THE SLAVERY OF PARTY.
EVERYTHING is done by party in England. Nobody dreams of acting alone. The unreflecting man takes a hereditary party, or one with which accident has brought him into contact : the calcu- lating takes the party which appears on the whole most to accord with his own views and sentiments, or that which gives fairest promise of promotion. But to some party they tie themselves as a matter of course—to use, or be used by it, or both. The practice is not confined to politicians : in all the professions—the Church, Law, and Medicine—there are parties to which young aspirants devote themselves. Every corporation has its parties within it. Religion, Philanthropy, as understood at Exeter Hall, are the badges of so many parties. The party man binds himself to pro- mote the views and interests of his party, and expects to receive in return its collective patronage. We are a nation of partisans.
The slavery of party is inexpressible. That mysterious entity "the party" must be advanced and glorified at every sacrifice. Nothing must be done to break up or lessen the numbers of the party. No new opinions must be broiehed, no modifications of old suggested ; for that might give rise to controversy, and con- troversy occasions quarrels. No hint may be given that the con- duct of this or that member is questionable ; . the grossest tergi- versations and venal profligacy must be defended, or glossed over, or hushed up : animadversion might give offence, and drive its objects to secede from the party. Any warm and generous recog- nition of the merits of an opponent is /ese party—it is strengthen- ing the hands of the enemy. The unfortunate man who sells his soul to a party binds himself to be stationary in intellect, to tolerate the rankest vices in allies, to hate virtue in antagonists, or if he cannot subdue his soul to this baseness, to pretend that he does—to be a hypocritical denier of the good that is in him like Snake in the School for Scandal- a living lie. All generous emotion excited by what is new or great must be suppressed or concealed, while unreal enthusiasm for vapid commonplaces must be played off on all occasions.
From this servitude there is no release. From the bands of friendship you may be released by the fickle coldness or malevo- lence of him with whom you were knit up in them. Even a former benefactor may so persecute you that the world will par- don or applaud the frank declaration that he has cancelled all you owed him. But from that vague abstraction party there is no re- lease. It is never the party that does you harm, but this or that member of the party. It is never the private friend serving in the same ranks who does you good, but the party. Inscrutable, intangible, it gives you no opportunity of picking a personal quarrel with it. As little are you allowed to plead the demerits of a party for its abandonment. Rascally policy is called the in- judiciousness of over zealous friends ; much to be regretted, to be sure, but then the party is more to be pitied than blamed for their mistakes. Bad and false doctrine never can be brought home to a party : it has been apprehended in a false sense, or it has been preached by this or that individual, and never acknowledged by the party as a party. Proteus himself never assumed half so many forms as party:, -when the attempt was made to pin him down and show him in his true shape. And should all evasions prove unavailing—should the mischievousness and hollowness of a party and its professions stand revealed—it claims the luckless renegade, as in dark ages the fiend was believed to claim the conjurer in virtue of his compact : the sacramental oath of party is the only one which men appear to hold incapable of being an- nulled.
The most conspicuous martyr to emancipation from party thral- dom at this moment—perhaps the most conspicuous on record— is Sir Robert Peel. The vituperation now lavished on him is but a faint echo of that he was assailed withal when he carried Ca- tholic Emancipation. He finds no defender. His old party abuse him for leaving them, and rival parties lest his breach of Party discipline should prove contagious. Yet what is his offence?
When fresh from college, Mr. Robert Peel caught the pate-in-at liking for being a Parliament man. He knew as -little of prac- tical or theoretical politics as young men from college at Omit time generally knew. A man of action rather than of thought, he wished to be -doing,. and held no opinions that could prevent his cooperating with the only party which then had power to act. But his mtelligent ambition led him to master practical questions, like that of the currency. In the ranks of his party he found at least one man—Huskisson—who had descended from the free position of an independent thinker to assume the livery of party ; and though there is something more repulsive,an4 obstructive of confidence and cordiality about such a character than about the unthinking votaries who have no opinions to com- promise, contact and conversation with him necessarily led to reflection. Young Peel was early couched—he ate of the political fruit of knowledge, and saw his nakedness as a party man. But he saw as much insincerity and servile truckling to party con- siderations in the opposite ranks as in his own. He consoled himself, as all public men do, by a persuasion that the aims of his party were in the main right—to Uphold_ "social order,". "the constitution," and so forth ; and that to separate from them upon isolated peculiar views of his own would be- pedantic. He repeated the conventionalities of his party in order to pre- serve unanimity. But circumstances without, as well as con- victions within, were against him. A time came when his party could only be saved by forcing it to conform to the 'spirit of the age and sacrifice some of its old crotchets. The pride of the party could not endure the idea of purchasing continuance of power by the confession of error ; and Catholic Emancipation broke it up. Since that time, Sir Robert Peel's position has been independent of party. The Conservative leadership was pressed upon, not sought by him. He accepted it without affecting to give his confidence in return. He told the political army who pro- posed to raise him on the shield, that if they gave him power he would lead them, and nothing more. When they took the field, he gave directions for each immediate action, but avowedly kept the plan of the whole Campaign a secret. They felt that be did not trust them ; they knew that they did not trust him ; but they could do' nothing without him. They followed a man „Whom they had deserted and vilified because he had driven -them into a corner to induce them to relinquish a mischievous fallacy which could only render themselves powerless. They followed a man whom they had offended, 'and did not insist upon knowing whi- ther he Was leading them: They knew that:he accepted the 'com- mand to -early his own objects, not theirs. Even with -regard to his party duties Peel can make out a plausible case. And with regard to the duties he owes society and himself! He has emancipated his mind, on some main points at least, from the fetters of convention and insincerity. I-le has removed giant abuses,—the denial of political rights to those who sincerely avowed their religious opinions the laws to diminish the supplies of food for the people. If anything can be laid to his charge, it is excess of slowness to avow and act upon his convictions—too long persistence in the cant of party. And-if for this he Were severely blained, we should not object. But he is blamed for ceasing to do this. Were the indignation with which the "in- sincerity" of Peel is commented upon an-indication that society had learned to see through and had become disgusted with the thraldrem and hypocrisy of party, a little excess in his Punish- ment might be tolerated. • But in that case, he would not alone be singled. out for exemplary infliction.' The _pertinacity. with which the Whigs when in office opposed . hollow phrases to de- mands for substantial reforms would be - equally reprobated. O'ConnelPs eulogiums on the martyr spirit of Smith .O'Brien would be visited with unsparing sarcasm. If henceforth con- ventional insincerity in politics is to be deemed as degrading as conventional insincerity in the intercourse of private life, who of all Peel's accusers is entitled to " throw the first stone?'!
Previous page
