The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

THE " SPECTATOR" ON LORD BROUGHAM.—
Lord Brougham in his eighty-sixth year discours-
ing at York on almost all things human, and
moderating the discussions of acute men who have
given much time and thought to special subjects, is
a spectacle at which all England, always full of
admiration foe the pluck of aged men, is naturally
delighted. Nor is the satisfaction probably dimi-
nished by the obscure feeling that Lord Brougham
is in many respscts the impersonation on a great
scale of the eager, restless, ambitious, half-success-
ful intelligence of the rising middle class of Eng-
land in the nineteenth century, We say " half-
successful," for great as have been the worldly suc-
cesses—the political and social achievements of
Lord Brougham, it is of the very essence of that
character which he represents to rest in no achieved
result, never to enjoy the placid intellectual sere-
nity and wide horizon of old age, never to sink back
even intellectually, on the calm of a highly discip-
lined judgment, but to grasp hastily to the very
last at every opportunity of putting knowledge to
ambitious uses, and making it subserve social ends.
We are not now speaking of any moral character-
istics in the restless intellect of Lord Brougham, but
minyily of that undignified absence of fitting repose
there is in it, of that want of the enloymsnt of lu-
minous thought for its own sake, that uneasy fret-
ting and fuming of acute intelligence which pro.
claims that its End is less truth than some kind of
power. There was a striking contrast to Lord
Brougham in this respect in one to whom Lord
Brougham paid the other day a somewhat inflated
tribute, and who cannot in any way be regarded as
morally Lord Brougham's superior. Lord Lynd-
hurst rose from precisely th 3 same class, and made,
apparently at least, a has scrupulous use of his
very great powers than Lord Brougham. Yet intel-
lectually he did not represent in any way the same
type. His was the calm, luminous judgment which
rested quietly, almost like Goethe's, in the lucidity
and maturity of its own thoughts. His I:test
speeches were remarkable for their light, their
breadth, thoroughness of intellectual penetration.
They seemed the ripe fruit of a placid judgment that
had no interest in expressing any thought before it
was spread clear and keenly before his mina. Lord
B ougham, in the energy of his desire to pay a tri-
bute to Lord Lyndhurst, invoked him in a quotation
which, by the rawness of its eloquence and strange
uefitnees for its purpose, would probably have an-
noyed Lord Lyndhurst more than the tribute would
have gratified him, and which certainly marked the
wide gulf between Lord Brougham's eager, vigor-
ous, acquisitive, but showy and superficial intelli-
gence, and his contemporary's wide, calm intellect.
Soul of the past I companion of the dead I
Where is thy home, and whither art thou ILA ?
Back to its heavenly source tip, being goes
Swift as the comet wheels to where he rose,
Faith lured thine eye to deathless hope sublime,
Beyond the realms of nature and of time.
Is it possible to conceive lines which the cold and
lucid lawyer would have felt more utterly inappro-
priate to his own worldly sagacity and clear, tran-
quil self interest P If either of the two were come-
tary it is certainly the irregular, dispersed, disor-
ganised, heady, straggling genius of Brougham,
with his brilliant tail of popular following; but
Lord Lyndhurst, could he have pronounced Lord
Brougham's epitaph, would certainly have found
something expressing a more precise idea than this
versified rhodomontade. We purposely choose the
comparison in intellect with Lord Lyndhurst be-
cause we do not admire Lord Lyndhurst's career. Lord
Brougham's ambition has been far more useful to
the world than Lord Lyndhurst's. But the type of
mere intellect in the latter was much the higher of
the two. It was not of the kind which snatched so
eagerly at useful knowledge for the sake of its ap-
plications—it rested far more tranquilly in the
pleasure of lucid insight. It would have been simply
impossible for Lord Lyndhurst to produce the many
vigorous,various, often useful,alwa 's incomplete and
ambitious, intellectual efforts which have dotted so
thickly Lord Brougham's career, and have degene-
rated lately into the omnium gatherwn addresses—
whose only merit it ie to picture pretty accurately
the loose half-knowledge and slipshod judgment of
our busy nineteenth century on all conceivable sub-
jects—with which he now annually introduces
social science to our notice. The true difference be-
tween the two intellects is that while Lord Lynd-
burst's intellect subserved his own private purposes
directly, Lord Brougham's often subserved the
public interest through his huge appetite for
popularity and the latter process curiously
enough disturbs and deranges the mere intellect
even more than the coldest self-interest. A great
lover of popularity gets accustomed to the restless
and partly theatric habit of looking at everything
with a thousand eyes besides his own ; but cold and
passionless self-interest finds its account in facing
the absolute truth, so far as it can arrive at it, pri-
vately, whatever suppression it may find it desirable
to make in public. Lord Brougham has with great
justice been called Argus-eyed ; but though
many eyes are useful to an orator, it is scarcely a
compliment to his intellect. The many-eyed crea-
tures, mythical or actual, get many glimpses of the
world from before and from behind which others do
not get, but after all this must confuse their con-
ceptions of the universe if they have any. Intel-
lect is homogeneous and single, though it may make
use of many channels of apprehension ; Lord
Brougham never seems to take a central intellec-
tual survey of his subjects. His mind is a tangle
of strong popular middle-class views.
THE" SATURDAY REVIEW" ON PARTY NAMES.—
There is, or used to be, a class of politicians whose
They
principle was to "stand by their colours."
fhey were sometimes a little puzzled at finding that
the meaning of blue and yellow was not fixed by
the hand of nature, but that the Tory symbol of
one county 'spoke a Whig language in another.
Nay, we know at least one county, Northampe
tonshire to wit, where blue had one meaning
for the county and another for the borough. A
burgher of Northampton, who chanced also to be
freeholder of Narthamptonshire, must have pain-
fully conflicting duties. In another part of Eng.
land we have heard of a man who had votes for two
boroughs—we think they were Nottingham and
Newark--where blue and yellow interchanged
their meanings in the same way. We forget
whether the honest man was blue or yellow, but he
regularly voted for the Tory candidate in one town
and for the Whig in the other, and then prided
himself on his consistency in being always true to
his colours. Here, then, is a class of politicians
who can be appealed to only through their eyes;
there are others who are governed by the ear in a
manner hardly more intelligent. No doubt there
is many a man who would scorn such consistency
as voting always for blue or for yellow, yet who
votes always for Whig or Tory in a manner almost
mechanical. Nor is the matter mended by substi-
tuting the new-fashioned names Liberal and Con-
servative for the old-fashioned Whig and Tory. The
descriptive name gets as completely identified with
a secondary meaning as the word which is utterly
meaningless. Liberal cases to mean liberal, and
Conacryativo to mean co_tservatire; they simply

mean support of Lord Palmerston's Administration
or of Lord Derby's Opposition. The Liberal elector
would often have great difficulty in showing that
there was any particular liberality in the coarse to
which his party is committed; it is, however, in
his eyes a Liberal course, because it is supported by
a Liberal Administration. It would be almost
harder for the Conservative elector to prove just
now that the policy of his party is, in any special
way, conservative; for to be conservative in oppo-
sition is quite as difficult as to be liberal in office.
In short, the use of descriptive names—the assump-
tion of certain merits or qualities as characteristic
of the party—seems really to serve no purpose ex-
cept that of supplying the adversaries of each
party with a weapon of derision against it.
If the Conservative measure is not conser-
vative, if the Liberal measure is not liberal,
then great is the joy of the other side.
Whig and Tory, as being quite meaningless words,
had no disadvantage. It was of course easy to
reproach either party with the inconsistency of its
acts with its principles, but the inconsistency did
not involve any such contradiction in terms as is
involved in the notion of a destructive Conservative
or an illiberal Liberal. A party name of this sort
has the same kind of disadvantage as a personal
name expressing any marked quality. If Mr Long
happens to be very short, politeness hinders you
from laughing at him because of it, bat the gro-
tesque incongruity makes you laugh in your sleeve.
But if the Liberal is illiberal, or it the Conservative
is destructive, you do more than laugh in your
sleeve; you are delighted with the opportunity of
laughing as loudly and as publicly as you can.
When we say that Whig and Tory are meaningless
names, we do not intend to imply that they are
sounds absolutely without meaning, or that it was
without a meaning that they were given to the two
great English political parties. Both names had a
well-known meaning in the neighbouring countries ;
the Whig was a being well known in Scotland, and
the Tory was equally well known in Ireland. The
names were originally given to the two parties by
their respective adversaries as names of contempt.
It is curious that both parties should have gradually
adopted them as honourable badges. This could
hardly have happened if the names had not been,
to English notions, so meaningless in themselves.
When we cell them meaningless, we mean that, to
an English ear, they are not descriptive; they- ih-
valve no profession of political faith; they would
convey no idea whatever to one who understood the
English language but knew nothing of English
politics. The names soon became mere arbitrary
signs for the two parties, simply meaning those two
parties and nothing else., " Tory" came to mean
Tary, just as " horse" means horse. It is not so
with names like Conservative and Liberal—names
whic have a meaning, ann which consequently
make a profession. Every one who knows the
language at once sees what sort of profession is made
by the several parties. If he finds that the practice
of either party does not agree with the name, he is
struck with the inconsistency. He will say, at the
first blush, that the so-called Conservatives are not
really conservative, or that the so-called Liberals
are not really liberal. But be cannot thus, at the
first blush, say that the so-called Tories are not
really Tories, or that the so•called Whigs are not
really Whigs, because the words Whig and Tory
convey to him no meaning except as the arbitary
names of the two parties. Before he knows whether
they are consistent or otherwise, he must study
' their past history and their present policy. The in-
convenience of a descriptive name comes out very
strongly in American politics. What are Democrats
and what are Republicans? The Democrats are not
more democratic than the Republicans ; the Repub-
licans are not more republican than the Democrats.
The names are even more puzzling than Liberal and
Conservative, because, in their literal sense, they
more distinctly express recognised political opinions.
That is to say, it may be a matter of opinion what
is Liberal and what is Conservative, but Republic
and Democracy are terms which can be defined be-
forehand. In the common acceptation of words,
Republican is a genus, of which Democrat is a par•
ticular species; in that acceptation of words we
should say that both the American parties are alike
' democratic and consequently alike republican.
Historically, it is not difficult to see how the name
Democrat obtained its special party meaning ; it is
not so easy to see how the like happened to the name
Republics?). But, as the names are now applied,
they are perfectly meaningless ; they afford the
best possible opportunity for retorts and mistakes
of every kind. It is not long since an article
appeared in the limes, which began with some
general speculations on the nature of democracies,
and then went on to quote the American Demo-
cracy in illustration of some of them. A few more
lines showed that the words American Demouracy
were not to be taken as equivalent to American
Republic, but were intended to express the Demo-
cratic party as opposed to the Republican party.
The writer, in the innocence of his heart, evidently
thought that a Democratic party must illustrate the
nature of an ideal democracy in some way in which
the Republican party failed to illustrate it. The
turning about of American political names are
specially curious. While the Federal Constitution
was under discussion, the great dispute about
Federal and National arose. Should the Canstitue
lion be National, or should it be only Federal ? Here
the word Federal was used to express the party
which wished to give the smallest degree of autho-
rity to the central power; their opponents, it was
argued, were for giving the power so large a degree
of authority that the Constitution would cease to be
a Federal Constitution and become a Consolidated
one. But when th© Constitution was actually estab-
lished on a basis intermediate between the two ex-
treme theories, then the word Federal, as a party
term, changed its meaning. It now meant, not the
party which was for giving the central power the
least authority, but that which was for giving it the
most. It meant the party attached to the Federal
power as distinguished from the power of the States.
The opposite party called them3elves,firstßepublicans
and then Democrats, evidently as implying that the
Federalists had forsaken true republican and de-
mocratic principles. Jefferson, in his inaugural
address, used the words, " We are all Federalists,
and we are all Republicans," words which to many
of his hearers sounded like a contradiction in terms.
Of course Jefferson meant to conciliate by falling
back on the original meaning of both words. In
that meaning all were Republicans and all were
Federalists. Adams was a Republican, in so far as
he had no wish to establish a monarchy; Jefferson
was a Federalist, in so far as he had no wish for a
consolidation of the States. Thus we might say in
England, We are all Liberals and we are all Con-
servatives. We are all Liberals, in so far as no one
supports measures which he allows to be illiberal.
We are all Conservatives, in so far as there are cer-
tain fundamental institutions w*eich no man wishes
to disturb ; we are all Conservatives, in so far as no
one avowedly professes himself a destructive, A
Radical Reformer may on his own showing be per-
fectly Conservative; it may be his very wish to
preserve the institution itself which makes him so
eager to tear up all its abuses by the roots. In all
these cases we fall back on the original meaning of
the word as distinguished from its secondary party
meaning. It is in this sense no contradiction to
say that all Americans are at once Democrats and
Republicans, that all Englishmen are at once Libe-
rals and Conservatives. But it would be a contra-
diction to say that all Englishmen are at once
Whigs and Tories, because Whig ani Tory have
practically no primary meaning. The historically
primary meaning of Scotch fanatics and Irish
banditti is quite forgotten and is quite
inapplicable. In some cases, party names,
without being so completely unmeaning as
Whig and Tory, yet completely drop their primary
meaning, so that it is not in the least thought of
when the words are uttered. The word Quaker,
for instance, has quite lost its original meaning.
Nobody expects a Quaker to be more given to
quaking than the most orthodox Churchman. In
fact, Quakers are just the people who do not quake ;
they are commonly the most calm and self-pos-
sessed of mankind. The word Quaker, then, is
neither unmeaning, like Tory and Whig, nor yet
does it retain its primary meaning, like Liberal
and Conservative. Liberal and Conservative are
terms which are still capable of a serious retort,
while the word Quaker can yield nothing beyond
the mildest of puns. Of course there is this diffe-
rence, that the Quakers did not invent the name,
nor do they formally accept it. You may, there-
fore, charge the illiberal Liberal with inconsistency,
but you cannot bring any charge against the Quaker
who does not quake, because he never undertook to
quake. The term Methodist, originally given, like
that of Quaker, in contempt, and still often uttered
in a contemptuous tone, is, unlike that of Quaker,
formally adopted by the body to which it is applied.
But the original allusion implied in the word Me-
thodist—namely, to a sect of ancient physicians—
was so very far-fetched and unfamiliar that the
word may be looked upon as practically unmean-
ing. Guelfs and Ghibelines were something like
Quakers and Methodists. That is to say, the names
had a meaning when they were first given in the
twelfth century, but they had quite lost it long
before the beginning of the sixteenth. Oae may
doubt whether the Guelfs and Ghibelines of that
age retained so much as the general notion of
being for the Pope and the Emperor respec-
tively ; they certainly had forgotten every-
thing about Duke Welf and the Castle of
Wiblingen. So, moat likely, the Shanavests and
the Caravats had at first some intelligible ground
of difference, but they went on breaking one
another's heads long after the original dispute was
was forgotten, So, again, some of the lesser and
temporary American names probably had some
meaning or other, though at this distance we can

London: Printed and Prt.,lfelled by WILLIAM ANDREWS,
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tan SUN Office No. 112.
Strand, In the Precinct of the Sivoy, In the Ccunty of
AlidileeeZ.—Monday, October 3, Mi.