to more simple nations. If a native inhabitant of Bengal or China were to be informed, that in the west of Europe there is a small island, which in the course of one hundred years contributed four hundred and fifty millions to the exigencies of the State, and that every individual, on the making of a demand, vied with his neighbour in alacrity to subscribe, he would immediately exclaim, “Magnanimous nation! you must surely be invincible." But far different would be his sentiments, if informed of the tricks and jobs attending these transactions, where even loyalty was seen cringing for its bonus! By a calculation I have made, which I believe cannot be controverted, it appears, from the vast increase of our burthens during the war, that if peace were to be concluded to-morrow, we should have to provide taxes annually to the amount of 28,000,0007. To this is further to be added, the expense of that system, by which Ireland is not governed, but ground, insulted, and oppressed. To find a remedy for all these incumbrances, the first thing to be done is, to restore the credit of the Bank, which has failed, as well in credit as in honour. Let it no longer, in the minister's hands, remain the slave of political circumstances. It must continue insolvent till the connection is broken off.

It is, Sir, highly offensive to the decency and sense of a commercial people, to observe the juggle between the minister and the Bank. The latter vauntingly boasted itself ready and able to pay; but that the minister kindly prevented, and put a lock and key upon it. There is a liberality in the British nation which always makes allowance for inability of payment. Commerce requires enterprise, and enterprise is subject to losses. But I believe no indulgence was ever shown to a creditor, saying, "I can, but will not pay you." Such was the real condition of the Bank, together with its accounts, when they were laid before the House of Commons; and the chairman reported from the committee, stating its prosperity, and the great increase of its cash and bullion. The minister, however, took care to verify the old saying, "Brag is a good dog, but Hold-fast is better." Ah!" said he, "my worthy chairman, this is excellent news, but I will take care to secure it.' He kept his word, took the money, gave exchequer bills for it, which were no security, and there was then an end to all our public credit. It is singular enough, Sir, that the report upon this bill stated that it was meant to secure our public credit from the avowed intentions of the French to make war upon it. This was done most effectually. Let the French come when they please, they cannot touch our public credit at least. The minister has wisely provided against it, for he has previously destroyed it. The only consolation besides that remains to us, is his assurance that all will return again to its former state at the conclusion of the war. Thus we are to hope, that though the Bank now presents a meagre spectre, as soon as peace is restored the golden bust will make its reappearance.

Though, Sir, I have opposed the present tax, I am still conscious that ou existing situation requires great sacrifices to be made, and

66

that a foreign enemy must at all events be resisted. I behold in the measures of the minister nothing except the most glaring incapacity, and the most determined hostility to our liberties; but we must be content, if necessary for preserving our independence from foreign attack, to strip to the skin. It is an established maxim," we are told, that men must give up a part for the preservation of the remainder. I do not dispute the justice of the maxim. But this is the constant language of the gentleman opposite me. We have already given up part after part, nearly till the whole is swallowed up. If I had a pound, and a person asked me for a shilling, to preserve the rest I should willingly comply, and think myself obliged to him. But if he repeated that demand till he came to my twentieth shilling, I should ask him,-"Where is the remainder? Where is my pound now? Why, my friend, that is no joke at all." Upon the whole, Sir, I see no salvation for the country but in the conclusion of a peace and the removal of the present ministers.

24.-RICHARD COBDEN ON PEACE.

SPEECH AT EXETER HALL, OCTOBER 30, 1849.

[In early life Mr. Cobden was chiefly engaged in commercial pursuits; but having entered Parliament as member for Stockport in 1841, with few intermissions, he was actively employed in political affairs to the time of his death. Born 1800. Died 1865.]

Ir is now, I believe, exactly two years since this island was frighted from its propriety by the cry of an impending invasion from France. You all remember how great was the alarm on that occasion. We were terrified with the threat of the French army marching in at one end of London, and the Horse Guards marching out at the other. You know that the highest military authority in the country swelled the chorus of that alarm. You recollect that orders were given to improve our coast defences, to add to our steam fleet, to put in motion our squadron of evolution, and to prepare to repel the attack of these hostile Frenchmen from our shores. Well, and what said the men of peace on that occasion? I can say of myself that it was that wicked cry, that consummation of a warlike system, that brought me into the ranks of the peace party of this country. We held our public meetings, and we protested that we did not regard the French as brigands, or as pirates-that we had faith that they had no intention whatever of making a wanton attack upon our shores. But we did more. We proposed to go and see these fierce and warlike people. Whilst the brave men, who trust to their armed forces, were digging steam-docks, launching steamships, and putting their coast defences in order, the men of peace were making their preparations to cross the Channel, and hold out the right hand of friendship and confidence to the French people. And we come to tell you that we have paid that visit, and that the hand we tendered has been most cordially grasped. We have now

the pleasure of seeing here a deputation from France; and it is in honour of those gentlemen, and of the other foreigners who are present, that we meet here to-day. In your name, and in the terms of this motion, I beg to tender them our hearty welcome.

When I look back, only for two years, and remember the arguments that were then adduced, openly and publicly, not only in our newspapers, but in our public assemblies,-when I remember the disparaging, insulting, suspicious language, that was applied to the people of France, when I recollect how every man was decried who ventured even a surmise that it was possible the great mass of the French people were not disposed for war-and when I think of the altered tone of those same journals which have, within the last month, complained that the French people-who, they had told us, were ready to break forth upon their neighbours, the moment Louis Philippe should die-are too pacific now, and cease to take any interest in foreign politics at all, I am tempted to ask, will these organs of the press learn a little modesty for the future? Will the lessons of these two short years have no effect upon them? Do they think the English people have no memories? Will they be more diffident after this exposure? I will wait till to-morrow morning before I offer an opinion.

When I became a party to the peace movement, it was with the conviction that the principles of peace, enjoined in the New Testament, would be advocated on the highest religious grounds, by men more competent by study, and more entitled by position and by profession, to deal with those arguments than myself. But I am very much afraid that those arguments are not alone sufficient to convince the politicians of the day. I am very sorry to say it, but I believe that that letter of Mr. Gurney, in which he gave his opinion as to the financial consequences of this warlike system, had more effect upon the minds of the politicians and influential statesmen of this country, than all the appeals he ever made, or ever could make, to their higher religious feelings. Having human beings to deal with, and secular objects to accomplish, we must bear in mind that, even if we have the sanction of Christianity for our principles, we must seek the accomplishment of our ends by human means, for God does not condescend, in our day, to work miracles, when man can accomplish his ends without them. I confess that, when I find myself in the midst of an assembly like this, I prefer to take up my position on what the enemy calls our weakest flank, and to show, as a practical man, and a politician, not only that the attack of the so-called statesmen of the day may be repelled, but that they may be utterly demolished on their own ground. One of the highest arts of state-craft is diplomacy? Have the politicians, who have been telling us that the French were coming to attack us, and striving to revive the old cry of national enmity, proved the best diplomatists, or the men of peace, who went over to Paris, and braved their sarcasms, whilst holding out the hand of fellowship to the French?

*

Let us hear no more boasts of their diplomacy; let us hear no more taunts against the peace party, as though they had no practical policy in view. What is the first essential of statecraft? Finance. What must be the fate of our opponents, if we try them by the test of their financial position just now? There is a great movement in the country for financial reform. Again, the peace party have anticipated them in the field; for there can be no financial reform, no material reduction of taxation, unless you resort to our principle of diminishing the armaments, and taking other precautions against war than that of keeping yourselves constantly armed to the teeth. What is the amount of our expenditure for all purposes, besides those of war, and warlike preparations? Let us bring our financial reformers to book, and tell them what it is, in two lines. Last year, our expenditure, in round numbers, was fifty-four millions sterling; out of which, forty-seven millions were expended on the interest of debts for past wars, or the cost of our peace establishments. More than six-sevenths of our taxation goes to pay the cost of past or present war establishments. Seven millions out of fifty-four paid the whole expense of our civil government, the civil list, the expense of our Queen's establishment, the administration of justice, the poor-law office, the offices of the home and foreign secretaries-paid, in fact, the whole cost of conducting the machinery of the civil government. Is it not clear, then, that any plan of financial reform must be a rank delusion, which does not include our policy of reducing the warlike expenditure?

Instead of our being always under arms, ready to fight the moment a misunderstanding arises, we propose that nations, like individuals, should settle their disputes by arbitration. It is said, our notion is very good in theory, but is not practicable. All we want the persons who say it is not practicable, to do, is, to try. I have not sufficient confidence in their judgment to take their word for anything I want to be done in this way. I want them to try, and if they do not succeed, then we will, at all events, give them credit for having done their best.

I am especially anxious that we should repudiate and denounce the principle of interference in the domestic affairs of independent countries. We boast that, with us, the house of every man who has not violated the laws of his country, is his castle, which he who forces is a burglar. What shall we say, then, to the burglary of nations, when one independent, self-governing state is invaded by a neighbouring and stronger nation, under the hypocritical pretext of the weaker country's advantage? Upon no principle of justice or right, can a foreign power interfere, by force, in the internal affairs of another and independent state-and, until this is thoroughly recognised, and acted upon, by the governments of the world, there can, practically, be no security against anarchy among nations. I say this equally, as to the interference of Russia with Hungary, of England with Spain, of France with Rome. There has been, indeed, a doctrine admitted in this country, with relation

to Hungary, which has affected me more poignantly than any political circumstance of recent date. It has been put forth from this country-not only by the press, but by the mouth of the Foreign Secretary-that, by the law of nations, the Austrian government had a right to call on a neighbouring power to aid it in putting down what it was pleased to call the rebellion of its people. Now, this is a question, not of the law of nations, but of the responsibility of the governors to the governed. The boy Emperor of Austria, expelled from his most important territory, has the right, it is said, to call in the Cossacks to cut the throats of his own subjects. If this be admitted, there is an end of the responsibility of governments to their people. In England, we have maintained, since 1688, the principle that the people are the sovereign source of power. Suppose that, at some future period— the supposition, under existing circumstances, is impossible—the English people were to come into conflict with their sovereign, and that he was defeated, as was the case with the Austrian government in Hungary, is it pretended that, in such a case, the sovereign would be justified in calling in the Turks, for example, to her aid, as Austria had called in Russia? Yet this is the principle advocated by those who approve the Russian intervention in Hungary. A large proportion of the daily press of this country has been hounding on the Cossacks in their brutal invasion-their cruel treatment of a more civilized and freer people. I reflect, with humiliation, as an Englishman, upon the part which these journals have taken upon this subject during the last few months-and I implore the men now present, who represent foreign countries on this occasion, to believe me when I assure them that these papers do not represent the public opinion or heart of this country. Let the Peace Congress, which is spreading its roots and its branches far and wide throughout the world, proclaim these four cardinal principles in faith and heart-arbitration instead of war; a simultaneous reduction of armaments; the denunciation of the right of any nation to interfere, by force, in the domestic affairs of any other nation; the repudiation of loans to warlike governments. Let these cardinal points be adhered to, and, with the Divine blessing, which cannot fail to be vouchsafed to so good a work, perseverance will ensure an eventual triumph to the friends of peace.