Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Lord John Russell for a definition, and he will begin a wonderful and wearisome discourse about the great Lord Somers, the acknowledged principles of the British Constitution, Magna Charta, the Jew Bill, the traditions of great houses, Algernon Sydney, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutions of Clarendon, until your head becomes as bewildered as though you had lost your way in a fog on the Moor of Rannoch. Next call into court Lord Macaulay, the historian of the party, who ought to be able, if any man can do it, to afford us a full explanation, and he will commence somewhat as follows, ore rotundo:-" In answering, sir, that question categorically, which I humbly conceive to be the only method of explication suitable for an interrogatory at once so momentous and so intricate, I conceive that it is first necessary to advert to those principles which dictated the revolution settlement of 1688;"-and there you are thrown back to the commencement of his volumes, which you must read through (and they are not finished yet), before you can be brought into a proper frame of mind to understand the nature of his profession. I have, I own, met with some shorter definitions. "What is Whiggery?" said I once to a bluff Radical, who has a sincere abhorrence of the sect: "Jobbery," was the curt reply. "Jaw and nothing else," was the answer of a second. Selling British folks to foreigners," replied a third, who had some kind of interest in the Vixen; and more than once I have been assured that "bosh" was the proper synonyme. For my own part, I have been compelled to abandon in despair the attempt at any solution beyond a negative one. But sure and certain am I that Whiggery is not Liberalism.

Certainly it is a great discouragement to find at the outset of a speculative disquisition like this, that you cannot clearly define the thing which you are going to discuss. But as there is no help for that, even though we appeal to the collective sapience of the party, the only course which can be pursued is that of the doctors when compelled to investigate a new disease, the nature of

which they do not understand. In short, we must look to the symptoms. These may be discussed under the next head of inquiry: "How far has Whiggery gone, and how far does it propose to go?"

How far has it gone? A very long way, you would be inclined to say, judging from the jaded looks of its professors. But halt you there, my master! Are you quite sure that the respectable gentlemen are not shamming? There is a story told in Holy Writ how the men of Gibeon, being terrified by the might and progress of Joshua, sent certain deputies, feigning to be ambassadors, with patched wine-bottles, mouldy bread, old shoes, and tattered garments, "and they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him and to the men of Israel, We be come from a far country: now therefore make ye a league with us." Now, it seems to me that the Whigs are very much like the men of Gibeon. They took up Parliamentary reform, like everything else, not as a matter of principle, but as a ready means of getting possession of power. The party who really prepared the way for that measure were the Radicals, whom the Whigs used to sneer at and decry, and whose views they treated as visionary. The Whigs, previous to 1830, were doctrinaires, carpers, critics--but never earnest workmen, However, when they saw that a change in the system of Parliamentary representation was imminent, they, following the example of the Gibeonites, made a league with the men whom they formerly affected to despise; and not only that, but they had the address to get themselves put at the head of the movement, and to make conquest of the coveted territory. Some cities, however (I ought to say nomination boroughs), they did not destroy utterly. A few fortalices, such as Calne, Marlborough, and Tavistock, belonged hereditarily to representatives of the 'great houses," and these were religiously spared'; and the triumphant procession moved on until it halted at Downing Street. Into the stately mansions there the Whigs rushed with precipitation, taking no further notice of the multitude without, than

[ocr errors]

to desire them, from the windows, to disperse, and go home as quickly as possible, since everything was now arranged entirely to the Whig satisfaction.

Now, I don't say that the Whigs were wrong in moving for Parliamentary reform. I think there was an absolute necessity for reform, and that the Tories committed a great error in not having recognised that necessity, and in not having taken the matter into their own hands. Certainly they have suffered no light penance for that error; seeing that, for the last five-and-twenty years, unremitting efforts have been made by the Whig orators and journalists to represent them as bigoted obstructives and fanatical enemies of progress. That notion has been propagated so very sedulously, that even now its effects are visible. I remember the time when I considered a Tory, however amiable, wise, benevolent, or gifted he might be, as a kind of moral ogre, or at least as a social oppressor. I remember also when I regarded the stupidest Whig as a much better man than the most accomplished Tory; and that because I had been told that the Tory creed was antagonistic to everything like liberty. And even now the same game is being played. In February last the Whig government went to pieces, not broken by a party blow, but shattered by a downright direct stroke from the fist of the country at large, given with hearty British good-will, because all men, except the Whigs and their satellites, felt that the honour of the nation was not safe in their peddling hands. What followed then? Why this-that the Whig organs began to raise a cry of alarm at the advent of the Tory party. Why? O, because the Tories are, have been, and ever will be, the enemies of progress-remember the Reform Bill! I remember it perfectly, or at least I have read the records of that eventful period; and I find, among the advocates of Parliamentary reform in those days, at least three men who are chiefs in the present Cabinet. The Earl of Derby, Mr Disraeli, and Sir E. Bulwer Lytton were all conspicuous reformers; and, so far as I know, they have

never recanted one of the opinions which they then expressed. I remember, too, a certain speech which won for a certain noble lord the ludicrous title of Finality Jack," and which, I suppose, he is not now very anxious to see republished. That the old Tories of the last generation did, indeed, commit an error in opposing Parliamentary reform, is, I believe, admitted now by every man of sense and intelligence. I use the word error, not as signifying a blunder in tactics, but a real substantial mistake. The old system was too narrow, too complicated, too inconvenient to be longer continued. The large increase of the population, the acquired wealth, the extended commerce, the new interests which had sprung up, and the general diffusion of education, made a change in the representative system absolutely necessary; and it was sad folly to suppose that it was possible for any party to prevent that which the great majority of the nation was determined to obtain. Reform was wanted; but the nature of that reform was an indefinite idea in the minds of most. The Whigs showed great astuteness on that occasion. By securing to themselves the framing of the bill, they gained a double advantage. First, they conciliated the popular favour by the show of taking the initiative; secondly, they were able to adjust the details of the measure, so as exactly to suit their own party purposes.

Certainly they could not have devised a measure more perfectly favourable for themselves; the best proof of which is their intense reluctance to make any further changes. Had Lord John Russell adhered to the finality view which he once announced-had he plainly told the Liberals that, although he had no theoretical objection to a further extension of the franchise, he would not consent to frequent changes in the representation-I should at least have respected his sincerity. But he did nothing of the kind. He gave up the notion of finality, because he thought it might make him unpopular; and, without communication with his own party, he announced a new Reform Bill. There has been a good

deal of speculation as to the real cause of the dissension which prevails in the Whig camp; and various reasons have been assigned for that coldness, and even dislike, which many of his old followers have manifested for some time back, to Lord John Russell, contrasting strangely with the devotion which they once displayed. It has been insinuated that this estrangement arose mainly through rivalry of the chiefs, Tavistock try ing emulously, but in vain, to measure its stature against that of Tiverton, and being very sulky in consequence. The plain matter of fact is this, that Lord John Russell lost his influence with his party, on the day when he made that hasty and uncautious announcement of a new Reform Bill. Either his evil star was then in the ascendant, or he must have eaten something that disagreed with him.

No wonder that the Whigs were bitterly incensed at this incomprehensible conduct on the part of their little chief. So long as they could command a liberal majority under the existing system, that system was all that they could desire; nay, the best that their imagination could admit of. True, that under that system they never could muster a pure Whig majority for this simple reason, that the Whigs were but a fraction of the people, and were not peculiarly beloved. They were, however, the aristocrats of Liberalism. All, or almost all, of the Liberal peers were steeped in Whiggery above the eyebrows; their nomination boroughs were represented by an adroit band of practised besiegers of the Treasury; they had a staff of veterans initiated in all the mysteries of office, and unequalled for their tenacity of gripe. They felt thoroughly sure that they could not be superseded by the democratic section of the Liberals. The latter were not numerous nor influential enough to stand by themselves-that is, to aim at office; besides, they wanted cohesion, and were split up into sub-divisions. The grand desideratum was to perpetuate Whig rule by means of Liberal majorities; and as that seemed secured by the operation of the franchise on its present basis, and to its present extent, the

Whigs, being wise enough when their own party interests are concerned, were most loth to contemplate a change.

What could they hope, by any possibility, to gain through a measure which should materially increase the electoral rolls? They did not expect that more Whigs would be returned to the House of Commons. If, indeed, the wit of man could have devised any scheme likely to promote so desirable an end, they would most eagerly have accepted it; but, alas! the thing could not be. They knew full well that they would not be permitted to erect supplementary nomination boroughs; they even trembled for the existence of those which they held, if any great and comprehensive scheme for reforming the representation should engross the attention of the country. In the cities and large towns, Whiggery was put to sore straits in maintaining its ground against Radicalism, and could only do so through the operation of the ten-pound franchise. Even that did not always secure them such victories as they could have desired.

Had Lord John Russell been thoroughly convinced of the propriety and expediency of making a change in the system of our parliamentary representation, he might have been entitled to some credit for his zeal, though perhaps to little for his discretion, considering the position which he then occupied. For it is undeniable that there was no call throughout the country at large for any great measure of reform. Some things undoubtedly there were which were capable of amendment; but the people generally were contented with the franchise as it stood, and agitation in that direction had died away. Still, if Lord John Russell had maturely considered the subject (as he was well entitled to do, he having been the nominal parent of the Act now in existence, and in some measure being answerable for its deficiencies) - if he thought, right or wrong, that the time had arrived for alteration or amendment, I shall not say that he was blamable in giving utterance to that conviction. But in that case, surely his political friends, if not the

guite

1858.]

The Great Imposture.

public, were entitled to expect that,
before so doing, he should have pre-
pared and matured his plan, resolved
upon its principle, and adjusted its
details, so far at least as to have been
ready to obviate any real difficulty
which might arise. There is a cer-
tain point beyond which rash an-
nouncements on the part of a Cabinet
Minister become culpable. It is not
enough that he should have the will
to apply a remedy to any fretted or
disordered part of the body politic-
he ought to consider what is the
suitable remedy, before he tells the
public that he is about to make the
application. Also, in such cases, it
is convenient that there should be
consultations; for it has happened
ere now that a too confident and
empiric practitioner has clapped on
a blister when there was simply oc-
But
casion for healing ointment.
Lord John, with a jocundity pecu-
liarly his own, despised all counsel;
and, what is more and worse, he had
not prepared his plan.

That he had not done so, is evi-
dent from the fact that he after-
wards, in fulfilment of his pledge,
brought forward two bills for reform
of the representation, which were
utterly incongruous and irreconcil-
able. They were so utterly bad in
detail that nobody would look at
them; and when the younger bant-
ling of the two was strangled in the
House of Commons, the Whigs cor-
dially assisting in the operation, the
bereaved father burst into tears!
But a pledge of this sort, once given,
cannot be easily recalled. It was
given, be it remarked, not in name
of Lord John Russell as an indi-
vidual, but in name of his party;
and as none of them were bold
enough to repudiate it, or perhaps
were prevented by prudential con-
siderations from doing so, they have
succeeded to what I know they re-
gard as an heritage of woe. They
have punished the offender well;
they have withdrawn their confi-
dence from him; they have ostra-
cised him; they have handed him
over to their organs to be pilloried
and pelted but they could not get
rid of that pledge, which hung over
them as the curse of Kehama rested
on the head of the agonised Ladur-

119

lad. However, they did what was
In the
possible to escape from, or at all
events postpone, the evil.
hands of the jaunty Palmerston that
pledge became practically innocuous.
It was annually renewed with as
much precision as the Mutiny Act;
but the performance of it was post-
poned, owing to the state of foreign
affairs. I will say this for Palmer-
ston, that a better man for shelving
troublesome questions, on account of
intricate relations with other states,
If we
never put pen to a protocol.
were actually not in some mess or
other-(I own that this looks very
like an impossible hypothesis, Pal-
merston being in office)-he could
get up a war or a quarrel in any part
of the globe at less than a fortnight's
notice, quite serious enough to justify
the postponement of any disagreeable
business. No wonder Palmerston
was a favourite with the Whigs!
It was as good as a febrifuge to hear
him parrying awkward questions,
generally with a playful blandness
which almost conciliated his oppo-
nents, but sometimes, when really
galled, with intemperate ferocity.
No wonder that they backed him up
to the last, called him their own
dear old Pam, and swore that he
was worth a dozen of the cankered
little gentleman who had landed
them in such difficulties. And if by
the continuance of war all question
of home reform could have been
avoided, small indeed would have
been the labours of the Whigs so
long as Palmerston was to be found
in the Ministry.

Well, the Whigs went out, or rath-
er were forced out, in February last,
ignominiously as some think-in con-
sequence of a factious combination,
as they.themselves maintain. Never
grudge them that solace, man! Let
them have the benefit of that excuse,
for they surely need one, as an unguent
to their consciences, for their subse-
quent scandalous behaviour. It is a
cruel thing to deprive a malefactor of
the mitigating plea of provocation,
even though we should be satisfied
that the plea is based upon a falsity.
They went out, having up to that
time given no fulfilment of their
pledge; but we were told, in answer
to some rather pressing inquiries,

[ocr errors]

that Her Majesty's Ministers had been engaged in preparing a measure for amending the representation of the people. That certainly sounded satisfactory, for it now appeared certain that there would be some divulgence of the nature of the scheme. A measure of this sort assumes a palpable shape from the time it is brought under the serious consideration of a Cabinet. It involves the collection of a vast mass of material to be hereafter resolved into shape. But-O ye fairies, enchanters, and other necromantic practitioners-what is this? When those who succeeded the Whigs in office came to look through the correspondence, and inspect the pigeonholes wherein lay stored the records and proofs of the labour of their predecessors, not one single scrap could they find referable in any way to the proposed measure of reform! If the Whig Cabinet had met at all upon the subject, their sitting must have been one of pure somnolence, like that of Barbarossa and his warriors in the cave. Let us accept that explanation. It was indeed a dream; and a dream referring to a delusion.

From all this, I think it is pretty evident that the Whigs have not gone very far, at least in the way of redeeming their promises. How far they may be inclined to go, I really cannot say; but, judging from the past, I am of opinion that they would still undertake a long Sabbath-day's journey along the road of faction.

You will observe that I am treating of the relation between the Whigs and Liberals; it being, in my humble judgment, very desirable that we should understand what are the precise points of similarity which are likely to produce sympathy. If you ask me what I, as a Liberal, expect from a Government, I answer-Peace abroad, and prosperity at homepeace resting on the basis of mutual good-will with other countries, not purchased by humiliating concessions, nor enforced by bullying or menace -prosperity caused by a wise and prudent system of finance, not weighing hard upon industry, encouraging the development of our national resources, but giving no undue stimulus to rash and unprincipled speculation. I wish to see the laws framed, adjusted, and amended according to the

wants of the country and the necessities of the time. I wish to see economy, but not parsimony, made the rule in every department of the public service. I wish for practical, not theoretical reforms, the latter being only called for when the former cannot be obtained.

Such being my standard, and being moreover, as I apprehend, that of every true and conscientious Liberal, I am bound to say that, after a long and patient trial, I have found the Whigs to be in every respect deficient. So far from preserving peace with honour, they have needlesslyI might almost say criminally-involved us in the terrible responsibilities of war. They allowed us to drift into war with Russia, when, by a bold front and determined action, that great misfortune might have been avoided. They smuggled us into a war with Persia-why or wherefore it is truly difficult to explain; and they withheld from Parliament that information which it was their bounden duty, as responsible Ministers, to have afforded. They began a war with China, upon grounds so doubtful that the real existence of a casus belli has been vehemently denied ; and we are still forced, with India in insurrection, to keep up that paltry contest. On the other hand, they suffered the petty state of Naples to seize, upon the open sea, in defiance of international law, two unoffending British subjects, to incarcerate them in a vile dungeon, and, by dint of protracted examination on a charge too preposterous to have been really believed, to inflict such an amount of moral torture, that the intellect of one of the unhappy men gave way. And

shame of shames-those precious Whigs of ours did not insist upon their freedom, much less upon reparation for their wrongs. With France, too, matters were fast coming to a crisis. Poor weak Clarendon had brought us into this dilemma, that we must either have risked a rupture, or have submitted to something very like degradation. I assure you that I drew a peculiarly hearty breath on the morning when I heard that the Whigs were out. I felt as if relieved from the hideous pressure of Ephialtes.

I shall say nothing more about the

« ForrigeFortsæt »