PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 33, 8 February 1930, Page 8 (Supplement)

PARTY GOVERNMENT.

ITS DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLAND.

HOW THE SYSTEM ROSE INTO

BEING.

TOOK SHAPES WDER HENRY VIII.

(By F. J. C. HEARNSEAW, M.A., LLD Professor of History in King's College, University of London.)

The party system of government, which in one form or another prevails over the larger portion of the earth at the present day, is of comparatively recent development. No doubt the fundamental principles on which parties stand are as old as human nature itself; but the emr bodiment of these principles in political programmes, the furtherance of these programmes by organised bodies of men, and the control of the machinery of government by the leaders of these bodies —these things, the essentials of the party system, have been possible only in quite modern times. For the three indispensable preliminaries to the development of the party system of government are, first, the establishment of the sovereign national state; secondly, the institution within its borders of representative democracy; and, thirdly, the recognition of a large freedom of discussion, both in speech and in writing. None of these three preliminary conditions existed in the middle ages; the state was not sovereign, but was subject to the external control of Empire and Papacy; _ representative democracy existed but in embryo, all effectivo power rested in the of monarchs, aristocracies and ecclesiastical hierarchies, while freedom of expression was restricted by ruthless laws of heresy and treason. The conditions which rendered the rise and development of the party system possible began to display themselves in Europe at the time of the Reformation, and the first division of the European peoples into parties took place respecting the matter of religion. On the one side gathered those who stood for order, upheld authority, urged obedience to law, professed reverence for the past and respect for tradition, advocated the maintenance of .existing institutions, admitted distrust of the unknown and untried, confessed suspicion of unverified theory and unregulated speculation, relied on instinct as against aggressive reason. Over against them, on the other side, stood those who championed progress, asserted the rights of individual freedom, declared revolt against restriction, expressed contempt for the past, repudiated the authority of tradition, advocated the scrapping of existing institutions, professed faith in the unknown and confidence in the untried, trusted novel theory, relied on reason as superior to instinct. Parties of Order and Progress.

In England tho beginnings of the formation by the two parties —the party of order and the party of progress, or, if you prefer the terms, the party of stability and the party of movement— were discernible in the reign of Henry VIII. The religiously-minded portion of the nation showed signs of taking sides respecting the King's separation from Catherine in 1533, * his Act of Supremacy in 1534, and his dissolution of the monasteries in 1536. But the Royal power was too autocratic, and freedom of speech was too much restricted to allow the development "of party to take place. Not till Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558 was Parliament sufficiently independent, and public opinion powerful enough to render tho organisation of parties feasible. During Elizabeth's reign, however, tho definite formation of parties occurred. The settlement of religion in 1550, by the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, was the crux. In defence of this settlement—i.e., of Royal headship of the church, government by bishops, prayer book, 39 articles—rallied tho majority of the nation. In opposition to it gradually rose tho Puritan minority, bent on repudiation of the Royal supremacy, the establshment of the Presbyterian mode of Church government, and the enforcement of the complete Calvinistic system of dogma and ritual.

The death of Elizabeth in 1603, and the advent of the Stuart line of kings, soon saw the extension of the party division of the English nation from the sphere of religion into the sphere of politics. James I.'s assertion of the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and hie efforts to enforce his royal will received, in the main, the sanction and support of the High Anglican party, while the Puritans declared themselves supporters of the Parliament and vindictors of the common law. The struggle between the two parties became so acute during the reign of Charles I. that it developed into the armed conflict of Cavaliers versus Roundheads in the great civil war (1642-46). After this conflict had worked itself out, and the restoration of Charles' 11. had taken place (1660), the two parties reconstituted themselves as , political bodies, to which ultimately the name Tories and Whigs were assigned. The Tories stood for the defence of the. Church of England, the old constitution, the monarchy, the landed interest, decentralised administration. The Whigs championed the cause of dissent, reform, Parliamentary control, the moneyed interest, central government. The revolution of 1688-89 resulted in the definite triumph of Whig principles. The consequence was that the Tories remained in almost chronic opposition for 70 years, and when, at the beginning of George lll.'s reign, they returned to peace and power, they came back with principles a good deal mellowed and modified by adversity. They 'had accepted toleration for Protestant nonconformists; they had reconciled themselves to the revolution of 1688-9, and had given up their support of the exiled House of Stuart with its dogma of divine right; they had enlarged their positive programme to include the maintenance of - British sea-power and the expansion of the British Empire. A Critical Epoch. The eighteenth century was a critical epoch in the development of party government in Great Britain. The Whigs in particular were active and successful in perfecting the party machinery. During their long period of ascendancy (1648-1762) they established a strong control of the constituencies; they obtained a monopoly of all the great offices in both State and church, they created the Cabinet, they developed the premiership, they reduced the monarchy to constitutional impotence. During the period of their eclipse (17621782) while . George lII.' endeavoured to destroy them and all their works, they evolved a defensive organisation and an offensive programme of economic reforme that made them powerful and effective when once more their day came. The French. revolution, howewj post-

Joned the advent of their day. Not till 832 did they fully recover their ascendancy.

The history of British politics since the Revolution of 1688-9 is, thus, mainly the history of the conflicts and vicissitudes of the two parties, commonly known aa Whigs and Tories. We have noted the matters of principle on which they were divided — Church, Constitution, Crown, Land v. Money, Navy v. Army, Empire v. little England. It is important, to observe that, deep as were their disagreements, there were agreements that went deeper still. ' If this had not been bo, party struggles would inevitably have developed into civil wars. Both parties were at one in accepting the Christian religion; at one in recognising government by King, Lords and Commons; at one in bowing to the will of the electorate as manifested in the polling booths; at one in respecting the law; at one in their determination to maintain the honour and independence of their country. In other words, they differed from one another rather as to means than as to ends; so that changes of government did not involve a complete discontinuity of policy. The success of party government in Britain has been primarily due to the essential moderation of British parties. The Unqualified Vote. Another important cause of this undoubted success has been the fact that, except for short periods, there have been two, and only two, parties in the State. This at first sight seems remarkable. For the problems that divide men are innumerable, and respecting each of them there is room for infinite gradations of opinion. But the strangeness of the phenomenon vanishes on examination. For each problem in turn has to be settled by the vote, and there are only two lobbies in either House of Parliament into which voters can go. Hence ultimately the answer to every question propounded to the politician has to be an unqualified aye or an unqualified no. And the practical British genius for politics has nohow more conspicuously displayed itself than in the manner in which it has sorted out its big questions one by one for settlement and the way in which it has analysed and simplified these, questions before they have come to the final vote. If at any time there are more .than two answers to a question possible, it is because the question has not beien reduced to its ultimate elements. ,

In times of confusion; in days pf transition, in periods between the settlement of one big problem (e.g., the religious emancipations problem) and the advent of another big problem (e.g., that of the Parliamentary franchise), third parties or disconnected groups have tended to rise in Britain. Such parties or groups in the 19th century were the Canni:igites, the Peelites, the "Derby Dillies," the Adullamites, the Liberal Unionists. Thair existence, however, was in all cases ephemeral. So long as they continued separate and apart they were a nuisance, preventing the proper working of the Parliamentary machine. Their members, moreover, soon found that if they desired to bo anything more than obstructions, they would have to re-attach themselves to one or other of the great permanant parties — the party of stability or the party of movement. The good sense of the electorate has also steadily declined to sanction the continuance of third parties and irresponsible groups. For, as Mr. H. A. L. Fisher well says, "In our own country, effective Parliamentary government depends on the two-party system." I refrain from applying this dictum of a great Liberal statseman to the circumstances of the present day; but it has its revelance. — (Anglo-American N.S. copyright).