ment is dealing with a very difficult and dangerous question, walking, to use Horace's metaphor, on hot cinders lightly covered over with ashes, seek to hamper and distress it by every means in their power, even at the risk of fanning the smouldering fires into open conflagration. But if this is abuse, it is of the very essence of party politics. Either the interests of the country or the fortunes of their party are to dominate in men's thoughts: if the former, then all party tactics are at an end; if the latter, then it is simply absurd to talk of party being "abused.” It is all abuse from first to last. You might as well talk of selfishness being abused, or dishonesty being abused, or of hypocrisy being abused. Let us, however, hear a little more about party from that thorough believer in it whom we have just quoted :-"All the essential characteristics of party," he proceeds to say, "enter into the very idea of free popular government, and when they are eliminated, such a government is not only impossible but inconceivable. Who is to say what is really for the good of the nation? All may be equally patriotic, all equally anxious to lay aside self-seeking and everything mean and unworthy, but they may have different ideas how this greatest national good is to be secured; nay they will have if they think freely and intelligently. And with what result? Why, with the formation of more or less distinctly opposing parties, with more or less keenness in their discussions, and more or less divergence in their eventual courses of action. The whole history of the past tells of this; while the 'national principle' would at best but give us something like the slumberous stillness of a sultry summer noon-quiet and peaceful, but at the same time stagnant, and the fruitful parent of injurious miasmata." Here let us draw breath. Who would have imagined, had we not let out the secret, whence this charming picture of party politics was taken? There is a touch of idyllic tenderness and sweetness about it which the great Sicilian poet himself could scarcely have surpassed. "More or less keenness in their discussions"-of course; but then each side is so "anxious to lay aside everything mean and unworthy"-among other things, all mean and unworthy suspicions of their opponents-that really their divergences of opinion serve only to procure for those who take part in politics a reasonable and healthful amount of intellectual exercise. Under the "national" system we should all stagnate and be choked by noxious miasmata; while under the party system we are braced and vivified by the pure powers of free discussion. What a happy, golden dream, one cannot but exclaim, for a writer to have who was penning an article for the same columns that contained "Wha wants me?" Not more fancy-free was Colonel Lovelace in his prison than is this editor in his sanctum. He cannot for a moment assume the patriotism of his particular political opponents-they are tricksters, corruptionists, deceivers everything in fact that is morally execrable; but when he wants to draw a picture of the party system at work, why, all at once the political atmosphere becomes pure if not altogether calm; there is equal patriotism on both sides, and men are only divided by theoretic differences which do not in the least impair the profound respect they entertain for one another. . Now the truth of the matter is that what this enthusiastic advocate of party has been here describing is not party at all; but that very "national" system, the application of which to popular institutions he pronounces to be sheerly inconceivable" (though not too inconceivable to allow its miasmatic results to be clearly foreseen). No one pretends that if men could be induced to give up the conscious imposture and rant and gibberish that are now dignified with the name of party controversy, they would forthwith all be of one mind. The great difference would be that men would endeavour to make their opinions triumph by legitimate means; and further, that the expression of all opinions would be very much freer than at present. As things are now a man is not at liberty at, all times to utter the thought that is in him: he has to consider how his party will be affected by what he may say. In this way truths that would be eminently seasonable, so far as the country's interests are concerned, are suppressed as being unseasonable from a party point of view. The credit that a man would, personally, feel inclined to give his opponents for something he knows them to have done well, he withholds out of consideration for his party who would be seriously compromised by any admission in favour of those whom they are steadily trying to undermine in popular favour. It is the rarest thing in the world at present to see a man get up in Parliament and seem to utter his real and innermost conviction on any important question. You note his place in the chamber, and before he speaks you know almost all he has to say. Such is the party system. Instead of stimulating thought and teaching intellectual honesty, it does just the reverse-puts a ban on the free exercise of a man's mind, and leads people to conceal or misrepresent their real opinions. the part of every member of Parliament to the public good, while it would shield the Administration from factious assaults, would also compel it to rely not on the support of an interested party, but on the honest approval of the people's representatives. There is not only a connection-there is a direct proportion between rigour of party discipline and political corruption. The one varies with the other and necessarily. When we speak of "a strict party vote," what do we mean, except a vote in which the merits of the question were put out of sight, and party interests were alone consulted? And what do we mean by "party discipline," except that species of control, partly internal and partly external, which compels a man to support his friends per fas et nefas, or as we say in English, "through thick and thin?" It may not always be a money consideration, immediate or prospective, which leads a man thus to surrender independence and conscience into the hands of others, but whatever the motive, it is a corrupting one. Unless we are mistaken, a leading Canadian "statesman" once said to a member of Parliament, who professed himself ready to support him whenever he was in the right, "That is not what I want; I want my We fancy that when people try to realize friends to support me when I am wrong as to themselves what the political situation well as when I am right." And are they would be like, in the absence of party or not both, at this moment, members of the ganization and party strategy, a vague idea Dominion Ministry? The friend who once too often takes possession of their minds, wanted to limit and condition his support that there would no longer be any available found, no doubt, substantial reasons for means of dislodging an unworthy Govern-making it unlimited and unconditional-the ment from power. They forget that it is party that keeps such a Government in power at all. What is it that for years past has kept the special object of Opposition censure -Sir George Cartier, surrounded by that compact band of immortals, and made him, altogether, the most powerful man, personally, in the whole country? The answer is simply-party. It must not then be lost sight of that a relaxation of party ties, and a more honest and independent devotion on kind in fact that was wanted. This is an illustration of the party system, if you like: one that everybody will recognize who knows the real article. As to that beautifully-coloured picture of the Globe's, exhibited under some other name, it might do very well; but as "A Study of Party Politics," it can only be laughed at. The great difficulty in arguing the thesis that the public interest is not promoted by an arbitrary division of the legislature, and of all those who take an interest in politics, into two opposing camps, is to avoid saying things that are self-evident. It is perfectly clear that a party would not be a party, as the word is commonly understood, if it were actuated only by a desire for the public good, and if it followed out a strictly honourable line of action towards its adversaries. Such a body would not and could not display what is called party spirit; and as to party discipline, it would be lost in the higher and nobler discipline of duty. The agreement that existed amongst its members at any moment, however perfect it might be, could not be held to guarantee their agreement on any new issue; for ex hypothest every man, as often as a new question came up, would shape his course upon it, not with a view to improving the position of his party, but to promoting the advantage of the State. It is understood now that those who act together to-day will act together to-morrow and next day. Why? Simply because they mean to do so; that is all about it: they have determined that their opinions shall not differ. For how could they ever hope to gain party triumphs without party organization and party orthodoxy? If the country does not thrive under such a system; if the vices of government are not cured; if the people are not educated to disinterestedness and high-mindedness: in other words, if patriotism and public spirit are not encouraged -so much the worse for all the interests, moral and material, involved. The British Constitution of which party-government (we are told) is the noblest tradition, cannot be allowed to fall through merely because a nation threatens to go to ruin. When we are told that party is absolutely essential to free, popular government, we cannot help thinking what a vast amount of government is done, and what vast interests are successfully managed, without any help from the party principle. Look at our municipalities; look at our banks, our railways and other public enterprises; look at our churches. Would it really be well to see our city corporations, and our county and township councils divided between two parties, each trying to hamper the other to the utmost of its ability? Who would care to hold stock in a bank or a railway, whose affairs were made the sport of party struggles? Whenever party spirit has shown itself in connection with the latter class of corporations, it has been the product of, as it has in turn ministered to, the very grossest and most shameless forms of corruption and robbery. We see party here assume its final and perfect development as the ring-an association of robbers who have agreed to aid in filling one another's pockets. When however, (as fortunately is most often the case) this horrible disease has not fastened upon a great public company, its administration is a fair type of what the administration of a country's affairs might be, if the organized selfishness of party were to pass away. Every shareholder knows that the value of his property depends on the successful administration of the company's af fairs, and the maintenance of its credit before the world. His great anxiety, therefore, is to have the right kind of men as directors, and, when the right men have been found, it generally rests with them to say how long they will remain in the responsible positions assigned to them. Men get thanks for conducting the affairs of a company or association prudently and successfully; they get none for doing their duty by the State: they get interested and formal praise from their supporters, and unvarying depreciation and abuse from their opponents. The praise affords them no satisfaction, and the abuse, in the long run, hardens them and takes the edge off all finer feelings. The great difference between a member of a joint-stock company and a member of Parliament is, that while the former would lose more than he would gain by pursuing an obstructive course, or in any way trifling with the interests of the society, the latter may pursue a similar line of conduct, and profit by it. His interest as a private citizen in sound legislation, and effective administration may easily be overcome by those special inducements which party leaders can offer. That is precisely the position, and hence it is that party is possible in the Legislature and hardly any where else. Party may therefore be defined with absolute correctness as a body of men whose interest in supporting one another is greater than the interest they have in giving a right direction at all times to public policy. should scarcely call this, however, a good thing per se. What becomes then of Burke's definition of party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some principle in which they are all agreed?" Is it of no application at all in our day? Certainly; as often as a body of men honestly agree in a particular principle, let them unite their efforts to make that principle triumph, and if they choose to call themselves a party, why let them do so. No harm will result from that. Harm results when men take a license to themselves to do, as a party, things that are not for the national interest at all, and that, in their own consciences, they know are not for the national interest. It is certainly a strange thing that, because a number of men have got hold of one sound principle through which they hope to triumph, they should feel themselves excused in giving their sanction, if not their active support, to a number of evil ones. Yet this is precisely what our parties do; they have one end in view which perhaps they sincerely think a good one, and this end they allow to justify or sanctify the most scandalous Such is the party system; and if any one hints that a system, which not only permits but erects into a code the loosest moral practice, may not be worth perpetuating, he is pronounced at once an enthusiast, a dreamer, a doctrinaire, a person whom all sensible, practical men may complacently means. laugh at, without troubling themselves in the least to enquire into the value of his ideas. We are very far indeed from thinking that the age of political conflict has passed away in Canada. On the contrary, there is sharp work to be done at the present moment, and we only wish we could see a clearer prospect of its being done efficiently and speedily. What we really require is not closer party organization (the great specific of the "Grit" press) but a general awaking of the political conscience of the country. It is of little avail for a party to be in the right on some main issue if it is constantly putting itself in the wrong on a number of minor questions, and, in a general way, pursuing just as weak and temporizing a course as if its moral foundations were altogether unsound. Where we see a party acting in this way, and deriving no inward strength, apparently, from its espousal of the better cause, we may safely conclude that it has espoused that cause simply as a matter of expediency, a matter of party tactics. No wonder if truth triumphs slowly through such advocacy. The unexpressed idea in the mind of every man who tells us that party-government must be eternal is this: that men in general are too selfish and too corrupt to accept any other system; the main thing in politics must always, it is held by these high-minded individuals, be a strife for place and power, and the State must e'en take her chance between contending factions. If people who think this (and they are many) would only utter it openly, instead of darkening counsel by their sophistical platitudes about party and its abuses, we should be in a much fairer way of rising above our present low level of political morality. Party is such a venerable institution that, like the heathen temples of old and the Christian sanctuaries of the middle ages, it can give shelter and asylum to all kinds of crimes. But let men cease to talk about party in the abstract, or as an institution, and say what they mean, namely, that there is no use in looking for honesty and disinterestedness in politics, and then perhaps this very enlightened age will begin to feel a little ashamed that such injurious allegations should be so openly made. We do not share the opinion of these cynics; we hold that a great portion of the evils from which we suffer are due to a defective political system, and to that confusion of mind on political subjects which the current language in regard to party is so well calculated to produce. The heart of the people is not so unsound as some would have us believe; and if the people make up their minds to it, they can have honest men to serve them-men who will prefer honour to office, and the sense of duty performed to personal triumphs however flattering. To preach the cessation of party strife is no doubt, at present, like crying in the wilderness, but our hope is that, like other preaching that has begun in the wilderness, it will end by converting the multitude. Stripped of all verbiage and of all subtleties, the question is simply one between good and evil; and the good must either gain on the evil, or the evil on the good. The precise equilibrium we see established at present has no warrant of per petuity; it is simply the creation of the public opinion of the moment. In which direction then will public opinion change? Shall we see parties taking to themselves a wider and wilder license than ever, and, in their senseless animosities, trampling on the best interests of the State? Or shall the change be towards purer and more rational methods of government? Shall we see the press of the country becoming what a free press ought to be just, outspoken and independent, dealing with public questions in a broad, national spirit, and with public reputations with that respect which self-respect invariably inspires? Or, shall we see the reverse of all this in a further development of the wretched system of " organs ?" These are questions which the future has to decide, and upon the decision of which a vast amount of national prosperity may-nay must-depend. The country in which a high tone of public feeling prevails, in which government is administered with purity, and public affairs are discussed with reason, enjoys already the best kind of prosperity; and only where these moral elements of well-being abound can the material possessions and advantages of a community be turned to their bes account. SELECTIONS. AM I MYSELF? (From "Judicial Dramas, or the Romance of French Criminal Law," by HENRY SPICER.*) IT T was pleasantly remarked by a French | Louis de la Pivardière, Sieur de Bouchet, desgentleman of long descent but short tined to be the hero of a case, which, towards means, that the antiquity of his house had at the end of the seventeenth century, created an length exhausted its possessions. Such, perhaps, was the position of the young * London, Tinsley Brothers. |