FOOTNOTES
[1] “Is he a man I choose to punish?—I make it a libel. Is he a man I choose not to punish?—I make it a non-libel.”—Bentham: Works, v. 281.
[2] There is one incident of the Revolutionary War (for the catastrophe of which M’Kean is held responsible) which arouses the old Adam in the breast of the Pennsylvanian Quaker to this very day. John Roberts and Abraham Carlisle, two very worthy members of the Society of Friends, were arraigned, condemned, and hanged, ostensibly for having given assistance and comfort to the British troops when occupying Philadelphia—a perfectly groundless charge. The thing was done to “save the country,” à la Française.
[3] Vide Wolcott’s “Memoirs, &c.,” i. 231, ii. 388, &c.
[4] “Dansons la Carmagnole” was one of the French revolutionary songs.
[5] Both Mifflin, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and M’Kean himself, had many a time committed themselves to the foulest aspersions against Britain, as well as their own country, on occasion, “after the cloth was removed.” But Mr. Bache, whether at a civic feast, or in the columns of the Aurora, was a real professor of venom. Britain is a “perfidious nation;” its people are “bloody savage islanders;” the Government “a mixture of tyranny, profligacy, brutality, and corruption;” and he would heartily rejoice if the Royal family “were all decently guillotined.” And concerning Spain, for several years preceding the new amicable arrangements, we read of the “slaves of Madrid,” the “most cowardly of the human race;” the “ignorant soldiery of the infamous tyrant of Castile!” &c.
[6] There was one William Blount, for example, who was expelled the Senate, on account of intrigue, or downright treachery, went home to Tennessee, was received with acclamations, and re-elected Governor of the State!
[7] Duyckinck, i. 294. See also “An Eulogium upon Benjamin Rush, M.D.,” by David Ramsay, M.D. (Philadelphia, 1813), for some particulars of his life and career. He died in April, 1813, aged sixty-nine. Several members of his family attained distinction, the most notable being his son Richard, who was ambassador to London in 1821, and who filled that office with great dignity and credit. His “Recollections of a Residence at the Court of London” has been several times reprinted. Dr. Rush and his systems had much opposition to contend with, in England as well as in America; vide, inter alia, a pamphlet by Dr. William Rowley, a London physician, who calls him the celebrated professor of singularities, &c.: “Treatise on Putrid, Malignant, Infectious Fevers” (London, 1804).
[8] It was usual at that time for the offices of attorney and counsel to be united in one person. The practice is not even now discontinued; and there must be some advantages connected therewith which would recommend it in England.
[9] Advertisement from the Aurora of Dec. 24:—“Philadelphia, Dec. 20, 1799.—By virtue of a writ of Fieri Facias to me directed, will be sold by public vendue, on Tuesday, the 24th of Dec. inst., at one o’clock in the afternoon, at the house lately occupied by William Cobbett, editor of Porcupine’s Gazette, &c. A quantity of books, types and type-boxes, two printing-presses, sundry books in sheets; also 1 mahogany desk, 1 dining do., 1 octagon card-table, 1 walnut book-case, 8 pictures, 14 windsor chairs, sundry pine-tables and old chairs, 2 writing-desks, and printing-stands. Also a smoke-jack and spit, one ten-plate stove and pipes, &c. Seized and taken in execution as the property of said Cobbett, and sold by Jonathan Penrose, Sheriff.”
[10] Through the courtesy of Mr. William M. Tilghman, a grandson of the great lawyer.
[11] “Both of the cases:” there is no trace of anything to explain this.
[12] According to Duyckinck, Dr. Rush is said to have distributed the 5000 dollars amongst the poor (i. 294).
[13] Vide Duyckinck, i. 294, art. Rush.
[14] A copy of the original circular has fallen into the hands of the present writer. It is dated Feb. 5th, 1799. The volumes were expected to reach sixteen in number, and the price (to subscribers) was to be twenty dollars, or four and a half guineas. The following extracts from this prospectus will give some idea of the extent to which Cobbett’s writings had been already circulated:—
“Of each pamphlet, published under my assumed name of Peter Porcupine, about six thousand copies, upon an average, have been printed and sold in America. The sale of those which have been honoured by a republication in England has probably been much greater. All of them, I believe, have passed through three or four, and some, in an abridged state, have attained to ten, twelve, and even seventeen editions.… As to the Gazette, such has been the increasing demand for it that, though for a long time I laid by a hundred files for sale, I can at this moment make up but three complete for the first year. Thus situated, the orders which I have received from all parts for complete sets of the pamphlets and complete files of the paper have been a mortification to me rather than a pleasure,” &c.
CHAPTER IX.
“MY FAME HAD PRECEDED ME.”
The reader is probably aware, that your “public-instructor” who, at the close of the last century, essayed to lead his fellow-men, had no hold upon the daily press. An occasional jerky paragraph, or covert insinuation, was all that the newspaper ventured upon, when its feelings impelled it to break through the traditions of its calling. Indeed, things were changing at this period, although not so extensively in London as in France and in America; but the self-constituted leaders of public opinion were, as yet, restricted to the pamphlet, or to the periodical review. The student of history will notice, at least as regards the last quarter of the eighteenth century, that current opinion on politics is fully represented only in these journals. Their influence, however, speedily waned soon after the commencement of the nineteenth century; and, although the popular review, weekly or monthly, still supposes itself in the van, in our own days, its thoughts and ideas are appropriated, and often superseded, on the morrow of their publication.
The “Monthly Review,” redolent of Goldsmith and of Griffiths; the “British Critic,” and the “Gentleman’s Magazine,” of high Tory principles: and the “Analytical Review,” organ of modern enlightenment,—were the principal publications of this kind, which had the ear of the public, at the period of our history. And we shall be unable to proceed properly with the study of Mr. Cobbett’s life, without having first traced, from these sources, the rise and progress of his reputation, ere his return to England.
The “Observations on Dr. Priestley’s Emigration,” appears to have been reprinted in London immediately after its publication in Philadelphia. Matters were especially troublesome to the ministry just then, and the partisans of loyalty eagerly, frantically, seized upon anything new, in the shape of argument or of declamation, with which to bind up their rotting timbers. Yet, mark the wonderful inconsistency of human affairs! The author of this poor plank, groping after political justice (according to his light), was also the author, or part author, of a pamphlet which was said to be doing infinite mischief among the soldiers and sailors,—a pamphlet against which, at this very time, they were actually writing and printing loyal antidotes.
The “British Critic,” then, appears to have been the first to draw public attention to the new writer. The number for November, 1794, dedicated several pages to a review of the “Observations,” beginning with these appropriate remarks:—
“We sometimes elevate a pamphlet, on account of its importance, to a rank among our primary articles, and this honour is peculiarly due to a stranger, who comes forward to give his decision as an umpire, on points wherein the passions of Englishmen may be supposed sufficiently interested to bias their judgment. Of this nature is the acute and well-written American pamphlet here announced, in which the author, while he addresses himself to Dr. Priestley, as a new settler in the country, speaks very forcibly on many subjects respecting England and its public sentiments and conduct. We do not, therefore, consider the tract as an attack on an individual, but as a decision upon principles.”
The writer proceeds to express his opinion that the pamphlet is indeed of American origin, and not fabricated in London. He considers the fable of the pot-shop [introduced into the Observations, being an account of the various articles in a crockery-shop, some formed to honour and others to dishonour, falling out with each other, and having a general smash] as “strongly in the style of Swift.” He concludes with a pious hope that the time was coming when, to “excite discontent and rebellions against government will be universally considered as a crime too atrocious to be palliated by any speciousness of theory.”
The “Gentleman’s Magazine” followed suit in its number for January, 1795.
The “Monthly Review,” well-known for the flexibility of its opinions, was just then on the side of toleration, and considered that there could be no justification for such abuse of Dr. Priestley; it did not admire the vulgar fable of the pitcher haranguing the pans and jordans; and concluded:—
“We have no doubt that London has the honour of being the native place of this production; although it is pretended, at the bottom of the title-page, that it was originally printed at Philadelphia.”
The notice taken of the “Observations,” on the part of the “Analytical Review,” was in a tone of the severest condemnation. The writer, also considering that this was no American production, but “engendered at home in some murky brain,” justly remarked that it was unfair to continue the persecution of Dr. Priestley, after he had left his native shores. With much ingenuity, the writer proceeded to point out that no American would extol the English constitution, nor speak of reformers as regenerated politicians, nor display such jealousy for the Church of England, nor discourage the emigrating spirit,—as the author of the “Observations” had done; and he proceeds to insinuate that George Chalmers must be the culprit:—
“From the similarity of spirit and style, which we observe between this production and Oldys’s ‘Life of Thomas Paine,’ were we to indulge ourselves in conjecture, we should conclude these two pieces to have come from the same pen. But, whoever be the author of such gross scurrility, and malignant calumny, it is much to be wished that he were known to the public, that every honest man might be able to say to his neighbour,—
“Hic niger est: hunc tu, Romane, caveto.”
The “Critical Review,” another respectable “defender of morality and taste,” did not condescend to notice Peter Porcupine for several years; and it was not till October, 1798, that the “Observations” (4th Edition) found occupation for its discriminating pen,—the reviewer having taken up this pamphlet “to observe scurrility throwing off all disguise.”
Of all these public guides, the “Analytical” appears to have possessed the most talent, and the “Monthly” to have been the most independent; but all were, more or less, ranged on party lines. According to the political leanings of each writer, so would go his indulgence toward Peter’s forcible expressions, or his contempt for Peter’s vulgar comparisons.
The “Bone to Gnaw,” when republished in London, was supported by a long preface: “A Rod for the Backs of the Critics, containing a Historical Sketch of the present state of political criticism in Great Britain, as exemplified in the conduct of the Monthly, Critical, and Analytical Reviews, &c. Interspersed with anecdotes. By Humphrey Hedgehog.[1] ‘Melius non Tangere.’” The Historical Sketch (so-called) was a general attack on revolutionary principles, and their supporters in the press,—with especial reference to the publications named, which had “reviewed, or to speak more correctly, reviled” the “Observations.” It is not particularly elegant; and as to any power, it is milk-and-water against strong ale, compared with the work to which it is prefixed. But that was the conceit of this Hedgehog; who, a feeble scarabæcide, had just wit enough to fancy that his little spines gave him a sort of relationship to him of the quills.
Peter Porcupine was more fortunate in the advocacy of the “British Critic.” That journal, albeit highly prejudiced, was a formidable opponent of the ideas of the day. Intense horror of infidelity, united to warmest loyalty to the Throne and to the Church, pervaded all its articles. It is no wonder, then, that the editor of this review[2] made it his business to patronize the trenchant pen of Peter. On the occasion of noticing “A Little Plain English,” the writer records the struggles he has had, to maintain that the new politician was from America,—how “We” were assailed, both in public and private, for “our” supposed credulity. And when the “Life and Adventures” appeared, the satisfaction of the reviewer was complete. He continued, from time to time, to congratulate himself and the public that he had been the first to discover Peter’s merits; and was by no means disposed to lose sight of him.
“They who chose at that time to doubt of his existence, would be very glad, if they could, to disprove it now; but to their annoyance, and to the vexation of all Jacobins, he undoubtedly exists; and has done more towards the subversion of the French interest in America, and consequently towards restoring the ancient cordiality between that country and Great Britain, than could possibly have been expected from the efforts of any single writer. Truth,—Truth was with him; and what can long subsist against the powers of Truth and Honesty?” &c., &c.
As to his style, the reviewer is indulgent:—
“That this writer is occasionally a little coarse in his style and expressions, cannot be denied; but, perhaps, he could not easily attain more refinement except at the expense of some strength; his object also appears to be to write in a popular and familiar manner.”
On the other hand, the independent and radical reviewers noticed Peter with severe animadversions:—“To look into the writings of this author for facts would be a waste of time.”—“We meet with a strange farrago of petulance, abuse, false reasoning, and absurdity, into which it would be disgusting to enter.”—“Absurd comments, gross misrepresentations, and impudent attacks, both upon the dead and the living.”—“A writer so weak and infatuated as Peter Porcupine.”
But it must be said, that these despisers of Peter had little of argument wherewith to withstand him. His positions were generally just, though sometimes exaggerated; and his violence was thoroughly consistent from beginning to end,—excepting in this: that he as yet knew nothing of the wicked oppressions which were going on, in some quarters, at home. The “Analytical” justly called him to account for his unfortunate allusions to the freedom of the press in England:—“He complains that he was allowed only an hour and a half to go out and find bail. Here, under a similar prosecution, he might have been arrested, and detained for several days, until his Majesty’s servants found time to inquire into the securities offered:” with further comparisons of the American and English procedures, very disadvantageous to the latter. But this is almost a solitary example of fair argument; and it looks very much, upon a reperusal of the various comments which appeared from time to time, that it was only a question of the richness of one’s vocabulary, as to who could be the most foul-mouthed in dispute.
But, seeing that sober and respectable Sylvanus Urban could uphold Peter thus: “This lively and animated writer, offensive to some of our brethren because he tells the truth.”—“Concerning the writer as the truest patriot in his own country, and the truest friend to honesty and integrity.”—“If the mercenaries in England and their employers can confute these just and animated assertions, we will give them leave to heap harsher abuse than they have yet done on their natural enemy, Peter Porcupine:”—we may be fully justified in believing that his vigour and courage were admired, on all hands, not less by his adversaries than by his friends. As long as he appeared to support a Party this was natural enough; they could not do less, at the same time, than attack him with all the force at their disposal.
There does not appear to be any record of the actual, direct, means by which Porcupine’s writings were introduced to the British public. The earlier tracts were printed for John Stockdale, and for the Rivingtons. The “Life and Adventures” are said to have been republished at the express desire of Mr. Canning; it is probable, therefore, that it is due to the zeal and acumen of Mr. John Gifford,[3] that Cobbett’s writings were discovered to be of incalculable value to the supporters of monarchy. Mr. Gifford was Canning’s right-hand man, as editor. On the upper floor of the house of Mr. Wright, publisher, of Piccadilly, a room was rented by the celebrated contributors to the “Anti-Jacobin;” and here sat Mr. Gifford, conducting the mechanical part of that undertaking. Mr. Upcott, Wright’s assistant, was here occupied in transcribing the writings of Canning, Frere, and Ellis, so that their incognito might be preserved. And Mr. Wright’s book-shop was the constitutional book-shop of the day.
So it came to pass that Mr. Gifford wrote a lengthy preface to “A Bone to Gnaw” (as already mentioned), and henceforward attended to the reproduction of Porcupine’s tracts, which were, of course, published at the shop of the monarchical bookseller, at 169, Piccadilly. After the “Anti-Jacobin” was discontinued, Mr. Gifford commenced the publication of the “Anti-Jacobin Review;” which, supported by Bowles,[4] Whitaker, Dr. Bisset, and other Tory writers of the day, became the leading party journal during the remainder of Mr. Pitt’s career. The very first article in the new magazine was an elaborate review of Cobbett’s anti-republican struggles, founded upon one of his later tracts; and it was succeeded, from time to time, by frequent references to “this staunch friend of social order.” The second volume bears the imprint of “W. Cobbett, Philadelphia.”
Another celebrity of that day, John Heriot,[5] editor of the True Briton, had some interchange of civilities with Cobbett, the latter having desired him to supply his paper regularly to Philadelphia. Here is an extract from Heriot’s answer to the application:—
“Permit me now, sir, to return you my best acknowledgments for the numbers of your political work, which you did me the favour to transmit. Of the great merits of Peter Porcupine I was not before ignorant. I had read some of his political works with very high satisfaction. I shall be at all times happy, sir, through the medium of my papers (for I am proprietor of two), to recommend writings so deserving to the notice of the British public, and you will, perhaps, admit I can do this with some success, when I inform you that the circulation of my two papers extends to nearly 6000 per day. I had an opportunity lately of making some inquiries respecting you of a gentleman in my office here, and who formerly held a high diplomatic mission in America. He seemed to know you well, and spoke very highly both of your probity and talents. I have only to repeat, sir, that I shall think myself highly honoured by your correspondence, and you may at all times rely upon the best wishes and services of, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, John Heriot.”
From a letter to Mr. Nichols, printed in the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for September, 1835, it appears that Cobbett also sought business relations in that quarter. The letter (dated August 1, 1797) encloses a file of Porcupine’s Gazette, and proposes to have a monthly exchange of their respective publications; adding that the writer would be willing to promote the sale of the “Gentleman’s Magazine” in America, if he could come to any arrangement with his correspondent.
The following (unpublished) letter to Mr. T. J. Mathias[6] will also be of great interest to the reader, as tending to show the authoritative position which he had acquired as a bookseller and publisher:—
“Wm. C. to the Author of ‘The Pursuits of Literature:’—
“Philadelphia, 12th Mar. 1799.—Sir,—The ‘Translation,’ with your obliging note in the blank leaf, is come safe to hand. Nothing that I can address to you can possibly be looked upon as flattery; you will therefore be assured of my sincerity when I say that a testimony of approbation under the hand and seal of the king himself could not have given me greater satisfaction.
“Your matchless poem on the pursuits of literature is become very fashionable in the libraries of the Americans; and, amongst my ‘public services,’ as you are pleased to think them, I regard my having been the first to introduce this work as one of the greatest. But neither your awful voice nor that of an angel, were one to descend, can save America from another revolution! Your words will, indeed, be like bread thrown upon the waters; but they will produce no immediate effect here.
“It is with much regret I see the pirating booksellers of Ireland carrying off the profits which, from this country, ought to return into the pocket of your bookseller. They send out cheap editions, by which means they obtain a preference; and the worst of the business is, they disgrace the work by publishing it incorrectly.
“If you have seen my papers for a twelvemonth past, you will not require from me any additional proof of my respect; the file of papers, which I take the liberty to send you, I therefore beg you to receive as mere vehicles of intelligence. Nothing from this country can be a proper return for your present, unless you will have the goodness to regard as such, the unfeigned thanks of, sir, your most obliged, &c.”
Allusion has been made, in a previous page, to the offers made, on the part of the Government at home, to advance Mr. Cobbett’s interests. One of his own frequent references to that subject will help to illustrate the subject of this chapter:—
“Mr. Liston, our minister in America, informed me, in the year 1798, I think it was, that the ministers at home were fully sensible of the obligations due to me from my country, and that, if I would accept of nothing for myself, they wished me to point out any of my relations, in the army or elsewhere, whom they might serve. To which I answered, as nearly as I can recollect, in the following words:—
“‘As to my relations in the army, I can ask for no promotion for them, because I have no opportunity of knowing whether such promotion would be consistent with the good of the service; and, with respect to my relations out of the army, a sudden elevation might, perhaps, be very far from contributing to their happiness, besides which, though it would be my duty to assist them by means of my own earnings, I should not think it just in me to be instrumental in throwing them as a burden upon the nation.’
“I may now have expressed myself with more perspicuity and conciseness than I did then; but this was the substance of my answer; and, if I may judge from what I have since witnessed amongst public writers, I must suppose that Mr. Liston was utterly astonished. It should be observed, too, that, if there was a man in the world, through whom such an offer could have had a chance of success, that man was Mr. Liston—a gentleman for whom I entertained a very high respect, and whose conduct constantly evinced that he was not merely a receiver of the public money, but one who had the interest and honour of his king and country deeply at heart. I had been a witness of his zeal, of his real public spirit, of his unremitted attention to his duty, of the great mischiefs he prevented, and of the great good which he did; and I respected him accordingly; but neither that respect, nor any other consideration, could induce me to depart from that line of perfect independence which I had at first chalked out to myself, and from which I never have, to the best of my recollection, for one moment deviated.”