The Press.
London, England, 1857-04-25 00:00:00

WHAT IS PROGRESS?

IT was not without some degree of reason
that Sir R. T. BUXTON tho other day used the
expression, " What the Liberals term pro
gross." Not that the phrase was here in-
tended as any disparagement of the thing in
itself, but simply of the account to which that
word has been turned by the Liberal party,
and the flippancy with which it rises to the
lips of many who would be sorely puzzled to
define its meaning. Of course, we all know
what Progress moans absolutely, but relatively
to ourselves and the present generation its
signification is by no means so clear. We
doubt if any two political philosopher s
could agree precisely on the subject. It is
easy, of course, to frame a definition of the
friends of Progress which shall exclude
a large number of Conservatives, but it is
equally easy to frame another which shall
exclude a large number of Liberals. Till,
therefore, both can agree upon a common
definition of this vaunted phrase, it is a mani-
fest begging of the question to say that Con-
servatives are opposed to it.
Let us enumerate the leading measures, the
support of which is supposed to indicate a
love of " Progress." In the first place, demo-
cratic suffrage, the ballot, and separation of
Church and State. Then come all that class
of objects for which the Administrative Re-
formers were striving To these may be added
such questions as Divorce, Chancery, and
the Ecclesiastical Courts ; Education, and
the reform and amelioration of our criminals,
juvenile and adult. Now, what we want to know
is, to how many of these schemes it is neces-
sary for a man to give in his adhesion before
he can claim the title of Progressionist? To
all of them—or to four or five—or to three or
two ? If to all—there are not a dozen Progres-
sionists in the House. If not to all, it is still
very difficult to say where the line is to be
drawn; and, draw it where we may, it will
never cut the number into two divisions, cor-
responding to Liberals and Conservatives.
But not only are men's minds in this utter
state of confusion about the means ; the
most contradictory notions prevail concerning
the end also. What is the ideal perfection to
which we should direct our stens ? Some say
that the culminating point of England's glory
vas the reign of Queen ELIZABETH. Able men
have urged that Rome only reached her
maturity in the days of CALIOULA. Some think
an enlightened despotism, and some an
unfettered democracy, to be the goal of poli-
tical effort; others still pin their faith to a
constitutional monarchy. It is clear that a
man's political conduct must be very different
according to whichever of these opinions
may regulate his course. All in turn have
been dignified with the name of Progress.
Sardinia, France, and America have all been
cited as examples. England, of course, the
Progressionists cannot adduce. In the do-
minions of VICTOR EMMANUEL constitutional
government is progress ; in those of Queen
VICTORIA. forsooth, it is not—that is to say, it
is wound up with a great number of interests
which a certain section of politicians are long-
ing to destroy; and accordingly, while consti-
tutional government itself continues to be the
theme of their eulogy, all those institutions
without which constitutional government

SATURDAY,

cannot exist for a moment are the objects of
their unceasing persecution. _

If a party Come forward and say candidly
we wish to see our Government modelled upon
that of France, apd therefore we would destroy
the House of Peers—or, we wish to see it
modelled upon that of A rneriea, and therefore we
would swamp the influence of property—they
would at All events be consistent and intelli-
gible. This would undoubtedly be Progress.
But to hold up one hand for the Throne, and
the other for undermining its foundations is a
species of folly and dishonesty which has been
reserved for the present age to produce, and
which well merits the contemptuous tone in
which it was alluded to by Sir IL T. Burros.
The Conservatives, at all events, avoid such
flagrant perversity as this. They openly
declare that the primary articles of their creed
are the preservation of the monarchy, the
Church, the hereditary branch of the Legisla-
ture, and the existing conditions of landed
property; and, in spite of Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
the Constitution has required defenders.
They will support no movement which
trenches on the security of these. But surely
within these limits there is as wide a margin
left for social improvements as any practical
man can desire. Law reform, education d
reform, civil-service reform, and the amen 1-
ment of our penal system offer a wide field
for the energies of our statesmen and philan-
thropists. . _ _

Progress is the improvement of society—
not the incessant change of institutions.
Perpetual political commotion is unfavourable
to civil development. There are persons ivlio
seem to imagine that to be moving is neces-
sarily a good, as if it was impossible ever to
make a wrong move. What should we think
of a man who, having taken a wrong turning,
persisted in his path, because "an English-
" man, sir, never goes back "? Yet this is the
kind of language to which we have been OCCA•
sionally treated in high quarters. It behoves
every lover, therefore, of constitutional order
to be doubly cautious in his advocacy of
changes which are so certain to be final.
Where there is no locus pautitentia a man
should be careful of making a false step. He
is the truest friend to rational progress who
most fully recognises this truth ; he who has
it always in view may be trusted, if an honest
man, with even hazardous measures ; but he
who has not should be carefully watched when
advocating the most plausible and apparently
harmless changes.
The great point is to hold the framework
of society together—and the framework of
English society is our organised graduation of
classes. While this is steady, internal reforms
can be pursued with safety—but not other-
wise. We cannot decorate the rooms of our
house while, we are pulling down the walls.
The colintry can judge for itself which it re-
quires most—whether it prefers the vague
generalities which the Liberals term " Pro-
gress" to the more specific, if less high-
sounding, social improvements of the Con-
servatives.