MR. HERBERT SPENCER ON PARLIAMENT.
MR. HERBERT SPENCER is probably quite right in declining to allow his name to be placed before the Liberal electors of Leicester, as a Liberal candidate. Apart altogether from his personal plea that his health is too infirm to endure the severe work of Parliament, which would not be quite final, as he would be exempt from Committees, and would be treated with consideration by his constituents, he would not be a fitting representative of Leicester. In the first place, he is not a Radical, and indeed hardly a politician at all, in any Parliamentary sense. His admirers regard him as the Apostle of Individualism, and his detractors as the enemy of asso- ciated effort, and in neither character could he aid in the work of a Legislature which, if the nation has nothing to do in its corporate capacity but pay constables—or, as Mr. Spencer puts it, to distribute justice—is a superfluous absurdity. He would, as he himself acknowledges, though in primmer phraseo- logy, be at loggerheads with his constituents in a week, and in a month be sick of an assembly in which he can hold no logical place, his ultimate thought when his -philosophy is sounded being that to decree even a water supply for Leicester, and compel the people to pay for it, is some- thing of an oppression. In the second place, it is true—as he appears to believe, though he puts the point, as we shall presently show, rather differently—that the man of thought,
and especially the man of thought accustomed to write rather than to speak, rarely makes a valuable Member of Parliament.
Newton did not and Burke did not, John Stuart Mill did not, and Thomas Carlyle would not have done. Philosophers have been statesmen sometimes, but unless we reckon Guizot a philosopher, we can hardly recall one who has been a great Member of Parliament, Sir S. Romilly being, perhaps, the nearest approach ; and if less than great, the philosopher in Parliament is wasted by all the work he might have done, but in consequence of his seat did not do. The truth seems to be that Parliamentary labour belongs, in great measure, though not wholly, to the field of action ; that oratory is to the politician only what the telegraph is to a General ; that the statesman influences an Assembly more than the thinker. We hardly know why it should be so, but unless in times of upheaval, when the very foundations of things are called in question, Parliaments are impatient of discourses on principles, and call rather for able applications of principles developed and accepted elsewhere. An orator may sometimes charm by a reference to principles, but if he begins to demon- strate them he empties the House. Mr. Spencer could hardly help demonstrating, or do anything but demonstrate, and will, therefore, convey his ideas to the world, whatever their value—and somebody must plead for Individualism—with far more potency and result, as he has hitherto done, on paper. We cannot, however, quite agree with Mr. Spencer in his depreciation of the present value or usefulness of ability in a Member of Parliament. He seems tempted to regard him merely as a registrar of decisions which have been arrived at elsewhere, and that although it is often said, more especially by journalists, who, feeling a certain shadow thrown on them by the practice of writing anonymously, are not displeased to magnify their profession, is not quite true. That discussion outside increases, that opinion is daily more and more formed by reading, and that the general consensus is stronger than has ever yet been the case, are, of course, undeniable facts, but they do not cover the whole ground. The function of the Member is undeniably changing, but then, the new function is as important as the old. The Member, per- haps, no longer makes opinion—how much of it did he make when he was unreported?—but he is still the sieve through which opinion is sifted, until it fits the facts ; and upon his capacity for doing that, and persuading the country and other Members how to do it rightly, much of progress depends. The function of making opinion practical, which remains to the Member exclusively, is of itself a great one ; but there is more than this. " Public Opinion," rate it as high as you will, is at the best only the wish of a Monarch, scarcely formulated, realisable only in part, attainable only after long struggles against ad- verse influences and circumstances. To tell that Monarch honestly and wisely, even if his commands may not be dis- puted, how far his wish is possible, what will happen if it is granted, and what are the elements of resistance ; to persuade those who are doubtful of the wisdom of his wish, or have interests opposed to its attainment ; and finally, so to manage the machinery that what is best in the wish shall be secured, is surely not mean work. When, indeed, had the Member other work to do ? The power of the "flat " has always resided some- where, whether in the Sovereign, as under the Tudors; or in the aristocracy, as under the Georges ; or in the "legal nation," as under the first Reform Bill, and has never resided in the Member. There has always been an appeal from him, though the Appel- late Court has changed. The Member is no worse off than he was even in his position as adviser of the monarch Opinion, except in this,—that the monarch listens to so many more counsellors, receives so much more information, sees so many more events, that the Member, to affect him, must be a little wiser, a little fuller of knowledge, and a little louder. When he possesses these qualities, he is as influential as ever, or, indeed, more so, because the King he serves and helps to guide is so immeasurably stronger than any preceding King. Does Mr. Herbert Spencer really believe that Mr. Gladstone can less go his own way than Mr. Pitt—though his master is more visible—or that Mr. Chamberlain, say, is more of a delegate, less individual, less powerful to affect affairs than Mr. Huskisson ? We undertake to say that Mr. Glad- stone can produce more impression on the new Monarch, Public Opinion, by a three hours' speech than Pitt ever pro- duced on George III. by weeks of argument ; and that if Mr. Chamberlain died to-morrow, he would be as much missed by his party as any representative who had not governed the country ever was. If the Member is only the delegate, why is any Member missed I The Parnellite is a delegate, if any- body in the House is a delegate ; but suppose Mr. Parnell withdrawn. Of course, every Member cannot be in the first flight, but every Member has such a chance, merely from the fact of his Membership, of influencing and serving the new Sovereign, that to secure the ablest and most persuasive Members is a matter still of the first importance. If not, why do parties exult when they secure a new " good man "? Suppose for a moment that the young Tory Member from Lincolnshire, who made an epigrammatic speech the• other night, Mr. Finch-Hatton, turned out to have in him much of Lord Beaconsfield's capacity, does anybody doubt that the position and hopes and prospects of the Tory party would be very seriously changed ? The discussion would go on outside all the same, and public opinion would still be made and still rule, but a new factor would have appeared in the making, which would influence not only the out-turn, but all the other manufacturers. A man's self-confidence must be very great, if he thinks, or writes or speaks when Lord Beaconsfield is to answer and expose him exactly as he would when he has only to meet the lath sword covered with tinsel of Lord Randolph Churchill. The Member, in fact, has all the power he ever had, and at least as much freedom, the Member who ratted of old, having been treated with much more contumely and much harder knocks. We doubt even if the public is more impatient of eccentricity, and are quite certain that it is more patient of opposition, so long as it is sure that it is honest. Mr. Herbert Spencer might, as Member for Leicester, find himself powerless ; but it would not be because, being a Mem- ber, he could not influence opinion, or because his constituents would bind him to vote on all occasions as their delegate. Mr. Herbert Spencer has, we believe, like meaner men, been taken in by the amazing talk about the growth of the Caucus system. He entirely forgets that a couple of wealthy deacons can be quite as oppressive to a Dissenting pastor as a large congregation can. The constituents always have made them- selves unpleasant to erratic Members, only, under a narrow suffrage the whip was exercised through a " deputation " of " leading electors," or a letter from " influential con- stituents," and now it is exercised through the resolu- tions of an elected Committee, or messages from com- bined Associations. The true change is not in the amount of pressure, but in its kind, the constituencies having advanced in political knowledge till they understand clearly what their Member is doing, and can send him remonstrances which he feels are not senseless, but intelligent. That change, no doubt, greatly diminishes his capacity for resistance ; but then it also ought to diminish it. A man may feel his wife's opposition more when she is his equal in information, but then the opposition is more worthy of regard, and occasional submission far less inconsistent with freedom. As a matter of fact, we believe Members were never more free than at present, or more important to the conduct of affairs,—and, when important " interests " are con- cerned, we could sometimes find it in our hearts to wish that the freedom were less complete. The boroughs, in particular, are quite as much affected by their Member as he is by them— witness Northampton—and it would not have surprised us, had Mr. Spencer accepted Leicester, to discover, after twelve months, that, while he had not much influenced Parliament, he had dissolved the Liberal party in Leicester into 11,000 individuals, with 11,000 programmes and 11,000 reasons for refusing to do any one thing in combination, especially to obey so oppressive a law as that which dictates that all electors, what- ever their individual preoccupations, or wishes, or needs, shall all vote on the same day. A petition to Parliament to allow everybody to vote when he pleased, and by himself, would have been a great instance of the remaining influence of Mem- bership, and we should think would also have been a gratifi- cation to Mr. Spencer. He may rely on it that should he ever reconsider his decision, his ideas will not be one whit less influential out of doors than they are at present ; and as the power, in his opinion, lies there, he would lose by helping the National Council absolutely nothing.
Previous page
