The clearances at the respective dates were about the same in amount and proportion.
[31] See these Reports of 16th July, 1845.
[32] I first became intimate with Cobden in 1852, and our friendship continued unbroken until his untimely death in 1865. He was the most agreeable companion, and the most convincing reasoner I ever met. Though his name has long been a household word, yet as his life has not been written (I hope it may soon be given to the world), many of my readers may not be aware of his career as a man of business. He was often my companion for days together where I now pen these notes, and, though I possess many pleasing reminiscences in connexion with his most useful life and numerous letters from him, for he had the pen of a ready writer, I prefer leaving these to be dealt with by his biographer, when his executors consider that the time has arrived to publish his life. But I think I ought not to withhold from my readers the account he gave me of his commercial career, more especially as an erroneous impression prevails in public that, though great as a statesman, he was unsuccessful as a man of business. This letter referred to the question of Limited Liability which we had frequently discussed. It is written in his happiest style; and if I could to advantage (but I cannot), I would not alter a single word. “It is singular,” he remarks in another letter of his now before me, approving of some comments I had made, “how much better we all write when we are expressing ourselves with unrestrained freedom to a friend, than when we are polishing off our sentences for the great public. I find it always in my own case, and the reason is simply that we are more natural, and therefore kindle a warmer sympathy in the breast of the reader. It is this which makes the private memoirs and correspondence of great men much more interesting than their public performances.” For these reasons, I venture to give to the public the letter he writes about himself and his business career unaltered, except where I have omitted the names of two noble Lords still living.
“Midhurst, 24th March, 1856.
“My dear Lindsay,
“I can see no flaw in your indictment, and do not think there is a shade of difference in our views upon partnership matters. But I would rather talk than write to you on the subject. It has always appeared to me that the fundamental fallacy which overrules all the objections to limited liability is the fear that capitalists will not be able to take care of their money without a little help from Parliament. I think they may be safely trusted. You and I agree also in the practical view of the question—that legislators and theorists overrate the extent to which the actual possession of capital affords a guarantee to the creditor. It is the character, experience, and connexions of the man wanting credit, his knowledge of his business, and opportunities of making it available in the struggle of life, that weigh with the shrewd capitalists far more than the actual command of a few thousands more or less of money in hand. I began business in partnership with two other young men, and we only mustered a thousand pounds amongst us, and more than half of it was borrowed. We all got on the ‘Peveril of the Peak’ coach, and went from London to Manchester in the, at that day, marvellously short space of twenty hours. We were literally so ignorant of Manchester houses that we called for a directory at the hotel, and turned to the list of ‘calico printers,’ theirs being the business with which we were acquainted, and they being the people from whom we felt confident we could obtain credit. And why? Because we knew we should be able to satisfy them that we had advantages from our large connexions, our knowledge of the best branch of the business in London, and our superior taste in design, which would insure success. We introduced ourselves to Fort Brothers and Co., a rich house, and told our tale, honestly concealing nothing. In less than two years from 1830 we owed them forty thousand pounds for goods which they had sent to us in Watling Street, upon no other security than our characters and knowledge of our business. I frequently talked with them in later times upon the great confidence they showed in men who avowed that they were not possessed of 200l. each. Their answer was that they would always prefer to trust young men with connexions and with a knowledge of their trade, if they knew them to possess character and ability, to those who started with capital without these advantages, and that they had acted on this principle successfully in all parts of the world. We did not disappoint them or ourselves. In 1834-1835 our stock takings showed a net balance of 20,000l. a year profit. Then I began to write pamphlets and to talk politics, and from that moment I ceased to make money, and in 1846, when the League finished its labours, my children must have been beggars, had not my neighbours, who knew my circumstances, originated the subscription which restored me independence. I took the money without shame, because I had earned it. If money had been my sole object in life I should have been a more successful man by sticking to my calicoes, for my partners have grown richer than I by doing so, and young men taken into the concern since I left have made fortunes. I may add that the original formation of the partnership, and the whole scheme of the business, sprung exclusively from myself. But what has this to do with your bill? I never detect myself falling into a twaddle about things personal and past without suspecting that I am growing old and garrulous. I doubt the policy of your presenting a bill to the House. Your strength lies in your principle—perfect freedom—which you can argue with more force when not compelled to enter upon details. If you have any suggestions as to the clauses of the Bill, would it not be better to do as you did with the Shipping Bill by giving the Board of Trade the benefit of your hints? It may be necessary to concede something for the sake of carrying any measure, but I doubt whether any concession, beyond a registration, which may be shown to be a convenience to all parties, will not be unsoundness. If it be necessary to tamper with sound principles for the sake of pleasing the Lords, let the proposal come from their party. I suspect we shall be weaker in both Houses in dealing with the question of private partnership upon free-trade principles than with that of Joint Stock Associations. Upon the latter question, people of the —— and —— school of political economy, whose principles are, if pushed home, a little socialistic, took a great interest, because they have an amiable faith in the power of association amongst the working classes. But I doubt whether they will throw much zeal into the question of private partnership. By the way, don’t put the question in the House in the form of a problem A. B. C. D. &c. It does in a written argument, and even then demands a severe attention; but I find that that mode of stating the case in the House does not succeed.
“I shall be happy to renew the discussion when we meet, and remain very sincerely yours,
“Rd. Cobden.”
[33] Though not within the province of this work, it should be remembered that Fox stoutly opposed Pitt’s great Free-trade Treaty with France, in 1756, and that Lord John Russell did not come out as a thorough and earnest Free-trader until 1840-41.
[34] Alison’s ‘History of Europe,’ vol. vii. p. 168.