In a typical piece of culture critique, Smiles observed how 'in their pursuit of riches, the English are gradually losing sight of their higher characteristics.' The growth of cities, increased factory size, greater mobility of labour with the new railway system, even improved prosperity, all seemed to be destroying the environment necessary for the Victorian virtues to flourish. As early as 1857, the free trader campaigner Richard Cobden remarked "the social and political state of [Birmingham] is far more healthy than that of Manchester; and it arises from the fact that the industry of the hardware district is carried on by small manufacturers...whilst the great capitalists of Manchester form an aristocracy.' Only competition could provide the necessary antidote for it placed the 'lazy man...under the necessity of exerting itself,' It disciplined businessman and worker alike, rewarding merit and effort and punishing the indolent.--Richard Bellamy (1992) Liberalism and Modern Society, pp. 11-12
Ever since I read Hobson's (1919) Richard Cobden: the international man, I have been alert to the fact that contemporary discussions of Cobden, if he is mentioned all, treat him primarily, as Bellamy introduces him in the passage quoted above, "the free trader campaigner." Cobden was a gifted political organizer and orator, a critic of slavery, anti-mercantile spirit of war, and arguably one of the key architects of developing international, functional integration as a means toward peace (something now part of the DNA of the EU). I consider him one of the great Smithians of the nineteenth century (which I will illustrate below). As it happens, I have grown very fond of the letter by Cobden (to Palmer) that Bellamy quotes.
Bellamy's work is an important, somewhat neglected milestone in the development of a more realist sensibility in discussions of liberalism before that became a popular niche in recent political theory/philosophy. I hope to engage with his book more constructively in the future. But sometimes nitpicking can be illustrative, too. I want to suggest Bellamy mispresents Cobden's point, and that Cobden's analysis is a point worth tracking. First, let me quote the full paragraph of the letter as Hobson presents it:
The honest and independent course taken by the people at Birmingham, their exemption from aristocratic snobbery, and their fair appreciation of a democratic aim of the people, confirms me in the opinion I have always had that the social and political state of that town is far more healthy than that of Manchester; and it arises from the fact that the industry of the hardware district is carried on by small manufacturers, employing a few men and boys each, sometimes only an apprentice or two; whilst the great capitalists of Manchester form an aristocracy, individual members of which wield an influence over sometimes two thousand persons. The former state of society is more natural and healthy in a moral and political sense. There is a freer intercourse between all classes than in the Lancashire town, where a great and impassable gulf separates the workman from his employer. The great capitalist class formed an excellent basis for the Anti-Corn-Law movement, for they had inexhaustible purses, which they opened freely in a contest where not only their pecuniary interests but their pride as 'an order' was at stake. But I very much doubt whether such a state of society is favourable to a democratic political movement.[1]
Cobden's key point is that what we might call 'work-place structure' or if you are more Marxist, the 'organization of capitalism,' permeates social, moral, and political relations. In fact, his bottom line that a steep hierarchy at work is inimical to democratic life has not lost its salience yet. According to Cobden, hierarchy creates a social distance -- it generates the conditions of antipathy -- that undermines social interaction. So, when later liberals treat democracy in terms of "government by discussion," they are not merely making an anodyne point about the significance of talk to civilization, but they are also calling attention to the material pre-conditions of such a practice.
This is especially so when a particular location has uniform work conditions. Anticipating Max Weber's insight, it is such local homogeneity that creates contrasting political perspective with other geographic locations (where work is organized differently). The social clash of values is an effect of different organization of work, and so different material interests and social practices. Of course, in the quoted passage, Cobden does not hide his own preference for more egalitarian work-place relations. And while his phrasing is gendered, Cobden was hugely influential on the so-called 'first wave feminism' in the UK (including his daughter Jane Cobden).
Notice, too, that Cobden is not averse to talk in the language of 'class.' And, in fact, his understanding of class is not merely economic or based on economic self-interest. He notes that the support for the Anti-Corn-Law movement was not just financial, but also in terms of their collective social status (their "pride"). The problem with Manchester is not the laziness of workers or capitalists, or their ability to avoid the discipline of the market, it is rather the economies of scale enjoyed in Manchester that creates a social hierarchy and, thereby, a political problem. How to deal with the economic and political fruits of economies of scale is, in fact, one of the more enduring challenges in liberal political theory. (This fits one of Bellamy's larger arguments in the book, so it is a bit sad he missed the point.)
Now, Bellamy's source of this material is Ian C. Bradley's (1980) The Optimists : Themes and Personalities in Victorian Liberalism, p. 59. Bradley does not mention that Palmer is the addressee, and it is natural to read Bradley as suggesting that this is a letter to the other great Liberal politician of the era, Bright. Bradley quotes the paragraph as follows:
social and political state of that town is far more healthy than that of Manchester; and it arises from the fact that the industry of the hardware district is carried on by small manufacturers, employing a few men and boys each, sometimes only an apprentice or two; whilst the great capitalists of Manchester form an aristocracy, individual members of which wield an influence over sometimes two thousand persons. The former state of society is more natural and healthy in a moral and political sense. There is a freer intercourse between all classes than in the Lancashire town...The great capitalist class formed an excellent basis for the Anti-Corn-Law movement, for they had inexhaustible purses, which they opened freely in a contest where not only their pecuniary interests but their pride as 'an order' was at stake. But I very much doubt whether such a state of society is favourable to a democratic political movement.
In Bradley (whose book is on the Liberal party), this letter is introduced in the context of the Liberal party's effort to expand the franchise, and Bright's (1857) election as MP in Birmingham after he lost his seat in Manchester (also in 1857) due to his opposition to the Crimean war (something Bradley does not mention in context, but I think becomes clear later in the book).
When I looked up Bradley I kind of expected that he would be the source of Bellamy's interpretive mistake. In fact, I don't think there is anything in Bradley's argument that supports Bellamy's use of this material. Bradley's decision to remove "where a great and impassable gulf separates the workman from his employer" from his presentation does change the meaning of the material. And perhaps it was sufficient to mislead Bellamy about Cobden's underlying argument.
[1] Hobson (1918), Richard Cobden: The International Man, p. 194
Comments