IN studying the domestic history of Great Britain, it is interesting as well as useful to observe the alternating fortunes of political parties, and their temporary gain or loss of the public confidence. It is unnecessary to go back beyond the memory of the present generation in order to exemplify the truth of this statement. After the great wave of public opinion which swept away rotten boroughs, and placed the political power formerly exercised by their owners in the hands of the middle classes, it was not unnatural that the party which had either opposed, or had at least obtained the credit of having opposed, the transfer, should meet with scant favour at the hands of those who had thereby become the controlling power in the constituencies. The Tory party was, accordingly, made to sustain a severe defeat at the polls of 1832, and the party of Reform enjoyed a complete triumph. But the reaction set in before the triumph had been long enjoyed. The discordant opinions which had been brought together under the banner of Reform, soon made themselves manifest to such an extent as to lead to the fall of the Reform Ministry, and the premature formation of a Conservative Government. That Government, because it was premature, failed to secure a majority at the general election of 1835; but its failure never for one moment stayed the reaction which had commenced, and the Parliament of 1837 was distinctly more Conservative than either of its predecessors. Then came the dissolution of 1841, when the Reform Government and party suffered as

great a defeat as that which their opponents had experienced in 1832, and a majority of nearly a hundred was returned in support of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel. It is old history to tell how that majority was broken up in 1846, and how the repeal of the Corn Laws really changed the nomenclature of parties, and initiated a new order of things, and an infinite confusion among politicians. The terms "Protectionist " and "Freetrader" for a time superseded the old appellations of "Conservative" and "Reformer"; and when the Protectionist

policy had been so generally discarded as to deprive the word of its political value, the two parties in the State became generally known as "Derbyites" and "Liberals," and until the death of the late Earl of Derby such was the usual distinction between the two.

It must be admitted that the so-called Liberals gained a distinct advantage from this nomenclature; for whilst the name of an individual has no special significance of its own, there is something in the word Liberal which, apart from party, recommends itself to men's minds as descriptive of generous and sympathetic feeling, and is likely at once to gain approval from those who are captivated by words without pausing to consider their full sense and meaning. For of course, the truth is, that the word Liberal, as applied to a political party, cannot and does not mean that within the ranks of that party alone are to be found men who are Liberal in the best and non-political meaning

of the word. There are Liberal men-in the sense in which the word signifies generosity of feel ing, largeness of ideas, and sympathy with fellow-creatures - in every religious creed and in every political party. I have indeed heard the expression of opinion by a highly respected clergymanhimself a leading Liberal-that every Christian should be а Liberal; but this is nothing more than a confusion of terms, most "illiberal" in itself, and absolutely absurd in its application. The terms Whig and Tory have been often defined, and are, of course, in their original signification, quite inapplicable to the political parties of to-day. The term Reformer signified a supporter of the "great Reform Bill," and that of Conservative indicated the man who desired to keep things as much as possible as he had found them. In this relation, the word Liberal was properly used to denote the man who was ready to regard in a broad and "liberal" spirit any proposals for reform or amendment in the constitution; but inasmuch as there no longer exists any party who would avow a different policy, the word has ceased to be a correct definition or a true description of any one particular and distinct school of thought.

If this view be disputed, we have only to look back to the legislation of the last thirty years in order to see that the monopoly of the initiation and passing through Parliament of large constitutional reforms cannot be claimed by one political party alone. Household suffrage, the alteration of the Land Laws, the development of Local Government in England and Scotlandthese are among the recent constitutional changes inaugurated

by Tory Governments; and although it is a favourite taunt on the part of their opponents that in all these cases public opinion had been "educated" by themselves, yet they are at once confronted with the rejoinder that, if their statement be true, it only goes to show that the Tory Government chose the right moment to introduce and pass measures which it would have been premature to propose before the necessary "education" of public opinion had been completed. It is, indeed, beyond controversy that the term Liberal is a misnomer at this moment as applied to any special party or the followers of any particular leader. Within very wide limits, all parties in the State are prepared to give the fullest and fairest consideration to any amendment in the constitution which may be proposed; and the question is rapidly becoming one between those who are in this reasonable frame of mind, and those who, secretly or openly, desire to go outside those limits, and to attack the very spirit and essence of the constitution itself. That such men as the latter should monopolise, or in fact lay any claim at all to, the term Liberal, is in itself an absurdity at which we could afford to laugh, if it were not that by so doing they conceal their own ends and objects, and, fighting under a name which by no means conveys to the public their true sentiments and ideas, obtain an influence and importance far greater than is warranted by their character and talents.

A fair way of stating the truth would be to say that the name Liberal is in reality generally applicable to the policy which must nowadays be pursued by all British statesmen and British political parties; that Liberal

principles have been accepted as those upon which our Government is to be conducted; and that it is in the application of those principles that differences exist among various combinations of politicians. It must, however, be confessed, that great difficulties lie in the way of such a recognition of this fact as would lead men to adopt other names than those which have been hitherto employed to describe the great parties in the State. The term Liberal has been too useful, and remains too attractive, to be lightly abandoned by those who find their advantage in its use; and it will probably be some time longer employed to designate all those multitudinous sections of a party which has little or no cohesion upon any definite principle, and certainly no monopoly of really Liberal principles. If this be contradicted, let us go no further back for our justification than the last general election, when the party led by Mr Gladstone went to the country upon the question of Home Rule for Ireland. It cannot with any justice be contended that Liberal principles, as they have been always understood in this country, have anything to say to the question whether the imperial Parliament is to continue in its present position, or, as far as regards a large portion of the duties which it now discharges, is to be broken up into separate and fragmentary Legislatures. If it is said that it is in accordance with Liberal traditions and Liberal policy to give to the Irish people that for which they are supposed to ask, it may with equal justice be retorted that it is entirely opposed to such a policy and such traditions to refuse to bow to the emphatic decision of the majority of the united people of Great Britain and Ireland

against the adoption of Home Rule and in favour of one united Parliament. Facts, however, are stronger than arguments, and the fact of the secession of Lord Hartington, Mr Bright, Mr Chamberlain, and the great bulk of the intellectual portion of the so-called Liberal party, from the leadership of Mr Gladstone, sufficiently prove that the Home Rule proposals of that statesman were a departure from the Liberal principles which had hitherto been supposed to hold that party together. Whether the term Liberal Unionists or Dissentient Liberals be the more appropriate one by which to describe the followers of Lord Hartington, it is absurd to deny to them as full a claim to the title of Liberal as any which can be advanced by their opponents. We have therefore at least three, and probably it would be more correct to say four, if not five, different sections upon the Opposition side of the House of Commons, all of whom claim to belong to the Liberal party, but among whom there exist the widest differences upon many political questions, of which the solution will have to be sought within a "measurable distance" of time. Lord Hartington and his friends, indeed, represent the Liberals who have abandoned nothing of their old creed, but who have placed their country before their party, and have determined, even at the risk of the postponement of favourite reforms, and the accusation of being indifferent to those reforms, to preserve at all hazards the unity of the imperial Parliament. Mr Gladstone and his immediate entourage represent those who, doubtless in all honesty, believe that the aforesaid unity will be best preserved by breaking it up, but who, apart from this particular question, are by no

means more "liberal," and upon some points less so, than many of those who follow Lord Hartington. They may be termed the "official Liberal," or, more properly, the "Gladstonian" party; and it is difficult to predicate where and under what leader some of them will be found ranged when Mr Gladstone shall have quitted the scene. The third distinct party is the Nationalist contingent of 85 which follows Mr Parnell, who are entirely bound together by the common tie of Nationalist politics, and many of whom have nothing in common with Liberal principles at all, and who, especially upon certain matters connected with foreign policy, would have been violently opposed to Liberal proclivities and Liberal aspirations at any time during the last fifty years. The fourth party is that of the Radicals, English and Scotch, who, nominally following Mr Gladstone, do not scruple to disregard his leadership and advice whenever it suits them so to do. These men have apparently placed themselves under the guidance of Mr Labouchere; and for the present the fifth party, by which I mean the Socialists proper, feel it prudent and desirable to "lie low," and to range themselves under the same banner. It is this last party, or the two last parties combined, who are apparently the most powerful at the present moment.

It

is with them that the Gladstonian "lieutenants on the front bench coquet; it is with them that any organised attempt to delay public business generally originates; it is their influence which palpably affects the tactics of the Opposition as a party, and not unfrequently drags through Radical mud several respectable occupants of the front bench who but a few years ago would have shrunk from the votes

which they now give with evident reluctance. There can be no doubt that this "advanced" section of the Gladstonian party is at this moment the strongest; and the fact that it has no leader of sufficient character, position, and ability to command public confidence, does not to any great extent diminish its powers for evil whilst in opposition. Mr Gladstone and the "official Liberals" are obliged to conciliate this "irrepressible" section; and after the lesson of the Royal grants, and the practical repudiation of Mr Gladstone's leadership upon that question, we may expect more conciliation, or in other words, more abandonment of old-fashioned Liberal principles, and a greater amount of truckling to the Radicalism which reigns below the gangway.

A curious commentary upon these remarks will be found in an article, entitled "The New Liberalism," which appeared in the August number of the Nineteenth Century,' and which emanated from the pen of Mr Atherley-Jones, the member for Northwest Durham, who is described as a Gladstonian, but who apparently has considerable sympathy with the Radical section of his party. This gentleman fully admits that "the Home Rule movement does not arouse enthusiasm among the masses;" he laments the fact that "the new Liberalism has alienated the middle class," and "is in a deplorable state of disorganisation, scarcely removed from anarchy." He allows that "the most effective and zealous opposition to military and naval expenditure, and departmental extravagance, has been found recently on the Conservative benches under the leadership of Lord Randolph Churchill;" and he fears that, "apart from the

powerful personality of Mr Gladstone, the exclusion of the Liberal party from power seems likely to be indefinitely prolonged-unless, indeed, the leaders adequately recognise the transformation of the old into the new Liberalism, and adapt their policy to the requirements of the people." The process thus recommended by Mr AtherleyJones would seem to be difficult of accomplishment, if, as he elsewhere

tells us, "official Liberalism is completely out of touch with the aspirations and aims of modern Liberal thought." These reflections upon the occupants of the front Opposition, bench, with Mr Gladstone at their head, appear to bear out the account of the "deplorable state of disorganisation" of which the writer had previously complained. No better proof of such an unhappy condition of affairs can be given than that a gentleman who extols the "powerful personality" of Mr Gladstone, and speaks of the "personal loyalty" to that statesman which prevails among his followers, should in the same breath pronounce his trusted leader and his more immediate friends to be "completely out of touch with the aspirations and aims of modern Liberal thought." It is indeed somewhat hard, and savours not a little of ingratitude, that this should be the description of the great statesman who, in order to keep abreast with the demands of modern Liberal thought," has cast to the winds the first principles of political economy in his legislation for Ireland, caused the plighted faith of Parliament to the purchasers of Irish property to be deliberately broken, and finally allied himself with the men who, either sincerely and honestly (in which case they were traitors to the constitution), or else insincerely

and dishonestly (in which case they are at least discreditable allies), had up to 1886 continuously preached and striven for the separation of Ireland from Great Britain, and the dismemberment of the empire. All this goes for nothing with the disciples of the "the new Liberalism," which, although, according to Mr Atherley-Jones, "it is becoming increasingly difficult to find men of wealth or men of culture and leisure to espouse it," appears to be able to afford to despise its "official leaders," and to give them a plain warning to "set their house in order." Yet when this gentleman tells us that the weakness of that section of the Opposition which is "of an ultrademocratic type" lies in its "want of leadership," he does not perceive that this is a natural result of the present position of affairs, in which the tail of the Radical dog has been wagging the head until it has almost persuaded itself that the positions of the two should be reversed. The loquacious nonentities below the gangway have talked themselves into the belief that their former leaders are altogether behind the times, and that no leader is worthy of confidence who does not immediately swallow all the crotchets which in their monotonous clap-trap they declare to be part of "the requirements of the people." Some of these men have, indeed, a glib tongue, and are capable (as the House of Commons knows to its cost) of declaiming at tedious and almost interminable length upon the particular crotchet which they have made their own. They are still better hands at the task of plying Ministers with perpetual questions (many of which are upon subjects of little or no public interest), at criticising with weary prolixity estimates which they imperfectly