We have to consider a later time, when King and Parliament formed the centres round which were ranged the lovers of authority on one side and of liberty on the other. The two parties were not entirely homogeneous, nor could the line of demarcation between them be clearly and sharply drawn. There was so much difference between the two wings of either army, and so much sympathy between what were called the moderate sections of the two, as might be expected if their development as parties was the result of natural social growth. Falkland and Essex, although fighting in opposite camps, were nearer in sympathy to each other than the former was to Strafford or the latter to Harrison. The main lines, however, were always discernible; popular rights on one side, and personal power on the other, were arrayed in opposition. So far the party distinctions were evidently the result of the action of natural laws, of the gradual growth and development of social and intellectual germs. But the excitement of the times gave to this growth an abnormal impetus, and produced a political structure which could not find permanent nourishment either in the intelligence or the sympathies of the mass of the people. The republic was the thorough of Liberalism, which opposed itself to the autocratic thorough of the King and Strafford. Such a form of government may prove to be the natural result and outcome of the ideas of liberty and popular rights, but it was then produced out of due time, and even if the life continued, the outer form decayed. So that what was seen when the crisis passed away was a return largely to the old state of things, with this difference that both of the naturally formed parties, that of authority and that of liberty, were considerably modified, The extreme section of absolutists, with their idea of divine right, began to die out, and the process was so continuous and rapid that, if not as a theory, at least as an element of English politics, it has become a mere rudimentary survival, an embryotic function, representing an instrument which in earlier times society was able to oppose to the dreaded evils of lawlessness and anarchy. In that direction there is no

further growth. At the same time, the development which had taken place at the other end of the scale, and which produced the Radicalism of the republic, although nipped and checked, was not killed. The old form was gone, but the seeds of life still existed, and, under more temperate and natural surroundings, the idea has grown in spite of, or perhaps in consequence of, difficulties which have called into being its strongest faculties, and have led to its survival in the political struggle.

During the period which immediately followed the Restoration, that struggle continued to be one between two old parties. In 1688 the triumph remained with the Liberals, and it was not unnatural that the methods and instruments by which it had been accomplished should be formulated, and regarded as the only possible conditions of Liberal life, and thus Whiggism became a sort of creed. But the hardening of creeds is the death of religions, and the life of Liberalism had to find for itself some new form. The idea of popular rights could not be permanently embodied in a group of noble houses, nor in a definite parliamentary system of limited constituencies. To some extent to a great extent indeed-this spirit infused itself, in the course of time, in nearly all sections of the Liberal party; but it was forced upon the attention of the old Whigs by the left wing of the party, and there were always some of the acknowledged leaders by whom it was not accepted. It must be borne in mind that this new spirit affected not only the methods of government-the legislative machinery-but also the objects to be aimed at, the legislation to be achieved. The two things, indeed, are inseparably connected. Freedom and selfgovernment are essential elements in the happiness and nobility of a people, and the supposed interests of the governing class-be that class large or small-will affect the character of its legislation.

If, then, there is any reality or any usefulness in the existence of a Radical party, it will employ its energies in two directions in the endeavour to extend political rights and

duties; and in the effort to promote, as far as law can fairly do so, the diffusion amongst the whole people of the real blessings of civilization, material, intellectual, and moral. A considerable part of such a programme would be the common property of all Liberals; but if we find in one section of them an increasing recognition of the necessity of consciously devoting the powers of government to the service of the Democracy, we may profitably trace the growth and development of that section into the separate entity which we call the Radical party. We must, however, limit this inquiry to the presence and operation of the party in Parliament. It is only in the legislature that direct and immediate influence can be exercised over the principles and policy of the government. Until it can find expression there, no cause and no party can be said to be within the range of practical politics. Any change forced upon the nation by powers extraneous to Parliament would, if possible at all, be revolution, and not reform. None such has taken place within the period covered by our inquiry. What has often occurred is, that certain questions have been debated and agitated for by people outside before they have found organized support inside Parliament. But the history of the formation and discussion of social and political ideas in the community at large, would be at once too extensive and too indefinite for our present purpose, which is to ascertain not how ideas originate, but how certain classes of them obtain expression in policy and law. The former object would be the work of the science of sociology; the latter may furnish a manageable chapter in political history. So far as it is really effective, it will deal with the same natural laws of growth and evolution, but it will only attempt to observe them as they are manifested within specific limits of time, place, and circumstance.

If this theory of the development of the party is sound, we must not expect to be able to fix any precise and definite date for its birth. We may, however, trace, either in the ranks of the Liberals in Parliament or among the people outside, the action of causes which would lead to new combinations.

We may also watch the introduction of ideas and principles. likely to attract one section of the Whigs and repel another, or calculated to attract the attention and incite the interest of persons and classes who had hitherto held aloof from political work. When any special excitement is produced on great questions this tendency to definite organization may be suddenly awakened into active life, as when water is upon the point of freezing, a touch or a breath will expedite the process and seem to serve as the immediate cause of crystallization. Such circumstances did arise in England in the latter half of the eighteenth century, and they were sufficiently marked to form a political era.

Mr. Lecky-agreeing in that with Wingrove Cookeventures to be more precise, and to fix the actual year in which he thinks the party was born. He says, "The year 1769 is very memorable in political history, for it witnessed the birth of English Radicalism, and the first serious attempt to reform and control Parliament by a pressure from without, making its members habitually subservient to their constituents." This statement is a great deal too definite as regards dates, and that perhaps arises from a misconception by the writer of the distinguishing feature of the new party. It is a mistake to suppose that it was a novel idea characteristic of the Radicals, that outside opinion ought to influence the action of Parliament. That, on the contrary, was the strongly expressed opinion of the old Whigs, as opposed to those now called Radicals; the latter seeking rather some constitutional means for representing larger numbers of the people, and representing them more purely, in the legislature itself. The external pressure theory was urged strongly by Burke, who, in this and all other branches of political opinion and philosophy, was the ablest exponent of Whig principles; and he constantly proposes it as a means whereby constitutional reform, which he disliked, might be rendered unnecessary and prevented.

"History of England in the Eighteenth Century," vol. iii. p. 174; Wingrove Cooke, "History of Parties," vol. iii. p. 188 et seq.

In his "Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents," Burke says, "I see no other way for the preservation of a decent attention to public interest in the representatives but the interposition of the body of the people itself.” Mr. Morley fairly summarizes Burke's view on this point. Against the system of the omnipotence of the administration," he says, "Burke called on the nation to set a stern face. Root it up,' he kept crying; 'settle the general course in which you desire members to go; insist that they shall not suffer themselves to be diverted from this by the authority of the Government of the day; let lists of votes be published, so that you may ascertain for yourselves whether your trustees have been faithful or fraudulent ;-do all this, and then there will be no need to resort to those organic changes, those empirical innovations, which may possibly cure, but are much more likely to destroy.' It is true that he at the same time objected to authoritative mandates given by a constituency to its members, but all the same he constantly urged the efficiency of popular pressure as a substitute for organic change.

The Radicals, then, were striving for some legal and settled reform; the Whigs, resisting constitutional modifications, advocated a plan of irregular outside agitation, which was in their own minds indefinite, and which, if it ever became definite, must have become revolutionary. It was not therefore characteristic either of the old Whigs or of the new Radicals, that either of them appealed to public opinion as a power in the State. The distinction was, that one set of men would have used it in order to strengthen the traditional forms into which Parliamentary Liberalism had been moulded, whilst the others wanted to give it permanent and recognized force in the official government of the country.

Whilst it is impossible to point with certainty to any particular year as marking the origin of a party whose existence was the result not of an act of creation, but of growth and development, it is quite possible to refer to a time when movements took place amongst the Whigs, which led to the

"Men of Letters-Burke," p. 58.