, went under the favourite stigma of “profligacy.”[2] As for party-spirit, there never was a truer dictum than that laid down by Mr. Cobbett, in one of the later numbers of the London Porcupine: “The press is as much shackled and restrained by the spirit of party, as it could be by the most restrictive laws.”

From the day of the first appearance of the Political Register, a new æra dawned for journalism. Its originality in plan, and the power with which it was written, awakened envy; its plain English, and rapid acquisition of independence in opinion, provoked opposition. And the success, with which its early career was marked, brought imitators into the field. But that which soon characterized it, more particularly, was an inflexible hostility to such newspapers, and such persons, who endeavoured to extenuate or explain away the misuse of public money. People sadly wanted educating upon this point. The principles of Walpole and Newcastle had borne fruit. The Treasury was surrounded by hungry adventurers; and there were hundreds of men, as late as William Pitt’s time, who had sucked-in these principles, as it were, with their mothers’ milk. And if we consider that, when Cobbett began the fight, and for some time after, there was no one else had the courage, or was in the mind, to expose it all, we shall understand the singular position in which he stood. For an anonymous writer to sit down, and write off a malicious paragraph or two with insinuations of venality, was one thing; but, for a man, well-known in the flesh, renouncing the editorial “we,” and affecting the first-person-singular, proceeding to tell a plain story, fearless of the consequences, was a phenomenon which startled Society; the effect produced being similar to that which occurs upon poking your walking-stick into an ants’ nest.

Decent Society never forgave Mr. Cobbett. No matter! Upon that man’s memory lies the credit of having been chiefly instrumental in restoring political purity to the nation. The whole domestic history of England, between 1800 and 1835, is distinguished by the struggles of the nation to emancipate itself from corruption in Church and State. The pioneer was William Cobbett; and no history of those struggles, which does not place him high among the “leaders and guiders” of men, will be worthy of the name.

As to how far Mr. Cobbett’s ideas and predictions have been accepted, is not the purpose of the present work; if, even, its limits did not forbid such an essay. It is certain that he was largely pirated, during his lifetime, both in speeches and in newspaper articles. But he lost so much weight, in the minds of dispassionate men, by such unbounded extravagance as was displayed in his “History of the Reformation;” and his cotemporaries were so cruelly lashed and scolded, when the advocacy of their own views exceeded the truth, that the significance of his career could not be properly understood by his generation. It is almost surprising that more bad institutions did not fall before his trenchant blows; yet, with respect to those that remain,[3] and are doomed, it may safely be recommended to ransack the Political Register for the best arguments and illustrations, with which to defy their supporters. On many great questions Cobbett was far in advance of his time; perhaps on nothing more so than in the foresight with which he contemplated the development of popular ideas. To us, in Liberal-Conservative times, the following passage (May, 1833) seems a commonplace; but, to the privileged classes of his own days, the words were as the words of Micaiah in the ears of Ahab:—

The grave was literally his last enemy. The announcement of Cobbett’s death was the close of a strife, in which had been displayed the singular spectacle of the Champion of the Press arrayed against its own licentiousness; in which the dangers attendant upon the conjuring up of new foes had been counted as nothing, while there was a principle to be maintained, or a touch of cant to be exposed. And, now that he was gone for ever, the whole fraternity acknowledged his genius and his talents; and confessed that a good, and great, and honest heart had departed from among them. Throughout the land, with almost unanimity, the newspapers teemed with his praises; and those were not few, who, having not long since boasted of their hatred, now frankly declared that Mr. Cobbett was a man of whom his countrymen might justly be proud, as one of the greatest that England had ever produced.

The last years of Mr. Cobbett’s domestic life were of singular tranquillity. Surrounded as he was by a family, the individual members of which had “never caused him a day’s anxiety,” his hearth was a complete antithesis to the stormy scenes outside. And he had that felicity, the first wish of every good man’s heart, of seeing his sons and daughters bear the fruits of his own example, in a correct estimate of the duties and the discipline of life. Not only that. Age never came upon him in crabbed form. There was a soft, genial nature about Mr. Cobbett, which no surface vehemence could exorcise. Even, when dealing his heaviest blows upon the heads of the poor “borough-mongers,” or when pouring his most terrible sarcasms around, his energy was the energy of warmth; as though heated with his own heart’s blood. It would be difficult to find any one essay among his writings, which, fairly analyzed, did not betray honest, impetuous affection for the cause immediately on hand. You cannot fail, as you read, to recognize the unpaid advocate. That he was ridiculously vain of his success in life, is no more than could be expected of a half-educated man, who had held, for more than a generation, such extraordinary power with the lower and middle classes; but such vanity, fostered sometimes by individuals and sometimes by the crowd, was not of that sort typified by the Napoleons and the Masaniellos of life. No: the sword laid down, and the helm removed from the brow, left this warrior a homely citizen, resting with the children, and the birds, the fruits and flowers, and the sweetest hospitalities.

So, old age brought nothing to Mr. Cobbett, of the burthen. “Always at work or sleep,” the work he did at seventy years of age was not excelled in quality by that of any previous period of his life; and, had it not been for the enforced change of habits brought about by his attendance in parliament, he might have lived another decade or so. He had, even, inured himself to noisy Fleet Street. Speaking, somewhere, of his upper room in Bolt Court, he says,—

“The birds sing better, and sing louder, and more, and stronger in a cage, than they do when at large;” adding that “the best pastorals have been written in smoky garrets.” Naturally enough, if a man hath a garden in his own heart.

But, in truth, much of Cobbett’s wonderful staying-power lay in his splendid mental and physical health. An active and temperate existence, in which nothing was allowed to run to waste, warded-off the approaches of senility. Excepting only a tumour which gave some trouble for a few months[4] during 1824, he had known nothing of illness; beyond those trifling matters to which even the best constitutions are liable under given circumstances. After reaching his threescore-and-ten, he could still boast of riding over the country with the youngest; or doing a day’s work against any one of his labourers.

This was an astonishingly active, fully-worked life; in which nothing of the morbid could possibly find entrance. An early riser, and no lingerer at meals, Cobbett never confessed to having any leisure time. Social pleasures, as such, would seem to have been almost unheeded, if not despised. Yet his hospitality was unbounded, and overflowing with good nature; and he was always at the service of persons who applied to him for advice, or, even, of those nondescript individuals who would claim the privileges of half-acquaintanceship, and call upon him to indulge a sort of curiosity.

And, of all this vigour, and heartiness, and true daily purpose, nothing failed, in the green old age of William Cobbett.

---

Very difficult as it is to point to a date, at which Cobbett’s name will be forgotten—it is easy to understand why the popular estimate of the man, at the period of his death, still holds good, in the Anglo-Saxon breast: why his character, falling so far short of perfection, is still counted worthy of the lasting honour of Englishmen. For, his faults were the faults of his race: so often virtues in disguise. Coming from the pure Saxon peasant stock, he caused a healthful infusion of fresh blood into the spirit of his age, and so brought his fellow-countrymen to see, once more, the native energy, and pugnacity, and honesty of purpose, which had so often won the battle of freedom, now brought to bear upon new conditions and new circumstances. Thus it is, that the thoughtful and unbiased student looks upon Cobbett’s character and career. Full of faults, it is no incoherent jumble of a character, without principles and without light; but one having brave and high aims. A special lot in life; which must, by its very nature, bring upon the man some measure of contumely: in which a false step or two would count against him a thousandfold. A special career; pursued with a single eye, an honest purpose, and a persevering heart. A life, that needs no Apologist: but presenting a consistent story; worthy of all that has given us renown, and enabled us to dictate the principles of freedom to the whole world.

The last uneventful years of Mr. Cobbett’s domestic life were spent, at least as far as the public demands upon his time would allow, among the scenes and the occupations which he loved so well: those of his earliest recollections. The garden at Kensington becoming too small for his ambitious seed-farming experiments, the well-known manor-farm of Barn Elm was occupied for three or four years. But, in the summer of 1832, this was relinquished; and Mr. Cobbett retired farther into Surrey, to a locality not many miles from his birthplace, in the adjoining parish of Ash. Normandy farm (contiguous to that of Wanborough, whence Mr. Birkbeck had departed for the golden west) lies in a lonely, unfrequented district, with a poor, wet soil; and it was one that required a great deal of money expended upon it. But it suited Cobbett’s seed-farming tastes:—

But nothing could ward off the perils incident to late hours in London. After his first parliamentary session, there were evident signs of his constitution failing him; and, although revived somewhat in summer, each new winter brought back a cough, which forbade rest at night, and gradually helped to bring the end nearer. A visit to Ireland, in 1834, seemed to be undertaken with all his old powers; his writing and his humour were as good as ever. But the following winter proved to be the last, and the early months of the year 1835 were a constant struggle to keep up to the post at which he meant to die.

Not that he meant to die, yet. There were new plans, only a month before Cobbett’s death, which exhibited anything but the lapse of mental or physical power. There was to be a new Cobbett’s Evening Journal, a special feature of which was the full publication of important discussions in parliament, which were not elsewhere faithfully reported: those affairs, viz., in which Hume, and the other economists beside himself, had the leading share.

Also, the Register was to be dropped, “in full blaze,” on his next birthday, the 9th of March, 1836:—

---

It was in the month of June, 1835, that Cobbett had his first, and last, serious illness.

He still dictated material for the Political Register, and continued personally to inspect his little farm, at the last by being carried in a chair. On the 16th his eldest son (writing to a friend) speaks confidently of his being in a fair way of getting strength again; and there was no very great alarm until the following day. A sudden change, however, occurred on that morning; his strength gradually wasted; and on the 18th of June, at a few minutes after one p.m., he passed away, as gently as a child would fall asleep.

---

---

1. The Soldier’s Friend: or considerations on the late pretended augmentation of the subsistence of the private soldiers. “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the laws.”—Goldsmith. Written by a Subaltern. London: Ridgway, 1792, 8vo. 6d.; reprinted in 1793, without printer’s or publisher’s name. Price 2d., or 100 copies 10s. 6d., pp. 15.

2. [Translation.] The Law of Nations: being the science of national law, covenants, power, &c., founded upon the treaties and customs of modern nations in Europe. By G. F. von Martens, Professor of Public Law in the University of Gottingen. Translated from the French, by William Cobbett. To which is added, a list of the principal treaties, declarations, and other public papers, from the year 1731 to 1738, by the author. Philadelphia, 1794.

London edition, 1802, dedicated to John Penn, Esq. Fourth edition, London, 1829, with the treaties, &c., continued by the translator down to Nov. 1815, 8vo, pp. xxxii.-468.

3. Le Tuteur Anglais, ou Grammaire regulière de la langue anglaise, en deux parties. Par William Cobbett. A Philadelphie: chez Thomas Bradford, 1795, 8vo, pp. x.-340.

4. [Translation.] A topographical and political description of the Spanish port of Saint Domingo, containing general observations on the climate, population, and productions; on the character and manners of the inhabitants; with an account of the several branches of the government. By M[édéric] L[ouis] E[lie] Moreau-de-Saint-Méry, Member of the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, &c. Translated from the French by William Cobbett. Philadelphia: printed and sold by the Author, Printer, and Bookseller, No. 84, South Front Street, 1796. 2 vols. 8vo.

5. [Appendix only.] The History of Jacobinism.… By William Playfair. With an Appendix by Peter Porcupine, showing the close connexion which has ever subsisted between the Jacobins at Paris and the Democrats in the United States of America. Philadelphia, 1796. 2 vols. 8vo.

6. Observations on Priestley’s Emigration, to which is added, A Story of A Farmer’s Bull. [Anonymous.] Philadelphia, 1794. pp. 88.

7. A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats. By Peter Porcupine. Philadelphia, Jan. 1795. pp. vi.-66.

8. A Kick for a Bite. By Peter Porcupine. Philadelphia, Feb. 1795.

9. A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats. Part 2. By Peter Porcupine. Philadelphia, Mar. 1795. pp. vii.-66.

10. A Little Plain English, addressed to the people of the United States, on the Treaty, and on the conduct of the President relative thereto, in answer to “The Letters of Franklin.” By Peter Porcupine. Philadelphia, August, 1795. pp. viii.-102.

11. A New Year’s Gift to the Democrats; or observations on a pamphlet entitled, “A Vindication of Mr. Randolph’s Resignation.” Philadelphia, Jan. 1796. pp. 71.

12. The Censor, No. 1; or a Review of Political Occurrences relative to the United States of America. Philadelphia, Jan. 1796.

13. The Bloody Buoy, thrown out as a Warning to the Political Pilots of all Nations; or, a faithful relation of a multitude of acts of horrid barbarity, such as the eye never witnessed, the tongue expressed, or the imagination conceived, until the commencement of the French Revolution. To which is added, an instructive Essay, tracing these dreadful effects to their real causes. Philadelphia, 1796.

14. The Censor, No. 2. Philadelphia, March, 1796.

15. The Censor, No. 3. Philadelphia, April, 1796.

16. The Censor, No. 4. Philadelphia, May, 1796.

17. The Scare-Crow; being an infamous letter sent to Mr. John Oldden, threatening destruction to his house, and violence to the person of his tenant, William Cobbett. With remarks on the same. Philadelphia: “From the Free Press of William Cobbett, July 22, 1796.”

18. The Life and Adventures of Peter Porcupine, with a full and fair account of all his authoring transactions; being a sure and infallible guide for all enterprising young men who wish to make a fortune by writing pamphlets.—“Now you lying varlets, you shall see how a plain tale will put you down.”—Shakespeare. Philadelphia, Aug. 1796.

19. The Censor, No. 5. Philadelphia, Sept. 1796.

20. The Gros Mousqueton Diplomatique; or diplomatic blunderbuss. Containing Citizen Adet’s notes to the Secretary of State; as also his cockade proclamation, with a preface. Philadelphia, Oct. 1796.

21. The Censor, No. 6. Philadelphia, Nov. 1796.

22. The Censor, No. 7. Philadelphia, Dec. 1796.

23. The Censor, No. 8. Philadelphia, Jan. 1797.

24. Porcupine’s Gazette: daily newspaper. Philadelphia, March 4, 1797—Dec. 1799. A farewell number was issued to the subscribers, from New York, in Jan. 1800.

25. The Republican Judge; or, the American liberty of the press, as exhibited, explained, and exposed, in the base and partial prosecution of William Cobbett, for a pretended libel against the King of Spain and his ambassador, before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. With an Address to the people of England. Philadelphia, Nov. 1797.

26. Detection of a Conspiracy formed by the United Irishmen, with the evident intention of aiding the tyrants of France in subverting the Government of the United States of America. Philadelphia, May, 1798.

27. [Abridgment.] The Cannibal’s Progress; or the dreadful horrors of French invasion, as displayed by the Republican officers and soldiers, in their perfidy, rapacity, ferociousness, and brutality, exercised towards the innocent inhabitants of Germany. Abridged from the translation of Anthony Aufrere, Esq. Philadelphia, June, 1798.

28. Remarks on the Explanation, lately published by Dr. Priestley, respecting the intercepted letters of his friend and disciple, John H. Stone. To which is added, a Certificate of Civism for Joseph Priestley, jun. By Peter Porcupine. Philadelphia, 1799. 8vo. pp. 52.

29. The Trial of Republicanism; or a series of political papers, proving the injurious and debasing consequences of Republican Government, and written Constitutions. With an introductory address to the Hon. Thomas Erskine, Esq. Philadelphia, June, 1799.

30. A Concise and Comprehensive History of Prince Suworow’s Campaign in Italy, in the Year 1799. Philadelphia, Jan. 1800.

31. The Rushlight; by the help of which wayward and disaffected Britons may see a complete specimen of the baseness, dishonesty, ingratitude, and perfidy of Republicans, and of the profligacy, injustice, and tyranny of Republican Governments. By Peter Porcupine. Five numbers. New York, Feb.-April, 1800. pp. 258.

The Rushlight, No. 6. London and New York, August, 1800. pp. 51.

32. The Porcupine; daily newspaper. London, Oct. 30, 1800…(?) Nov. 1801.

33. Porcupine’s Works; containing various writings and selections, exhibiting a faithful picture of the United States of America; of their governments, laws, politics and resources; of the characters of their presidents, governors, legislators, magistrates, and military men; and of the customs, manners, morals, religion, virtues, and vices of the people; comprising also a complete series of historical documents and remarks, from the end of the war, in 1783, to the election of the president, in March, 1801. By William Cobbett. In twelve volumes. London, 1801. 8vo.

34. A Collection of Facts and Observations, relative to the Peace with Bonaparte, chiefly extracted from the Porcupine, and including Mr. Cobbett’s letters to Lord Hawkesbury. To which is added, an appendix, containing the divers conventions, treaties, state-papers, and despatches connected with the subject; together with extracts from the speeches of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Lord Hawkesbury, respecting Bonaparte and a peace with France. By William Cobbett. London, Nov. 2, 1801. 8vo. pp. 231-lxiii.

35. Letters to the Right Honourable Henry Addington, Chancellor of His Majesty’s Exchequer, on the fatal effects of the peace with Buonaparte, particularly with respect to the colonies, the commerce, the manufactures, and the constitution of the United Kingdom. By William Cobbett. London, January, 1802. 8vo.

36. Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register. London, January, 1803-June, 1835.

The first four vols. (Cobbett’s Annual Register on title) published with supplements of state papers, &c.

Cobbett’s Weekly Political Pamphlet, on and after Feb. 15, 1817; again called Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register in the following year.

Cobbett’s Weekly Register in April, 1821.

Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register, during and after 1828.

Many articles were reprinted from the Register, and published separately. The most important were:—

Rural Rides in the counties of Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Somersetshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Hertfordshire; with economical and political observations relative to matters applicable to, and illustrated by the state of those counties respectively. London, 1830. 12mo. pp. 668.

Cobbett’s Tour in Scotland, and in the four northern counties of England: in the autumn of the year 1832. London, 1833. 12mo. pp. 264.

37. [Translation.] The Empire of Germany divided into departments, under the prefecture of the Elector of ——. To which is prefixed, a memoir on the political and military state of the continent, written by the same author. Translated from the French by William Cobbett. Preface by the translator. London, Jan. 1803.

38. Cobbett’s Parliamentary Debates. London, Dec. 1803, &c.

39. The Political Proteus. A view of the public character and conduct of R. B. Sheridan, Esq., as exhibited in, I. Ten letters to him; II. Selections from his parliamentary speeches from the commencement of the French Revolution; III. Selections from his speeches at the Whig club, and at other public meetings. By William Cobbett. London, Jan. 1804. 8vo. pp. 388.

40. [Compilation.] Cobbett’s Spirit of the Public Journals for the Year 1804. London, Jan. 1805. pp. xx.-1219.

41. Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England, from the Norman Conquest, in 1066, to the year 1803, from which last-mentioned epoch it is continued downwards in the work entitled, “Cobbett’s Parliamentary Debates.” London Oct. 1806.

42. Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. London, 1809, &c.

43. [Preface, &c.] An Essay on Sheep, intended chiefly to promote the introduction and propagation of merinos in the United States of America … By R. R. Livingston. Printed by order of the Legislature of the State of New York. London, reprinted: with a preface and explanatory notes by William Cobbett. 1811.

44. Paper against Gold, and Glory against Prosperity. Or, an account of the rise, progress, extent, and present state of the funds and of the paper-money of Great Britain; and also of the situation of that country as to its debt and other expenses; its navigation, commerce and manufactures; its taxes, population, and paupers; drawn from authentic documents, and brought down to the end of the year 1814. In two volumes. By William Cobbett. London, 1815. pp. viii.-523, and iv.-100-cxxvii.

45. A Year’s Residence in the United States of America. Treating of the face of the country, the climate, the soil, the products, the mode of cultivating the land, the prices of lands, of labour, of food, of raiment; of the expenses of housekeeping, and of the usual manner of living; of the manners and customs of the people; and of the institutions of the country, civil, political, and religious. In three parts. By William Cobbett; London, 1818. 8vo. pp. viii.-610; also 12mo, pp. 370.

46. A Grammar of the English Language, in a series of letters. Intended for the use of schools and of young persons in general; but, more especially for the use of soldiers, sailors, apprentices, and plough-boys. By William Cobbett. London, 1818. pp. iv.-186.

47. Cobbett’s Evening Post. Daily newspaper; London, January 29,-April 1, 1820.

48. The American Gardener; or a treatise on the situation, soil, fencing, and laying-out of gardens; on the making and managing of hot-beds and green-houses; and on the propagation and cultivation of the several sorts of table vegetables, herbs, fruits, and flowers. London, 1821. Par. 391 (not paged).

49. Cobbett’s Monthly Religious Tracts. London, 1821-22; afterwards, Twelve Sermons on, 1. Hypocrisy and Cruelty; 2. Drunkenness; 3. Bribery; 4. The Rights of the Poor; 5. Unjust Judges; 6. The Sluggard; 7. Murder; 8. Gaming; 9. Public robbery; 10. The Unnatural Mother; 11. Forbidding marriage; 12. Parsons and Tithes. By William Cobbett. 12mo. pp. 295; a later edition, pp. 240.

To these was subsequently added:

50. Cottage Economy: containing information relative to the brewing of beer, making of bread, keeping of cows, pigs, bees, ewes, goats, poultry, and rabbits, and relative to other matters deemed useful in the conducting of the affairs of a labourer’s family; to which are added, instructions relative to the selecting, the cutting, and the bleaching of the plants of English grass and grain, for the purpose of making hats and bonnets; and also instructions for erecting and using ice-houses, after the Virginian manner. By William Cobbett. London, 1821. Par. 265 (not paged).

51. Cobbett’s Collective Commentaries: or, remarks on the proceedings in the collective wisdom of the nation, during the session which began on the 5th of February, and ended on the 6th of August, in the 3rd year of the reign of King George the Fourth, and in the year of our Lord, 1822; being the third session of the first parliament of that king. To which are subjoined, a complete list of the acts passed during the session, with elucidations; and other notes and matters; forming, altogether, a short, but clear history of the collective wisdom for the year. London, 1822. pp. 320.

52. [Preface, &c.] The Horse-hoeing Husbandry: or, a treatise on the principles of tillage and vegetation, wherein is taught a method of introducing a sort of vineyard culture into the cornfields, in order to increase their product and diminish the common expenses. By Jethro Tull, of Shalborne in the County of Berks.

To which is prefixed, an introduction, explanatory of some circumstances connected with the history and division of the work; and containing an account of certain experiments of recent date. By William Cobbett. London, 1822. 8vo. pp. xix.-332.

53. Cobbett’s French Grammar; or plain instructions for the learning of French. London, 1823.

54. A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland: showing how that event has impoverished and degraded the main body of the people in those countries. In a series of letters, addressed to all sensible and just Englishmen. By William Cobbett. London, 1824-25. 12mo, 478 par.; and 8vo.

55. The Woodlands: or, a treatise on the preparing of ground for planting; on the planting; on the cultivating; on the pruning; and on the cutting down of forest trees and underwoods; describing the usual growth and size, and the uses of each sort of tree, the seed of each, the season and manner of collecting the seed, the manner of preserving and of sowing it, and also the manner of managing the young plants until fit to plant out; the trees being arranged in alphabetical order, and the list of them, including those of America as well as those of England, and the English, French, and Latin name being prefixed to the directions relative to each tree respectively. By William Cobbett. London, 1825. 8vo. Par. 601 (not paged).

56. Cobbett’s Poor Man’s Friend; or a defence of the rights of those who do the work and fight the battles. London, 1826. 12mo. pp. 72.

57. The English Gardener; a treatise on the kitchen garden, the flower garden, the shrubbery, and the orchard. With a calendar, giving instructions relative to the sowings, plantings, prunings, and other labours, to be performed in the gardens, in each month of the year. By William Cobbett. London, 1827. 8vo and 12mo. pp. 405.

58. A Treatise on Cobbett’s Corn, containing instructions for propagating and cultivating the plant, and for harvesting and preserving the crop; and also an account of the several uses to which the produce is applied, with minute directions relative to each mode of application. By William Cobbett. London, 1828. 12mo. Par. 203.

59. [Translation.] Elements of the Roman History, in English and French, from the foundation of Rome to the battle of Actium, selected from the best authors, ancient and modern, with a series of questions at the end of each chapter. For the use of schools and young persons in general. The English by William Cobbett; the French by J. H. Sievrac. London, 1828. 12mo. pp. ix.-265.

60. The Emigrants’ Guide; in ten letters addressed to the tax-payers of England; containing information of every kind, necessary to persons who are about to emigrate; including several authentic and most interesting letters from English emigrants, now in America, to their friends in England; and an account of the prices of house and land, recently, obtained from America by Mr. Cobbett. By William Cobbett. London, 1828. 12mo. pp. 168.

61. Advice to Young Men, and (incidentally) to young women, in the middle and higher ranks of life: in a series of letters addressed to a youth, a bachelor, a lover, a husband, a father, a citizen, or a subject. By William Cobbett. London, 1830. 12mo. Par. 355.

62. A Spelling-book, with appropriate lessons in reading, and with a stepping-stone to English grammar. By William Cobbett. London, 1831. 12mo. pp. iv.-185.

63. Eleven Lectures on the French and Belgian Revolutions, and English borough-mongering, delivered in the theatre of the Rotunda, Blackfriars Bridge. By William Cobbett, with a portrait. London, 1830. 8vo.

64. Cobbett’s Plan of Parliamentary Reform, addressed to the young men of England. London, 1830.

65. Cobbett’s Manchester Lectures, in support of his fourteen reform propositions.…

To which is subjoined, a letter to Mr. O’Connell, on his speech, made in Dublin, on the 4th Jan. 1832, against the proposition for the establishing of poor laws in Ireland. London, 1832. 12mo. pp. xii.-179.

66. A Geographical Dictionary of England and Wales; containing the names, in alphabetical order, of all the counties, with their several subdivisions into hundreds, lathes, rapes, wapentakes, wards, or divisions; and an account of the distribution of the counties into circuits, dioceses, and parliamentary divisions. Also, the names (under that of each county respectively) in alphabetical order, of all the cities, boroughs, market towns, villages, hamlets, and tithings, with the distance of each from London, or from the nearest market town, and with the population, and other interesting particulars relative to each; besides which there are maps; first, one of the whole country, showing the local situation of the counties relatively to each other; and, then, each county is also preceded by a map, showing, in the same manner, the local situations of the cities, boroughs, and market towns. Four tables are added; first, a statistical table of all the counties, and then three tables, showing the new divisions and distributions enacted by the reform-law of 4th June, 1832. By William Cobbett. London, 1832. 8vo. pp. lxxxiv.-547.

67. [Preface.] The Curse of Paper-money and Banking: By Wm. Gouge, of Philadelphia, 1833. London, reprinted, 1833, with an introduction (pp. xxii.) by William Cobbett.

68. History of the Regency and Reign of King George the Fourth. By William Cobbett. London, 1830-1834. 2 vols. 12mo.

69. [Abridgment.] Life of Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America. Abridged and compiled by William Cobbett, M.P. for Oldham. London, 1834. 12mo. pp. x.-142.

70. A new French and English Dictionary. In two parts. Part I. French and English; Part II. English and French. By William Cobbett, M.P. for Oldham. London, 1834. 8vo. pp. xiv.-408-418.

71. Surplus Population, and Poor-law Bill; a comedy in three acts. By William Cobbett, M.P. London, 1835.

72. Cobbett’s Legacy to Labourers; or, what is the right which the lords, baronets, and squires, have to possess the lands, or to make the laws? In six letters, addressed to the working people of the whole kingdom. With a dedication to Sir Robert Peel. London, 1835. 16mo. p. 141.

73. Cobbett’s Legacy to Peel; or, an inquiry with respect to what the right honourable baronet will now do with the House of Commons, with Ireland, with the English Church and the Dissenters, with the swarms of pensioners, &c., with the crown lands and the army, with the currency and the debt. In six letters. London, 1835. 18mo.

74. Cobbett’s Legacy to Parsons; or, have the clergy of the established church an equitable right to the tithes, or to any other thing called church property, greater than the dissenters have to the same? And, ought there, or ought there not, to be a separation of the Church from the State? In six letters, addressed to the church-parsons in general, including the cathedral and college clergy and the bishops. With a dedication to Blomfield, Bishop of London. London, 1835. 16mo. pp. 192.

---

• Abbot (Charles, 1st Baron Colchester)—his conferences, “after church,” with Mr. Perceval, ii. 49, 110.
• Abercrombie (Rev. James), of Philadelphia, i. 194.
• Adam (William)—C.’s counsel on first Government prosecution, i. 307.
• Adams (John), President of U. S.—C. supports his administration, i. 187.
• Addington (Henry, 1st Viscount Sidmouth) becomes Premier, i. 271;
• C.’s letters to him on the peace, 279;
• his incapacity as a statesman, 302;
• bestows a sinecure upon his son, 327;
• other references, ii. 170, 178.
• Adet (Pierre A.), French envoy to America, i. 181.
• Agricultural interest—its troubles, ii. 153, 154, 259.
• America—The War of Independence, i. 16;
• Raynal and other writers invoke interest in Europe concerning the country, 96;
• current political condition in the United States, 121;
• rise of the two great parties, 122;
• treaty with England, 127, 138;
• flogging abolished in the States, ii. 133;
• the war of 1812 and its effects, 198;
• C.’s writings again attract notice in America, 200.
• André (Major)—exhumation of his remains, ii. 218.
• Andrews’s “British Journalism” quoted, ii. 117.
• Anti-Cobbett literature, i. 136, 172, 174, 177, 189, 303; ii. 43, 46, 47, 48, 55, 56, 110, 123, 171, 217, 226, 243, 260.
• Anti-Gallicanism in London, i. 287.
• Anti-Jacobinism, i. 131, 241, 252, 263.
• Astley (Sir J.), ii. 65.
• Attwood (Thomas), M.P. for Birmingham, ii. 286.
• Bache (Benjamin F.)—his Philadelphia newspaper, i. 139, &c.;
• notice of his family, 151;
• his editorial virulence, 204.
• Bagshaw (Richard), newsman, ii. 59, 76, 114, 126.
• Baker (Rev. Richard), the “Botley parson,” ii. 74, 150, 151.
• Bamford (Samuel)—his “Recollections” quoted, ii. 156.
• Beevor (Sir Thomas) supports C.’s candidature for parliament, ii. 252.
• Beloe (Rev. Wm.), i. 237, 251, 289.
• Benbow (Wm.) a sufferer under the Press Laws, ii. 206.
• Bentham (Jeremy) quoted, i. 197, 306;
• contributes to the London Porcupine, 276.
• Berkeley (Admiral Sir George), i. 23.
• Bibliography, ii. 305.
• Birkbeck (Morris)—his emigration scheme, ii. 205.
• Blagdon (F. W.)—his Weekly Political Register, ii. 47.
• Blount (Wm.), Governor of Tennessee, i. 207.
• Booksellers and Authors, i. 117, 150; ii. 77.
• Bosville (Colonel), parliamentary reformer, ii. 11, 146.
• Botley, Hants—C. visits there, i. 316;
• settles there, ii. 1;
• its situation, 2;
• rural sports, &c., 5, 20.
• Bouverie (William Pleydell, 3rd Earl of Radnor)—his close friendship with C., ii. 23;
• notice of him, ib.;
• Commons motion for inquiry into Corruption, 49;
• his plantings at Coleshill, 231;
• attends on behalf of C. at his trial, 264;
• his letter in support of C.’s candidature at Manchester, 277;
• other references, 97, 112.
• Bowles (John), Anti-Jacobin writer, i. 241, 263.
• Bradford (Thomas), bookseller and printer, of Philadelphia—notice of family, i. 101;
• his business relations with C., 116, 139, 146, 175.
• Brand (Rev. John), i. 263.
• Brissot de Warville (Jean Pierre)—his American Travels quoted, i. 97, 98.
• British Critic, introduces C.’s American writings to the English public, i. 233;
• recants, 291.
• Brougham (Henry, 1st Lord), ii. 48, 132, 223, 267.
• Budd (John) succeeds to C.’s book-shop in Pall Mall, i. 308;
• is prosecuted with C., ii. 114, 126.
• Buonaparte (Napoleon)—alternations of public feeling concerning him, i. 290.
• Burdett (Sir Francis), i. 312;
• C. begins to support him, 320;
• elected M.P. for Westminster, ii. 29;
• his popularity, 64;
• is sent to the Tower, 110, 111;
• his endeavours against military flogging, 130;
• advances money to C., 146, 218;
• his half-heartedness in the Reform cause, 179, 256.
• Callender (James Thomson)—notice of him, i. 131.
• Canning (George)—his anti-Jacobin services, i. 240, 241, 252;
• his opposition to parliamentary reform, ii. 256.
• Carey (Matthew)—notice of him, i. 116, 189.
• Carleton (Guy, 1st Baron Dorchester), i. 52, 76.
• Caroline, Queen of George IV.—the first delicate investigation, ii. 18;
• C.’s advocacy of her cause, ii. 224.
• Cartwright (Major John)—his advocacy of parliamentary reform; notice of him, ii. 11;
• other references, 77, 78, 207.
• Catholic Emancipation, ii. 224.
• Chatham, co. Kent—C.’s life there as a recruit, i. 35.
• Cintra, convention of—outcry against it in England, ii. 70.
• Clarke (Mary Ann), the Duke of York’s mistress, ii. 58, 60.
• Cleary (Thomas), ii. 221.
• Clergy of the English Church—their antipathy to reform, ii. 152, 239, 263.
• Cliffton (William), American poet, i. 189.
• Cobbett (Ann, born Reid), i. 54, 57; ii. 119, 122.
• Cobbett (Anne), ii. 72, 78, 79, 122.
• Cobbett (William)—his birthplace, i. 1;
• parents, 5;
• early years, 7-21;
• his employment in London, 26;
• enlists, 28;
• his life as a recruit, 35, 41;
• his studies, 43;
• discharge, 54;
• his sweetheart, 55;
• marriage, 58;
• his first attacks on “corruption,” 60, 62;
• the Soldiers’ Friend, 79, 88;
• goes to France, 85;
• to Philadelphia, 100;
• teaches English and compiles “Le Tuteur Anglais,” 102;
• translates for the booksellers, 103;
• opposes himself to attacks on England, 109;
• “Observations on Dr. Priestley’s Emigration,” 113;
• his anti-Jacobinism, 131;
• his political pamphlets, 133, 134;
• sudden notoriety, 135;
• “A little plain English,” 139;
• his popularity as a partisan-writer, 145, 184;
• quarrel with his publisher, 147, 150;
• “Political Censor,” 148;
• becomes a bookseller, 161;
• publishes his “Life and Adventures,” 165;
• anti-Cobbett literature, 177;
• starts Porcupine’s Gazette, 185;
• is prosecuted for “libel,” 202;
• lampoons Dr. Rush, 211;
• is sued by him, 215;
• removes to New York, 218;
• returns to England, 229;
• what they had said of him in England, 232, et seq.;
• Government offers, 245;
• voyage home, 247;
• influential visitors, 250;
• dines with the ministers of state, 253;
• his subsequent reflections, 256, 258;
• more Government offers, 260;
• resolves on “independence,” 261;
• will support Mr. Pitt, 267;
• starts the Porcupine newspaper, 268;
• close of its career, 278;
• his book-shop, 279;
• heads the new opposition under Mr. Windham, 280;
• the Political Register, 283;
• his fixed principles, 286;
• anti-Gallicanism, 288, 289;
• excites envy, 292;
• deserves a “statue of gold,” 293;
• his anti-Gallican appeal to the nation, 295;
• begins to study finance, 301;
• first Government prosecution, 304;
• success of the Register, 308;
• relinquishes the book-shop, ib.;
• miscellaneous publications, 309;
• “Parliamentary Debates,” 310;
• must live in the country, 311;
• visits Botley, 316;
• his determined war upon corruption in Church and State, 322, 327;
• his reasons for deserting Mr. Pitt, 324;
• altered attitude of people toward him in consequence, 328.
• At Botley, ii. 1;
• his pursuits and tastes, 4, 5;
• determines to settle at Botley, 6;
• “Parliamentary History,” and other projects, 8;
• his advocacy of parliamentary reform, 10;
• enemies thus raised up, 12;
• at Honiton election, 13;
• address to electors of Westminster, 14;
• bitter hostility of the Morning Post, 19;
• his home, &c., described by Miss Mitford, 22;
• new friends, 21, 23;
• is asked to contest Westminster, 25;
• quarrel with Sheridan, 27;
• he cannot live in London, 31;
• threats of further prosecution, 35;
• his devotion to the interests of the Labouring Poor, 39;
• his high qualities as an employer, 42;
• calumnies, 43;
• increasing animosity toward him, 45;
• anti-Cobbett literature of the period, 46, 48;
• leads the Reformists, 50;
• his usual pursuits, sports, &c., 51;
• pecuniary pinches, 52;
• supports inquiry into the affairs of the Duke of York, 58;
• his plantings, &c., 63, 65, 68;
• disinclination to enter parliament, 67;
• his sphere as a comment maker, ib.;
• “State Trials,” 70;
• his children, 72;
• speaks in public, 74;
• independence of Party, 75;
• defiance, 81, 82;
• answers the court-martial story, 85;
• his attachment to soldiers, 89;
• reminiscences of flogging, 92;
• the flogging “libel,” 93;
• the Messrs. Swann, 98;
• prosecution, 114;
• verdict of the jury, 118;
• sentence, 126;
• in Newgate, 127;
• renewed protests against flogging, 131;
• life in prison, 135;
• “Paper against Gold,” 136;
• growing acrimony, 140;
• pecuniary difficulties, 142;
• his quarrel with Mr. Wright, 143;
• release from Newgate, 147;
• growing antipathy of the clergy, 149;
• opposes the proposed Corn Law, 153;
• hostility of the landed interest, ib.;
• renewed urging of Reform, 155;
• the first cheap Register, 158;
• his abhorrence of violent measures, 176;
• is again threatened, 181;
• will go to America, 183;
• his farewell, 185;
• admirers in the United States, 199;
• his settlement near New York, 202;
• new works projected, 206;
• “English Grammar,” and “Year’s Residence,” 207;
• proposes to return, 209;
• exhumes the bones of T. Paine, 212;
• his arrival in England, 215;
• quarrel with Burdett, 219;
• actions brought against him by Cleary and Wright, 223;
• his advocacy of Queen Caroline’s cause, 224;
• is “in disgrace” over Paine and Burdett and Wright, 225;
• Cobbett’s Evening Post, 229;
• bankruptcy, 230;
• his seed-farm at Kensington, 231;
• books on rural and domestic affairs, 233;
• is awarded the Society of Arts’ silver medal, 234;
• aversion to the potato, 235;
• “History of the Protestant Reformation,” 239;
• other publications, 244;
• “Rural Rides,” 246;
• resolves upon entering parliament, 249;
• contests Coventry, 251, and Preston, 255;
• is prosecuted for “sedition,” 259;
• his triumph, 266;
• address to the Manchester electors, 275;
• his reception in Lancashire, 279, and in Scotland, 281;
• election for Oldham, ib.;
• in parliament, 283;
• his work is done, 291;
• death, 304;
• v. also Anti-Cobbett.
• Cobbett (William, junior) at school, i. 312;
• his early promise, ii. 32, 52, 72;
• publisher of the Register, 178;
• return from America with his father, 214.
• Cochrane (Thomas, 10th Earl of Dundonald)—his candidature at the Honiton election, ii. 13, 18;
• visits C. at Botley, 20;
• M.P. for Westminster, 30;
• a zealous Reformer, 156, 157;
• other references, 78, 148, 179.
• Colchester (Baron)—v. Abbot.
• Commons (House of)—its corrupt state, ii. 36, 68;
• its conservative habits, 284.
• Corruption in Church and State—its prevalence, i. 57, 61, 321, 326, 327; ii. 36.
• Coventry election of 1821, ii. 251.
• Cox and Baylis (Messrs.), printers of the Register, ii. 101.
• Currency, C.’s writings, ii. 137.
• Currie (William), M.D., of Philadelphia, i. 210.
• Curtis (Sir Wm.), M.P., ii. 128.
• Dallas (Alex. J.), American politician, i. 129, 139.
• Davies (Benjamin), bookseller, of Philadelphia, i. 148.
• Day (Rev. Charles)—his attack upon C., ii. 263.
• Debbieg (Colonel), i. 36.
• Democracy—its progress, ii. 296.
• De Morgan (Augustus) quoted, ii. 116.
• Denman (Thomas, 1st Lord), counsel to Queen Caroline, ii. 224;
• prosecutes C. for “sedition,” 264.
• Dennie (J.), American man of letters, i. 122.
• Drakard (—), Lincolnshire editor, sent to jail in the cause of humanity, ii. 129.
• Droxford, co. Hants, ii. 8.
• Duane (William), democratic writer, i. 189, 217.
• Duncombe (Thos. Slingsby)—his memoirs quoted, ii. 255.
• Dundas (Henry, Lord Melville), i. 78, 319, 325, 327.
• Dundonald (Earl of)—v. Cochrane.
• D’Yrujo (Chevalier), Spanish envoy to the American Republic, i. 201.
• Eaton (Daniel), bookseller, stands in the pillory, ii. 150.
• Edinburgh Review—its attack upon C., ii. 56.
• Ellenborough (Lord)—v. Law.
• Elliot (Gilbert, 1st Earl of Minto) testifies to C.’s loyalty, i. 306.
• Elliott (William), M.P., ii. 29, 33.
• Ellis (George), i. 241, 253.
• Emigration to America, ii. 205.
• Everley, co. Wilts, a famous place for coursing, ii. 51.
• Ewing (William), barrister, of Philadelphia—anecdote of him, i. 192.
• Examiner newspaper is persecuted, ii. 108, 130;
• persecutes C., 110, 123, 148.
• Farnham, co. Surrey—its situation and its people 100 years ago, i. 1.
• Fauchet (J. A. J.), French envoy to America, i. 141.
• Fearon (Henry B.), surgeon—his visit to America, ii. 205.
• Fenno (John), newspaper editor, i. 166, 171.
• Fenno (J. W.), son of the above, i. 189, 212, 223.
• Fielden (John), M.P. for Oldham, ii. 278.
• Finnerty (Peter)—notice of him, ii. 72;
• other references, 16, 36, 59, 76, 108, 121.
• Fitzgerald (Lord Edward), i. 54.
• Flogging in the army—animadversions of the press, ii. 90;
• case of, at Ely, and C.’s comments thereon, 91, 93;
• gets into discredit, 129, 134.
• Flogging of the poor—measure suggested in Parliament, ii. 130.
• Flower (Benjamin)—his political review, ii. 47;
• visits the United States, 205.
• Folkestone (Viscount)—v. Bouverie.
• Fox (Charles James), i. 82, 323; ii. 24.
• French refugees in America, i. 104, 105.
• French Republic—its relations with that of America, i. 181, 183.
• Freneau (Philip)—his democratic poems, i. 189.
• Frere (John Hookham), i. 241, 252.
• Garlike (Benjamin), diplomatist, an early friend of C., i. 33.
• Genest (Edmond Charles), French diplomatist—notice of him, i. 125.
• Gibbs (Sir Vicary), Attorney-General in the Perceval administration, ii. 90, 102, 114;
• his antipathy to the press, 115, 117.
• Gifford (John), anti-Jacobin writer, republishes C.’s American pamphlets, i. 236;
• notice of him, 240;
• other references, 263, 264, 278; ii. 35.
• Gifford (William), i. 181, 248, 263, 265.
• Gilfillan (Rev. George)—his recollections of C., ii. 282.
• Glasse (Rev. G. H.), i. 251.
• Goodman (Thomas), agricultural labourer, convicted of incendiarism, ii. 262.
• Gould (Sir Charles), Judge-Advocate-General in 1792, i. 62.
• Grenville—v. Wyndham.
• Grey (Charles, 2nd Earl Grey), ii. 34.
• Grose (Sir N.) passes sentence upon C., ii. 124.
• Hague (Thomas)—his pamphlet against the Duke of York, ii. 76.
• Hamilton (Alexander), i. 122.
• Hamlin (—)—his case of attempting to corrupt Mr. Addington, i. 327.
• Hammond (George), Under-Secretary of State, i. 252, 260.
• Hansard (T. C.) becomes the printer of the Register, ii. 101;
• is prosecuted along with C., 114, 126;
• takes over the “Parliamentary Debates,” i. 310; ii. 143.
• Harding (J.) succeeds to Cobbett and Morgan’s book-shop, i. 308.
• Hardwicke (Earl of)—v. Yorke.
• Hawkesbury (Lord)—v. Jenkinson.
• Hazlitt (William), ii. 195.
• Heriot (John)—notice of him, i. 242;
• quarrel with C., 294.
• Hewlings (Abraham), a Westminster politician, ii. 25.
• Hogan (Major D.)—his exposure of the Duke of York’s mistress, ii. 58.
• Hone (William), ii. 116, 195.
• Honiton, co Devon, election, ii. 13.
• Howell (Thomas B.), editor of C.’s “State Trials,” ii. 70, 77, 78.
• Howick (Lord)—v. Grey.
• Huish (Robert)—his “memoirs of Cobbett” quoted, ii. 117.
• Hunt (Henry), ii. 65, 177, 221.
• Hunt (J. H. Leigh), ii. 123, 148.
• Ireland (William), Dean of Westminster, i. 251, 263.
• Irish affairs in 1804, i. 304.
• Irishmen (The United)—political association, i. 136.
• Jay (John), American statesman—his mission to England, i. 128;
• notice of him, 129;
• democratic feeling against him, 138.
• Jefferson (Thomas), American statesman—his “Writings” quoted, i. 123.
• Jeffery (Francis) attacks C. in the Edinburgh Review, ii. 56.
• Jenkinson (Robt. B., 2nd Lord Liverpool), i. 278; ii. 170.
• Johnson (Robert), Irish judge—his animadversions on the Irish administration, i. 304.
• Johnstone (Col. Cochrane), ii. 20.
• Juverna, pseudonym of Judge Johnson, i. 304.
• Kent (H.R.H. Edward, Duke of) meets C. at Halifax, i. 52, 76.
• Kew, co. Surrey—C.’s employment there as a boy, i. 15.
• Laurence (Dr. French), i. 252, 283.
• Lauriston (Jacques A.), French envoy to England, i. 276.
• Law (Edward, 1st Baron Ellenborough) presides at C.’s trials for “libel,” i. 306; ii. 114;
• his antipathy to a free press, 115, 117.
• Lawless (John) reprints C.’s Register in Ireland, ii. 195.
• Libel: What is it? i. 197;
• prosecutions of C. for, i. 201, 213, 306; ii. 114—v. also Bagshaw, Finnerty, Law, Drakard, Examiner, &c.
• Liston (Robert), English diplomatist—his attentions to C. in America, i. 191, 245;
• testifies to C.’s loyalty, 306.
• Liverpool (Earl of)—v. Jenkinson.
• London—“sedition” in 1792, i. 58, 59, 84.
• Mackay (Charles)—his “Recollections” quoted, concerning flogging in the navy, ii. 92.
• M’Kean (Thomas), Pennsylvanian politician, i. 199, 201, 214.
• Madison (James), American statesman, i. 122.
• Madocks (W. A.), M.P.—his motion against corruption in the State, ii. 85.
• Malone (Edmond), i. 252.
• Marsh (Herbert), Bishop of Peterborough, i. 263.
• Marvel (Andrew)—anecdote of him as M.P., ii. 112.
• Maseres (Francis, Cursitor Baron), visits C. on his arrival in London, i. 250, and in Newgate, ii. 135;
• notice of him, ib.
• Mathias (Thomas J.) corresponds with C., i. 244;
• “Pursuits of Literature” quoted, 249.
• Melville (Viscount)—v. Dundas.
• Mifflin (George), Governor of Pennsylvania, i. 204.
• Minto (Earl of)—v. Elliot.
• Mitford (John, 1st Baron Redesdale), i. 76, 305; ii. 128.
• Mitford (Dr.), ii. 21, 22, 51, 74, 119.
• Mitford (Mary Russell) visits C. at Botley, ii. 22.
• Moreau de St. Méry (M. E.), French émigré at Philadelphia—notice of him, i. 103.
• Morgan (John), i. 220, 224, 279, 308.
• Morrice (Captain Thomas), i. 81.
• Nares (Archdeacon), i. 237.
• Newspaper Press of London—its hostility to C., ii. passim;
• its great advance in character, 292;
• forgives C. when he is gone for ever, 297.
• Nova Scotia—C.’s life there as a soldier, i. 42.
• Oldden (John), of Philadelphia, i. 164.
• Paine (Thomas)—influence of his political writings, i. 99;
• on the currency, 302;
• notice of him, ii. 209;
• C. recommends his writings on the currency, 211;
• his remains exhumed and brought to England, 214, 217.
• Parliamentary Reform—impulse given to the cause by support of C.’s Register, ii. 10;
• and again in 1817, 197;
• its progress not served by Party, 227;
• how it came, at last, 257, 280.
• Parr (Samuel, D.D.)—his support of Queen Caroline, ii. 224.
• Paull (James)—his candidature for Westminster, ii. 15;
• C.’s account of him, 25;
• other references, 29, 33.
• Peace of Amiens, i. 277.
• Peel (Sir Robert)—C.’s motion concerning him, ii. 287.
• Penn (John), i. 251.
• Perceval (Spencer) prosecutes C. for “libel,” i. 306;
• his antipathy to C., ii. 49;
• inquiry into his alleged corruption is stifled, 85;
• his gratification at C.’s conviction, 128.
• Perry (James), editor of the Morning Chronicle, ii. 107, 109.
• Philadelphia, U. S., described, i. 94;
• strong party spirit there, 107, 131, 176;
• anti-British feeling, 180;
• yellow fever, 208;
• the newspapers, 217.
• Pitt (William)—his pamphleteers, i. 237, 241, 242;
• C. dines with him, 253;
• C.’s reasons for ceasing to support him, 324;
• other references, i. 124, 130, 314, 317.
• Place (Francis) quoted, ii. 59;
• anecdote, 116;
• his electoral purity, 221.
• Planting, ii. 65, 69, 233.
• Plunkett (William C., 1st Baron)—suit against C., i. 307.
• Political Partisanship—its penalties, &c., i. 206.
• Poor, Labouring, of England—their prosperous condition in the middle of the 18th century, i. 5;
• their increasing poverty, 17;
• growth of pauperism, ii. 37, 38;
• proposals to flog them, 130;
• their miserable condition after the peace, ii. 237, &c.
• Potato—C.’s aversion to the, ii. 236.
• Press, Liberty of the, i. 197;
• its position at the close of the 18th century, 231;
• prosecutions, 304, ii. 107, 115, &c.;
• cessation of political prosecutions, ii. 274.
• Preston election of 1826, ii. 254.
• Priestley (Joseph, LL.D.)—his emigration to the U.S., i. 108;
• notice of him, 110;
• in retirement, 217.
• “Pursuits of Literature”—v. Mathias.
• Quakers in Pennsylvania, i. 95, 97;
• their troubles at the period of Independence, 200.
• Radnor (Earl of)—v. Bouverie.
• Randolph (Edmund), American politician, i. 142.
• Raynal (G. T., Abbé)—influence of his writings, i. 85, 96.
• Redesdale (Lord)—v. Mitford.
• Reeves (John), i. 263, 265, 295, 306, 319; ii. 96, 120.
• Reviews, as organs of public opinion, i. 231.
• Ridgway (James), bookseller, i. 80, 81, 133.
• Robson (R. B.) associated with C. concerning barrack abuses, ii. 12, 16, 17.
• Rogers (George), of Southampton, ii. 230.
• Romilly (Sir Samuel), ii. 85, 130, 178.
• Rose (Rt. Hon. George), i. 249; ii. 74, 83, 84.
• Rowley (Wm., M.D.) quoted, i. 209.
• Rowson (Mrs.), actress and novelist, i. 136.
• Rush (Benjamin, M. D.)—his celebrity, i. 209;
• his phlebotomy, 210;
• his politics, ib.;
• suffers from C.’s lash, 211;
• obtains a verdict with damages against him, 217.
• Scarlett (James, 1st Lord Abinger)—his antipathy to C. and the Reformers, ii. 224.
• Scipion (L. H. Comte du Roure) edits C.’s “Maître d’Anglais,” i. 102.
• Shadgett’s Weekly Review, ii. 195.
• Sheridan (R. B.) succeeds Fox as M.P. for Westminster, ii. 24, 27;
• other references, i. 292; ii. 28.
• Sidmouth (Viscount)—v. Addington.
• Six Acts—their purport, ii. 214.
• Soldiers—anecdotes, i. 38, and v. Flogging.
• Somerville (Alexander) quoted, ii. 44.
• Spies employed by Government, ii. 196.
• Sports—fishing, ii. 3;
• single-stick, 4;
• coursing, 21, 51;
• dogs, 99.
• Stuart (Lord Henry) with the English embassy at Philadelphia, i. 191;
• testifies to C.’s loyalty, 306;
• interchange of visits, 312; ii. 17.
• Swann (James), celebrated paper-maker, an attached friend of C.’s, ii. 98;
• correspondence, 99 et seq.
• Symonds (H. D.), bookseller, in Newgate, i. 133.
• Tait’s Magazine quoted on C.’s reception in Scotland, ii. 281.
• Talleyrand—his exile in America, i. 104;
• introduces himself to C., 158.
• Taylor (Miss)—case of, ii. 81.
• Thelwall (John)—his “memoirs” quoted, i. 58, 85.
• Thornton (William)—his proposed American language, i. 160.
• Tilghman (Edward), lawyer of Philadelphia, C.’s counsel in Rush v. Cobbett, i. 215, 224.
• Tooke (J. Horne) quoted, ii. 29, 181.
• Toryism—its narrow-minded fears, ii. 170, 196.
• Twyford, co. Hants—celebrated school there, i. 312, 316.
• Upcott (W.), i. 241.
• Vansittart (Nicholas, 1st Lord Bexley), i. 263.
• Walker (Peter), ii. 136.
• Wardle (Colonel G. L.)—his exposure of the Duke of York, ii. 59, 60.
• Washington (George), American President, i. 122, 126, 183, 203;
• his death, 218.
• Watson (Richard), surgeon, violent Reformist, ii. 175.
• Webster (Noah)—his proposed improvement in orthography, i. 160.
• Weld (Isaac)-his account of Philadelphia, i. 97.
• Westminster politics, ii. 15, 24, 26, 59, 64.
• Whiggism—its fine profession, ii. 256, 258, 271.
• Whitbread (Samuel)—notice of him, ii. 39;
• calumniated, 110.
• White (Henry), Whig writer, ii. 227.
• White (Holt), C.’s solicitor, ii. 77, 95, 113.
• Wilberforce (William)—his horror of “disaffection,” ii. 38, and of C.’s advocacy of Reform, 171.
• Windham (Right Hon. William) notices C. on his return to England, i. 251, 253;
• his strong anti-Gallicanism, 255;
• his new opposition party, 281;
• gets up a subscription to start C.’s Register, 283;
• defends C. in the House of Commons, 292;
• testifies to his loyalty, 306;
• his taste for pugilism, ii. 4;
• coolness between him and C., 13;
• attacks the parliamentary reporters, 109.
• Wolcott (Oliver), American politician, i. 154, 182, 200, 201.
• Wooler (T. J.), ii. 195, 251.
• Wright (John), bookseller in Piccadilly, i. 226, 229, 241;
• becomes C.’s man of business, 310;
• correspondence with C., 314 et seq.;
• rupture of their friendship, ii. 143, 144;
• his suit against C., 223.
• Wyndham (William, Baron Grenville) i. 276, ii. 34.
• Yellow-fever in Philadelphia, i. 209.
• Yonge (Sir George), Secretary-at-War, i. 68.
• York (H.R.H. Frederick, Duke of)—his troubles over Mrs. Clarke, ii. 57, 60.
• Yorke (Philip, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke), i. 305.
• Yorke (Right Hon. Charles) testifies to C.’s loyalty, i. 306.
• Yorke (Henry Redhead)—notice of him, ii. 47;
• his opposition to C., 47, 123.

THE END.

LONDON: GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE.