ST. CATHARINES. Sonorous, full, the diapason swells, Then dies away in murmurings low and sweet, Or whispered vows when anxious lovers meet; And night has come, but still the child remains It said: "Brave boy! my blood runs in your veins, I left at death. Dishonour's blight of sin And as she clasped him to her yearning breast, And asked him if he did not dread the gloom, He turned his eyes, and pointed to the crest, And knelt and prayed beside the good knight's tomb: And after years the happy dream he blessed, And lived and died, with God and man at rest. PARTY POLITICS.* A BY A RADICAL. FRIEND of ours was once a good | theory and the working of the Constitution, deal puzzled in attempting to explain find themselves wondering how the thoroughly artificial distinctions which prevail in the political arena, came to acquire such force and persistence; wondering, too, whether no new page of political history will ever be turned, and the monotonous see-saw of party strife-Oppositions becoming Governments, and Governments becoming Oppositions, and each, with every change of fortune, displaying most, if not all of the faults of those whose places they take--be succeeded by something more in accordance with reason, and more favourable to true progress. The subject is one which a little honest thought will do a great deal to clear up; for, to tell the truth, the difficulties that seem to surround it are mainly the creation of those who think they have an interest in the perpetuity of the present state of things. It is commonly assumed, for example, by the defenders of party, that those who are disposed to regard it as out of place in this advanced stage of human culture and reason, are bound to devise a complete new set of institutions for the government of nations; and, having devised them, to demonstrate their practicability. This assumption we entirely repudiate, for reasons which will sufficiently appear in the course of our argument. What we have to do, is to try and render a true account of party to ourselves, to ascertain what it is and what the conditions are that call it into existence. As we pursue the investigation, we shall see that the conditions which give it its greatest vitality have passed away, and are little likely to return; and that party, if limited to a young lady of an enquiring turn of mind the nature of a Parliamentary Opposition. Government she understood and Parliament, as a deliberative and legislative assembly, she understood; but the idea of a party of men, whose sole function was to oppose what others pro-posed, seemed to be beyond her grasp. If it could have been explained to her that this so-called Opposition was a mere temporary organization for a temporary purpose the government of the country having fallen into bad hands and it being very desirable to harass them into an abandonment of their position-the thing would have been more easily intelligible; but no, the truth had to be told, that this " Opposition" was as permanent an institution as Government itself, and that the eagerness and bitterness with which it pursued its ends, bore no assignable relation to the merits or demerits of the holders of authority. However faultless an Administration might be, there must still be an Opposition, or the British Constitution would fall to pieces. "Why don't they content themselves with opposing what is wrong?" was asked, with simplicity. "Well, of course, that is what they profess to do," was the answer. "Then there is no particular reason for calling them Opposition, for everybody professes the same thing. I am Opposition, and you are Opposition we are all Opposition together, if that is what it means." The difficulty in which our young friend was involved was one which, in some shape or other, presents itself to everybody. Even grown men, tolerably familiar both with the to its natural and legitimate development It seems proper to state that this paper was written before our contributor had perused the article on "Political Corruption," the views expressed in which are thus supplemented and confirmed from an independent point of view.-ED. CAN. MONTHLY. in these days, would be a very different thing indeed from what we now witness. set the State on fire with all kinds of false and factitious issues. In Burke's time, and almost down to the present day, in England, there have never been wanting more or less serious causes of division among parties; moreover, in a country like England--the continuity of whose political history has never been broken by revolution, and where, consequently, many institutions exist, simply because they have existed, and not because they are peculiarly adapted to the present time-there will always be a certain opposition between those who wish to preserve what time has handed down, and those who, imbued with the spirit of the present, aim at bringing everything as much into harmony with that spirit as possible. Even in England, however, there are unmistakable signs that the palmy days of the party system have passed away for ever. It is in politics, in these days, very much as it is in war: men see the inevitable much sooner than they used to do; and, when they see the inevitable, they yield to it. This arises simply from the greater sway that reason has over the minds of men, and, particularly, over the minds of those fitted by nature to lead. We cannot do better than take our departure from Burke's well-known definition. Party," says the great philosophic statesman, "is a body of men united for promoting, by their joint endeavours, the national interest, upon some principle in which they are all agreed." Party, in this sense of the word, is something every one can understand: it calls for no justification, any more than any other form of association for a worthy object. It will be observed, however, that, according to Burke's definition, party is but a means towards an end, and a means which is only available in certain defined circumstances. The end is the national interest, and the condition necessary to give vitality to party, is the agreement of all its members in "some particular principle" which they wish to see applied in the government of the country, and to which, of course, another party in the State is opposed. Burke says not a word to justify the opinion that parties are essential to the well-being of the State, under all circumstances: for that would be simply tantamount to saying that no country could be prosperous in which there were not those radical differences of opinion upon political subjects, which alone afford a rational basis for party organization. Nearly all the talk we hear in the present day on the subject of parties, really involves the absurd proposition that, unless a country is divided against itself, it cannot stand. Because parties were once a necessity of the times the natural expression in Parliament of real and lamentable antagonisms that existed throughout the country, there-into power, left on the statute book,—a bill fore parties must exist for ever; and if we have not real antagonisms to support them, we must get up sham ones! The Chinaman, in Charles Lamb's charming apologue, set his house on fire, in order to have, indirectly, some roast pork. Our roast pork is the party system; and, in order that we may taste the savour again and again, we The truth of these remarks may be seen signally illustrated in the policy of the Conservative party, led by Mr. Disraeli and the late Lord Derby, on the question of Parliamentary Reform. Everyone remembers what a nagging opposition they offered to Earl Russell's seven-pound-householder Reform Bill of 1867; and everyone remembers still better what kind of Reform Bill the same party, after their nagging had worked them which virtually amounts to what was once the cry of the extreme Radicals, household suffrage. Another illustration, almost as much to our purpose, may be seen in the very feeble opposition offered in the House of Commons to the Ballot Bill recently passed. In former times such a measure could only have become law after the most convulsive and dangerous struggles; but, men now-a-days see what is coming and, even if they don't like it, try at least to reconcile themselves to it. Very much of the violence of former times was due to the blind prejudice with which even able men, and of course still more ordinary men, approached the consideration (if consideration it could be called) of all political questions. In these days educated men do not like to think themselves the victims of prejudice, and are, therefore, led to seek some solid ground of reason on which to base their opinions. In former times the interest of their party or their class was all that most men felt under any obligation to consult. In these days even average men have a certain feeling that the interest of the state is something greater and more important than that of any party or class whatever; and that it is both unreasonable and selfish to expect the higher interest to yield to the lower. All these causes tend to make the contrast of opinions far less sharp, and differences of political aim far less profound, than formerly. In other words, the ground is cut away, to a great extent at least, from under the feet of parties; and if we see them still arrayed against one another, it is simply that the interest of certain professional politicians is concerned in their preservation. The political circumstances of Canada are very different from those of the Mother Country. 66 There, where so much exists which it interests one class to maintain, and which it seems to interest a much larger class to destroy, there will, for a long time to come, probably, be some real significance in the terms Conservative" and "Liberal," or "Tory" and "Radical;" though there is every reason to hope that the political struggles of the future will be mitigated by the influences to which we have just referred. In Canada, however, when the same terms are employed, nothing can exceed the sense of mockery they bring to the mind. In olden times, when a knot of infatuated You find men, thought they could govern the country for their own private interest, the political designations that had been borrowed from the parent State, were not so entirely out of place. But in the present day, you who call yourselves Conservatives, do tell us, for heaven's sake, what it is you wish to conserve that anybody else wishes to destroy? And you also, who call yourselves Liberals, where are we to find proofs of your liberalism or liberality, or whatever it is you pride yourselves upon? Or, if you prefer to call yourselves Reformers, what is it that you wish to reform? Your political creed, if we credit your own professions, is one of the intensest conservatism, regarding all the established principles of the constitution. fault with nothing, so you say, in the political frame-work of the State, and only complain of a few abuses of executive authority on the part of a set of men whom you hope soon to consign to perpetual oblivion; and yet you dub yourselves Reformers, just as if there was work to be done for a generation or a century, in the redressing of abuses, the removal of anomalies, and the general reconstitution of a disordered commonwealth. When you have acceded to power and have wrought such improvements as you are able or disposed to do in the management of public affairs, what will there be to hinder you from adopting the title of "Conservatives," now appropriated by and to your opponents? Nothing in this wide world. And what will there be to hinder them, after you have committed a few blunders, as you are sure to do within a short time, from seizing, if they choose to do it, for political effect, upon your special name of “Reformers,” on the plea that they are going to put to rights all the things that you have put wrong? Surely you are both to be congratulated on the peculiar felicity of party designations so chosen that you might make an impromptu "swap," and look neither wiser nor more foolish in your new colours than you do at present. |