TOPICS OF THE DAY.
RESTORATION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
Jr you have watched the broad blue swelling disc of the ocean on a bright calm day with light snatches of breeze but without
a cloud to veil the sun, you have seen the shadows cast across the surface by the viewless air. Such bodiless shadows flit occa- sionally across the press, and one perhaps has scarcely yet passed —the shade of a solemn expectation that there was to be some re- uniting of the Conservatives, and the reorganization of that party in the House of Commons. On the presumption of such an event, the journals of the two sections have been making overtures to each other, in the name of their respective clients, and throwing out conditions ; and even a leading statesman has given countenance to such hopes. In his Lynn letter, Lord Stanley alluded to such a reunion as a thing within the range of possibility—be spoke of "the great Conservative party which recent events have unfor- tunately divided, but whose harmony and combined action, as far as may be found practicable, appear to me to be all-important to the best interests of the country." Whereupon journalists fall to specifying the terms of the union. The grand point debated is, whether there shall be a reunion to include Peel or exclude Peel.
The Anti-Peel party expects the most deplorable disasters if the Conservatives should remain disunited, but seems to regard the late Premier as the very impersonation of calamity. The fact is, that the Tory section of the Conservatives is conscious of its own feebleness, and desiderates the numbers that still adhere to the Member for Tamworth ; but to reaccept him, would be formally and finally to abandon Toryism, and in that case the party would lose its individuality. The programme of a party based on the exclusion of the Member for Tamworth would be a novelty ; and as some of the best men must remain with him, it perplexes one to know where the Conservatives would find their Premier and Cabinet Ministers. They could not fill up a Ministry without falling back upon Colonel Sibthorp and Mr. Hudson.
The opposite section diligently calls to mind all the past ex- ertions and merits of Sir Robert Peel, and the benefits which we now derive from them. Much of that setting forth is obvious : but office is not a reward of merit, nor a tribute of gratitude—ex- cept, perhaps, according to the wit's definition of gratitude, " a lively sense of future favours." Office is given for active service.
Neither Sir Robert Peel nor any one else will enter office on the strength of testimonials to character in times past. Veteran statesmen do not retire into the post of Premier ; nor have we heard of more than one statesman who sought the Colonial seat in the Cabinet as a place of repose. Why should we change ? Is it for abler men ? Hardly, since one section of the Conservative party virtually proposes to ex- clude the ablest of its own ranks. We should see the abler men before we can call them to office. The apprenticeship for the Ministry is worked out in Opposition. Each office of the Minis- try has its counterpart : as Eros had his Anteros, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his Anti-Chancellor ; and to effect a transfer of power, the policy of the Anti-Ministry should be better than that of the Ministry, or at least more im- posing. We see no policy on either side. But at least the Whigs have the advantage of possession. Why oust them ? Is it to obtain a more Conservative Government? It would hardly be possible to have one more Conservative, in the con- ventional sense of that word, than Lord John Russell's, Lord John will stand on the old ways as unconvinceably as the stanch- est innkeeper who disbelieved in railways. Surely there is no- thing in his contemplation to alarm the most sensitive of Con- servatives? There is nothing waiting for them to do which he would not do ; nothing they would forbid which he threatens.
He proposes no innovation which they would resist ; they would defend no more than he would refuse to alter ; he neglects not to restore anything which they would be able to restore. They have no man to substitute for him who would serve their purpose better, or half so well. Lord John Russell is the best man of the pure Conservatives.
The restoration of " party" is a dream with some, a humbug with more. Nobody believes in it ; but writers keep up the form, just as playhouse managers write " Vivat Regina" or " The free list is suspended." But "no party can long subsist by a fantastic allegiance to its own pretended shadow " : there will be no " Conservative" party except in the enduring sense of the term as applied to the body of practical prudence in the state. Still less can party exist in virtue of a mere wish for such a thing.
Party is a fact, not a plan. If there is some great thing to be done, and if there resides in the country a power of causing it to be done, that power calls into existence its own party. " Prin- ciples" won't do ; they make the spirit of party, but not its body : men must be agreed not only in principles, but also upon the thing to be done in carrying out those principles, before they can become a party cognizable and available in active politics. But at present there is no set of men in the state, which, even if it has some latent policy, will give substance to that policy in tangible measures. The reason why our statesmen cannot get up a party is because there is nothing for it to do. The Tory, Protectionist, or Anti-Peel section of the Conserva- tives, cannot get on because it has no projects, no ideas, nothing to do. It has nothing but a sigh and a tear for what has been. Like a superannuated old man, it still thinks in the past, and that which it supposes to be action is but the feeble vain gesture of a waking dream. This want of settled enterprise proves the want of men. If the country is so cast down as they believe it—if its danger is so great, its abasement so deplorable-- they should have a settled enterprise to raise and restore it. They can invent nothing : they have no plan before the country ; no- thing, bad or good, for which any " party " of substance and magnitude could wish to see them in office—nothing, simply no- thing. The utmost that can be said of their best man, besides his copiousness of words, is, that he is not Sir Robert Peel. They have, then, no faculties, no faith, no force of character, to qua- lify them even as candidates for office. They are of no use to the country, nor can they inspire it with much alarm. Nor is there any other section of statesmen with a plan or a settled enterprise. Men are wanting. Except the Government de facto, which rubs on with a minimum of practical service, there is nobody that masters the wants of the country—that possesses the resources of invention or the courage of devotion, to propound a scheme of action. How will writing supply the want ?
Previous page
