New-York tribune., 1882-03-06
RRTTISH PARTIS1NSHIP.

| 1t has long been the fashion among English
moraists to descant upon the rank PARTISAN
ship of American politics. They have found it
theme Of perennial interest for diatribe, gibe
and studied insult. The tyranny of caucus,
| the bitterness of factional warfare, the narrow
ness and bigotry of party feeling have been
| diagnosed as symptoms of a common disorder
| "A wasting partisanship that was paralyzing
| the functions of national politics. Sometimes
they have rolled their eyes, like the Pharisce,
and been thankful that they were not as other
nations were oftener they have discussed
the demoralizing tendencies of unbridled de-
mocracy with contemptuOus indifference and
once in a while The Saturday Rerier, con-
turing with the name of the slavish sots who
were dragged by their masters into lcwd
dances for the edifcatiOn of the Spartan
youth, has expressed England's obligation to
" the American Helot' for can instructive
lesson" We do not, for we cannot III truth,
deny that the caucus is tyranncal, or that the
accursed spirit of faction is here, or that par
tisanslip is the plague of American public
life. What we do say is that these mOralists
and censors, who assume to he shocked
by the shameless exhibitions of political Iielots
in the United States, must remember that
they themselves are partsans, and that parti-
sanship is a whitening curse in England as
well as here. Horace was shrewd enough to
warn the discreet Roman matrOn that she
could not dance with the wantOn Satyrs with
ont loss of dignity. The Saturday Reriew,
eyeing askance the American llelOt, may itself
be keeping step to the same degrading meas
ure Of political partisanship.
When asked to furnish evidence of the de-
moraizing influences of partisanship i'll English
politics, we have no right to take refuge in gen.
eralizatons upon the bitterness with which Lord
Beaconsfield and Mr.. Gladstone have been per-
sistently attacked during the present generation,
nor npon the general tone of public discussion rs
conducted by the daily journals and monthly
and quarterly reviews. A palmer moral will be
pointed if we refer briefly to the successive
displays of partsanship which have occurred
since the present session of Parliament opened.
The record naturally begins with the Brad
laugh case, when one of the plainest duties
which ever devolved upon national Legisla-
ture was openly shirked for partisan ends
The member for Northampton, whose election
was perfectly valid and who prOfessed that the
oath would be binding upon his conscience,
was not allowed to take his seat. Here was
an assembly usurping the right of the
Courts to interpret complex statute and
assuming the power of an omniscient
Maker to look into mans heart and decide
whether he had enough or too little conscience
TO enable him to take an oath yet so intense
was the party feeling that not a single Conserv-
ative voted against this outrage. and so self
ish and ignOble was the partisanship that
large section of the Liberals listened unmOved
TO Mr.. Gladstone's unanswerable argument that
the House was incompetent to interpret the
law, and then either voted against him or alb
sented themselves from the division. We are
referring now to the opening discussion
of this question, and not to the subsequent
dsgraceful episode in which Mr.. Bradlaugh
nsulcd the Commons and, to our mind,
it is a most glaring instance of partisanshIp.
Why have the Conservatives made these re-
peated attempts to disfranchse an English |
borough? Simply because they found it a |
convenient method Of haTassiHg their political |
opponents and compromising them with GER |
tain religious classes. Why have SO many |
nominal Liberals deserted their leader on this !!
question of law Because they lack the c0ur-
age to look the facts in the face, even if they |
are forced TO identify themselves momentarily |
with the political fortunes of one who is alb |
horred by 30 many of their constituents.