POLITICAL INDIFFERENT ISM IN ENGLAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 715, 2 April 1864, Page 6

POLITICAL INDIFFERENT ISM IN ENGLAND.

(From the " Sasuniay Review.") Party-spirit, so far as secular politics are concerned, is apparently at its last gasp in this country, and unless some unlookedfor agency should arise to galvanize it into a fresh existence, all that will be wanted, when it is dead and buried, will be an accurate historian to record the causes of its decline and fall. Religious rancour, as undying ns the faith for which it fights, monopolizes for the moment the domain of English controversy, and whatever sparring takes place now-a-days is over the errors of unsound ecclesiastics, rather than the shortcomings of incompetent statesmen. This political calm, which neither earthquakes nor congresses ncr the cries of oppressed nationalities appear in any way to affect, may be for good or evil. To some it may prove the "contentment of a united people/ to others the languid mediocrity of sensations into which we have subsided. But, whatever view we may take of it, it is a fact so evident by the records of our legislation and the various tokens which indicate the j workings of public opinion, that it scarcely needs the corroboration which it almost daily receives from those "extraParliamentary utterances" in which the representatives of the people chant to provincial audiences a sort of choral requiem over the party-politics of England.

However delightful this tranquillity may seem to those who have everything to lose and nothing to gain in political tempests, the happy theory which assumes that one set of statesmen only are capable of governing, and one set of opinions only worthy to be entertained, is not without its practical inconveniences. Ex-officials who deprecate indifferentism, as did Mr Fitzgerald the other day in his speech at Uorsham, are of course open to the imputation of mourning over a state of things which excludes them from power, rather than over the unhealthy symptoms which it manifests. There is, nevertheless, a large section of the community wholly unaffected by the hopes or fears of the "ins" or the "outs," by whom the languor and apathy which pervades the body politic is regarded as-indicating tendencies quite as dangerous as the restlessness of revolutionary periods. There was a time when no political axiom was more universally accepted than that government by party was essential to the maintenance and the very existence of representative institutions. Fifty years ago so stoutly was this doctrine upheld, that a member of Parliament who gave an independent vote was commonly regarded by a large section of his fellows as a traitor to the Constitution. The only justification which one of the late Sir Robert Peel's " whips " could suggest in palliation of the crime of a certain delinquent who voted in support of his conscience, but against his party, was a tradition of " insanity in the mother's family." To the surviving veterans who bore a part in maintainging the drill and discipline of those bygone days, the insubordination and independence of the modern political soldier must be shocking indeed* The mutinous and motley band which now follows reluctantly into the lobby the leader whose tact is indispensable to them, but whose principles they abhor, contrasts painfully with the serried hosts who marched without misgiving to victory or to defeat in passive obedience to commands the motives of which they did not affect to penetrate or care to comprehend. To the commanders-in-chief of both forces this state of things must be particularly 5 embarriseing. As for the unhappy Secretary to the Treasury—with his commissariat of petty patronage crippled, as it is, by all the contrivances of competitions and examinations—it is difficult to imagine how, without annually poisoning a large number of tide-waiters and excisemen, he can have vacancies enough to%ieet the importunate demands of those whose constituents expect a consideration for the votes of their representatives, without whose aid " the Queen's Government cannot be carried on."

What may be the causes which have led to the dislocation of party ties, and the apparent apathy which is its consequence, it may perhaps be scarcely necessary to inquire. Whether ifc is, as some say, because " all great questions are settled," or because, as others say, "no questions have been, or ever can be, settled at all by Parliament as at present constituted," it is needless to speculate. It is, nevertheless, a fact not unsuggestive o£ serious apprehensions, that government by party, which" we admit by common consent to be the life-blood of representative institutions, is daily becoming more impossible iv this countiy. To those who ignore the existence of any traditional political principles at all, and in whose estimate " politics" mean simply the science of forensic fighting on any question which happens for the moment to be uppermost, a simple solution of the difficulty presents itself in the fact that there is nothing to fight about. But, on a closer investigation, politics will cease to wear so ephemeral and undignified an aspect. It is true that there has almost always been some one absorbing theme of controversy towering above the topics of the day, and appearing to monopolise public thought. During the halfcentury which has passed since the commencement of the Lord Liverpool Administration, this has been peculiarly the case. The contests on Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary Keform and Free Trade, have successively engrossed the energy of the combatants, and the interest of the spectators in the political avena. But the measure of party discipline which has throughout this period (sometimes indeed, as now, with wavering and unsteady hand) been nevertheless maintained both in Parliament and among the constituencies of the United Kingdom, in spite of the disturbing causes which have continued to relax and destroy it, conclusively proves that the broad line which severs the idolators of the past from the idolaters of the future may, indeed, have become sometimes faint, but has never been wholly obliterated. " Cavaliers " may have merged into " Tories," and again been softened into "Conservatives; 11 Whigs and Radicals may, by a process of nominal selfconsolidation, have been welded into "Liberals ;" but it has been by the same political armies, under however varying designations, that the same battle has been fought through various dynasties for the traditional errors, truths and prejudices which are not of one century or of one nation, but of all times and all countries. But perhaps, it may be asked, if there be indeed two distinct classes of traditionary opinion, how comes it to pass that the opinion which is always in existence should, ever lack organs for its expression—that the machinery of party should from time to time be thrown, as it were, completely out of gear, even at seasons free from any disturbing causes of domestic distress or foreign apprehension ? It is evidently no answer to this question to say

that all the battles have been fought out and wen by one side—that the vanquished and baffled Conservative, after receding year by year, like , the Danish king before the rising waves of public opinion, has now no longer any space on which to retire, and has been finally driven from the shore. It would be quite as correct a version of the story to say that the Liberal who came out twenty years ago with his five-pointed Charter, and threatening Church and Queen with immediate destruction, has been compelled to abandon one after another all his impracticable crotchets, and is now sunk into hi 3 merited insignificance. If the Tories have renounced the creed of Eldon, the Whigs have, at all events, recanted their half-avowed acquiescence in that of Peargus O'Connor.^ The fact is that, though the seat of war may have changed with the objects for which it is waged, though the conflicting armies may not be drawn up in visible array, the principles or prejudices for which they fought in times past yet survive, and may at any moment become the subject of a conflict as severe as any recorded in the pages of history. If we were to seek for an explanation of the apparent indiscipline of the rival hosts at this moment, it would be found perhaps in the confusion incidental to a party nomenclature in which the title of factions have survived the realities ;vhich they once represented. Lord Palmerston, for instance, is called a " Liberal Minister," and the party which he leads is called a "Liberal party," and yet, by common consent, this very man is the especial representative, not only of those who value law, order, and the maintenance of constituted authority, but of those who dread organic change. It would convey quite as accurate an idea of the purposes and opinions of the two great parties now in the House of Commons if they were christened after the Papal and Imperial factions which disturbed the peace of Italy five centuries ago. For all purposes of enabling us to attach meaning to their respective titles, they might quite as well be called " Guelfs" and " Ghibelines," as " Liberals" and " Conservatives." And how has this confusion in our party nomenclature arisen? Mainly because, in defiance of the maxim which bids every man to stick to hi 3 own trade, our statesmen have thought proper, on various occasions, to step entirely out of the path, they had chosen for themselves, and to contradict, on alleged grounds of public convenience, all the formulas of political belief which through their previous lives they had professed. If we add to this cause the unfortunate tendency of public men out of office to play at politics, we shall scarcely be at a loss to account for the anarchy which pervades our party ranks, and the confusion which perplexes our party nomenclature.

The amusement referred to, however exciting it may be at the time, cannot fail to render a recurrence to earnest occupations, when the toys of yesterday's play have to be converted into the tools of today's hard work, diiEcult, if not impossible. # One Minister plays, perhaps, at foreign .politics, another at Communism, a third at Parliamentary Reform, and then, in the vicissitudes of public life, they all three find themselves brought together one fine morning in the same Cabinet, encumbered by their respective antecedents. It would be well if the difficulties hence arising ended simply in personal embarrassments; but it is obvious that the two or three hundred gentlemen whose united support in the House of Commons is essential to the maintenance of the Queen's Government, will, however loyally disposed, be ill able to prepare themselves for the battle, in obedience to a command so uncertain as that which must, in the case supposed (by no means an impossible one), be passed along their ranks. In proportion as statesmanship assumes the aspect of a calling in which the actors are merely playing a part, whether for the sake of fame or gain, indifferentism among the educated and thoughtful portion of the community is an inevitable result.

Three years ago, before the American war broke out, the citizens of that country were' playing at politics. Their newspapers teemed with reports of "caucuses," "mass meetings," and "conventions," at which "Know-Nothings," "Wide-awakes," " Free Soilers," Lone Stars," and "Locofocos," figured in the tribune and on !,he stump. On all this pantomime the curtain suddenly fell, and was only drawn up to disclose the awful realities of war. Whether the next stage of their political existence may be in the form of one, two, three or halfxa dozen republics it is in vain to conjecture; but it needs no prophet to foretel that dismemberment and decay must be the eventual destiny of any nation in either hemisphere in which politics have become either a pastime or a trade, and where the changes in the governing bodies have ceased to indicate the alternate triumphs and defeats of heartfelt convictions, and the failure or success of those genuine aspirations in the conflict of which is to be found the surest guarantee for the order, progress, and good government of States.

German Duels. -.During; our stay in the town one young; man had his cheek cut open ; another his uuderlip nearly taken oft, a third his scalp cut in two, and a fourth the tip of his nose so thoroughly excised that the end of his nasal organ Say upoa the ground. This was atterwards picked up aud duly sewn and strapped on to the remainder ot the feature, with which it had every likelihood of being again incorporated; when, unfortuuately, the forest-man was looking through a telescope at the "Hohe Sonne," and some one h-.opened to jog his arm with such force that the" eru! of the unhealed orgaa was once more saverert from the bridge or " saddle," as the (xermins call it; whereupon the gentleman picked up thfi tip of his nose, and put it in hi* portemennaie as a trophy of his prowess; delighting to o utv it about with him and show it to his friends for many a day afterwards. —German Life and Manners as Seen in Saxony at the Present Bay. By Henry Mayhew. Woman.—Never shrink from a woman of strong sense. If she become attached to you it will be from seeing and valuing similar qualities in yourself. You may trust her, for she knows the value of your confidence ; you may consult her, for she is able to devise, aud does so at once with the firmness of reason, aud the consideration of affection. Her love will be lasting, tor it will not have baen lightly won : it will be strong and ardent, for weak minds are not capable of the loftier grades of passion. If you prefer attaching yourself to a woman of feeble understanding, it must be either from fearing to enounfer a superior person, or from the poor vanity of preferring that admiration which springs from ignorance, to that which approaches to appreciation.

Double Wages no Advance.—A contractor in the Scottish Highlands, says a contemporary, was waited upoa by a deputation from his workers, to request him to make "no a pit o'difference in the wages, but shust a wee shynge iv the time for paying." Ou cross-questioning the deputie?, he found they wanted to be paid weekly instead of fortnightly, but they also wanted the fortnight's wages weekly. "Why, my lads," said the contractor, ''you are just demanding exactly double wages." "Hoots, no Sir!" said one of the deputation, " it's shusl as more as less as the same wedges, put you must shust paid us twice as fast as evermore." After a little parleying the contractor got Ms Celtic logicians to resume work at a trifling advance. —"Builder."