ART. IV. "THE MEAN' IN POLITICS.

1. Desultory Reflections of a Whig. By the Right Hon. EARL COWPER. The Nineteenth Century, May, 1883.

2. What is a Whig? By the Right Hon. EARL PERCY, M.P. The National Review, June, 1883.

3. A Protest against Whiggery. By George W. E. RUSSEL, M.P. The Nineteenth Century, June, 1883.

4. The Whigs; A Rejoinder. By the Right Hon. Earl CowPER. The Nineteenth Century, July, 1883.

5. The Future of Whiggism. By GEORGE BYRON CURTIS. The National Review, July, 1883.

6. The Future of the Radical Party. Fortnightly Review, July, 1883.

'SIR

IR, I perceive you are a vile Whig,' is one of the polite repartees attributed to Dr. Johnson; and to judge by the articles which have recently appeared in the current magazines, the Whigs of the present day deserve even greater censure than the great lexicographer bestowed upon them. In the month of May, Lord Cowper ventured upon some desultory' and not very brilliant, though, as one would have thought, perfectly inoffensive, 'reflections of a Whig.' The very mention of the hated word, however, seems to have been quite enough. What is a Whig?' sarcastically demands the Tory Lord Percy. Let me 'protest against Whiggery,' indignantly exclaims the Radical Mr. George Russel, M.P. The Future of Whiggism' is self-destruction says the National Review. The Future' is in the hands of the Radical Party alone,' cries the Fortnightly. It is our desire to defend a great and illustrious party against the bitter attacks of violent and extreme men on both sides of politics, that prompts us to approach this subject at the present time.

The well-known doctrine of Aristotle that in everything there may be an excess, a defect, and a just or 'mean' amount, and that virtue consists in attaining the mean between the two extremes, has always seemed to us fully more applicable to questions of politics than of ethics; though in the latter case also it is a

theory which contains much truth. Everyone for instance must admit with Aristotle that the virtue of courage consists in attaining the mean between rashness and cowardice, just as the virtue of liberality lies between the extremes of extravagance and meanness; but our business at present is with politics, and the proposition which we advance is that a Whig occupies, and has always occupied in the history of his country, the mean or just position between the extremes of Toryism and Radicalism. Whatever is, is right,' may be roughly described as the motto of the extreme Tory, whatever is, is wrong,' as that of the extreme Radical; while the Whig is neither unduly biassed in favour of antiquity, nor foolishly desirous of novelty for the mere sake of change. Surely political 'virtue' consists in arriving at the just mean between the old-fashioned Tory who regards every existing law, every uneducated child, even bad drains, with smiling complacency simply because he is used to them, and the noisy Radical who denounces the House of Lords, the Church, the landowners, in short every existing institution which is not fashioned exactly according to his own. ideas? In truth this doctrine of the mean applies to most questions. Take such a matter as the use of alcohol. Is there not a right mean between the extreme teetotaller who thinks it wicked even to give alcohol as a medicine, and the 'fine old English gentleman' who drinks his bottle of wine at dinner daily, and whom the very name of total abstainer seems to throw into a passion? between the total prohibitionist who would have the sale of alcohol in any part of the United Kingdom made a penal offence, and the easygoing friend of the publicans, who would allow the most fertile cause of crime and misery in the world to be sold promiscuously, unchecked and unrestrained? Or on the land question, between the Tory landowner who regards his tenants very much as a superior class of serfs, and the Radical who preaches nothing less than a species of Communism?

To give an illustration of a good 'mean,' attained by the Whigs on a political question; it has always seemed to us that Lord Young in his Scottish Education Act of 1872 admirably struck the mean between the extremes of Tory bigotry and Radical intolerance. On the one side

he had a party eager for the absolute maintenance of religious teaching in schools, enforced by Act of Parliament, and without any opportunity of relief for those whose parents might conscientiously object to it. The parent was to be forced to send his child to school, and having got there, it was to be compelled to receive religious instruction which its parents might consider to contain grave error. On the other side stood the extreme Radical demanding, though an overwhelming majority of the Scottish people earnestly believed in the Christian religion, and were eagerly desirous of having their children instructed in the Presbyterian form of that belief, that this was the one subject which was to be absolutely forbidden from the school code. A parent was to be forced to send his child to school, and while there it might be instructed in every conceivable subject except in that one which its parent considered as far above all others in importance, and for the sake of which he might very possibly have been willing to sacrifice all the rest of the education given. In short, ninety-nine men who wanted religious teaching were to be deprived of it for the sake of one who didn't. Lord Young's 'mean' was as follows. First, an extraordinary power is given to minorities to elect a representative to School Boards by means of the cumulative vote; secondly, the Board have full power to decide in favour of no religious teaching, if they think proper; thirdly, no Government money is paid in respect of religious teaching, though it is given on account of all other subjects; fourthly, if religious teaching be given at all, it must be either at the beginning or end of the school hours, and every child must have perfect liberty to stay away from such instruction, if its parent desire it. Surely the most bitter sectarian or atheist has nothing to complain of here? He can, in the first place, use his influence to get his own representatives returned to the Board; if he fail in that object, he has only to direct his child to go to school half-an-hour later, or to leave half-an-hour sooner; and finally, if he chooses to set up a sectarian or non-religious school of his own, he will receive the Government grant for it, provided the Department are satisfied that no sufficient provision

exists for the children for whom it is intended, regard being had to the religious belief of their parents.*

Yet all these safe-guards for liberty of conscience are, it appears, not enough. Some of the more extreme Radicals will be content with nothing short of absolute prohibition of religious teaching, which apparently they consider as pernicious as the sale of alcohol. To do them justice, however, this is not the case; they are, curiously enough, as a rule, neither atheists nor opponents of Protestantism, such as Roman Catholics; but are usually firm believers in that Presbyterian faith, the teaching of which they are so anxious to prohibit. This curious phenomenon proceeds, we think, from an absurd theory that in politics it is necessary invariably to follow certain fixed principles '—an idea which we purpose to notice presently. How completely those bitter partisans are at variance with the wishes of their countrymen, is proved conclusively by the fact, that not a single School Board in Scotland since the passing of the Act, has decided in favour of no religious teaching; nay, more, as though to protest against the very idea of such a thing, it is the almost universal custom of School Boards to open their meetings with prayer-a custom which is not followed by any other public body of the same kind, and which often appears slightly inappropriate to the proceedings which follow. It should also be remembered by these violent Presbyterian opponents of Presbyterian teaching, that if they succeeded in their object, not only would there be no religious instruction in schools, but it would be impossible for a teacher even to open his school with the simplest of prayers; and we would ask them if they really wish it enacted by Act of Parliament, that any teacher shall lose his Government Grant who dares say to teach his little scholars to commence their round of daily duty by repeating the Lord's Prayer? If so, what sort of conception will a child form of that extraordinary thing called religion, in which it is not only not instructed, but to which even the most indirect reference is absolutely forbidden. There is, however, little danger of this noisy faction succeeding

Scottish Code, 1. 7. 8.

in their attempt to carry the mean of religious liberty into the extreme of tyrannical intolerance, so long as an enormous majority of the Scottish people remain firm believers in the truths of the Protestant religion, and who therefore fail to see why the one subject on which their opinion is united, should be ignored in deference to the theories of an insignificant minority.

Of course this extreme section flatter themselves that they are the only truly Liberal party in their views on religious matters, but it is to be feared that in reality it springs in great measure from a narrow-minded and bigoted hatred of Roman Catholicism, and from a fear that the religion of an enormous proportion of the people of Ireland should obtain the same liberty and encouragement as the Presbyterianism of Scotland, or the Episcopacy of England. Rather than allow a branch of the Christian Church from which they differ, to receive even the most indirect assistance, they vote for no religion at all. There is no escape from this dilemma; either we must have Presbyterian teaching in the schools and training colleges of Scotland, and allow the same advantages to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or we must have none at all in either. Which is it to be? Why, in the name of charity and common sense, cannot each country be allowed to do as it likes in the matter? Is Scotland prepared to give up the teaching of that faith which is so deeply rooted in the hearts of its people, for the charitable object of being able to prohibit the Irish from learning that other branch of Christian belief, to which they are as fondly and as devotedly attached? I believe in the truths of Christianity, I like and admire the Presbyterian form of Church Government, and I should much like to have my children instructed in it,' says this Liberal specimen of a political Christian, 'but sooner than allow you to have your child instructed as you wish, and as you think right, I will gladly sacrifice myself on the altar of Christian charity and love!'

We confess, however, that though in this case a strictly logical consistency in England, Scotland and Ireland is quite possible on the simple principle of letting each country do as it likes in the matter, such is not always the case; and it seems to us one of the faults of both the extreme parties, that they attempt to lay down certain fixed principles which are never to be deviated from, to