PARTY AND PATRIOTISM.* THE writer of this volume deserves our

thanks for having raised an interesting question at an opportune moment, and for occa- sional, though not very numerous, remarks of value in the course

Party and Patriotix-rn; or, the Degerpraty of Politic& By Sidney E. Williams London : Swan Sonnenichein and Co. 1886.

of his book. But this is the limit of the praise we can award him; and if we consider his book at some length, it is more for the sake of the subject he deals with than of the volume itself. Its faults are many and manifest. The strain of dull and monotonous fault-finding with the morality of modern politics—more akin to the preacher's assurance that we are all sinners, than to such practical criticism as will suggest motives and means for improvement ; the absence of concrete illustrations ; the constant repetition of commonplace moral maxims, as applicable to "things in general" as to the subject he deals with ; the ill-tempered denunciations of modern politi- cians, to whose profession he awards the palm in "chicanery, insincerity, passion, and prejudice, petty acts and mean ambi- tions ;"—these, and many other blemishes are, as we have said, manifest on the surface, and detract from the merit of Mr. Williams's volume. The author should have reduced its bulk by two-thirds, have added at least one concrete illustration in explanation of each of his abstract theories, and in rewriting it on these lines should have borne in mind Tennyson's warning, that, "It is better to fight for the good than to rail at the ill."

Having noted, however, these defects of manner, we turn to those parts of the book which are profitable and instructive. The defects of our system of government by party ; its tendency to destroy the higher instincts of statesmanship, as presenting party success rather than patriotic measures as the immediate aim of the statesman ; its tendency, too, to suppress that indi- viduality of mind which J. S. Mill lays down as the source of all real reform,—these and other kindred topics are treated with considerable ability by the author. Further, he draws opportune attention to the unfortunate complication introduced into politics by the difference between the real divisions of opinion and the artificial divisions which are the inheritance of the history of party. That Lord Hartington and Mr. Labouchere should sit on the same side of the House, whi!e Lord Harting- ton and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach sit opposite each other, un- doubtedly introduces artificial difficulties in public action over and above such real difficulties as joint action with men bolding opinions in any respect different from one's own must always present. On the other hand, Mr. Williams seems to underrate the value of the combined action of party, and the value of a traditional spirit and temper of dealing with politics, which may more than counterbalance the weight of agreement or difference of view as to the wisest course in particular cases, and should at times lead men to support measures they only half approve of, rather than break up this impalpable but very real inheritance from the past history of their party.

Let us here quote Mr. Williams's account of what has been, roughly speaking, the difference between the two great parties

of the State :—

" Historically, the two parties are sufficiently distinct. Though they have changed, modified, and even, as some aver, exchanged their principles, the distinction has throughout been roughly defined. Ia former times, they differed mainly in thin: that to the Tory the Con- stitution was an end in itself beyond which he seldom looked ; whereas the Whig deemed all forms of government subordinate to the public good, and therefore liable to change when they should cease to promote that object. The Whig,' says Hallam, had a natural tendency to political improvement, the Tory an aversion to it. The one loved to descant on liberty and the rights of mankind, the other on the mischiefs of seditien and the rights of Kings.' In later times, the Tory was an ardent supporter of the Church, and intolerant alike of Romanism and Dissent ; the Whig treated Nonconformists with moderation, if not with favour. Historically, therefore, there is an intelligible foundation for the two parties. Is there also a natural history of parties P Mr. Lecky has ably endeavoured to show that there is. 'The division of parties,' be says, corresponds roughly to certain broad distinctions of mind and character which can never be effaced.' And it cannot be denied that the division is to some extent analogous with that between content and hope, between caution and confidence, between the mind which reveres the past and the mind which looks forward to the future, between the mind which sees most clearly the defects of existing institutions and the mind which is most alive to the dangers of change. Each side, he says, claims for itself a natural affinity with some of the highest qualities of mind and character. Each also arrays on its own side those who, from infirmity of mind, are induced to accept half-truths as indestructible principles. Those who are blindly wedded to routine, and incapable of appreciating new ideas or the exigencies of changed circumstances, and who have no very great desire to leave the world better than they found it, naturally gravitate towards Conservatism ; while those who have no real appreciation of the infinite complexity and interdependence of political problems, and of the many remote and indirect consequences of every change—those who hate every privilege which they do not share, and those who are prepared with a light heart and reckless head to recast the whole framework of the Constitution in the interests of speculation or experiment '—are naturally found in the ranks of the Liberals." Mr. Williams proceeds to give it as his opinion that there is no such natural basis in human nature as is here supposed for distinction of parties, and advocates the total cessation of parties as permanent b )(lies with permanent names, and their temporary formation with reference to urgent questions as they arise—as, for instance, the Unionist Party is the offspring of a sudden political crisis. We have not space to discuss a proposition which seems to us somewhat Utopian, and which appears to leave out of account the power of the accumulated party-spirit of many generations, which cannot readily find a parallel in a mushroom party, unless the occasion of its formation be such as to stir to the very depths patriotic feeling. What is at present a more practical question, is that partial reconstitution of parties which does actually take place when great measures come on the tapis ; and when the action of one party leads its followers seriously to consider how far they can identify themselves with what their conscience and judgment unhesitatingly condemn as wholly wrong and disastrous. And, in such cases, it does seem to us that Mr. Williams is right in holding that a too tenacious adherence to party names, in place of acting directly with those who agree with us in principle, may have very unfortunate results. "There are times," he says, "when every man should be a Liberal, others when he should be a Conservative, and others when he might well be a Radical ;" and though this suggests a much less substantial loyalty to party than we our- selves believe to be desirable, we should quite agree that there may be times when a man should be all three. While quite disagreeing with our author in his view that in every instance each politician should vote simply without reference to party.— for we think he may very well attach weight to the mere authority of the leaders whom he follows, and should certainly not, without grave cause, weaken his party's power of combined action,—we quite hold with him that when one party seems, as a whole, doing real harm which the other does its best to pre- vent, no personal considerations should prevent our giving our support (as we practically must support one party) to that party which, taking its general policy into consideration, at the time will do most good. The example of the Peelites is a very noble one, and if we trust the political instinct of the country, it may be said that the event fully justified them, from the fact that (as has often been pointed out) the Tories completely lost their hold on the country until they expressly disavowed their opposi- tion to the repeal of the Corn Laws.

It may seem paradoxical to say so, but to us it appears that the abstract principle on which many give allegiance to one party or the other, runs a great risk of being too speculative and abstract. The present writer knows many advocates of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Bill, who are so purely in virtue of some general principle of the inherent right of a nation to self- government. The whole practical question as to the character of the representatives of the National League ; the practical possibility of a stable government ; the poverty of Ireland, and the radical injustice of its having alike the support of English money and the advantages of independence ; the practical look- out under the proposed measures for the Ulster Protestants,— all such questions vanish before a principle as little self-evident as, or rather less nearly self-evident than, the principle that every State has a right to actual independence. Such modes of argument admit of no direct answer, but are best met by recalling the reply made by Dr. Johnson to Goldsmith. "Surely, Sir," said Goldsmith, "you -cannot deny that who rules a free people should himself be free.' " " Zounds ! Sir," replied Johnson, "you might as well say, 'who drives fat oxen should himself be fat.'" So, too, we have met with those who say that, however far the Liberal Party go astray—should they even go to the verge of actual Socialism—they could not throw in their lot with the Conservatives, as they have "no belief in the desire of the Con- servatives for reform." This seems to us very parallel to the last case. In place of taking a concrete party, under present circumstances, with its existing leaders, with the possibilities, from the circumstances of the time and from the popular distrust of stagnant Conservatism, of helping Lord Salis- bury's followers to form a progressive moderate party to stem the tide of semi-Socialistic Radicalism, two abstract ideas are put up with capital letters (grenadiers, as Mr. Huxley used to call them, with small heads and big hats)—Reform and Conservatism—and from professed sympathy with the former name, and dislike of the latter, many do their best to destroy the possibility of the very thing they advocate. It is not a question

of walking under a particular banner, but of attaining a par- ticular object. Bombastes Furioso's army will not win a battle because they have the word " Victory " emblazoned on their banner; and their opponents, who have spent all their time in attending to every detail of military preparation, and have for-

gotten to get a new banner at all, will stilt have the best of the fight. Again, the aim of a party, as a party, is too undefined to be adopted by any individual without reserve. Thus, individuals will generally allow (as Mr. Williams does) that in general each is required as a check to the other's extravagance, thus im- plicitly admitting that the very party he adheres to is not abso- lutely right. It may be true that in the past the Conservative would not move forwards fast enough without pressure from the Radical; but the Conservatives may justly retort that their influence is needed to secure another indispensable element of progress—viz., stability—and that change is no more necessarily reform than the increased height of an overgrown boy means in- creased strength. Indeed, there is always a bad and a good label for every tendency, and it becomes a matter of practical judgment on existing facts which of the two should be rightly applied,—

whether a policy should be designated prudent or stick-in-the- mud, reformation or revolution, whether it tells for liberty or for license. Its professed aim at reform should have influence only in proportion as it is proved to be both real and practicable.

If two tutors offered themselves to superintend the general education of my sons—one of them full of that spirit of inde- pendence and freedom which is the glory of the English charac- ter, the other strong rather upon the discipline necessary in youth—and if I found that the method of the first was to spoil my boys, and of the second to keep them in order, I should con- sider that I best advanced the very aim in which I agreed with the first by putting him aside, and adopting the second, whose aim was imperfect, but whose method was the better of the two.

In this connection Mr. Williams gives us a useful reminder as to the danger of a sort of blind faith that every new idea is a part of the natural and necessary progress of things, which was usefully instanced by Mr. Frederic Harrison's recent de- claration, that to deny Ireland Home-rule was like telling a woman on the eve of child-birth not to bear her child. Such utterances, like some of Mr. Harrison's religious harangues, do good service as a sort of parody of the dangerous fatalism of which we speak. Just as a "lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies," so this fatalistic faith is particularly galling to those who hold, as we do, that

" Thro' the ages one increasing purpose runs,

And the thoughts of men are widen' d with the process of the suns,"—

in the same way as it pains us to see a clever caricature of one whom we love and revere. We subjoin Mr. Williams's words :— " Enthusiasm, it must ever be remembered, has a natural tendency to glide into folly, and faith into fatuity. Both require much dead-weight of reason and prudence to save them from mischief. Faith is, especially just now, being made the boasted virtue of an extreme section of politicians, and though we share their confidence in the people, we cannot extend it to themselves. We cannot share their sanguine view of measures which seem to be based on faith alone. They seem to us to reason like those

"Who reason that to-morrow must be wise, Because to-day was not nor yesterday, As if good days were shapen of themselves, Not of the very life-blood of men's souls."

In conclusion, we may commend Mr. Williams's book in genera/ as one which will lead men to think on a question of very practical importance, and will give them occasionally sugges- tions helpful to accuracy in their thinking.