The Press.
London, England, 1854-03-11 00:00:00

MARCH 11, 1854.

And we question the accuracy of this repre-
sentation of existing evils us applicable in any
general sense elsewhere. We shall not omit
the first opportunity which presents itself for
discussing the probable operation of the pro-
posed remedies.

PARTY OR FACTION—THE "CHRONICLE"
ON COALITION.
Soatz remarks have lately appeared in the
columns of a Ministerial organ which, for
their justice, merit a wider circulation than
they have yet received. It is something new
to find the principle of coalition denounced by
its former and still professing friends :
That Government by party has ceased to exist in this
country is a fact which has of late been frequently
asserted, and which we are not prepared to deny. How
far the state of things which has succeeded the old organi-
sation to which Parliament had so long been habituated is
an improvement upon the ancient system is a matter
which may admit of grave doubt, and which the present
aspect of political affairs may well lead us seriously to
consider.

To us the matter admits of no doubt; and,
indeed, our contemporary appears to have
pretty well made up his mind. He argues
that if men were perfect, not actuated by in-
terest, riot biassed by private feeling, wholly
free from vanity—in a word, pure patriots—
party would cease to be necessary. What kind
of assembly a millennial Parliament might be
we have never been careful to inquire, deem
ing such speculation, however amusing, ex
ceedingly remote from all practical concerns.
But as to the present state of things the
writer's opinion coincides very nearly with
ours :

It is a fact which we may regret, but which it would be
most unwise to ignore, that the great majority of men are
no more governed in political than in private life by the
dictates of deliberate reason, or even of enlightened self-
interest—not to speak of the promptings of disinterested
patriotism—and, consequently, it does not follow that,
because party is dethroned, reason has succeeded to the
sceptre. It might be nearer the truth to say that the in-
terregnum is occupied by an anarchy of passions more
tyrannical than the fallen usurper. The conduct of indi-
viduals is not more reasonable or less factious because,
instead of rallying to the old party cries, they pursue their
personal animosities, or prosecute their private ends.
The evils of party may, indeed, be said to be only multi-
plied when, former connections being dissolved, each man
becomes as it were his own party, and blindly follows
wherever his passions or his interests conduct him. The
system of party government had at least this advantage—
that the ideas and the passions of the more exalted intel-
lects and the nobler spirits ruled and directed the tone of
their adherents; but, where men are left to their own de-
vices, too many will become either the dupes or the tools
of designing intriguers, who appeal to prejudices
or their interests.
Or, as he puts it yet more clearly, " the ex-
tinction of party has been succeeded by the
" inauguration of intrigue "—a sentiment
stolen from HORACE WALPOLE, but none the
less true. But who extinguished—or rather
who tried to extinguish—party ? The com-
plaint of Lord ABERDEEN'S supporter is the
condemnation of Lord ABERDEEN. Party con-
nection, in the old and usual sense of the word,
involved no abuse and implied no degrading
submission of private judgment. It was
founded on the necessity, felt and recognised in
all human affairs, of compromise to secure co-
operation—of co-operation to ensure success.
In every pursuit, in every kind of labour, the
organised and united efforts of a dozen indivi-
duals will be more effective than the exertions
of the same individuals acting separately. He
who refuses to stir in any business unless he
can arrange it exactly to his own mind is not
likely to be a useful member of society. If
for unity of action an absolute identity of sen-
timent among numbers be required, all action
will soon be at an end. There remains then
only the alternative of compromise in matters
of detail, for the sake of union on questions of
principle. With such compromise we do not
quarrel. We may not go the length of saying
with Mr. DISRAELI " that a Parliament without
" parties will become a servile senate,"
but we are sure that such an assembly will
soon become an inefficient senate. And at this
point we are already arrived. The cold sup-
port which Ministers receive is a daily subject
of complaint in official quarters. But the