Page:Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1919).djvu/218

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
196
The Literature of International Relations
for all sovereigns!—what relief for all people! What a spring would not the commerce, the population, the wealth of all nations take, which are at present confined, when set free from the fetters in which they are now held by the care of their defence.'[1]

In the case of bona fide wars a remedy must be sought in 'The Tribunal of Peace'. Bentham's Plan rested upon two 'fundamental propositions'. One is the reduction and fixing of the force of the several nations composing the European system. The other is suggested by the wars of the eighteenth century, especially between Britain and France, and is a commentary upon them: it is 'the emancipation of the distant dependencies of each state'—drastic counsel which its author did not confine to his Plan for Perpetual Peace. The objection, and the only objection, to the plan of a peace that shall be universal and lasting is its apparent impracticability—that it is not only hopeless, but hopeless to such a degree that any proposal to this effect deserves to be called 'visionary and ridiculous'. It is said that the age is not ripe for such a proposal, Then, 'the more it wants of being ripe, the sooner we should begin to do what can be done to ripen it'. Who that bears the name of Christian could refuse to assist with his prayers? What pulpit could refrain from seconding the author with its eloquence? 'Catholics and Protestants, Church-of-England-men and Dissenters, may all agree in this, if in nothing else. I call upon them all to aid me with their countenance and their support.'

There are parts of Bentham's Plan that are avowedly related to the rivalry of Britain and France in trade, in colonies and in sea-power; and he believed that a solid and thorough agreement between these two States would remove the principal obstacles to a plan of general and permanent pacification for

  1. Essay ii, Works, ii, pp. 544–5.