A famous man of letters represents certain tendencies more clearly than the average politician. Robert Southey (1777-1843), the "ultra servile sack-guzzler," as Bentham pleasantly calls him in 1823,[151]
was probably the best abused man, on his own side at least, among Mill"s contemporaries. He was attacked by Mill himself, and savagely denounced by Byron and Hazlitt. He was not only a conspicuous writer in the _Quarterly Review_ but, as his enemies thought, a renegade bought by pensions. It is, I hope, needless to defend him against this charge. He was simply an impatient man of generous instincts and no reflective power, who had in his youth caught the revolutionary fever, and, as he grew up, developed the patriotic fever.
Later views are given in the _Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society_ (1829), chiefly known to modern readers by one of Macaulay"s essays. Southey was as a.s.sailable as Mill. His political economy is a mere muddle; his political views are obviously distorted by accidental prejudices; and the whole book is desultory and disjointed. In a dialogue with the ghost of Sir Thomas More, he takes the opportunity of introducing descriptions of scenery, literary digressions, and quaint ill.u.s.trations from his vast stores of reading to the confusion of all definite arrangement. Southey is in the awkward position of a dogmatist defending a compromise. An Anglican claiming infallibility is necessarily inconsistent. His view of toleration, for example, is oddly obscure. He would apparently like to persecute infidels;[152] and yet he wishes to denounce the Catholic church for its persecuting principles. He seems to date the main social evils to the changes which began at the Reformation, and yet he looks back to the period which succeeded the Reformation as representing the ideal state of the British polity. His sympathy with the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries predisposed him to this position. He would have been more intelligible if he had been more distinctly reactionary. For all that, his views show the presence of a leaven which was materially to affect the later development of English opinions. That Jacobinism meant anarchy, and that anarchy led irresistibly to military despotism were propositions which to him, as to so many others, seemed to be established by the French revolution. What, then, was the cause of the anarchy? Sir Thomas More comes from the grave to tell us this, because he had witnessed the past symptoms of the process. The transition from the old feudal system to the modern industrial organisation had in his day become unmistakably developed. In feudal times, every man had his definite place in society; he was a member of a little group; supported, if controlled and disciplined, by an elaborate system of spiritual authority. The Reformation was the period at which the "masterless man" made his appearance. The conversion of pastures into arable land, the growth of commerce and of pauperism, were marks of the coming change. It proceeded quietly for some generations; but the development of the modern manufacturing system represents the operation of the same process on a far larger scale, and with far greater intensity. The result may be described by saying that we have instead of a legitimate development a degeneration of society. A vast populace has grown up outside of the old order. It is independent indeed, but at the heavy price of being rather an inorganic ma.s.s than a const.i.tuent part of the body politic. It is, briefly, to the growth of a huge "proletariate" outside the church, and hostile to the state, that Southey attributes all social evils.
The view has become familiar enough in various shapes; and in the reproaches which Southey brings against the manufacturing system we have an antic.i.p.ation of other familiar lamentations. Our manufacturing wealth is a "wen," a "fungous excrescence from the body politic";[153]
it is no more a proof of real prosperity than the size of a dropsical patient is a proof of health;[154] the manufacturer worships mammon instead of Moloch;[155] and wrings his fortune from the degradation of his labourers as his warlike ancestors wrung wealth from their slaves; he confines children in a tainted atmosphere, physical and moral, from morning till night, and a celebrated minister (Pitt) boasts of this very evil;[156] he treats his fellow-creatures as machines,[157] and wealth, though acc.u.mulated, is not diffused; the great capitalists, "like pikes in a fishpond," devour the weaker fish;[158] compet.i.tion is not directed to providing the best goods, but the cheapest;[159]
every man oppresses his neighbour; the landlord racks his tenant, the farmer grinds the labourer; all the little centres of permanent life are broken up; not one man in a thousand is buried with his fathers, and the natural ties and domestic affections are prematurely dissolved.[160]
Here, too, is to be found the source of the infidel opinions which call for suppression. London is a hotbed of corruption;[161] a centre of wealth; and yet, in spite of poor-laws, a place where wretches are dying of starvation, and which could collect a mob capable of producing the most appalling catastrophes. In such a place, men become unbelievers like savages, because removed from all humanising influences, and booksellers can carry on a trade in blasphemy.
Infidelity is bred in "the filth and corruption of large towns and manufacturing districts."[162] The disappearance of clerical influence has led to "a ma.s.s of ignorance, vice, and wretchedness which no generous heart can contemplate without grief."[163] It is not surprising that, in Southey"s opinion, it is doubtful whether the bulk of the people has gained or lost in the last thousand years.[164]
Macaulay takes all this as mere sentimentalism and preference of a picturesque outside to solid comfort. But whatever Southey"s errors of fact, they show at least a deeper insight than his opponent into some social evils. His proposed remedies explain his diagnosis of the evil.
In the first place, it is not surprising, though it surprised Macaulay, that he had many sympathies with the socialist, Robert Owen.
He saw Owen in 1816,[165] and was much impressed by his views. In the _Colloquies_,[166] Owen is called the "happiest, most beneficent, and most practical of all enthusiasts"; an account is given of one of the earliest co-operative schemes,[167] and Southey believes in the possibility of the plan. He makes, however, one significant remark.
Owen, he thinks, could not succeed without enlisting in his support some sectarian zeal. As Owen happened to object to all religious sects, this defect could not be remedied.
Southey, in fact, held that the absence of religious discipline was at the root of the whole evil. Religion, he declares, much to the scorn of Macaulay, "is the basis upon which civil government rests."[168]
There must, as he infers, be an established religion, and the state which neglects this duty is preparing its own ruin. "Nothing," he declares, "in abstract science can be more certain than these propositions," though they are denied by "our professors of the arts babblative and scribblative"--that is, by Benthamites and Whigs. For here, in fact, we come to the irreconcilable difference. Government is not to be a mere machinery for suppressing violence, but an ally of the church in spreading sound religion and morality. The rulers, instead of merely reflecting the popular will, should lead and direct all agencies for suppressing vice and misery. Southey, as his son takes pains to show,[169] though he was for upholding authority by the most stringent measures, was convinced that the one way to make government strong was to improve the condition of the people. He proposed many measures of reform; national education on the principles, of course, of Dr. Bell; state-aided colonisation and the cultivation of waste lands at home; Protestant sisterhoods to reproduce the good effects of the old order which he regretted and yet had to condemn on Anglican principles. The English church should have made use of the Wesleyans as the church of Rome had used the Franciscans and Dominicans; and his _Life of Wesley_ was prompted by his fond belief that this might yet be done. Government, he said, ought to be "paternal";[170] and his leading aspirations have been adopted by Socialists on the one hand, and the converts to Catholicism on the other.
For his philosophy, Southey was in the habit of referring to Coleridge; and Coleridge"s _Const.i.tution of Church and State_ is perhaps the book in which Coleridge comes nearest to bringing an argument to a conclusion. Though marked by his usual complexities of style, his parentheses and irrelevant allusions and glances at wide metaphysical discussions, he succeeds in laying down a sufficient sketch of his position. The book was originally published in 1830, and refers to the Catholic emanc.i.p.ation of the previous year. Unlike Southey, he approves of the measure, only regretting the absence of certain safeguards; and his general purpose may be said to be to give such a theory of the relations of church and state as may justify an establishment upon loftier grounds than those of the commonplace Tory.
His method, as he explains, is to find the true "idea" of a const.i.tution and a national church. The "idea," he explains, does not mean the conscious aim of the persons who founded or now const.i.tute the bodies in question. An "idea" is the subjective counterpart of an objective law.[171] It corresponds to the vital force which moulds the structure of the social organism, although it may never have been distinctly formulated by any one of the actors. In this sense, therefore, we should have to proceed by a historical method. We should study the const.i.tution as we study the physiology of a physical body;[172] and he works out the a.n.a.logy at some length. So far, Coleridge is expressing the characteristic view that Nature in general is to be regarded as an evolution; only that evolution is to be understood in the sense of Sch.e.l.ling not in the sense of either Darwin. Of course, when Coleridge professes to find the "idea" of the church and state, what he really finds is not the idea so much as his idea of the idea--which may be a very different thing. His theory of "evolution" is compatible with a.s.suming that evolutions are illegitimate whenever he happens to dislike them.
He coincides rather curiously with James Mill in a.s.serting that the "social bond" was originally formed to protect property, not to protect life.[173] He discovers accordingly that the ancient races, Jews, Goths, and Kelts alike, divided the land into two parts, one to be inherited by separate families, the other to be set apart for the nation. From the latter or the "nationalty" springs the church establishment. This property belongs rightfully and inalienably to the nation itself. It is held by what he calls the "clerisy." Its functions are, in the first place, to provide a career by which the poorest cla.s.ses may rise to a higher position; and secondly, to provide for the development of all the qualities which distinguish the civilised man from the savage.[174] Briefly, then, the church is that part of the national organism which is devoted to educating the people to be "obedient, free, useful organisable subjects, citizens, and patriots, living to the benefit of the estate, and prepared to die for its defence." Henry viii. would have surpa.s.sed Alfred if he had directed the "nationalty" to its true purposes; that is, especially to the maintenance of universities, of a parochial clergy, and of schools in every parish. Unluckily, Henry VIII."s "idea" of a national church was vague. Ideas were not his strong point. Coleridge appears to be especially troubled to work the principles into conformity with his views of Catholic emanc.i.p.ation. The peculiarity of the theory is that the church, according to him, seems to be simply a national inst.i.tution. It might exist, and in fact, did exist before Christianity, as is proved not only by the Jewish but by the Druidical church.[175] That it should be Christian in England is a "blessed accident," or "providential boon"--or, as he puts it, "most awfully a G.o.dsend." Hence it follows that a primary condition of its utility is that the clerisy should contribute to the support of the other organs of the community. They must not be the subjects of a foreign power, nor, as he argues at length, subject to the desocialising influence of celibacy. It follows that the Roman church is unfitted to be ever a national church, although, if that danger be sufficiently obviated, no political disqualifications should be imposed upon Romanists. And thus, too, the Church Catholic is essentially a body which has no relations to any particular state. It is opposed to the world, not to the nation, and can have no visible head or "personal centre of unity."[176] The church which makes such claims is the revelation of Antichrist.
We need not inquire into the prophecies. It is enough to say that to Coleridge as to Southey the preservation of an established church seemed to be an essential condition of morality and civilisation. They differed from the ordinary Tory, who was content to defend any of the abuses by the cry of sacrilege and confiscation. The church was to be made worthy of its position, and rendered capable of discharging its high functions effectually. Coleridge, it may be said, would fully admit that an organ which had ceased to correspond to its idea must die. It could not continue to preserve itself by mere force of obstruction, but must arouse, throw off its abuses, and show itself to be worthy of its high claims. Meanwhile, however, he was perhaps more anxious to show the Utilitarians that in a.s.sailing the inst.i.tution on account of its abuses, they were really destroying the most essential guarantee of progress. He sums up, in a curious pa.s.sage, the proofs of modern degradation.[177] The wicked eighteenth century is of course responsible for everything. The "mechanic corpuscular theory"; the consequent decay of philosophy, ill.u.s.trated by such phrases as an excellent "idea" of cooking; "the ourang-outang theology of the origin of the human species subst.i.tuted for the first ten chapters of the book of Genesis; rights of nature for the duties and privileges of citizens; idealess facts, misnamed proofs from history, for principles and the insight derived from them": all these and other calamitous results of modern philosophy are connected with a neglect of the well-being of the people, the mistaking of a large revenue for prosperity, and the consumption of gin by paupers to the "value of eighteen millions yearly." He appeals pathetically to the leaders of the Utilitarians. They will scorn him for p.r.o.nouncing that a "natural clerisy" is "an essential element of a rightly const.i.tuted nation."
All their tract societies and mechanics" inst.i.tutes and "lecture bazaars under the absurd name of universities" are "empiric specifics"
which feed the disease. Science will be plebified, not popularised.
The morality necessary for a state "can only exist for the people in the form of religion. But the existence of a true philosophy, or the power and habit of contemplating particulars in the unity and fontal mirror of the idea,--this in the rulers and teachers of a nation is indispensable to a sound state of religion in all cla.s.ses. In fact, religion, true or false, is and ever has been the centre of gravity in a realm to which all other things must and will accommodate themselves."
The existence of the eighteenth century always remained a hopeless puzzle for Coleridge and his followers. Why at that period everything went wrong in the higher regions of thought remained a mystery. "G.o.d is above," says Sir Thomas More to Southey,[178] "but the devil is below; evil principles are in their nature more active than good." The devil seemed to have got into the upper air, and was working with his allies, Bentham and Mill and Paine and Cobbett, with remarkable success. But, whatever the theories of conservatives in church and state, the fact that the theories were held is important. The diametrical opposition between two schools, one of which regarded the church as a simple abuse, and its doctrines as effete superst.i.tions, while the other looked to the church and its creed as giving the sole hope for suppressing the evil principle, was a critical point in later movements, political as well as religious.
IV. SOCIALISM
I have spoken of Southey"s sympathy for Robert Owen. Owen (1771-1858) is one of the characteristic figures of the time. He was the son of a village tradesman in Wales, and had risen to prosperity by the qualities of the virtuous apprentice. Industry, patience, an imperturbably good temper, and sagacity in business matters had raised him to high position as a manufacturer at the time of the rapid advance of the cotton trade. Many poor men have followed the same path to wealth. Owen"s peculiarity was that while he became a capitalist he preserved his sympathy with the working cla.s.ses. While improving machinery, he complained that the "living machinery" was neglected.
One great step in his career was his marriage to the daughter of David Dale of New Lanark, a religious and worthy manufacturer.[179] Dale had employed a number of pauper children who were in that day to be disposed of by their parishes; and had done his best to make their position more tolerable. Owen took up this scheme, and carried it out more systematically. New Lanark, in his hands, became a model village; he provided in various ways for the encouragement of sobriety, industry, and honesty among his workmen, set up stores to supply cheap and good provisions, and especially provided infant schools and a systematic education. "The children," he declares, "were the happiest human beings he ever saw." When his partners interfered with his plans, Owen bought them out and started the company to which Bentham and Allen belonged. New Lanark rapidly became famous. It was visited by all the philanthropists of the day. The royal dukes not only of England but of Russia were interested; and Owen even believed that he had converted Napoleon at Elba. So far, Owen was a benevolent capitalist, exercising a paternal sway over his people. He became convinced, however, that he had discovered the key to the great social problems of the day. When the distresses followed the peace, he was prepared to propound his remedy, and found many willing hearers in all cla.s.ses. Liverpool and Sidmouth listened to him with favour, and the duke of Kent became president of a committee started to carry out his views. He gave the impetus to the movement by which the Factory Act of 1819 was carried, although it was far from embodying his proposals in their completeness.
Owen"s diagnosis of the social disease explains Southey"s partiality.
Like Southey, he traced the evil to the development of the manufacturing system. That system involved, as he held, what later Socialists have called the "exploitation" of the labouring cla.s.ses by the capitalists. With singularly crude notions of political economy, Owen a.s.sumed that the "dead machinery" was in compet.i.tion with the "living machinery." He made startling calculations as to the amount of human labour represented by steam-engines; and took for granted that the steam-engine displaced an equal number of workmen. His remedy for poverty was to set up a number of communities, which should maintain themselves by cultivating the soil with the spade, and in which every man should labour for all. Thus New Lanarks were to be spread over the country, with the difference that the employer was to be omitted. Owen, in short, became properly a Socialist, having been simply a paternal philanthropist. For a time Owen met with considerable support. A great meeting was held in London in 1817, and a committee was started two years afterwards, of which Ricardo was a member. Ricardo, indeed, took pains to let it be known that he did not believe in the efficacy of Owen"s plans. Meanwhile Owen was breaking off his connection with New Lanark, and becoming the apostle of a new social creed. His missionary voyages took him to Ireland, to the United States and Mexico, and attempts were made to establish communities in Scotland and in the State of Illinois.
Owen and his followers became natural antagonists of the Utilitarians.
He agreed with Southey in tracing distress to the development of the great manufacturing system, though he went much further. The principles essentially involved in the whole industrial system were, according to him, pernicious. He held the essential doctrine of his modern successors that property is theft. Between such a man and the men who took the _Wealth of Nations_ for their gospel, and Ricardo as its authorised commentator, there was an impa.s.sable gulf. On the other hand, Owen was equally far from the Tory view of religious principles. Southey"s remark that he could only succeed by allying himself with some religious fanaticism was just to the point.
Owen was a man of very few ideas, though he held such as he had with extraordinary tenacity, and enforced them by the effective if illogical method of incessant repet.i.tion. Among them was the idea which, as he declares, had occurred to him before he was ten years old that there was something radically wrong in all religions. Whether this opinion had come to him from the diffused rationalism of his time, or was congenial to the practical and prosaic temperament which was disquieted by the waste of energy over futile sectarian squabbles, or was suggested by his early study of Seneca--the only author of whom he speaks as having impressed him in early years--it became a fixed conviction. He had been an early supporter of Lancaster and "unsectarian" education. When his great meeting was to be held in 1817 it occurred to him that he might as well announce his views. He accordingly informed his hearers that the religions of the world were the great obstacles to progress. He expected, as he a.s.sures us, that this candid avowal would cause him to be "torn in pieces." It provoked on the contrary general applause, and Owen congratulated himself rather hastily on having struck the deathblow of superst.i.tion.
Owen"s position, at any rate, was a significant symptom. It showed that the Socialist movement sprang from motives outside the sphere of the churches. Owen"s personal simplicity and calmness seems to have saved him from any bitter animosity. He simply set aside Christianity as not to the purpose, and went on calmly a.s.serting and re-a.s.serting his views to Catholics and Protestants, Whigs, Radicals, and Tories.
They agreed in considering him to be a bore, but were bored rather than irritated. Owen himself, like later Socialists, professed indifference to the political warfare of Whigs and Tories. When, at the height of the Reform movement, he published a paper called the _Crisis_, the t.i.tle referred not to the struggle in which all the upper cla.s.ses were absorbed, but to the industrial revolution which he hoped to bring about. He would have been equally ready to accept help from Whig, Tory, or Radical; but his position was one equally distasteful to all. The Tory could not ally himself with the man who thought all religions nonsense; nor any of the regular parties with the man who condemned the whole industrial system and was opposed to all the cherished prejudices of the respectable middle cla.s.ses.
Owen"s favourite dogma is worth a moment"s notice. He was never tired of repeating that "character is formed by circ.u.mstances"; from which he placidly infers that no man deserves praise or blame for his conduct. The inference, it must be admitted, is an awkward one in any ethical system. It represents, probably, Owen"s most serious objection to the religions of the world. The ultimate aim of the priest is to save men"s souls; and sin means conduct which leads to supernatural punishment. Owen, on the contrary, held that immorality was simply a disease to be cured, and that wrath with the sinner was as much out of place as wrath with a patient. In this sense Owen"s view, as I at least should hold, defines the correct starting-point of any social reformer. He has to consider a scientific problem, not to be an agent of a supernatural legislator. He should try to alter the general conditions from which social evils spring, not to deal in pardons or punishment. Owen was acting with thoroughly good sense in his early applications of this principle. The care, for example, which he bestowed upon infant education recognised the fact that social reform implied a thorough training of the individual from his earliest years.
Owen"s greatest error corresponds to the transformation which this belief underwent in his mind. Since circ.u.mstances form character, he seems to have argued, it is only necessary to change the circ.u.mstances of a grown-up man to alter his whole disposition. His ambitious scheme in America seemed to suppose that it was enough to bring together a miscellaneous collection of the poor and discontented people, and to invite them all to behave with perfect unselfishness. At present I need only remark that in this respect there was a close coincidence between Owen and the Utilitarians. Both of them really aimed at an improvement of social conditions on a scientific method; and both justified their hopes by the characteristic belief in the indefinite modifiability of human nature by external circ.u.mstances.
I turn to a man who was in some ways the most complete ant.i.thesis to Owen. William Cobbett (1762-1835), unlike Owen, took a pa.s.sionate and conspicuous part in the political struggles of the day. Cobbett, declares the _Edinburgh Review_ in July 1807, has more influence than all the other journalists put together. He had won it, as the reviewer thought, by his force of character, although he had changed his politics completely "within the last six months." The fact was more significant than was then apparent. Cobbett, son of a labourer who had risen to be a small farmer, had in spite of all obstacles learned to read and write and become a great master of the vernacular. His earliest model had been Swift"s _Tale of a Tub_, and in downright vigour of homely language he could scarcely be surpa.s.sed even by the author of the _Drapier"s Letters_. He had enlisted as a soldier, and had afterwards drifted to America. There he had become conspicuous as a typical John Bull. St.u.r.dy and pugnacious in the highest degree, he had taken the English side in American politics when the great question was whether the new power should be bullied by France or by England. He had denounced his precursor, Paine, in language savouring too much, perhaps, of barrack-rooms, but certainly not wanting in vigour. He defied threats of tar and feathers; put a portrait of George III. in his shop-window; and gloried in British victories, and, in his own opinion, kept American policy straight. He had, however, ended by making America too hot to hold him; and came back to declare that republicanism meant the vilest and most corrupt of tyrannies, and that, as an Englishman, he despised all other nations upon earth. He was welcomed on his return by Pitt"s government as likely to be a useful journalist, and became the special adherent of Windham, the ideal country-gentleman and the ardent disciple of Burke"s principles.
He set up an independent paper and heartily supported the war. On the renewal of hostilities in 1803 Cobbett wrote a manifesto[180] directed by the government to be read in every parish church in the kingdom, in order to rouse popular feeling. When Windham came into office in 1806, Cobbett"s friends supposed that his fortune was made. Yet at this very crisis he became a reformer. His conversion was put down, of course, to his resentment at the neglect of ministers. I do not think that Cobbett was a man to whose character one can appeal as a conclusive answer to such charges. Unfortunately he was not free from weaknesses which prevent us from denying that his political course was affected by personal motives. But, in spite of weaknesses and of countless inconsistencies, Cobbett had perfectly genuine convictions and intense sympathies which sufficiently explain his position, and make him more attractive than many less obviously imperfect characters. He tells us unconsciously what were the thoughts suggested to a man penetrated to the core by the strongest prejudices--they can hardly be called opinions--of the true country labourer.
The labourer, in the first place, if fairly represented by Cobbett, had none of the bitter feeling against the n.o.bility which smouldered in the French peasantry. Cobbett looked back as fondly to the surroundings of his youth as any n.o.bleman could look back to Eton or to his country mansion. He remembered the "sweet country air" round Crooksbury Hill, the song of birds, and the rambles through heather and woodland. He loved the rough jovial sports; bull-baiting and prize-fighting and single-stick play. He had followed the squire"s hounds on foot, and admired without jealousy the splendid gardens of the bishop"s palace at Farnham. Squire and parson were an intrinsic part of the general order of things. The state of the English working cla.s.ses was, he often declares, the happiest that could be imagined,[181] and he appeals in confirmation to his own memories.
Although, upon enlisting, he had found the army corrupt, he not only loved the soldier for the rest of his life, but shared to the full the patriotic exultation which welcomed the 1st of June and the Nile. Even to the last, he could not stomach the abandonment of the t.i.tle "King of France"; for so long as it was retained, it encouraged the farmer to tell his son the story of Crecy and Agincourt.[182]
What, then, alienated Cobbett? Briefly, the degradation of the cla.s.s he loved. "I wish," he said, "to see the poor men of England what the poor men of England were when I was born, and from endeavouring to accomplish this task, nothing but the want of means shall make me desist."[183] He had a right to make that boast, and his ardour in the cause was as unimpeachable as honourable. It explains why Cobbett has still a sympathetic side. He was a ma.s.s of rough human nature; no prig or bundle of abstract formulae, like Paine and his Radical successors.
Logic with him is not in excess, but in defect. His doctrines are hopelessly inconsistent, except so far as they represent his stubborn prejudices. Any view will serve his purpose which can be made a weapon of offence in his mult.i.tudinous quarrels. Cobbett, like the Radicals of the time, was frightened by the gigantic progress of the debt. He had advocated war; but the peasant who was accustomed to reckon his income by pence, and had cried like a child when he lost the price of a red herring, was alarmed by the reckless piling up of millions of indebtedness. In 1806 he calmly proposed to his patron Windham to put matters straight by repudiating the interest. "The nation must destroy the debt, or the debt will destroy the nation," as he argued in the _Register_.[184] The proposal very likely caused the alienation of a respectable minister, though propounded with an amusing air of philosophical morality. Cobbett"s alarm developed until it became to him a revelation of the mystery of iniquity. His Radical friends were denouncing placemen and jobbery, and Cobbett began to perceive what was at the bottom of the evil. The money raised to carry on the war served also to support a set of bloodsuckers, who were draining the national strength. Already, in 1804, he was lamenting a change due to Pitt"s funding system. The old families, he said, were giving way to "loanjobbers, contractors, and nabobs"; and the country people amazed to find that their new masters had been "butchers, bakers, bottle-corkers, and old-clothesmen."[185] Barings and Ricardos and their like were swallowing up the old country gentry wholesale; and in later years he reckons up, as he rides, the changes in his own neighbourhood.[186] His affection for the old country-gentleman might be superficial; but his lamentations over the degradation of the peasantry sprang from his heart. It was all, in his eyes, part of one process. Paper money, he found out, was at the bottom of it all; for paper money was the outward and visible symbol of a gigantic system of corruption and jobbery. It represented the device by which the hard-earned wages of the labourer were being somehow conjured away into the pockets of Jews and stockjobbers. The cla.s.ses which profited by this atrocious system formed what he called the "Thing"--the huge, intricate combination of knaves which was being denounced by the Radicals--though with a difference. Cobbett could join the reformers in so far as, like them, he thought that the rotten boroughs were a vital part of the system. He meets a miserable labourer complaining of the "hard times." The harvest had been good, but its blessings were not for the labourer. That "accursed hill," says Cobbett, pointing to old Sarum, "is what has robbed you of your supper."[187] The labourer represented the cla.s.s whose blood was being sucked.
So far, then, as the Radicals were a.s.sailing the borough-mongers, Cobbett could be their cordial ally. Two years" imprisonment for libel embittered his feelings. In the distress which succeeded the peace, Cobbett"s voice was for a time loudest in the general hubbub. He reduced the price of his _Register_, and his "two-penny trash" reached a circulation of 25,000 or 30,000 copies. He became a power in the land, and antic.i.p.ated the immediate triumph of reform. The day was not yet. Sidmouth"s measures of repression frightened Cobbett to America (March 1819), where he wrote his history of the "last hundred days of English liberty." He returned in a couple of years, damaged in reputation and broken in fortune; but only to carry on the war with indomitable energy, although with a recklessness and extravagance which alienated his allies and lowered his character. He tried to cover his errors by brags and bombast, which became ridiculous, and which are yet not without significance.
Cobbett came back from America with the relics of Paine. Paine, the object of his abuse, had become his idol, not because Cobbett cared much for any abstract political theories, or for religious dogmas.
Paine"s merit was that he had attacked paper money. To Cobbett, as to Paine, it seemed that English banknotes were going the way of French a.s.signats and the provincial currency of the Americans. This became one main topic of his tirades, and represented, as he said, the "Alpha and Omega" of English politics. The theory was simple. The whole borough-mongering system depended upon the inflated currency. p.r.i.c.k that bubble and the whole would collapse. It was absolutely impossible, he said, that the nation should return to cash payments and continue to pay interest on the debt. Should such a thing happen, he declared, he would "give his poor body up to be broiled on one of Castlereagh"s widest-ribbed gridirons."[188] The "gridiron prophecy"
became famous; a gridiron was for long a frontispiece to the _Register_; and Cobbett, far from retracting, went on proving, in the teeth of facts, that it had been fulfilled. His inference was, not that paper should be preserved, but that the debt should be treated with a "sponge."
Cobbett, therefore, was an awkward ally of political economists, whose great triumph was the resumption of cash payments, and who regarded repudiation as the deadly sin. The burthen of the debt, meanwhile, was so great that repudiation was well within the limits of possibility.[189] Cobbett, in their eyes, was an advocate of the grossest dishonesty, and using the basest incentives. Cobbett fully retorted their scorn. The economists belonged to the very cla.s.s whom he most hated. He was never tired of denouncing Scottish "feelosophers"; he sneers at Adam Smith,[190] and Ricardo was to him the incarnation of the stock-jobbing interest. Cobbett sympathised instinctively with the doctrine of the French economists that agriculture was the real source of all wealth. He nearly accepts a phrase, erroneously attributed to Windham, "Perish Commerce"; and he argues that commerce was, in fact, of little use, and its monstrous extension at the bottom of all our worst evils.[191] n.o.body could be more heartily opposed to the spirit which animated the political economists and the whole cla.s.s represented by them. At times he spoke the language of modern Socialists. He defines Capital as "money taken from the labouring cla.s.ses, which, being given to army tailors and suchlike, enables them to keep foxhounds and trace their descent from the Normans."[192]
The most characteristic point of his speculations is his view of the poor-laws. n.o.body could speak with more good sense and feeling of the demoralisation which they were actually producing, of the sapping of the spirit of independence, and of all the devices by which the agricultural labourer was losing the happiness enjoyed in early years.
But Cobbett"s deduction from his principles is peculiar. "Parson Malthus" is perhaps the favourite object of his most virulent abuse.
"I have hated many men," he says, "but never any one so much as you,"
"I call you parson," he explains, "because that word includes "boroughmonger" among other meanings, though no single word could be sufficient."[193] Cobbett rages against the phrase "redundant population." There would be plenty for all if the borough-mongers and stockjobbers could be annihilated, taxes abolished, and the debt repudiated. The ordinary palliatives suggested were little to the taste of this remarkable Radical. The man who approved bull-fighting and supported the slave-trade naturally sneered at "heddekashun," and thought savings-banks a mean device to interest the poor in the keeping up of the funds. His remedy was always a sponge applied to the debt, and the abolition of taxes.
This leads, however, to one remarkable conclusion. Cobbett"s attack upon the church establishment probably did more to cause alarm than any writings of the day. For Paine"s attacks upon its creed he cared little enough. "Your religion," said a parson to him, "seems to be altogether political." It might well be, was Cobbett"s retort, since his creed was made for him by act of parliament.[194] In fact, he cared nothing for theology, though he called himself a member of the church of England, and retained an intense dislike for Unitarians, dissenters in general, "saints" as he called the Evangelical party, Scottish Presbyterians, and generally for all religious sects. He looked at church questions solely from one point of view. He had learned, it seems, from a pa.s.sage in Ruggles"s _History of the Poor_,[195] that the t.i.thes had been originally intended to support the poor as well as the church. Gradually, as he looked back upon the "good old times," he developed the theory expounded in his _History of the Reformation_. It is a singular performance, written at the period of his most reckless exasperation (1824-27), but with his full vigour of style. He declares[196] in 1825 that he has sold forty-five thousand copies, and it has been often reprinted. The purpose is to show that the Reformation was "engendered in beastly l.u.s.t, brought forth in hypocrisy, and cherished and fed by plunder and devastation, and by rivers of English and Irish blood."[197] Briefly, it is the cause of every evil that has happened since, including "the debt, the banks, the stockjobbers, and the American revolution."[198] In proving this, Cobbett writes in the spirit of some vehement Catholic bigot, maddened by the penal laws. Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and William III.
are his monsters; the Marys of England and Scotland his ideal martyrs.
He almost apologises for the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew and the Gunpowder Plot; and, in spite of his patriotism, attributes the defeat of the Armada to a storm, for fear of praising Elizabeth. The bitterest Ultramontane of to-day would shrink from some of this Radical"s audacious statements. Cobbett, in spite of his extravagance, shows flashes of his usual shrewdness. He remarks elsewhere that the true way of studying history is to examine acts of parliament and lists of prices of labour and of food;[199] and he argues upon such grounds for the prosperity of the agricultural labourer under Edward III., "when a dung-cart filler could get a fat goose and a half for half a day"s work." He makes some telling hits, as when he contrasts William of Wykeham with Brownlow North, the last bishop of Winchester.
Protestants condemned celibacy. Well, had William been married, we should not have had Winchester school, or New College; had Brownlow North been doomed to celibacy, he would not have had ten sons and sons-in-law to share twenty-four rich livings, besides prebends and other preferments; and perhaps he would not have sold small beer from his episcopal palace at Farnham. Cobbett"s main doctrine is that when the Catholic church flourished, the population was actually more numerous and richer, that the care of the priests and monks made pauperism impossible, and that ever since the hideous blunder perpetrated by the reformers everything has been going from bad to worse. When it was retorted that the census proved the population to be growing, he replied that the census was a lie. Were the facts truly stated, he declares, we should have a population of near twenty-eight million in England by the end of this century,[200] a manifest _reductio ad absurdum_. If it were remarked that there was a Catholic church in France, and that Cobbett proves his case by the superiority of the English poor to the French poor, he remarked summarily that the French laws were different.[201]
Thus, the one monster evil is the debt, and the taxes turn out to have been a Protestant invention made necessary by the original act of plunder. That was Cobbett"s doctrine, and, however perverse might be some of his reasonings, it was clearly to the taste of a large audience. The poor-law was merely a partial atonement for a vast and continuous process of plunder. Corrupt as might be its actual operation, it was a part of the poor man"s patrimony, extorted by fear from the gang of robbers who fattened upon their labours.
Cobbett"s theories need not be discussed from the logical or historical point of view. They are the utterances of a man made unscrupulous by his desperate circ.u.mstances, fighting with boundless pugnacity, ready to strike any blow, fair or foul, so long as it will vex his enemies, and help to sell the _Register_. His pugnacity alienated all his friends. Not only did Whigs and Tories agree in condemning him, but the Utilitarians hated and despised him, and his old friends, Burnett and Hunt, were alienated from him, and reviled by him. His actual followers were a small and insignificant remnant. Yet Cobbett, like Owen, represented in a crude fashion blind instincts of no small importance in the coming years. And it is especially to be noted that in one direction the philosophic Coleridge and the keen Quarterly Reviewer Southey, and the Socialist Owen and the reactionary Radical Cobbett, were more in agreement than they knew. What alarmed them was the vast social change indicated by the industrial revolution. In one way or another they connected all the evils of the day with the growth of commerce and manufactures, and the breaking up of the old system of domestic trade and village life.[202] That is to say, that in a dumb and inarticulate logic, though in the loudest tones of denunciation, Tories and Socialists, and nondescript Radicals were raging against the results of the great social change, which the Utilitarians regarded as the true line of advance of the day. This gives the deepest line of demarcation, and brings us to the political economy, which shows most fully how the case presented itself to the true Utilitarian.
FOOTNOTES:
[80] Bain"s _James Mill_, p. 215.
[81] _Autobiography_, p. 104.
[82] _Miscellaneous Works_ (Popular Edition), p. 131.
[83] The articles from the _Encyclopaedia_ upon Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of the Press, Prisons and Prison Discipline, Colonies, Law of Nations, Education, were reprinted in a volume "not for sale," in 1825 and 1828. I quote from a reprint not dated.
[84] "Government," pp. 3-5.
[85] "Government," p. 8.
[86] "Government," p. 9.