Page images
PDF
EPUB

ascertain their real operation, either by experiment or at least by tentative advance. Innovators have been simply content to challenge their adversaries to show them some other change preferable to their own. The alternative of not changing at all has been put out of court as beyond discussion. The notion that a vast amount of evil is irremediable, and that perchance in some particular cases no change is possible, except a change for the worse, has been scouted as 'want of faith.' This roseate theory has given to political reformers the same kind of courage that a disbelief in the existence of reefs would give to sailors. But what if the certainty is an illusion? In such a case it would be a small consolation to the mariners who relied on it that their steering had shown great 'faith,' or their seamanship had evinced a truly hopeful spirit. The course of recent 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?

The question is legitimate even for English politicians. For we all know that to be ruled by the Liberal party is the sine quâ 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.

This philosophy lends to their proposals a totally different

colour

colour from what they would wear if considered on their own merits alone. When they ask us to move on, our thoughts are naturally directed, not to the few steps they now invite us to take, but to the long journey of which these steps are to form an insignificant part. When they recommend the ballot, or the payment of election expenses, in order, as they think, to increase the power of the artisan, we naturally ask whether this is to be the end of the demand, or whether the power thus gained is not to be used for the purpose of gaining more. Again, when they ask us to abolish the practice of primogeniture in the inheritance of 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 momentary purpose. The measures which the moderate section have swallowed with an ill-grace they, while accepting them, have ostentatiously spoken of as mere milk for babes; and they have confidently predicted a time when the whole of their

demands

demands would be conceded. The leader of this ill-assorted army has uniformly belonged to the moderate section; sometimes he has been a very recent convert to the measures he has proposed. He has always repelled with indignation the idea. that his proposals would involve or would facilitate the projects of his extreme allies. Nay, he has rather offered them as a means of making those designs impossible by conceding reasonable demands. But, nevertheless, while disclaiming their designs, the moderate leader has gladly availed himself of their support; and in the long run the end of it has always been this: his promises have been disavowed, the predictions of the extreme men have turned out to be correct, and the full measure of their demands has been conceded.

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 the hour. But we are investigating them not as isolated changes, but as parts of a system of change, and as illustrating the value of the protests and predictions of those who conduct it. Considered from this point of view, the constant repudiation of ulterior designs by the proposer of a great change, the proclamation of the same designs by the extreme partisans on whose support he is relying, and their invariable success in the end, are recurring phenomena well worthy of some reflection. The changes that have been made in the English Constitution during this century have taken place in obedience to the demands of three different interests - the Roman Catholics, the Dissenters, and the Democrats. They were very different in importance, as well as in intrinsic merit, but they have adhered to the general type we have described. Sir Robert Peel, in passing the Catholic Relief Act, earnestly repudiated any idea of destroying the Irish Church; and he was sustained in that disclaimer by the vast majority of those who helped him to pass that bill. But O'Connell, under whose pressure and by whose strength he was acting, held very different views; and accordingly Sir Robert Peel's pupil, setting aside his disclaimer, pursued the measure to its conclusion and destroyed the Irish Church. The Whigs of the Reform Bill always believed their measure to be one of finality, and earnestly assured both their supporters and their opponents that they had no intention of making it the first step in a democratic descent. Vol. 131.-No. 262. 2 P But

But they relied upon the support of men who saw more clearly whither their principles inevitably led. The tale of its consequences is not yet complete. But in the enactment of household suffrage and a fresh disfranchisement of boroughs, enough has happened to show that the extreme followers were right, and the moderate leaders were deceived. The same lesson is repeated in the legislation concerning Dissenters. They were admitted into Parliament by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the opponents of the measure were assured that no danger to the Church was to be 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. We must again repeat, to avoid misapprehension, that in this enumeration we have not the slightest intention of discussing how far these various measures were in themselves good or evil. Our present concern with them is their relation to the theory of political progress their value in answering the question, Whither are we going? And the point which they fairly prove is, that in discussing our future advance in any political direction, the guides whose predictions we are to believe, are not the leaders, but the extremer followers. The leader may sincerely speak his own sentiments, or he may find it convenient to make the promises most likely to disarm opposition and pass the particular measure he has in hand; but he can neither bind his followers in the future, nor are his opinions a sample of what they are likely to hold. It is in its extremes that the fruitful germs of the party of movement reside. There lie the embryo forms and the generating forces of its future life. This has been so in the past, and there is no reason why it should not be so in time to come. The extreme left of yesterday is the hesitating centre of to-day; does it not follow, on the theory of progress,' that the extreme left of to-day will be the centre of to-morrow? At all events, if the past is to be trusted, no disclaimers on the part of leaders can in the slightest degree affect the probabilities of the future. If we wish to know the future, for instance, in respect to property, we must enquire-not what they think, for they have to consult the expediency of the moment, but what is thought by the more hardy and independent politicians, who can afford both to think out and to speak out. 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 forecast 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 'bit-by-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 practical 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

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »