than in Western Europe; but this idea is probably erroneous. See
_Stirling's Russia_, Lond. 1841, pp. 59, 60. The benevolence and
charitable disposition of the Russians are attested by Pinkerton,
who had good means of information, and was by no means prejudiced
in their favour. See _Pinkerton's Russia_, Lond. 1833, pp. 335,
336. Sir John Sinclair also says they are 'prone to acts of
kindness and charity.' _Sinclair's Correspondence_, vol. ii. p.
241.
[336] The reverence of the Russian people for their clergy has attracted
the attention of many observers, and is, indeed, too notorious to
require proof.
[337] A very observing and intelligent writer says, 'Russia has only two
ranks--the highest and the lowest.' _Letters from the Baltic_,
Lond. 1841, vol. ii. p. 185. 'Les marchands, qui formeraient une
classe moyenne, sont en si petit nombre qu'ils ne peuvent marquer
dans l'état: d'ailleurs presque tous sont étrangers; ... où donc
trouver cette classe moyenne qui fait la force des états?'
_Custine's Russie_, vol. ii. pp. 125, 126: see also vol. iv.
p. 74.
[338] A recent authoress, who had admirable opportunities of studying
the society of St. Petersburg, which she estimated with that fine
tact peculiar to an accomplished woman, was amazed at this state
of things among classes surrounded with every form of luxury and
wealth: 'a total absence of all rational tastes or literary
topics.... Here it is absolutely _mauvais genre_ to discuss a
rational subject--mere _pédanterie_ to be caught upon any topics
beyond dressing, dancing, and a _jolie tournure_.' _Letters from
the Baltic_, 1841, vol. ii. p. 233. M. Custine (_La Russie en
1839_, vol. i. p. 321) says 'Règle générale, personne ne profère
jamais un mot qui pourrait intéresser vivement quelqu'un.' At
vol. ii. p. 195, 'De toutes les facultés de l'intelligence, la
seule qu'on estime ici c'est le tact.' Another writer of repute,
M. Kohl, contemptuously observes, that in Russia, 'the depths of
science are not even guessed at.' _Kohl's Russia_, 1842, Lond. p.
142.
[339] According to Schnitzler, 'Precedence is determined, in Russia, by
military rank; and an ensign would take the _pas_ of a nobleman
not enrolled in the army, or occupying some situation giving
military rank.' _M'Culloch's Geog. Dict._ 1849, vol. ii. p. 614.
The same thing is stated in _Pinkerton's Russia_, 1833, p. 321.
M. Erman, who travelled through great part of the Russian empire,
says, 'In the modern language of St. Petersburg, one constantly
hears a distinction of the greatest importance, conveyed in the
inquiry which is habitually made respecting individuals of the
educated class: Is he a plain-coat or a uniform?' _Erman's
Siberia_, vol. i. p. 45. See also on this preponderance of the
military classes, which is the inevitable fruit of the national
ignorance, _Kohl's Russia_, pp. 28, 194; _Stirling's Russia under
Nicholas the First_, p. 7; _Custine's Russie_, vol. i. pp. 147,
152, 252, 266, vol. ii. pp. 71, 128, 309, vol. iii. p. 328, vol.
iv. p. 284. Sir A. Alison (_History of Europe_, vol. ii. pp. 391,
392) says, 'The whole energies of the nation are turned towards
the army. Commerce, the law, and all civil employments, are held
in no esteem; the whole youth of any consideration betake
themselves to the profession of arms.' The same writer (vol. x.
p. 566) quotes the remark of Bremner, that 'nothing astonishes
the Russian or Polish noblemen so much as seeing the estimation
in which the civil professions, and especially the bar, are held
in Great Britain.'
In England, on the other hand, opposite causes have produced opposite
results. With us intellectual progress is so rapid, and the authority of
the middle class so great, that not only have military men no influence
in the government of the state, but there seemed at one time even a
danger lest we should push this feeling to an extreme; and lest, from
our detestation of war, we should neglect those defensive precautions
which the enmity of other nations makes it advisable to adopt. But this
at least we may safely say, that, in our country, a love of war is, as a
national taste, utterly extinct. And this vast result has been effected,
not by moral teachings, nor by the dictates of moral instinct; but by
the simple fact, that in the progress of civilization there have been
formed certain classes of society which have an interest in the
preservation of peace, and whose united authority is sufficient to
control those other classes whose interest lies in the prosecution of
war.
It would be easy to conduct this argument further, and to prove how, by
an increasing love of intellectual pursuits, the military service
necessarily declines, not only in reputation, but likewise in ability.
In a backward state of society men of distinguished talents crowd to the
army, and are proud to enrol themselves in its ranks. But, as society
advances, new sources of activity are opened, and new professions arise,
which, being essentially mental, offer to genius opportunities for
success more rapid than any formerly known. The consequence is, that in
England, where these opportunities are more numerous than elsewhere, it
nearly always happens that if a father has a son whose faculties are
remarkable, he brings him up to one of the lay professions, where
intellect, when accompanied by industry, is sure to be rewarded. If,
however, the inferiority of the boy is obvious, a suitable remedy is at
hand: he is made either a soldier or a clergyman; he is sent into the
army, or hidden in the church. And this, as we shall hereafter see, is
one of the reasons why, as society advances, the ecclesiastical spirit
and the military spirit never fail to decline. As soon as eminent men
grow unwilling to enter any profession, the lustre of that profession
will be tarnished: first its reputation will be lessened, and then its
power will be abridged. This is the process through which Europe is
actually passing, in regard both to the church and to the army. The
evidence, so far as the ecclesiastical profession is concerned, will be
found in another part of this work. The evidence respecting the military
profession is equally decisive. For although that profession has in
modern Europe produced a few men of undoubted genius, their number is so
extremely small, as to amaze us at the dearth of original ability. That
the military class, taken as a whole, has a tendency to degenerate, will
become still more obvious if we compare long periods of time. In the
ancient world, the leading warriors were not only possessed of
considerable accomplishments, but were comprehensive thinkers in
politics as well as in war, and were in every respect the first
characters of their age. Thus--to give only a few specimens from a
single people--we find that the three most successful statesmen Greece
ever produced were Solon, Themistocles, and Epaminondas,--all of whom
were distinguished military commanders. Socrates, supposed by some to be
the wisest of the ancients, was a soldier; and so was Plato; and so was
Antisthenes, the celebrated founder of the Cynics. Archytas, who gave a
new direction to the Pythagorean philosophy; and Melissus, who developed
the Eleatic philosophy--were both of them well-known generals, famous
alike in literature and in war. Among the most eminent orators,
Pericles, Alcibiades, Andocides, Demosthenes, and Æschines were all
members of the military profession; as also were the two greatest tragic
writers, Æschylus and Sophocles. Archilochus, who is said to have
invented iambic verses, and whom Horace took as a model, was a soldier;
and the same profession could likewise boast of Tyrtæus, one of the
founders of elegiac poetry, and of Alcæus, one of the best composers of
lyric poetry. The most philosophic of all the Greek historians was
certainly Thucydides; but he, as well as Xenophon and Polybius, held
high military appointments, and on more than one occasion succeeded in
changing the fortunes of war. In the midst of the hurry and turmoil of
camps, these eminent men cultivated their minds to the highest point
that the knowledge of that age would allow: and so wide is the range of
their thoughts, and such the beauty and dignity of their style, that
their works are read by thousands who care nothing about the sieges and
battles in which they were engaged.
These were among the ornaments of the military profession in the ancient
world; and all of them wrote in the same language, and were read by the
same people. But in the modern world this identical profession,
including many millions of men, and covering the whole of Europe, has
never been able, since the sixteenth century, to produce ten authors who
have reached the first class either as writers or as thinkers. Descartes
is an instance of an European soldier combining the two qualities; he
being as remarkable for the exquisite beauty of his style as for the
depth and originality of his inquiries. This, however, is a solitary
case; and there is, I believe, no second one of a modern military writer
thus excelling in both departments. Certainly, the English army, during
the last two hundred and fifty years, affords no example of it, and has,
in fact, only possessed two authors, Raleigh and Napier, whose works are
recognized as models, and are studied merely for their intrinsic merit.
Still, this is simply in reference to style; and these two historians,
notwithstanding their skill in composition, have never been reputed
profound thinkers on difficult subjects, nor have they added anything of
moment to the stock of our knowledge. In the same way, among the
ancients, the most eminent soldiers were likewise the most eminent
politicians, and the best leaders of the army were generally the best
governors of the state. But here, again, the progress of society has
wrought so great a change, that for a long period instances of this have
been excessively rare. Even Gustavus Adolphus and Frederick the Great
failed ignominiously in their domestic policy, and showed themselves as
short-sighted in the arts of peace as they were sagacious in the arts of
war. Cromwell, Washington, and Napoleon are, perhaps, the only
first-rate modern warriors of whom it can be fairly said, that they were
equally competent to govern a kingdom and command an army. And, if we
look at England as furnishing a familiar illustration, we see this
remark exemplified in our two greatest generals, Marlborough and
Wellington. Marlborough was a man not only of the most idle and
frivolous pursuits, but was so miserably ignorant, that his deficiencies
made him the ridicule of his contemporaries; and of politics he had no
other idea but to gain the favour of the sovereign by flattering his
mistress, to desert the brother of that sovereign at his utmost need,
and afterwards, by a double treachery, turn against his next benefactor,
and engage in a criminal, as well as a foolish, correspondence with the
very man whom a few years before he had infamously abandoned. These were
the characteristics of the greatest conqueror of his age, the hero of a
hundred fights, the victor of Blenheim and of Ramilies. As to our other
great warrior, it is indeed true that the name of Wellington should
never be pronounced by an Englishman without gratitude and respect:
these feelings are, however, due solely to his vast military services,
the importance of which it would ill become us to forget. But whoever
has studied the civil history of England during the present century
knows full well that this military chief, who in the field shone without
a rival, and who, to his still greater glory be it said, possessed an
integrity of purpose, an unflinching honesty, and a high moral feeling,
which could not be surpassed, was nevertheless utterly unequal to the
complicated exigencies of political life. It is notorious, that in his
views of the most important legislative measures he was always in the
wrong. It is notorious, and the evidence of it stands recorded in our
Parliamentary Debates, that every great measure which was carried, every
great improvement, every great step in reform, every concession to the
popular wishes, was strenuously opposed by the Duke of Wellington,
became law in spite of his opposition, and after his mournful
declarations that by such means the security of England would be
seriously imperilled. Yet there is now hardly a forward schoolboy who
does not know that to these very measures the present stability of our
country is mainly owing. Experience, the great test of wisdom, has
amply proved, that those vast schemes of reform, which the Duke of
Wellington spent his political life in opposing, were, I will not say
expedient or advisable, but were indispensably necessary. That policy of
resisting the popular will which he constantly advised is precisely the
policy which has been pursued, since the Congress of Vienna, in every
monarchy except our own. The result of that policy is written for our
instruction: it is written in that great explosion of popular passion,
which in the moment of its wrath upset the proudest thrones, destroyed
princely families, ruined noble houses, desolated beautiful cities. And
if the counsel of our great general had been followed, if the just
demands of the people had been refused--this same lesson would have been
written in the annals of our own land; and we should most assuredly have
been unable to escape the consequence of that terrible catastrophe, in
which the ignorance and selfishness of rulers did, only a few years ago,
involve a large part of the civilized world.
Thus striking is the contrast between the military genius of ancient
times, and the military genius of modern Europe. The causes of this
decay are clearly traceable to the circumstance that, owing to the
immense increase of intellectual employments, few men of ability will
now enter a profession into which, in antiquity, men of ability eagerly
crowded, as supplying the best means of exercising those faculties
which, in more civilized countries, are turned to a better account.
This, indeed, is a very important change; and thus to transfer the most
powerful intellects from the arts of war to the arts of peace, has been
the slow work of many centuries, the gradual, but constant,
encroachments of advancing knowledge. To write the history of those
encroachments would be to write the history of the human intellect--a
task impossible for any single man adequately to perform. But the
subject is one of such interest, and has been so little studied, that
though I have already carried this analysis farther than I had intended,
I cannot refrain from noticing what appear to me to be the three leading
ways in which the warlike spirit of the ancient world has been weakened
by the progress of European knowledge.
The first of these arose out of the invention of Gunpowder; which,
though a warlike contrivance, has in its results been eminently
serviceable to the interests of peace.[340] This important invention is
said to have been made in the thirteenth century;[341] but was not in
common use until the fourteenth, or even the beginning of the fifteenth,
century. Scarcely had it come into operation, when it worked a great
change in the whole scheme and practice of war. Before this time, it was
considered the duty of nearly every citizen to be prepared to enter the
military service, for the purpose either of defending his own country,
or of attacking others.[342] Standing armies were entirely unknown; and
in their place there existed a rude and barbarous militia, always ready
for battle, and always unwilling to engage in those peaceful pursuits
which were then universally despised. Nearly every man being a soldier,
the military profession, as such, had no separate existence; or, to
speak more properly, the whole of Europe composed one great army, in
which all other professions were merged. To this the only exception was
the ecclesiastical profession; but even that was affected by the general
tendency, and it was not at all uncommon to see large bodies of troops
led to the field by bishops and abbots, to most of whom the arts of war
were in those days perfectly familiar.[343] At all events, between these
two professions men were necessarily divided: the only avocations were
war and theology; and if you refused to enter the church, you were bound
to serve in the army. As a natural consequence, everything of real
importance was altogether neglected. There were, indeed, many priests
and many warriors, many sermons and many battles.[344] But, on the other
hand, there was neither trade, nor commerce, nor manufactures; there was
no science, no literature: the useful arts were entirely unknown; and
even the highest ranks of society were unacquainted, not only with the
most ordinary comforts, but with the commonest decencies of civilized
life.
[340] The consequences of the invention of gunpowder are considered very
superficially by Frederick Schlegel (_Lectures on the History of
Literature_, vol. ii. pp. 37, 38), and by Dugald Stewart
(_Philosophy of the Mind_, vol. i. p. 262). They are examined
with much greater ability, though by no means exhaustively, in
_Smith's Wealth of Nations_, book v. chap. i. pp. 292, 296, 297;
_Herder's Ideen zur Geschichte der Menschheit_, vol. iv. p. 301;
_Hallam's Middle Ages_, vol. ii. p. 470.
[341] From the following authorities, it appears impossible to trace it
further back than the thirteenth century; and it is doubtful
whether the Arabs were, as is commonly supposed, the inventors:
_Humboldt's Cosmos_, vol. ii. p. 590; _Koch_, _Tableaux des
Révolutions_, vol. i. p. 242; _Beckmann's History of Inventions_,
1846, vol. ii. p. 505; _Histoire Lit. de la France_, vol. xx. p.
236; _Thomson's History of Chemistry_, vol. i. p. 36; _Hallam's
Middle Ages_, vol. i. p. 341. The statements in _Erman's
Siberia_, vol. i. pp. 370, 371, are more positive than the
evidence we are possessed of will justify; but there can be no
doubt that a sort of gunpowder was at an early period used in
China, and in other parts of Asia.
[342] _Vattel, le Droit des Gens_, vol. ii. p. 129; _Lingard's History
of England_, vol. ii. pp. 356, 357. Among the Anglo-Saxons, 'all
free men and proprietors of land, except the ministers of
religion, were trained to the use of arms, and always held ready
to take the field at a moment's warning.' _Eccleston's English
Antiquities_, p. 62. 'There was no distinction between the
soldier and the citizen.' _Palgrave's Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_,
vol. i. p. 200.
[343] On these warlike ecclesiastics, compare _Grose's Military Antiq._
vol. i. pp. 67-8; _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. pp. 26,
183, vol. iii. p. 14; _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. p.
458, vol. v. pp. 92, 402, 406; _Mosheim's Eccl. History_, vol. i.
pp. 173, 193, 241; _Crichton's Scandinavia_, Edinb. 1838, vol. i.
p. 220. Such opponents were the more formidable, because in those
happy days it was sacrilege for a layman to lay hands on a
bishop. In 1095 his Holiness the Pope caused a council to
declare, 'Quòd qui apprehenderit episcopum omnino exlex fiat.'
_Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 18. As the context contains no
limitation of this, it would follow that a man became spiritually
outlawed if he, even in self-defence, took a bishop prisoner.
[344] As Sharon Turner observes of England under the Anglo-Saxon
government, 'war and religion were the absorbing subjects of this
period.' _Turner's History of England_, vol. iii. p. 263. And a
recent scientific historian says of Europe generally: 'alle
Künste und Kenntnisse, die sich nicht auf das edle Kriegs-, Rauf-
und Raubhandwerk bezogen, waren überflüssig und schädlich. Nur
etwas Theologie war vonnöthen, um die Erde mit dem Himmel zu
verbinden.' _Winckler, Geschichte der Botanik_, 1854, p. 56.
But so soon as gunpowder came into use, there was laid the foundation of
a great change. According to the old system, a man had only to possess,
what he generally inherited from his father, either a sword or a bow,
and he was ready equipped for the field.[345] According to the new
system, new means were required, and the equipment became more costly
and more difficult. First, there was the supply of gunpowder;[346] then
there was the possession of muskets, which were expensive weapons, and
considered difficult to manage.[347] Then, too, there were other
contrivances to which gunpowder naturally gave rise, such as pistols,
bombs, mortars, shells, mines, and the like.[348] All these things, by
increasing the complication of the military art, increased the necessity
of discipline and practice; while, at the same time, the change that was
being effected in the ordinary weapons deprived the great majority of
men of the possibility of procuring them. To suit these altered
circumstances, a new system was organized: and it was found advisable to
train up bodies of men for the sole purpose of war, and to separate
them as much as possible from those other employments in which formerly
all soldiers were occasionally engaged. Thus it was that there arose
standing armies; the first of which were formed in the middle of the
fifteenth century,[349] almost immediately after gunpowder was generally
known. Thus, too, there arose the custom of employing mercenary troops;
of which we find a few earlier instances, though the practice was not
fully established until the latter part of the fourteenth century.[350]
[345] In 1181, Henry II. of England ordered that every man should have
either a sword or bow; which he was not to sell, but leave to his
heir: 'cæteri autem omnes haberent wanbasiam, capellum ferreum,
lanceam et gladium, vel arcum et sagittas: et prohibuit ne
aliquis arma sua venderet vel invadiaret; sed cùm moreretur,
daret illa propinquiori hæredi suo.' _Rog. de Hov. Annal. in
Scriptores post Bedam_, p. 348 rev. In the reign of Edward I., it
was ordered that every man possessing land to the value of forty
shillings should keep 'a sword, bow and arrows, and a dagger....
Those who were to keep bows and arrows might have them out of the
forest.' _Grose's Military Antiquities_, vol. ii. pp. 301, 302.
Compare _Geijer's History of the Swedes_, part i. p. 94. Even
late in the fifteenth century, there were at the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge, 'in each from four to five thousand
scholars, all grown up, carrying swords and bows, and in great
part gentry.' _Sir William Hamilton on the History of
Universities_, in _Hamilton's Philosoph. Discussions_, p. 414.
One of the latest attempts made to revive archery was a warrant
issued by Elizabeth in 1596, and printed by Mr. Collier in the
_Egerton Papers_, pp. 217-220, edit. Camden Soc. 1840. In the
south-west of England, bows and arrows did not finally disappear
from the muster-rolls till 1599; and in the meantime the musket
gained ground. See _Yonge's Diary_, edit. Camden Soc. 1848,
p. xvii.
[346] It is stated by many writers that no gunpowder was manufactured in
England until the reign of Elizabeth. _Camden's Elizabeth_, in
_Kennett's History_, vol. ii. p. 388, London, 1719; _Strickland's
Queens of England_, vol. vi. p. 223, Lond. 1843; _Grose's
Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 378. But Sharon Turner
(_History of England_, vol. vi. pp. 490, 491, Lond. 1839) has
shown, from an order of Richard III. in the Harleian manuscripts,
that it was made in England in 1483; and Mr. Eccleston (_English
Antiquities_, p. 182, Lond. 1847) states, that the English both
made and exported it as early as 1411: compare p. 202. At all
events, it long remained a costly article; and even in the reign
of Charles I., I find a complaint of its dearness, 'whereby the
train-bands are much discouraged in their exercising.'
_Parliament. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 655. In 1686, it appears from the
_Clarendon Correspondence_, vol. i. p. 413, that the wholesale
price ranged from about 2_l._ 10_s._ to 3_l._ per barrel. On the
expense of making it in the present century, see _Liebig and
Kopp's Reports on Chemistry_, vol. iii. p. 325, Lond. 1852.
[347] The muskets were such miserable machines, that, in the middle of
the fifteenth century, it took a quarter of an hour to charge and
fire one. _Hallam's Middle Ages_, vol. i. p. 342. Grose
(_Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 146, vol. ii. pp. 292, 337)
says, that the first mention of muskets in England is in 1471;
and that rests for them did not become obsolete until the reign
of Charles I. In the recent edition of _Beckmann's History of
Inventions_, Lond. 1846, vol. ii. p. 535, it is strangely
supposed that muskets were 'first used at the battle of Pavia.'
Compare _Daniel_, _Histoire de la Milice_, vol. i. p. 464, with
_Smythe's Military Discourses_, in _Ellis's Original Letters_, p.
53, edit. Camden Society.
[348] Pistols are said to have been invented early in the sixteenth
century. _Grose's Military Antiq._ vol. i. pp. 102, 146.
Gunpowder was first employed in mining towns in 1487. _Prescott's
Hist. of Ferdinand and Isabella_, vol. ii. p. 32; _Koch_,
_Tableaux des Révolutions_, vol. i. p. 243; _Daniel_, _Histoire
de la Milice Française_, vol. i. p. 574. Daniel (_Milice
Française_, vol. i. pp. 580, 581) says that bombs were not
invented till 1588; and the same thing is asserted in _Biographie
Universelle_, vol. xv. p. 248: but, according to Grose (_Military
Antiq._ vol. i. p. 387), they are mentioned by Valturinus in
1472. On the general condition of the French artillery in the
sixteenth century, see _Relations des Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_,
vol. i. pp. 94, 476, 478, Paris, 1838, 4to: a curious and
valuable publication. There is some doubt as to the exact period
in which cannons were first known; but they were certainly used
in war before the middle of the fourteenth century. See _Bohlen_,
_das alte Indien_, vol. ii. p. 63; _Daniel_, _Histoire de la
Milice_, vol. i. pp. 441, 442.
[349] _Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol. i. p. 413; _Daniel, Hist. de la
Milice_, vol. i. p. 210, vol. ii. pp. 491, 493; _[OE]uvres de
Turgot_, vol. viii. p. 228.
[350] The leading facts respecting the employment of mercenary troops
are indicated with great judgment by Mr. Hallam, in his _Middle
Ages_, vol. i. p. 328-337.
The importance of this movement was soon seen, by the change it effected
in the classification of European society. The regular troops being,
from their discipline, more serviceable against the enemy, and also more
immediately under the control of the government, it naturally followed
that, as their merits became understood, the old militia should fall,
first into disrepute, then be neglected, and then sensibly diminish. At
the same time, this diminution in the number of undisciplined soldiers
deprived the country of a part of its warlike resources, and therefore
made it necessary to pay more attention to the disciplined ones, and to
confine them more exclusively to their military duties. Thus it was that
a division was first broadly established between the soldier and the
civilian; and there arose a separate military profession,[351] which,
consisting of a comparatively small number of the total amount of
citizens, left the remainder to settle in some other pursuit.[352] In
this way immense bodies of men were gradually weaned from their old
warlike habits; and being, as it were, forced into civil life, their
energies became available for the general purposes of society, and for
the cultivation of those arts of peace which had formerly been
neglected. The result was, that the European mind, instead of being, as
heretofore, solely occupied either with war or with theology, now struck
out into a middle path, and created those great branches of knowledge to
which modern civilization owes its origin. In each successive generation
this tendency towards a separate organization was more marked; the
utility of a division of labour became clearly recognized; and by this
means knowledge itself advanced, the authority of this middle or
intellectual class correspondingly increased. Each addition to its power
lessened the weight of the other two classes, and checked those
superstitious feelings and that love of war, on which, in an early state
of society, all enthusiasm is concentrated. The evidence of the growth
and diffusion of this intellectual principle is so full and decisive,
that it would be possible, by combining all the branches of knowledge,
to trace nearly the whole of its consecutive steps. At present, it is
enough to say, that, taking a general view, this third, or intellectual,
class, first displayed an independent, though still a vague, activity in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; that in the sixteenth century,
this activity, assuming a distinct form, showed itself in religious
outbreaks; that in the seventeenth century, its energy, becoming more
practical, was turned against the abuses of government, and caused a
series of rebellions, from which hardly any part of Europe escaped; and
finally, that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it has
extended its aim to every department of public and private life,
diffusing education, teaching legislators, controlling kings, and, above
all, settling on a sure foundation that supremacy of Public Opinion, to
which not only constitutional princes, but even the most despotic
sovereigns, are now rendered strictly amenable.
[351] Grose (_Military Antiquities_, vol. i. pp. 310, 311) says, that
until the sixteenth century, English soldiers had no professional
dress, but 'were distinguished by badges of their leaders' arms,
similar to those now worn by watermen.' It was also early in the
sixteenth century that there first arose a separate military
literature. _Daniel_, _Hist. de la Milice_, vol. i. p. 380: 'Les
auteurs, qui ont écrit en détail sur la discipline militaire: or
ce n'est guères que sous François I, et sous l'Empereur Charles
V, que les Italiens, les François, les Espagnols et les Allemans
ont commencé à écrire sur ce sujet.'
[352] The change from the time when every layman was a soldier, is very
remarkable. Adam Smith (_Wealth of Nations_, book v. chap. i. p.
291) says, 'Among the civilized nations of modern Europe, it is
commonly computed, that not more than the one-hundredth part of
the inhabitants of any country can be employed as soldiers,
without ruin to the country which pays the expense of their
service.' The same proportion is given in _Sadler's Law of
Population_, vol. i. p. 292; and in _Grandeur et Décadence des
Romains_, chap. iii.--_[OE]uvres de Montesquieu_, p. 130: also in
_Sharpe's History of Egypt_, vol. i. p. 105; and in _Alison's
History of Europe_, vol. xii. p. 318.
These, indeed, are vast questions; and, without some knowledge of them,
no one can understand the present condition of European society, or form
the least idea of its future prospects. It is, however, sufficient that
the reader can now perceive the way in which so slight a matter as the
invention of gunpowder diminished the warlike spirit, by diminishing the
number of persons to whom the practice of war was habitual. There were,
no doubt, other and collateral circumstances which tended in the same
direction; but the use of gunpowder was the most effectual, because, by
increasing the difficulty and expense of war, it made a separate
military profession indispensable; and thus, curtailing the action of
the military spirit, left an overplus, an unemployed energy, which soon
found its way to the pursuits of peace, infused into them a new life,
and began to control that lust of conquest, which, though natural to a
barbarous people, is the great enemy of knowledge, and is the most fatal
of those diseased appetites by which even civilized countries are too
often afflicted.
The second intellectual movement, by which the love of war has been
lessened, is much more recent, and has not yet produced the whole of its
natural effects. I allude to the discoveries made by Political Economy:
a branch of knowledge with which even the wisest of the ancients had not
the least acquaintance, but which possesses an importance it would be
difficult to exaggerate, and is, moreover, remarkable, as being the only
subject immediately connected with the art of government that has yet
been raised to a science. The practical value of this noble study,
though perhaps only fully known to the more advanced thinkers, is
gradually becoming recognized by men of ordinary education: but even
those by whom it is understood seem to have paid little attention to the
way in which, by its influence, the interests of peace, and therefore of
civilization, have been directly promoted.[353] The manner in which this
has been brought about, I will endeavour to explain, as it will furnish
another argument in support of that great principle which I wish to
establish.
[353] The pacific tendencies of political economy are touched on very
briefly in _Blanqui_, _Histoire de l'Economie Politique_, vol.
ii. p. 207; and in _Twiss's Progress of Political Economy_,
p. 240.
It is well known, that, among the different causes of war, commercial
jealousy was formerly one of the most conspicuous; and there are
numerous instances of quarrels respecting the promulgation of some
particular tariff, or the protection of some favourite manufacture.
Disputes of this kind were founded upon the very ignorant, but the very
natural notion, that the advantages of commerce depend upon the balance
of trade, and that whatever is gained by one country must be lost by
another. It was believed that wealth is composed entirely of money; and
that it is, therefore, the essential interest of every people to import
few commodities and much gold. Whenever this was done, affairs were said
to be in a sound and healthy state; but, if this was not done, it was
declared that we were being drained of our resources, and that some
other country was getting the better of us, and was enriching itself at
our expense.[354] For this the only remedy was to negotiate a
commercial treaty, which should oblige the offending nation to take more
of our commodities, and give us more of their gold: if, however, they
refused to sign the treaty, it became necessary to bring them to reason;
and for this purpose an armament was fitted out to attack a people who,
by lessening our wealth, had deprived us of that money by which alone
trade could be extended in foreign markets.[355]
[354] This favourite doctrine is illustrated in a curious 'Discourse,'
written in 1578, and printed in _Stow's London_, in which it is
laid down, that if our exports exceed our imports, we gain by the
trade; but that, if they are less, we lose. _Stow's London_,
edit. Thoms, 1842, p. 205. Whenever this balance was disturbed,
politicians were thrown into an agony of fear. In 1620, James I.
said, in one of his long speeches, 'It's strange that my Mint
hath not gone this eight or nine years; but I think the fault of
the want of money is the uneven balancing of trade.' _Parl.
History_, vol. i. p. 1179; see also the debate 'On the Scarcity
of Money,' pp. 1194-1196. In 1620, the House of Commons, in a
state of great alarm, passed a resolution, 'That the importation
of tobacco out of Spain is one reason of the scarcity of money in
this kingdom.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. i. p. 1198. In 1627, it was
actually argued in the House of Commons that the Netherlands were
being weakened by their trade with the East Indies, because it
carried money out of the country! _Parl. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 220.
Half a century later, the same principle was advocated by Sir
William Temple in his Letters, and also in his Observations upon
the United Provinces. _Temple's Works_, vol. i. p. 175, vol. ii.
pp. 117, 118.
[355] In 1672, the celebrated Earl of Shaftesbury, then Lord Chancellor,
announced that the time had come when the English must go to war
with the Dutch; for that it was 'impossible both should stand
upon a balance; and that, if we do not master their trade, they
will ours. They or we must truckle. One must and will give the
law to the other. There is no compounding, where the contest is
for the trade of the whole world.' _Somers' Tracts_, vol. viii.
p. 39. A few months later, still insisting on the propriety of
the war, he gave as one of his reasons that it 'was necessary to
the trade of England that there should be a fair adjustment of
commerce in the East Indies.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. iv. p. 587. In
1701, Stepney, a diplomatist and one of the lords of trade,
published an essay, strongly insisting on the benefits which
would accrue to English commerce by a war with France. _Somers'
Tracts_, vol. xi. pp. 199, 217; and he says, p. 205, that one of
the consequences of peace with France would be 'the utter ruin
and destruction of our trade.' See also, in vol. xiii. p. 688,
the remarks on the policy of William III. In 1743, Lord
Hardwicke, one of the most eminent men of his time, said, in the
House of Lords, 'If our wealth is diminished, it is time to ruin
the commerce of that nation which has driven us from the markets
of the Continent--by sweeping the seas of their ships, and by
blockading their ports.' _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_,
vol. v. p. 89.
This misconception of the true nature of barter was formerly
universal;[356] and being adopted even by the ablest politicians, was
not only an immediate cause of war, but increased those feelings of
natural hatred by which war is encouraged; each country thinking that it
had a direct interest in diminishing the wealth of its neighbours.[357]
In the seventeenth, or even late in the sixteenth century, there were,
indeed, one or two eminent thinkers who exposed some of the fallacies
upon which this opinion was based.[358] But their arguments found no
favour with those politicians by whom European affairs were then
administered. It is doubtful if they were known; and it is certain that,
if known, they were despised by statesmen and legislators, who, from the
constancy of their practical occupations, cannot be supposed to have
sufficient leisure to master each new discovery that is successively
made; and who in consequence are, as a body, always in the rear of their
age. The result was, that they went blundering on in the old track,
believing that no commerce could flourish without their interference,
troubling that commerce by repeated and harassing regulations, and
taking for granted that it was the duty of every government to benefit
the trade of their own people by injuring the trade of others.[359]
[356] In regard to the seventeenth century, see _Mill's History of
India_, vol. i. pp. 41, 42. To this I may add, that even Locke had
very confused notions respecting the use of money in trade. See
_Essay on Money_, in _Locke's Works_, vol. iv.; and in particular
pp. 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 49-52. Berkeley, profound thinker as he
was, fell into the same errors, and assumes the necessity of
maintaining the balance of trade, and lessening our imports in
proportion as we lessen our exports. See the _Querist_, Nos.
xcix. clxi., in _Berkeley's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 246, 250: see
also his proposal for a sumptuary law, in _Essay towards
Preventing the Ruin of Great Britain_, in _Works_, vol. ii. p.
190. The economical views of Montesquieu (_Esprit des Lois_,
livre xx. chap. xii. in _[OE]uvres_, p. 353) are as hopelessly
wrong; while Vattel (_Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 111, 117, 118,
206) goes out of his way to praise the mischievous interference
of the English government, which he recommends as a pattern to
other states.
[357] The Earl of Bristol, a man of some ability, told the House of
Lords, in 1642, that it was a great advantage to England for
other countries to go to war with each other; because by that
means we should get their money, or, as he called it, their
'wealth.' See his speech, in _Parl. History_, vol. ii. pp.
1274-1279.
[358] Serra, who wrote in 1613, is said to have been the first to prove
the absurdity of discouraging the exportation of the precious
metals. See _Twiss on the Progress of Political Economy_, pp. 8,
12, 13. But I believe that the earliest approach towards modern
economical discoveries is a striking essay published in 1581, and
ascribed to William Stafford. It will be found in the _Harleian
Miscellany_, vol. ix. pp. 139-192, edit. Park, 1812; and the
title, _Brief Conceipt of English Policy_, gives an inadequate
idea of what is, on the whole, the most important work on the
theory of politics which had then appeared: since the author not
only displays an insight into the nature of price and value, such
as no previous thinker possessed, but he points out clearly the
causes of that system of enclosures which is the leading
economical fact in the reign of Elizabeth, and is intimately
connected with the rise of the poor-laws. Some account of this
essay is given by Dr. Twiss; but the original is easily
accessible, and should be read by every student of English
history. Among other heretical propositions, it recommends free
trade in corn.
[359] In regard to the interference of the English legislature, it is
stated by Mr. M'Culloch (_Polit. Econ._ p. 269), on the authority
of a committee of the House of Commons, that before the year
1820, 'no fewer than two thousand laws with respect to commerce
had been passed at different periods.' It may be confidently
asserted, that every one of those laws was an unmitigated evil,
since no trade, and indeed no interest of any kind, can be
protected by government without inflicting immeasurably greater
loss upon the unprotected interests and trades; while, if the
protection is universal, the loss will be universal. Some
striking instances of the absurd laws which have been passed
respecting trade, are collected in _Barrington's Observations on
the Statutes_, pp. 279-285. Indeed, it was considered necessary
that every parliament should do something in this way; and
Charles II., in one of his speeches, says, 'I pray, contrive any
good short bills which may improve the industry of the nation
... and so God bles your councils.' _Parl. History_, vol. iv. p.
291. Compare the remarks on the fishery-trade, in _Somers'
Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 33.
But in the eighteenth century, a long course of events, which I shall
hereafter trace, prepared the way for a spirit of improvement, and a
desire for reform, of which the world had then seen no example. This
great movement displayed its energy in every department of knowledge;
and now it was that a successful attempt was first made to raise
Political Economy to a science, by discovering the laws which regulate
the creation and diffusion of wealth. In the year 1776, Adam Smith
published his _Wealth of Nations_; which, looking at its ultimate
results, is probably the most important book that has ever been written,
and is certainly the most valuable contribution ever made by a single
man towards establishing the principles on which government should be
based. In this great work, the old theory of protection as applied to
commerce was destroyed in nearly all its parts;[360] the doctrine of the
balance of trade was not only attacked, but its falsehood was
demonstrated; and innumerable absurdities, which had been accumulating
for ages, were suddenly swept away.[361]
[360] To this the only exception of any moment is the view taken of the
usury-laws, which Jeremy Bentham has the honour of demolishing.
[361] Before Adam Smith, the principal merit is due to Hume; but the
works of that profound thinker were too fragmentary to produce
much effect. Indeed, Hume, notwithstanding his vast powers, was
inferior to Smith in comprehensiveness as well as in industry.
If the _Wealth of Nations_ had appeared in any preceding century, it
would have shared the fate of the great works of Stafford and Serra; and
although the principles which it advocated would, no doubt, have excited
the attention of speculative thinkers, they would, in all probability,
have produced no effect on practical politicians, or, at all events,
would only have exercised an indirect and precarious influence. But the
diffusion of knowledge had now become so general, that even our ordinary
legislators were, in some degree, prepared for these great truths,
which, in a former period, they would have despised as idle novelties.
The result was, that the doctrines of Adam Smith soon found their way
into the House of Commons;[362] and, being adopted by a few of the
leading members, were listened to with astonishment by that great
assembly, whose opinions were mainly regulated by the wisdom of their
ancestors, and who were loth to believe that anything could be
discovered by the moderns which was not already known to the ancients.
But it is in vain that such men as these always set themselves up to
resist the pressure of advancing knowledge. No great truth which has
once been found has ever afterwards been lost; nor has any important
discovery yet been made which has not eventually carried everything
before it. Even so, the principles of Free Trade, as demonstrated by
Adam Smith, and all the consequences which flow from them, were vainly
struggled against by the most overwhelming majorities of both Houses of
Parliament. Year by year the great truth made its way; always advancing,
never receding.[363] The majority was at first deserted by a few men of
ability, then by ordinary men, then it became a minority, then even the
minority began to dwindle; and at the present day, eighty years after
the publication of Smith's _Wealth of Nations_, there is not to be found
any one of tolerable education who is not ashamed of holding opinions
which, before the time of Adam Smith, were universally received.
[362] The first notice I have observed of the _Wealth of Nations_ in
Parliament is in 1783; and between then and the end of the
century it is referred to several times, and latterly with
increasing frequency. See _Parliamentary History_, vol. xxiii. p.
1152, vol. xxvi. pp. 481, 1035, vol. xxvii. p. 385, vol. xxix.
pp. 834, 905, 982, 1065, vol. xxx. pp. 330, 333, vol. xxxii. p.
2, vol. xxxiii. pp. 353, 386, 522, 548, 549, 563, 774, 777, 778,
822, 823, 824, 825, 827, 1249, vol. xxxiv. pp. 11, 97, 98, 141,
142, 304, 473, 850, 901, 902, 903. It is possible that one or two
passages may have been overlooked; but I believe that these are
the only instances of Adam Smith being referred to during
seventeen years. From a passage in _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_,
vol. i. p. 51, it appears that even Addington was studying Adam
Smith in 1787.
[363] In 1797, Pulteney, in one of his financial speeches, appealed to
'the authority of Dr. Smith, who, it was well said, would
persuade the present generation and govern the next.' _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxxiii. p. 778. In 1813, Dugald Stewart (_Philosophy
of the Human Mind_, vol. ii. p. 472) announced that the doctrine
of free trade 'has now, I believe, become the prevailing creed of
thinking men all over Europe.' And in 1816, Ricardo said, 'The
reasoning by which the liberty of trade is supported is so
powerful, that it is daily obtaining converts. It is with
pleasure that I see the progress which this great principle is
making amongst those whom we should have expected to cling the
longest to old prejudices.' _Proposals for an Economical
Currency_, in _Ricardo's Works_, p. 407.
Such is the way in which great thinkers control the affairs of men, and
by their discoveries regulate the march of nations. And truly the
history of this one triumph alone should be enough to repress the
presumption of statesmen and legislators, who so exaggerate the
importance of their craft as to ascribe great results to their own
shifting and temporary contrivances. For, whence did they derive that
knowledge, of which they are always ready to assume the merit? How did
they obtain their opinions? How did they get at their principles? These
are the elements of their success; and these they can only learn from
their masters--from those great teachers, who, moved by the inspiration
of genius, fertilize the world with their discoveries. Well may it be
said of Adam Smith, and said, too, without fear of contradiction, that
this solitary Scotchman has, by the publication of one single work,
contributed more towards the happiness of man, than has been effected by
the united abilities of all the statesmen and legislators of whom
history has preserved an authentic account.
The result of these great discoveries I am not here concerned to
examine, except so far as they aided in diminishing the energy of the
warlike spirit. And the way in which they effected this may be easily
stated. As long as it was generally believed that the wealth of a
country consists of its gold, it was of course also believed that the
sole object of trade is to increase the influx of the precious metals;
it, therefore, became natural that Government should be expected to take
measures by which such influx could be secured. This, however, could
only be done by draining other countries of their gold; a result which
they, for precisely the same reasons, strenuously resisted. The
consequence was, that any idea of real reciprocity was impossible: every
commercial treaty was an attempt made by one nation to outwit
another;[364] every new tariff was a declaration of hostility; and that
which ought to be the most peaceable of all pursuits became one of the
causes of those national jealousies and national animosities, by which
war is mainly promoted.[365] But when it was once clearly understood
that gold and silver are not wealth, but are merely the representatives
of wealth; when men began to see that wealth itself solely consists of
the value which skill and labour can add to the raw material, and that
money is of no possible use to a nation except to measure and circulate
their riches; when these great truths were recognized,[366] all the old
notions respecting the balance of trade, and the supreme importance of
the precious metals, at once fell to the ground. These enormous errors
being dispersed, the true theory of barter was easily worked out. It was
perceived, that if commerce is allowed to be free, its advantages will
be shared by every country which engages in it; that, in the absence of
monopoly, the benefits of trade are of necessity reciprocal; and that,
so far from depending on the amount of gold received, they simply arise
from the facility with which a nation gets rid of those commodities
which it can produce most cheaply, and receives in return those
commodities which it could only produce at a great expense, but which
the other nation can, from the skill of its workmen, or from the bounty
of nature, afford to supply at a lower rate. From this it followed,
that, in a mercantile point of view, it would be as absurd to attempt to
impoverish a people with whom we trade, as it would be in a tradesman to
wish for the insolvency of a rich and frequent customer. The result is,
that the commercial spirit, which formerly was often warlike, is now
invariably pacific.[367] And although it is perfectly true that not one
merchant out of a hundred is familiar with the arguments on which these
economical discoveries are founded, that does not prevent the effect
which the discoveries themselves produce on his own mind. The mercantile
class is, like every other, acted upon by causes which only a few
members of that class are able to perceive. Thus, for instance, of all
the innumerable opponents of protection, there are very few indeed who
can give valid reasons to justify their opposition. But this does not
prevent the opposition from taking place. For an immense majority of men
always follow with implicit submission the spirit of their own time; and
the spirit of the time is merely its knowledge, and the direction that
knowledge takes. As, in the ordinary avocations of daily life, everyone
is benefited, in the increase of his comforts, and of his general
security, by the progress of many arts and sciences, of which perhaps he
does not even know the name, just so is the mercantile class benefited
by those great economical discoveries which, in the course of two
generations, have already effected a complete change in the commercial
legislation of this country, and which are now operating slowly, but
steadily, upon those other European states where, public opinion being
less powerful, it is more difficult to establish great truths and
extirpate old abuses. While, therefore, it is perfectly true, that among
merchants, a comparatively small number are acquainted with political
economy, it is not the less true that they owe a large part of their
wealth to the political economists; who, by removing the obstacles with
which the ignorance of successive governments had impeded trade, have
now settled on a solid foundation that commercial prosperity which is by
no means the least of our national glories. Most assuredly is it also
true, that this same intellectual movement has lessened the chance of
war, by ascertaining the principles which ought to regulate our
commercial relations with foreign countries; by proving, not only the
inutility, but the positive mischief, caused by interfering with them;
and finally, by exploding those long-established errors, which, inducing
men to believe that nations are the natural enemies of each other,
encouraged those evil feelings, and fostered those national jealousies,
to the strength of which the military spirit owed no small share of its
former influence.
[364] Sir Theodore Janson, in his _General Maxims of Trade_, published
in 1713, lays it down as a principle universally recognized, that
'All the nations of Europe seem to strive who shall outwit one
another in point of trade; and they concur in this maxim, that
the less they consume of foreign commodities, the better it is
for them.' _Somers' Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 292. Thus, too, in a
_Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman_, published in
1700, the Dutchman is represented as boasting that his government
had 'forced treaties of commerce exclusive to all other nations.'
_Somers' Tracts_, vol. xi. p. 376. This is the system of 'narrow
selfishness' denounced by Dr. Story, in his noble work, _Conflict
of Laws_, 1841, p. 32.
[365] 'It cannot, indeed, be denied that mistaken views of commerce,
like those so frequently entertained of religion, have been the
cause of many wars and of much bloodshed.' _M'Culloch's
Principles of Political Economy_, p. 140. See also pp. 37, 38:
'It has made each nation regard the welfare of its neighbours as
incompatible with its own: hence the reciprocal desire of
injuring and impoverishing each other; and hence that spirit of
commercial rivalry, which has been the immediate or remote cause
of the greater number of modern wars.'
[366] On the rapid diffusion during the present century of the
principles worked out by the economists, compare _Laing's
Sweden_, pp. 356-358, with a note to the last edition of _Malthus
on Population_, 1826, vol. ii. pp. 354, 355.
[367] 'The feelings of rival tradesmen, prevailing among nations,
overruled for centuries all sense of the general community of
advantage which commercial countries derive from the prosperity
of one another; and that commercial spirit, which is now one of
the strongest obstacles to wars, was during a certain period of
European history their principal cause.' _Mill's Political
Economy_, 1849, vol. ii. p. 221. This great change in the
feelings of the commercial classes did not begin before the
present century, and has not been visible to ordinary observers
until the last five-and-twenty or thirty years; but it was
foretold in a remarkable passage written by Herder in 1787; see
his _Ideen zur Geschichte_, vol. iii. pp. 292, 293.
The third great cause by which the love of war has been weakened, is the
way in which discoveries respecting the application of Steam to the
purposes of travelling have facilitated the intercourse between
different countries, and thus aided in destroying that ignorant contempt
which one nation is too apt to feel for another. Thus, for instance, the
miserable and impudent falsehoods which a large class of English writers
formerly directed against the morals and private character of the
French, and, to their shame be it said, even against the chastity of
French women, tended not a little to embitter the angry feelings then
existing between the two first countries of Europe; irritating the
English against French vices, irritating the French against English
calumnies. In the same way, there was a time when every honest
Englishman firmly believed that he could beat ten Frenchmen; a class of
beings whom he held in sovereign contempt, as a lean and stunted race,
who drank claret instead of brandy, who lived entirely off frogs;
miserable infidels, who heard mass every Sunday, who bowed down before
idols, and who even worshipped the Pope. On the other hand, the French
were taught to despise us, as rude unlettered barbarians, without either
taste or humanity; surly, ill-conditioned men, living in an unhappy
climate, where a perpetual fog, only varied by rain, prevented the sun
from ever being seen; suffering from so deep and inveterate a
melancholy, that physicians had called it the English spleen; and under
the influence of this cruel malady constantly committing suicide,
particularly in November, when we were well known to hang and shoot
ourselves by thousands.[368]
[368] That there are more suicides in gloomy weather than in fine
weather used always to be taken for granted, and was a favourite
topic with the French wits, who were never weary of expatiating
on our love of self-murder, and on the relation between it and
our murky climate. Unfortunately for such speculations, the fact
is exactly opposite to what is generally supposed, and we have
decisive evidence that there are more suicides in summer than in
winter. See _Quetelet sur l'Homme_, vol. ii. pp. 152, 158;
_Tissot de la Manie du Suicide_, Paris, 1840, pp. 50, 149, 150;
_Journal of Statistical Society_, vol. i. p. 102; _Winslow's
Anatomy of Suicide_, 1840, pp. 131, 132; _Hawkins's Medical
Statistics_, p. 170.
Whoever has looked much into the older literature of France and England,
knows that these were the opinions which the two first nations of
Europe, in the ignorance and simplicity of their hearts, held respecting
each other. But the progress of improvement, by bringing the two
countries into close and intimate contact, has dissipated these foolish
prejudices, and taught each people to admire, and, what is still more
important, to respect each other. And the greater the contact, the
greater the respect. For, whatever theologians may choose to assert, it
is certain that mankind at large has far more virtue than vice, and that
in every country good actions are more frequent than bad ones. Indeed,
if this were otherwise, the preponderance of evil would long since have
destroyed the human race, and not even have left a single man to lament
the degeneracy of his species. An additional proof of this is the fact,
that the more nations associate with each other, and the more they see
and know of their fellow-creatures, the more quickly do ancient enmities
disappear. This is because an enlarged experience proves that mankind is
not so radically bad as we from our infancy are taught to believe. But
if vices were really more frequent than virtues, the result would be,
that the increasing amalgamation of society would increase our bad
opinion of others; because, though we may love our own vices, we do not
generally love the vices of our neighbours. So far, however, is this
from being the actual consequence, that it has always been found that
those whose extensive knowledge makes them best acquainted with the
general course of human actions, are precisely those who take the most
favourable view of them. The greatest observer and the most profound
thinker is invariably the most lenient judge. It is the solitary
misanthrope, brooding over his fancied wrongs, who is most prone to
depreciate the good qualities of our nature, and exaggerate its bad
ones. Or else it is some foolish and ignorant monk, who, dreaming away
his existence in an idle solitude, flatters his own vanity by denouncing
the vices of others; and thus declaiming against the enjoyments of life,
revenges himself on that society from which by his own superstition he
is excluded. These are the sort of men who insist most strongly on the
corruption of our nature, and on the degeneracy into which we have
fallen. The enormous evil which such opinions have brought about, is
well understood by those who have studied the history of countries in
which they are, and have been, most prevalent. Hence it is that, among
the innumerable benefits derived from advancing knowledge, there are few
more important than those improved facilities of communication,[369]
which, by increasing the frequency with which nations and individuals
are brought into contact, have, to an extraordinary extent, corrected
their prejudices, raised the opinion which each forms of the other,
diminished their mutual hostility, and thus diffusing a more favourable
view of our common nature, have stimulated us to develop those boundless
resources of the human understanding, the very existence of which it was
once considered almost a heresy to assert.
[369] Respecting which I will only mention one fact, in regard to our
own country. By the returns of the Board of Trade, it appears
that the passengers annually travelling by railway amounted in
1842 to nineteen millions; but in 1852 they had increased to more
than eighty-six millions. _Journal of Statistical Society_, vol.
xvi. p. 292.
This is precisely what has occurred in modern Europe. The French and
English people have, by the mere force of increased contact, learned to
think more favourably of each other, and to discard that foolish
contempt in which both nations formerly indulged. In this, as in all
cases, the better one civilized country is acquainted with another, the
more it will find to respect and to imitate. For of all the causes of
national hatred, ignorance is the most powerful. When you increase the
contact, you remove the ignorance, and thus you diminish the
hatred.[370] This is the true bond of charity; and it is worth all the
lessons which moralists and divines are able to teach. They have pursued
their vocation for centuries, without producing the least effect in
lessening the frequency of war. But it may be said without the
slightest exaggeration, that every new railroad which is laid down, and
every fresh steamer which crosses the Channel, are additional guarantees
for the preservation of that long and unbroken peace which, during forty
years, has knit together the fortunes and the interests of the two most
civilized nations of the earth.
[370] Of this, Mr. Stephens (in his valuable work, _Central America_,
vol. i. pp. 247-8) relates an interesting instance in the case of
that remarkable man Carrera: 'Indeed, in no particular had he
changed more than in his opinion of foreigners; a happy
illustration of the effect of personal intercourse in breaking
down prejudices against individuals or classes.' Mr. Elphinstone
(_History of India_, p. 195) says, 'Those who have known the
Indians longest have always the best opinion of them: but _this
is rather a compliment to human nature than to them, since it is
true of every other people_.' Compare an instructive passage in
_Darwin's Journal of Researches_, p. 421, with _Burdach_, _Traité
de Physiologie comme Science d'Observation_, vol. ii. p. 61.
I have thus, so far as my knowledge will permit, endeavoured to indicate
the causes which have diminished religious persecution and war: the two
greatest evils with which men have yet contrived to afflict their
fellow-creatures. The question of the decline of religious persecution I
have only briefly noticed, because it will be more fully handled in a
subsequent part of this volume. Enough, however, has been advanced to
prove how essentially it is an intellectual process, and how little good
can be effected on this subject by the operation of moral feelings. The
causes of the decline of the warlike spirit I have examined at
considerable, and, perhaps, to some readers, at tedious length, and the
result of that examination has been, that the decline is owing to the
increase of the intellectual classes, to whom the military classes are
necessarily antagonistic. In pushing the inquiry a little deeper, we
have, by still further analysis, ascertained the existence of three vast
though subsidiary causes, by which the general movement has been
accelerated. These are--the invention of Gunpowder, the discoveries of
Political Economy, and the discovery of improved means of Locomotion.
Such are the three great modes or channels by which the progress of
knowledge has weakened the old warlike spirit; and the way in which they
have effected this has, I trust, been clearly pointed out. The facts and
arguments which I have brought forward, have, I can conscientiously say,
been subjected to careful and repeated scrutiny; and I am quite unable
to see on what possible ground their accuracy is to be impugned. That
they will be disagreeable to certain classes, I am well aware; but the
unpleasantness of a statement is hardly to be considered a proof of its
falsehood. The sources from which the evidence has been derived are
fully indicated; and the arguments, I hope, fairly stated. And from them
there results a most important conclusion. From them we are bound to
infer, that the two oldest, greatest, most inveterate, and most
widely-spread evils which have ever been known, are constantly, though,
on the whole, slowly, diminishing; and that their diminution has been
effected, not at all by moral feelings, nor by moral teachings, but
solely by the activity of the human intellect, and by the inventions and
discoveries which, in a long course of successive ages, man has been
able to make.
Since, then, in the two most important phenomena which the progress of
society presents, the moral laws have been steadily and invariably
subordinate to the intellectual laws, there arises a strong presumption
that in inferior matters the same process has been followed. To prove
this in its full extent, and thus raise the presumption to an absolute
certainty, would be to write, not an Introduction to history, but the
History itself. The reader must, therefore, be satisfied for the present
with what, I am conscious, is merely an approach towards demonstration;
and the complete demonstration must necessarily be reserved for the
future volumes of this work: in which I pledge myself to show that the
progress Europe has made from barbarism to civilization is entirely due
to its intellectual activity; that the leading countries have now, for
some centuries, advanced sufficiently far to shake off the influence of
those physical agencies by which in an earlier state their career might
have been troubled; and that although the moral agencies are still
powerful, and still cause occasional disturbances, these are but
aberrations, which, if we compare long periods of time, balance each
other, and thus in the total amount entirely disappear. So that, in a
great and comprehensive view, the changes in every civilized people are,
in their aggregate, dependent solely on three things: first, on the
amount of knowledge possessed by their ablest men; secondly, on the
direction which that knowledge takes, that is to say, the sort of
subjects to which it refers: thirdly, and above all, on the extent to
which the knowledge is diffused, and the freedom with which it pervades
all classes of society.
These are the three great movers of every civilized country; and
although their operation is frequently disturbed by the vices or the
virtues of powerful individuals, such moral feelings correct each other,
and the average of long periods remains unaffected. Owing to causes of
which we are ignorant, the moral qualities do, no doubt, constantly
vary; so that in one man, or perhaps even in one generation, there will
be an excess of good intentions; in another an excess of bad ones. But
we have no reason to think that any permanent change has been effected
in the proportion which those who naturally possess good intentions bear
to those in whom bad ones seem to be inherent. In what may be called the
innate and original morals of mankind, there is, so far as we are aware,
no progress. Of the different passions with which we are born, some are
more prevalent at one time, some at another; but experience teaches us
that, as they are always antagonistic, they are held in balance by the
force of their own opposition. The activity of one motive is corrected
by the activity of another. For to every vice there is a corresponding
virtue. Cruelty is counteracted by benevolence; sympathy is excited by
suffering; the injustice of some provokes the charity of others; new
evils are met by new remedies, and even the most enormous offences that
have ever been known have left behind them no permanent impression. The
desolation of countries and the slaughter of men are losses which never
fail to be repaired, and at the distance of a few centuries every
vestige of them is effaced. The gigantic crimes of Alexander or Napoleon
become after a time void of effect, and the affairs of the world return
to their former level. This is the ebb and flow of history, the
perpetual flux to which by the laws of our nature we are subject. Above
all this, there is a far higher movement; and as the tide rolls on, now
advancing, now receding, there is, amid its endless fluctuations, one
thing, and one alone, which endures for ever. The actions of bad men
produce only temporary evil, the actions of good men only temporary
good; and eventually the good and the evil altogether subside, are
neutralized by subsequent generations, absorbed by the incessant
movements of future ages. But the discoveries of great men never leave
us; they are immortal, they contain those eternal truths which survive
the shock of empires, outlive the struggles of rival creeds, and witness
the decay of successive religions. All these have their different
measures and their different standards; one set of opinions for one age,
another set for another. They pass away like a dream; they are as the
fabric of a vision, which leaves not a rack behind. The discoveries of
genius alone remain: it is to them we owe all that we now have, they are
for all ages and all times; never young, and never old, they bear the
seeds of their own life; they flow on in a perennial and undying stream;
they are essentially cumulative, and, giving birth to the additions
which they subsequently receive, they thus influence the most distant
posterity, and after the lapse of centuries produce more effect than
they were able to do even at the moment of their promulgation.