XX.

RICHARD COBDEN AND, ROBERT PEEL

AND THE REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWS-FREE TRADE.

Richard Cobden was a grand man-of noble charactervastly more of a Christian philanthropist than statesman or politician. He saw truths and great principles through the heart experiences, the affections, the impulses of sympathy, rather than through the reason, the understanding and cold deductions of the logician. He was a great lover of men, and his whole life was spent in endeavoring to ameliorate and soften their conditions instead of attempting to build up himself at the expense of his contemporaries.

While in full sympathy with the whole throbbing life of the race in every grade or department, he, like all philanthropists, gave especial attention to those grades and those classes of society, least able to fight their own battles and dominate and control their own destinies. Every man was his brother, and every woman his sister, and no higher honor than this can be given him, or any other man. This relation for him, established the brotherhood of mankind, and with him, led up to the fatherhood of God.

He was humbly born and reared, which may largely account for his broad humanitarian and philanthropic sympathies, tendencies and experiences; and while of humble birth and early experiences, yet he was born to a noble heritage. The environmnt could not have been better for such a man. The very atmosphere quivered with throbbing lifepregnant with the desire for change-the leaving of the old -the putting on of the new-the crash of armies, the rise and fall of nations filled the air; the spirit of discovery, of invention, of excessive avarice and great accumulations had taken possession of the strong men of the times. Science, politics, religion and the avaricious tendency and military spirit of the age were all aroused and active. Moreover, ne

appeared at a time when a large number of England's greatest men were on the stage and making the history of that era. There was Robert Peel, John Bright, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Disraeli, Gladstone, Wellington, and a host of others, who have been influential in moulding English history and character. The very fact of coming in contact with such grand men and exalted characters is always ennobling to rising, thoughtful and aspiring men.

His ancestors were plebeian; his father a farmer, and his grandfather a maltster, and oftentimes a petty official in local and county matters.

He was born near Midhurst, in Sussex, June 3d, 1804. His early education was limited to a partial attendance on the grammar school at Midhurst. At sixteen he went to London, into a warehouse of his uncle; but there he soon became acquainted with the London Institute, and made ample use of its large and well selected library. This settled his convictions, and determined his life work. Here he found the ever congenial companionship of the noble souls of the past, who have achieved immortality, and live forever in the history, the art, the poetry and the romance of the former periods.

At twenty he became a commercial traveler, and his keen, analytical mind was continually at work upon the great economic and financial questions of the day; but especially was he drawn to the causes of the existing poverty and the avenues of relief for the laboring poor. At one time he was engaged for a brief period in manufacturing. He published a large number of pamphlets on various economic and philanthropic subjects then agitating the public mind.

In 1835 he published his first, entitled England, Ireland and America, by a Manchester manufacturer. In spite of its sophomorical title, it had a great sale. It was especially distinguished by its bold and broad views on political and social questions, and considered as the result of an original mind.

He traveled much for a man of that age; came to America several times; went to Russia, to Egypt, to France and Germany a number of times, among all these nations endeavoring to establish a national brotherhood, by which war would cease; all commercial relations be, as far as possible, free and unrestricted by state and national limitations, and the

barriers between capital and labor, the rich and the poor, broken down and removed.

He was not a statesman, in the broader sense of the term, in that he did not understand how to control majorities sufficient to support and carry into effect his advanced theories. Statesmanship is not only the choice of, and the advocacy of, the noblest principles of the social and governmental life of the race, but it demands such a presentation and advocacy of the principles involved as will carry conviction to the majorities, and insure their adoption and perpetuity by the people. In this Cobden was signally deficient. He, unconsciously to himself, was far ahead of his would-be supporters, so that instead of being the controlling power in the politics and statesmanship of his era, he was almost always, and perhaps with a single exception, always in the minority. He was, therefore, labeled as an extremist-a theorist an unsafe, visionary and impractical man, as a statesman and politician, as too fond of the new, and too ready to leave the honored and tried methods of experience. As is usually the case, much weaker, more visionary and unstable men often surpassed him in political achievements because they kept within the possible and the practical.

He was a strong, audacious, clear, analytical writer, and one to whom it was difficult to reply, there being little left of the subject when he was done with it. He was a logical, clear, ready, enthusiastic and powerful speaker, but in most cases so far in advance of the consensus of the thought of his associates that he was often and easily beaten by men far less able than he, but who never left the more cheerful and more congenial atmosphere of the staid majorities. It is so comfortable to have an abundance of sympathy and support in political action, and for that matter, in all forms of life. His, however, was an earnest, enthusiastic soul that had so much to say that he was unmindful the size of his audience to whom he addressed himself, and the great limitations of mere politicians in their thoughts and acts. He seemed to be the great obstructionist of his time. He opposed the course adopted by his government in the Crimean war; he said in the House of Commons: "You must address yourselves as men of sense and energy to the question: What are you to do with the Christian population in Turkey? For Mohammedanism cannot be maintained, and I would be

sorry to see this country fighting for the maintenance of Mohammedanism."

Again, in 1857, he opposed the course of his government in burning the twenty-three ships belonging to the Chinese navy, and bombarding the city of Canton. After he had examined the official documents he became convinced that these proceedings were wholly unrighteous.

Again, while we believe he was right, when he favored the North in our last great war, yet he opposed beyond question the strong sentiment of his government, and the leading classes of his nation, for they were unquestionably with the South in that struggle.

Thus his isolated position from the majorities, or governmental forces, that crystallize and mould advanced theories into practice and law, kept him from having any controlling influence with the forces that enter into the makeup of the governing powers of a nation.

The great exception-in which he and his co-laborers were successful in establishing a great principle or doctrine -was that of free trade, or the repeal of the Corn Laws, about which I will speak further on.

He died of some bronchial affection, April 2d, 1865, at his apartments in Suffolk Street, London.

Gladstone said of him, after a twelve months' labor to bring about a treaty with the French that would bring the two nations into closer relations, and thus render war less likely to occur: "Rare is the privilege of any man who, having fourteen years ago rendered a signal service (referring to the repeal of the Corn laws), now again, within the same brief span of life, decorated neither by land or title, bearing no mark to distinguish him from the people he loves, has been permitted to perform another great and memorable service to his sovereign and his country."

Palmerston and Bright spoke in the highest terms of him in the House of Commons, when his death was announced; and Disraeli, with rare felicity of language, extolled his character, and said he was "an ornament to the House of Commons, and an honor to England."

The French minister of foreign affairs said of him: "He is above all, in our eyes, the representative of those sentiments and those cosmopolitan principles before which national frontiers and rivalries disappear. Whilst essentially

of his country, he was still more of his time; he knew what mutual relations could accomplish in our day for the prosperity of the people. Cobden, if I may be permitted to say so, was an international man.”

ROBERT PEEL.

The other exemplification of thought and action in government, given to us for the evening, is Robert Peel.

He was a scion of that new era and new aristocracy of wealth which sprang from the rapid discoveries and development of manufacturing industries in the latter part of the eighteenth century.

His grandfather was a cotton spinner, and a wealthy man; and his father made a princely fortune out of the same busi

ness.

He was therefore born to wealth, privilege and glorious opportunity. He was fully abreast of every occasion, was a fine student always; had every advantage then to be enjoyed, and triumphed in them all. He was a graduate of Oxford, and was attached to the Protestant Church. He was born near Chamber Hall, Lancashire, February 5th, 1788, and died July 2d, 1850, sixty-two years of age. He was twice prime minister, and for many years a prominent and leading statesman of the British Empire. He was a man of thorough culture-a man whose armor was nearly bullet proof. Fortune had favored him on every hand, and he had garnered her gifts, until his entire equipment was a magnificent readiness and preparation for any event in the social, financial and political movements of national and private life.

He was, perhaps, no broader, deeper or greater man than Cobden, as far as theories, inventions and principles for the actual needs of the life of the people was concerned; but in the adoption of them in the governmental forces of the nation, he was far more discreetly wise.

His thorough culture and equipment-the result of fine natural abilities-and faithful application to the lessons before him, and every possible opportunity, prepared him for every emergency.

His actions, while warm and sympathetic, and in the interests of the people, yet were the result of definite purpose, the