MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S "ADVANCED" LIBERALISM.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN is, no doubt, an "advanced " Liberal, though he himself quite justly remarks, in his clever speech at West Bromwich, on Monday, that he has never advanced beyond the positive and negative creed of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright. Still it is possible to be in advance,—in a certain sense,—of a creed, without proposing a new article, or enlarging the absolute scope of any article which is already formulated. And it may happen in this way :—You may insist on the destructive side of a creed and keep the conservative side in the shade, and this is, it appears to us, what Mr. Chamberlain has done in his West Bromwich speech, to the injury of the speech itself, and to the detriment, to some slight extent at least,—in so young a politician one cannot make very much of such an error,—of his own reputa- tion for political sagacity. For Mr. Chamberlain is very eager indeed to prove that it is of no use giving household franchise to the counties unless you have something special you want to do with it, directly it is given. "The suffrage," he says, "has no inherent virtue in itself ; it is not an end, it is only the means to an end. When a man like Mr. Forster tells you, as he told us at Bristol the other day, that this question and similar questions were quite sufficient to engage the attention of the Liberal party, and that we might post- pone all other matters, he gives you advice which is very con- venient for a statesman who has not made up his own mind. But it is advice which it would be very unwise of you to im- plicitly adopt. The Aston man, of whom I have spoken, who crosses Hockley Brook to-morrow, and gets a vote in the borough, does not find himself wiser, or richer, or happier, simply because he is possessed of the franchise. The question for him and for you is,—What will he do with it ; what advantage will he obtain through the franchise for himself and for the community of which he forms part ? I am quite ready to join with any one in sharpening the axe, but before I do that, I should like to inquire whether there are any trees to out down." Now we doubt whether either Mr. Cobden or Mr. Bright would have admitted this contention of Mr. Chamber- lain. On the contrary, they would have said that the man who crossed Hookley Brook and got a vote in the borough by so doing, did gain something for himself, though not anything which would necessarily make him either happier or wiser. He would gain political sell-respect, and that practical political interest in the questions of the day which distinguishes a man who knows he can contribute his quota of influence to the ultimate solution of political problems, from one who cannot contribute anything but his opinion. It seems to us, indeed, that by far the best answer to Mr. Lowe is of this kind. We might admit to Mr. Lowe that many at least of the new constituents will not be very wise, not very intelligent, and in all probability not very Liberal. But we cannot admit that they would be none the better for their modicum of political power. As the Economist said e well last week :—" It is the man who does not know what 'Arlie- xi:lent can do who is apt to fancy that it can do everything. In his present condition, there is nothing to hinder the agri- cultural labourer from pinning his faith to the points of an impossible charter, and by that means losing sight of the steps by which alone he may be really benefited A voter is at least in the way of hearing both sides of the question. A non-voter may never come within sound- of anything but the exposition of his own grievances and his own notions of how they are to be redressed." Now we conceive that to be a far truer conception of the matter than Mr. Chamberlain's, that before he joins in sharpening the axe, he should like to know whether there are any trees to be cut down. We do not hold the franchise to be in the main an axe at all. Mr. Chamberlain's mind runs a little.too much on execu- tioners' implements, and too little on the effect which a popular franchise has in blunting axes the function of which is more mis- chievous than useful. And this is what we mean by his being more 64 advanced" than his teachers. They would hold, that even if household suffrage in the counties gave new force to a good many reactionary and even detrimental ideas, it would still be justified by its effect in identifying the whole people with the Constitution, and preparing the means by which in the end they would rather emancipate themselves, than be emanci- pated, from the political illusions of the unenfranchised masses. He holds that it is chiefly by reference to the destructive reforms which we may expect from an extended suffrage that the policy of extending that suffrage is to be justified. There, we confess, we think him much mistaken. Some good legislative changes—and some bad—we should expect to result from house- hold suffrage in the counties, but it is less by any of the legislative changes to be expected from it than by the new respect which it would excite in the privileged classes for the classes now without political privilege, and the new self-respect and the new political curiosity and interest it would excite in the latter, that we ourselves think the extension of franchise can be best justified. The artisans have gained already far more in the way of learning the limits of Parliamentary power and the baselessnees of many of their own dreams, than they have gained in the mere legislative reform of the Labour laws, by their admission to the franchise in 1867. It is no doubt Mr. Chamberlain's cue to scorn that kernel of true Conservatism which is necessarily contained in the fruit of all true Liberalism, and he is careful not to forget his cue. But after all, the Conservative side of Mr. Bright's political nature is not only one of the most conspicuous, but one also of the most persuasive of the elements which have given him so great an influence over the course of English affairs.
Of course, however, when Mr. Chamberlain talks of whetting his axe for the work of beneficent destruction which it is to accomplish, he is really thinking of the Established Church. He says something about the land laws and the game laws, but he is well aware that there is no substantial difference on these subjects in. the Liberal party, and that the only real difficulty is to know what measure on either subject will really conduce most to the end which all Liberals have in common,—a very real difficulty indeed, as no one would be more forward to acknowledge than Mr. Bright, but still not a difficulty of prin- ciple, only one as to the practical efficiency of the dif- ferent remedies suggested. Mr. Chamberlain would certainly not sneer as he does at those Liberals whom he thinks too conservative in their disposition, for any difference he may find between them and himself on either of these subjects. As he tenderly fingers the steel which he is forging in his Union of Liberal Associations, and passes his hand along its edge 'to test the temper of his axe of the future, what he is really thinking of is the day when he will lay it to the root of the Establishment. And evidently those colleagues whom he doubts are those who are not resolved on this great act of destruction ; and his great desire is, so far as in him lies, to bring the temper of the Liberals whom he addresses and whom his speech will reach, up to the point needed for this heroic measure. Accordingly he brings all the crimes he can think of to the account of the Established Churiali,—some which may fairly be laid, if not to the account of the Esta- blishment as such, at least to that of the Church to which chiefly the privileged classes are attached,—and some which cannot fairly be laid to the account of either the Angli- can Church or the Establishment ; and he seems to sup- pose that by so doing he makes out a ease for Disestab- lishment. No doubt, the Church, as Mr. Chamberlain quotes the Times to show, has steadily opposed many needful reforms, from the reform of the penal laws to the reform of Absolutist principles of government. It has not identified itself with the people, but with the depositaries of privilege. All that, no doubt, is more or less true. Yet it is truer still of the House of Lords than it is of the Established Church,— with this great difference in favour of the Church, that though the Church has generally sided with the wrong parey on political questions, its main work has not been political at all, but charitable and spiritual, while the only official work of the House of Lords has been, of course, its political work. If, then, Mr. Chamberlain's argument is good for anything, it is good for much more, if urged against the House of Lords than it is when urged against the Established Church. Yet the people of this country are not at all inclined at present to meddle with the House of Lords. They are more than desirous to tolerate it, they are disposed to be proud of it, so long as it does not directly thwart the popular will as expressed by the House of Commons. And so, tooeof the Established Church. We suspect Mr. Chamberlain will find that it will stand or fall, not by its political bias, but by its willing- ness or reluctance to adapt itself to the work of the nation in its own sphere, i.e., in ecclesiastical and religious matters. 1F •4 stand out for a religious conception wholly alien to that.erdilse national conscience,—the conception of the Sacerdotalists—shoe it will go as the House of Lords would go if it declined.. bend bend to the will of the popular representatives. But if it carries the conscience of the people along with it, and throws into its work that zeal and charity -which, for a generation back, have been steadily on the increase, we sus- pect it will survive a great many just charges of perverted political sympathies and fears. Indeed almost all the sins which Mr. Chamberlain imputes to the Establishment are really due, not to the connection between Church and State, but to the connec- tion between Church and aristocracy, which, after Disestablish- meat, would probably be greater, not less than it was before. In Scotland and in Ireland the Episcopal Protestant Church' leans to the Conservative side not less,—perhaps more,—than it does here ; and whether disestablished or not, so long as its pulpits are filled mainly by the sons of the landed gentry, and its revenues replenished by the contributions of the great proprietors, it will show signs of the quarry from which it was hewn. The Establishment,—i.e., the Church in her capacity as connected with the State,— is not less, but more liberal than it would be without any such connection. At least, the Bishops are a great barrier against extreme Ritualism and extreme dogmatism,—and are such a barrier because they are named by the State. All these considerations, indeed, though not perhaps irrelevant, are of the most secondary importance. The true question as to the Establishment is whether or not the Established Church fills up a great void in the spiritual arrangements of the nation which could not be filled by any Voluntary Church,— whether the disappearance of an agency providing every parish with a spiritual organisation of its own could fail to be accompanied by a great loss of national faith, national amenity, and national unity. In the meantime, Mr. Chamber- lain's accusation against the Church that it has been indifferent to education is most unjust and unfair. Doubtless it has taken its own view, and not always a wise view, of education ; but for forty years back it has been by the Nonconformists that the real resistance to the work of national education has been offered, and by the Church that that work las been chiefly urged forward. Indeed if Mr. Cham- berlain's axe performs its work as effectually as he hopes, we venture to say that he will cut down, with the Estab- lishment, a most vigorous branch of the tree of national • education.
We have spoken of those parts of Mr. Chamberlain's speech with which chiefly we disagree. We would add that his ' advanced ' Liberalism is really sounder, wiser, and more full of vitality in relation to foreign policy than it is in relation to domestic affairs. What he says of the East= Question is strongly said, and is not so far advanced as to threaten a dangerous excess of Liberal foliage in proportion to the root and the juices of the soil which feed it ;—and this is the characteristic danger of highly 'advanced' views.
Previous page
