ENGLISH RADICALS AND CONTINENTAL DEMOCRATS.
MR. (IOLDWIN SMITH, in a paper in the new Fortnightly, on the Liberal defeat, makes a suggestion which, in the existing state of parties, is worthy of discussion. Looking at English affairs, as he has recently been accustomed to do, from the other side of the water—that is, from a point of view where he is free from some prejudices and misses some advantages—he sees reason to believe that a strong Radical party with distinctive views, and an alliance with Radicalism throughout Europe, would have much more support than is generally believed. The extreme Left, he noted, was less beaten at the last elections than the Moderate Liberal sec- tion ; and a really Democratic party, with a platform, as it were, on the ground—one below which it would be difficult to go—might, even if it were small at first, excite by degrees a strong enthusiasm among electors. That is an idea which constantly attracts perfervid minds in this country, while to most American and to all Continental Radicals it seems the perfection of reasonableness ; and it is worth while to examine the reasons why cool-headed Englishmen, even when they hold strongly Radical opinions, invariably reject it. Mr. Goldwin Smith apparently thinks it is because of the influ- ence of the new plutocracy, and of a perception that the Im- perial position of the country, as mistress of so many nations, is inconsistent with a logical application of the ideas of freedom, but we suspect the reason is much more common-place. The people do not want anything Demo- cratic in Mr. Goldwin Smith's sense, anything that would bring them into line with European Radicalism. To begin with, they are not, as a mass, anxious for a Republic. A few thinkers believe that Republican institutions, by harmonising facts and theories, would make the country stronger ; and a certain number of electors—more, perhaps, than is generally supposed—think they would diminish suffering and elevate the mass ; but the body of the people would regard a proposal to establish a Republic with instinctive aversion. They would not understand it, would not see why they should make sacrifices for it, would not comprehend how,
after such a sudden breach with the past, ordinary daily life ' could go on at all. The physical strength of the country thinks " Kings, Lords, and Commons" natural, as natural as that a jury should consist of twelve, or that a man should be liable to be sued for debt, and would turn away from any suggestion for the abolition of that system as from something too hope- lessly unpractical to be worth discussion. They feel no oppression from the Monarchy, and the Republic does not pre- sent itself to them as an ideal, and in the absence either of hate or hope, the effort would be smothered under indifference. That condition of mind may change, but it must be changed by circumstances, not by leaders ; and must be changed before the party can be formed, not changed through its formation. The very first idea of Continental democracy, therefore, is absent here, and so is the second, hatred of artificial social distinctions. It is very remarkable that it should be so, for thousands of the ablest men in the country feel that hatred ; it is entertained by the English-speaking populations every- where out of England, and it has cropped up visibly from from time to time all through our history, but undoubtedly it is far from powerful just now. Legal distinctions are dis- liked, but social distinctions, more especially those which arise from the possession of money, are not hated at all. Anybody can mark off castes as he likes, provided he does it only by charging extra fees. A recent agitation against the Lords failed ignominiously. The worst feature in the present Govern- ment, its disposition to confine patronage to a caste, is the feature which escapes denunciation. No serious effort is ever made to make wealth and poverty equal before the law, either by appointing Public Prosecutors or by establishing State Counsel for the poor. Inequality, provided it be old inequality, is accepted as a matter of course without repining, and although a party of Equality under the Monarchy would have more followers than a Republican party, still it would have very little real weight, and like a Republican party, would serve first of all to weld together all Conservative or semi-Conservative frac- tions. Even the first concrete expression of equality, manhood suf- frage, excites no enthusiasm in this country. The force of the idea so embodied does not strike anybody, not even the few avowed and far-going Democrats among us. They say occasionally that a man is a taxpayer even if he has no house, and therefore ought to be represented ; but they abstain from the Continental argu- ment that he is a man, and therefore ought to help directly to govern himself. They either do not feel its force, or they know it would not be understood. There are many Democratic Churches in England, but we never heard of one in which a church member who was not a seatholder, who could not contri- bute his mite in any direct way, was made a deacon. People here, if they recognised Lazarus, would subscribe for him fast enough, but if he rejected subscriptions and elected to be Lazarus, he would be left outside. That may spring from an inner base- ness in the people, or from a kind of caution, or from keen political sense, but that is its instinct, and against it no party has ever been able to struggle. Jack Cade said he was a Mortimer, and prayed not that the landless should rule, but that everybody should have land.
Then—and it is quite time this should be said—the English Liberals differ from the Continental Liberals on one essential point,—their attitude towards religion. There are plenty of re- ligious Liberals all over the Continent, but the body of the party in every Continental country is marked by a contempt, some- times faint, sometimes deep, sometimes rising to an almost insane height, for the idea of the duty of submission to the supernatural. Half of them believe there is no supernatural, and half the remainder see no reason why, even if there is, they should obey it, unless they like. So strong is this contempt—due, no doubt, to a multiplicity of causes, some of which are ephemeral —that Liberals distinctly hold believers to be silly persons, and regard utterances which shock them with a sort of amuse- ment, as being practical jokes, of an ill-mannered sort no doubt, but only objectionable as all other acts flavoured with insult are objectionable. Sceptical Swiss, for instance, tolerate pamphlets which in this country sceptical lawyers would prosecute with virulence. In this country the body of the people, whatever their opinions, respect the supernatural, are not moved to ridicule by belief, and are distinctly annoyed by anything they consider blasphemous. That a very strong body of Atheists is growing up among us, and increasing at once in audacity and strength, is undoubtedly true, and it is true also that we bear language which would not have been
tolerated some years since, but even this body shows no desire to make of atheism a political creed or shibboleth for candidates.
If in a thoroughly Radical town of the North an extreme candidate is also an atheist, he may be elected in spite of his opinions, but he will not parade them, and a Quaker equally Red would have at least an equal chance. This tone of mind may alter—there are signs abroad that it is altering—but it also
may endure, and there are precedents which would suggest that conclusion. The English revolt from Catholicism did not evolve infidelity, and the American revolt from religious authority has not ended in any great spread of Atheism. English democracy, when it reappears, will be utterly contemptuous of religious authority, and probably display a certain malignity of dislike to sacerdotalism, but an outburst of contempt for the super- natural such as is felt by a Parisian or a Berlin mob, is wholly beyond reasonable anticipation.
The at traction of the Continent will not be strong. The English will remain insular through a period beyond which statesmen do not care to look, and being insular, their parties, includ- ing their extreme parties, will remain insular too, and for an extreme Radical party we see exceedingly little chance. Its organisation may be improved by the Birmingham plan ex- plained by Mr. Chamberlain, but even he does not hint at any present programme. It has always to ally itself with the Dis- senting bodies by the offer of Disestablishment, and the majority of Dissenters, except upon the subject of the Church, are men who anywhere out of England would be accounted Conservative, who want mainly to be comfortable and decorous, and who are by no means heartily inclined to terminate the rule of the rich. The party would have always to avoid any overt attack on property, for fear of alienating the immense majority who think that confiscation is theft; and it has never shown, to our surprise, we confess, any serious wish to terminate the liberty of bequest, the only method short of confiscation by which the inequalities of our social condition can be seriously reduced. All it can do is to sweep away the restrictions upon dealing with land as a commodity, equalise the franchise in town and country, and, perhaps with the assistance of astute Tories, redistribute power till the numerical majority of house- holders possesses more of it. That, however, is not a " strong " programme in Mr. Goldwin Smith's sense. On the only great proposal of the Left, Disestablishment, Liberals are hopelessly divided, and on all other " planks " the whole party can, after the usual give-and-take, consent to stand together. So long as London remains without a Radical daily paper—and at present every daily paper would be accounted, even in Boston, not to speak of Berlin, Conservative—we see little prospect in England for a logical and still less for a vigorous party of the Extreme Left.
Previous page
