as the moral enthusiasm of men has not spent itself-so long as vain thoughts,' as Dante says, 'have not been a petrifying fountain to the soul'—there is the same 'stuff' left in the world as religious 'dreams are made of;' and when the prestige of positive thought has been reduced to its true dimensions, we may once more return to such dreams as the only true reality. At present it may be hard to do so. A sort of intellectual hysteria may numb our faculties. But this may pass away, and their former strength return to them. The laws of God may once more seem surer to us than the laws of gravitation. Faith may once more dictate to the world, and put its foot upon the neck of nations. It may we do not know that it ever will. This, however, we do know, that the elements that would make such an event possible still smoulder in the world. And there are many who, though now they can ejaculate no prayer, and rehearse no creed, would exclaim in a moment, could they think such a coming possible, Even so come, Lord Jesus.'

W. H. MALLOCK.

THE CAUCUS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

THE cry for party organisation is a cry that is always heard in this country immediately before and immediately after a general election. The beaten side are unwilling to recognise the fact that the verdict of the nation has gone against them, while the victorious side are tempted to secure, as they think they can, what has been gained by a popular impulse through an improvement of the mere machinery of election. A few weeks ago there was a prevalent rumour that the House of Commons would be dissolved during the recess. It was repeatedly contradicted, but it was still believed. Nothing procured it more credit than the fact that on the 20th of July Mr. Gladstone, in addressing the first anniversary meeting of the Southwark Liberal Association, warmly advocated the 'Birmingham system' with a view to an approaching political campaign. Again on the 6th of August Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury received the representatives of some three hundred and fifty Conservative associations at the Foreign Office, and the Prime Minister took advantage of the occasion to enforce the paramount importance of party discipline. A few days later appeared the correspondence between Mr. Forster and Mr. Illingworth, which revealed to many persons for the first time the presence of a danger in the shape of organisation' seriously threatening the free and healthy play of political forces in this country. Further discussion has not tended to dispel these apprehensions. The more the facts and the principles of organisation' are considered, the less prudent do the counsels of Mr. Gladstone and of Lord Beaconsfield appear. It is natural perhaps that these party leaders, while they are in the thick of the fight themselves, should not be able to look beyond the immediate consequences of the tactics they adopt. If Mr. Gladstone can build up a Liberal majority by organisation, he is convinced, of course, that he, or those who are swayed by his advice, will be able to accomplish great and fruitful tasks. Lord Beaconsfield, on the other hand, feels that the consolidation of the ministerial majority is needed to sustain his policy at home and abroad, and unless discipline be enforced he fears probably that in the present confusion of public opinion those serried ranks may be broken and scattered. But for the country these considerations are by comparison

unimportant. The question to be maturely weighed is nothing less than this, whether in placing at the disposal of contending leaders the weapons with which they inay, as they hope, win one or two electoral battles, we may not unwittingly introduce a revolutionary change into our political system. The English Constitution derives much of its elastic strength from the fact that it is unwritten, but we are bound to remember that the working of such a Constitution may be insensibly modified in a manner impossible under the strict terms of an organic law. It is the spirit of the Constitution we must guard, since we have no letter to observe with superstitious

reverence.

It is proper, in the first place, to put on record the precise language used by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Beaconsfield, since the defenders of 'organisation' are inclined to stretch such testimonies beyond their precise limits. Mr. Gladstone said, at Southwark :

The Birmingham mode of organisation was one upon which I should have been slow to pronounce an opinion without sufficient practical knowledge, had I rested only on the strength of my own judgment, but with regard to which I was aware not only of the just authority that attaches to the people of Birmingham in a question of this kind, who have in so many respects afforded a model and a pattern for the politics of the Liberal party throughout England, but I was also aware that many large constituencies of England-I believe considerably over 100-had, even so early as last summer, adopted that kind of organisation. Now, gentlemen, it appears to me that it is a kind of organisation that is, in the first place, thoroughly liberal in its spirit; and as your object is to promote a Liberal policy in the action of the State, so it is most desirable that you should carry a Liberal principle in the mode of electing your political machinery, and that it should be bona fide placed upon a basis so broad and open as to give the fullest possible display to the sympathies and convictions of the entire body of the party. Having briefly described the method of organising' the central committees to whom the power of choosing candidates is delegated, he went on to say :—

In truth, it too often happens that it devolves of necessity upon a handful of persons to recommend candidates for the suffrages of the electors. The aim of this system is that, although the recommendation shall proceed from a body, it shall proceed from a representative body, so that the electors should have the best security that fair play has been given to the form of Liberal opinion which they may individually represent in the choice of those candidates, and in the general conduct of the Liberal affairs of the borough. Now, gentlemen, looking at the matter in that light, it appears to me that this organisation is founded upon a broad, a sound, and a practical basis.

It provided a remedy, Mr. Gladstone thought, for the two most conspicuous errors of the Liberal party during electoral struggles, the division of Liberal strength which allows a majority to be defeated by a minority and the predominance of crotchets.'

Lord Beaconsfield's remarks did not apply, like those of Mr. Gladstone, to any particular form of organisation, but they asserted even more uncompromisingly the necessity of enforcing discipline.

There is (he said) a very great error prevalent, that opinion when organised loses something of its genuineness and its force. I believe that is a great and most pernicious fallacy. I believe opinion when organised loses nothing of its genuineness and sincerity. On the contrary, when shaped by the result of considerable thought and some experience, there is a greater chance of opinion actuating and influencing mankind. It cannot be supposed for a moment that when opinion is organised it loses any of its force, because that idea would contradict the experience of mankind in all ages. All men have agreed that in the conduct of public affairs there is nothing more precious than discipline, and it is a great mistake to suppose that discipline is incompatible with the deepest convictions and even with the most passionate sentiments.

And he proceeded to show by various examples taken from military history, ancient and modern—the Macedonian phalanx, the Roman legion, Cromwell's Ironsides,' and Wellington's Peninsular armythat enthusiasm need not be disjoined from discipline. It would not be difficult to prove that the analogy on which the value of Lord Beaconsfield's illustrations depends will not bear a moment's examination. Certainly the merit of a constitutional party in a free country is not that of Wellington's veterans who were ready, in implicit obedience to the command of their great leader, to go anywhere and do anything.' But this is a small matter, not worth criticism. It is more important to note the following admission of the Prime Minister, and the very vague remedy he suggests for the acknowledged evil :

I make these remarks because there is a very prevalent idea, and for it there is some foundation, that when men are acting in a corporate capacity they sometimes forego principles which assembled them originally, and their acting together degenerates into mere routine. I do not deny that there is some foundation for that opinion; but that is an evil which, if we be subject to it, can be counteracted by the efforts of those whom I see before me-the officers of that great constitutional army which was formed throughout the country and disciplined, until it obtained the triumphant results which the recent general election established.

It is not consistent with the common experience of human nature to expect that those who find their work simplified by the perfection of drill will take much trouble to avoid falling into routine. Beginning, as Lord Salisbury urges them, 'by suppressing individual eccentricities,' they will very soon be disposed to resent the slightest sign of independence of character, and they will have the power to stamp out the dangerous vice by swift and complete political ostracism.

Mr. Gladstone, writing early last month in reference to the Newcastle-under-Lyme election, again recommends the Birmingham organisation, which, he says, the Tories and the weak-hearted Liberals are endeavouring to cry down.' The 'weak-hearted Liberals,' however, have perhaps something to say for themselves. It may be as well to place on record the reasons which induce many who do not think they have done anything to discredit the sincerity of their Liberalism to oppose the caucus system. They are reasons weighty enough, I think, to resist even the argument which Mr. VOL. IV.-No. 20.

Ꮓ Ꮓ

Gladstone has drawn from the Newcastle-under-Lyme election, where a seat was unexpectedly won by a Liberal candidate. Mr. Gladstone is, I suppose, of opinion that this victory was due to organisation, since he uses it to enforce his plea for the caucus. But the Liberal majority was procured, if I am not mistaken, by the Liberal candidate's acceptance of a compact with the Home Rule voters, which the Tory had refused. It did not need a caucus, surely, to conclude such a bargain, though I am afraid such bargains will not be rare when all political power passes, if it is to pass, into the hands of the caucuses.

From a comparison of boasts and acknowledgments on the one side and the other, it appears that the Conservatives were much better organised than the Liberals down to the last general election, but that the Birmingham system, of which the practical success was then demonstrated, has since been imitated in its main features by both parties in a great number of the borough constituencies. It is not certain that the change is one which would be wholly gratifying to Lord Beaconsfield, though no doubt he would find that under the new organisation Conservative discipline could be made even more perfect than before. But, setting aside the personal inclinations of the party chiefs, it is more than probable that whatever form of organisation is found to work most efficiently and to be adopted most widely on the one side, will soon be copied on the other. The Birmingham system must be set in motion by a class of persons whom I venture (without intending any personal disparagement) to call professional politicians, and the objects aimed at by this class are not likely to be modified by differences of political principles. They are interested first of all and most of all in the manufacture of majorities. It seems to me that this process, especially when conducted with the aid of the Birmingham machinery, is certain to do wide and lasting mischief. If the mass of the English people can be brought to see in time that this mischief is really formidable, it may be checked, before the imposition of a rigid machinery paralyses public opinion. But the protest of the country must be prompt, vigorous, and decided.

The attempt of the Executive Committee of the Bradford Three Hundred to extort from so conspicuous a public man as Mr. Forster his submission to a rule that would have placed his public career at the mercy of the secret vote of a caucus,' has warned us opportunely

of

I have used the word 'caucus as a convenient expression, which has now become popularised among us. But the American 'caucus' does not correspond to the organisation of the Birmingham 'Grand Committee,' which is an exact copy the Political Convention System.' The 'caucus,' strictly speaking, is a secret meeting of a Parliamentary party, intended to decide upon a course of political action, and, according to the American theory of political ethics, the vote of the majority in a caucus is binding on the minority. The meeting of the members of the Liberal opposition at Mr. Gladstone's house to consider Mr. Coleridge's amendment on going into committee upon the Reform Bill (April 5, 1867) was a caucus, but the secession. of the 'tea-room' section could hardly have happened in the United States. Similar caucuses have been often held at the Reform Club, and the Tory party are equally

1