between them were differences of character, and, therefore, neither liable to be changed nor to shade off into one another. Their fundamental doctrines, and still more their points of view, (Stand-punkt, as the Ger mans say,) were distinct and opposite. The questions which were in debate btween them were questions of principle-generally embracing divergencies so wide as to be whol ly irreconcilable, and open to no compromise or doubt. There could be no difficul

former differences, sitting amicably and acting loyally in the same Cabinet. Two of the most vehement Whigs of Lord Grey's government became afterwards leading members of the administration of Lord Grey's great opponent: one of these is now the chief of the Tory party, while the other has returned nearly to the old radical love of his immature youth. Peel's lieutenants became colleagues of Lord John Russell and Sir William Molesworth. Lord Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, the two rival foreignty in the minds of any sincere or clear thinksecretaries, sat in the same cabinet at a ers, as to which banner to enlist under-nor time when foreign policy was the promi- any great likelihood that, having once delibnent question of the day. Lord John Rus- erately enlisted under it, they should be sell as Premier, dismissed Lord Palmers- tempted to desert it from any honourable ton from the Foreign Office; Lord Pal- or conscientious considerations. Politicians, merston, Premier in his turn, made Lord then, were friends of Church and State, or John ambassador at Vienna and colonial enemies of the former, and re-constructors minister. Mr. Gladstone, the high-church- of the latter; Jacobites or Hanoverians; man and conservative, sits side by side with adherents and magnifiers of the power of Mr. Bright, the Radical and Quaker. And, the Crown, or advocates of the increase of to crown the whole, Lord Derby, when the democratic element; votaries of legit commissioned by Her Majesty to form a imacy, or admirers of the Revolution; asGovernment, proposed to retain Lord Clar- serters or deniers of religious liberty; Reendon, and to make Mr. Disraeli serve with formers or Anti-Reformers; and so on. A and under Lord Palmerston and Mr. man of sense and eminence could not help Gladstone; and Mr. Disraeli made no ob- knowing positively to which of these in jection. Spectacles like these have utterly trinsically antagonistic set of notions he ad astounded and confused both observing by- hered: a man of honour could scarcely standers and acting politicians, trained in pass from one camp to the other without that ancestral creed which held consistency justly incurring a charge of instability of in statesmen to be the first of virtues, an- purpose and opinion almost as damaging as swering to honour in man, and chastity an imputation of downright corruption. in woman; and thinking men are beginning Hence party combinations were simple, to draw the inference, either that the moral natural, and enduring, and party desertions ity of public men must be frightfully de- or disruptions difficult and rare. teriorated, or that the principles which formerly guided that morality must be erroneous, or must be inapplicable to the altered circumstances of the new era. At the same time, Ministers find it increasingly difficult to construct a Cabinet that will hold together; and the people are alternately disgusted at seeing Governments formed which confound all their notions of propriety, and alarmed at the prospect of being left without a Government altogether. It is worth while, therefore, to devote a few moments to the inquiry, whether, our embarrassments may not arise from our unwise persistence in attempting to dress in garments which no longer fit us, to live in dwellings which no longer hold us, or (without metaphor) to square our political proceedings with formulas which are no longer suitable or

sound?

In former days, and up to the last quarter of a century, the statesmen of Great Britain were divided into two hostile camps, the line of demarcation between which was clearly defined, broad,and pervading. The differences

Formerly, too, a man's political opinions were pretty much decided by his birth and connexions. He inherited his creed; he sucked it in with his mother's milk; he was born and bred a Tory or a Whig. He was not expected to think for himself; it was a settled point that he would think as his fa ther thought before him. He could scarcely do otherwise; for he was surrounded from infancy with one set of influences, and heard only one set of opinions; searching, patient, conscientious investigation into public ques tions was, in those days, held to be no por tion of a young statesman's training. When he was of age to enter political life, he stepped into his pre-indicated seat on the red or the green benches, just as he stepped into his patrimonial possessions: nobody questioned his predilection for the one any more than his title to the other. Moreover, there were more privates and fewer officers in the Par liamentary hosts in those days than at present. The half-dozen leaders of the respective parties did all the planning, reflect ing, and speaking: the rest were mere rank

and file,-soldiers who had to fight and vote, | less earnest in this matter than professed
but who were scarcely held more responsible Liberals. The same may be said of Popu-
for the measures they supported than indi- lar Education; and the Session which saw
vidual recruits are for the cause in which they Education Bills introduced severally by Mr.
shed their blood, or the special enterprises Gibson, Sir John Pakington, and Lord John
in which they are commanded to engage. Russell, and all three referred to a Select
The public, besides, troubled itself far less Committee, marked the passage of this long
then than it now does about the peculiar agitated question from the domain of dis-
personal sentiments of this or that eminent cussion into that of administration. For-
political character; if he had any idiosyn- eign Policy alone remains a matter of which
crasies, he might keep them to himself; there the principles are not decided: the nation
was then no prying, indelicate, omniscient here is still to understand itself, and to im-
or all-suspecting Press to drag hidden differ- pose its will upon successive governments;
ences among colleagues to the light of day, but even this question is not a party one:
no pertinacious and irrepressible Parliamen- we cannot say that Tories have one opinion
tary interrogators to insure discovery and upon it, Whigs another, and Radicals a
compel publicity in cases where secrecy is a third. The Manchester School, indeed, seem
conventional right and an established rule. to hold that we ought to have no foreign
The national conscience was less enlightened policy at all; but they stand alone, and are
and exacting; the standard of morality few and discredited. Other politicians dif-
among statesmen less rigid in its demands; fer mainly as regards our international rela-
and political combinations, therefore, far
easier, more distinct, and more enduring.

tions on points of detail and of degree; and
even on these points, as we have lately had
Since the great conclusive struggle of occasion to see, their differences are indi-
1832, however, a vast, though a silent and vidual and not sectional;-Mr. Roebuck and
yet unrecognised, change has come over the Mr. Layard agree far nearer with Lord Derby
spirit as well as the aspect of public life in and Lord Malmesbury than with their fel-
England. In the first place, all the great low-Radicals and Reformers; and Mr. Glad-
questions of principle which divided parties stone sits side by side with Mr. Cobden.
have, with one exception, been disposed of Probably by the time this war is over and
and laid to rest. The right of religious lib- the after-swell to which it must give rise
erty is now a settled point, and only a few shall have sbusided, discussion will have
more applications of it remain to be en- cleared up our somewhat misty and chaotic
forced. No one now dreams of contending notions; some distinct and enunciable prin-
for the principle of civil disqualifications; ciple-such as that of non-intervention our-
and those who still cling to the lingering rem-selves and the prohibition of intervention by
nants of intolerance which still infest our others-will have been recognised and adopt-
Statute-book and our customs, do so, as it ed as the guiding rule of our national policy
were, apologetically, and feel that they are in external questions; and persons and par-
fighting a losing battle and contending against ties will quarrel only as to the time and
the general sense of the community. Or- mode of its application.
ganic Reform has ceased to be a question of
theory or justice, and has become one of de-
tail and practice; even Tories have their
own projects for an extension and modifica-
tion of the Suffrage; and even Radicals have
lowered their demands and become soberer
in their expectations. Every politician,
whatever section he belongs to, has some pet
fancy of his own upon this subject-a fancy
which is individual, and by no means bears
the stamp or commands the adhesion of his
party. The question of Free Trade, that
great and fierce divider of statesmen, has
died in the hour of victory, and been buried
in the eternal_silence of a glorious mauso-
leum. Law Reform has made great ad-
vances: its necessity and justice are univer-
sally conceded; and lawyers, whatever their
political opinions, are embarked with more
or less heartiness in the cause; nor can we
say that, as a rule, Conservatives are one whit

Now it is obvious at a glance that, by this change in the character of public questions, not only are the broad lines of demarcation that formerly separated and united statesmen effectually removed, but a far wider field is opened to their individual differences and their idiosyncrasies of sentiment and opinion. You may easily find fifteen or twenty eminent men who agree heartily and sincerely as to the question of Progress or Reaction, Resistance or Reform, Right of Private Judgment or Right of Persecution. You will not easily find fifteen or twenty who are of one mind as to measures of practical administration, or bills merely involving modes of action or varying means to one common end. A Tory of old could never think a Whig right in urging an extension of the suffrage; a Tory now may easily think a Whig right as to the particular manner in which, and the special section of the commu

nity to which, the extension-theoretically feel themselves compelled to separate, or conceded by all should be granted. It is are ill at ease if they remain united. becoming yearly more difficult either to find But, further, even if this were not so, there a broad and intelligible principle or question is another peculiarity of these days, which which shall naturally form men into a united obliges agreement among colleagues to be Cabinet and separate them from their rivals much more real and complete than heretoor opponents, or to concoct measures of importance in which the members of that Cabinet shall all cordially concur, and yet which their antagonists shall, as a body, conscientiously object to or be able to oppose.

of

fore, or necessitates separation if this agree ment cannot be secured; and this is, the increase of publicity. The secrecy as to the sentiments of individual members of cabi nets, which was formerly rarely forced or Three distinct dangers result from this ad- betrayed, can now seldom be maintained. vanced condition of the nation's progress: Divergencies leak out in a way they never -the first is, that real and intrinsic differen- used to do. Searching questions are asked ces between rival statesmen no longer exist- now, which would have been considered ing, they will be apt to create artificial ones highly indecorous in the good old days. and to make much of insignificant ones; the Evasions, prevarications, and direct fibs, second, that the contest between them will which passed current in the last generation, be liable to degenerate from an honourable would scarcely be considered permissible in strife of principle into a miserable competi- our correcter times. Now, every man tion for place and power. (America, be it reflection is well aware that divergencies of said en passant, may be a warning to us on view and even decided discrepancies of judg both these points.) As soon as the prin- ment may and must exist in every cabinet. ciples on which the country is to be governed It is notorious that they do. If any cabinet are irrevocably settled, and the line which is to exist for an hour, these differences, if the development of its progressive life is not on matters of very vital moment, must to follow is definitely marked out, almost be tolerated and arranged: the positive im the sole question for statesmen and for Par-portance of these matters, and their impor liament is the particular style and tone in tance relatively to that of the existence of which those principles and lines of action the ministry, are points which must be de shall be carried out; and this easily, if not cided by each man for himself, and on each inevitably, merges in the question, to whom occasion as it arises. If ministers are to act shall the task of carrying them out be com- as a united body-which the present theory mitted? But the third danger-and the of constitutional government imposes as a danger to which at present we are anxious to sine quâ non-they must "give and take," direct the special attention of our readers- they must compromise, they must often subis the increasing difficulty which we shall mit their own opinions and wishes to those experience of forming any permanent, con- of the majority of their colleagues. They sistent, natural, and therefore self-sustaining must, in Parliament, vote for measures which, combinations among public men. in the bosom of the cabinet, they have de

Again, both the national conscience and precated and opposed. And all this may be the personal conscience of politicians are done, and a while ago could be done, honmore rigid and exacting than heretofore. ourably and without difficulty. But the The public requires more from them, and glass-house, in which it is becoming the fash they require more from themselves. In ion for statesmen to live and move and have place of delegating the formation of their their being, is fast rendering it impossible. opinions, and the decision of their proceed- A new element has been introduced. It is ings to the recognised chiefs of their party, plain that unknown differences among mem they have to do all this work themselves. bers of a Government would be compatible Every man who aspires to be a minister with the retention of office, when known dif must build his own political house. It is ferences would not. As long as the diver expected that he will have a defined and in-gence is locked in the secrecy of the Cabinet, dividual opinion upon each question that a dissentient minister may fairly and consci comes before him, and also that he will ad- entiously, as a member of the Government, here to this opinion and act upon it, except support measures which yet he desired that in very minor matters and in very occasional Government had not adopted: he can no conjunctures. Public men can no longer longer do this if the public at large, or the rest satisfied with a mere general agreement audience he is addressing, is cognizant of his in sentiments and objects with those among individual divergence from the aggregate whom they are cast: the agreement must be opinion of the ministry. It would be im deliberate and tolerably complete; else they possible for him, in that case, to stand up