Questions of libel were by no means infrequent, during these years. And, with Lord Ellenborough’s severe opinions on that topic, there was plenty of reason to fear any conflict with authority. An action brought by an offended author against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, in July 1808, for a skit upon a certain book of travels, brought Mr. Cobbett forward, in several letters upon the subject of libel law; in which he pointed out very clearly, that principles had retrograded since the days of Pope and Swift, who certainly had no idea that to write and publish truth was any crime:—
“The whole tenor of their works proves, that, so long as they confined themselves to the stating of what was true, they entertained no apprehensions as to the consequences.… They were afraid of no constructive libels; nor, if they chose to express their disapprobation of the conduct of kings and princes, did they fear the accusation of disloyalty. And what would they have said, had they been told that, in their country, it would become a crime to wound men’s feelings by holding them up to ridicule? Ridicule is a thing that will not attach where it ought not,” &c., &c.
His own idea (which, however, he did not always put into practice) was to live it down; and, as for calumny, he had advised Mr. Paull, and he had so advised others, to let falsehood come to the inevitable over-reaching of itself.
As for caricatures,—
“Caricatures are things to laugh at. They break no bones. I, for instance, have been represented as a bulldog, as a porcupine, as a wolf, as a sans-culotte, as a nightman, as a bear, as a kite, as a cur; and, in America, as hanging upon a gallows. Yet, here I am, just as sound as if no misrepresentation of me had ever been made.”
This was no idle boast. The Anti-Cobbett squibs and caricatures were a standing source of amusement, even with the little boys and girls, at Botley house. The articles, above alluded to, had produced a fresh crop. He writes to Mr. Wright upon “our friends the satirists:”—
“They seem half-distracted. How angry they are, that I did not take notice of what they said of myself! All those who know anything of me, know their assertions or insinuations to be false; and, as to those who know nothing of me, they are of no consequence to me, or to anybody else.”
But, the jealousy of the press was beyond everything.[6] Unfairness and malignity marked all references to Cobbett, who was really doing them better service than any one individual, beside, could be credited with. It is true, he never spared his cotemporaries, when in fight; but let them be for a moment in trouble, and his shield was at once raised, by his proclamation of the Liberty of the Press; and of his doctrine that there was nothing so mean, “nor so truly detestable,” as that of seeking, through the law, vengeance for a literary defeat. No such generosity, however, could be remembered in the midst of party fights; and, even where there was real ability and talent, as with the Morning Chronicle under James Perry, newspaper polemics of that day were marked by misrepresentation and abuse.
The inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, brought about by the discovery of corrupt influence in the disposal of promotions, &c., kept society amused for several months, during the year 1809; and, indeed, threw everything else into the shade, not excepting the new tide of affairs in the Peninsula. Mr. Cobbett was in the front, as might have been expected.