The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-09 00:00:00

same time progress; and it is the circumstance that Conservatism, when truly carried out, is conformable to the law of nature that gives it its special recommendation. When a thing ceases to grow it begins to decline ; rottenness takes hold of it, and it decays. It is impossible to conserve anything that has a vital nature in it without its throwing off continually what decays, and clothing itself not in a new, but a renewed form. Some trees throw off their bark every year, the new bark imperceptibly taking t h e p lace of the old ; with others, the bark only expands and grows with the tree's growth but, in both cases, so long as the tree is on the advance, or there is vigorous life in it, this process proceeds. So it is with genuine Conservatism as it respects the Constitution. It is ever seeking to renew what has decayed—to add strength to the parts that are weak—to expand the protective powers of the State with the growth of the State—and to reinvigorate it by infusing into it in larger degree the energies of life. Having received the Constitution as an heirloom from their fathers— as a tree of their planting—Conservatism seeks to preserve it after the pattern of nature by fol lowing a truly constitutional policy, making what is new as much as possible in the style of the old, and adding to it fresh powers and expansion. Thus it is that, by observing the method of nature in the conduct of the State, in what we improve we are never wholly new ; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. And by adhering in this manner, and on these principles, to our fore fathers, the Conservatives are guided not by the dark lantern of a blind superstition, but by the enlightened spirit of philosophic analogy. Our political system is thus kept in a just correspon dence and symmetry with the order of the world, and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts, wherein by the disposition of the highest wisdom, moulding together the great mysterious incorpo ration of the human race, the whole is never at one time old, or middle-aged, or young, but in a condition of unchangeable constancy moves on through the varied course of perpetual death, renovation, and progression. It is, however, this feature of constancy in the midst of perpetual progress which leads short sighted people to regard Conservatism as a thing that is stationary. They cannot take in the whole compass of such a system of legislation as stretches back to the beginning and forward to an unseen end. They view the thing simply as it appears at the moment, and hence confound Conservatism with stagnation. If they would but chronicle facts, and judge by facts, they would see that the Conservatives have made more real advances in the progress of improvement than any other party ; only, having fixed principles, they act by a law—the law which NIEBUHR, from his living insight into all history, discerned with such clearness, and thus set forth Ae in or ' genic being, the most perfect life is that which " animates the greatest variety of members, so in " States that is the most perfect in which a " number of institutions, originally distinct, being " organized each after its kind into centres of " national life, form a complex whole." We have no means of knowing what will be the details of the new Reform Bill which the Conservatives will introduce; but we will ven ture to predict that it will be conformed to this great law of civil as well as of organic life. They will proceed according to the pattern of the Con stitution. What they introduce of new will not be wholly new ; what they retain of the old system of representation will not be wholly old ; but improvement will enter into every part of it, with a progress commensurate with the advance of the nation in wealth, commerce, and intelli gence; and thus they will prove that Conserva tism is, what we have named it, preservation with progress. Whiism will be found to stand out, when Partiallyni l examined, as preservation without p r ogress. Whiggism is a creed , and this creed consists in a f ew fi xe d points handed down from the time of the Revolution. Beyond these points Whigs never get. Their system has in it no prin ciple of adaptation ; their polity admits of no expansion. Whatever changes or hues their cad may assume, it has always one essential n character , o and one only e n d. Th e C onservat i ves creed,the', because their principle is a law ; Whigs have a creed, butno vital law. It is a circle of which the radius never varies. Their policy "lists in the attainment of certain ends ; and THE PRESS, OCTOBER 9, 1858. when those ends are gained, itself ends, or only takes renewed action to attain the same ends again. Its whole stock in trade consists in a few cant phrases. Its hereditary watchword is " civil and religious liberty " ; its principle (so far as it has any principle) is a crown bestowed by the people and subject to the will of the people; its ceaseless object is to separate religion from civil government, and to convcrt every man into two persons, according as he is in office or out of office—out of office he is to have a conscience, in office he is to have no conscience. This it is that accounts for the otherwise extraordinary and unaccountable contradictions that are found in Whig statesmen. They are at once rigid and lax, liberal and illiberal. The weakness of the Whigs is never so thoroughly exposed as when they are in power ; for when was Whiggism ever found to be anything but magnificent in promise and meagre in performance ? The Whigs are wont to boast of what they have effected in the way of securing freedom of opinion, of abolishing religious restrictions, of establishing the principle of toleration. But K as we have observed, their " civil and religious liberty" means only the liberty of having no religion in civil matters, this is sorry ground for boasting. If, then, toleration is only the prin ciple of leaving others to be as indifferent to the obligations of Heaven's revealed truth as they are themselves in public life, on the ground that it does not matter what a man's opinions are, there is small merit in it ; while to pride them selves on it is as absurd as it would be for a walrus to pride itself on its insensibility to cold. The Conservatives are friends to true toleration, but they are not the advocates of that kind of toleration which an old writer speaks of as " a "weed of spontaneous growth in the soil of in " difference." The Conservatives are the culti vators of the genuine plant, and they will ever be friends to " civil and religious liberty" be cause they are friends to a manly and enlightened freedom. It is, however, on a different ground from that on which the Whigs take their stand. It is on the ground of a moral principle, and not for a political purpose. That the nation is indebted to the Whigs of former days for some useful services we are not so unfair as to deny. They made a noble stand for the independence of their country against Popish domination in the Revolution of 1688. They have been occasionally supporters of good measures since. But they have sadly degenerated. Between the old Whigs and the new there is almost the widest possible difference. A new Whig creed has been introduced ; yet it is a creed still. This shows itself practically. Between the old Whigs and the modern Conservatives there are some points of affinity, so that what few of the old school of Whigs remain may almost be accounted as Conservatives ; but between them and the new family of Whigs, none. These have developed themselves into a new form under the name of Radicalism, or self-styled Liberalism, or at least are cousins-german to it. Radicalism is, in fact, but the bastard child of Whiggism, be gotten by Faction out of the womb of Political Weakness. This new progeny we will now en deavour to describe. Radicalism, viewed in its true tendency, is progress without preservation. The Radicals have neither a creed, nor are they guided by a law. Their motive power is, in point of fact, a diseased political sentiment. They labour under the poverty of having but one idea—that idea being included in the one word, the People. Their principle of legislation is to place the State on an inclined plane, and to let it go of itself, as, on this principle, they maintain it would go ; respecting which there cannot be a doubt. They rebel at the idea of government. They think it is not necessary for any to guide,—all that is wanted is to let go the rems. They look not at all to consequences. These they would cover with the " all-atoning " name of liberty. Their great object is to level. They would pollard the nation into a frightful uniformity. King, Church, Peers, everything that carries about it any distinction, must be brought down or inverted. They would place the base of the pyramid uppermost, and make the People all in all. They cannot conceive how there can be unity in the midst of diversity ; rather they are infected with the desire of cen tralizing and uniforming everything. Being most of them men more conversant with material , mechanism than with moral principles, they are 90 intoxicated with the love of machinery that they 971 think mechanical action better than moral in the science of government, as being surer and more easily managed. Hence this new race of Political Reformers, like the Jacobinical Republicans of France in former days, would cut into sections, and square and lay out, the whole complex mass of society after one precise pattern. It must be universal or manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, triennial Parliaments, electoral districts, repre sentation according to the exact number of heads. without regard to brains, property, or any other qualification. Kings, Lords, an Established Church, national religion, landed gentry—all must go to make way for perfect civil equality. In a word, like the fox in the fable that had lost his tail, they would have Parliament pass an act of self mutilating uniformity for the whole nation. The contrast between these three political parties may, as regards their principles, perhaps, be best brought out by a comparison with three different kinds of country. The Radicals would reduce everything to one dead flat ; the Whigs would preserve some mountains and lofty hills on one side, and make all the rest a broad plain; the Conservatives are for maintaining the order of nature in a beautiful intermixture of hills and plains, and woods and valleys, adorned with every variety of luxuriant scenery. Which is preferable, let every man of sense judge. To resume : Conservatism is, as we have said, preservation with progress ; Whiggism is preser vation without progress ; and Radicalism is pro gress without preservation. The first acts by a law ; the second by a creed ; and the third has neither creed nor law. We may safely leave it to our readers to determine in which of these three systems or parties it is safest to place their confidence. AN EX-MLNISTER'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO REFORM. AMONG the political ciphers which made up the rank and file of the Palmerston Administration, Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS is honourably distinguished as a gentleman of great personal respectability. If he has not astonished the world by any brilliant displays of genius, neither has he acquired the equivocal reputation of being a clever Parliamentary trickster. IVhile in harness he held on his way in the even tenor of official dulness ; and now that he is relieved from the trammels and responsibilities of office he sustains his part as a public man by occasion ally sedately and heavily descanting upon the affairs of the nation. In the pursuit of this harmless occupation he delivered himself at the Radnorshire Agricultural Meeting of a string of observations which, if they have no great tendency to advance political science, are nevertheless not unworthy of notice as throwing some little light upon the intentions of the late Administration on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. Sir CORNEWALL LEWIS is evidently not very well pleased with the prospect of seeing that question dealt with by the men into whose hands the reins of power have passed. It can scarcely be the fear of the Reform Bill which is expected, and as good as announced, to be brought forward by the present Ministry, proving too Conservative in its character, that causes the Right Hon. Baronet thus to contem plate with unmistakeable dislike the introduction of such a measure by his political opponents ; for he expresses his firm conviction that any attempt to give it such a character must be signally defeated. Neither does he appear to be under any serious alarm as to the success which may attend the endeavours of her Majesty's advisers to put the representation of the people upon a sounder basis; on the contrary, he augurs for them nothing but failure. Why such anticipa tions as these should give so little comfort to the mind of the late CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER is not very intelligible. What is it, then, that disturbs the Right Hon. Baronet ? Is it that he thinks Parlia- mentary Reform unnecessary and undesir able ? Strange as this supposition may appear, after the conspicuous position which has been assigned to this question for years past in all the political programmes of the Whip, there is much in the remarks which fell from Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL LEWIS to justify such a suspicion. After vindicating the Reform Bill of 1832 on the ground that, previous to its enactment, "the " 110119 e of Commons did not accurately and