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:
“Pygmies are pygmies still, though perch’d on alps,