SOCIAL DISCIPLINE FOR THE LIBERALS.
ALIBERAL who seems to be ' somewhat' writes a grave complaint in the Fortnightly Review for June that Lady Granville's invitations are not nearly so skilfully adapted to cement the cohesion of the Liberal party in Parliament, as are the Marchioness of Salisbury's to cement the cohesion of the Conservative party ; and it is added that the Carlton Club is much more efficient in the empty social distinctions which it deals out to the Tories than the Reform Club, or the Devon- shire Club, is, or than the National Liberal Club is at all likely to be, in distributing the same class of social distinctions to the Liberals. The writer of the article takes the matter very seriously. He is aware, apparently, that this delicate social bribery and corruption is of no real importance, as regards the vote of the country. He admits frankly that to make one of the new-rich men feel at home among the aristocracy of his party produces no substantial effect on • the constituency which he represents, though he thinks it may, perhaps, exert some very minute in- fluence of a satisfactory kind. But, says this advocate of the corruption which aristocratic favour can exercise, it is, after all, a matter of some importance to keep your party well together in the House, as well as in the country. It may be of no im- portance, so far as regards the next general election, that Lady Granville should ask plebeian plutocrats to her assemblies, or that the Master of the Buckhounda should give them tickets for the Royal Enclosure at the Ascot Races. But it is of the greatest importance for the purpose of keeping these plutocrats to their duty in the House of Commons, and preventing them from joining cabals against the Government. It was, says this writer, Lord Beaconsfield's great credit that he held his party together by the social cement of a little aristocratic patronage of this sort, during the whole of the last Tory regime. The country, it is true, had made up its mind to throw off Lord Beaconsfield's yoke, but till the crash came there was abso- lutely no sign of party disloyalty to his Administration. And the reason was that the Tory aristocracy sent out their cards for balls and dinners and receptions generally, with the greatest tact and generosity, and filled the hearts of vulgar parvenus with de- light. The reason, we are told, why the Liberals when in power do not manage as well, is that they despise these things, or are too lofty-minded or too proud even to think about them. The consequence is that the Tory world encroaches on the world of ambitious Liberalism, and undermines the Par liamentary party, even when the voice of the country is as unanimous and as loud as ever in favour of the Liberal cause. Such is the teaching of this anonymous Liberal, who seems to be " a pillar." It really comes to this,—' Let the great nobles of the Liberal party lavish blandishments on all who serve it in Parliament, especially if they are vulgar enough to care for that sort .of thing. These blandishments will not alter the opinion of the country, or will alter it only infinitesimally. But they will stimulate the zeal and discourage the disloyalty of tepid Liberals who care for social distinction, and do not care much otherwise whether they get into Parlia- ment on Liberal principles, or on Conservative principles, or on any one of the various shades of Conservative-Liberal and Liberal-Conservative principles.'
Well, we have only one reply to make to this Liberal coun- sellor. He is very likely quite right as to the uses of social blandishments in keeping a man zealously to his political duties, when he might otherwise become very lukewarm and languid about those duties. But then, is it a price which Liberal leaders can properly pay for political cohesion, nay, is it possible that they can really pay it without losing some of their sturdy faith in Liberalism / The Conservatives may do, and may do with- out discredit to themselves or their principles, what Liberals
cannot afford to do. The Conservative takes his stand on the principle of rank. Well, as he takes his stand on that principle, there is nothing discreditable to him in illustrating the force and significance of that principle, —such as it is. If he wants to strengthen the Con- servative party, he cannot do better than make good the influence of rank, as rank, over wealth and every other sort of power. If he wants to show how essential an aristocracy is to society, how can he show it better than by providing a long train of willing captives who have surrendered themselves to the influence of rank ? Lady Salisbury is winning a re- cruit to true Conservatism, whenever she makes a million- aire own the ascendancy of high society over political ties. But Lady Granville is not winning a recruit to true Liberalism, she is winning a sham recruit at best, when she makes good the ascendancy of high society over political ties. There is something of treachery to true Liberalism in making social blandishments do the work of conviction. And we may depend upon it that no political leader who really devoted his mind to the exerting of social blandishments over his followers, could well avoid descending to a lower and meaner level of political life, and losing faith in his own principles. We should say, "Let the dead bury their dead," i.e., let those who really think that aristocratic influence ought to tell more on conviction than historical or political argument, put forth that aristocratic influence to the utmost of their ability. But let not those who hold that there are in the political field plenty of considerations far more weighty than the preferences of Dukes and Duchesses, Marquises and Marchionesses, try to trim the balance by appealing to what they sincerely regard as false motives, motives which cannot work powerfully without telling against all the forces on which true Liberals rely.
The Conservatives cry out that the tyranny of the Caucus is an intolerable tyranny,—that a constituency which gives its Member warning that if he votes against the Government which they elected .him to support, they will not return him again, is a despotic constituency, exceeding its constitutional
rights. True Liberals reply that constituencies are perfectly entitled to tell their Member that if he ceases to represent their convictions on any essential point, he shall at the next vacancy cease to be their representative. But they might well add that there is nothing half so unconstitutional,—as they view what is unconstitutional,—in indicating their wish to sever the tie between them and a Member who misrepresenti their views, as there is in trying to twist, or even to confirm, political opinions by social blandishments, i.e., by a class of influences which are entirely irrelevant to political truth and falsehood. The 'constituency which says, Vote thus, or you shall lose your seat,' may induce a Member to give an unprincipled vote ; but it applies that inducement only in- cidentally, and because it is not otherwise possible to get itself truly represented in the House of Commons. But the Duchess or Marchioness who says in effect, ' Vote thus, or you shall not come to my parties,' causes her victim to give what may be an unprincipled vote for no reason which will bear justification at all. The Duchess or Marchioness in question has no constitutional right to be represented in the House of Commons,—which the constituency that elects a Member cer- tainly has,—and, therefore, alters, so far as she does alter, her victim's political opinion, by a pressure which, according to all true Liberals, is a perverting one, a pressure which is purely dislocating, mischievous, and corrupt.
Our reply to the Liberal who wants to reorganise the Social Discipline of the Liberal Party would be very brief, namely, that such social discipline is essentially hostile to Liberalism, even when it is incidentally favourable to it. It is a lowering influence. It introduces disturbing, perverting, and intoxicating influ- ences, which taint the atmosphere of Liberal politics. The Liberal leaders who lay themselves out to ingratiate them- selves not as statesmen but as nobles, with the rank and file of the party, lay themselves out to darken counsel by a refined sort of corruption. And they can never do this long without emasculating their own influence as leaders, and lowering their only legitimate attraction for those whom they desire to guide. The gilded-saloon business may be very fit and proper for the devotees of rank, as rank. For those who are not devotees of rank, as rank, but who think that the promotion of the popular welfare should be the supreme law of politics, it is not only a little degrading to exert consciously the blandishments of rank, but a degrading strategy which can never have any effectual success. It will do a great deal more to eat out the hearty convictions of Liberals, than it will ever do to keep crooked Liberals on the straight track.
Previous page
