[6] Otherwise John Gifford. Cobbett had made an allusion to his change of name, parenthetically adding, “for cogent reasons, no doubt.”
[7] Mr. Robson’s renewed motion on the Barrack-office. Cobbett prepared and wrote out these motions for him.
[8] “Seat in a Certain Assembly.—Any gentleman having the disposal of a close one may apply,” &c., &c.—Morning Post, May 1, 1807.
“A Certain Great Assembly.—Fourteen hundred guineas per annum will be given for a seat in the above Assembly. Letters addressed to,” &c., &c.—Morning Chronicle, May 21, 1807.
[9] Even Mr. Wilberforce, busied with the wrongs of distant races, had remarkably low and narrow views concerning the lower orders of his own country, as he called them. In 1801, he “nearly resolves” to move in Parliament for a grant of one million for their relief! At another time he thinks Government should relieve, privately, some of the distress, “and afterwards allege that they did not do so publicly for fear of producing a mischievous effect abroad.” And one’s patience is almost exhausted at hearing him call the people “tainted” with disaffection, when everybody knows they are starving. Vide his “Life, &c.,” iii., 3, 6, 13.
[10] Samuel Whitbread (1758-1815) had entered Parliament in 1790, and became an adherent of Mr. Fox, after whose death he was one of the principal leaders of opposition. A genuine philanthropist, guided by deep religious impressions, he spent a large portion of his wealth in endeavouring to ameliorate the condition of the poor, in and around his Bedfordshire estates.
[11] On one occasion, in the summer of 1809, there was a grand field-day over “Cobbett, the Oppressor of the Poor,” &c., &c. A boy in his service had absconded, after having received his wages beforehand; and, being brought before the magistrates at Winchester, was sent to prison for a week. But, through some informality on the part of the constable who arrested him, the relatives of the boy were induced to bring an action against Cobbett, the constable, and another local officer, the damages being laid at one thousand pounds! The papers were, instantly, full of the affair; several columns appeared in the Post, to the exclusion of important war news; Gillray had a picture of the oppressor thrashing the naked boy tied to a post; women of fashion came to see the poor creature in prison. The three defendants had to pay ten pounds between them; and the fact of a conviction was sufficient for exulting detractors. The boy afterwards admitted, however, that he ran away from Mr. Cobbett’s because he had to get up as early as his master.
“In private life Mr. Cobbett is an exceedingly pleasant companion, and an excellent husband and father. It has been asserted that he is harsh to those who are in his service, but this appears to me to be a calumny. That he expects his labourers to perform their duty is certain, and in this he is truly their friend. Industrious himself, he hates idleness in others. But he is willing to pay them liberally, and to contribute to their happiness. I have been more than once at Botley, and must say that I have never anywhere seen such excellent cottages, gardens, and other comforts appropriated to the labouring class as those which he erected and laid out on his estate.”—(From “Public Characters of All Nations,” Sir R. Phillips, Lond., 1823).
Alexander Somerville once met with a former Botley servant of Cobbett’s, who declared that he “would never wish to serve a better master.” (“The Whistler at the Plough,” p. 263, Lond., 1852).