Page images
PDF
EPUB

events might well shake the faith of some of our most confident political pilots. At least these events will excuse some curiosity as to the destination to which this progress is conducting us. It is satisfactory to be told that we are progressing, and that progress is the law of our political existence. But whither are we going?

[ocr errors]

The question is legitimate even for English politicians. For we all know that to be ruled by the Liberal party is the sine quá non of political well-being, and we are incessantly told that progress is indispensable to the existence of the Liberal party. It is a party which does not aim at any definite objects; it disdains the idea of finality as an insult, and quarrels with its chiefs when they tell it that it has reached the term of its labours and may 'rest and be thankful.' There is no particular political change, or set of political changes which will satisfy its ambition. The only result of achieving them will be to stimulate it to plan a new campaign, of which fresh and farther reaching changes shall be the aim. And as the Liberal party must always exist for the benefit of mankind, and as progress is the law of its existence, this progress must clearly go on ad infinitum. Other reformers, in other times and countries, have been satisfied to put forward the subversion of some particular institution or the correction of some specified abuse as the goal of their exertions. But the Radicals of the present day have improved upon all previous reformers by making change an institution. They honour the process of subversion and replacement abstractedly, without reference to the objects on which it is exercised. They claim confidence for their political organisation, on the ground that it exists for the purpose of progress-i.e. for the purpose of knocking down one law, or set of laws, and setting up another in its stead; and their favourite taunt is, that their adversaries on some points are in favour of standing still.

|

intestate estates, or the power of settling upon an unborn life, we cannot help inquiring whether this is all that is meant, or whether this is merely a portion of a big project, which, for convenience of carrying, has been cut into small lengths? These measures may not go very far, but they are pointers. On the theory of unceasing 'progress' they convey an unambiguous answer to the question, where are we going? We are assured by our guides that the road along which, for our benefit and their own, they are to conduct us, is indefinitely long. When we ask about the direction, their answers are somewhat hazy; but we may not unreasonably conclude that our future destiny in that regard may best be learned by a study of the past. There are certain laws which have governed the relations of the Liberal party to the movement which they call progress during the last forty years, and which we must conclude, in the absence of any contrary indications, will continue to govern it. The epoch of political change has lasted sufficiently long to enable us to generalise upon its phenomena, to observe what is constant and what is variable in its successive manifestations, and so in some degree to predict the future.

The party of change has always presented itself as a combination of elements at first sight quite incompatible. It has consisted of a section to whom change has been little agreeable, who have only submitted to it from a belief that it was inevitable, from old connection with the party, or perhaps from a just conviction that the chances of personal advancement were to be found only on that side. But they have accepted as little of it as they could, and have always been anxious to give the narrowest interpretation to the wide professions of their party. The other section, on the contrary, have scarcely concealed their aversion for the moderate counsels of their allies. They have avowedly accepted these party watchwords only for a This philosophy lends to their proposals a momentary purpose. The measures which totally different colour from what they would the moderate section have swallowed with wear if considered on their own merits alone. an ill-grace they, while accepting them, have When they ask us to move on, our thoughts ostentatiously spoken of as mere milk for are naturally directed, not to the few steps babes; and they have confidently predicted they now invite us to take, but to the long a time when the whole of their demands journey of which these steps are to form an would be conceded. The leader of this illinsignificant part. When they recommend assorted army has uniformly belonged to the the ballot, or the payment of election ex- moderate section; sometimes he has been a penses, in order, as they think, to increase very recent convert to the measures he has the power of the artisan, we naturally ask proposed. He has always repelled with inwhether this is to be the end of the demand, dignation the idea that his proposals would or whether the power thus gained is not to involve or would facilitate the projects of be used for the purpose of gaining more. his extreme allies. Nay, he has rather offerAgain, when they ask us to abolish the prac-ed them as a means of making those designs tice of primogeniture in the inheritance of impossible by conceding reasonable de

mands. But, nevertheless, while disclaim- | lowers were right, and the moderate leaders ing their designs, the moderate leader has were deceived. The same lesson is repeated gladly availed himself of their support; and in the legislation concerning Dissenters. in the long run the end of it has always They were admitted into Parliament by the been this: his promises have been disavow- repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and ed, the predictions of the extreme men have the opponents of the measure were assured turned out to be correct, and the full mea- that no danger to the Church was to be sure of their demands has been conceded. feared from their Parliamentary votes. The Dissenters themselves knew better. Since that date their action has been one long and successful campaign against the Church. Similarly, in 1854, the Universities were opened to Dissent, with the assurance that no intention was entertained of severing them from the Church. But in 1871 the latter process was effected, and by the same men, on the distinct ground that such a severance was a necessary consequence of the Act of 1854.

This description will fit all the great changes which have taken place since 1820. In applying it we must not be supposed to be expressing any opinion as to the expediency of the measures in themselves-still less as expressing an opinion that all change could have been avoided. A theory of constant immobility is as irrational as a theory of constant progress. Great changes were doubtless necessary: the vice of those that were made was, that they constructed and settled nothing, but simply pacified the clamour of We must again repeat, to avoid misapprethe hour. But we are investigating them hension, that in this enumeration we have not as isolated changes, but as parts of a sys- not the slightest intention of discussing how tem of change, and as illustrating the value far these various measures were in themselves of the protests and predictions of those who good or evil. Our present concern with conduct it. Considered from this point of them is their relation to the theory of poliview, the constant repudiation of ulterior tical progress their value in answering the designs by the proposer of a great change, question, Whither are we going? And the the proclamation of the same designs by the point which they fairly prove is, that in disextreme partisans on whose support he is re- cussing our future advance in any political lying, and their invariable success in the end, direction, the guides whose predictions we are recurring phenomena well worthy of some are to believe, are not the leaders, but the reflection. The changes that have been extreme followers. The leader may sinmade in the English Constitution during this cerely speak his own sentiments, or he may century have taken place in obedience to the find it convenient to make the promises most demands of three different interests-the likely to disarm opposition and pass the parRoman Catholics, the Dissenters, and the ticular measure he has in hand; but he can Democrats. They were very different in im- neither bind his followers in the future, nor portance, as well as in intrinsic merit, but are his opinions a sample of what they are they have adhered to the general type we likely to hold. It is in its extremes that the have described. Sir Robert Peel, in passing fruitful germs of the party of movement rethe Catholic Relief Act, earnestly repudiated side. There lie the embryo forms and the any idea of destroying the Irish Church; and generating forces of its future life. This he was sustained in that disclaimer by the has been so in the past, and there is no reavast majority of those who helped him to son why it should not be so in time to come. pass that bill. But O'Connell, under whose The extreme left of yesterday is the hesitatpressure and by whose strength he was acting centre of to-day; does it not follow, on ing, held very different views; and accord- the theory of 'progress,' that the extreme ingly Sir Robert Peel's pupil, setting aside left of to-day will be the centre of to-morhis disclaimer, pursued the measure to its row? At all events, if the past is to be conclusion and destroyed the Irish Church. trusted, no disclaimers on the part of leaders The Whigs of the Reform Bill always believ- can in the slightest degree affect the probaed their measure to be one of finality, and bilities of the future. If we wish to know earnestly assured both their supporters and the future, for instance, in respect to protheir opponents that they had no intention perty, we must enquire-not what they think, of making it the first step in a democratic for they have to consult the expediency of descent. But they relied upon the support the moment, but what is thought by the of men who saw more clearly whither their more hardy and independent politicians, who principles inevitably led. The tale of its can afford both to think out and to speak consequences is not yet complete. But in out. the enactment of household suffrage and a fresh disfranchisement of boroughs, enough has happened to show that the extreme fol

Now that the old controversies are nearly played out, and malcontents of a new class are bringing into prominence new topics of dispute, it is of no use trying to fore

cast our fate by examining the pledges or past opinions of existing leaders. We must rather scrutinise the declarations of those who occupy towards the question of property the same position that was occupied by O'Connell towards the claims of the Irish Catholics, or by Cobbett towards the claims of the English Democrats. By their attitude and their views we may conjecture the true significance and practical import of the 'bitby-bit' attacks which the present Government occasionally makes upon property. There was very much to be said for the proposals of Sir Robert Peel in 1829, and Lord Grey in 1831: so much, that in this day we are puzzled to understand why those proposals were so stoutly resisted as they were. But, nevertheless, they were steps to the results of 1869 and 1867-results which both Sir Robert Peel and Lord Grey would have regarded with indignation and alarm. Mr. Gladstone may look with similar feelings upon the schemes of the Internationale. But that fact will be small consolation to us if his present little instalments of Socialism lead towards that consummation. To ascertain the likelihood of that contingency we must examine, not his speeches (though they give us some hints), but the declarations of the extremer and bolder theorists on whose support he relies, such as Mr. Mill, and Mr. Odger, and Mr. Harrison.

Writers of this class leave us in no doubt as to their sentiments. The tendency of their proposals varies according to the special antipathies they entertain. Mr. Mill and Mr. Odger are chiefly opposed to the landlord: Mr. Harrison, with his Parisian sympathies, occupies himself mainly with the capitalist. But their conclusion is much the same that the free possession of individual property is to cease. They arrive at the same end by somewhat different roads. Mr. Odger proposes that all real property land, houses, and mines-in the country, should be forcibly purchased and held by the State. Mr. Mill's proposal is apparently, but only apparently, more moderate. He would only insist upon the compulsory purchase where the landowner declined to surrender all interest in the future increase of the value of his land. But as the price of land is, and for a long time back has been, regulated, not by its immediate return (which is small), but by the prospect of its growth in value, it is obvious that any one surrendering the prospect of future growth would be surrendering a large part of the price of his land. The two schemes, therefore, are in truth precisely identical in effect. It is needless to dwell on the preposterous character of these propositions from a prac

tical point of view. The State could not find the five thousand million pounds sterling that would be required for such a purchase: and unless its thrift and administrative capacity were very marvellously increased (qualities for which republics have not hitherto been remarkable), the financial result of an attempt to manage such an estate would simply be national bankruptcy. Our object in quoting these schemes is, not to refute them, but merely to show that the direction, in which the party of 'movement,' or 'progress,' is advancing, is towards an attack upon individual property. It is the same tendency as that which is so strongly marked. in the doctrines of the Internationale. Mr. Harrison's language, though its violence deprives it of, precision, points in the same direction. He denounces the 'selfish, antisocial independence of wealth,' the claim of capital to spend wealth how and where it pleases,' and declares that 'individual property can no longer exist on prevalent conditions.' Similar language is heard from other Liberals not perhaps quite so advanced. Professor Seeley, a divine much honoured by the head of the present Government, speaks, even under the restraints imposed by the neutrality required in a lecture at the Royal Institution, of

[ocr errors]

'That great monopoly which the age does not attack but steadfastly maintains, but which none the less helps to increase the mass of discontent and to hasten change-the right of private property itself.'

We have not referred to election addresses; for they can hardly be assumed to represent the deliberate opinions of those who issue them.

It is a matter of course that opinions of this kind, endorsed by known political writers, should appear at any hustings where they are likely to be of use. It is satisfactory to find that, so far, the denunciations of the landlords,' which have become a commonplace with the small but savage school of Academical Radicals, have hitherto done more harm than good to the candidates that have employed them. But there is one address, in the nature of an election address, which, on account of the position of its author, may be cited as a sign of the times. Mr. Gladstone's Whitby speech is a very remarkable production. It makes an epoch,' as the French say. before happened in the history of this country that a Prime Minister has sought political strength by setting himself and his Government forth, in a speech to a public meeting, as the champions of the poor against the rich. How far he is prepared to go, it would be hazardous to predict. It

may be that the tale of his conversions is not yet complete. It may be, that in using that perilous language he was merely speaking heedlessly under the influence of irritation at recent electoral and parliamentary defeats, Whatever his motives, his words will be remembered and used by those whose trade, it is to mislead the English workmen.

new

must fall to pieces. And as each successive cause of discontent is removed, by the complete triumph of the discontented class or section, the party of movement, in order to sustain its existence, must find some subject of complaint. It by no means fol lows that the individuals who have sincerely and successfully advocated one change will, when it is secured, immediately set themselves to advocate another. If they are honest, they will often shrink from doing so, and at such a juncture will part company with their former comrades. That men who were Radicals when young should frequently become Conservatives in old age is dué quite as much to the constant progress' of Radicalism as to the torpor of advancing years; but, though they may stand still, the organisation to which they belonged goes on. Gaps made by the personal consistency of older men are filled up by younger and unpledged recruits. The party of change is bound to no specific line of change. The one thing that is necessary to its existence is a discontent; and if no other is strong enough for its purposes, it will tend to fall back on that ancient and perennial source of animosity which, unhappily, has never ceased, and never will cease, to flow in every civilised community-the quarrel of the poor against the rich.

The unstable character of Mr. Gladstone's convictions is not, however, more than an incidental source of danger. The probability that the extreme Radicals will take the principle of individual property as their next subject of attack does not depend on any intentional encouragement they are likely to get from the present Government. The Ministry would repel with energy the accusation of Socialist proclivities. Probably, if they could be brought to discuss seriously an imputation which they would laugh at as ridiculous, they would maintain that their teaching, on the whole, was in direct antagonism to the Socialist philosophy. As far as logical sequence is concerned, the plea would be perfectly sound. They are apostles of political economy: in the eyes of the Socialist political economy is a science devised by the capitalist to help him in plundering the workman. They are sticklers for individual liberty, while the Socialists bluntly lay down that individual liberty is a false point of departure, and is inconsistent with the solidarity' they preach. Many other points of opposition could be established between the orthodox Liberal creed as it exists now, and that which the Internationale is organised to proclaim. There is very little in common between the two; and, as far as abstract logic is concerned, the development of the one into the other would be impossible. But it is the actual, not the logical sequence, that interests us. Consist-Our ency of opinion has not been the historical attribute of either of our English parties. What deductions may be logically drawn from the existing views of the Liberal party may be an interesting inquiry for a speculative philosopher. To the service of what views their party machinery is in practice likely to be devoted, must be gathered from a consideration of the forces that drive it, and the laws by which its movements have been governed in past time.

It is obvious that as the party of resistance rests upon the satisfaction which the nation feels, or is presumed to feel, with its present institutions, the party of movement, on the other hand, lives upon discontent. If there could be a state of things in which there was no discontent, its reason of existence would be gone, and its organisation

[blocks in formation]

If political conflict is really to take this form, we are approaching a crisis of terrible moment: for within the scope of historical record no community has yet been robust enough to surmount uninjured the outbreak of this antagonism. We know that it terminated the existence of Rome, not as a military power, but as a free and law-abiding state. We know that, in more than one instance, it paralysed the vitality and prepared the doom of the Italian Republics. own generation has witnessed the gradual working of its poisonous influence upon the freedom, the public spirit, the national cohesion of France. It cannot be without painful forebodings that we see the earlier symptoms of this fatal malady breaking out among ourselves. It has not yet taken its acuter form; for the animosity is at present exhibited more by those whose vocation it is to stir up the poorest class than by the poorest class themselves. the success of similar appeals in France hardly leaves us the hope that they will meet with no response here, especially if, as seems likely, they are to be reckoned for the future among the ordinary missiles of party warfare. But, indeed, it was idle to expect that such an instrument of agitation should not be employed here, when its great potency has been so fully demonstrated a few

But

miles off. So long as we have government
by party, the very notion of repose must be
foreign to English politics. Agitation is, so
to speak, endowed in this country. There
is a standing machinery for producing it.
There are rewards which can only be ob-
tained by men who excite the public mind,
and devise means of persuading one set of
persons that they are deeply injured by
another. The production of cries is en-
couraged by a heavy bounty. The inven-
tion and exasperation of controversies lead
those who are successful in such arts to
place, and honour, and power. Therefore,
politicians will always select the most irritat-treme and desperate politicians.
ing cries, and will raise the most exasperat-
ing controversies that circumstances will
permit. That English workmen would of
themselves learn to share the fanaticism of
the Parisian Socialists is exceedingly im-
probable; but it would be too much to ex-
pect, if their superiors in education promise
them an elysium of high wages and little
work, as the result of pillaging other classes
of the community, that they should be keen-
sighted enough to see through the delusion
and refuse the tempting bait.

were reluctantly pushed on, and the minority
imposed its views upon the majority. The
same tactics have been practised more than
once with success upon the Ministers that fol
lowed. Those who are ready, if thwarted,
to vote against their party leader will have
more command over him, and will be better
able to force him into their views, than those
who vote for him steadily, whatever hap-
pens. The men who are fanatical for their
cause win an easy victory over those who are
guided by party allegiance, or feelings of per-
sonal regard. It is a terrible advantage
which our party arrangements give to ex-

We must therefore, at all events, expect to meet the doctrines of the Internationale in the arena of political discussion. It may well be that an effort will be made to procure for some of them-such, for instance, as the proposals of Mr. Odger and Mr. Mill-an admission into the programme of the Liberal party. That the mass of the present Liberals have no wish or intention of the kind, we are perfectly aware; ; but the tactics by which a small fraction of a party imposes its doctrines on the remainder are well known, and have been perfected by frequent practice. They are founded upon the established rule of political arithmetic, that one variable is worth more than a score of constants. When an election is nearly balanced, the important people-the voters who occupy every agent's thoughts, engross every civility, and can ensure the most respectful attention to every fancy they may entertain—are not the five hundred on each side whose votes are certain, but the twenty who have refused to promise. In the close party divisions of Lord Palmerston's time, the men upon whom every resource of Ministerial blandishment was expended, were not the respectable phalanx behind the Minister, whose votes were as certain as that of the Minister himself, but the waifs and strays of politics-the advanced theoriststhe men of a single idea-the apostles of a crotchet. They had their price when a party vote was wanted, and that price was an onward step in the direction of their own ideas. And thus the statesmen of the Liberal party

[ocr errors]

But of course this power of an extravagant minority depends wholly on the long-suffering of the majority. The time may come when the middle classes, who are the real support of Liberal Governments, will awake to the dangers into which they are being hurried by their revolutionary allies. However necessary it may be, from a party point of view, that the school of politicians represented by Mr. Odger and Mr. Mill should be conciliated, they must at last recognise that party vic tories may be bought too dear, and that there are interests compared to which the welfare of a Ministry is trivial. Their mistake in recent times has been, that they have accepted their political connexions and antagonisms too much from tradition, without noticing how much the world has moved. They have gone on belabouring their old adversaries, the squire and the parson, with all the entbusiasm of their fathers half a century ago; and have not discerned the vast, overshadowing power that is growing up behind them. Their old enemies are maimed and shrunken: the force with which they now have to count is that of the auxiliaries by whose aid their former victories were won. New questions are before the world: new issues are to be fought out, which in importance dwarf the old. The calamities of France are useful to us in this, that they warn the classes who are threatened here of the dangers of entering upon a new political era hampered with the enmities and the friendships which belonged to a period that has gone by. We have seen what has been the fate of a bourgeoisie who, in 1848, to obtain a miserable party triumph, accepted a Socialist alliance. There is good hope that no such folly will be committed here. During the past Session, the Government showed an inclination on more than one occasion to purchase, by semi-socialist proposals, support of the same kind. But, however obsequious their party had hitherto been, they were unable to carry it with them in these attempts. Much of the future peace and strength of this country depends upon the

« EelmineJätka »