The Theory and Practice of Conservatism.

The following address was delivered by the Rt. Hon. Sir James Fergusson, Bart., of Kilkerran, to the members of the Glasgow Working Men's Conservative Association, in the Trades' Hall, Glasgow. Sir Windham Anstruther, Bart., M.P., occupied the chair.

Sir James Fergusson said—At a time when electoral privileges have been recently and widely extended, it is highly important that there should be a general and careful inquiry into political principles, so that the judgment of the constituencies may be exercised upon some grounds more satisfactory than partisan impulse or vague impression. The formation of such associations as that under whose auspices we are met will assist in affording a comprehension of the principles and objects of the Conservative party, and as one who believes those principles and objects to be valuable to the national welfare, I cannot withhold my humble contribution to their promotion and advocacy. It is evident that there has existed and still remains in Scotland a great prejudice against the Tory or Conservative party. Considerable as was the gain achieved by it in the last general election, and manifest as is the increase in its organisation throughout the country, its representatives are still in a comparatively small minority, and some time must yet elapse before we can hope to be numerically on a level with the professors of Liberalism of every shade. We have a hereditary prejudice to overcome. The exclusion of the middle class from electoral privileges in the counties, and the unreal representation of the burghs previous to the Reform Act of 1832, doubtless were the chief causes of the unpopularity of the Tory party, which since that date has more or less continued. It is extraordinary and page 4 anomalous that hardly a Scotch burgh constituency should return a Conservative, and only a third of the whole constituencies; while in England our party is in a large majority. Indeed, even when Mr. Gladstone was called to power in 1868 at the head of an Advanced Liberal party, and with a majority of about 100 in the House of Commons, the Conservatives were actually in a majority in the English constituencies, and the Liberal majority was made up by a somewhat unholy alliance of Irish Roman Catholics and Scotch Dissenters. Yet in every other relation of life Conservatives in Scotland are respected and esteemed. The country gentleman is popular among his neighbours, the clergymen of the Established Church were never more highly respected, and the Tory who is nowhere on the hustings is welcomed in the centres of population to take his part in every patriotic and benevolent work. There must be some great misunderstanding which produces such strange results, especially when, except at election times, we find that there is a concurrence of sentiment upon all matters of general interest between many that at the poll are divided; in fact, that in nearly all that concerns our national and social wellbeing the line of demarcation between men of moderate opinions is much narrower than that which exists between members of different sections of the same party. That there are irreconcilable extremes cannot be denied or concealed, but what I contend is this—that, from a blind adherence to the name of Liberal, and from a want of comprehension of the Conservative principle, many who really hold the latter are lending themselves to the aid of schemes with which they have no sympathy, and weakening a cause upon which they really depend. I do not just now more than note the existence of many timid hangers-on who give their support to men with whom they have hardly an idea in common, while all along they rely on the sober judgment of Parliament or the chapter of accidents to avert the consequences of their own acts. Some men carry this spirit into Parliament, and vote for some nostrum or another in the belief that "it will never be carried," or that "it will not go further," in fulfilment of a pledge, or to please some section of their constituents. Let us hope that there is growing up an intelligent, independent spirit in our constituencies not afraid to assert itself, to combat what may be plausible and even popular, and to preserve the institutions which, under Divine Providence, have kept this country so long stable, and peaceful, and free. Let us not treat our principles as if they were not such as we can openly avow and adequately vindicate; let us not be content to have a monopoly of what is generous and beneficent claimed by those who, having assumed an attractive page 5 name, would arrogate all that name would imply; but let us prove and examine the basis of our principles, and recommend them to our countrymen by their intelligence, their soundness, and their consistency. Of Conservatism in the abstract we have at this time no lack. Leading Liberal politicians are at pains to warn their adherents against premature action. If some demand to be led against the fortress of the Established Church, the cautious individuals who marshal the Parliamentary forces, and perhaps pull the strings of organs in the press, implore their friends not to be in a hurry. "The day will come" when disestablishment will be the question of the hour; they are to be patient and await the happy moment when the Parliamentary franchise will be reduced to a dead level and all the constituencies be thrown into a hotch-pot to be poured out into moulds as electoral districts; landowners will one day no longer be left to fatten upon the "unearned increment" of their properties, and every man shall shoot and roast his own hare whenever he may find him. But in the meantime the bonds of party discipline must be respected—the word of command from the Reform Club must not be anticipated, or all will be spoiled, the Tories will renew their lease of power, and its legitimate holders will be in the cold shade for ever and a day. What do such counsels prove but that the moment is inopportune for Radicalism, and that the directors of the Liberal party know well that any fresh announcement of a "blazing policy" would in all probability drive some of their most respectable members into the ranks of the Government? They know that a great mass of disinterested and patriotic people—who don't care much who is in the Cabinet provided that the country is well governed at home and represented abroad—are satisfied with the work that has been done, and are dissatisfied by some of the attempts that of late have been made to discredit and malign the Ministry. They know that an ill-judged attack strengthens the Government, and that some recent attacks have not only failed, but have recoiled upon their authors. Yet, in spite of there being no cry by which to rally their broken ranks, perhaps just because the trade of violent changes is discredited, and the country is satisfied with the substantial reforms that are being carried by a strong Ministry, the spirit of party was never more violent, and vituperation and calumny have never been more freely resorted to. Let me give an instance or two of these weapons of faction. I won't refer again to the absurd statements that were made with reference to the Royal Titles Act, for which some had to beg pardon almost on their knees; but you will remember what disgraceful charges were made page 6 against the Government in connection with what were called the "Bulgarian atrocities." On fifty platforms, and in more than fifty newspapers, it was declared that the Government had caused those outrages by sending the fleet to the mouth of the Dardanelles to support the Turks, until it was shown that those melancholy events had taken place before a ship had been ordered to the East, and that the ordinary Mediterranean squadron had been sent there in consequence of the fear of similar outrages, and notably in consequence of the murder of the British and French Consuls at Salonica; while the squadron was strengthened into a commanding fleet subsequently, in view of the alarming aspect of what is called the Eastern question. Again, the Marquis of Salisbury, who, it was admitted, was going as far as propriety would allow in pressing constitutional change on the Porte, was declared to be at variance with the Prime Minister on the chief subject of his mission, and to be acting in compliance with the real feeling of the country, which the Prime Minister was supposed not to share—as if it were possible that a Secretary of State would be commissioned to visit the Great Powers of Europe and there to represent Great Britain, in direct communication by telegraph with London, unless he was in absolute accord with the head of the Government. Then we have such statements as I have read more than once lately in the most influential Liberal newspapers, that the Tories in power have aggravated the burdens of the people—have, in fact, increased taxation—a statement which is so utterly without foundation, the falsity of which has been so often shown, that its repetition would deserve a stronger epithet than the diplomatic phrase of "transparent inaccuracy." So, party is not dead or sleeping amongst us; the old divisions exist; and, although circumstances are unfavourable for battle-royal upon the old watchwords, the day will come when an opportunity will not be wanting for another trial of strength between the rival principles of government. It is our business to examine as briefly as possible what is the history and what the attitude of these rival principles. In every political State which admits of the free expression of opinion there will always be two main divisions of political reasoners—namely, a class disposed to innovate, and a class predisposed to conserve—and this whatever may be the practical tendency of the one or the other. With us innovation has been for the most part identified with the extension of popular power, but it is not so universally, and even in the great transfer of power which was accomplished in 1832 there was by no means that unmixed concession to democracy which is often supposed; for while the middle classes page 7 were everywhere enfranchised, there was a great abolition of the ancient and popular franchises of England, which were only restored by the second great Reform Act of 1867. Now British politicians are nominally divided into Conservatives and Liberals, and these Constitutional parties are supposed to be not only the inheritors but the direct descendants of the historical parties of Tory, Whig, and Radical, which last two are presumed to be combined and coherent against their ancient enemy; so a man whose father or grandfather fought and bled—or did not bleed—in the great reform controversies when William IV. was King, is presumed to be the opponent of the Conservative, who, Mr. Bright will tell you, is still the unregenerate offspring of the borough monger and the sinecurist. That this is untrue as a matter of fact does not greatly concern my argument; but we know that in the front ranks of our party are the sons of men who were Whigs, and that the late Earl of Derby himself, who reconstructed our party after the disruption of 1846, was one of those who were most determined in carrying the first Reform Act; while, on the other hand, the statesman, who to plain men seems to have gone a little off his head, and having made war in Russia in 1854, and renewed the Treaty of Paris in 1871, now wants to join, or at least to encourage, Russia in a war against Turkey, and Mr. Bright in a crusade for the re-conquest of the Holy Places—this statesman, I say, was nursed in the lap of Toryism, and first grew famous in print as the champion of ecclesiastical establishments. To define the constitution of our parties we must have regard not only to what they have been in past times, but what they mean now, and especially what are the powers, pretensions, and prospects of our own creed as a governing principle of action amongst the people and in the national councils. I will not overload the discussion by describing the rise and progress of the old British parties of Tory and Whig, which divided politicians till the eve of the agitations which brought about the first Reform Act, when Radical reformers first became a power, and for a long time formed a third party in the State. But it is worthy of remark here that both parties have substituted for those old titles, which, though proudly borne, had originally been terms of mutual reproach—Whig, a sour Scotch malcontent; Tory, an Irish rapparee; and, I may add, Radical, which had a smack of the revolutionary—for names which in themselves are attractive and descriptive of tendencies which neither party would be willing to abjure. Many so-called Liberals would not admit that their favourite measures were other than truly Conservative, while Conservatives claim, and I hope page 8 claim with justice, that their policy and professions are consistent with practice which is truly Liberal. For some years after the Reform Act these three parties—Tories, Whigs, and Radicals—survived. The Tories were opposed by both sections, which, not with standing their recent victory, were little fused; in fact, they possessed few of the elements of assimilation. The long tenure of power enjoyed by the Tories after the triumphant conclusion of the French wars had driven the Whigs at last, into alliance with the Radicals. The condition of this alliance was the Reform Bill, which was in its principle quite as hostile to the Whigs as to the Tories, inasmuch as they had quite as many vested interests in boroughs, and had no clearer page in history in the matter of patronage. But being the men in possession, they could make much better terms for themselves, and many a queer little English town owes its surviving privileges to its Whig patron, who had so many of his acres gathered within the ring-fence of the borough, so as to save it from the devouring maw of Schedule A; while in Scotland the triumphant party manipulated and grouped the burghs as they pleased. At the Reform Bill the Whigs would gladly have stopped, but the Radicals made them sensible that this was no more than a means to a train of ends, which was little reckoned on or agreeable. Some of the Whigs fell away from the coalition; gradually the spirit of the country reverted to the statesmen of the old parties; and the Conservative party was formed in the early years of the present reign under one of the most powerful Ministers of any age, Sir Robert Peel. After five years of strong and successful government the party was broken up by its separation from its leaders, who, supported by the Whigs and Radicals, carried the abolition of the corn laws, by which the price of wheat was intended to be kept at a uniform rate. It is untrue that those laws aggravated scarcity, and enriched the landed interest at the expense of the working classes. Their principle was "the sliding scale," by which, when the price of corn was high, the import duty on foreign corn fell, and when the price was low it rose. The Whigs, on the other hand, had proposed, not free trade, but a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter. Had Sir Robert Peel taken his party into his confidence, and, in the modern phrase, "educated" it, it is possible that he might have accomplished the great change which he believed the circumstances of the country to require, and have carried his party with him. But up to the commencement of the session of 1846 only vague rumours had prepared it for the altered policy, and the result was fatal to its supremacy for a whole generation. The personal character of Sir Robert Peel has, in my page 9 humble judgment, absolutely triumphed over the shock which it received by the abandonment of the great party by whom he had been borne to power; but I do not think that he can be acquitted of a want of generalship, or even of candour, if we consider the high character of many of the men who found themselves unable to adopt his change of policy. Indeed, it is well known that he could not have kept his Cabinet from further secessions without the personal influence of the Sovereign exerted in his favour. Soon the country saw a new arrangement of parties—the great Tory leaders, deprived by an untimely death of their chief, allied with the Whigs, with a very scanty admixture of Radicals, or "Advanced Liberals," opposed by the great body of the Conservative party, re-marshalled by but one tried statesman, the late Earl of Derby, and led in the House of Commons by the present Prime Minister. Let me call your attention to this phase of political change. The new Conservative leader had, as a Whig, insisted on the Reform Bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill. He had left the Whigs when they first, under the pressure of the Radicals, secularised some of the endowments of the Irish Church, and Sir Robert Peel when he proposed to abandon the policy upon which he had formed the Conservative party. Lord Beaconsfield was no party to the anti-Reform policy to which, after the death of Pitt, the Tory party became committed. He first became known in political life by his prominence among a younger school who reverted to older principles, which, represented by Mr. Pitt, were always favourable to truly liberal measures, and to the genius of popular government. No man has shown a keener appreciation of the wants and hardships of the working classes than is infused into his earlier writings. In Sybil; or, the Two Nations, he drew a startling picture of the almost enslaved population which commercial enterprise had accumulated in the manufacturing centres, and called the aristocracy and the Church from their lethargy to be the natural leaders of reform which should restore the peasant and the artisan to their places in the commonalty of England, and obviate the perils of an epoch when so-called birth and wealth should be in one order, and labouring and suffering in the other.^* It is not long since in this city of Glasgow and in Manchester, foreseeing the turn in the tide which was setting in, he pointed to the mission of the national party to combat social mischief, and to elevate in the highest sense the page 10 health of the nation. What are the reforms for which several of the new men have made themselves famous, whom his prescience has selected and associated with himself as colleagues, but the fulfilment of a policy which he has all his life advocated—a policy not of glittering promises, but of substantial, elevating, and enduring amelioration? Thirty years have passed since the disruption of the party led by Sir Robert Peel. With the exception of the Duke of Buccleuch, a firm Conservative, and of Mr. Gladstone, one of the ablest men whom his genius had called to his side, none of his colleagues survive. In an extraordinary manner, one after another was taken away in his prime, while few, if any, of the younger generation of his party adhered to his colleagues. But the party to which circumstances had attached them has gravitated far away from the traditions of Sir Robert Peel, and, oh, how far from Whig traditions! In an eloquent essay, soon after the consummation of the first Reform Act, Mr. De Quincy used language which presents much appropriateness now. "The Whigs," he said, "are in the grasp of Radicals; that party cannot move a step—neither win or retain office, nor carry any one great public measure—without the support of the Radicals, or, in many cases, without the forbearance of the Tories. This is known on both sides; the tone of mortification and internal despondency is visible in every act of the Whigs—the drooping tone of men trading confessedly upon other people's funds and other people's credit; whilst the Radicals wear the erect and cheerful air of men confident in their own resources; borrowing nothing, owing nothing; having no exposures to fear, no ultimate defeats to face; the sole question being as to the particular point at which their victories will stop. . . . The co-operation of the Whigs will be exacted in the warfare at hand, upon great questions, down to the final battle. The Radicals know their allies—suspect them they do not; for their half-heartedness has been put upon record by many overt acts in and out of Parliament, and is, besides, involved in their very circumstances as a part of the aristocracy. But if they venture to falter or hang back, then the Radicals know their power and the instantaneousness of that absolute redress which they can apply. This existence for a party so properly precarious, hanging upon entreaty and sufferance, is humiliating. It is natural that this humiliation should revenge itself upon those who were indirectly the authors of it. As against the Whigs, therefore, I see no reason why the Tories should much complain of the scurrilities pointed at their name and party. But take, for instance, the newspaper. Two things I used to admire in page 11 that journal—its extraordinary talent and its integrity. This latter quality I am now compelled to doubt; or, at least, I see that it is capable of descending to political tricks, and to what is commonly felt to be a mode of intriguing, when I find it affecting a confidence in the Whigs and in their restoration to power which it cannot really entertain. And I complain of two other offences against that spirit of honour which it might profess—1st, the adoption of that practice so common and excusable in lower journals of ascribing to the Tory party as principles many rules of action which they would themselves universally disallow; 2nd, the habit of stating great public questions as lying between a party and the nation, when it is notorious that they lie between the nation and itself, as divided upon different principles, and in proportions which no man of sense would undertake to confute." In this passage, in which I have altered but a single word, you may recognise a description which is hardly inapplicable to the conduct of certain representatives of an honourable party, who are sorely troubled to keep in hand their heterogeneous followers, if these can be called followers who will not wait to be led, and who run into all sorts of enterprises most distressing to the calm aristocratic leaders, who cannot keep them in hand. You may have seen a certain noble Lord on the stage—I don't know if he had any politics—who, nevertheless, delivered himself of a remarkable political parable—"Why does the dog wag his tail? D'ye give it up? Because the dog is stronger than his tail. But supposing the tail was stronger than the dog, would the tail wag the dog?" It seems as if the tail of the Liberal would wag whether the dog will or not.

But, gentlemen, I must trouble you for a few minutes with a definition of what that principle is which we are banded to maintain. Starting from the central fact that we are subjects of a limited and Constitutional Monarchy, conferring the utmost extent of civil and personal liberty consistent with public order, it is a cardinal theory of Conservatism that our liberty is, on the whole, safer when based upon those institutions which have been found to be more desirable than any other form of government, and to which most civilised nations have sought to assimilate their own. The Protestant succession, the supremacy of the Crown over all causes, civil and ecclesiastical, and the maintenance of a National Church protected but controlled by the State, primarily as a security for the rights and liberties of its members, are regarded as fundamental adjuncts; and the Conservative views with suspicion all attempts to undermine or weaken these now ancient bulwarks. The late Lord Lytton, in an admirable essay on the spirit of Conser- page 12 vatism, defines the real nature and limitations of these principles. "The favourite reproach," he says, "to a Conservative policy is that it is not in favour of progress. But there is nothing in a Conservative policy antagonistic to progress; on the contrary, resistance to progress is destructive to Conservatism. Political Conservatism can but seek the health and longevity of the political body it desires to conserve, therefore a true Conservative policy is for a nation a policy of progress, because without exercise the body-politic would languish and die; and with exercise it must, if in health, augment the resources which furnish strength against external enemies, and by widening the markets of labour interest a wider range of citizens in the maintenance of domestic order. But progress does not mean transformation; it means advance towards the fullest development of forces of which any human organisation is capable. As each nation has its idiosyncrasies, its real progress is in developing those idiosyncrasies, while to exchange its own for those of another nation would probably be retrogression, and probably annihilation of its own highest attributes. Conservatism, rightly considered, is the policy which preserves the body-politic in the highest condition of health of which it is capable. It accepts the maxim of Bentham—'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'—but it attaches this indispensable condition—'for the longest period of time.'" The greatest happiness of the greatest number may consist, for the moment, in the greatest number having their own way in something which will be their greatest misery in the long run. The greatest happiness of the greatest number might appear to be in an equal division of property, in the consumption of capital, as that of the greatest number on board a ship to get at the rum-barrels and break into the cargo, though they should have to shoot down the captain, who stands in their way; or it might be to get rid of laws which impose a check upon natural inclination, such as those which punish bigamy or forbid alliances within degrees of consanguinity and affinity. In other days it seemed to require the infliction of cruel and excessive punishments upon those who preyed upon society, but knowledge and enlightenment teach that such indulgences lend no permanent blessing or comfort to a community. Hence duration is an essential element of all plans for happiness, public or private; and Conservatism looks to the durable in all ideas of improvement. But duration means the duration of a something definite in politics; that something is the body-politic—the nation. "The Tory party, unless it is a national party, is nothing." In politics there are two grand theories, each antagonistic to all theories mean and page 13 selfish. The one theory is philanthropy, the other patriotism—a care for the whole human race, or a care for the whole community to which we belong. The tendency of the more popular party will be towards the first, that of the less popular party towards the last. Lord Beaconsfield referred to this well-known division when he described the Liberal party as cosmopolitan, the Conservative as national. In the popular and unreflecting sentiment of the masses the cause of fellow-men creates more enthusiasm than the interests of fellow-countrymen. In ancient nations, which were called free, but in which in truth power really rested in the hands of an oligarchy, there was passionate devotion to the State, but small regard for mankind at large. But in communities which admit to the masses a large share of political power, a Conservative statesman must consult that sentiment of universal philanthropy which is in itself noble—but not at the hazard of the State, which must be his first care. Masses could easily be led to war against some absolute Sovereign oppressing his subjects; oligarchies in alliance with Sovereigns might, on grounds of policy, assist him to oppress his subjects. The Conservative statesman of a free country remains neutral. It is not for the good of his country to lavish blood and treasure on the internal quarrels of other countries; but here, by consulting patriotism, he in truth advances philanthropy, for it is to the benefit of all nations that each nation should settle its own quarrels for itself. Patriotism is a safer principle, both for a State and for the human race, than philanthropy. Philanthropy, like glory, is a circle in the water,

"Which never ceases to enlarge itself,
Till, by broad spreading, it disperse to nought."

But an enlightened love of country comprehends the objects of philanthropy without making philanthropy its avowed object. That is to say, a man who has an enlightened love for his country will seek to identify its interests with a just and humane policy, with scrupulous faith in the fulfilment of engagements, with a respect as inviolably preserved towards weak as towards strong Powers, and thus he will strive to render the wellbeing of the State to which he belongs conducive to the general and enduring interests of the varied communities of mankind. But just as an individual becomes an intolerable plague to his neighbours, who is always interfering with their domestic affairs, though with the best intentions, so a weak State would become ridiculous and a strong State tyrannical, if, under the pretext of general philanthropy, it sought to force its own notions of right and page 14 wrong, of liberty or order, upon States not subject to its sovereignty. As it is only through self-development that any community can mature its own elements of happiness or strength, so non-intervention is, in truth, the policy not more of wisdom than of respect for humanity, without which love of humanity is an intermeddling mischief-maker. Nevertheless, when the internal feuds of any one nation assume a character so formidable as to threaten the peace of other nations, intervention may become the necessity of self-preservation. But the plea of self-preservation should be a very sound one, and not, as it usually is, an excuse for self-aggrandisement, in profiting by the discussions which the intermeddler foments for his own crafty ends. It has been a question frequently discussed of late, and by no means satisfactorily settled, how far non-interference in the domestic feuds of other nations admits of the frank expression of opinion—the freedom of remonstrance—the volunteered suggestion of a policy; for such interference, though it be but what is called moral, is generally accompanied by such publicity that it cannot fail, when directed towards a troubled or convulsed community, to alter the balance of strength between contending factions or estates, or, from a misconception of its purpose, it may lead to expectations and to enterprises on the part of one of them which may result in damage and disaster. But in free communities it is impossible for a Minister to refrain from conveying to a foreign Government the public sentiment of his country. The popular Chamber would not allow him to be silent when a popular cause is at stake. To express opinions—to address remonstrances—are acts in themselves perfectly compatible with friendship, provided the tone be friendly. But for one Government to volunteer, in detail, schemes of policy for the adoption of another independent Government is seldom a prudent venture. It is too calculated to wound the dignity of the State advised not to provoke an answer which wounds the dignity of the State advising. Exceptions may arise, but they should be regarded with great caution, for there is scarcely an exception that does not engender on both sides those resentments of mortified self-esteem which, if they do not suffice to create war at once, render States more disposed to find excuses for war later. Many of you may recall the abortive attempt of Earl Russell in 1863 to dictate to Russia a detailed scheme for the better government of Poland, and the recent failure of a great assemblage of ambassadors must be mainly attributed to the offence that had been previously given. To sum up, the true Conservative policy in any given State is in self-preservation; and self-preservation does not confine itself to the mere page 15 care for existence, but extends to all that can keep the body-politic in the highest state of health and vigour; therefore progress and development of forces are essential to self-preservation. But according to a Conservative policy, such progress and such development will always be encouraged with a due regard to the character of a State, such as it has become by time and circumstances—to the constitutions which have not only become endeared to it by custom, but have contributed to consolidate the national unity by forming and systematising the national spirit and mind. A Conservative policy in Great Britain will favour peace, if only because Great Britain is essentially a commercial country, and its real sinews of strength are in its financial resources. War exposes commerce to hazard, and financial resources to an indefinite strain, and the distress which follows a war the most popular is the most dangerous cause of revolutions. Nevertheless, a commercial community cannot accept peace at all hazards, because no commerce would be long safe under a flag dishonoured or despised. A Conservative policy in this country will vigilantly guard our maritime power and spare no cost necessary to maintain a navy superior to that of any single European Power—it can tolerate no "phantom fleet" and sham arrays, but it would regard with great jealousy any attempt to maintain in Great Britain itself more than the well-disciplined nucleus and framework of a standing army. It has to preserve political liberty as the most precious of all heirlooms, and a nation reconciled to the maintenance of large standing armies submits its liberties to the mercy of accident. But I am sorry to say that our ideas of armies, large or small, vary greatly according to circumstances, and the force we now maintain, great as it is in comparison with that which sufficed in the last generation, is small enough when matched with the "bloated armaments" of Imperialism. But here must be supplied an important link. Alliances tending to check any one State from invading others are the natural precaution of a Conservative policy. And the result of an opposite policy may be found in a period still recent, when Denmark was told that "she should not stand alone," but nevertheless stood, and fought, and fell alone, because a "meddling and muddling" policy had left us without an ally. Prudence in the administration of finance is the characteristic virtue of a Conservative policy; for every form of government in which the expenditure habitually exceeds the income is doomed to undergo a vital change. Thirty-five years ago Whig finance was a byword, and it was not until Sir Robert Peel came into power in 1841 that a due balance was attained. Again, the Budget, which page 16 during several years preceded the reconstruction of the Conservative party under the Earl of Derby in 1852, had shown alternately deficits and unpopular attempts at redress. But keeping as far as possible, as I have been doing, to principles, it is sufficient to say that there is no higher Conservative maxim, because the more hopelessly the finances of a country are deranged, the more violent in all probability the change will be. Despotic Governments may become democratised, and Republican Governments may become monarchised or imperialised. Lastly, Lord Lytton has remarked that the statesman who would maintain a Conservative policy for this country has always to bear in mind that any State which attains to a wealth and influence and a grandeur disproportioned to its native population, or the extent of its native dominions, owes its rank rather to causes that may be called complicated or artificial than to causes simple and natural. The prosperity and power of France recover with a bound after numerous shocks upon internal order and commercial credit. But a single one of such shocks might suffice to destroy for a century, perhaps for ever, the rank of Great Britain among first-rate Powers; and, therefore, British statesmen have to consider many political questions, not only on their own abstract merits, but with due regard to their collateral bearings upon the national wellbeing. It is for this reason, perhaps, that Conservative politicians, without any undue apprehension of revolutionary tendencies among the bulk of the population, would seek to preserve the preponderating electoral power among the middle classes, because with them there is, on the whole, a larger amount of education and forethought than could be reasonably expected from numbers subsisting upon manual labour. Naturally, then, such politicians have no fear, but, on the contrary, are the most earnest in promoting the extension of knowledge. The real antagonist of a Conservative policy is in the passionate force of ignorance. With the general diffusion of education and the more accurate knowledge of public events among the people, we may look with confidence for a better understanding of Conservative principles and policy; and recent opportunities have not been wanting to prove that among those who live by daily labour such principles are already widely appreciated and supported. And to those who desire to develop in the State whatever is best for its preservation in its highest and most useful form, it should be most desired to foster all the intellectual powers which enrich and adorn a State—seeking, irrespectively of class, to honour and ally themselves with all that ennobles the people. For a Conservative policy should be the friend page 17 of art, of science, of letters, and should carefully keep open every vista by which merit can win its way to distinction; for the best mode to elevate the sentiment of a population is to revere as the finest element of aristocracy every merit which, conquering obstacles of birth or fortune, rises up into distinction, and adds a new dignity to the nation itself.

Now, gentlemen, I must speak for a little of Conservatism in practice. You have had three years' experience of what has not been seen for thirty years—a Conservative Government in a majority. Since the party was broken up in 1846—like the Church of Scotland in 1843—although three times its leaders were called to office, they had the most difficult task of carrying on the government of the country without a majority in the House of Commons upon which they could depend. On each of these occasions impartial history records that the honour of the country was maintained abroad, and many useful measures were passed into law. The skill of that extraordinary man who now stands at the summit of political success overcame many obstacles, and under the greatest difficulties often achieved successes; but never, till the catastrophe of the Liberal party in January, 1874, had he an opportunity of proving what use he could make of political power. Master of the situation, he then surrounded himself with colleagues whom his long experience and training had enabled him to estimate; and now we can fearlessly point to legislation which proves what a Conservative policy can do for the country. Trades have not been "harassed," great interests have not been threatened, foreign Powers have not been alternately lectured and cringed to, Churches have not been despoiled, the people have not been dazzled by halcyon visions of incredible remissions of taxation and days of universal peace. But long-standing grievances have been redressed, just and equal laws have been passed, classes have been reconciled, life and property have been protected, the influence of the Empire has been re-asserted, and the voice of Great Britain again has been heard with respect in the Councils of Europe, the national forces have been strengthened, the "phantom fleets" have been replaced by massive squadrons, the thin ranks of the army have been filled by measures of justice to the humble soldier, and in spite of malignant detraction the country at large has felt that its honour was in sure hands, and its interests safe at home and abroad. Detraction and cavil have not been wanting; never, perhaps, in the annals of political strife have attacks more bitter and unsparing been made upon any Administration; no considerations of patriotism have deterred partisan attacks at the most critical periods; the stability of page 18 the Empire in India and the peace of Europe have alike been disregarded in the hope of scoring a political victory at all hazards. What has been the result? After each struggle the Government has been supported by a greater majority in the House of Commons, and both in Parliament and out of it men of moderate opinions have condemned the rash conduct of agitators, and refused to be carried into wild opposition. At this moment—this critical moment—who most stand justified before the country and the world—I had almost said before God and man—the Ministers who, with full knowledge of the danger, bore unpopularity and opprobrium rather than purchase cheap applause by adopting the cry of the day, or the would-be leaders and the many unreflecting or unscrupulous persons who seemed ready to set the world in flames if only they could undermine the character of the Ministers of the Crown? You know—all men know—whether the insurmountable difficulties which have attended the Conference at Constantinople have or have not justified the forecast of Her Majesty's Ministers; we do not know whether their constant efforts for the maintenance of the peace of the world will be crowned with success, and I will not be so rash as to anticipate the result of the great events which are yet in progress; but I look without apprehension to the verdict of the great Council of the nation, which will soon be given, upon the part which our representatives have played. But in my review of the conduct of our affairs upon Conservative principles I can discuss results which are now indelibly recorded on the pages of our national history. From the time when Mr. Gladstone, as it were, blew up his magazine, and instead of conciliating his wavering forces scattered them to the winds—when power was forced upon the Conservative leaders by the extraordinary results of the first general election upon household suffrage with the protection of the ballot—what results are we able to record? In the first place, to look at Scotland, Church Patronage, which had so often caused breaches in our National Church, a comparatively modern law offensive to the feelings of the people of Scotland, has been abolished, to the dismay of those who saw in it a source of unpopularity to the Church and a weak outwork to be some day the way of attack. Without sacrificing any principle or making any undue concession, trades which had been galled by exceptional legislation have been soothed and satisfied. The publicans, who had been treated like the criminal classes, are contented, yet all wholesome restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors have been maintained. An Act was passed to page 19 enable municipalities to provide decent and comfortable dwellings for the working-classes, from which the happiest results are being accomplished, and still better may be anticipated in its development. An excellent but temperate measure placed friendly and provident societies on a sound basis, protecting the contributor, yet respecting the popular management. By a great concession—yet not greater than simple and equitable—the old and ever-open sore between employer and employed was healed; they were placed on an equal footing before the Courts of Justice, and now for the first time in the history of our country master and servant lie under equal laws. The law of conspiracy, under which workmen were subject to heavy and exceptional penalties, was relaxed, and yet all real offences against society can be readily dealt with. In spite of the great difficulties which surrounded the question, an immense advance has been made in the protection of the seaman and the underwriter. I do not care to discuss at length the vulgar allegation that these and kindred measures have been forced on the Government, or that the honour of initiation rests with private individuals. What great measure has been passed that has not first been made, as it were, the property of private philanthropists, or been adopted by the sentiment of the people? But the wise Minister directs that sentiment, does not let himself be carried on the top of the wave of enthusiasm to be stranded on the shore, but, grasping the matter that is ripe for settlement, guides the consentient will of Parliament to safe and substantial conclusions. And if these and other measures, which none will deny were greatly needed and gratefully accepted, were so urged on the Ministry that they gained little credit for their accomplishment, how is it that after their rule for the greater part of thirty years the Liberals left them to the Conservatives to deal with? I suppose it was because they did not deal with them on sound principles—that in their way of pulling down rather than repairing they missed admirable opportunities of moderate and beneficial reform, and that now they are marvelling—like one of the Liberal members for Glasgow the other night—that the working-classes, who he thinks should be voting like one man for men of his kidney, are to his surprise largely in favour of giving the present Government fair play. But I have not touched even lightly on nearly all that Conservatism has been able to accomplish. It has reduced taxation, while it has increased the efficiency of the services and provided amply for the growing demands of the education laws. Yes, it has reduced taxation. I have referred to the unscrupulous assertions that are daily made to the contrary, and I am almost ashamed to go page 20 over the ground again which has again and again been demonstrated; but a week seldom passes without some Liberal newspaper asserting that this Government has increased the burdens of the people, and even so moderate and well-informed a man as Mr. Baxter, member for Dundee, repeated it the other day. It is absolutely untrue and the reverse of the fact. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he undertook his office, took off the following taxes:—The sugar duties, £2,000,000; 1d. off income-tax (then), £1,600,000; the taxes on horses, £450,000; and relieved local rates by £1,010,000—a total of £5,060,000. Last year he obtained the assent of Parliament to the re-imposition of the penny of the income-tax which he remitted in 1874, for reasons against which no objection was made by any responsible party—namely, that the state of affairs in Europe required a moderate addition to the army and the fleet, and that the pay of the lower ranks of the army must be increased in order to fill the ranks. But from that increase all smaller incomes were exempted, so that it fell in no degree upon the working-classes; and the other remissions not being disturbed, it follows that taxation is actually lower now than it was under Mr. Gladstone's Administration. It is true that the total amount of revenue paid is larger, because as long as the country prospers each tax yields annually a greater amount. But that larger income is expended for the benefit of the nation upon objects which have been repeatedly approved by Parliament and the country. Thus—the increased grants to education absorb about £900,000; in aid of local rates we are paying £1,500,000; to the sinking-fund of the National Debt, £1,000,000—for, by the grand scheme of Sir Stafford Northcote, combined with the other machinery in operation, we are reducing the National Debt at the rate of no less than £5,000,000 a year. In thirty years it will be reduced by £162,000,000; and, lightly as the debt presses upon us in time of peace, the day may come when we may have to make some gigantic effort for self-preservation or to save the world from some overwhelming assault of despotism, and when the stability of our credit may largely depend upon the lightness of its burdens. Gentlemen, I will not weary you upon this point; my statements are plain matters of fact, and I oppose them confidently to the false and unscrupulous accusations which are put forward by factious journalists, and perhaps accepted by their unwary readers. Again, the Government has firmly carried and successfully put in force with all fitting splendour the last act which was required to assert our Sovereign's empire in Hindustan—a measure, I make bold to say, which is well understood in Asia, ay, page 21 and in Europe, however it was sought to be misrepresented at home. But was it not marvellous that to diminish the prestige of the Ministers there were found partisans who shrank not from attacks upon the Throne? and when it was sought to define the supremacy of the paramount power of Great Britain over the nations of India, some were not ashamed to foretell and speculate on its downfall! The past year was also, however, utilised by the passing of other measures of practical utilty and social amelioration—steps in advance, not professing to be complete—for preserving recreation-grounds for centres of population in England, for restraining the pollution of rivers, and for rendering much more general, effectual, and less oppressive the provision for primary education in England. No measure has been more unjustly maligned than this last. It has been represented as reactionary, denominational, and so forth. But Mr. Forster himself—a fair and generous opponent—acknowledged that it was a great step in advance; and, without detaining you with particulars, I will only affirm that, while it greatly enhanced the efficiency of the great measure of 1870, it as greatly relieved the pressure upon the poorer class of parents, and removed the difficulties and inequalities which the working of the new law had brought to light. Again, the administration of the Colonial Empire has been such as to strengthen the bonds of loyalty which unite it to the mother country, and to obliterate the remembrance of a different policy and a colder aspect. We have acquired, by the seizure of an opportunity, such a vested interest in the highway to the East as affords us both its control, and, if need be, the right of its possession; but, above all, we have once more acquired such a place in the councils of Europe that British influence is courted and deferred to, instead of our agents being indifferently admitted to the foregone resolutions of the three Emperors. And this, mark you, not by hectoring and threatening, not by exciting subjects against princes, and tampering with revolutionary agencies—two-edged weapons which often cut the hand that plays with them—but by respecting engagements, by keeping faith with Christian and Turk alike, by respecting the weak and by not fearing the strong, by husbanding our national strength, and by holding it prepared to maintain the cause of peace and law. These are the workings of Conservative principles, and these I am not afraid to maintain before the public, or to commit to the judgment of an understanding people. I doubt not that Parliament—which faithfully reflects, not the passion of the hour, but, on the whole, the mind of the nation—will abundantly sustain Her Majesty's Government in their dignified and patriotic page 22 course. In the difficult and perilous negotiations that have been passing they may not have accomplished all that they have set before them, but there are ever in the affairs of men occasions when

"'Tis not in mortals to command success."

And it is much if Great Britain at least has not made vaunting professions which she has been unable to fulfil—if amid contending interests and ambitions her representatives have gained for her diplomacy the respect of foreign Powers, have increased her alliances, have restrained at least hitherto the demon of war, and have vindicated before the world the purity of her motives and the strength of her resolution. But although the Conservative Government will meet Parliament with no reason to fear an unfavourable verdict upon the past, with the ranks of their supporters unbroken, and with a fresh programme of useful legislation, we cannot shut our eyes to the necessity for vigilance and defence. There seems to be desperation among those who respect little the most ancient and honoured institutions if they will afford convenient ground of attack. While the Conservative is ready to deal in a reforming spirit with any institution which seems to require re-adaptation or improvement, our opponents seek that which is weakest, however useful, as the most convenient battle-field. What is wanted to render our party not only strong to resist attack, but strong to preserve what we are assured is useful to the country, is, in the first place, confidence in ourselves and in our principles; next organisation—thorough, detailed, and sustained. Let each man see what he can do, and set himself to do it; but, above all, act together. Such associations as this are fast multiplying. Their success has in many cases been tried and proved; and from them in their greater development great results may be expected. But confidence in theoretical principle and cordial organisation to maintain it will not suffice. We must carry our principles into practice. We must for ever disprove all injurious and calumnious accusations by showing that in reform and improvement is to be found the truest conservation; and if, as I believe, this period of Conservative Government will be for ever associated by large and palpable reforms in the social structure, which shall commend themselves to all honest and patriotic minds, we need not fear that our party will not acquire and long retain the respect and confidence of the country.