THE TORY TRADITION.t
Ma. Gaovsuuv Boman bas published under the general title, The Tory Tradition, four lectures delivered before the
• A Schoolmaster's Apology. By C. A. Allogton, Howl-Maeter of Shrewsbury School- London : and Co. [Os. ad. net.)
Tlis To Tradition. By Geoffrey O. Butler. London Ian Murray, [3. ed.ust.ry
University of Pennsylvania on Bolingbroke, Burke, Disraeli, and Salisbury. He regards Bolingbroke as the real founder of modern Toryism. From the point of view of intellectual eminence, no party could desire a greater chief ; from that of principle, his claim is open to question. Mr. Butler takes up the defence of his hero with enthusiasm. He was "the man responsible more than any other for the Peace of Utrecht,' and when "Harley, the loiterer," had been got rid of the Tory Party was to "go to George or James and make its terms with whichever of the two it chose." It seems to escape Mr. Butler that wars should be begun and ended for some better reason than the immediate triumph of a political party. But in Bollngbroke's eyes the supreme, merit of the Peace of Utrecht was that it was "the only solid foundation whereupon we could meat a Tory system." It might be argued that the war bad put a strong enough curb on the pretensions of Louis XIV., but there is nothing to show that Bolingbroke ever looked at the question in this light. Godolphin and Marlborough, says Mr. Butler, "were determined not to stop the war until they had forced Louis to give up all hope of asserting French influence in Spain." As this was a perfectly legitimate object for an English statesman to pursue, the business of the advocates of peace was to show that we had already secured it. But to this aspect of the situation Bolingbroke was altogether indifferent. "The Tories wanted peace and did not care how they got it." It is not surprising that a party which approached a great public question in this temper should have resorted to what Mr. Butler himself describes as "duplicity unparalleled both in the sphere of private honour and diplomacy." So again with the decision whether James or George should be King of England. Honest men might take opposite aides on this question, according as they held legitimate descent or popular recognition to be the founda- tion of a King's title. But their choice must rest on some better foundation than the prospect of a party victory. Bolingbroke should have been specially careful on this point by reason of the importance he assigned to the Sovereign in his ideal Constitution. A patriot King would read his duty differently, according as he traced his title to descent or to the action of Parliament.
It is not clear bow far Mr. Butler regards Bolingbrole's theory of the place that the Crown should hold in the Consti- tution as included in the modern Tory creed. One singular omission, however, may be noted in his chapter on Burke. The constructive side of Bolingbroke'a philosophy, he tells us, "is unfolded in his Dissertation upon Parties and in his Idea of a Patriot Ring," and Burke was Boliugbroke's legitimate successor in the Tory tradition. But to make good Burke's title to this position Mr. Butler should have given some explanation of Isis attitude towards the Crown. In many ways George III. was exactly the Sovereign that Boling- broke had in view. A thorough Englishman in tastes and feelings, passionately zealous for the fume and honour of the country he ruled, he seemed to embody in homely fact the idea of a patriot King. Yet seldom has the Monarchy fallen lower in the esteem of all honest men than during the away of the " King's friends" and the long Ministry of Lord North. If Bathe had ever been tempted to exchange the idea of a constitutional King for that of a patriot King, his experience during the earliest, and in some ways the greatest, years of his career would have been protection enough.
The lecture on Disraeli will capture most readers at this moment, because it fairly synchronizes with the appearance of Mr. Buckle's first volume. But though Mr. Butler is full of enthusiasm, he does not impart any very large share In it to his readers. The real Disraeli probably lies hidden in his most remarkable, though not his greatest, novel. But no interpreter has yet been able to lay his finger on the inner meaning of Tanered. "It seems to sonic." says Mr. Butler, "that he will remain the perpetnal oracle of Toryism." Certainly he is likely to retain one great characteristio of oracles—the inability of those who accept them to agree upon the sense in which they arc to be taken. All that is plain is that, whatever the "Asian mystery" may have been intended to mean, it bad very little influence on that foreign policy by which he will be best remembered. Yet what of that poliey now remains P Neither the suppression of Russia— the "bottling up" was Disraeli's own phrase—nor the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire, nor the extinction of Slav ambitions, has much part in the latest reading of the interests or purposes of Great Britain. The confession that, in making these ideas the corner-stone of our diplomacy, we had "put our money on the wrong horse" was reserved for Lord Salisbury, There is no mention of this change in Mr. Butler's last lecture.
Previous page
