New-York tribune., 1883-06-17
SOCIAL POLITICS,
OR THE SCIENCE OF GIVING POLITICAL
PARTIES.

OR THE SCIENCE OF GIVING POLITICAL
PARTIES.
lrRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT THE TRIBUNE
LONDON, June A.
The article most talked about among those con-
trbuted to the June magazines is that on The
Social Discipline of the Liberal Party" in The Fort
nightly 1t has given great offence, especially to
those in whose interest 1t purports TO have
been written to the Liberals of the social fold
1t deals with the burning question of Liberal and
Conservative clubs. and with the not less burning
question of Liberal and Conservative receptions,
using the word in the social sense ;-drums is the
term more in vogue here. What the author of this
article, who signs himself "A Liberal" has TO say,
is the Conservatives beat the Liberals on both
points The Carl on, he declares. is a better club
that is politically more useful-than the Reform
the Devonshire or Brooks's. ] said so much about
clubs the other day with reference 10 the
National Liberal Club that will not pursue that
branch Of the complaint IL is, however, worth noting
that he describes the Carlton possessing valuable
distinction from any or all of the three Liberal
clubs pamed IN that IL combines the social cachei
of exclusivcness with the fact of cstholicity =
which reads very like contradiction in terms, but
has none the less some justification in fact.
The more purely social discussion is conducted in
this article with a freedom OF speech and a
recklessness IN the Of names surprising indeed
in strictly respectable review like The IOrtnighly
Tories we are told. more advanced in matters
Of polite diplomacy than Liberals. Social exclu-
siveness the note, not of the Conservative rtyen
Tory nobility bur OF the Whig or Liberal" he
result is that the rich men find their way into
the Conservative camp, where they are welcomed.
and not into the Liberal, where. presumably, they
would not be-. The great Whig ladies look askance
upon the wife and daughter of the successful stock
broker OF sheep-farmer, whom the Conservative
Duchess takes to her arms, or. at least Iuto her
drawing room. And the women IN such matters are
more potent than the men-in other words man
will be led by his wife and daughters INTO that
political fold where they find the readiest appear
ance of cordiaty. Wings have never fused with
the new Liberals; the Torres freely did with the
new Conservatives, and these latter 81 have with
equal wisdom aud boldness accepted the fact that
the foundation of society in the present day is pu
tocratic and not aristocratic"- remark which
take leave TO cay is pure nonsense. The foundation
Of society in fact just arstocratic as ever.
considerable plutocratic element has been admitted
inside tue mansion it is true, but it is tolerated, not
welcomed save in cases where the newcomer has
something beside wealth TO recommend him. The
new wealth has done its best to give the note 70 the
old society and has almost totally failed II builds
pretentious houses in the most expensive quarters.
and the born arstOcrat who delights TO vel the
Interior splendOrs OF his home by diugy plain
wall pronounces them vulgar 1t gives parties
ON which money Is lavished in every form and
ometimes with really beautiful results, only to
hear them sneered at as " overdone." Its oquI-
pages are gorgeous but the patiicIan clnRs to his
simple elegance of STYLE And SO on. The subject
deserves chapter or perhaps volume from the
student of social life, but it is only incidental 10
the question of the distinctions between Liberals
and Conservative.
Itis however the keystone of the theory
which this singular paper has been built. and the
writer of 1t nses his plutocratic talacy as fest OF
the comparative social efficiency of two ladies of
great position, Liberal. one ConservatIveLady
| Granville aud Lady Salisbury. The Liberals, he
declares have culpaby failed to accept his pluto
cratic basis. and by way Of illustration he proceeds
to compare the lists OF guests at of Lady Sails
| burys and one of Lady Granvle's parties. The
comparison is impertinent, and in also incomplete.
| In Lady Salisbury's, he tells us, there is not
single section social political of the Conserva-
tive party uDrepresented; tradesmen and manufac-
turers whose names were strange to their hosts a
year ago, aid are probably not familiar TO them
now. mingle with landed genry and noble, of
ancient descent" OF what sorts of people Lady
Granvllle's list is composed this Liberal" who rs
SO familiar with Lady Salisbury's, omits to ex-
plain which. considering that he is q Liberal, Is
odd II he knows anything at all about the matter,
be must be aware that Minister'S wives, and ladies
who. for whatever reason, give political parties,
have two lists There is first, IN each case, the cat
slogue Of her own friends, whom even this Liberal
suppose would permit her TO invite when she saw
dit. There Is, secondly, what Is known as the
Whips List, which is meant to include everybody
whom for political reasons 1t Is expedient. and ior
personal reasons not impossible toinvite WIN onr
Lib eral friend undertake to say that the Foreign
Once party on the Queens Birthday WIS less cath