he country, as did Bright and others in those
days of political anarchy. To the ability and independence with which
Cobden and Bright withstood the popular current then, Mr. Kinglake, the
opponent of both, has done justice. It was, in fact, not true that
Cobden was a "Peace-at-any-price man." Though he maintained earnestly
the principle of non-intervention, it was because he thought that
England in its present hands could not be trusted to intervene always in
the right interest; and never was there a more pointed confirmation of
his suspicion than the event of a war which gave the victory won by the
blood of the people over to the French Emperor, that he might with it
bind back every nation that in Southern Europe was near to its
redemption. The strongest chains binding Circassia, Poland, Hungary, and
Venetia, were forged in the fires of the Crimean War. This popular wave
reached its height and broke, as such waves will, and the people much
ashamed returned to their true leaders. So when, immediately after the
end of the Crimean War, the disgraceful bombardment of Canton occurred,
Cobden was still there in Parliament ready to risk all again. His
resolution condemning the action of Sir John Bowring (who, by the way,
was Cobden's personal friend) was passed in the House by a vote of 263
to 247. Palmerston appealed to the selfishness of the country on the
subject of Chinese trade, and was sustained. These were the days when
Gladstone and Disraeli lay down together. Cobden, Bright, Gibson,
Cardwell, Layard, Fox, Miall, and others, all lost their seats. To this
interval we are indebted that John Bright recovered strength in a
foreign land, and that we received in the United States the second visit
of Cobden. Whilst they were absent, the reaction set in: Bright was
elected by Birmingham, Cobden by Rochdale. Nay, so strong was the
feeling in Cobden's case, that Palmerston found it to his purpose to
invite him into the Cabinet; and when, returning from America, Cobden
sailed up the Mersey, he was met by a deputation from Liverpool who
informed him of his appointment among the new Ministry. He at once
declined the appointment, for reasons which have not hitherto been given
to the public. Since his death a personal friend of his has written,
that, on this occasion, "he told Lord Palmerston, in answer to
remonstrances against his decision to decline the honor, that he had
always regarded his Lordship as one of the most dangerous min