COBDEN AND POLITICAL OPINION.*
Tills is a volume containing ten political essays. With the excep- tion of the first two, on "The Parliament of 1811 and the Defence of the Corn Laws," they deal with subjects forming the leading political questions of the hour. The o' Fct of the author in publishing them is best shown by the opeuing words of his pre- face :—" The following pages," he begins, " are an attempt to define the place which Cobden holds in the political and econo- mical history of this country, and to explain the attitude which he took on most of the leading topics of his time. Some of these * Cobden and Modern Political Opinion :—Esaays on Certain Political Topics. By James E. Thorold Rogers. London: Ilaendllan and Co. 1873. topics are accomplished facts ;—[here our author is not quite articu- late ; how can " topics" be accomplished facts?] ;—others are still debateable questions, though they are in process of settlement, and, as I believe, in the direction which he indicated. I have a further purpose in this publication,--that of adding my con- tribution to the memory of the wisest and most far-sighte I statesman whom this country, fertile as it has been in great men, has produced. And I wish also to state my own convictions, gathered mainly from my long and familiar intercourse with Cobden, on certain public questions." The book has thus a two-fold aim. There is, firstly, a critical examination of Cobden's place in history, a view of his efforts in connection with the general political and economical movements of the years in which he worked, and of the present time ; and, secondly, a per- sonal confession of the author's political opinions so far as he learned them from Cobden. To make such an union successful needs considerable skill. To point out, as a critic, the failures and successes of a politician, and the consequences, direct or indirect, of his labours, requires a judicial and yet imaginative power of noticing the political currents of the day, and the re- sults of work some of which is yet hardly ripe. It is very different from clearly and succinctly informing the world of the opinions which an intelligent and well-stored mind has formed concerning matters which are the basis of daily discussion. In the present instance, while Professor Rogers's epitome is a careful re"sunte of a. radical yet non-revolutionary creed, the more difficult and critical part is not altogether successful. Indeed we question very much if an attentive perusal of Cobden's speeches would not give the reader a clearer and more lasting impression of the light in which to regard this statesman, than the incidental references to his opinions embedded in and forming texts on which to hang discus- sions on certain political topics. The name of Cobden is and will always be chiefly associated with the Abolition of the Corn Laws. He will ever be regarded as the first and leading practical apostle of Adam Smith's economical theories, just as in many respects Brougham was the practical expounder of Bentham's thoughts on legal reform. But Cobden had no particular interest in this question of the Corn Laws, except that they formed the first and principal barrier against that system of free-trade which he desired to see universal.
The main basis of Cobden's political faith was, if we rightly apprehend it, that the separation caused by nation- ality was an error, that as much as possible the distinctions between nation and nation should be broken down, and that every political worker should aim at a federation of the world and the perfect freedom of every individual. Free trade was essentially- one means towards attaining this end. Another means was by giving independence to colonies. Pro- fessor Rogers, quoting from a speech delivered in 1861 (p. 221), gives these words, " The recent tendency of things is in favour of nationality, and not domination." This short seutence contains the key-note of Cobden's colonial policy. In another place (p. 129), in the essay-on "International Relations," the opinion which we have already expressed is yet further supported, " little intercourse as possible betwixt the Governments, as much connection as possible between the nations of the world.' Phe italics are Cobden's. The rule which is laid down in these words was the guiding principle of the writer's political life, in so far as he occupied his mind with international questions."
In other words, this principle embodies the idea that there should be as much intercourse as possible among the individuals who, in the aggregate, form a nation, but as little as possible between those aggregates represented by a Government, which is the only form of giving individuality to this extensive aggregate. This view we hold to be a mistaken one, because without nationality the world would have stood still, and individuals themselves would have suffered severely from the loss of that corporate individuality constituted by Govern- ments. A further outgrowth of this theory produced the notion that no war was justifiable. "He believed," says Professor Rogers (p. 109), " that no war in the world's history was neces- sary, and therefore that none was capable of defence." Such a confession goes far to justify the saying that Cobden was "a peace-at-any-price man," though the writer of these essays prefers that he should be called " a peace-at-the-least-possible-price man." Now, we grant that war is a horrible thing, and that, Utopian as Mr. Richard's schemes at present seem, it is possible thq conflicts between nation and nation may hereafter become rare, and that this is a worthy aim for a roan to work for. Yet the theory that no war is justifiable compels its upholders to resort to arguments essentially false. On the very same page from
which we have extracted the above opinion we find the following sentence:—"At the commencement of the great American war, he [Cobden] was disposed to think that the North would have done better if it had let the remonstrant South go. It was only when he rightly understood that the war on the side of the North was virtually defensive that he embraced the Northern side warmly. The object of the Southern politicians was to extend and perpetuate slavery, and such an object must always involve violent and ceaseless aggression." Now, reasoning on Cobden's principles, it did not follow that because a certain set of States desired to retain slavery, ceaseless aggression must necessarily have ensued ; and secondly, though the South desired to perpetuate and extend slavery, yet since a strictly defensive war is one to protect hearths and homes, and not to enforce certain opinions by intro- ducing social changes in another set of States, the American war was, according to Cobden's own quite untenable principles, unjustifiable. Moreover, there is a further unsoundness in his opinions. " To Cobden's mind war was a barbarism, a stupid means of doing that which would be much better effected by a rational diplomacy and arbitration." If two nations have a sub- stantial bone of contention and are amenable to reason, there is no final objection to the feasibility of such a scheme as the world has lately seen. But if this bone of contention is chiefly imaginary, or one nation is in a strongly aggressive mood, they must either fight like two schoolboys, or an international police in the shape of -other nations must interfere. The sanction of these nations is war, the deterrent influence for the future can only be war. But says Professor Rogers (p. 139), speaking of the power of an International Court of Judicature, What is to make its deciiion effectual ? The answer is the growth and the control of public opinion. He then proceeds to argue that if public opinion can prevent the repudia- tion of national debts, "is it reasonable to doubt that it will not (?) be equally operative to preserve the lives and fortunes of the people?" But there is no analogy between these two examples. If a nation does not pay its creditors, it cannot obtain foreign or domestic
• money except by taxation, and since only a certain amount can thus be raised, and even this amount not without exasperating and im- poverishing the people, there is, therefore, at hand a very forcible sanction against such repudiation. But if a nation chooses to go to war, it is impossible to see any such sanction. Mere opinion is useless. Professor Rogers, if we understand him rightly, seems to think otherwise, and urges that the wanton attack on Germany deprived France of the sympathy of all Europe. True, if it was really as wanton as it seemed at the time, it may have deprived her of sympathy, but it did not deprive her of money or of men, —and money and men, not sympathy, form the sinews of war.
Upon two domestic questions which are now a great deal before the public mind Cobden had more or less formed a mature judgment. These two are the Land Laws and Education, which form the material for Professor Rogers's third and tenth essays. But neither when Cobden was in the full energy of his work had assumed their present importance. Upon the first, his opinions are thus epitomised by the author (p. 82) : —" It is clear from the language which Cobden used that he contemplated two things,—he wished to remove all hindrances to the easy and econo- mical transfer of land, and he wished to develop the process by which, under the natural operation of a free exchange, the labourer might be resettled on the soil from which, in his energetic and suggestive phrase, the labourer had been divorced." He nowhere advocated the compulsory subdivision of land. If the clogs to free transfer in the shape of expensive titles and other similar drags were abolished, together with strict entails, then he thought that the anomaly of a too extensive proprietorship would by the action of natural economic laws right itself. Neither did he ever seem to object to the transfer of land by will, according to the desires of its owner. Indeed to deny a man this right is not to place land on the same footing as personal property, but on a different level. With Cob- den's opinions on these points we, generally speaking, concur. But when on the point of personal property, we must point out a remarkable blunder of Professor Rogers, which cuts away, at all events, part of an argument. He says (p. 85) that since a man who buys any other valuable except land acquires an in- defeasible title to that property, the same rule should hold good in respect of real property. But as a matter of fact, except in the rare cases of what is technically termed " market overt," the purchaser who buys without a title takes the article subject to all consequent risks, and is liable to have it taken from him by its rightful owner. Upon the Education question, Cob- den's views, briefly put, were that a system of religious education was best if the various religions bodies would agree. If you will have a religion, you must pay for all religions ; if you cannot do this, you must adopt the secular system. His final views appear to have been that the only way out of the difficulty was by secu- larism pure and simple. " I have taken refuge," be says, " in this, the secular system, in despair of carrying oat any system in connection with religion." On the whole, we are very glad that Professor Rogers has published this volume. There must of neces- sity be a good deal in such a collection of generalisations with which it is impossible to agree, and we hope that no one will accept all that the writer puts forward as gospel. Still, if it is not a work likely to prove a continuing monument to the memory of Cobden, it is certainly an acute and careful addition to current political literature.
Previous page
