A NATIONAL PARTY ?
PERHAPS not unnaturally there is a strong feeling just now in the minds of plain men, that somehow or other it ought to be possible to form a National Party,—a party that is entirely devoted to the good of the nation, and formed of the picked men of all political creeds and classes, to which all that is worthy in the country could rally. This dream of reviving the golden age of politics, " when none were for a party, but all were for the State," never wholly disappears from the national mind ; but just now it is attracting a special amount of attention. In Wednesday's Times, for instance, a correspondent writes to suggest that we are underrating the change that took place in 1885, and that on that change may be founded a National Party which shall practically put an end to party government. We believe that this talk of a National Party is not only entirely illusory, but that even if it could be carried into operation, the National Party would quickly come to an end, and the old system be restored. No doubt on the occasion of some great national crisis, a National Party is formed out of the two existing parties ; but an arrangement of this kind is not permanent in its nature. For example, during the war with France at the beginning of the century, a large portion of the Whigs united with the Tories to form what was, in fact, a National Party, in order to ensure the safety of the nation. In the same way, in 1886, a section of the Liberal Party began to act with the Tories owing to Mr. Gladstone's attempts to dissolve the Union, and will no doubt continue to act with them till Home-rule is relegated to the limbo of Parlia- mentary failures. Just, however, as the Whig Party revived directly the war with France ceased, so the Liberal Party will revive as soon as Home-rule is abandoned by those who now support it ; and the National Party of which men speak, will come to an end. But, say those who agree with the correspondent of the Times, what a pity this would be. Why cannot we go on with one great National Party, and give up the old system of party government ? It has answered for several years already, why should it not answer altogether ? ' There is only one objection to this, and to the establishment of a great permanent National Party that shall include every just and patriotic person in the country ; but that is, unfortunately, an absolutely fatal one,—it is contrary to human nature. No such combination of all the worth and all the talent in the nation could pos- sibly be permanent, or could last except under the pressure of a national crisis. The reason is obvious. Though the members of the great National Party might agree in theory, they would very soon find that they differed in practice, and that one section of the party was strongly opposed to the other as regards the particular way in which their policy should be carried out. But this difference would soon cause the National Party to split in two, for the great preventative of splits in ordinary party warfare, the fear of a division in the face of the enemy, would not exist, for we take it that the National Party would in effect have swallowed up all other parties. A party is a combination of men who have " averaged " their political opinions, and so found a common ground of action. It is possible that even the majority may not really agree with all the items of the party programme ; but they are content to subordinate their feelings upon this or they subject, in order that the general direction may be the one they want, and that they may prevent their political opponents from carrying out a policy they deem unwise. This latter consideration is the cement which keeps parties together, and prevents the differences of opinion between their members from bringing them to ruin. A man may be inclined to throw over his party because it has not adopted his particular crotchet, but when he reflects that his desertion will give power to the opposite side, he hesitates, unless he considers the matter one of vital importance. Hence party cohesion depends upon opposition. In the National Party, then, there would be no cohesion, since it would, to begin with, have nothing opposed to it. Who can doubt that under these circumstances, and since they would have full play, the differences of opinion which always occur among human beings would soon produce two parties out of the National Party, and that we should return to the present condition of things? Yet another good reason for not desiring the formation of a permanent National Party is to be found in the fact that even if there remained over a party sufficient to produce this necessary cohesion, it would be an exceedingly dangerous thing to have all the good men attached to one party. Ex- perience shows that it is of the nature of representative assemblies to change. This is a mitigated evil when there are men on both sides of the House capable of steering the ship. What would be the state of affairs if, instead of a fairly able alternative Ministry, there was nothing but a collec- tion of the young lions of the London County Council ? Unquestionably, judged apart from the opinions they pro- fess, it is of great importance that there should be two parties. In the first place, under ordinary circumstances, men who have been governing for seven or eight years get stale ; and it is, therefore, good for the country that they should be replaced by a fresh " shift." Again, since poli- ticians are human, the presence of an able, vigilant Opposi- tion is of great importance in keeping Ministers up to their work. The knowledge that jobs will be exposed, extravagance commented on, administrative blunders dragged to light, and every detail of the work of Government examined and criticised, has a great effect in keeping a Ministry up to the mark. No body of administrators, from a Parish Com- mittee to a Cabinet, works well without criticism; and this criticism is only obtainable by means of an Opposition. Party government has no doubt many drawbacks, but the drawbacks of government without party are infinitely more serious. One of the greatest injuries done by Mr. Gladstone to the country in 1886, was his forcing the best of the Liberal leaders, and the best and most thoughtful of the rank and file, out of the Liberal Party, and so giving an undue preponderance of character and ability to one party in the State. The ideal condition is that neither party should be committed to a course of action which renders it diffi- cult for wise and patriotic men to remain in it. The man who destroys a great political party is like the man who undertakes armed rebellion. His action is only justified by a good cause and success. Sir Robert Peel was justified in destroying the Tory Party in order to free the food of the people ; but, in our opinion, Mr. Gladstone was not justified when he attempted to destroy the settle- ment made at the Union. Be that as it may, however, it is clear that there is no room for a National Party, and that the ideas which inspire those who demand it are well- meaning delusions. We want two parties, and neither of them too weak or too degraded to provide fitting rulers for the State.
Previous page
