THE " HOOLIGAN " PARTY.
IT happens nearly always that a nickname which sticks to a man or to a party is the result of pure chance. Nobody makes it his business to invent nicknames. When Mr. Bright compared the action of the third party led by Mr. Lowe in opposition to the Reform Bill of 1866 to the action of the discontented men of the Cave of Adullam, he probably did not suppose that the term " Acluthenites " would stick. It was a chance allusion, but be coined a word which has had a distinct political meaning ever since. It was chance which introduced into the slang of politicio the term " Hooliganism" Just as the name of a gang Of brothers somehow got conferred on the whole band of irresponsible young ruffians who two or three years ago began to make themselves a common topic of discussion, so the name of " Hooligans"—possibly owing to a certain consonance with Lord Hugh Cecil's Christian name—in some way became transferred to the small party i which Lord Hugh leads, or is supposed to lead, in the House of Commons. " Hooligans ' they remain It is not exactly a name of reproach, or of ridicule. The term has become generic, and it suggests, we fancy, something not unsympathetic to the average Englishman. Youth, and the militant ardour of youth, combined with a tendency to frequent queer by-paths and alleys, and to punch the heads of unsuspecting passers-by,—it suggests perhaps something more and something less than that; but the definition may serve for the present. Lord Hugh Cecil has established for himself a certain reputation in the House of Commons, a reputation which the Session which has just opened will probably do much to justify or to destroy. Those who sit on the same side of the House as he does are at present not sure of him. " He was just as likely to turn against them at some moment of political importance. He could not fall in with the discipline of the party ; he could not subject his opinions or his caprices to its supposed interests. Some men on his own side of the House disliked him Many feared him ; no one regarded him as a trustworthy party man " That criticism, made years ago upon one whose Parliamentary career has been far longer and gxeater than Lord Hugh's, is not wholly applicable to the younger man. But it was written of a politician the future of whose career was in the " sixties' at least as doubtful as is Lord Hugh's to-day. The Lord Robert Cecil of forty years ago was not a man who it might be taken for granted would. necessarily respect the opinions of those whom ordinary Members regarded as inspired political leaders. He might bludgeon them or he might not. He was the " gooligan." of his day.
It is worth while to try to see what it is that differen- tiates the attitude towards public questions of the ". Hooligan " school of politicians from the attitude of the average party Member. The " Hooligan " politician is probably a young man who comes to party questions straight from his University 'Union Debating Society. On certain matters his mind is made up. He is not going to be dictated to by leaders ; he will not be guided by majorities. He does not conceive it his whole duty to obey the lash of the party sjambok ; he leaves that to crack over the shoulders of his elders, who possibly know very little and care less about questions which have agitated him for. years. That is his slightly rebellious, and as we should put it, often valuably rebellious, attitude. As regards Lord Hugh Cecil in particular, and the "Hooligans" of whom he is the mouthpiece, the subject, of course, which he has made his own, and as to which his action and its consequences will be closely watched during the resent Session, is the ,part which he conceives religion should take in national education. Lord Hugh " cannot understand how persons who sincerely accept the truth of religion can prefer secular to religious instruction." He believes that until politicians make up their minds " frankly and loyally to accept the principle that children ought to be brought up in the religious belief of their parents, there will never be progress in the educational system of the country." Well, there he meets with opposition, active or passive, on both sides of the Haase. 10 many men the subject is visionary, un- interesting. They see the Bishops, as they think, satis- fied, or at all events not militantly dissatisfied, with things as they are ; they conclude that as things are they -vigil remain. The Bill which the Government will introduce does not appear to them to be likely to alter matters much for the worse. The sleeping dogs will not be awakened, even by a comprehensive measure dealing with secondary as well as primary' education. Lord Hugh looks into the future further than that. Suppose that an Educa- tion Bill were introduced, not necessarily by this, but possibly by another Government. Suppose that it seriously affected a school like Bloxham (the name is taken at random), in that Government grants were offered to schools conditionally only on certain religious teaching being modified, or made voluntary, or dropped altogether. That is one of the rocks—it is not, of course, the only rock—which Lord Hugh sees ahead. And here two com- parisons suggest themselves. Two men who were after- wards great leaders of political parties entered Parliament near the middle of the last century with almost exactly the same past behind them. with almost exactly the same teliefs aad ideals with mil& the same future befdre them as the past, present, and futurewith whieh Lord Hugh Cecil entered Parlia- ment a fevi years ago. They were Mr. Gladstone and Lord 8alitibury. Lord. Hugh Cecil is thirty-two. Mr. Gladstone Was thirty when, after the publication of " Church and State," Macaulay described him as "the rising hope of the stern and unbending Tories." Hei4i was a young man burning with much the same devotion to Tory, principles and a High Church as animates Lord Hugh to-day. Will the young Tory follow in the steps of such a pre- decessor? Mr. Gladstone after his defeat over Home- rule began to reconsider his views. If the nation would not follow him in what he sincerely came to believe was .a Matter of justice, right, and conscience, then might it not be that the Christian spirit was deadened by Establishment? Could the younger Tory in similar circumstances come to such a conclusion ? It would be difficult to say if it were not that another comparison is possible. Lord Robert Cecil made one of his chief points in his first-address to the electors of Stamford his-" sincere and warm " attachment to the Church of England. He advocated, a religious system of education. He was "ready at all times" to support any measure increasing the "usefulness" of the Church, which would " render the number of her Bishops and clergy more equal to her requirements." He wrote that when he was twenty-three ; he had just been elected a Fellow of All Souls. Ten years later he exposed the practice of " editing " the Reports of H.M. Inspectors of Schools by the Education Department. His obtainment of a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Educa- tion Department in 1865 was one of the first steps towards the passing of the great Act of 1870. Lord Hugh Cecil, almost exactly at Lord Robert Cecil's age, stirred the London School Board. to wrath by calling for the publication of a separate account of money went• in the working of the Whitehall Code. And to-day the country is awaitine. an Education Bill. The coincidence need not be insisted upon. But between the after careers of the two "unbending Tories," Mr. Gladstone and the present Prime Minister, how great a difference there lay : the one growing rasher, more carried away by his emotions, more unbalanced ; the other more cautious, perhaps more cynical and pessimistic, certainly more tolerant and broad-minded. The future of the " Hooligan " of to-day remains undetermined.
But after all, might it not be laid down almost as an axiom that the man with political greatness in him will be sure to begin by being a Parliamentary " Hooligan " ? Not, of course, that you will become great by making up your mind to " Hooliganism." That has been tried before now and has failed. The Member who ousted. Sir William Harcourt from Derby tried it. But you must bring fresh ideas, a fresh personality, to Obtain a hearing. And how many politicians, taking' the Unionist party alone, who have achieved. some measure of greatness, have not at same early period of their careers been " Hooligans ? Certainly Lord Salisbury was a " Hooligan." Lord Salis- bury was thirty when he described Mr. Gladstone's action in regard to the repeal of the Paper-duties as that of an attorney rather than a statesman, adding the famous explanation that his phrase did injustice to the attorneys. Yet he was not even then unready to attack Mr. Disraeli in terms almost as offensive. Disraeli himself swaggered in political controversy as a free-lance, usually remarkably attired, until he made up his mind to attach Sir Robert Peel ; many years later than that he said of Lord Salisbury that he was " not a man who measures his phrases." Mr. Balfour and Lord Randolph Churchill were only just over thirty when they sat below the gang- way in the Fourth party. But instances might be multiplied. And to-day who is there? Lord Hugh Cecil; Lord Percy, banging away at his Russian bogey ; Mr. Winston Churchill, earnest in all matters affecting himself, as a " Hooligan " should be ; Mr. Evelyn Cecil, and perhaps Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, each with more than an echo of Lord Hugh's enthusiasm for the Church as educator,—and possibly others lacking the opportunity for belt and bludgeon. But the " Hooliganism of all of them is a thing of promise. The statesmanship—they are young men, and there are older men than they, as there were forty years ago, who are known and trusted— is yet to come.
Previous page
