LORD SALISBURY ON TRUE CONSERVATISM.
ORD SALISBURY could hardly have better defined true Conservatism than in the second of his two principal speeches at Cardiff, when he said "If you would ask me the difference between what is, in my con- ception, the mission of the Conservative party and what is the unfortunate tendency of the party to which we are opposed, I should say that it is our mission to diminish differences, and to encourage confidence between the different classes of the community, and it is, I will not say the intention, but the unfortunate fate of our opponents that at every step they exasperate and exagge- rate these differences." We should have said, however, that while the definition of the mission of true Con- servatism is perfect, it is the "unfortunate fate" of both parties alike, very often, sometimes alternately, and some- times even simultaneously, "to exasperate and exaggerate these differences." It was certainly Mr. Gladstone's "unfortunate fate," and perhaps a little more than his mere fate, his choice, to exasperate and exaggerate these differences when he proclaimed, in 1886, that in taking up Home-rule for Ireland he was taking up the cause of the masses against the cause of the classes. That was more than fate ; it was at least a fate that was voluntary as well as predestinated, if in any true sense predestinated it was. But whether voluntary and predestinated, or in- voluntary and predestinated, both parties have repeatedly been the instruments, if not the victims, of the same hard fate in the conduct of their party wars. It will hardly be denied that in arguing against Reform, that in arguing against the removal of religious tests, that in arguing against free trade, the Tory party have, time after time, exasperated and exaggerated the differences between the people who asked for the franchise and the people who had it, between the people who asked to be free to choose their own religion, and the people whose religion was approved by the State, between the people whose bread was made artificially costly, and the people for whose advantage its price was so enhanced,—that the Tory party, we say, did this quite as effectually as the Liberals who attacked these restrictions. It was the very essence of the Tory contention, that the unenfranchised were not worthy to be enfranchised, that the Dissenters who were debarred by tests from accepting certain offices and discharging certain duties in the State, were dis- qualified by their heresies for discharging those tasks and duties well, that the embargos laid upon the food of the people were so laid for the benefit of a. special class without the guarding of whose privileges the whole State would collapse. These contentions were not true. At least the Conservatives themselves would now be the very first to contend that they were not true. But they were undoubtedly pressed as eagerly and as passionately by the Tories of old as the attacks on these privileges were pressed aggressively by the Reformers. It was almost the necessity of the two parties to "exasperate and exaggerate" their differences. It was essential to the Liberals to make the most of the selfishness and pre- judices of the party of obstruction. It was essential to the Tories to make the most of the ignorance and violence of the aggressors. And neither party can be accused of showing too much tenderness in the discharge of their partisan duties. But, while we cannot in the least agree with Lord Salisbury,—if, indeed, he intends to affirm,—that the Tories have always been distinguished by the moderation and sympathetic feeling for which he now takes credit on behalf of the modern Conservatives, we do think he is right in saying that, as the great popular griev- ances of the past have been gradually removed, it has be- come more and more necessary for the Democrats, as they advance, to magnify and exasperate the grievances which remain, while it has become less and less necessary for the Conservatives to exasperate and exaggerate these differences, and more and more easy to speak of them with precision and simplicity. It is impossible to deny, for instance, that the less visible and urgent the short- comings of the law have become, the more necessary it has been for the popular party to "get up steam," which could not be got up without much effort ; and the less difficulty there has been in making out the contention of the Conservatives that the so-called popular wrongs are more or less imaginary, and that the restrictions which still remain are more or less inevitable, even if not wholly reasonable. It was ,a great hardship that the hardest-worked and most suffering of all the classes of the people had formerly no representatives to call attention to their needless hardships in the Legisla- ture. It is not a. great hardship, even if it is not absolutely right, that, now when those hardest-worked and most suffering classes have already gained a predominant influ- ence in the Legislature, it should hesitate to extend that predominant influence so far as to increase greatly the danger of fraud, personation, and corruption. The more class privileges disappear, the more easy it becomes to plead for the Conservative view, without the necessity of "exasperating and exaggerating" the disparaging epithets applied to the masses who ask for more and more influ- ence.
Therefore it is quite true that it is easier for the Con- servatives now to soften the relations between the 'various classes than it is for the Progressives, who are always on the watch for now grievances, or new illustrations of old grievances, and who can hardly help gloating over any evidence that looks like new ammunition for the battery they direct against the privileged classes. It is easy enough for the Conservatives to be moderate and sympathetic, for their case gains by every sign of sympathy between the successful and unsuccessful classes. It is not so easy for the Progressives to be sympathetic and moderate, for the more sympathetic and moderate they are, the less chance have they of rousing that sense of popular indignation which is the very motive force of the party of action. It is a far greater merit in statesmen like Lord Herschell and Lord Rosebery to recognise the danger of too rapid advance, than it is in Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour to recognise the wisdom and policy of further concession to popular demands. Sympathy between the classes takes the wind out of the sails of the agitators, while it fills the sails of the party which advocates gentle progress and cautious advance.
Nevertheless, we do heartily agree that the reconciliation of the various classes of the community is the greatest need of the day, and that the Conservatives are quite right in deprecating that mischievous cry of the "masses versus the classes," which threatens at least as much misery to the masses as it does to the classes. We see this plainly when it actually becomes necessary for the party of what they call Progress to undo what has been voluntarily done, and effectually done, by capitalists and skilled labourers towards identifying their interests, in order that the Trades Unions, who do not like such voluntary agreements, may have that triumph over the employers for which they thirst. Nor was it a less significant symptom of the failure of legiti- mate motive for the party of movement, when Mr. Glad- stone found it necessary to re-enforce his Home-rule policy question is not in the least one between rich and poor, without further testimony than we have received ; and as between educated and uneducated. It is a, controversy to the clergy, everybody will join with we in saying that between those who feel keenly the danger of breaking up our generation has witnessed that revival of spiritual the nation into small fragments, and those who see in activity amongst the clergy of the Church of England Particularism the voice of the modern Democracy, though which would in itself negative the idea that they had any ' almost all the great Democracies are moving in the passion for interfering with the secular affeirs of the parish. Opposite direction. To our mind, Particularism is not true As far as my knowledge goes, the testimony I should bear Democracy, but fatal to true Democracy. Nor could Mr. is that it is difficult to induce either the squire or clergy Gladstone have struck a more misleading note than when to meddle as much as they ought to do with local affairs. he called upon the masses tie pronounce for Particularistn, Those who imagine that there is an irrepressible desire to and accused the classes of advocating a spurious Imperi- manage everything on the part of the squire and clergy of ahem. That was an artificial attempt to stimulate class the country, seem to me to read absolutely falsely the enmities. In reality Particularism is not a class question, signs of the times. The danger is the other way ; men but a national question. And there is no surer sign of the are fast—very fast—divorcing themselves from their local difficulty in which the G-ladstonians are placed for want interests. Men are learning to find their interests else. of effective war-cries than this attempt to re-animate and where." Lord Salisbury, perhaps, is too much accustomed stimulate the vigour of old class animosities which are to very big squires, and to highly educated clergymen, to dying away. It is not only the truest Conservatism, but be a perfect witness. Our own impression is that over the truest Liberalism also, to promote the disappearance large districts there are small squires and parsons who —the euthanasia—of these class enmities, and to unite all have rusted, who are very fond of management, and
Previous page
