1760-70. WHIGS AND TORIES. 389 CHAPTER XIII. PARTIES THE CONSTITUTION, ITS THEORY AND PRACTICE-LOYALTY -POLITICAL ADVENTURERS-NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS-PARLIAMENTARY ELOQUENCE-MANNERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONSDECAY OF PARTY. Sketch of I PROPOSE in this chapter to attempt a sketch of the different political parties and their auxiliaries, and of the Parliament in which parties. their conflicts were carried on, during the period to which the earlier part of this history refers. Tories. The generic divisions of Whig and Tory had undergone a great change since the com- Whigs and mencement of the century. The distinction between Whigs and Patriots—that is, Whigs in office and Whigs in opposition-no longer existed. But the party was still disunited, not by any principle of policy, but by a low and sordid rivalry for office, emoluments, and patronage. The Tories were freed from the Jacobite heresy which had so long reduced their distinctive doctrine to a mere speculative tenet. The anomalous faction of the heirapparent was extinct. It was the fashion at Court, during the earlier years of the reign of George the Third, to say that the distinctions of party had vanished, and that Whig and Tory were obsolete terms. It is true, that many men of moderate opinions approximated so closely, though starting perhaps from opposite points, that there was no essential difference between them. But men of this mild political temperament have always been numerous, though they necessarily occupy a less 390 EXTINCTION OF PARTY. CH. XIII. prominent place in history than those who mingle in the bitter strife of faction. Still such politicians have occasionally been forced by circumstances into a conspicuous position. Falkland and Temple, Halifax and Nottingham, Walpole and Waldegrave, were statesmen who modified their opinions according to the exigencies of the times. They thought that political principles were not like the laws of an exact science, fixed and invariable; but that they were affected by the unceasing revolution of human affairs, and by accidents, against which no human prescience could provide. Such men, who prefer expediency to principle, are commonly described as trimmers and traitors by those who extol consistency as the greatest of political virtues. But, in truth, this anomalous class of politicians, which it is the policy of party to denounce, comprises almost every statesman whose genius or virtue has conferred permanent benefits on mankind. The bigot who sacrifices everything to his tenet; the faithful disciple of traditionary dogmas; the sordid camp-follower of party-may vaunt their mean and shallow consistency; but in many more instances has it happened that great states have been ruined by an infatuated adherence to obsolete maxims and mischievous prejudices, than by rash innovations or premature changes in policy. party. The manners of the present age, humanised by Extinction of knowledge and by the increased facilities of social intercourse, are obviously favourable to the mitigation of political asperity; but this very age, in which party is said to be extinct, has witnessed the most cruel struggles in which parties have ever been engaged. The great conflict of religious freedom; the still sharper contest 1829-32 for electoral rights, were transactions in which the leading statesmen of to-day took a prominent part; while the greatest war of all, the war between the commercial and the territorial powers, 1760-70. WHIGS AND TORIES IN 1760. 1846-52 391 Court Whigs Whigs. in which Catholic principles fought with ancient privileges, has only just been terminated. Peace may continue for a time, but no great political discernment is required to point out many questions which may yet give rise to conflicts as furious as any that have hitherto raged between the party of progress and the party of conservation. The distinction between Whig and Tory was not more sharply defined during the greater part of the eighteenth century than it is and Country at present. So early as the reign of George the First, two classes of Whigs were recognised, the Court Whigs and the Country Whigs; * and little or no difference could be discovered between the latter and those Tories who cordially assented to the settlement of 1688. The Tory who admitted the validity of a parliamentary title to the Crown went nearly the whole length of Whig doctrine in 1710. His loyalty perhaps was of a purer and warmer character than that of the Whig; and his reverence for the Church was certainly greater. But both Whig and Tory were agreed in the main principle of upholding monarchical and episcopal government. Both assented to the important doctrine that the ministers of the Crown were responsible to Parliament; but the one held that the Sovereign had the right to choose his own confidential advisers; while the other thought they should be nominated by the Whig aristocracy. The moderate Tory was a friend to toleration; but he could not go the length of believing that the concession of political power to the Dissenters would be compatible with the due ascendancy of the Church. These seem to have been really the degrees of difference between the two parties; the other differences which, from time to *Lady M. Wortley Montagu's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 96, Lord Wharncliffe's edition. 392 THE DANGERS OF FREE INSTITUTIONS. CH. XIII. time, arose, being merely occasional, or invented for party purposes. Disadvantages of party. Philosophers and statesmen, contrasting the turbulence and distraction of popular councils and dangers with the domestic tranquillity and the unity of action which belonged to absolute government, have sometimes been disposed to give a preference to the latter. Without touching upon an argument so extensive as this, it must be admitted that party spirit, which is peculiar to free institutions, has too often a tendency not only to impair the vigour of Government, but to bring those insti- " tutions themselves into disrepute. So long as the conflict of party is about great principles, the political atmosphere is purified, and public opinion undergoes a wholesome ventilation by the storm. But when important questions are settled, or cease to be contested, parties are then apt to dwindle into factions, intent only upon selfish and sordid objects. This is the time of peril for free institutions. The people, either themselves infected by the corruption of their rulers, or disgusted by it, hardly think their liberties worth a struggle, or perhaps willingly submit to the authority of an ambitious prince, or even a daring adventurer. History can show examples, both from ancient and modern times, of nations which have lost their liberties, when party, its public spirit evaporated, had sunk to the dregs of faction; and this would seem to be the danger with which free constitutions are menaced at the time, when every vexed question being settled, tranquillity and concord prevail throughout the legislature and the Government. The constitution has been always appealed to by the orators and writers of party in support the constitution. of their particular tenets and opinions; and it is a common practice, at this day, to speak of a thing as constitutional or otherwise, as if there were an expressed law by which the point could be deter Party appeals to 1760-70. THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION. 393 mined. But, in truth, it seldom happens that there is any such law; and, even in respect of certain cardinal maxims which are supposed to be well defined, doubts and difficulties have arisen. I need mention only one, the very elementary principle of the constitution, that the people cannot be taxed but by the consent of their representatives in Parliament. During ten years of the reign of George the Third, that question was debated with reference to the claims of one class of the subjects of the realm, and was at last decided by an appeal to arms. The trial by jury, the Habeas Corpus, the act which provides for the regular session of Parliament, the exclusive power of the Commons in the matter of supply, the Appropriation Acts, the annual Mutiny Bill-these, indeed, constitute a complete system of liberty, but leave ample room for difference of opinion upon minor points of great importance. The theory and practice of the constitution, again, are essentially at variance with each other; if the theory were carried out, the Government of this nation, instead of being the purest and best, would become one of the most corrupt and degrading tyrannies by which the world has ever been oppressed. For what is the strict law of our boasted constitution? The Sovereign can do no wrong; he is absolute, irresponsible; he can make war and peace of his own will; he can appoint and dismiss all his principal ministers, both civil and military, together with most of the subordinate public servants, at his pleasure. He can impose an absolute veto upon any law which the other two branches of the legislature have passed never so often. He can dissolve Parliament when he will. He can at any time command a majority in one House of Parliament by the creation of legislators, either for life or with hereditary succession. He has the direct nomination of one class, the lords spiritual of that assembly. These are the unquestioned |