[2] I.e. Henry Hunt, who had recently entered into public life, with an address to the electors of Wilts. This note (dated 10th April) got Mr. Cobbett into trouble many years after, when he had long forgotten this his first impression of Hunt, and dreamed not of the possibility of such old confidences ever seeing the light of day.
[3] Mr. Howell was a barrister, and a very fair lawyer, but had no taste for practice at the bar. He pursued this task with the State Trials until his death in 1817, after which date it was carried on to completion by his son. It eventually reached thirty-four volumes in royal 8vo. The enterprise passed into the hands of Hansard, about the year 1810.
[4] Peter Finnerty, whose name occurs several times in these pages, was an Irishman, and had been brought up as a printer. In consequence of a press prosecution in Dublin, he came and settled in London, when he became Parliamentary reporter on the Morning Chronicle, and a popular character in the journalistic world. He died in 1816, aged fifty-six, some time after the close of a term of imprisonment for “libel” in Lincoln jail.
[5] The Hon. William Herbert, one of the candidates. He afterwards “took the pledge,” as far as regarded pensions and sinecures, but would not bind himself to decline the offer of a place.
[6] Author of another attack on the Duke.
[7] Cartwright.
[8] The inevitable pamphlet appeared—a very funny one in this case. For the information of the curious, the title is, “Caution against Future Subscriptions for Prostitutes and their Associates, with Free Animadversions on several Political Gentlemen who have been Prominently Active in Promoting Subscriptions for Miss Taylor; with Particulars of the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke” (London, 1809).
[9] The Austrians had just suffered two serious defeats.
[10] Mr. Madocks had brought forward distinct charges of corruption against these two ministers, but the House negatived his motion for inquiry. This case of “stifling” was one of the most bare-faced of even that dark age, the debate going off on the dangers of Parliamentary reform, and the “blessings we derive from the present order of things.” One thing is certain, that not a soul in that House doubted Madocks’s case. The “factious” minority numbered eighty-five, of whom Sir Samuel Romilly was one. He thought it impolitic of the ministry, on their own account, to try and screen themselves, and justly concluded that the debate and decision would powerfully act upon the cause of Reform. (Vide his “Life,” ii. 116.)