The Press. — London, England, 1855-02-24 00:00:00

190 " minds of ordinary readers by the easiest and " most direct route." Whoever may take up these volumes will, we are afraid, pronounce them very heavy reading. Instructive they may be ; useful for reference they may possibly prove; but we cannot conceive that any person would willingly undertake the task of going through them from beginning to end. Different authors have different qualities of mind ; to one it is given to go through all the dreary toil of mining, and to bring forth only a diamond in the rough ; to another it is given to polish the gem and to display it in all the lustre and beauty it is capable of receiving from dexterous manipulation. Mr. Blakey has the industry of the " navvies' but we cannot accord to him the skill of the artist. To be sure his subject is not the most attractive in the world ; political literature, as it is said here, is often local and transitory, and the circumstances which in such cases gave it interest in one age are too slight and evanescent to preserve a place for it in the mind of another. But it is possible to dis criminate, and to dwell on those points only which have exercised some lasting influence on the fortunes and character of mankind. Mr. Blakey does not seem to have settled any principles in his mind which could render his book generally acceptable. His first volume is chiefly occupied with a statement of the political institutions of the States of an tiquity, and such details, however accurate, and however valuable in a certain sense, can never fasten on the reader's attention. Our own political institutions are nearer to us than those of the Jews, the Egyptians, the Greeks, or the Romans. Yet, let any one draw up a statement of our form of government, with all the technicalities of our representative system, and of our parliamentary proceedings, and though ho might produce a volume highly creditable to his diligence, it is not to be sup posed that his narrative would meet with much voluntary perusal. On some occasions Mr. Blakey is hardly true to his colours. The political literature of Rome is worth attentive examination, and might have supplied some animated chapters ; but we find some of the greatest Roman authors dismissed with such scant notice as the following :—" CEesar and " Tacitus are useful and interesting authors." In his second volume Mr. Blakey somewhat varies his plan. He becomes more precise, and gives a catalogue of the principal Euro pean authors who have distinguished them selves by their political writings. But here, again, we have to remark that we are presented with little else than dry bones ; the Prome thean touch which should animate them is wanting. There are dead facts and living facts. In history research should do some thing more than collect materials ; it should infuse into them the breath of life. The groat mistake of Mr. Blakey, as we con ceive, is, that he has made his history relate rather to things than to men. There is no personal interest in his narrative. We miss all the strife and excitement of those political contests which have formed epochs in the existence of nations, and have carried on, or modified, or changed, their forms of govern ment. Political literature has had its struggles and its triumphs; in one shape or other it has moulded the mind and influenced the destinies of civilised men ; it can point to its heroes and its martyrs. But Mr. Blakey, casting aside all the vivifying detail which makes up the better portion of its history, presents us only with results. We cannot suppose him to have studied all the writers whose works he enumerates, but whether he has done so or not, his summary of their labours appears equally unprofitable. Turning from the plan to the matter of Mr . Blakey's work, we find much with which it affords us pleasure to coincide, and much from which we are compelled to differ. The following passage does justice to the hu manising influence of political writing in general : Political writers of all nations have had, on the whole, a more direct and powerful sympathy with the people at large, than with any particular classes or sections of them. True, we see instances where some give their aid to the strong against the weak — to the artful a g ainst the simple and confiding ; but, besides these being exceptional eases, we have this fact presented to us, that even when such writers have taken up weapons against sound doctrine, and THE PRESS. constitutional freedom and progress, they have had to make appeals to the common feelings, instincts, and no tions of mankind. They have had to employ the organs of the sapiensa volgare, or the general sentiments of human nature. They have had to touch what is of universal in. terest, and what moves the deepest passions of the human breast. In no language, nor in any age, do we find a single political writer who ever felt he was in a position, with any theory or piece of political philosophy, to set these at defiance. Taken as an entire class, literary politicians of all ages have been men of broad and popular sympathies ; and have founded their theories of polity—whether for or against change—whether of a practicable or impracticable cast—upon the universal basis of human desires, passions, and instincts We owe, therefore, to political writers, as a body, our highest meed of commendation and gratitude. They have always stood in the very first ranks of human progress and practical freedom. Some of these brethren, in all ages, have been tempted to lend their aid to perpetuate ignorance and oppression, but these have been comparatively few in number; and even their tem porary defection from sound principles and patriotic senti ments had often a powerfully direct and beneficial effect in promoting, in the long run, the extension of real know ledge and information among the great family of mankind. The limitation expressed at the commence ment of this passage is, however, hardly wide enough.. Politics engage the noblest and the vilest passion of mankind, and political litera ture reflects them both. The fearful evil oc casioned by such issues as Marat's " Ami du Peuple " must be set against a large amount of good done by writers of better mould. In all that Mr. Blakey says of the advan tages of free Governments we cordially concur. But liberty, like other blessings, must be subject to some limitation ; a degree of re straint is necessary to its existence, and the duty of statesmanship is to determine what share in the business of government can be conceded to the great body of the people with most advantage to themselves. This is cer tain,—that liberty, according to the expression of the great Roman orator—kgum idcirco omnes servi sumus ut liberi ease possimus—can only exist when joined with obedience to law. But our author lays it down as a rule that a people have a right to openly resist their Government when " their rulers no longer " attend to the grand object of civil govern " ment—that of promoting the happiness of " the great mass of the nation." But who is to judge the conduct of Government, or deter mine the degree of misconduct which would jus tify an appeal to arms? If the right of resist ance be once conceded, why may not a Cuffey and his followers allege that they find the domination of the police intolerable, and that they have what Mr. Blakey calls an " inalien " able right, •from the very constitution of " things," to essay its overthrow. Such prin ciples would justify the rising of Frost and his associates, and the cabbage-garden insur rection of poor Smith O'Brien. The attempt to prescribe a rule of " the right of resistance," as is done here, is mere folly. When the occasion arrives no rule will be needed, and, until it does, all debate upon it can only be mischievous. In the following passage it is curious to notice the confusion in the author's mind—a ruler and a servant, according to his view, filling precisely the same position : The course which it is incumbent and reasonable for a nation to follow towards its rulers is precisely the same which all men of sane minds follow in the ordinary con cerns of human life. When servants either cannot or will not do the work for which they were engaged, we remove them and make other arrangements ; but we never, for a single moment, conceive we are acting violently or unjustly in such a case. This nonsense is not even recommended by novelty. It is but a revival of the fallacies of Dr. Price and the Revolution Society demo lished by Burke in his " Reflections." A man has authority over his servants by law, and have not his rulers authority over him by law? If the law may be broken in one case, why not in another ? According to Mr. Blakey's reasoning, his own servants would have a per feet right to get up a kitchen emeute, and expel him from his own doors, if they con ceived they could rule the household more to their own comfort without him. In the general principle that there are two distinct and, what may be termed, natural parties in politics, Mr. Blakey is correct: — Party writers and philosophers on politics may be ar ranged, setting aside their less prominent characteristics, under two great divisions ; the one under the influence of progressive change and improvement, and the other of a stationary or conservative cast. These two orders of writers and thinkers can be traced in the political litera ture of every country, though not existing under any SATURDAY, specific or assumed form. Their antagonistic ideas can be distinctly recognised. We add his definition of these parties, that we may make a few remarks upon it:— The progressive order or school adopts and acts upon the maxim, that there is a principle of development in human society, and in the intellectual constitution of man; and that the machine of government can be so adjusted as to derive great addi'ional power and facility in its move ments, by adapting itself to this innate tendency of human nature towards improvement. It would regulate itself to a people's advancement in knowledge, and the ever-chang ing habits of social life. This coalition is, in fact, in dispensable to the real advancement of nations. It is the germinating power—the parent of great ideas and liberal sentiments. The retarding or conservative policy, though it does not absolutely deny the existence of this aptitude to civil improvement, nevertheless treats it as a matter not to be taken into account, when discussing the vital interests of society. It generally sets itself, therefore, against innovations, both speculative and practical. What ever is, is here right. To alter, to improve, to change, is not its character. Yet the leading idea on which the con servative class of political writers act, is a great idea, and is of vital importance to all societies ; inasmuch, as it imparts to the judgments and habits of a nation, permanency, fixity of purpose, and a sustaining and enduring power. The character of these parties varies with the times in which they flourish. Sometimes the "progressive order" advances too fast, as in the days of the French revolution ; sometimes the Conservative party is too slow, as when the necessity for all improvement is denied. But in an age of great activity like t le present, no merely stationary party can possibly exist. The only question now is, what direction change shall take, whether it shall be prac tical or speculative, social or organic. Our Conservative party of the present day would put existing institutions to their best use, and only change them in the event of their proved incompetency to public require ments. The progressive party, on the other hand, would change them from perceiving in them some speculative defects. The legisla tion of the one party would proceed on prac tice, of the other on theory. For example, it is said now, on one side, let us work as use fully as we can with the present House of Commons ; and by the other, let us change the constitution of the house, that we may work usefully. To one or other of these parties people incline even more perhaps from temperament than from conviction. The restless pushing nature which perceives no immediate opening to gain the distinction it desires under the existing order of things, thinks that that order is in fault, and works for its overthrow ; the more tranquil disposition which finds that by steady application it can make continual progress, would see with regret that frame work of government disturbed which favours industrial efforts and affords them beneficent protection. It seems that, amongst us, these parties, after having been partially blended for a time, are now about to be distinctly separated. Personal pretensions, indeed, can never long keep them in a state of fusion. They have a natural tendency to fly asunder, and the time has arrived when rational men taking an active interest in the welfare of their country must ask themselves to which side they will belong. The Conservative party has taken up a position from which the requirements of the age, no less than the intelligence of its chiefs, will never allow it to recede. It is pledged to work for the social amelioration of the people, to correct abuses, and to forward all reforms which can contribute to the well-being of the people. But generally it is opposed tO organie change. It would effect improvement to avoid political revolution, while the other party, .on the contrary, would effect political revolution as a means to improvement. Mr. Blakey appears to consider that there can be no danger to society from political of movement. "It knows nothing," he says, " " contingency, doubt, accident, and chance. He regards it as under the special care of a " great Guiding Hand above," and asserts that the " history of society is the history of pro " gress." But has he read of no societies which have perished, and have been succeeded by a long night of darkness and disorder ? We have reason, it is true, to suppose that there are in the societies of modern times stronger principles of vitality than in those of the ancient world ; but it would surely be rash to assume that they may not be overthrown by