I have stated that marriage is an important political factor; and, therefore, women have always occupied a primary, though obscure, part in political affairs. [119] The cohesion of the State has been produced by the secret influence of family life. But it may be asked, What kind of marriage is most conducive to national cohesion? This question has been carefully and conclusively answered by a learned scientific writer, who shows that polygamic marriage never exists in an advanced state, as instanced by the history of Judaism and Mohammedanism; that a strict form of monogamic marriage is essential to political greatness and true progress in civilization. The cohesion of the State is destroyed by polygamy, and by any system which relaxes the binding nature of the marriage tie. ‘Domestic disorganization is a sure augury of political disruption.’
Cohesion, the essential property of all rightly constituted nations, is often in danger of being lost when the State is geographically very large, or when local interests have greater power than the attractive force of the central government. To obviate this evil, the method of centralization has been adopted with satisfactory [120] results, as in the case of the United States of America, and Germany.
By this means the local authorities are brought into close relationship with the central head, and the centrifugal influences of independent interests and customs are counteracted by the force of central attraction. Centralization increases the importance of the whole body, and, like the pendulum of a clock, regulates the movements of the whole State. In some cases it tends to make the government despotic, when the local governments are entirely under the control of the central; and every enactment, and scheme, and plan checked and supervised by the chief officers of the State. Such was the system adopted in France by Napoleon III. But cohesion without the enforcement of a hard and rigid connection, a general supervision without severe tyrannical jurisdiction, are the best methods of securing the unity of composite States.
But the force of cohesion is evidently at work in the nation apart from centralization. Men who have a community of [121] interests unite together for the purposes of strength and mutual assistance. They combine for the sake of securing means of support in sickness, and form benefit societies, such as the Order of Oddfellows or Foresters. This force of cohesion has produced trade unions, and similar institutions which exist for the purpose of protecting a common interest, and giving expression to the concurrent opinions of the members. These have their legitimate use in every civilized State, in spite of some of the disadvantages which follow in their train. There are, of course, opposed interests in every community: attractive forces, which produce trade unions, guilds, corporations, companies, and the like; and repulsive forces, which result from the opposed interests of employers and employed, landlords and tenants, and similar pairs of different classes in the community. As time goes on, and the State advances with it, these forces will gain in strength; the cohesion of classes will become greater; association will grow as naturally as the bubbles form on the [122] surface of our evening beverage. It is a law of nature, and therefore cannot be resisted. But the repulsive forces will be no less strong, and to calculate the resultant of these contending interests will be the problem for practical statesmen to solve.
The force of cohesion is also evidently at work, not only in individual States, but also amongst the nations of Europe, and of the world. That is to say, there is an evident desire for co-operation on the part of those nations who have attained to the highest degree of civilization and internal cohesion. International law is based on the principle of cohesion, and every day it is gaining power and favour in the eyes of our leading statesmen. The doctrine of Free Trade, which, if universally adopted, would be of the greatest service to mankind, results from a desire for co-operation; and whatever evils may result from one-sided Free Trade in this country at the present time, there can be no doubt that ultimately the complete system will be adopted.
[123]
Sad is the fate of a nation when the force of cohesion is weakened. The first revolution in France is a proof of this assertion; there was no cohesion, no common faith, or loyalty to the throne and Government; and indeed the Government, which was rotten to the core, was hardly likely to awake any feelings of loyalty and respect; and therefore the social disruption which followed was only a natural sequence of events, and was prophesied with the accuracy with which an astronomer can foretell an eclipse. But that is not all; when the cohesion of the State is destroyed, it takes a long time to restore the action of the force; and, as in the case of France, further disruption is sure to take place.
In this lecture I have already enumerated some of the ways in which this force acts; there are doubtless others which will suggest themselves to you. But I contend that the prosperity of the State, and the peace of the world, depend upon cohesion. Let this be your work, most noble professors, to promote the action of [124] this helpful and life-giving force. Promote, as far as in you lies, the sacred union of family life. Encourage the generous feelings of true loyalty and patriotism amongst the people of this realm of England; counsel our statesmen with regard to the primary necessity of national cohesion, and the advantages of international co-operation; and your work will be blessed; your names will rank with those heroes of the sword and of the pen who have raised our beloved country to her present pinnacle of greatness and prosperity; and your memory will live in the hearts of your grateful countrymen.
[Editorial Note.]—We regret to state that the various MSS. in the sealed desk are nearly exhausted, and are therefore compelled to present the series of lectures on polemical studies in an incomplete form. But we had the good fortune to light upon a brief diary which discloses some interesting information with regard to the Author’s life and occupations. We append a few extracts:
[125]
Extracts from the Author’s Diary.
June 3rd.—Arnold called again to-day—the fifth time during the last fortnight! His attention is rather overpowering, and wastes much of my valuable time. He says he hates science—the heathen!—and wants me to lecture in classics. He affirms that mathematics are dry and hard—too hard for women, and tend to make them unsympathetic and critically severe. I am afraid I was rather severe with him. But really he is very trying, and always seems to talk like a Greek chorus in the most profound platitudes. Arnold is a classical tutor at Clare College. My old pupil is getting on famously. Poor fellow! he seems quite oppressed with his work. But he is making great progress, and sticks to his books like—a student of Girtham College!