31科布登.docx

31科布登.docx

《31科布登.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《31科布登.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

31科布登

31.Cobden

理查德·科布登（RichardCobden,1804-1865），英国政论家和激进派政治思想家，自由贸易的主要代表。

科布登是以促进自由贸易的商人面貌出现在英国政治生活中的。

他的一生，是与英国和欧洲保守派进行政治战斗的一生，他的政敌不仅包括帕麦斯顿和迪斯累利，而且包括梅特涅和根茨。

1835年后，他发表了大量的演讲、文章和政论性小册子，涉及自由贸易、战争与干涉、和平与仲裁、军备、国际海洋法、殖民主义与帝国政策、东方问题以及英国对外政策目标等一系列领域，阐述了他所代表的那个时代的激进自由主义思想。

如果用两句话来概括科布登的激进自由主义思想，那就是：

经济上的自由贸易，政治上的不干涉内政。

他认为，贸易交往会促进和平，如果各国都致力于商业贸易，那么世界就能实现和平，因此他反对布罗姆勋爵和根茨等人的均势论及政策主张，认为这无助于实现和平的国际秩序。

他认为，国际关系本质上应由各民族国家而不是各个政府来处理，如果政府要介入国际关系，那只能限于贸易交往，在一定程度上可以包括文化交流；民族国家不能被国际政治所左右，如均势变化导致外交政策变更。

一个大国亦不能因为某种原因而去干涉他国的内政，如对波兰，对土耳其，对中国。

基于同样的逻辑，他反对英国卷入远东对华争夺、中近东的克里米亚战争和北欧的普丹王朝战争。

本篇选自《科布登的政治著作》（ThePoliticalWritingsofRichardCobden），大概写于1856年前后，表明了作者反对均势和干涉政策的立场。

ACritiqueoftheBalanceofPower

Ourobjecthasnotonlybeentodeprecatewarasthegreatestevilthatcanbefallapeople,buttoshowthatwehavenointerestinmaintainingthestatusquoofTurkey;and,consequently,thatthearmamentswhich,inatimeofpeace,aremaintained,atanenormouscost,forthepurposeofmakingdemonstrationsinfavourofthatcountry,andagainstRussia,mightbereduced,andtheirexpensesparedtothetax-payersoftheBritishempire.

WeshallherebeencounteredwithaverygeneralprepossessioninfavourofourmaintainingwhatistermedarankamongstthestatesoftheContinent—whichmeans,notthatweshouldbefreefromdebt,orthatournationsshouldbeanexampletoallothersforthewealth,education,andvirtuesofitspeople,butthatEnglandshallbeconsultedbeforeanyothercountriespresumetoquarrelorfight;andthatsheshallbeready,andshallbecalledupon,totakeapartineverycontention,eitherasmediator,secondorprincipal.Soprevalentandsolittlequestionedhasthisegotisticalspiritbecome,that,whenanhonourablememberrisesinParliament,tocallaministerofthecrowntoaccountforsomepoliticalchangesinSpain,Portugal,orTurkey—insteadofthequestionencounteringthelaughteroftheHouse（assuchaninquirywouldprobablydofromthehomelyrepresentativeswhomeettoattendtotheirconstituents’affairsatWashington）,orthequestionerbeingputdownbythefunctionary,withsomethingafterCain’sanswer,“AmItheSpaniard’skeeper?

”—thelatteroffersgraveexplanationsandexcuses,whilsttheaudiencelooksonwithsilentattention,asthougheverywordofourforeignsecretarywerepregnantwiththefateofnationsbowingtohissway.

IfwegobackthroughtheParliamentarydebatesofthelastfewreigns,weshallfindthissingularfeatureinournationalcharacter—thepassionformeddlingwiththeaffairsofforeigners—morestrikinglyprominentineverysucceedingsession;and,atthebreakingoutoftheFrenchRevolution,thereaderisastonishedtoseethatthecharactersoftheleadersofthemobsofParis,Marseilles,andLyons,andtheconductofthegovernmentofFrance,becametheconstantsubjectsofdiscussionintheHouseofCommons,almosttotheexclusionofmattersofdomesticinterest—Pitt1andBurke2ononeside,andFox3,Grey4,andSheridan5ontheother,attackinganddefendingthechampionsoftheRevolution,withthesameardourasiftheBritishlegislaturewerearesponsibletribunal,erectedoverthewholeofChristendom,andendowedwithpowerstodecide,withoutappeal,thedestiniesofallthepotentatesandpublicmenofEurope.Unhappily,thesamepassionhadimpregnatedthemindsofthepublicgenerally（asitcontinuestododowntoourownday）,andtheresultwas,aseverybodyknows,theBourboncrusade.ButEngland,intakinguponherselftomakewarwiththespiritoftheage,encounteredtheFates;and,insteadofdestroyingthatinfantfreedomwhich,howevermonstrousandhideousatitsbirth,wasdestinedtothrowoffitsbloodyswathes,and,inspiteoftheenmityoftheworld,todispensethefirsttasteoflibertytoEurope—shewasherselfthenursethat,byheropposition,rockedtheFrenchRevolutionintovigorousmaturity.

Ourhistoryduringthelastcenturymaybecalledthetragedyof“BritishinterventioninthepoliticsofEurope”;inwhichprinces,diplomats,peers,andgenerals,havebeentheauthorsandactors—thepeoplethevictims;andthemoralwillbeexhibitedtothelatestposterityin800millionsofdebt.

Wehavesaidthatourproposaltoreduceourarmamentswillbeopposed,uponthepleaofmaintainingaproperattitude,asitiscalled,amongstthenationsofEurope.BritishinterventionintheStatepolicyoftheContinenthasbeenusuallyexcusedunderthetwostockpretencesofmaintainingthebalanceofpowerinEurope,andofprotectingourcommerce;uponwhichtwosubjects,astheybearindirectlyonthequestioninhand,weshallnextofferafewobservations.

Thefirstinstanceinwhichwefindthe“balanceofpower”alludedtoinaking’sspeech,isontheoccasionofthelastaddressofWilliamIII6tohisparliament,December31,1701,whereheconcludesbysaying:

“Iwillonlyaddthis—ifyoudoingoodearnestdesiretoseeEnglandholdthebalanceofEurope,itwillappearbyyourrightimprovingthepresentopportunity.”Fromthisperiod,downalmosttoourowntime（latterly,indeed,thephrasehasbecome,likemanyothercantterms,nearlyobsolete）,therewillbefound,inalmosteverysuccessiveKing’sspeech,aconstantrecurrencetothe“balanceofEurope”;bywhich,wemayrestassured,wasalwaysmeant,howeveritmightbeconcealedunderpretendedalarmforthe“equilibriumofpower”orthe“safetyoftheContinent”,thedesiretoseeEngland“holdthebalance”.Thephrasewasfoundtopleasethepublicear;itimpliedsomethingofequity;whilstEngland,holdingthebalanceofEuropeinherhand,soundedlikefillingtheofficeofJusticeherselftoone-halfoftheglobe.Ofcourse,suchapostofhonourcouldnotbemaintained,oritsdignityasserted,withoutaproperattendanceofguardsandofficers;andweconsequentlyfindthat,ataboutthisperiodofourhistory,largestandingarmiesbegantobecalledfor;andnotonlywerethesuppliessolicitedbythegovernment,fromtimetotime,underthepleaofpreservingthelibertiesofEurope,but,intheannualmutinybill（thesameinformasisnowpassedeveryyear）thepreamblestated,amongstothermotives,thattheannualarmywasvotedforpurposeofpreservingthebalanceofpowerinEurope.The“balanceofpower”,then,becomesanimportantpracticalsubjectforinvestigation;itappealsdirectlytothebusinessandbosomsofourreaders,sinceitisimplicatedwithanexpenditureofmorethanadozenmillionsofmoneyperannum,everyfarthingofwhichgoes,intheshapeoftaxation,fromthepocketsofthepublic.

Suchofourreadersashavenotinvestigatedthissubject,willnotbealittleastonishedtofindagreatdiscrepancyintheseveraldefinitionofwhatisactuallymeantbythe“balanceofpower”.Thetheory—forithasneveryetbeenappliedtopractice—appears,afterupwardsofacenturyofacknowledgedexistence,tobelessunderstoodnowthanever.Latterly,indeed,manyintelligentandpractical-mindedpoliticianshavethrownthequestionoverboard,alongwiththatofthebalanceoftrade—ofwhichnumber,withoutparticipatingintheirfavouredattributes,weclaimtoberankedasone.Thebalanceofpower—whichhas,forahundredyears,beentheburdenofKing’sspeech,thethemeofstatemen,thegroundsolemntreaties,andthecauseofwars—whichhasserveddowntotheveryyearinwhichwewrite,andwhichwill,nodoubtcontinuetoserve,foryearstocome,asapretenceformaintainingenormousstandingarmaments,bylandandsea,atacostofmanyhundredsofmillionsoftreasure—thebalanceofpowerisachimera!

Itisnotafallacy,amistake,animposture—itisanundescribed,indescribed,incomprehensiblenothing;merewords,conveyingtothemindnotideas,butsoundslikethoseequallybarrensyllableswhichourancestorsputtogetherforthepurposeofpuzzlingthemselvesaboutwords,intheshapeofPresterJohn,orthephilosopher’sstone7!

Wearebound,however,toseewhatarethebestdefinitionsofthistheory.

“Bythisbalance,”saysVattel,“istobeunderstoodsuchadispositionofthingsasthatnoonepotentateorstateshallbeable,absolutely,topredominateandprescribelawstotheothers.”8（LawofNations,book3,chap.3）

“Whatisusuallytermedabalanceofpower,”saysGentz,“isthatconstitutionsubsistingamongneighbouringstates,moreorlessconnectedwithoneanother,byvirtueofwhichnooneamongthemcaninjuretheindependenceoressentialrightsofanotherwithoutmeetingwitheffectualresistanceonsomeside,and,consequently,exposingitselftodanger.”9（FragmentsonthePoliticalBalance,chap.1）

“Thegrandanddistinguishingfeatureofthebalancingsystem,”saysBrougham,“istheperpetualattentiontoforeignaffairswhichitinculcates;theconstantwatchfulnessovereverynationwhichitprescribes;thesubjectioninwhichitplacesallnationalpassionsandantipathiestothefineanddelicateviewofremoteexpediency;theunceasingcarewhichitdictatesofnationsmostremotelysituated,andapparentlyunconnectedwithourselves;thegeneralunionwhichithaseffectedofallEuropeanpowers,obeyingcertainlaws,andactuatedingeneralbyacommonprinciple;infine,therightofmutualinspection,universallyrecognized,amongcivilizedstates,intherightsofpublicenvoysandresidents.”10（Brougham’sColonialPolicy,book3）

Thesearethebestdefinitionswehavebeenabletodiscoverofthesystemdenominatedthebalanceofpower.Inthefirstplace,itmustberemarkedthat,takinganyoneofthesedescriptionsseparately,itissovagueastoimpartnoknowledgeevenofthewriter’smeaning;whilst,iftakentogether,oneconfusesandcontradictsanother,Gentzdescribingittobe“aconstitutionsubsistingamongne